banks on the quality of mortgage-backed securities sold to freddie mae and freddie mac. and then carl sferrazza anthony talks about his new book on jacqueline kennedy. "washington journal" is next. >> on monday, i will lay out my plan on how to pay for this plan by following basic principles. making sure that we live within our means and asking everyone to pay their fair share. ♪ host: from the president's weekly address, an effort to push the jobs bill. the announcement coming a few weeks ago with the president before a joint system -- joint session of congress. including a visit thursday to pennsylvania.

he appeared at a bridge that needs to be fixed. it was near the home district of house speaker john boehner. tomorrow we will learn more about how the president intends to pay for this package. he will last wealthier americans -- as wealthier americans to pay more in taxes, and he is calling it the buffet rule after warren buffett. we're going to begin this morning by talking about this question -- should the rich pay more in taxes? the telephone numbers are on the screen. from the "l.a. times" website, a series available on-line.

some of the details from the from thereporter nation's capital. he is a supporter who recently called the tax system unfair, noting that it let him pay a lower tax rate in his secretary does. it will replace the alternative minimum tax enacted decades ago to make sure that the wealthy paid at least some income taxes. the presence proposal will be enacted -- outlined tomorrow in a rose gordon -- rose garden ceremony. the story is on the front page of the "new york times." the president's proposal has little chance of becoming law unless republican lawmakers been. but by focusing on the wealthiest of americans --

one other point from this piece -- the marginal tax rate is the rate paid by the last dollar that you weren't. there are six.

warren buffett talking about all this in a recent cnn interview. here his his take on what the president is calling the but that rule. -- buffet. >> i think we should cut them for the poor. >> cut them more than the bush tax cuts? >> i think that could well be. 15% of gdpg in about in income in the united states. that is not enough. we have to get more money from somebody. do we get it from the person who is going to server from -- serve me lunch today or get it from me? we should get it from me. i am paying lower taxes than anyone in my office and i do not have a tax shelter. i just take out the form and fill up the numbers. we are not taking in enough money at the federal government level. they're spending cuts to be done, i'm sure of that, but we

need more revenue. there are only a few places to get it. you get it from corporations or individuals. if we're going to get it from individuals, it should not be the bottom 98%. it should be more from people at the top. host: warren buffett in an interview available at cnn.com. the tax plan would ask more of millionaires. you can join the conversation online at twitter or send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org. the president calling for a tax increase for millionaires and billionaires to more. from illinois, on the independent line, the morning. caller: this whole thing is just a way to get more money

from more the lower income people. if you read this samson-balzac, they are trying their raise the bottom rate -- simpson-bowles act, they are trying to raise the bottom rate. the only tax cuts that have the middle class has, the mortgage interest rates and charity. the middle class is going to lose everything. the upper-class is not going to get their tax it -- so far obama has not done one thing to cut their income, the bottom line. host: david is from shenandoah, va.. the call for higher tax rates for millionaires, the president including that tax in his new proposal said to be unveiled tomorrow. it would lower the debt by $1.9

billion in new tax revenue. the plan to pay for that one murdered $47 billion package. -- that $147 billion package. caller: tax the rich and feed the poor. who died in may ignore -- grover norquist so powerful? host: next to a viewer from pittsburg, mike on the republican line. caller: i am in a higher bracket and i would just spend that money on microwaves and other things, home repairs, that would generate more economic activity. secondly, i would pay higher taxes here if there was an across-the-board cut and it was

done evenly and fairly. i would be happy to pay the piper to higher tax. i've been looking everywhere and i have not seen warren buffett's tax returns are the specifics of what he is going to leave his family or what he pays in taxes. host: michael from michigan, the president calling for a tax hike for those who make more than $1 million in the year. what do you think? caller: i think it is about time. steve, i want to tell you about an incident i had. during alcor's campaign, i gave $1,000 to the primary, $1,000 for the general, and $200 for the recant. i was immediately audited because i'm self-employed. since then, i actually dropped off giving donations over. a couple of years later, it

happened again in the next cycle. they had people from the irs at threatening me and i paid it. and the following year, she said that i had paid my taxes twice. i will tell you after the arrogance of power, the story of richard nixon and how the irs was used against democratic contributors, and the democratic party should understand that. their contributors are being targeted by the irs. host: another comment from our twitter page. next is how joining us from albany, new york on the independent line. caller: i would first like to -- can you hear me? host: we sure can.

caller: no one likes to pay taxes, however it is our patriotic duty to pay taxes. and in a time where we have two wars draining $10 billion a month from us, i think we should be paying for that, or get out of them. second, i believe that even though i am 63 years old and still working, however begrudgingly but willingly pay more taxes, because we are all in this together, rich, poor, middle-class. we all have the right to make sure our homeland, our motherland, america is a success. democracy demands certain responsibilities, and i feel that paying a tax is a patriotic duty. some people can pick up a gun and fight and other people can pick up a pencil and do a job.

it is just what we need to do as the american patriots to help our country get out of this corner we have been painted into. make it a good place to live again. host: let me ask you a question because one issue that is likely to come up. during the 2000 campaign, we heard that families making more than $250,000 a year would be taxed at a higher rate. tomorrow, that threshold has been increased to those in making in excess of $1 million. does that change the dynamic of the debate? caller: to me, no, because i do not make that kind of a salary. but if you live in this country and you derive all the benefits of living in a great democracy, then you should can -- kick in,

because it is your patriotic duty. host: next is glenn from the democratic line in copper co of texas. caller: i'm in favor of the millionaire tax, but i fear there will be a lot of rubble. it will probably not get passed. the individuals in congress right now that supports the rich are going to fight against that claiming that if you tax the rich, it will take away jobs, because that money could be put into the united states and create more jobs. but that is not going to happen. everything is being outsourced lately. if they want to raise taxes or

build revenue, they need to put the american people back to work. host: thank you for the call. this story is available on-line from a number of sites, including the "chicago tribune." the president calling for a tax increase. the website is the chicagotribune.com. linda is calling in from alabama. caller: i do not believe that we should be taxing the corporations. i do not know about the wealthy individuals or how that works. but when you tax the corporations, the wealthy corporations, they simply pass those costs onto everybody else. so we might as well be taxed in the middle class because we will be paying more for goods and services. that is just what they do. and the other thing, if we will more revenue, put people back to work in the private sector,

because they make $65,000 or more. the rich higher at those rates, and then they put back -- p. -- if they put people back to work, then we would have more revenue. that is how it works. if they're going to tax the wealthy and they pass it on and they do not hire any more people, then we will be in a quagmire forever. host: curtises in royal oak, michigan. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. i watched this president or his heart out from the first day that he took office. -- work his heart out from the first day that he took office. this idea of a tax reform, it is a no-brainer. and the top 2% that are going to be required to pay additional taxes, they are not complaining. they are in -- one of the most

respected men in america is warren buffett, and when he comes up and says something and puts his name behind it, it is time for us to say, what are these republicans thinking about? are they going to put politics ahead of my benefit? we need jobs. .

next is keith joining us from florida. good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. first off, i don't believe the government really should know what anybody makes in their income unless they're asking for help from the government. i believe that rich people, what businesses really want to know is what the tax rate is

going to be, because they have accountents and lawyers that jimmy buff eths of the world don't simply fill out the forms. they run it by tax accountents and lawyers and stuff. you can't invest in your company without knowing what the outlook is going to be for the next two to five years. corporations like the lady says doesn't pay taxes so when they raise the rates on corporations like the democrats say corporations aren't people. they pass it along to their customers. if you want a fair tax system and i would take the fair tax system that they're trying to pass. but i believe that you don't tax it on income because the richer people can hide their income. i believe you do it on a national sales tax. and that way, the more money that you make the more money that you spend. and you will be paying higher taxes if you make money. if you make less money that would be more of a progressive

system. and there would be no exemptions at all. and in my opinion, it would be collected at the local location where it's being collected in and the percentage capped and sent up to washington instead of begging for our tax money that come back with corruption and all these little projects that don't make sense. it's patriotic to pay taxes. it's very patriotic to spend taxpayers' money sainl and reasonably and not waste. the answer to all the thing is waste and abuse. well, they've been saying that for years and waste and abuse has never been taken care of. host: another keith has this point. these photographs and the story from the new york daily news demonstration that is took place on wall street.

police telling demonstrators not to camp out in the parks but one has citizens united against greedy bankers sitting there michael bloomberg warning about this potential as the economy continues to create fewer and fewer jobs the impact it would have on the public. >> that's what happened in cairo, that's what happened in madrid. you don't want those kinds of riots here but it is people that aren't sharing and it's tough to get -- there's no overnight solution so you create these problems over long periods of time and everybody says ok let's face it today. if you look at the president's proposals at least he's got some ideas on the table whether you like those or not. and now everybody has got to sit down and say we're actually going to do something and you have to do something on both the revenue and the expense

side. and i always thought the only way to make it palateable is to make everybody share. everybody should kick in a little more and everybody should take out a little less. >> comments of the new york city mayor. the story and his reaction that got a lot of attention including the report playing up the fact that demonstrations could ensue if the economy continues to falter. "new york times" has cautionary lessons from michigan based on the comments of the former democratic mayor of michigan. she points out you can read more from the a section today of the "new york times" h we're asking about the tax something

that tp is going to be talking about tomorrow in a rose garden ceremony covering the event in which he's going to outline specifically how to pay for this $447 billion package that the president outlined in general terms in his speech before a joint session of congress as we said at the top of the program the president is going to be back in ohio again this week. he was in columbus, ohio last week, he will be in cincinnati this week talking about a bridge that needs to be repaired saying that under this plan that bridge would be fixed. of course there is a political connection to all of this because ohio the home state of the speaker of the house john boehner and the bridge connects to covington, kentucky, which is the home state of the republican leader in the u.s. senate mitch mcconnell. joining us from queens, new york. welcome to the conversation. independent line. your thoughts on all of this. caller: yes. the one thing that people must realize is that the coves of civilization is taxes. and that's how we've been structuring ourselves for a long time by paying taxes.

everybody is taking this present tax law and found the loopholes. that's the smart way or rich way. now we must come and it's time to pay the piper. back in jimmy carter days he tried to pay interest rates. we saw what happened how our debt went up. now our national debt is up. individual debt is up. so all of those thing that is we tried to avoid. we asked this president to go to washington and give us the truth. he's given us the truth and now we're looking at and saying we don't want the truth. we just want to go back and have nothing. cut taxes for the rich and continue to live in squander for everybody else. so i think we need to go back to that cliche and say for civilization pay your taxes. host: from e-mail.

>> washington has become a red tape factory with more than 4,000 rules in the pipeline, hundreds of which would cost our economy more than $100 million each annually. the disappointing reality is that what may be a faceless regulation to most can have a profound impact on local economies and families like yours. just one rule has chicago white metal casting, a manufacturer in my district employing 240, fighting to survive in an already tough economy.

already facing a stream of regulations, they will soon face new regulations from unelected bureaucrats implementing a back door national energy tax after it failed in congress. chicago white metal casting already has one employee who spends half his time dealing with existing federal zauts, certifyication requirements, and complex paperwork. >> congressman peter ross cam delivering the response to the president's weekly address yesterday. writing about regulations and unions in the washington examiner. he says.

caller: host: you're on the air. good morning. we'll try one more time from sam. caller: good morning. one of your callers said that yes tax exempt people should be looked at again. and i agree with them. the mega churches that receive tax exempt and then turn around and talk about senior citizens who are receiving their income after they're retired. they talk about welfare recipients. well all of those churches are on public assistance. just ask poor people who cannot work or who can't find a job are uneducated are also on

public assistance. i would like to see the government do away with tax exempt status for all of these mega churches so that there will be more money because those mega churches are hauling in millions of dollars from working people. i think it's atrocious that they are allowed to have their families work as ministers and their net worth and then they are asking people for money to support thatnetwork and every time you see the one that i watch on tv he's selling his books and his records and a bible for $150. to working people. i think the tax exempt status for churches must go. host: thanks for the call. this point on our twitter page.

next fred joining us from new jersey on the republican line as we look at the story this morning from the "new york times" website with a photograph of warren buffet and the president talking about the rule tomorrow at the white house. caller: good morning, sir. how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: obama did this jobs things with the company out in california. half a billion dollars and they go bankrupt. now, that's going to be money that we'll never see again. as far as i'm concerned the c.e.o. of that company, everything should be confiscated, his bank account. he should be in jail next to bernie madoff. so what makes us think another jobs bill is going to work? that half billion dollars do you know how many mortgages that could have fixed for people? that's another jobs plan? come on, democrats, wake up. you should hold your president accountable.

half a billion dollars we're never going to see again. that could have helped a lot of mortgages and a lot of people. host: thanks for the call. jim has this point. page of the "new york times" article would call for more millionaires to pay. the president is not expected to specify a rate or other details. it is unclear how much revenue his plan would raise but his idea of a millionaire's tax will be prominent in the broad plan of the long-term deficit reduction efforts by the white house. next is dustin from michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to think about something a little different but speaks to the same point that needs to be made. peace is the bedrock of life. from it springs from the

blessings of liberty. the labor of generations of braver men and women, soldiers farmers, teachers firefighters mother and fatsers, neighbors and friends united. together, united not for tax breaks or for tax increases or the victory of one political party. it's for the survival of an idea that visionary men inchingds upon parchment. >> making a number of appearances over the last ten days since his speech including a stop in north carolina richmond virginia all aimed to try to drum up support for his $447 billion plan. white house calling it a jobs act. some economists saying it could create an estimated 1.1 to 1.9 million jobs and the.talking about in his weekly address saying the time to end the political circus here in

washington. more from the president in his saturday address. >> some of them would rather wait another year than work together right now. but most americans don't have the luxury of waiting. it was three years ago this week that a financial crisis on wall street made things much more difficult for working folks on main street. and too many are still hurting as a result. so the time for action is now. no more games. no more gridlock. no more division or delay. it's time for the people you sent to washington to put country before party. to stop worrying so much about their jobs and start worrying more about yours. host: from the president's weekly address dress. if "washington post" indicating that if you get a college degree you'll make more money. that's essence of the story who looks at the value of a college degree. the average earnings of someone with an associate degree over a 40-year career is about $1 million. the average earnings of someone

with a bachelor's degree, $2.3 million. you can read more also available on line at "washington post".com. from our twitter page. next is ron from newport richie, florida. welcome to the conversation. if you like this idea of a buffet tax? do you think it will work? caller: it will work because the american economy is like a pie. the more people who get to have a piece of the pie the bigger the pie can be. now, if you go to my web page at www.my better america plan.com, you will see the plan that will get america out of this economic mess it is. host: why did you develop this web site? caller: because i am running for president of the united states also. and i have the only plan in america that is going to put

america on an economic path to prosperity. we have to tax therix so that we can put more money into the income of the people. you don't use that money to finance more government. now use it to pay off the national debt. and on my web page is a plan to reform the whole american government so that we get rid of the all the programs that are getting money to the people to do nothing and make them work for that money instead. and by doing that we are going to fuel the american economy because with all that work we can build a wind mill system in the united states that will generate elect trissty for free for generations for up to 100 years from now. and with all that free electricity we can power fwours that will lower the pollution, we can power everything in our house for free with wind mills that will be giving us free

wind. because we have enough wind power in the united states to put wind power free to everybody if we would just build this thing instead of building this pipeline from canada that's going to bring fuel from the ground which is going to pollute, there's free wind mill system that i talk about on my web page along with all my other programs host: just want to jump in. you're calling on the democrats line. are you running for the democratic nomination? caller: i'm running as an independent of president of the united states because i feel that the democrats and the republicans do not have the answer. caller: answers in the problems that will solve this country's problems. host: what's your last name? caller: mchouston. host: thanks very much for the call. appreciate, glad to have you weigh in. former vice president dick cheney is the subject of this

piece this morning inside the "new york times" sunday magazine. it's the wrong mission accomplished. how dick cheney reigned in presidential power the former vice president continuing his pitch on his book in my time appearing on cbs' face i the nation. he will be appearing on c-span 2's book tv and then being interviewed later this month bob woodward from the "new york times" nonfiction list number one this week is former vice president cheney's book along with liz cheney. a stolen book dijaceie dugard is number two. unbroken is number three. you can get more at ny times.com. we're taking your calls on the so-called buffett tax. the president outlining this. what's your reaction? caller: well, i think we should have a buffet-bloomberg tax on

buffett, bloomberg and obama and everyone that thinks like him. they always seem to think that democrats should support all these programs. well, let democrats pay for them. let's have a democrat-obama voting moran tax and all these idiots can pay for what they want. he wants a piece of pie? pay for the pie, work for the pie. why would anyone hire a lazy stupid democrat that thinks that the guy who is paying him is a terrible person? fire everyone of these democrats from every corporation, every business in america, and every millionaire's household and let them fend for themselves. you know, obama's an idiot. the only thing that obama's got going for him is that he's got a bunch of idiots that listen to him and believe his same old nazi comeie crap like an al qaeda terrorist. tear down the americans that work for everything and build up all the idiots that we all pay for.

well we've paid for democrats forever. look what it's got us. more stupid idiotic lazy democrats. that's all we have calling in every day is a stupid lazy democrat. just like obama. he's lazy and stupid. host: from texas. in from the "new york times" business section. suddenly over there is over here. the debt crisis in europe has finally and officially washed up on american shores. you can read more by logging on to the "new york times." nick from florida. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. and boy, i definitely have something i want to say to that

last caller. i am an independent but my wife is a democrat and he just called her stupid about eight times. my blood is a little pumping. and as for stupid president obama i just want to thank him for saving the u.s. auto industry so that the unemployment isn't 18%. and for killing osama bin laden and at any rate tonight get back to the question at hand which is i've built several companies over the course of decades. i'm a proud taxpayer as an individual, the fact that john paulson of the advocates fund fame and his ilk on walt street are paying 15% on the billions that they're making by basically extracting the wealth of our nation and destroying it, yeah, i'm in favor of taxing those guys at the maximum that's reasonable. i think anything over 50% for

any individual is not good. but up to that i say tax them. we've got to -- i like having roads to drive on, i like having an internet. i like having my trash picked up. i want the fire company to show wynn there's a fire. that's what our taxes pay for. there's the benefits of being an american. i'm an american. i'm going to pay taxes. corporations though i run the corporate tax rates are too high and the corporate, thed to is too complex and easily exploit bid giant corporations that have giant accounting departments like g.e. i almost went out of business twice because of my tax burden as a businessperson over the course of decades. so i think the corporate tax rate should be simplified, brought down to 20 to 25% so we can compete with the rest of the world and then tax individuals. it's great to li in america. we should pay taxes to live here. host: thanks for the call. the new book is getting a pushback from the white house,

launching what it is describing as an aggressive response. the ranking member of the house energy and commerce committee is our guest following the "washington journal" at 10:00 eastern time. >> recent polls out say that fewer than half of individuals who supported him at some point still support him. what went wrong? what specifically happened with

the.'s agenda or his message to cause americans to feel this way? >> the economy is not doing well. the president is getting rip sawed by the republicans. and in my view he hasn't stood up strongly enough to them. but that's going to change. if the speaker could go out and make a speech saying it's got to be his way or the highway i imagine the president is going to come back and start swinging and the american people it's the republicans who have stopped jobs bills. it's the republicans who want to gut social security and medicare and medicaid and b show how they are very, very extreme. and once he starts doing that and we've got a republican nominee, whether it's governor perry or romney or michele bachmann, then you have another person to imagine taking the place of president obama. and under those circumstances, i feel confident he is going to get reelected. >> host: our interview with congressman waxman here on

c-span and radio. from the tribune an oh bitry of passing former senator charles percy. his oh bitry front painl of the chicago tribune, the home state newspaper of the illinois republican. former senator. seen one point as a presidential contender described as a moderate who clashed with richard nixon.

again that this morning from inside the "washington post." and the boston sunday globe has the passing of cara kennedy. we all know now that she is with my dad. she was 51 years old. she passed away in washington, d.c. friday evening following a workout in a gym. she had been battling cancer for a number of years. her owe bitry this morning from inside the "new york times." the daughter of former senator ted kennedy suffered a heart attack. she also battled addiction to drugs and alcohol. next to that, another passing on a day where democrats are

feeling the loss of a daughter. this is the daughter of former vice president walter mondaydale. you can read more on all of this at ny times.com and also from the boston globe. and the minnesota star tribune. next is a viewer from long island. back to your calls. the issue of the warren buffett tax for millionaires. caller: afe couple of statements that i would like to say. one, i would like to say thank you, nick, the caller previously for stating out the

caller before him about obama's tenure as the president so far. because a lot of us around the country believe in those statements rather than the other caller saying that democrats are lazy. that's a bigotted statement. number one, c-span put the building behind you for a reason. symbolizes that we work on what our problems all the time. if that building crumb bles, we're going to have a problem. that building is over 100 years old. it's going to crumble if we do not start and take our taxes and start to spend them in the correct way all of our buildings around us are going to look like somebody took a bite out of them. i come from the urban setting and we have a little joke in our way -- in our livelihood where we say what's the

difference between an alcoholic and a crack head? well, the alcoholic he will steal from you and then he will lie to you saying that he didn't steal it. and then will run away. but the crack head, he will steal from you and then lie and say he didn't take it and then help you look for what he stole from you. host: thanks for the call. let me point out this one photograph from the "new york times," the oh bitry of charles h. percy, former three-time senator. an illinois who clashed with nixon. behind him is senator specter, republican of pennsylvania, senator john heinz, republican of pennsylvania, and behind him congressman tom ridge. and you see the photograph of senator percy. i mention that because of viewer said there used to be room for people like charles percy. are those the good old days that the tea party wants back? i think not. next call is barbara joining us

from cincinnati. good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: ok. well, i thank you for c-span. i do enjoy it. a couple of things. number one, i know both democrats and republicans are sending a my way or the highway message. so i guess i say the caller sometimes let's not go down that road it's really a waste of time to point fingers. what we need now are ideas. as a republican i'm not really thrilled with polarization blocking progress. that's just a comment listening to some of the other callers. but as far as the millionaire tax, i think actually it seems kind of piecemeal and i look at it and think i think we need an overhaul of the totaled to so we create some sort of a level tax relative to income on average, never less than 5% of income and then tax increase

about additional funds to reduce principle loan balances on foreign loans for foreign lenders. so that we're not obligated to foreign lenders. really funding comes from our internal borrowing and then as far as corporate tax kind of make it relative to the size of corporations and enable the viability of smaller companies. and i know there's been some talk about jobs and the stimulus package that the president has out there for another $400 billion and i just ran some quick numbers and said if we put $105 billion as a tax relief to corporations, with the direct requirement that they hire u.s.-based head count and then have a similar contribution of 15,000 per head count to the corporations, i mean, we could hire 7 million people at that rate with the commitment of the corporations to an equivalent of a minimum wage job and get people back to the workforce which in turn increases a multiplire effect

in the economy, taxes on the sales related to that income and also personal income tax from the taxes that would be generated. so there are ways to cross sectors rather than doing a stimulus that focuses on an infrastructure only or a construction workforce. we could push the job creation across sectors this way. . >> by the way, the president is going to be your city on thursday. caller: yes, i know. host: thanks for the call. appreciate the call and sharing your thoughts and ideas with us. tax cuts allow businesses to stop reinvesting for their own business. pull out the profits. they're doing so for themselves. by the way david brody is going to be joining us. of course long time reporter coveringing politics in the white house. we're going to talk specifically about the evangelical voters their role in the republican primary and in the general election coming up in just a couple of minutes. dade from cleveland, ohio. good morning to you.

welcome to the conversation. caller: i think that piece you just read i think it was saying what i'm about to say. i think tax cuts or taxes in general don't motivate businesses to hire or invest. if it does, it does it in the opposite way that we're being told. and that is that if you have a higher tax rate every investment or every expense that you have actually costs you less. so you are more motivated to do that. if tax rates are cut and very low that means you get to keep more of each dollar and it's less motivating to reinvest it. host: thanks for the call. the program some of the nation's largest banks facing a potential litigation over the mortgages that they provided and whether or not there was any ill legality in that. and also carl anthony will be joining us.

you've been hearing the recordings of former first lady kennedy. the conversations took place in early 1964. we'll talk with carl later in the program. this reminder, and we have a website to get more information on c-span's student cam contest. it's coming back again this year. the competition already under way for 2012. here is a couple of notes. open to middle and high school students. and the theme this year one day after constitution day, the constitution and you. a video needs to be about five to eight minutes in lents. you need to show more than one point of view and must include c-span programming. you can get a lot of our video on c-span's video library at c-span.org. heeshes the deadline. it needs to be by january 20, one year before the inauguration of our next president. grand prize winners will get $ 5,000.

other prizes totalling 50,000. student cam.org for more information. or go to c-span and click on the link. we'll take a short break. the "washington journal" continues. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> spend next weekend in north carolina with book tv and american history tv. the site of the 2012 democratic national convention. on book tv on c-span 2, charlotte's banking industry with bank town author. and karen cox on dreaming of dixie, how the south was created an american popular culture. also a visit to park road books to learn about independent book stores and publishers. and on american history television, tour 11th president's birth place, a discussion with charlotte civil rights leader charles jones on his experiences during the

1960s lunch counter sit-ins and visit the reid gold mine where gold was first discovered. next weekend on c-span 2 and 3. >> "washington journal" continues. >> we want to welcome back to c span david. we want to talk about politics in general but we also want to focus on the evangelical vote. who are these voters in the republican and democratic primaries and what influence do they have? guest: well, they have a lot of influence, clearly in the primaries, that's been written about. it really starts with the tea party. i mean, the evan jellkls and the intersection that we see between evan jellkls and tea party libertarians is part of this tea party movement is really a fascinating story. i'm in the process of writing a book in a shameless plug area

right now but i call it the tea van jellkls. this idea that the tentcals of the evangelical movement are all over the tea party. and i go into a lot of that in this upcoming book that will be out next year. but the points is that these are not only influential but it's not just about abortion and marriage now. as it was maybe let's say back in the 80's or even 90's but this is about the debt, morality, all of this that conservative evangelicals feel all of these issues, these economic issues with a great passion. >> one of the stops is liberty university. we covered governor rick perry last week. we'll show an excerpt. michele bachmann speaking there later this month. the history behind liberty university, jerry fall well and what this school represents to the republican party. >> it's at the core of evangelical -- i don't want to call it activity but definitely a thought for sure. this is core evangelical

thought in virginia and it isi it has been around obviously for a while. so this is going to be a stop for really any evangelical candidate that wants to not just make hey with evangelical voters but clearly to explain the biblical world view and how they see policies through their prism. >> more with texas governor rick perry last week in lynch bevering, virginia, also available on libe at c-span.org. >> i spent many a night pondering my purpose, talking to god, wondering what to do with this one life among the billions that are on the planet. what i learned as i wrestled with god is that i didn't have to have all the answers. that they would be revealed to me in due time. and that i needed to trust him.

my faith journey is not the story of someone who turned to god because i wanted to. it was because i had nowhere else to turn. >> from liberty university last wednesday. and the new york times sunday review looking at governor rick perry calling him an uber texan. meet the lone wolf of the lone star state. to him texas has all the answers, washington is the enemy. go aggies. >> well, this is his stick, if you will. and i don't mean stick as if it is not genuine it is. but this is what rick perry is about. and it's going to be very interesting for him because as we just saw in that clip he wears his faith on his sleeve, he wears his tea party credentials on his sleeve. and now the chip away. with michelle, with ron paul, with rick santorum. is it going to be death by a

thousand paper cuts for rick perry? and i think that's going to be for sure watching and mitt romney sits back to a degree and watches all of this unfold because it takes some of that burden, if you will, away from him. >> as you look at the poll numbers and really in the last month it's been a complete turn around where mitt romney was ahead in the polls he now has a hold in the polls but rick perry a substantial lead over all of candidates and the 5 to 7 point lead over mit romney. but could it be rising too far too quickly too soon? >> possibly. i think the problem for rick perry right now is that he he's got an undercard matchup in iowa. and as we say in boxing terms that is with michele bachmann for the most part, all of them. he's battling in a way all three of them in iowa on that undercard. and so if you're michele bachmann you're staying in iowa, you're camping in iowa

and south carolina for that matter talking about the hpv vaccine issue which we may get into later and the immigration issue, about allowing illegal children of illegal immigrants to have in state tuition. so you camp in iowa and try to chip away at his tea party credentials. >> michelle who appeared on the tonight show and she points out in that interview that she wasn't speaking as a scientists, she was relaying the storyfy of a mother after her daughter taking that vaccination. >> she e's definitely getting caught up in the science or at least the medical issues of this debate. where as the focus clearly for michele bachmann especially as relates, needs to be parental rights. this idea that a governor who touts himself as a tea party conservative would sign an executive order in essence taking away to a degree that option from parents to have

that vaccine administered. now, having said that, rick perry does say that there was an opt out in f and rick making the point there should have been an opt in. the point being that michelle may be a little sidetracked on the medical issues rather than the parental rights issues and some of the other issues as well. >> talking to david brody. we have not done an interview with mit romney during this cycle so far. we did sit down with him a number of years ago when he was first running in 2008 to talk about his own mormon faith and religion. here's a portion that we conducted in 2006. >> i think without talking about a national race necessarily i think the american people, whether in their governor, their senator or their president would like to have a person of faith. and i'm without question a person of faith. i don't know if they care so much what brand of faith they are. and of course they're going to

be dimbses in religion. there's a leap of faith in every religion and i'm proud of my faith but i'm not going to talk about my religion. i subscribe in some respects to what abraham lincoln said in, well it goes to the address at age 28 he said in america there's called the political religion. it's our adherence to the laws of the land, to our oath of office. as a governor i consider my highest promise to uphold the constitution of my state and of the country. and regardless of one's faith that's the biggest responsibility. >> former governor mit romney. you've talked with him as well about all of this. >> we talked in 2007 actually right in that run-up when he was running for president and i asked him about this idea that a lot of folks, especially in the evangelical world think mormonism is a cult. he went on to explain as long as we share the same values

that that's important. i think for mit romney what's interesting is they seem to be breaking light for him not just from a lets not talk about the mormonism issue. it's not as much a big deal in 2012 at least publicly. and so why is that? because of course economic concerns tea party and all of that. but then with rick perry getting in the race, even though he presents some problems for mit romney he also has as we talked about before, all doing some of the dirty work for him. it leaves mit romney in a position where he can come across a little more as the mainstream guy and that may work. if he gets there. >> let me put one number on the table. this is from a research poll that came out in may. what are the chance that is you would vote for mit romney as a mormon? 44% of those questioned said that they would not under any circumstances vote for a mormmon candidate. >> and this is clearly a

problem for him. that's why i mentioned it hasn't been a public issue. but privately there are going to be quite a few that just won't even take a look at him just for that reason alone. now, that is why partly at least you won't see him compete as heavily in iowa this time around. he will make a play in south carolina to a degree. but that's going to be a tough as well there. we'll see. host: we'll go to phone calls. michael is joining us from new york. good morning to you. turn your volume down on your set. caller: ok. let me turn it down. host: go ahead. let's go next to a view

anywhere arlington, virginia. lance, independent line. caller: well, this is my magic morning. everything i've heard for the last hour and a quarter or so i agree with except for one thing. that is i'm really ticked off at some caller who called in and said that showed some disrespect to politicians. don't you realize that calling people idiots, that's fighting words. and we had a civil war over this once before. we seem to be headed in that direction again. this all involves what's happening in 2012. all these issues this morning including the guest right there , we are building towards tensions in this country that we need to sort of break and realize that we are headed for

another conflict. it's -- i don't know how you can respond to this issue. host: let me take your point and on this program hear a lot of different points of view and some are quite animated and some can be quite passionate. is it different now than in past campaign cycles? guest: sure. i think it's getting more vitriolic. president bush when he came into office in 2000 he campaigned on this idea that he was going to be a new type of president, this compassionate conserve tiff and not only that but he was going to be able to hopefully help with the vitriolic atmosphere that we thought was a big deal back then. compared to today it's a whole lot worse. and president obama did the same thing. now, if we have a tough tuckers like rick perry and other whose are clearly pushing the envelope in some of the rhetoric as well, i don't necessarily see it going in a different direction any time

soon. host: some of the speculation already under way from the weekly standard team, bob mcdonnell the governor of virginia who was with rick perry this past week already some speculation that this virginia governor on the short list for 2012. caller: i don't think there's any question about that. and not only does he seem to have a lot of the solid credentials that a vice president would bring. in addition he comes from a swing state, virginia. host: swing state? guest: i call it a swing state in it's definitely more purple than it used to be red and so i think it can be considered up for grabs. i know president obama obviously did very well in virginia. that's part of it. now, having said that, bob mcdonnell is extremely popular within the evangelical world. he is an evangelical himself. i don't know if rick perry might pick bob mcdonnell but mit romney picking bob mcdonald

could help with evangelical turnout for sure. host: we'll go back to michael in norning. caller: well we tried to be nice to him and we'll move on. we apologize when callers get through like that. we don't appreciate that under any circumstances. next to dale in louisiana. go ahead, please. caller: good morning c-span. you're looking peppy this morning. proud for you. ok. 75% of americans believe in god and jesus christ. that is a fact. and all we want the people to listen to us on the right is we want the democrats to stop killing our babies. that's not asking too much.

just to stop killing our babies. and we are labeled wackos that we believe in god and jesus christ and stop killing our babies. that's not asking too much in life. my goodness, people. ok? and i would like to make one other quick comment on the last episode. on the tax deal. just let me touch on something real quick. we have to remember, we are going to have to all come together, democrats and republicans, and just get us a reasonable tax code. that's all we have to do. just a reasonable tax code. and everybody can go buy it because we're labeling one this and one this. and one that. and we're going to have to move on. and let me tell you about the tea party. people don't realize how big the tea party is growing.

they can label it however they want to. and then people ask, when did all this hate start in politics? when did all this hate start? you have all the news media ask this. i'm going to tell you when the hate started is with ted kennedy took after clarence thomas and judge bort and made their families cry, brought just what they did to clarence thomas and just when ted kennedy put on a hearing like that and that is when it started. host: thanks for the call. guest: and no one is going to be able to put an exact blueprint together on something like that. the caller made a few interesting observations one about the tea party. i think it's important to

understand that 2010 and the way i've written about it in the past is that 2010 for the tea party was act one. 2012, here we go. it's act 2. and will there be an act 3? most likely there sure will. we're just getting started and anybody that believes that the tea party is going to fizzle or be labeled extreme i think there's some dange anywhere that because they're actually, you can make the quantitative argument that they're actually gaining steam and you can actually see it. you probably end up seeing it in the numbers in 2012. so i will independents be important in 2012? of course they will we always know that. having said that the actual tea party libertarians and the evan jellkls combining together to raise their numbers in 2012 will be just as important in a factor.

guest: sure. that goes to whether or not if a candidate is going to bring up their faith, if they're going to enter the walls of a church and start to talk about their faith in a campaign situation, then they should be asked questions about their faith. now, the question is where do you draw the line? snow we're getting down a whole other rabbit trail. but when we get into doctrinal issues that's a problem. associations with others that's a problem. but if they bring up their faith, then it is fair to ask the candidates how they see the world through a biblical world view. >> this headline from the "washington post."

guest: the energy clearly is not there as much as it was in 2008. that's obvious, as much as the white house and others want to spin it. but at the same time, this is a dynamic president. and he not only gives a good speech but he is able to rally the troops. he has shown that and he has also shown he's a great fourth quarter campaigner and a fourth quarter president. that he can close the deal at times. many times. and so he is going to be formidable. i don't think there's any question about it. i think the difference is that in 2008 when candidate obama ran for president there wasn't a tea party in 2008.

there is a tea party in 2012. they're energized and mobile and that changes the variable game electorally. one of the viewers say the tea party will start having my respect running candidates at third party rather than being republican lap dogs. we did hear from the head saying two things. first that her organization one of the number of tea party groups will endorse a republican primary candidate and did not rule out a third party bid if the candidate who is a republicans nominate doesn't satisfy her particular group. guest: the tea party by and large and when i say the tea party you can't really speak for the tea party. it's organic in nature. but the tea party members fulling by and large want to work within the republican structure to advarns change. they want to in essence, he wants some new republicans with him on capitol hill. and one of those new republicans are

constitutionally conservative republicans. so this is the dynamic going on right now within the republican party as clearly we've seen play out. host: from the new york daily news. guest: i interviewed ed cotch back in the 2008 campaign when the jewish vote was going to be potentially an issue for president obama back then. ed cotch had some very tough words for the candidate obama at the time. those words have been ratched up even more so now. even that's transpired between netenia huh since the president has taken office. so yes this is clearly going to be a problem. this is a layered issue for the

president. he's got poll numbers a problem, an economy that is not doing well, and i think many people are being kind by saying that and then you've got the jewish democrat problem and i think you can just go layer upon layer and you have to wonder what's going to happen here in the future. host: one of the reasons why debbie wasserman schultz was selected to be the dnc party chair? guest: i don't know. some will speculate that but hard to say. host: ed sed in the new york daily news that if he the president doesn't read the tea leaves and change his position you can be certain i will continue to bang my drum. i will campaign against him not only in new york but in other parts of the country next year. i will be loud and clear about what i believe. there are many floridians concerned about the president's treatment of israel and florida will be crucial to the president's reelection. this morning.

guest: and that's going to get even worse as time goes on. host: next call is nancy from baltimore. good morning. caller: good morning. he was speaking of the bible earlier. in the bible, you know that they had the high priest and they had the faresies in the synagogue and they were holding the bible and teaching the people the bible. but they crucified jesus. now, i think about the people that's coming up saying they're christians, too. and they need to be more christ like. now, this is my problem right here. there are presidents that's white and irish, mixed with everything else, and that's ok. but someone comes saying they're christian, and they mix with white and black, you know, it just seems so crazy that we

just human beings and rick perry, michele bachmann and on and on, won't embrace their brother. they say he says he's a christian. in the christian faith you embrace your brother and you lift them up. and barack obama is a christian and they tear him down. that's not christianlike. i'm not saying that they're not a christian. i'm just saying that they need to be more christ like. he had a message of love. christ is love. you can't find anybody in the bible that's not love. host: thanks for the call from baltimore. guest: well, you know, evangelicals live in a world of biblical absalutes and moral absalutes. and i think what you're seeing from alet of, media terms it as

more strident in their views and they're not going to budge and some will call it extreme. evangelicals don't see it that way. they see it as moral absalutes. so as the caller is talking about it as more christ like the way they're seeing it is they're taking a stand for biblical principles. now, having said that the vitriol that comes from some folk -- and i don't think we've seen that from rick perry and michele bachmann. i think we've seen more of a principled stand i'm not going to budge. but i don't think there's been like this hateful speech associated with their comments whatsoever. host: two weeks ago when sara palin was campaigning in iowa, and new hampshire and she was campaigning for her cause, her ideas, we asked our viewers the question whether or not she should get in or stay out of the presidential race. a lot of emotion back and forth some questioning why we ask the question. but i'm going to ask you the question. is there room for sara palin to get into this race and what kind of support would she get from evangelicals? guest: yes there's room for her in the race.

and she would get quite a bit of support from evangelicals. where will she get in the race? who knows. no one really knows. only sara palin knows. if i had to wage a guess i think she's getting in. i think there may be some room between rick perry and michelle bachmann in terms of this crony capitalism the term that we've heard before. we have rick perry talking about his executive experience as governor, michele bachmann doesn't have the executive experience. and here along may come sara palin where she's able to kind of get in between the two and say look, call out rick perry on what she's calling crony capitalism and some of the favors that she's saying that may have transpired in his tenure as texas governor and the fact that she has some executive experience and has been on the national stage and the can help those credentials that michele bachmann does not have. so she may be able to craft a

path. the problem is if she gets in once again mit romney smiling like that cat we talked about earlier that's going to split more of the vote. host: the national journal taking a look at the calendar in all of this for next year, iowa, new hampshire, south carolina and then florida. john has this campaign head quarters in florida and saying this piece it could be a fire wag. guest: i think all bets are off as to what exactly is going to happen. i don't think we know specifically. having said that. host: we know that new hampshire will be first they'll move their primary to january 1 if they have to. guest: but as it relates to flea i think this could be the link pin in all of this in terms of what happens from that point forward. let's game this out for a quick moment. let's just say rick perry wins iowa or michelle bachmann which could be possible.

let's say mit romney wins new hampshire. and then you have a situation where you could have a rick perry or a michele bachmann potentially winning south carolina which makes florida not just a firewall for romney and huntsman and everybody else but it could be a huge situation because then you're moving into the southern primaries after that. host: one headline from the houston chronical. guest: it's interesting because i'll get to that in two seconds and let me start with michele bachmann. you know, part of why michele bachmann may have a problem to a degree with the evangelicals is because rick perry is in the race with his executive experience and michele bachmann doesn't have that experience. having said that now back to what you just mentioned. rick perry has some issues here

the fact that he has been an executive for a while and some of these issues are going to come out. so watch for michele bachmann to trickle these stories out. and rick told me the other day at the tea party debate in tampa, the more i know about rick perry, the more i get concerned. guest: host: edie from raleigh, north carolina. good morning, edie, independent line. caller: good morning steve and mr. brody. it's actually andy. host: i'm sorry. you're calling. go ahead. caller: first, i just want to say i appreciate the fact that you have written this book talking about the tea van jellkls that you call them. the type of thing that the tea party has denied up to this point. wanting everyone to believe that they're purely about spending and fiscal conservativism and things like that and if a so called liberal had written a book it would have been denied and problems.

so i appreciate you going ahead and acknowledging and exposing this and maybe go see have a credible source on that. but i wanted to ask you. you talked about perry going to jerry fall well's university which is a popular stop for a lot of the and i want to get your take on these type universities. jerry fall well, oral roberts, pat robertson. every university i'm assuming your very familiar and the fact that there are so many people come out of these schools and george bush was very fond of appointing a lot of these people to his administration throughout the federal government and i'm concerned about their allegiance to the converts to teaching as opposed to religious agenda and i want to get your take on that.

how the the for example question how would it be different for someone to get a law degree from say harvard or columbia or duke university versus getting a 700 club law school degree? host: thanks for the call. guest: well, i don't think the people that graduate from regeant and some of these other colleges would or universities would consider it this 700 club degree because i think what you're seeing and the numbers will bear this out is that places like regeant and some of these other christian universities have really not only raised the bar academically in the last five to ten years. but you are seing a lot of these graduates come out of regeant and liberty and other places to have some serious influence on capitol hill and in presidential politics. the campaign aids and some of the, whether it be chiefs of staff or legislative counsels, many of them involved in the

higher eeshlon of politics today. host: let me put another issue on the table. we talked about it in our first 45 minutes. this so-called buffet rule a millionaire's tax as the president try's to do a couple of things. pay for a jobs package and try to figure out ways to bring down a growing federal deficit. the white house saying that by taxing those people who make $1 million or more we could pay for the bill and also help lower the deficit by 1.9 trillion dollars the story available on line at ny times.com. what's your reaction? guest: well, you made an interesting observation earlier in this program when you talked about that they are going from that $250,000 threshold to $1 million. very interesting. clearly calculated. there's a reason for that. the polling showed that the president has majority support on this issue. when it was at $250. to go to 1 million will make it more popular. but the problem is that at this point at least it's going

nowhere in the house of representatives. you know, you had the majority and i say the majority nearly every single republican in the house of representatives has taken a pledge to not raise taxes. and so -- and the president knows this and the white house knows this and therefore it's going to leave republicans in this conundrum in this dilemma of what to do. and so this speech tomorrow, this plan that he is going to lay out is part policy but it's also part campaign. not rhetoric but definitely campaign push because this is what he is going to campaign on in 2012. host: another viewer saying can you elaborate between the fiscal movement and any religious connection. guest: here's the thing the tea party stands for fiscal restraint, constitutional conservatism.

that's their message plain and simple. you don't see god in the official platform of the tea party. now, having said that, there are certain tea party movements locally in this country that i'm fa size god and many of those issues relating to the bible as part of their local charter and state or maybe local or city level. having said all of that, the key tie that binds, steve, if you will is the christian heritage of this country. why are evangelicals involved? first last time i checked social conservatives are typically fiscal conservatives that should come as no surprise. the media likes to put everybody in a box. you have the fiscal conservatives, the national security conservatives and the social conservatives. most of the time they're also fiscal and national security conservatives. but as relates to god it's the jude ao christian history of

our country and this idea that the tea party libertarians want to get back to a constitutionally limited government where both sides seem to be able to come together and understand they want to take this nation back, take it back to what? to the founding principles that this country was indeed founded on. host: talking with david brody of the christian broadcasting net quoork and also the author of an upcoming book. guest: the tea van jellcals and it will be out in july of 2012. plopet timing for the campaign. host: and we'll feature them here on c-span. a couple other views on the comments earlier. one of our viewers saying ed koch for a while. next is a viewer from charlotte, north carolina. kathy republican line good morning. caller: thank you. listening to the other viewers that have called in several

things come to mind. i am a tea party member and i'm also an evangelical christian. the problem that i have, i did research the candidates' backgrounds, their records, in the previous election. and the big thing that i could not vote for president obama was his record in the illinois senate. and that did not align with my christian values. i'm also concerned about we're founded with the belief that we should have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happies in. and i see the government taking more and more money from the state and threatening the churches to lose their tax exempt status and that just goes against everything that i was raised up to be and that i

believe in. . . host: indicating the democrats are avoiding this publicly and privately.

it is september and barack obama is in trouble. his poll numbers are down and there is unrest within his party. he then went on to win the nomination and election. but are there parallels 2 four years ago in what he is facing today? guest: we need to step back and see what happened to the president. he decided to shoehorn a lot of legislation when he started his presidency. you can make the argument that this is a center-right nation. i do not think there is a question about that. he took progressive, liberal ideas and try to shoehorn them through the congress and relief to the american people.

you saw the blowback from that and that is what we saw in 2010. but the president is also a pragmatist. we see from this president that when push comes to shove, he is willing to compromise and go ahead and cut the deal when he needs to cut the deal, which obviously hurts him with his base. he has already ticked off the conservative e.j. bell and co -- in angelico and tea party base. and now playing the other side, he has problems with his liberal base because of the compromising he has done. he is trying to straddle the middle, and what ends up happening, when you try to please everyone, you please no one. host: your article is available from a number of new york -- i number of newspapers. -- taken in an's article is

available. guest: that is all that and i think part of it, to invoke c- span, but there was talk about how he would hold hearings here on c-span. as relates to health care. and when you campaign is a guy that would change the way that business is done in washington, and then you are not doing that, that would change the perception that it is just business as usual. fox has had a heyday with his czar issue, they were being appointed and not confirmed by congress. every president before him said they were going to make a difference in changing the discourse and washington.

host: greg is joining us from new york city. caller: hopefully i can finish my point. teargassed and the kids -- christian broadcasting network, i have a question for you in regards to your point of view on what the t party is and where it came from and why it materialized, and why it is that most of the people's backgrounds need to be enamored with this. you made the point that they want to go back to what the forefathers had. the case in point, the forefathers and their constitution did not say all men are created equal. a person that look like me was not considered a person equal to my counterparts. a person that look like me, sir, was owned by those same for fathers. so you few think the tea party

agenda is to go back to that, it is because of the man that sits in the white house that happens to look like me. host: let me be very clear with what the t party is all about. they are about taking the country back to the constitutional principles of limited government. not the issue you are addressing, which was addressed in this constitution, because of the horrible stain it was on the station. if you talk to tea party folks, you get the same response. as it relates to going down that racism line that we have heard, i travel the country all over the place with these tea party rallies. it is just not true, but beyond that, let's think about this as i like use of quantitative perspective. who are some of the biggest leaders, if you will, within the tea party movement?

of them -- who did they support? allen west, he is on capitol hang -- hill, herman cain. it is hard to say that this movement has a racist strain when three of their beloved heroes of the movement are african-american. and not just one -- that is just one of the marietta examples to show that a lot of this is not right. host: a lot of follow-up on one final point. the media is accused of making this a two-man race between riparian mitt romney. is there room for the other candidates to move up in the polls and to get the attention that seems to be no oxygen for these other candidates? guest: possibly that rick perry and mitt romney both have to stumble.

when you see rick perry and mitt romney stumble, and both campaigns will try to get them to stumble, and remember, perry has a lot of critics down in texas and around the country, actually. we do not know what will come out of the worker. but it both stumble, there is michele bachmann right there, rick santorum potentially and newt gingrich can increase in the polls, but michele bachmann is in a position, ron paul is in a position in iowa, both of them, to make some serious move at rick perry if rick perry stumbles. i am not convinced that he will stumble. i think he is a seasoned professional. he is someone that has been able to weather the storms throughout the careers. host: david brody, we always

expect -- appreciate your perspective from cbn. and the name of your book is. guest: "the evangelicals." host: one of the most often heard complaints about this network is i do not know when things are going to be on. this is another way of getting information about our networks. we have to read in here is how you can get information about programming that is on the air or about on the air. you can get information by now @wing us at cspan twitter. we also ask you to follow us at scsapnwj. you get those weather -- regular updates on all three networks. when we come back, a number of lawsuits against large banks.

nelson schwartz has been covering this story from -- for the "new york times." and then carl sferrazza anthony on jacqueline kennedy. what did she say in your reaction to that as "washington journal" continues on this sunday morning. ♪ -- the c-span network -- we provide politics and public affairs. this month, look for congress to continue federal spending into november, including funding for recent natural disasters. keep tabs on the deficit committee as the formula the plan to lower the debt, and all the presidential candidates as they continue to campaign across

the country. it is all available to you on television, radio, for on-line, and on social media sites. search, watch, and share any of our programs at any time on our c-span video library. bringing our roast -- bringing our resources to local communities and showing you a fence around the country, it is washington your way. created by cable and provided as a public service. [guitar music continues] >> spend this weekend in charlotte, north carolina with book tv and american history tv. the history and literary life from the site of the 2012 democratic convention.

on book tv on c-span2, charlotte's banking industry. karen cox on "dreaming of dixie -- how the south was created in the american popular culture." we also visit the park road bookstore to learn about the relationship with the independent bookstores and publishers. and on american history tv on c- span3, tour 11th president james polk's birthplace, a discussion with charles jones, the civil rights leader on his part in the lunch counter sit- ins, and visit the reed gold mine where gold was first discovered in america. book tv and american history tv in charlotte, north carolina next weekend on c-span2 and c- span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome nelson schwartz who covers banking and financing for the "new york times wa."

thank you for being with us. let's get to the basics of what was filed, when, and what it means for bank of america, citigroup, and the others. guest: on september 2, hugh had the government agency responsible for fannie mae and freddie mac, the mortgage giants, they filed suit against those two financial a institutions to recover the loss on mortgage securities that they had bought. it is a big deal in the sense that these banks put together almost $200 billion worth of securities, and the federal government lost a lot of money on it because they were purchased by fannie mae and freddie mac, now controlled by washington and the taxpayers. those securities have gone down in value quite a bit.

host: the list includes 17, bank of america corp., barclays bank, citigroup, countrywide financial corp., credit suisse holdings, deutsche bank's, general electric company, an alaska about that, goldman sachs, jpmorgan chase, merrill lynch, morgan stanley, the royal bank of scotland, and society generale. this is a huge group. guest: they wanted to go after banks that were involved in originating and securitizing these mortgage securities. you had all of these mortgages that were given out. those mortgages are brought together in pools and turned into securities that other investors can buy. these other banks that turned

those mortgages into securities that fannie mae and freddie mac later bought. as you can tell from the list, all of these banks or part of what was a very profitable business. some were bigger than others, but they went after the main players. in july, at ubs, if you think about it, they went first in july and then they filed the 17 and september. host: bank of america, jpmorgan, if you can see they are all american-based banks but a number of foreign banks as well as in the general law electric corp. as well. why were foreign banks included in this federal litigation? and secondly, why g e? guest: foreign banks were very involved in this business. rbs is prominent on this list.

societe generale, and also foreign buyers were big purchasers of the securities. and in terms of g e, g he has a massive financial services arm. they got involved in the mortgage business and they later shut that down when the lawsuit began. but they were involved. ge's part is fairly small. host: we're talking about federal regulators filing lawsuits over a number of u.s. and foreign base. our guest is nelson schwartz who is joining us from new york. our phone lines are open and you can send us an e-mail. or you can join the conversation online at twitter.

you read about this in the past. one of the lessons we saw from the late 1980's and early 1990's was the saving and loans investigation resulted in years of lawsuits and litigation. what are we looking at from this latest? guest: i think we are looking at years again. some noted that you had this huge s&l loss, tens of billions of dollars loss, and the litigation went on for a decade. a lot of people are expecting the lawsuits, not just these suits, but suits filed by private investors that lost money and others, it could go on for years. the banks are already lawyering up, as they said. host: let me try to explain what this means for the banks and

what it means ultimately for taxpayers. you pointed out that in a recent story about bank of america, 23 securities sold for $6 billion, with hundreds of millions in dollars in damages to fannie mae and freddie mac. can you explain? guest: bank of america, especially of a couple of subsidiaries that have acquired, they took billions of dollars all together for bank of america, countrywide, and merrill lynch, they took all of these mortgages, turn them into securities, and those securities were then bought by fannie mae and freddie mac as an investment. when people began to default on those mortgages, the securities dropped in value. the mortgages were not worth anything if people cannot pay.

the fha on behalf of fannie and freddie is suing them. they want to recover a portion of the losses of those securities. let's say that they bought those securities at on 100 cents on the dollar. they are only worth 30 cents on the dollar. there is a 70% loss. they want to get compensation for portion of those losses. host: president bush kept talking about the ownership society, and that spurred community growth. when individuals on their home. is this a result even directly or indirectly of the bush administration's efforts to encourage people to own more homes? guest: the idea of this ownership society and expanding homeownership actually dates back before the bush

administration. i think it was bipartisan in some ways. you had people under president clinton pushing for the same thing at fannie and freddie. and definitely the mandate from congress was that fannie mae and freddie mac was encouraged in different ways for as many people to own homes as possible. they would incentivize fannie and freddie to provide loans to low-income people, to minorities, and to others. the subprime mortgages were allowed to go out. i would not say that it is the fault of the administration or congress, but there are a lot of actors here. it is a complicated situation where you have a lot of different forces encouraging fannie and freddie to boost home ownership and linda people who could not get mortgages in the past. host: from our twitter page.

guest: the mortgages did turn out to be bad, in that sense. but when you get to the heart of the question, or the banks -- were the banks putting to get their mortgages that they knew were not conforming to the standards that they should have? did people have enough income, did they have enough assets, or they owning their homes? basically the fhfa on behalf of fannie and freddie are saying that the banks knew or should have known that these mortgages were not what they represented them to be. on the other hand, the banks say that fannie and freddie knew that these securities have a risk, and that they were sophisticated investors and should have known that, just as you and i go out to buy stock, no one guarantees that it will go up. host: part of the equation is

that the feeling that home prices would not decline. and when we saw precipitous decline especially in the back and other places, how much of that was a contributing factor to all of these mortgages? guest: you see what -- when home prices began to drop, you got rid of the safety valve on all of these loans. when home prices were going up and people took on more mortgage that they could afford, that always sell the house and pay back the mortgage and move on. you did not have the people defaulting and people walking away. when the economy began to slow in 2007, and the housing market began to weaken, prices began to drop in all of a sudden you had more and more people who are unemployed, illness and the family, they could not pay their

mortgages. and prices began to drop so they could not sell those houses. they began to the fall. that has become a bigger and bigger problem since. the problem is that a lot of those mortgages that were made, especially in 2005-2007 time period were done with much lower lending standards than had been done in the past. you're seeing the chickens come home to roost on that. and all of the securities that they are suing about were done between 2005 and 2007 when the standards were the lowest. host: our guest is nelson schwartz from new york. he covers finance and business issues for the "new york times." our first caller, and we look at the 17 banks targeted in this latest lawsuit. caller: this is ken.

of very interesting thing, sir. t of questions, if i may. part of the problem as i understand is that the employees of fannie and freddie were paid as private individuals and made very high and cons. income tied to the amount of business that they generated. and i would like you to comment on that to see if i am accurate. secondly, there was information recently released that tells us that the first ever audit of the fed indicated that $16 trillion loan to american and foreign banks between 2007 and 2011. if these banks were to lose these lawsuits, would they not be in effect paying that back

what borrowed money? it is hard to separate public money from private money these days. guest: ken has had on two good point. fannie and freddie or hybrids. they had the implicit guarantee of the federal government on the one hand that enable them to borrow money at low rates. on the other hand, they were publicly traded and they had targets and goals to boost earnings. they wanted their earnings to keep growing. in terms of how much executives were paid, part of their pay did rely on whether they can make those goals. i do not think it was a simple as they wanted to make a lot of money personally. i think they wanted to grow the business, satisfy shareholders, satisfy congress, and part of that was to lend more money and

buy more of the securities. let's say i'm going to throw out these covers hypothetically, they could borrow at 4% and by the security bills yielding 6%, and that is profit. that process expanded throughout the period between 2004 and 2007. their balance sheet expanded tremendously. that was profitable when the securities were working and people were paying their mortgages. when the music stopped, that stopped. i do not know i would say it was on how much they were paid, but they were obviously incentivize in a lot of ways to expand the business. in terms of the foreign banks and the u.s. bank's common there is a tension there. one of the ironies for the strange belo aspects, i you

have the federal government suing the bank, but the federal government has bailed out the bank and 2008 and help them recover in 2009. on the one hand, the federal government wants to recover a portion of these losses on behalf of taxpayers. on the other hand, there is a risk of going after banks too hard and getting into bailout ii. people want to recover some money from the bank but they have to be careful not to hit them so hard that it threatens their stability or inhibits them landing. -- a landing. host: our guest is nelson schwartz who covers wall street. he spent 10 years writing for "fortune" magazine. joseph has this point summarizing the federal government's position against

the banks. their analysis? -- fair analysis? guest: that is what fannie and freddie and the government are going to contend. were the risks adequately disclose? i am not a lawyer, but there is an idea here is that if ever all the risks are disclosed, then the responsibility is on the buyer. buyer, beware. what these suits contend is that the banks knew or should have known it that the risks were greater than was publicly disclosed. and that these mortgages were misrepresented. that is the key. as you read through disputes, some of the issues are fairly

obvious in terms of what you're looking at. people have enough money to take out these loans, were enough documents presented, or the people actually going to occupy them? mortgages were the person is living in the home rather than an investment are much safer. according to the seats, the numbers that the banks were presenting to the buyers of the securities did not match up with reality. that is at the heart of the case. host: john joins us from price point, michigan. -- grosse pointe, michigan. caller: this is perhaps the most convoluted and maize, almost incomprehensible, i do not even, it is hard for me to describe it. if i was an attorney, i would

have a crack addict or a cpa with extraordinary talent. -- a crack at it, or a cpa with extraordinary talent. mr. clinton signed one law, and i was a novice, and was trying to understand finance. i became an investor in 2000. well, that is a different matter. but this caught my attention, this 1933 law being repealed. it worried me. deregulation in general worried me. i did not understand the fundamental utility of things like that. but back to housing, chris cox and his fellows that had $200 million budgets, or 200 people and $60 million budgets? they reported to congress and

they were supposed to explain their books. and they did not correctly state what books, how well balance they were. this seems to violate the law. i believe that they were under oath. i do not know where to go beyond that except to say one more thing. this is a different matter but connected. in in 2008, i went to my adviser and asked if i should be selling in august of 2008. he said to hang on to everything. i had volatile stocks. i did not know enough so i watched my holdings melt. there seemed to be a broad panic like out of the movie that jimmy stewart made with the run on the banks.

from the top down, there was something to not have clan itself to avoid a panic situation so we all lost holdings. i am going to stop talking and let you respond. guest: in terms of people losing money, there were huge losses everywhere. the banks lost, individuals lost, the government's loss. that is what happens when you have a huge bubble and like a house in double the burst. people poured hundreds of billions of dollars into it and then it collapsed. the losses were spread far and wide. we are still dealing with that right now. people tried to blame this solely on republicans or democrats, deregulation, fannie and freddie.

it is not as satisfying an answer, but the reality is it is all true. a lot of people in both parties have a lot to answer for on the housing bobble and where we are with the financial sector now. host: let me go back to your recent article in "new york times." let me read you what the issue. "fannie and freddie claim to understand the risks inherent in investing in subprime securities and continued to invest heavily in those even after being told they did not have the risk- management capabilities to do so." it goes on to say they are trying to hold other market participants responsible for their losses. guest: that is their argument and what you will hear from

other big banks. in their disclosures, they did say there were risks associated with the holdings. they did know that there were risks. the other part of the story is that as sophisticated investors, are they held to a different standard when they are heavily involved in the markets? internal regulators warned fannie and freddie that they were buying more than they could afford to apply their risk management standards to. that is what banks will argue. fannie mae and freddie mac will say it is not a matter of sophistication. it is a matter of whether the securities conformed to what they were sold as. my guess is you will see a settlement. like a lot of things in life, the truth is somewhere in between. i think we will see some kind of settlement between the banks and

the government for billions of dollars. caller: frank waynes walked away with $100 million and in the market collapsed. nothing happened to him. he is involved in politics. he is an obama supporter. that is the guy who should be investigated. explain that case. thank you. guest: i think frank raines left in 2004. there was tremendous growth of fannie under franklins. -- under frank raines, but discontinued until 2008 when they collapsed. what went on and what we're

dealing with the fallout from transpired under both clinton and bush. a viewer says we should be pursuing corrupt ratings agencies. guest: an absolutely valid point. these securities that later proved so risky and dangerous were initially rated as aaa securities by the ratings agencies. they received fees for doing the ratings. by the time they downgraded the ratings in 2008 before the financial crisis, the horse was long gone from the barn. he makes an excellent point. host: our next call is from lincoln, neb., on the republican line.

caller: i would like to thank c- span for this excellent program. high and for the government selling these banks. it is outrageous. -- i m for the government's doing these banks. when is the government going to sue the credit card companies for charging outrageous rates? sometimes it goes to 29%. the government should protect u.s. citizens from this greedy racket. it is outrageous. on a cd, you are lucky to get a 1% concern. the banks and credit cards charge 23%. young people will be filed very

soon. we're going to be in a mess. -- and people will default very soon. we're going to be in a mess. guest: banks charge what they charge. we have a free market with a private sector. there are regulations to protect consumers. if banks are charging 30% on credit cards, people are not obligated to put money on those. we need to look at everyone's responsibility. banks have to be regulated. you have to monitor them for going too far or doing things against regulations or fair lending practices. on the other hand, people will borrow money they cannot afford to pay back bear some responsibility. i would say that about credit cards.

if banks are charging too much, people should pay what they can afford. host: one idea being discussed in the obama white house is a way to give homeowners who owe more than the home is worth some sort of a tax break or forgiveness on the loan. that idea was rejected. in lieu of that, what are the other options for these homeowners who are deep in the red when it comes to their mortgages? guest: it is a very difficult problem. all 50 state attorney general's are suing the banks in separate actions about mortgage servicing. they are trying to recover $30 billion from the big banks. the money would be used to modify mortgages so people could restructure and pay less each

month. they could sort of earn their way out of their predicament. it is controversial. people who are current on their mortgages ask why these people should get a break. they are under water because the house is worth less than what they owe -- let me get this right. they owe a lot more than the house is worth. why should some people get a break and others not? it is a really difficult decision where neighbors are pitted against neighbors. i think some kind of modification program will be rolled out in some form. they are just trying to figure out a framework for that. they are close but not quite there. host: we're talking with nelson schwartz from the "new york

times." caller: not everybody made out in this disaster or lost out in this disaster. the executives, brokers, and everyone else involved in the transactions made outrageous profits. they need to be gone after. all of that money needs to be recouped from all that. that is where the money leaked out into the system. one thing they did that was fraudulent was they took to -- -- derivatives and booked it as short-term quarterly profits. they took bonuses based upon the mis-booking of the accounting. they need to be gone after. all of that money needs to be put down as liabilities and not profits. one thing they could do for homeowners is treat the ride off

when they go bankrupt or default not as income that they get taxed on but as a loss so that they would get the same treatment that corporations get -- treat the write-off as a loss so they would get the same treatment the corporations get. guest: when you talk to the banks with that argument about hundreds of billions of dollars being lost in a burst of the housing bubble with banks and executives making millions in profits, they will say yes, you could go after the banks for billions of dollars. the problem is whether that will inhibit lending going forward. you have these fhfa suits that

could cost the banks $20 billion. you also have the attorney suits and suits by private investors. policymakers will have to figure out how much they want to recover from the banks in going after them and how much they want to risk lending going forward. that will be a big question for the government going forward. host: if you are interested in this and related topics, there is a column called "banks on the brink. " we talked about demonstrations taking place yesterday in lower manhattan. one viewer asked if the mainstream media will pay

attention if people are still protesting on monday. guest: if there are demonstrations on wall street on monday and they are big enough, of course the media will pay attention. there is a tremendous amount of anger that is striking. whenever i do a story about this issue or bankamerica -- bank of america, the e-mails, phone calls, and the fury is remarkable. i do not think the politicians of either party have fully addressed it or tap into it. there is a tremendous amount of ger out there.o caller: i made my living in the money markets. i want to get back to the

origination of the mortgage. i want to know the effect of the mortgage brokers. were a lot of these mortgage is done by brokers for to somewhere along the line, they list the three c's of mortgage credit. i cannot imagine people getting mortgages were they never verified their employment or background. i went to work for a company straight out of the university of the illinois in 1948. the first thing they did when i went to work for standard oil was to run a credit check on me. something is haywire. host: thank you. this is something you have been writing about as well, how individuals without credit checks or employment verification were able to get these loans. guest: i would mention my colleagues and some of the

reporting they have done on this issue. gretchen has a book. roger has a book out called "the end of wall street." it is clear that country's -- companies like countrywide incentivized employees to make as many mortgages as possible. they were actually discouraged from doing the kind of checks that the caller mentioned. they went haywire in the 2000's and we are paying the price now. caller: i am one of those mortgages. countrywide owned my mortgage. i was sold to banc of america. my husband had a business. i had better credit than my husband so they decided to put the home in my name. i never even had a job, so i am

one of those mortgages that you are talking about. guest: what happened in your case? were you able to keep up with it? host: she is off of the air. what is the outcome? guest: in a lot of cases, you had huge numbers of delinquencies and foreclosures. i do not know what happened with the caller, but what is clear is that bank of america bought countrywide. they were a big player in these subprime mortgages. there were a lot of irregularities in the way countrywide operated. bank of america bought those mortgages and has been trying to work through it. bofa was overwhelmed by the number of bad mortgages that countrywide made.

their systems have been slow. i think they are beginning to catch up. it has been three years since they bought countrywide and is still a money pit for the company. host: our next caller is from oregon. caller: you hear a lot of desperation in people's voices. i was raised by parents that went through the great depression. my grandfather lost every nickel and a bank -- in a bank that belonged to a relative who ran to canada with all the money. i had some really good teachers. they told me not to ever get a credit card. i just turned 53 and have never had one. cash is king. i paid cash for everything except my loan for this house. i bought that on a veterans'

loan. i paid it down. my house payment is just over $300 a month. i feel sorry for people that listen to the bankers and mortgage brokers. would this be a direct ramification of the senator from texas and the regulation? one commercial -- that is my question. host: foreclosures are up 33% this month. are we really in a depression? guest: your reaction and,? -- host: your reaction and comment? guest: we have a housing crisis. if we had a public furor that became a big news story where the robo signing came to light

-- it faded somewhat, but it is a huge problem out there. banks -- states halted foreclosures last year because of these problems. the foreclosure machine has begun to rev up again. it is a huge problem. whenever i do a story on these topics, there is a tremendous public outpouring. we have a crisis in the country. host: let me ask about the mechanics of what is put forward by the government. is this agency taking the lead? guest: this agency is taking the lead. they are suing on behalf of fannie and freddie that they oversee. they were quasi- independent.

in 2008, they were taken into conservatorship, kind of like bankruptcy, by the federal housing finance agency. they are suing on behalf of fannie and freddie. host: nelson schwartz, his byline can be seen in the "new york times. " thank you for explaining. we appreciate your time. this friday, we continued our "contenders" series. we travelled to nebraska. we will cover 14 candidates who lost the election changed american politics. you can log on line to get more aninformation as we focus on these individuals who helped to change american politics.

coming up, some of the latest recordings from jackie kennedy are released. these to place in 1964. in one conversation, she lays a phone call she had when she was at the kennedy compound. she takes a call from her husband during the height of the cuban missile crisis from 1961. >> there was something funny in his voice. he never asked me -- he knew those weekends away from the white house were so good for me. he encouraged me to do it. it was so unlike him knowing we had just gotten down there with two brother whiny children who would have to be awakened from maps to get back. there was something wrong in his voice so i did not ask why.

he said to just come back to washington. we woke them up and got back there. then i guess he told me. i just knew whenever he asked. when you are married to someone and they ask something, that is the point of being married. u.s.s. their voices and do not ask why. -- you assess their voices and do not ask why. that is when we came back. from then on, it seemed there was no waking or sleeping. i do not know which day was which. but i know that jack told me right away. some people except -- accepted

that their wives were going away. someone else suggested there wife go to help sound or somewhere. i do not know if she did or not. i remember saying that i knew if anything happened, we would all be evacuated to camp david or something. i do not know if he said anything about that to me, but i said, please do not send me a way to camp david. please do not send me anywhere. if anything happens, we're all going to stay right here with you. i said even if there is not room in the bomb shelter in the white house, please. then i just want to be on ilan -- the lawn. i want to be with you. i want to die with you then be without you. he said he would not send me away. he did not really want to send me away either.

host: we're joined from los angeles by carl anthony who has been listening and writing about these recordings. thank you for being with us. let me begin by asking you about that conversation with regards to the cuban missile crisis in october of 1962. what did you take away from the relationship between jackie kennedy and her husband, and maybe some of the motions that came through in the recording? guest: first and foremost, it was a relationship that involved. -- it was a relationship that evolved. there is an important distinction in the dynamics of their relationship and the role that she grew into.

unlike eleanor and franklin roosevelt, ronald and nancy reagan, the clintons, or the obamas who married at a relatively equal age and before the men began their political careers, jackie kennedy married a man who had been elected to the house and as a senator. she was brought into what was already a pre-existing world and orbit with his so-called irish mafia, congressional and senate colleagues, friends in the national press corps, a lot of friends in europe in the post- war era. it was a very different dynamic for her.

it was during the crisis of what 2.e called cuba 1 and it was through those with a certain kind of persistent eagerness, she proved to her husband her intelligence and capability for understanding and analyzing what he would share with her in a sense of unburdening to her as he did during the cuban missile crisis for emotional comfort. she drew from got a lot of her own analysis. something i found fascinating in reviewing what she said about the bay of pigs, she said she

thought it was a big mistake because you never invade a country without proper air cover. she said it sort of as a point that she felt strongly about. on another occasion, she offered a somewhat startling opinion that she really disagreed with her husband's appointment of dean rusk as his secretary of state. she had preferred the choice of senator william fulbright for that position. host: president kennedy was assassinated in november of 1963. she sat down with family friend and historian arthur schlesinger.

the recordings are now being released by caroline kennedy and the family. explain how these conversations were set up and why she agreed to do them. guest: it is interesting because two things were going on at the time. she had a great friendship with arthur. i knew him and interviewed him for some of my books including the one on first ladies. jackie kennedy put the pen on the one about her as first lady. i talked to him about political sensibilities and political intelligence that she had. he had an excellent grasp on what was the sort of subversive

modus operandi she had to escape being lobbied and pestered on a lot of things. he wrote her a letter in 1964 in which he said he had godecided he was going to write an official history of the administration. the usual process that takes place in planning a presidential museum is extensive with a lot of preparation. usually, the former president heads of the effort on funding, planning, meeting with the architect, the site location, the mission. it fell on mrs. kennedy's shoulders to do this. she turned to a lot of people who were experts. one of them was a trusted friend arthur schlesinger.

there was the famous white house historic guide that provided visitors to the white house with a book that they could purchase and take away that would give them the history of the house. she and its lessons her work together on a biography of president. -- and offers less center worked together on a biography of the president -- arthur work together on a biography of the president. it was really at his suggestion, but what one will also find, i will tell you, steve, for anyone

who has read the history of the kennedy administration, they will recognize a lot of the anecdotes and stories that are being thought of as new has in fact not new at all. one will find many of them direct quotes and arthur book that won the pulitzer prize. what i will say is interesting about all this is that, first there was an idea that it was all going to be about jackie talking about herself. no, she was talking about the president. that was the purpose of these. but knowing that a lot of these things are none, not the nuances, but some of the fact jewels and that funds stores, the moments behind-the-scenes, are in this schlesinger book, but in fact, there is more of

jackie in all of this. there is much more about her point of view, much more -- she does not say that i did this or i thought that. but she reveals herself in drawing out her observations and the way that she recollects stories about her late husband. host: one of the stories that has gotten all lot of attention is about reverend martin luther king. this is from early 1964. you're -- you have listened to the entire portion. listless into a minute and a half and get your perspective. >> what did you think of the negro leaders, like martin luther king? >> well, i know what people thought of him later.

when he was doing that freedom march, he acknowledged having made that call during the campaign. he fbi had martin luther king at the freedom march, how they was calling and arranging for a party of men and women to have an in the hotel. >> dr. king? >> oh, yes. that was so terrible. that man is so -- this is when it was just one or they have a conversation. you never judge anyone in any sort of way. they never really said anything against martin with a cane.

but the sense than bobby has told me about the tapes that they have orgies, and martin luther king making fun at jack's funeral. host: your reaction? guest: just after that is where she was widely quoted as jackie having said, i cannot bear to look at a picture of him. what is interesting, if you listened to it carefully, you hear her pause and say right before that, well, bobbie said, and then the inflation of her voice goes up as if to indicate that she is in fact quoting robert kennedy, and is not expressing the thought that she cannot bear to look at a picture of him, because of these fbi

recordings made of him. so people can make that judgment for themselves. i think it is also interesting at the very beginning of that, she really hesitates. she stammers a bid. there is a really long pause before she very carefully decides to say, carefully, what is her husband said and then gives her reaction to what she heard, and again her husband's reaction. you're taking a few words out and you're putting them in print and you lose the implication of her voice inflections. that is where i feel that you really get a better sense of her and her intelligence and a real curiosity about the political, mostly foreign affairs more than domestic, in listening

rather than reading to the transcriptions. another example in which on paper, she says something about kennedy sometimes turning to chinese proverbs for various quotes. this is after the cuban missile crisis in which he says failure is an orphan but success has many fathers. she says, in print, maybe we should check the quote for a chairman mao. this is a kennedy consulting that comment as credo? but when you hear the tape, she laughs. she is making a sarcastic remark. there is a really important -- it is important for people to listen for themselves.

host: my guest is carl anthony and he has interviewed every modern first lady and is the author of a dozen books. he is a member of the board of the national first lady's library. joining us from california to talk about all latest tapes released by the kennedy family. when the president traveled to france, and he was the man to a company jackie kennedy to paris. and that background, jackie talking about president to call. -- de gualle. >> he was rather -- he leaned across the table at jack, and he said that mrs. kennedy and knows

more and the most. that would be like me is sitting with lauren bacall talking about henry clay. again, not talking about the obvious, but he has a very courtly, rather nice way with women. host: carl anthony? guest: again, if you take one or two exurbs out, you will find that she seems to contradict yourself throughout the 7.5 hours. she makes something flattering about the french president. in fact, at one point on the tape, she says, you know, you begin to realize that no person

is all black or all white. suggesting that people are a mixture of attributes and deficiencies. and that is what is really -- in no, these tapes, if you are looking for things on clothes or mistresses or jewelry, you will not find it. when you were going to find here is somebody who lived in the white house, i would say, perhaps maybe on the level of someone like thomas jefferson, who is interested in some many different worlds. and really with a pursuit of it into a great depth. even in her humor, it is reflected when she talks about meeting their recently freed cuban exiles who had been part of the secret of american and that failed efforts to invade cuba, the bay of pigs.

and she talks about how haggard -- they had just come out of prison. here you are in use cds man with these el -- and you see these faces.ith the el greco she is making a pop culture reference to an 1940's dance band, and then referring to a classic spanish portraiture of el greco. this botflies out of her very easily. she worked hard and constantly and float -- improved ermine and she really absorb information. she had a thirst for knowledge. host: from carl anthony online, he rides on his website.

caller: i have a question. a fellow person who works on the jack kennedy assassination got me on this. the connection with birth pain, and george bush, and howard hughes actually knowing jackies family. the second question, the comet would be anything you might know about jackie and bobby kennedy's supposed meetings where they discussed peripheral involvement by lbj. in the assassination of jfk and the mafia connection in of some sort. and third, why she refused or did she refused to testify at the house select committee of assassination hearings? guest: that whole field of

study and is so specialized, some of those names, i vaguely m familiar with, but it is an area i am not an expert on. all along those lines, i will say this. at the time that jacqueline kennedy was working with arthur schlesinger, and providing her take memoirs -- taped memoirs to help him and what would be an official record from his point of view, and very much her point of view, she was doing the same thing with the history, their records of the assassination. working with william manchester. there are other tapes which deal specifically and directly

with her view of the assassination, reflecting also on her marriage, that are at the kennedy library and under a similar order of being sealed for many years. i cannot remember exactly the amount of time. that is a specialized world and there are so many people who are experts on various parts of the question of the assassination. of course, she did testify to the warren commission. but also from her point of view, everything i have been able to learn in the course of my research on biographies of her, she felt that a lot of the speculation about who might have killed her husband, from the admittedly a selfish point of view, but as a widow and as the

mother of his now fatherless children, she thought it was a moot point. the same result is that he is gone. host: following up on a question about lyndon johnson, because she talked about lbj in political terms in 1964 and 1968. >> to the effect that there was some consideration of dropping johnson? >> out in 1964. -- not in 1964. that would come later. and i know jack said it to me some time. he said, oh, god, can you imagine what would happen today country it johnson was president. -- what would happen to the country if johnson was president? in 1968, i know he was thinking

what to do? he would be too old to run for president, i thought. it was so worried for the country. bobby had some discussions with them at the beginning. who they had in mind. somebody. someone else in 1968. host: from the spring in 1964, carl anthony, she understood politics. guest: very much of. she had a list of fiber six things that jack wanted to continue, some policies he would initiate that had not been initiated by president johnson.

and she is a really fascinating aspect -- a fascinating aspect of jacqueline kennedy, something i have been able to trace in my research on her, a very early sense of foreboding about u.s. involvement in southeast asia, before she even met and married john f. kennedy, who was then the united states senator. she is expressing on these tapes and great concern about the nom. -- about vietnam. and this is several years before the vietnam war became widely opposed by both democrats and republicans, and eventually a near majority of the american people, but it really became the critical issue, domestic and

foreign, which created a number of other problems, grade and permanent problems in many ways. this is 1964. people were not vehemently opposed to the vietnam war that early. so she really did -- from having studied that particular issue, and really being something of more than just an armchair expert, but relief following and tracking the policy -- in fact, one of the things that she talked about, that knocks you off your chair when she says this on the tape, which is at one point, she is like, jack does not want to bother her when he has had a whole dale of dealing with these things and then comes home. and then she said something about vietnam, and that could talk -- the end of the regime

which led into the controversial assassination, and she said and drop as a bombshell that he was reading a top-secret cia weekly report. so she was very much in the loop. host: jason from orlando, florida as we talk about the recordings recently released and the new book with a foreword by caroline kennedy. caller: i think that jackie o. should be outraged about having this information, and there is a lot of myths associated with martin luther king, like they had correspondence with can -- communist countries and he was supposed to be the american castro. martin luther king was a good person, but the media treats him

like he was a new cheeses. host: another topic for another day. let me go back to sasha and her e-mail. guest: caroline kennedy explained said well in the introduction. i did not think that she did it lightly. she understood her mother, and she knows she has had to assume on our own -- and you find this with a lot of the presidential families, children and our grandchildren, or the budgets of these presidential libraries is drying up, and yet it is history from everyone, not just presidents but the time in which they lived. people make an informed decision

about the disposition of the public access, the material there. i think she introduces -- explicit better than i can. she realizes that this material she was relevant, no one left who could be heard by anything on the tape. all the principles upon provide think that was a concern. it is the 50th anniversary of the kennedy administration, and using that to bring new scholarship and focused, certainly these tapes are going to be helpful in providing this to people who may be doing any research and new projects on the kennedy administration. host: i know there are different pronunciations for arthur schlesinger's name, but she talks about being a political

wife, being john kennedy's wife. here is what she said. >> i was so happy to do stuff that can make a proud of me. and it to you one more thing about him. i was never any different once i was in the white house that i was before, but the press may be different. suddenly everything that had been a liability before, you hair, that you spoke french, that you and your the campaign, and you did not baked bread -- jack never made me feel that i was a liability to him. but i was. and we got an ally house, all those things i had always done, it became wonderful. everything the first lady does is different. i was so happy for a check, with

only three years together, that he could be proud of me there. it made me so happy. host: carl anthony, what you take away from that portion of the conversation? guest: she very much wanted to feel that she was playing an important and not merely decorative role in the administration. that she was doing something that was not a distraction or detriment to the administration. and it is quite interesting because eventually what happened -- not eventually, quite early on -- following her trip with him to europe, to paris, the on on to vienna, and then to london, and then she went with her sister on to a separate trip to greece, the first time she had gone there. she went as a test of the prime

minister and she made a second trip there that many people know about. that was on the yacht of analysis after she had lost -- of onassis after she lost her child patrick. people know a lot about that trip, thinking it was a luxury yacht at thing. but they went to turkey and morocco. they explored a lot of sites there. she visited the blue mosque. someone with a real global interest, but in making those trips, he and more famously to india and pakistan, and also south america, the venezuela, colombia, she also went to mexico and puerto rico, and she also went to italy, she brought tremendous attention to the

united states, because she was this popular symbol. it was something of a phenomenon. i have a couple of stores on the website which showed that funny iconography from the early 1960's, the germans made her head bottle shopper. the dutch made her a silver spoon, shoe is on the tip of a spoon. she was then "the flintstones" as a character bridge who was featured in comic books. she became a pop culture phenomenon. she was horrified by a lot of it, bill wellbore, but it drew a lot of popular appeal to the kennedy administration, even though she did not agree with it whenever% politically with that. host: role did she have in

shaping his opinion? guest: an excellent question because it is difficult to pin it down. i was actually thinking about it all lot of the last two days. when you look to the facts that de gaulle did change his attitude toward the united states, but at the end, he did some things involving communist china and and the recognition and so forth that were not in the american interest. you might say that it is an even break there. but he did change his attitude toward the united states. and jackie very carefully helped to cultivate that. she also helped to foment of

little bit friendlier relationship with khrushchev, and even through the nuclear standoff of the cuban missile crisis, her popularity was not so great that it could prevent that, and this is the something touched on by the book in the tapes, but she wrote an extraordinary letter on the last night in all white house. she read i handwritten letter to nikita khrushchev, the premier of the soviet union, about nuclear war. amazing for side. she said, i think we know now that you are a world power, and the leaders of the superpower no there is no such thing as harming one without harming themselves. that is the small rogue nations, men without side egos, who really pose the danger.

you, mr. chairman, have to continue on in the effort with whoever is leading the united states, and both of you, despite the differences of philosophies of government, you have to both s lease continue to fight this nuclear threat. host: one of the iconic photographs from the book with john and caroline kennedy, with a proud father looking on. time for one more call. this could stand in michigan. in michigan.o stan caller: i was 22 years old when dr. king was speaking, and many people did not realize that martin luther king was not popular among the general public. i heard dr. king speak and he

started a thing saying that i am a believer, i am a believer in god. that was the essence of his speech, that he felt that god was on the side of the -- the -- his efforts that he was leading. and he was felt he knew what the end result would be. guest: there is an important clarification that needs to be made. it is actually on these tapes as well. jackie kennedy says without any actual direct reference to dr. king, she has a few choice words, let's leave it that way, for some of the segregationist's who stood in te way of the supreme court order desegregating, for example, the

public schools and universities in the south. no, -- you know, she speaks with a lot of conviction there. and it is a little snippet. i would also say this, whatever -- whether people of martin luther king are do not love one another king, he is a central and important and more than legitimate figure who represents the truth and integrity of the fight for civil rights. you know, benjamin franklin, so often a great example of a guy, maybe benjamin franklin did not have some ideal puritanical light, but he embodied principles on a much larger scale and symbolize