[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> just one of the mofmentse in last night's abc news debaits from des moines. three weeks before the iowa caucus, another debate set for next week on the fox news channel. we're going to begin with a question about these republican debates.

there have been 12 so far. have they made a difference in the republican primaries? the headline from the des moines register, going rich and romney take most of the debate jabs. despite withering criticism of going rich one of the many

issues we'll be talking about on this sunday morning. have these debaits made a difference? are you watching them? later this week the other networks including cnn carrying many of these debates. in case you missed last night's we will rebroadcast it tonight. it can be seen at 9:30 and 12:30 eastern time here on c-span and c-span radio. you can also send us a tweet or send us an e-mail. karen from chicago first up this morning on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: have these debates made a difference? caller: no, they haven't. and i'm a democrat. no matter what these

republicans say or do or how smart they pretend to be it doesn't make a difference because of them standing on the stage are out for only one thing, it's just for the 1%. not for the working people or poor people. and if anybody is trying to make up your mind, if you're working or you're poor, you're in a world of trouble. have a good day. host: next on our line, victor joining us from new york city. good morning. caller: good morning. they made a difference in the sense that to me -- i used to be a drarkt. i'm independent now. it made a difference to me because it shows just what the republican party is. war montgomeriers. war montgomeriers. that's all they talk about. i wish they would give more

time to ron paul. he's the only one who makes sense. if you hear going rich, it's war. if you hear the other gentleman, it's war. we want to go to war with the whole world. we're sick of it. host: thanks for the call. grand rapids, michigan. the question, have these republican debates made a difference? caller: good morning. i've been following the candidates for a long time. and my mind has been made up but i do prefer going rich and i also liked sara palin. and i'm just concerned with a candidate that can stand for something rather than nothing at you will. i appreciate you taking my call and i would like to say thanks for being the eyes and the ears and the voice of the world. host: thanks for the call. fred barnes in this weekly's standard.

the view of fred barnes on this sunday morning. the question, whether or not these debates have mattered. the headlines including from the atlanta journal

constitution, the hometown newspaper from knut gingrich. he fires back. one of the exchanges was with congressman ron paul who took aim at knut gingrich's role with fannie mae and freddie mac. here's more from last night's debate. >> he seaved a lot of money from freddie mac. now, freddie mac is essentially a government organization. while he was earning a lot of money from freddie mac, i was fighting over a decade to try to explain to people where the housing bubble was coming from. so freddie mac gets bailed out by the taxpayers. so in a way, i think you probably have got some of our taxpayers' money. they're still getting bailed out but you're a spokesman for them and you receive money from them. so i think this is something that the people ought to know about. >> host: one of the exchanges in the comments put forth by ron

paul. by the way, ron paul is feetrd this morning in dan's sunday take. in a year of flameouts, nonstarters and unfilled potential one republican presidential candidate is clearly exceeding expectations. republican convention will be taking place in tampa in late august and we'll be covering those just prior to the g.o.p. convention. the democrat convention getting

under way in charlotte. one headline, the question have these debates made a differs? 12 so far, the 13th taking place on thursday. james is joining us, stroin, democrat's line. good morning. caller: good morning. well, the question was are the debates making any difference. i would think that they are if you are interested in a part of ringling brothers circus. my concern is that the republican candidates have no conviction to this country. other people love it to be truthful. they want to take the country backwards. i guess maybe they'll get someone from the penitentiary to be a candidate because the

credibility of those that they have is very low. host: grady joining us, republican line, miami, florida. these republican debates. the latest last night. you can watch it again tonight on c-span. what's your take on this? caller: i think the debate is really more so -- they don't seem to be real serious. mitt romney offering the bet. i think we have to get down to the seriousness of the candidates. and despite his past werks know his baggage. host: who is your favorite in this race so far as a republican? caller: right now i flip flop because of the -- all those -- rick perry seemed he was strong

then can't debate. i think ron paul is the best chance in my estimation. host: thanks for the call. a lengthy profile of mitt romney called the problem sover. one or two sentences we want to share. this morning from the "washington post." the problem sover is the

headline. we're going to stay on our line for republicans. joe is joining us from connecticut. what's your take on last night's debate? we'll try one more time for joe. we'll go to raymond. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm kind of become a fan of ron paul's. i think he's been consistent over the years in his views. he doesn't change to suit the audience. john huntsman, when i've seen him he's a thoughtful individual. not made for tv product. i don't know how they go about calling these things debates. i was a debater in high school and college. this resembles the old cross-fire show. i don't know what national agenda we're talking about knut gingrich's affairs doesn't seem to be a national issue to me. so i think these things are a

circus. so i would say huntsman and paul and this guy anderson, i think those are the best three republicans going. host: joe is next from connecticut, republican line. thanks for waiting. caller: i'm joe from connecticut. and my comment is i don't think the debates really have anything to do with proper candidates. i don't think that they have as much intelligence and knowledge for foreign affairs. and we don't need insiders right now. so my pick on a candidate actually would be definitely not obama on the democrat side but probably ron paul. host: ok. thanks for the call.

knut gingrich making some comments last week with a jewish cable channel that sparked some debate last night, his comments on the palestinian people and whether or not they are legitimate in the homeland of palestine. here's more from last night's debate. >> i didn't speak for the people of israel. i spoke as a historian who has looked at the world stage for a long time. i feel quite confident that an amazing number of israelis appreciated the truth. >> from last night's debate. robert joining us. democrat's line. have these debates made a difference in your mind? are kimplingt no. because -- thank you for taking my call. please give me about three minutes because i have a lot to say concerning about the same old same old.

the same old same old means to me and it should mean the same to everybody in the world, you go out and make wars, try and take the resources, you put military all over the world which is what happens and you take everybody's possessions and whatever they do and then you talk about freedom and no redistribution. that's exactly what they do. but they do it in a grand scale and they do it with a big smile now. people should be very, very worried about two things. ok? lays afair economics and no regulation. because when you don't have any regulation, look at what mr. bush caused. ok? now, the question should be asked when they ask obama about the economy, they should ask him, ask mr. w. bush. ok? because that's what kind of a

life he left for everybody. and you don't just climb out of this. the last time they caused a graped, it took a big war that killed about 38 million people and it took like about 10 years to get out of it. and then we were all called the doe boys. host: i'm going to stop you there. thanks for your call. we're going to the republican line next. caller: good morning. i was amazed at how ron paul reminds me of ross perot. the program yesterday showed how perot said there was going to be $40 trillion in debt or something like that and a number of years. but ron paul just amazes me and i darn sure plan on voting for him in the primary for sure. host: why do you think everyone

says he can't win the nomination? caller: they said that about ross perot and about anderson. i've been voting for these third party candidates for the last number of years. trying to straighten the republican party back to eisenhower's thing. and ron, reagan, the worst thing he did was got rid of that equal time law where you guys on your program you used to have two people there talking back and forth. and then you could decide who was lying and who was telling the truth. so i think ron paul might surprise the people in iowa pretty smart. mabe -- maybe they'll make the news media ron saying ron paul can't win. host: thanks for the call you mentioned ross perot. he is the 14th and final contender that c-span profiled in case you missed the program

on friday join us again at 10:30 this morning. doug brinkley among those weighing in on the 1992 and 1996 race and the impact he had on among other issues the debt and the deficit the issues the forefront of hi candidacy at 10:30 eastern time. send us a tweet, tom this morning writing about the next, first, and only 100 days. he writes in the "new york times."

bruce, democrat's line. florida, good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. and i'm responding to the earlier question about has the republican debate been any help. and in a way i think it has

because it shows how skitso the republicans are. a couple weeks ago with herman cain, he got booted out because he was cheating on his wife. and now the number one guy is knut gingrich who knows who all he has cheated on. it shows how messed up the republicans are. that would be my statement. host: that shoe came up in last night's debate. we'll show you one of the stages. first we'll go to eandra. republican line. caller: hello. i feel that the debates have been very instrumental in separating the wheat from the chafe. i initially wanted to support herman cain and rick perry but mitt romney has debated his way into my affections. i thought he did a fantastic job last night and i appreciated that debate where they weren't as time clocked bound. it let people get their say in and that's what helps the

people to decide. host: thanks for the call. this e-mail. midway through the debate, the question of marital infidelity, clearly aimed at the former house speaker, here's just part of the exchange with former senator rick santorum and the former house speaker. >> i think character issues do count and i think all of your record, personal as well as political record, is there for the public to look at.

i would not say it is a disqual fire. i wouldn't go that far. i think people make mistakes and you are held accountable to those mistakes and the public will listen and make their decision. but certainly it's a factor and it should be a factor. >> people have to render judgment. in my case, i've said i've made mistakes at times and i've had to go to god for forgiveness. i'm also a 68-year-old grandfather and people have to measure who i am now and whether i'm a person they can trust. i am delighted at the way people have been willing to look at who i am, what my record has been and the amount of support we're getting from the american people. host: from last night's debate and the sponsors, the des moines register, abc news, woitv and you can watch again tonight on c-span. our thanks to abc news. ray joining us from texas.

good morning. caller: yes, sir. thank you for taking my phone call. i haven't heard any of these candidates say something that is so interesting yet all i've heard is the same thing over and over and over for the past two or three months. these candidates have not figured out how to fix the economy and wall street, the wall street march have asked what the people are really wanting out of these people, these candidates, is to regulate the wall street, what comes into this country that closes down all these factories and they still don't get it. that as long as you don't fix that, we will never come out of the hole. host: thank you.

some other headlines beginning with the boston sunday globe. more on the occupy boston protest and the headline for occupy saga, an orderly close as the protest highlighted the global cause but will it linger.

next is ray joining us from ottawa canada. as you look at this from north of the border, what's your take? caller: i think that the video you played about the marital infidelity is very relevant because i feel that entire round showed moderators' true bias against mr. going rich. and look at c-span as the example of a network which has the ability to stay unbiased and i have to ask have you personally -- host: we apologize for that. this program works when you can weigh in with thoughtful comments. we apologize for that comment and hope you don't call again. next, we'll go to melissa who has this e-mail. next is paula from north

carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i think that the debates did have a bearing. earlier in the day my husband and i watched mit and it interested us so i wanted to watch the debate. i am a democrat and i voted for obama and i do like obama but he's not able to get things done. so the door is open. however, i'm trying to figure out how the conservative values is so backing going rich who has had several marriages. and that goes against what they're standing on. so not saying throw stones at him. but the reality is that he didn't stand. and so at the end of the day i'm really looking toward finding more information out about ron paul. i think mit messed up when he did the $10,000 bet. it just made it so easy with his money to just throw that out there and that kind of

screwed him, i believe. host: thanks for the call. politico writes about that. if mitt romney had said $10 or $1 million the line might have flown right by. the focus was on the sum and the avenue gave both romney republican rivals and drarkts into one of his main vulnerabilities he grew up rich and got richer. you can read more. david is joining us from louisiana independent line.

good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i wanted to directly respond to your invitation to comment on the significance of the debates and absolutely my response. there's been no better way that i can imagine to learn about these candidates and the debates i've watched virtually all of them. in fact, i've changed my opinion about people based on the debates. in fact, last night i have to put michelle bachmann back on my list. i think she has clearly articulated the economic problems and i just think that we as a society need to pay more attention to the what's going on in europe and how easy it would be for us to fall into that same trap and i would like

to invite callers to explain to me what they don't like about backman. i've gone full circle. i deaf nill never wanted romney. i didn't see him as a distinction between obama. actually, i voted for obama. and i'm disappointed and i fall in line with what donald trump's been saying about how george bush brought us obama. and that's -- i didn't like palin. and that's why as a republican or actually a rhino, as i told your producer that i was, palin scared me and so i voted for obama. and i was disappointed in obama. i don't care for romney. but i just want people to tell me why, when michelle bachmann has so clearly articulated the economics dilemma, that we need

to resolve, that more people aren't falling in line with her. host: thanks for the call. next is brady joining us from texas, republican line. good morning. what's your take on these republican debates? have they made a difference? caller: yeah, they have but i've always been a hard core pro ron paul supporter. there's no one who tells it to you plain and simple the problem that's been going on. he predicted the housing bubble. and everyone that's talking about knut gingrich and jumping on this band wagon. how many times can a man spit in your face? he supported the tarp bailouts, accepted the money from freddie and -- freddie mac. host: we'll leave it there. next is ken joining us from virginia. good morning. caller: i have watched all the debates and they have made a difference. and last night i watched and it

was clear that the loudest applause was for ron paul. now, the media has not liked ron paul. they have to admit that he is been among the three front runners but the head of abc doesn't like him so the commentators never mentioned him once although the debaters spent two or three of the others confessed that they had gotten valuable ideas from ron paul. he knows the most about foreign affairs, about the effect of the dollar, the euro, and the history of that. and has written books about it. so he hasn't flip flopped like the others and he has clearly shown himself to be out in front. i think a lot of them are, even though they don't like him they're admitting that he is going to win the iowa caucus. the only question is can he -- he will come in at least second but can he win new hampshire

against romney? and i think he can. because of his accomplishment in the debates and what's come out against romney and going rich. who is -- you just checked on google and look ot knut gingrich the dark side and you'll get all the ammunition you need against going rish. . .

host: that is from last night's debate, rick santorum and michele bachmann. and i on the i/o calendar. republicans gathered, newt gingrich saying despite the attacks flying at him that he would remain positive throughout the campaign.

some of the color from last night's debate in the story from inside "the washington post." next from california of of the independent line. go ahead. caller: it has been hilarious listening to the callers. ron paul will not get the nomination. he will not win. i did learn quite a bit for me to the debates. i have watched them all. each one of them have something significant. what was interesting as watching each one of them, each questionnaire, each panelist, carrying the news from all of the syndicated talk shows, all

the news stations. they ask the questions that all week long their reported on. it is not like they created the questions that were being asked. they went along with whatever the panel of reporters wanted to ask them. it is really interesting listening to all of the ron paul supporters that cannot here and claim there are independents, democrats, and republicans. he will not get big nomination. i do not know who will, but it will not be him. they will be wasting your vote if they vote for ron paul, because it will not happen. thank you. host: republican line from salt lake city. have you been watching these debates? have they made a difference? are you with us? caller: yes, good morning.

i want to get straight to the point. when bush took office, we were $6 trillion in debt. eight years later, we are at $10 trillion. in three years, obama has added $5 trillion. the guy is out of control. george soros should be held for insider-trading. he invested in all of the stimulus money and he is the ninth richest man in the world now because of his insider- trading. eric holder, everybody around obama but is just bad. host: do you have a favorite in the republican race so far? caller: i like rick santorum and michele bachmann. sorry. they are real americans. host: republican line from arizona. good morning. caller: good morning.

host: go ahead. caller: it is a strain that -- it is a shame that when we so readily capitulate large institutions that the almighty dollar wins. more important, if newt gingrich wants to be transparent, why did he go after nancy pelosi? look, we need honest people. unfortunately, michele bachmann is too dumb to know the truth. newt gingrich does not want to be transparent. really, all of these people are bitching about america, but no one has a said, "let's be american." you should only campaign one year. all of this fighting in the united states makes us look like a bunch of over-spoiled

children, just like that kid from salt lake. when we quit teaching history and constitutional law in high school, we end up with people like this. they make the dumbest statements in my life for a person who knows better and who could be a good leader, but he happens to be a crook on top of it just like every other politician. prostitutes and politicians. we, the americans, get screwed no matter what. why can we not move together three years out of four? we start fighting. host: we read an excerpt from "the new york times" a moment ago. riding on -- writing on

politico, -- gingrich even fired off some shots of his own. you can read more on politico.com. there are 50 images. the seat was once held by senator now president barack obama. one of the key debates leading into the christmas holiday recess, if there is one, is extending payroll tax cuts. it will expire the end of this year. the president wants to drop to 3.1% from 4.2% but will increase to 6% congress fails to act. here is more from "newsmakers" and center mark -- senator mark

kirk. >> it would take a $260 billion whack at the social security trust fund. it would take until 2018 to recover the losses to social security. under the democratic bill with the the political millionaires' tax, it would take until 2021. three presidential terms from now just to make up a one-year deficit to the social security trust fund. social security is already running in red. 10,000 more qualify every day with retiring baby boomers. this would increase losses by 20 times. host: mark kirk, republican from illinois, is our guest on "newsmakers" @ o'clock a.m. eastern and 6:00 p.m.. on theson we're focusing

republican debate, there have been told so far and the 13th will be on thursday on the fox news channel. as fred barnes says -- that is from "the weekly standard." lebanon, maine. caller: thank you for taking my call. the debates are wonderful. it is great to see what kind of nitwits are out there and what the moral fiber is of the candidates.

in particular, i would like to bring up herman cain. right up until the last minute, he was asking for contributions yet he had to know that he would be exposed to somehow. it is almost like he was just in it for the money. sarah palin was begging for money on her bus tour, so it does give you an idea. it is a lot of fodder for gues like jon stewart and colbert. that is all i have to say. host: historic from afghanistan inside -- a story from afghanistan. troops could stay beyond 2014 a. the american ambassador sang yesterday that he raised the possibility that the u.s. combat troops could stay in the country beyond 2014, the deadline set by

the white house. his comments come as they are engaged in discussions with the afghan government on arrangements after 2014. at a conference in bonn, president karzai and others called for support for at least another decade. inside "the new york daily news," looked at iraq. eight years, eight months, and three weeks and the cost is more than $805 billion. 444 deaths, 32,000 wounded -- 4487 dead. the number deployed to iraq and afghanistan, just over 2.3 million.

back to your calls and a couple of more comments on these debates and whether or not you think they have made a difference. virginia from tampa, fla., on the independent line. caller: good morning. i really like the debates. the ones on the fox whose network are impossible to get if you do not have cable. i wish there were always on abc or the lower numbers where most of us americans can watch them. i do learn a lot about the candidates. i am starting to get more fond of ron paul, however i am puzzled why he did not bring up that newt gingrich received $2 million from freddie mac. it was not a mere $5,000 contribution but $2 million. i am shocked he did not bring that up. but i do like one of his former comments about being against these long wars that cost us trillions of dollars, the 11- year war with afghanistan and

iraq costing maybe a couple trillion. i do not understand why that is not being brought out. the are also not solving the jobs program. they seem to dodge that issue and philosophize. they are not really attacking the true issues. we never did pay for the two wars we have been in for 11 years with the tax cuts. bush put us in a depression and we are still in a severe recession here in florida. the housing market still seems to be falling in values. we are still in a serious recession in florida. maybe obama kept us from a depression, but it takes 10 years to get out of it. senator kirk from illinois? shocked that they're going to

take more money, and i agree. they should not be taking more money out of the trust fund for social security. i am really shocked about that. the plans on the democratic and republican side think they can still take more money out of the trust fund. of course social security will be in trouble if they are going to be taking more money. host: thank you for your call, va., and your comments. accu-weather headlines. a first in "the new york times -- a few more headlines. a german-americans clash over how best to manage this. chancellor angela merkel defied skeptics and laid out the groundwork for a deeper union. she said, "the mistakes of the euro's birth is now moving

toward a more stable past, in her words, but in the process will force german fiscal discipline for the deals that conflict in the region." an editorial on europe on the brink, it may be a day late and many euro short. rum is now burning. italy needs to borrow 157 billion euro and spain will lead 63.5 billion, france 177 billion. only the ecb can come up with that much money that fast. it could give the debt strapped countries of southern europe some breathing room by buying their bonds at a sustainable interest rate, but germany is dead set against that fearing that such measures would trigger inflation. we will be talking about the u.s. economy and the housing market coming up in just a few

minutes. our last call from the republican line, richard from minneapolis. your take on last night's debate and the 11 previous, whether or not you think they make a difference. caller: good morning. i would like to see donald trump in the debate or at least run as an independent because he would bring out some of the issues that are not being talked about such as we should believe in free trade and smart trade. columbia took $4 billion from us last year. china took $350 billion. abu dhabi is taking all the money from us in oil and building fabulous new airports. he has a new book out, "time to get tough," and i wish people would at least browse through it in the issue of free trade. it is not being talked about in

the debates. i think he may run as an independent and he will probably come in later years, beat on "the contendors." if he gets in, he will change the issues. host: thank you for mentioning "the contenders." all 14 programs and the final installment will air after " newsmakers" at 10:30 a.m. with a focus on ross perot. later, it looked at the situation in russia and its impact here in the u.s. and the political future of vladimir putin. a sunday morning round table taking a look at that. then a look at the iowa caucus, three weeks away. coming up next, looking at the economy and the housing market. the president is on "60 minutes" tonight and expect the

unemployment rate could drop to 8.0%. we are keeping an eye on the other sunday programs which can be heard on c-span radio. good morning, nancy. >> we will reader the five sunday morning talk shows beginning at noon eastern. topics today include presidential politics, the federal budget, and the postal service. at noon, "nbc's "meet the press." welcoming congressman ron paul, republican senator lynsey gramm of south carolina, a member of the budget committee, and senator dick durbin of illinois, and iowa gov. terry branstad. "this week," talking with republican presidential candidate jon huntsman. at 2:00 p.m., chris wallace talking with the gop

presidential candidate rick perry and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell. at 3:00 p.m., state of the union with former pennsylvania republican senator rick santorum and postmaster general patrick don ho. at 4:00 p.m., "face the nation. bob schieffer talks with gop presidential candidate michele bachmann and iowa republican representative stephen king. re-airs begin at noon eastern with "meet the press," at 1:00 "this week," 2:00 then 3:00, then thre4:00 listen on your iphone or blackberry. channel 119 on xm or online anywhere at c-spanradio.org.

>> throughout my military career, i prided myself on not being afraid to tell people what i thought. the worst thing you can do is to let a senior leader had down the wrong road. "you know, maybe we ought to take another look at it, or look from this perspective. we have an obligation and a duty to be good stewards of the resources that the public interests us with." sometimes, you have to be courageous when everyone's head is going up and down and you think you have a different perspective. >> for life and career as the highest-ranking female african- american. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> taking steps to ensure such tactics are not used again, it

is an unfortunate reality that we will continue to feel the effects of this blog operation for years to come. those lost will continue to show up at crime scenes on both sides of the border. >> it is time to re-write the clean water act, federal laws about water. they were great, important, but are out of date and they need to be rewritten. this body needs to do it. >> many transactions occurred in those last chaotic days, and i am not aware of all of them as it nor do i have the intermission to be able to look at them. >> with hundreds of hours of new public programming available every week, the video library is your video resource to find what you want when you want. in the depth, washington your way. host: welcome back to c-span.

lawrence yun chief economist and senior vp for the national association of realtors. looking at home sales and we want to also talk about home foreclosures. 40 percent on showing an increase in home sales including states like california, georgia, michigan, and utah. all but six states enjoying a double-digit gain from 2010. guest: the second half of this year was sharing a good turnaround. these increases have mentioned are against one year before. some of the very hard hit states, arizona, nevada, florida, have been making progress in terms 0 buyers coming into the market and inventory steadily declining. prices, i would say, have not yet stabilized.

stabilization, are moving sideways, but in these markets that have yet to show any notable upturn. the first is an increase in home sales and a decline in inventory. host: why is this changing? guest: the affordability index is the highest in 40 years, a great time for people to come in. historically low 4% mortgage rates, which is the average. there is a rising rental trend, so they're starting to feel some squeeze. financially qualified renters are looking at options and possibly buying a home. we have seen investors coming into the market. i would assume many people have bought gold on the assumption of an inflation hedge. given the price of gold as i

come people are looking at other alternatives to provide a hedge against inflation and real estate has been that choice. host: it to look at new homes and existing homes in states like nevada, which had seen a big boom of home construction in the late 1990's, so with all of these homes out there and foreclosure rates still relatively high, what impact does have? guest: regarded foreclosures, it is still very high, but it has peaked and has gone steadily down. nationwide, the serious delinquency situation is at about 8%. we have steadily gone down, but it is still far above the historical average of 2%-3%, so we still have room to go. the recently originated mortgages, people who bought

homes in vegas or miami in the last couple of years, they have an exceptionally low default rate for 116 see the overall default rates of the media, they are referring to the legacy of the burst years that still need to be worked out, but buyers are absorbing the inventory so inventory is bolling. in miami, inventory is less than six months which would be considered normal inventory conditions. host: from realtytrac, figures that ended this last fall. guest: it is a healing process. we're still far back from normal

in terms of home sales activities or normal price growth, but healing in terms of the inventory policy and the price decline seems to be over on a nationwide basis. some local markets still seeing a decline. foreclosures are beginning to trend down. everything is moving in the right direction, it is just that it takes time to fully heal. we anticipate that sales will be rising next year again due to the fact that rent is continuing to rise, accelerating in pace. there are great affordability conditions and investors are stepping in. host: they showcased the mortgage interest rates, 3.99%. down just slightly. historically, they have been at an all-time low for the past couple of years and many economists had predicted they would continue to go up, but

they have not. my question is why and how long you think it will continue. guest: a mortgage rate lower than 4% will be the lowest since the data collection was launched in the 1970's. this is a month in a lifetime opportunity. this has occurred partially due to the fact that the economy globally is showing a sluggish recovery, not a robust recovery, so there's not a robust demand for borrowing, whether it is companies, there is a large surplus of cash holdings by the banks and many companies because of a lessening need to borrow money. many global bond investors need that inflation even though it has been taking higher and it will be contained and therefore

they're comfortable lower rates. host: should the federal government be in the mortgage financing business? guest: america went from a working-class country to a middle-class country after the second world war and that was due to the prevalence of fha mortgages, veterans affairs mortgages with zero down payment which helped about 4 million americans to buy a home with zero down payment and they have become successful homeowners because they were able to stay well within their financial budget. this is what we need to assure, a role for the government, because the government process, even fannie and freddie, when they were a government corporation, they played a very quiet background role. the fannie and freddie problem burst open because it had the

perverse incentives of private profit while having a government backing for their following. right now, since fannie and freddie have been taken over by the government a couple of years ago, in essence they are now back to government corporations and they are making internal profits on recently originated mortgages. as long as they pursue the policy of a very simple mortgage products and affordability, it will be working fine. host: lawrence yun earned his doctorate from the university of maryland and is the chief economist for the national association of realtors. as we look ahead to the housing market and predictions for 2012, also the outlook for the overall economy, but first your calls and comments. the numbers are on your screen.

we welcome our listeners on xm, sirius, and the bbc parliamentary channel. first caller. caller: with mortgage rates being in the vicinity of 4%, that works out to $7 a day after taxes and amortization for $100,000 borrowed. guest: an incredible time for those that are able to qualify for a mortgage. we mentioned that they are at historically low points, but for those who can qualify, that is a different story. the credit scores of those who are able to qualify are much, much higher than under normal circumstances. we do not want to have any recurrence of returning to a bubble in lending, but we want to compare to 10 years ago when there was no bubble with a very

normal housing market. the underwriting standards they are much tighter than that which is holding back some of the recovery potential. if the landing just went back to normal, we did some calculations and we anticipate may be 15%-20% in additional home sales which would mean a further decline in inventory and we could have some price increases. host: from ohio on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. the banks are getting on the news already and talking about bundling these houses together, ever since the housing crisis started. there were talking to put them on the internet and russia bought up a whole bunch of them in florida. these other countries are buying us up and the banks are bundling them again.

i thought that was illegal. they are selling them to people in these foreign countries for low interest rates or they are just buying them to the already have so much of our money. these people have a right to take possession no matter what country they are from because they own the property. what you think about that, sir? guest: we have seen an increase of foreign investors coming into the market. first, great low prices, furthermore, the currency exchange rate, if you look at the conversion of canadian dollars to u.s. dollars or from brazil, you can see a much larger partners -- purchasing power and through the existing u.s. laws, meeting criminal background checks, having the right to purchase certain u.s.

products or land, they are making that opportunity because of these prices. one of the reasons that the market has seen a great shrinking of inventory is that many international buyers have entered into the market. host: from chicago, on the democratic line. caller: i am glad someone is bringing some sanity to this house and market. what i wanted to say was that i have always used the gauge of catalog when they sell these pre-fab homes. all this craziness that was put in the market, but the catalog prices were steady. guest: i am not familiar with the that catalog. i wish other consumers, based on

your information, would also look into that. looking at the right ratio, a looks at home values are about 8% under-valued. priced income ratio, they are about 20% undervalued by historical metrics. the cost of construction has risen because of commodity prices, so many of the currently priced homes will be selling below the cost of construction, so there are many metrics to suggest that home values are undervalued and, given the adjusted market forces, anything could overshoot it going forward, and looks to be the case that it is it under correction. host: if you bought a home, for close to them and are now back in the market and want to purchase another home, what is the process? how easy or difficult is it for

people who have previously foreclosed to get back into the market? guest: it is very difficult because of the tight underwriting standards. with a hit on your credit score, you would have a very hard time. andre looking at 4-7 years credit history without being able to re-enter the market. lenders want to be sure that the bar were is able to repay. one other consideration for the company and the lender that need to be mindful of is that during the bubble and crash, we had it two or three additional million people going into foreclosure that we would not normally have because of the changes in market circumstances. is it possible for american psychology to go from being responsible to being irresponsible and i would say that is not the case.

many people went into foreclosure because of the market circumstances. when they see that credit score, but they need to see that the market changed circumstances into consideration. host: our guest is lawrence yun. terrance from virginia beach. welcome to the program. caller: how you doing? we should not be fooled by lawrence. represents the second phase of american f tehe consumer. we have had people being a thrown out of their houses. he is trying to persuade us to get back into the housing market. he looks like a genial, humble person, but lawrence is a crook.

he is very deceitful. host: we do not personally derogatory remarks, but it you have a specific question that you want lawrence yun to respond to, the four is yours. -- the forum is yours. caller: would you buy a home in this climate? guest: this is our devastating events for those involved. this is the consequence of the very lax underwriting standards during the bubble years when, in essence, anyone could get a mortgage and really overextended their budget, some a families are undergoing a very painful process. in regards to the current environment, people who have been buying homes from 2009,

2010, 2011, they have one of the lowest default rates ever. the recent homebuyers have been successful. they are successful because they are buying at bargain prices and they are not seeing any measurable depreciation of their assets. in many cases, they are seeing appreciation of their assets and as long as they're making their monthly mortgage payment, they are paying down their mortgage, they are building equity. the recent home buyers have been quite successful. host: charlotte, n.c., with lawrence yun. caller: steve, first time caller. i am a real-estate investor, not a speculator. i have a piece of property in the interest rate is 6.6%. the bank required 20% equity, which i cannot come up with. as an investor, if the

government would allow us to refinance what we go on the property, it would spur us to buy more property and it would mean less foreclosures for people who have rental properties. i would like to hear your opinion on that, sir. guest: housing drives the economy. the reason why the economic expansion this time around is very sluggish is due to the fact that there has yet to be a recovery. it is moving sideways. in one way to make it move up words is for the investors to enter the market which means lower inventory, higher prices. higher prices would mean too fewer underwater home owners. or the broad middle-class honme owning families, their

largest asset is their home. they would do much more comfortable about your finances if they go out and buy automobiles, furniture, and that leads to a virtuous cycle of economic growth. we do favor investors getting into the market. we have been talking to the lenders as well as the regulators about some of the current over-stringent standards for investors to get in because the lenders are critical and very helpful for the recovery. host: let me put a number on the table, the u.s. debt clock. $15.10 trillion. is there a way to offset this number? one way is to reduce the mortgage deduction that we pay for interest rates.

your thoughts? guest: that would be misplaced area because many of the home buyers have purchased their home understanding the mortgage interest deduction would be available. to change the rules after people have made the decision, that is not a fair thing to do. furthermore, it is part of the social contract, i think, regarding how they view mortgage interest deduction. it started during a time when the u.s. federal income-tax was introduced, there for people have made the decision, vast people have made the decision, based on the idea that mortgage interest deduction would be available. particularly given the climate when we're trying to get the housing market to recover, if there were some changes, it would certainly harm the recovery and we could even go into an extended period of

economic growth. host: what if it is a second home? a beach front property or a weekend home? could you see congress making changes to those? guest: i and stand people are looking for revenue given the budget situation, and it needs to be contained. right now, fortunately, the bond investors have trusted america. there are not trusting greece, but they are feeling has attend. all of these countries with large debts are running into this problem. fortunately, even though we have run up the debt, bond investors trust us. there is no guarantee. sometimes they could turn on us and interest rates could be much higher. there needs to be a way to reduce the budget deficit. regarding the second home, it is part of the overall housing market recovery. i have spoken with many people from the other areas, and they are saying that if there was to be a mortgage interest deduction taken away from the

second homes, that it would devastate the community, and many workers in those communities would lose jobs. given the sluggish gnashed of the housing market recovery -- given the sluggishness, i'm not sure that is the way to help the economy. you would see very small revenue gains from the exchanges. host: 1 e-mail from dallas. guest: absolutely. it is all about jobs. from that point, now we have 2.5

million additional jobs gained. we are seeing some recovery in jobs. usually 2.5 million jobs means additional home sales, but we have not seen a national home sales because of the tight underwriting standards. without the jobs, there would be no housing market. host: journal@c-span.org. here is another email. guest: robo-signing is where a large institutions have been hiring people at minimum wage to automatically sign documents. we need to assure that the property and title has clear ownership. this needs to be resolved, and

hopefully this issue is clearly behind us. as the person asked, without the clear title ownership, it hurts potential homebuyers. host: next caller from montana. caller: i had a question. i got out of the military and i started a small business locally but lost to big corporate companies who would tell them they could purchase items at a reasonable lower-cost. i have been tried to purchase a home to establish my roots, and can you still purchase a home after going for bankruptcy?

i have been battling this for four years and my lawyer advised me that there is no way you can get out of it. host: let's get a response. guest: after bankruptcy, it will be tough. it requires rebuilding credit history. he mentioned a four-year time span, and hopefully the banks begin to look at the current situation and not the situation four years ago to see if the person will qualify. recent home buyers, those who have been buying homes in the last three years, have been responsible. host: reductions in inventories of house in due to investors scooping up foreclosed properties and renting them out. guest: we have seen a situation where investors have come in. one reason they're coming in is because they can get rental income right away. people are putting a similar amount of money into the banks

and the return is very low. rental income is more enticing. there are some issues about being a landlord and property management issues that people need to consider before that, but the investors come in because they want to see rental income. it is part of the overall healing process were some people do not want to be homeowners, and some people should not be, so they are renting. as rent rises, we are seeing investors come in. host: when you buy a home, furniture, appliances, home improvement, there is a domino effect has in sectors of the economy. my question is when an individual buys a new home, typically how much money do they spend to move in? guest: the person buys a home, through all of the chain reaction, furniture, the furniture company can hire people, so the chain reaction can be anywhere between $50,000-

$60,000 generated in to local economy. a person buys a home and the initial amount of spending on lawn care and others is not dramatically high, but it leads to a chain reaction. as a result, our calculation shows each home sales can generate about $50,000 in economic activity. host: at albany, new york, with lawrence yun from the national association of realtors. caller: appreciate you taking my call. i love c-span. during these times when all of these loans were going out that were just too easy, i have a hard time believing that smart people do dumb things. these guys knew not to give out these types of loans before, but they loosened it all up and they figured maybe they should not do it again. they went back to not doing it.

was no one in trouble for making these mistakes? how do you feel about that? why was anyone not in trouble when loosening these standards? guest: anytime a company or a business makes a mistake, they suffer the consequences of that mistake in terms of that decision. i think the frustration that americans have in the current environment is that the banks made mistakes. yes, they received $700 billion in tax payer money to help them avoid the financial meltdown. many of the companies have returned some portion of that tarp money that they borrowed from the taxpayers, but this is where the frustration among the americans are. private decision business mistakes and let the individual stopper, but it is not the individual but the taxpayers coming in at the last moment helping to provide, but as a result of that in this crisis,

one thing we need to be mindful of is that sometimes the overall private market can have over access. there needs to be some regulation to ensure we do not encounter these excesses'. host: the president will be talking about the economy tonight in a "60 minutes" interview. the president saying the unemployment rate could go down to about 8%. from the national association of realtors, you expect that there will not be an economic recession in 2012 and that the gdp is expected to rise about 2.5%. net job creation expected to be 1.5-2 million jobs and unemployment will fall to 8.4% by this time next year. existing home sales up 5%. home prices rising 2% and new home sales up by 16%.

guest: i do not see an economic recession in america despite the european problems. there is a lot of uncertainty related to the euro debt and currency. emerging economies, and china, brazil, india, the growth is very solid. furthermore, the u.s. export industry has begun to revive. we have seen a rise in exports. the overall corporate finance situation, the cash reserves whether it is intel, google, or in the financial industry with have reported two consecutive years of a very healthy profits, and last year was a record profit for the financial industry. this year, near record profits, but two years of a very good situation which means the financial health of the industry will avoid a european contagion of crisis. i just wish some of that cash reserve would go into the

mainstream economy with more lending. host: our guest is lawrence yun. fort collins, colorado, good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to quickly note that your guest, mr. yun, and the esteemed owner of c-span are all alums of purdue. what would it take for the banks to write and reshape distressed mortgages? guest: we should take care of a very easy situation which is that people who have been under water that have been making mortgage payments on time. we have some homeowners that are under water that are defaulting.

then we have people under water that are making payments on time because they feel it is part of their moral financial obligations. they cannot refinance into the 4% rate because you have to be under water. many mortgages are backed by the u.s. government, fannie and freddie which are basically nationalized companies. for those u.s.-backed mortgages, why do not convert it from what ever prevailing rate the homeowners had, say 7%, to 4%? that would greatly reduce the risk of default. furthermore, these homeowners who have been responsible are now getting a reward for having been responsible and are not able to refinance like everyone else in the market. stoper, just because of the underwater situation have been prevented -- so far, they have been prevented. host: juanita, detroit.

republican line. caller: mr. yun, you covered what i was going to talk about, but i have a backup question. you covered all the collateral job of building that new construction stimulates. i get kind of irritated at this shovel-ready infrastructure approach to jobs stimulus when the housing market is just the back on. it creates so much activity in so many areas, and i really appreciate you covering that. my back up question is i have been trying to find the answer to the situation, a legal thing, holding homeowners responsible -- a whole are for tax purposes.

it is considered an,, but there is a situation -- it is considered income. it is very cloudy to me. i was wondering if you could share with the banks are doing. there was $90,000 owed on a certain property and at the share sale it went for like $104 ,000 and sold for $7,000. the banks -- they are saying on the income tax thing that the fair market value was $104,000, where it seems that their market value was $7,000. there is a thing here in michigan called bid tehe debt were the homeowner is now responsible were the bank bought it back, in essence.

i know that seems vegas, and i am really clear about it. can you shed any light on this subject? i would appreciate it. host: before we get lawrence yun to respond, governor snyder says he wants to see detroit successful. this the points from i article, the state previously had promised detroit that is facing a financial brink. caller: i heard your comments. host: what are your thoughts? caller: i had an instance where the house could have been sold but the bank and the taxes owed on at but the house right out of

the market. i could not get the bank to negotiate at all. this house is just going to rot. guest: it does not make sense. i do not know all of the accounting intricacies related to this, but clearly the market price, or the price that is important, is what the buyer and seller could agree to. based on what you said, somehow, due to the accounting issue, that is not being reflected on the paper. sorry i cannot help you on this aspect, but i will look into this issue. it does not make sense to me. host: last call from modesto, calif., and a look at the economic forecast for 2012 courtesy of the national association of realtors and the expectation from economist lawrence yun. caller: mr. yun made the comment

that it is not fair to reduce or take away the mortgage interest rate tax deduction. i think it is time for everybody to contribute something that is a drag on the economy. look at the congress, how they are arguing now. these rich guys in congress do not want the bush tax cuts to go away because they benefit. host: banks for the call. guest: everything should be considered because the budget deficit needs to be contained, but regarding the mortgage interest deduction, something that has been in place for 100 years, the issue is being considered as part of the social contract in america.

regarding changes on higher income households, we need to be up front. if we're going after a higher income individuals, let's raise the income tax. that would be an easier way rather than trying to do something for housing. we have turned a corner. there is a slower rate of growth than normal circumstances. the economy is expected to expand at 2.5%. that will be below the normal 3.5% expansion. it is a sub-par economic expansion. host: lawrence yun, thank you for being with us and sharing your expertise. coming up in a couple of minutes, our sunday round table. we will look at last night's debate ahead of the iowa caucuses. later we will turn our

attention to vladimir putin, the former russian president, and the demonstrations taking place across russia, what that means for the u.s., and comments from vladimir putin. that is all coming up today on "washington journal." to nancy in the studio. >> reairs begin at noon eastern time. they include presidential politics, the federal budget, and the postal service. david gregory it welcomes congressman ron paul, republican senator lindsey graham, and assistant majority leader dick durbin, and the iowa governor. at 1:00, "this wee" wik" will

reair. at 2:00, fox news sunday replays. at 3:00 eastern, it is cnn's "state of the union." rick santorum and the postmaster general. at 4:00 eastern, "face the nation" from cbs. bob schieffer speaks with michele bachmann and steve king. reairs begin at noon on c-span radio with "meet the press." at 3:00, "state of the union." you can listen to them all on c-

span radio at 90.1 in the washington area, satellite radio, or online at cspanradio.org. >> i prided myself of not being afraid to tell people what i thought. the worst thing you could do was let a senior leader head down the wrong road. people's lives to be affected. we have an obligation and duty to be good stewards of the resources of the public interests us with. you sometimes have to be courageous in a meeting where everybody else's head is going up and down and you have a different perspective. >> the highest-ranking female african-american in the history

of the united states army. that is tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific. >> is an unfortunate reality that we will continue to feel the effects of the flawed operation for years to come. the guns lost during the operation will continue to show up at crime scenes on both sides of the border. >> it is time to rewrite the clean water act and the safe water -- safe drinking water act. those are federal laws about water. they were great and important. they are out of date. they need to be written. is this body that needs to do it. >> many transactions that occurred in those less chaotic days -- i am not aware all of those. i do not have the information to be able to look at those transactions. >> with hundreds of hours of new

programming available each week, the c-span to be alive. is your online resource to find what you want, when you want. it is washington, your way. >> "washington journal" continues. host: to monaco is an msnbc political reporter. they are both first-timers. newt gingrich and mitt romney were taking most of the debate jabs. the speaker was front and center at the debate. guest: i was interested to hear george ask the question about marital fidelity and what that meant for a presidential canada. gingrich seemed to handle it pretty well.

guest: it was a fascinating debate. newt gingrich needed to be able to show -- and he has been on the rise largely because of his performances of these debates. he has been surging in the polls. if he had stumbled, it could have been problematic. he was able to fend off a lot of the attacks. instead, it was mitt romney and that wound up being in the spotlight. host: we have some questions about whether the debates have made a difference in the primary. you have been watching many of them. what are your thoughts? guest: it is interesting. you are seeing more interaction with the candidates. with this debate, you really saw them go after each other. the drama is heating up. guest: there are 23 days to the iowa caucuses. we saw a lot of the debates were

they said we will not attack another republican. they all see newt gingrich as the guy they have to take down. they are pulling out all the punches at this point. host: reagan was the one who challenged a sitting president in 1976. we will begin with comments from rick santorum and newt gingrich. >> i think all of your record, personal and political record, is there for the public to look at. i would not say it is a this qualifier. i would not go that far. people make mistakes. you are held accountable for those mistakes. the public will listen to the circumstances and make their decision. it is a factor and it should be a factor. >> people have to render judgment. in my case, i have said up front

i have made mistakes at times. i have had to go to god for forgiveness. i have had to seek reconciliation. i am a 68-year-old grandfather. people have to measure who i am now and whether i am the person they can trust. i am delighted at the way people have been willing to look at who i am, look at what my record has been, and for the support we're getting from the american people. host: newt gingrich is saying he will stay positive. that will be an issue getting a lot of attention. guest: it is an important issue for evangelical christians, the fact he has admitted infidelity and been married three times. rick santorum and other candidates did not hold back in saying that something voters may want to consider. gingrich did not defend his actions. he just talked about having made mistakes. guest: the way the question was framed, they left new gingrich

to be the last person. they did not get directly at the fact that it was because newt gingrich was married three times that they wanted to get to the subject. gingrich to his credit did not come up with some kind of anti- media hit on this. he brought it up and said he had made mistakes in the past. 60% of iowa's gop caucus goers in 2008 were evangelical or born-again christians. there have been evangelical leaders who have said he needs to seek forgiveness. if he does that, born-again christians and evangelicals may be forgiving and give him a chance. he has to be a differential -- deferential to them. host: economy is going to be the leading issue in the campaign. they're predicting that the other clinic rate to drop to 8% this time next year.

guest: that is an interesting comment. he may be taking a risk in saying that. at the beginning of the administration, his advisers went out with a report saying if you pass the stimulus the president is proposing, and a plan that would stay under 8%. it went above that and stayed above it for a long time. that came back to haunt him. guest: it does not make sense to throw out goalpost figures when they did have a misstep initially. what will matter more than the rate will be the trajectory. if it is worse than now, that will be been a fisheries -- beneficial to republicans. if it is better, that will be a beneficial to the president. i think he is better off talking about the trajectory. host: he will be on "60 minutes. " have you been keeping track?

guest: he likes being on "60 minutes." he likes that audience. he knows that the viewing public is crucial. you have independent and older voters who tune in to 60 minutes. they are important to this president. he is upside down with the independents and needs them back. host: everyone is asking for interviews with the president. robert gibbs is standing down on them. why now? guest: one thing the president likes about the one on one format and magazines setting is it gives him a chance to explain his policies in some depth. i think he is feeling he needs to defend his record. at the debate, when the candidates were not attacking each other, they were talking economy and obama's help plan.

that was very much center stage. host: the president will be in kansas where teddy roosevelt talked about the middle class in u.s. economy 100 years ago. here's more with president obama from last week. >> this is a make or break moment for the middle class and all those fighting to get into the middle class. what is at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to make -- raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement. host: that is from last week in kansas. isette"tsburgh is tha looking ahead. guest: pennsylvania will be an important state. he had good news in recent polls showing he had a wider lead than previously thought in pennsylvania.

it is three hours from where his mother grew up. it is kansas. it is white voters, independent s. that is where this voter is focused. host: we are taking your calls. we welcome our listeners on c- span arabia. we are carried sunday mornings on the potus channel. -- we welcome our listeners on c-span and radio. caller: the first four primary states are winner-take-all. the delegates will be awarded after on the proportionality of the votes they take. given the order of the state primaries, what is the likelihood that when it comes to the republican convention that no one can it will have 50% of the delegates?

guest: the rules are such that it is proportional until about april 1. then is winner-take-all for the larger states. the point by the caller is a good one. we could have a projected primary fight similar to 2008. one thing to keep in mind is that momentum still matters. if newt gingrich wins iowa, south carolina, florida, the other states -- that matters to voters. they want to vote for a winner. march 6 is the new super tuesday. we will see if maybe mitt romney can hold off the momentum of newt gingrich in places like florida. caller: i was watching the debate.

after the debate, they did a post-analysis of it. i was very disappointed in the way they tried to form the outcome, always mentioning two or 3 candidate. the mentioned mr. gingrich and the $10,000 debt. -- they mentioned mr. gingrich and the $10,000 dbet. i thought mr. paul, michele bachmann, and gov. perry did well. they did not mention them at all. it is almost like it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. the media concentrates on one or two candidates. all of this stuff about herman cain and the big stuff they made about him and his affairs and

the issues are never focused on. i thought ron paul on several issues, especially about the federal reserve -- i would like them to identify who these people are. are they even members of our republica? we focus on the $10,000 bet. i do not care about that because it is not relevant to what is happening in the country. guest: if i say to you that i bet so and so is going to win, i would say that i bet you $5. most people would not say i will bet you $10,000. it highlights the fact that mitt romney is a candidate of a lot of personal wealth.

guest: on the substance, mitt romney was right. then we get sidetracked talking about the $10,000 bet. it was such an odd figure for him to use. ron paul has done very well in the polls. the reason why people wind up talking about one or two candidates is because of their standing in the polls. it is not a perfect system. that is one reason why. host: this morning from "the new york times." this is mitt romney's weekend home. he has poured $52 million of his own money into campaigns. he has acquired a thoroughbred horses for his wife yet plays golf clubs from kmart.

he has done a series of multimillion-dollar homes but once rented a u-haul to move his family belongings. guest: that came up in the debates last night about the last time someone in his family felt pressured about finances. mitt romney did not have a great answer for that. he talked about his father growing up with modest means and the values he said his father instilled in him based on that experience. host: here is a picture of mitt romney with his father. this is from the "washington post." they are headlining it as mitt romney in a kim kardashian world. they say is sentiment is disinclined to revel in the lack of rules. he would rather govern than campaign.

guest: as newt gingrich pointed out, he has been campaigning since 1994. he likes details. he is a rule fall or -- follower. when he has gotten tested, it has been because someone has interrupted him or has not followed the rules. he is so polite and likes people to follow the rules that it's an irritated when they do not. host: rick perry sat down with the editorial board. we were able to cover it. the entire interview is available on the website. rick perry was asked about the u.s. supreme court. we will have that ready for you in a moment. let's go to a call from london in illinois. caller: i watched the debate last night.

we are so divided in our nation. the republicans continually talk about obamacare. do they not want the american people to have insurance? do they not want the people to have a fair and equal liberty in our country? the 10th amendment they were so concerned about with obamacare, we override that continuously with the federal government. the federal government does a lot of things that go against the 10th amendment. if we really pulled together as a nation, congress, senate, and stop blaming everyone else and spend more time on working together to bring our nation back to where we used to be, maybe things would change.

this continual passing of the but an blaming someone else is not going to fix it. the american people are not so ignorant not to see through all of that. that is my comment. guest: it did seem that health care was a rallying cry last night. the canada is this agreed on a number of issues, but they all seemed to be on the same page with costs reported comes to the call for repealing the obama health care plan. host: tomorrow the mayor of manchester will endorse mitt romney. there is a debate tomorrow taking place between newt gingrich and jon huntsman. guest: mitt romney house to win new hampshire. the polls are indicating newt gingrich with the leaves -- big leads. he is pulling ahead of mitt romney in new hampshire.

any endorsement that comes out is really important for mitt romney to secure the lead. host: from friday, here is texas gov. rick perry. >> explain that to us. >> from my perspective, activist judges -- sonia sotomayor and the other were both activist judges. i would suggest to you that is an example of my concern. i believe the supreme court should not be making legislative decisions and telling americans

how to live. to tell a local school district that you cannot have a prayer and the time of prayer in the school, i think that is offensive to most americans. i trust the people of the states to make the decisions. i trust the independent school districts to make those decisions better than eight unelected and unaccountable judges. host: your reaction? guest: is trying to talk about the importance of religion, an important factor in iowa. then he steps on it because she talks about sonia sotomayor. he talks about sonia sotomayor but he could not find her name. it harkens back to when he could not name the three agencies. he said there are eight supreme court justices when there are nine.

this becomes a difficult thing for him. he is trying to talk about activist judges but then gets sidetracked. there is a lot going on. it is another example of rick perry trying to get momentum back. he gets sidetracked with some of the gaffes. host: christmas is fast approaching. january 30 are the iowa caucuses. guest: there is not a lot of time left. it seems rick perry is really going after the evangelical conservatives. he emphasized religion and family values a lot last night. host: welcome to the conversation. caller: i wanted to comment on the debate and election. this election seems to have a great parallel to 1980. jimmy carter, an incumbent, a

bad economy. this seems to be a carbon copy. i think in november, people will walk into the polls and ask themselves whether their lives are better off since barack obama has been president. if the answer is no, he will be defeated by a large margin. thank you very much. host: the gop death wish with a photograph of newt gingrich. she says no one of the event callisto gingrich -- no one other than calista gingrich thinks her husband can prevail. guest: you would think the former speaker would have established support. you see a lot of conservative columnists going after newt gingrich, warning republicans

they may be making a big mistake. guest: the caller making the point about how people feel is going to beat determining the election. newt gingrich has a lot of people who will likely vote for him. point is a good one. someone who was a speaker of the house does not seem to have the washington establishment behind him. host: the next call is from florida on the democrats' line. caller: i was chairman of the democratic committee in lee county in past times. my question is for both of your guests. my question is, have either one of you read robert f. kennedy's book "crimes against nature"?

the follow-up is, what ramifications do you think anybody connected with the bush administration would have for winning anything in this country after the travesties against the general public trust and natural resources that the bush administration created. host: did you want to make a final point? caller: have either one of them read "crimes against nature"? how could anybody in there right mind in the republican party be supportive of new gingrich? guest: the environment is an issue that does, from time to time. in the debate, we saw michele bachmann talk about how the epa should not be in existence any more and doing away with some of the regulations.

that has become a flashpoint. as far as the bush administration, some democrats have tried to tie the cannabis to the bush administration. this election will come down to how people feel next november and whether they think barack obama has done a good enough job. guest: i think barack obama would very much like to run against george bush's economy. he did make the point that imbalances created years ago brought us to the situation where we are and it will take a long time to clean it up. he is asking the voters for patients. host: here are some campaign ads. this is from the latest one on the air in iowa and new hampshire. ♪ >> the congressman has shown a lot of courage. >> division to put america back on a pathway to a balanced budget. >> i do not think of right wing

social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. i think it is too big of a joke. >> the house speaker dismissed the medicare reform plan put forth by congressman paul ryan. >> that is about as harsh criticism as one could level at a fellow republican. >> he does not have the discipline you want in a president. >> he is in the left wing of the republican party. >> with allies like that -- >> this is a headline from politico about the gloves coming off in the romney campaign. guest: the gloves are definitely coming off. they are implying there's something wrong with gingrich's

temperament. guest: we have seen the romney campaign is using his family. this is a large reflection on just how close we are to actual votes taking place rather than us just talking about it. host: our viewers often talk about ron paul. this says that when candidate is exceeding expectations. he is the eccentric and sometimes cranky, nobody thinks he is going to win the republican nomination, at least according to dan balz. guest: his position on farm policy has put him out of step with the mainstream of the republican party. he has hit on things that have moved the republican party to beat more mainstream. so much of what he talked about on spending in 2008 has become

much more mainstream within the republican party. he is someone to be taken seriously. he has raised a lot of money. he spent about $40 million on assets so far. he is putting his money where his positions are. he has been very consistent on domestic issues. host: including on this one. >> when it is showtime, the one big cats -- you want big cuts. that is trillion with a t. the department of education gone. later, bureaucrats. that is how ron paul rolls. if you want to drain the swamp, ron paul. host: young people are

gravitating to his candidacy. guest: he has a clear message that resonates. with herman cain out of the race, he may consolidate some of that support. host: caren bohan and domenico montanaro, leo joins us on the program. caller: most of the candidates are probably qualified. i would like to see them talk about bringing jobs back to america. they cannot keep sending them overseas for the country to survive. the government has borrowed money from social security. why do they not pay the money back? social security would not be in the situation is if they had paid the money back. if i would borrow money from somebody, i feel i have to pay it back.

they keep talking about cutting staff for social security for them to survive. if it was paid back, we would not be in the situation it is. they would create jobs if they could lower the age to draw social security. that would open the doors for younger people to have a job instead of raising the retirement age. manufacturing jobs is not a subject that have come a lot. one candidate brought it up last night. he has been one of the only people who tried to talk about manufacturing jobs in the republican primary. it is a difficult issue. how do you bring back jobs when you have to compete with china or india where they are being

paid lower wages. they do not have to be paid health care. i do not think there are easy solutions. it is not something being talked much about. host: you were at the table when barack obama made reference to this is just portion of what he said. it is very important to me the right republican canada be chosen to defeat the destructive obama administration. that republican is not the right candidate. this is in response to a debate that was to take place on december 27. it is now in question whether anyone will participate. what is your take?

guest: it is interesting. there was a cartoon that depicted president obama praying at his bedside. obama has referred to donald trump as a circus barker. the white house has been heartened by personalities like donald trump or early factors in the republican race. i think the white house is more worried about candidates like mitt romney and they consider more mainstream. guest: there is no question about that. that is why you hear the dnc going after mitt romney. they do not lay a glove on newt gingrich. they would be more than happy to have donald trump. host: good morning, terry. you are on the air. go ahead.

we will go to john in detroit on the democrats' line. please go ahead. caller: i am not john. my problem is all the debates. none of the candidates are answering the questions. they're talking around and around. it is not about how much money they have. it is about how much money we as citizens do not have. they would rather see obama fail and let the country fall. it is their way or the highway. none of the candidates on the republican side even begin to move the needle in my mind. host: thank you for that point. the president took some reporter's questions saying if congress allied other issues, he would veto the bill.

the payroll tax cut could help families with up to $2,000 more per year based on the size of your income. host: the white house feels it has the upper hand. the president probably does feel like he has leeway to threaten a veto republicans have been lukewarm on the idea of extending the tax cut. it is a popular issue with voters according to the polls. the white house is framing this house costing you an extra $1,000 a year of the talks is allowed to expire. guest: it came up last night. they were split on the payroll tax cut. anytime someone some -- something can be a wedge, you might say the president probably has the polls on his side. host: he also says the payroll

tax cut in the long term will hurt social security. guest: this has been the biggest argument from opponents. the tax cut is what funds social security and the trust fund. the treasury says it will not take money out of social security because they are replenishing the fund. where that money comes from is not clear. that is the biggest argument against the payroll tax cut going through because of the implications on social security. senator manchin as always politically begins with the president wants. host: this is from last met with nick romney and newt gingrich. >> the only reason you did not become a politician is because you lost to ted kennedy in 1994. [mixed reaction from the crowd]

do i get to go ahead? i am a citizen. i have served the country in many ways. you are a citizen. you have served the country in many ways. you would have been a 17-year career politician by now if you had one. guest: newt gingrich seemed to be enjoying that one. he has been under attack. he got in a jab on romney. it took from the awhile to respond to that. host: boos and jeers. guest: mitt romney is someone in place by the rules. the look on his face was as if this was an unfair shot. guest: the follow-up to that was that mitt romney finally did come back with a come back and say that it might be true, but when i was a kid i wanted to be an nfl star and that did not happen either. host: we go next to new york.

welcome to the program. caller: let's not forget that newt tried to justify infidelity claiming it was an over-abundance of patriotism that drove him to it. i am wondering why the issue of raising the tax cap on social security seems to be in the press and in the government. it seems to me to be an odd thing. i do not know why no one discusses it. i will leave it at that. guest: i think it does come up from time to time. it does come up when discussions about balancing the budget are front and center. we are at a time when a temporary extension of the tax cut is topic a. president obama wants to get it done before the end of the year. the president's focus is on stimulating the economy.

the effort to budget. to balance the budget long-term has fallen by the wayside now. -- the effort to balance the budget long-term has fallen by the wayside now. host: candidate explained how they manage to become multimillionaires in office. there is a report looking at newt gingrich and his income before taking office was just over $10,000 a year in 1978. when he was speaker, he earned over $171 million. he is now running for president. his investment in rental income is averaging about $90,000. his business income is about $2.5 million. his total income is $2.6 million. i looked into his financial disclosure form.

the $2.5 million was just from gingrich productions. i asked the campaign about that. they said you cannot just say it is from being rich promotions -- gingrich productions. none of it is itemized. his speeches, contracts, and none of that is stuff we can see. it is all grouped into one thing. there is certainly a question of transparency. in the last 10 years, newt inc. as an institution has developed. host: we're joined by a call on the democrats' line. caller: i would like to talk about our governor and ohio. he has taken us down to the very bottom of the barrel.

he is trying to privatize everything. everything he has gotten through fast has been unconstitutional. medicaid has been completely cut. they want to put them in homes or the family to take care of them. if they do not have family, they have to stay in a nursing home with one person taking care of them. he does not like the black people. he belongs to the tea party. he used to work for the lehman brothers. i do not know if he still does. he brought them down financially. we need somebody here to talk and get rid of the governor of ohio before we all starve to death. host: thank you. let me take that point and broaden it. republican governors have approval ratings that are low leading up to 2012. guest: the only governor with a

lower approval rating than gov. kasich is gov. scott in florida. they came in and pushed for reforms, collective bargaining been a flashpoint in ohio. it even trickled into the republican presidential race when mitt romney could not articulate a position on the legislation and question about the initiative that failed. he said he was for it. he did come out strongly and say he was for that as well. this has become a difficult issue in wisconsin, florida, and ohio. it has filtered back into the presidential race. it will be something people talk about going into 2012. host: the president's approval rating is still stuck in the 40's. guest: that is reflective of the overall view of the economy. the political climate does seem to have changed since 2010 when

some governors were elected. i think the republicans felt they had the wind at their back on the message of cutting government. i think the democrats are now feeling may be the momentum has shifted a bit. i think these cuts are being portrayed as an uncaring. host: from last night, in case you missed it, our thanks to abc allowing c-span to rebroadcast it tonight. we hope you will tune in as part of our road to the white house coverage. individual mandates came up. that is the focus of this round between newt gingrich and mitt romney. but both of these individuals have been for the individual mandate. you said you wish you could've talked to obama and said you are going down the wrong path. that is exactly the path you have taken massachusetts town. the beacon hill study says there has been 18,000 jobs lost because of that individual mandate. the study continued to say there

have been over $8 billion of additional costs. i wish you could have had the conversation with the people of massachusetts along time before the phone call with president obama. the fact of the matter is you are for individual mandates. host: your reaction to that? guest: the individual mandate thing has been something mitt romney has gotten -- i think he was frustrated when they came back to him, when the moderator said 72% of people want to know more about your position. romney is kind of rolled his eyes and laughed and said hamas times do i have to about -- have to answer this question -- and said how many times do i have to answer this question? guest: in seemed uncomfortable

in the clip you played. this is one of his most difficult issues with republican issues, what some call romney- care. caller: the media's lack of focus on the economy is ignorance of the seriousness of the $140 trillion in long-term legacy costs. unemployment is up 15% on one scale. the total population is at about 70%. there is corruption on wall street. there is inside trading by congress. why are we not hearing more questions related to the economy? guest: the economy is the number-one issue with jobs. all of the issues the caller brought up our things -- are things republicans have tried to press and say we need --

we saw the ad earlier about the paul ryan plan. that was a long-term debt and deficit item that controversy elite with a partially privatize medicare. the controversially would have partially privatized medicare. guest: we note that third-party candidates can change the race in unpredictable ways. it was a factor for president george h. w. bush. guest: american electric has gotten itself on the ballot in multiple states. buddy roemer and governor johnson have said they will possibly compete for that nomination. there is an appetite for a third

party in the country. ron paul is somebody a lot of people think would be similar to ross perot where he could get 18% of the vote. that would hurt republicans. i spoke to an advisor close to ron paul who said this is not happening. he has ruled it out. you never know what can happen with the appetite being what it is. host: welcome. >> i was brought up an islet in the 1950's. i lived there and socialized with most of the people there. [unintelligible] until i got in the navy. then i met a few there. i am told my grandfather was a mormon but i do not know anything about it. could you ever consider having

that for the morning call-in? i would like to see what kind of response you get. that is what i want to say. host: may be a better thing would be to have someone come on and talk about the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints and mormons. i appreciate the point. the issue of mitt romney and his faith is coming up in a new campaign ad. >> we do not want government mandated health care. newt gingrich supports it. mitt romney put into law in massachusetts. barack obama and forced it on the entire nation. rick perry will repeal its starting on day one. >> i will not let the government liberals ruin the country. i will repeal obamacare. i approve this message. >> i am a man of steadiness and

constancy. i do not think you will find someone with more of those attributes and i have. i have been married for 42 years. i have been in the same church my entire life. i worked at one company for 25 years. i left that to go and say the olympic games. if i am president, i will be true to my family, my faith, and our country. i will never apologize for the united states of america. i am mitt romney. i approve this message. about the rickk perry ag. -- ad. guest: he is trying to get an avenue to take down the others so he can have some path to the nomination that starts in iowa. on the second ad in question of mitt romney's women face, i was shocked at how palpable the issue was anecdotally with voters. i asked a woman at the fred

thompson rally the day before he dropped out what she thought about mike huckabee. she said she liked him and would vote for him did she said she liked mitt romney but did not know if she could vote for a mormon. it was probable. 60% of evangelical christians in south carolina, that has become a real issue. there are a lot of misconceptions about the lds church. it has been a hurdle for him to overcome. host: he talks about his faith and marriage. he does not bring up newt gingrich, but clearly it is on the romney campaign's mind. guest: when he had an opportunity to talk about fidelity, mitt romney shifted the economy -- the subject to the economy. most kennett's use it to talk about their faith.

-- most candidates talk about their faith. host: what about this? guest: they were quick to send out e-mails last night. they said he will rue the day he made the comment. they feel it makes him look more like a 1% rather than the 99%. anytime they can get that kind of a wedge on mitt romney, they will try to plow through it. the substance of the question gets overlooked. host: good morning. caller: you have two wonderful guests. we fought and won world war ii. we spent 10 years nation- building in iraq. but we cannot open of medicare to younger citizens.

newt was in favor of the single payer health care system. i pay my employer $500 a month, $6,000 a year and i use less than one month or $500 premium -- i use less than $5 a year in health care. this has been true for 30 years since college. 80% of insured americans barely used their health care, like me. opening up medicare to people like me could bring in billions of dollars into the medicare system. that is the biggest problem we have financially going forward. it could help to balance the budget. i do not understand why it is not dealt with more on a statistical basis. thank you. i will hang up and look forward

to your response. guest: a couple of years ago, barack obama probably would have thought that expanding insurance coverage to those not covered would be a selling point for his reelection. you do not hear him talk about that now. the issue has become controversial for him. it is not an issue that appeals to voters at this time. .hey think host: they are referring to mitch daniels and chris christie and paul ryan who opted out of the gop race. guest: a lot of people decided they did not want to run this time. it speaks to the power of the incumbency. no matter how difficult the

environment is for president obama, the unemployment rate stays about where it is. with all of the money his campaign, will pull in, it will still be a difficult race and tough fight. if people have to think about whether they want to compete against barack obama now or in their { in 2016. host: he announced earlier this year at liberty park in new jersey. nationally, he is not getting traction. guest: he was left out of the debate last night because he did not meet the threshold. there does not seem to be a lot of room in the republican primary for jon huntsman. that is what it has come down to. he has not been able to level the attacks on mitt romney from the right that he would have liked to have done. some voters see his views as to far to the left. he has had a difficult time and not been able to gain traction.

host: a lot of this began with the president's speech in front of congress in september. he framed the debate. guest: you have seen an evolution in his rhetoric towards a more populist message. that started with a speech in september where he laid out his jobs plan. the kansas speech seems may be aimed perfectly at a playbook for how they would run against mitt romney. they are painting him as part of the 1%. they are emphasizing that obama is fighting for the middle class and republicans represent the wealthy and privileged. host: the house was to recess last week. they are here this week possibly into next week. i also want to talk about the president's schedule as well.

guest: senate majority leader harry reid has said it will stay here until the tax cuts are done. it may be coming down to the christmas holiday before they get something done. guest: the president has vowed he is willing to spend christmas with the lawmakers if they cannot get the payroll tax done. i do not think it is realistic they will be spending christmas together, possibly christmas eve. one thing the president will focus on apart from payroll tax cuts or in addition to that is the iraq war. he is going to for a ride on wednesday -- fort bragg on wednesday to hail the removal of troops. the white house feels by getting out of the wars that the united states is securing its future better because we're not

spending millions of dollars on the wars. >guest: the focus will be newt gingrich. it is an unbelievable thing considering where he was in may. host: domenico montanaro and caren bohan are both first- timers on "washington journal. " we will take a look at the situation in russia and what it means for the march elections where the vladimir putin, now the prime minister, wants to take over as president again. "washington journal" continues. we will be back in a moment. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] . .

washington, your way. "washington journal" continues. >> we want to focus on the situation in russia, some of the headlines on this sunday morning beginning with the "new york times" as the largest ant kremlin protest since the early 1990s. teps of thousands in moscow. this is the scene from yesterday. russian protests signal a new era. this began with david sadder. as you look at the situation over there unfold, and these demonstrations not only in moscow but also st. petersberg and elsewhere, what's going on? >> i think that the russian people have shaken off their passivity vis-a-vis the putin

regime. and the first cracks in the facade of invulnerability of that regime have becoming visible. people have endured so much in russia in the way of lawlessness that obviously some people have reached the point where they no longer want to accept it passively. for a long time because russia was expanding economically people closed their eyes to the injustices that they saw around them. but the falsifyication of these last elections obviously was too much for at least some people. >> let me show you the page of the "washington post" in russia. joining us live on the phone from russia, thanks for being with us. >> it's a pleasure.

>> let me begin by asking who is making up this crowd. because as you point out, full of young people, educated, good jobs but willing to stand for hours to demonstrate against putin and the current government. >> yes. in the previous years were very, very small opposition rallied. mostly kind of middle-aged people who remember those demroryuss days and want to bring them back. this courthouse was much different. the average age probably was around 30 or so. these were not students or retired people, although there were certainly plenty of those as well. but people who are at that point, am i going to live in this country and be part of this country, or do i need to think about leaving? now it's like, well, i'm not going to leave. i'm going to stick around and

it's, the people are discovering they have an obligation as citizens and are acting. >> what happened a week ago in terms of the parliamentary elections? was there ballot stuffing? and what impact has even the perception of this had on the march elections? >> there certainly was ballot stuffing. it's been well documented. i suppose the question would be how extensive. but with cell phone photos and the internet and tweets, the word got around very quickly and people took the evidence and there wasn't -- it was likely woke up outraged. there has been this real sort of disgust building for quite a long time. and i think the crucial moment was in september when the president and prime minister announced smimingly that they

were swapping jobs. that went over very badly with a lot of people. >> let me have david respond to your observations. >> people have every reason to be disgusted because they see the manipulation and the falsifyication at the local level. in lovely precincts. oftentimes, the representatives of united russia, which is the pro-putin party don't make much of an effort to conceal what they're doing. it's all rather blatant. and the extent to which opposition parties have refused any access to the media, the extent to which the press is controlled, the extent to which government resources are put at the disposal of only one party, all of this is evident. and people can't help but compare it to the fate they

have as individuals when they end up in court or deal with the police. and they see that it's impossible to get justice. so all of this makes people think just as will was saying that maybe it's better to leave this country. recent polls showed that as many as 40% of young people in russia were thinking of emigrating. that's a higher figure than even during the early 90's when the country was plunged into a catastrophic economic depression. so really a moment of truth has arrived and people have to ask, do they want to tolerate this kind of clepto cratic undemocratic authoritarian government forever? >> you've spent a number of years in moscow writing for the london times, and will england

is joining us live on the phone, writes for the "washington post." let me ask you about the coverage of these demonstrations. we've seen the pictures in the "washington post" and front page of the "new york times." but how is it playing out in russia's media? >> it's very interesting. the russian -- the state-controlled russian television channels had virtually ignored this whole controversy both led their programs with completely i guess i would say objective reports on the protests. someone gave the signal, go ahead and report this and they did. there had been rumors denied but i'm not sure if they really are false that an anchorman on one of the channels had threatened to quit if they didn't show it. i don't know if there's -- what the truth is behind that but in fact they did show it.

the newspapers also going right back to even before the election have really been hitting quite hard on this, not only the usual suspect, sort of like the one wild critical paper that was allowed, but quite a few of the newspapers have written very really trench nt and hard-hitting articles. and that's continuing. >> thanks for sharing your perspective with us. >> pleasure. >> david, where does this go next? is this part of the arab spring that we have seen elsewhere in the world? could we see political changes in russia? >> we could. putin now has an opposition that's significant and that will be following his further actions. we can expect falsifyication in the presidential elections. but it's much more -- which will take place in march. but it's much more problematic now.

if in the past falsifyication -- and falsifyication of elections is not new in russia. there were elections in march of this year in which the same things occurred, the same ballot box stuffing, the same repeat voting, the same abuse of administrative resources. all of this is not new. and it wasn't even employed in these recent elections on a wider scale than before. it's just that the election encompassed more districts, more candidates. now, putin is going to run for election. as president. and it's still expected that he will win. however, it is almost inconceiveable that that election will pass without attempts to increase the margin of his victory. and that in turn will inspire

new protests. and once the -- once people begin looking at the un democratic elections and the false fid elections, they can't help but turn their attention to everything else in russian society that has become corrupt and authoritarian. the massive bribery, the role of government officials in state-run companies, the kickback which is have become part of russian life at every level. all of this. and the injustices that are impossible to correct through the legal system with the help of the police, with the help of the prosecutors. all of these things are now going to be raised in a way that they weren't raised before or at least were not raised by this number of people this wide a section of the population. so the situation in russia is

far from predictable and it is nowhere near as static as it was in the last, let's say, ten years. >> antiquated or back and forth between secretary of state clinton and president putin. but first to your phone calls. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. and good morning to both of you. great show. you're one of the three or four programs that i watch on tv any more because i generally go to independent media. anyway, to start my point. you look at the american revolution with the french revolution, with the arab spring and occupy and how technology has changed the ability for people to communicate and to get their world views out there. you now have a culture, i believe, that is, thanks to wikileaks and people like this that is a lot more aware and in tune if you're willing to look

into the news of the day. i'm wondering as far as russia if they might be facing their own springtime when the weather breaks as i think that americans will be when the weather breaks. i think the occupy movement is going to come across. i think there is an overall rejection of the elite classes being able to step on people and make sure that they get all the money while everybody else is left out in the woods more or less. and so i'm wondering, do you have a view as to how that technology in russia is going to change the conversation the same way, will it change it the same way that occupy changed it in america? >> thanks for the call from st. louis. guest: well, i don't think it's a question of technology in russia. we had mass demonstrations in russia 20 years ago. 20 plus years ago when this

technology did not exist. in fact, those demonstrations were bigger and in a sense more principled than the demonstrations that are taking place now. it isn't a question of technology. it's a question of the end of people's tolerance and a real sense of dismay over the kind of country that especially young people are going to have to live in. host: this is the headline from the guardian newspaper in great britain. that brought this response from germany last monday. >> we do have serious concerns about the conduct of the elections. we think that the preliminary report just issued international mission raised a number of questions about the

conduct of the elections. the osce, for example, cites election day attempts to stuff ballot boxes, manipulate voter lists, and other troubling practices. we're also concerned by reports that independent russian election observers, including the nationwide golost network were harassed. >> statement by the secretary of state. again from the "new york times" story this past week, a rare personal acquisition by the prime minister of russia saying that hillary clinton's comments sent a signal to some actors in our country that led to these demonstrations. guest: this is actually quite typical and i think we can expect more of it. they've done this kind of thing in the past. after the school massacre in which in fact the russian

troops opened fire first, putin said that the incident was inspired by unnamed forces in the west. so recently, putin has made statements accusing those persons in russia who attempt to defend human rights and are supported with western grants of being jude ases. so his statements about hillary clinton are actually completely consistent and what they foreshadow is that the present russian leadership is going to try to redirect the anger of the russian people against the west. this is a traditional russian tactic to blame outside forces and -- for anything that goes wrong in the country and to try to turn the attention of people away from the leadership that

is in fact abusing them. host: before joining johns hopkins our guest is a senior fellow at the institute. we're focusing on the political situation and the unrest taking place in russia. cincinnati, good morning, independent line. caller: i just was curious if you thought it was interesting or if you had any information even that in 2020 computer programmer clint turt kiss testified that he had rigged the election at the behest of congressman tom feenie in the u.s. and somehow even in the current climate with occupy wall street that hasn't gotten any attention, hasn't been protested at all in this country, hasn't even been on

the media really. host: thank you, sir. guest: well, i can truthfully say i know nothing about these accusations and -- but i would be inclined to be skeptical of them. host: let me ask you about some of the changes to the russian constitution, the london telegraph points out that potentially putin could stay in power through 24e. >> absolutely. this is the one thing that we had a new president supposedly for four years. that was med vedev. he is a long-time prote jay of putins. putin was up against the constitutional limitation of two terms. in 2008. so they came up with an ingenius solution. they in effect put a put puppet into the presidency for four years. putin never ceased being the person in charge. and now the puppet has stepped

down and putin is ready to take over again. but during this sbrim which med vedive was the official president and during which the obama administration launched the reset policy which was based in part on a supposed relationship between the two so-called presidents, during this period the one really significant thing that happened was that the constitutional term of the president was increased from four years to six. now, putin can legally come back as president and remain in office for another 12 years. after that undoubtedly they'll think of something else. host: jim from freeport in the bahamas. welcome to you. caller: good morning. i think everybody remembers a few years ago when there was that war in chechnya with regards to the territorial

integrity of russia and especially seeing the protests going on right now, it could really lead one to ask the question. do you -- >> host: i apologize. we've had some callers who have gotten through and we apologize. guest: well, that happens. host: we're going on to ellen in washington, d.c. caller: i wondor if you could talk about the effectiveness of russian propaganda in light of the fact that a lot of people quoted completely dismissed mr. putin's suggestions that u.s. money was behind the turnout. guest: i don't think that putin's statements are convincing for russians. as far as -- especially for russian demonstrators who know perfectly well why they turned out. if you have 50,000 people who have appeared at a

demonstration, each of them has his own reasons. and putin saying on television that this was inspired by hillary clinton sounds perfectly bizarre to people who know from their own experience that they had much more telling and immediate reasons for showing up. it only underscores the extent to which putin is really without an answer to the concerns being raised by the demonstrators. host: back in today's front page of the "new york times," the crowd estimated at 25,000 people although some indicating that the crowd was twice or three times that amount. my question in terms of trying to put this into perspective. we saw the collapse of the soviet union in large part because of what was happening internally in the country. what's your prediction? guest: about the future of the country or about the future of russia? host: both.

guest: the question is the future of the regime, russia as a country will continue to exist. but it's -- there is a possibility for russia to achieve the democracy that it -- russia now has a second chance at democracy. its first chance was after the fall of the soviet union in 1991. and because of the lawlessness, which unfortunately was abetted by uninformed policies in the united states, and the takeover of the country by the security services, that promise was lost. now we have another opportunity and it will be important not to lose this opportunity as well. but for that, the opposition has to become a moral opposition. not just a protest against corruption, which is the easiest thing to protest. the unfortunate thing about that is that protests against

corruption can unite all kinds of elements and it would be foolishly unrealistic to suggest that only liberal democratic forces are rallying against putin. i would expect in fact that in addition to an increase in anti-american and anti-western propaganda from the regime, the regime will now make efforts to encourage nationalist and facistic elements in the country to show themselves in order to demonstrate to the world that the alternative to them is something that's even less desireable. and the danger is that by doing that for provocative reasons, they may actually help those forces gain strength. host: we're going to nick next

in florida. good morning. caller: thank goodness for c-span. i watched all the coverage of the protests in russia and i see almost no coverage of occupy wall street. it's almost lishe russia has come a long way, putin allowing those protested. yet right now today they have an ok paying here in tampa, florida, and you don't see anything. it's almost like russia's come a long way and we're going backwards. host: are there parallels between what's happening here and what's happening over there? guest: well, there's a vague parallel in the sense that people are unhappy in both places. but there's no comparison to the conditions which exist in democratic america despite the problems that we have. and what exists in a dictatorship like putin's

russia. it's -- here, we have abuses of the law. there, they have no law. that's the difference. host: vinson joining us from los angeles. good morning. we'll try one more time. how many political parties are there in russia right now? guest: there are quite a lot of political parties but not all of them can get on the ballot. that's the problem. because it's the regime which controls access to the ballot. there were four parties running in the parliamentary elections and there's likely to be a similar number of candidates in the presidential elections. but that -- there are actually many more parties. the most important opposition party, for example, was not the

people's liberty party was not people's freedom party was not allowed on the ballot for the parliamentary elections. host: so on the larger issue, what kind of oppositions does putin have if you have this energy, this anger toward the prime minister and the president of russia where is it channeled? guest: first, it may b affect the previously compliant putin parties who see an opening as a result of the shift in public opinion. but even if it doesn't, the stage is set now for a confrontation between the rulers and society. something that was avoided during the entire first ten years of the 21st century because of russia's economic boom. now, that was the result of the

worldwide boom in commodity prices which russia was the principle beneficiary. but nonetheless, putin was able to take credit and russians appreciated the fact that they were emerging from poverty. but the effect couldn't last forever and it hasn't. host: our last call kourtney joining us from new jersey. caller: i would like him to comment on putin's personal character. he had a reputation of being a ped file and i remember he went to kiss that little boy's stomach in russia. and also there was a coverup with the polish president's airplane crash it was found the wrong vectors were given to them. host: let me stop you there. putin's personal character. guest: those charges against putin were made. but there's no proof of that. as far as the personal charges.

and i think that in the absence of any proof, it's not worth repeating those charges. regarding the crash of the airplane, to the best of my understanding it doesn't appear that this was a provocation and that in fact it was just a case of the pilot trying to make a landing in order, because of the timing of the commemoration event and crashing in the fog. until further information is developed about that, i don't think it's possible to accuse putin of those things. host: but the larger issue of what happens next in russia, a story that we will be following. and thank you very much for being with us. guest: thank you. host: you can get more

information by logging on to our website. we'll continue tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern time, 4:00 for those of you on the west coast. the president and c.e.o. of americans united for life as we talk about the pro life issue in this primary. joshua will be with us talking about the airlines bankruptcy. and alison kline to talk about title 1, some of the issues tomorrow morning on the "washington journal." thanks for joining us on this sunday. i hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. and have a great week ahead.