focus groups on the 2012 campaign cycle and after that a discussion on the future of iraq now that u.s. troops have left the country. and later, we will check with offered geoffrey crowd of about his latest book. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning and welcome to this edition of the "washington journal." today is sunday, december 25. in this edition, we will start off for the first 45 minutes talking about political heroes. we want to find out who are your political heroes, what issues

did they champion, why are they a hero in your book, what did they do, what did they say, what kind of message did they bring across, or what kind of movement did they start in order to make themselves your political heroes? 202-737-0002 for republicans. 202-737-0001 for democrats. 202-628-0205 for independents. you can also get in touch with us through e-mail, journal@c- span.org. if you are on twitter, you can follow us at @cspanwj. on facebook, conversation is at facebook.com/c-span.

that is also where you are able to find our poll talking about political heroes. we want to find out who is your political hero. our first call comes from chicago, illinois. ralph on our line for independents. caller: merry christmas to c- span's audience. thank you very much. ron paul comes to mind because of the consistency of his views and also being able to take on the whole congress, voting opposite the direction of the whole congress on unconstitutional litigation, and trying to free -- end the persecution of drug addicts at the same time saving a couple of trillion per year, depending on how one calculates the cost. also, allowing for more

competition in fuel saving, like a 200 mpg carburetor. host: if you go to our facebook page and check out the poll, you'll see that ron paul was the no. 1 vote-getter. if you want to continue to add to that, go to our facebook page, facebook.com/c-span. you will be able to see the entire list of political heroes. next up is shar on our line for democrats in iowa. caller: good morning. merry christmas to everyone. my hero is john edwards. he was an advocate for insurance, him and the roosevelts. i think they have been really --

thery have been too critical of him. he really did want to help the people. he was an advocate for -- my husband as multiple sclerosis -- has multiple sclerosis. he is in the hospital right now. i do not hear any of the political heroes talking about our insurance. our insurance is poor. host: are you able to separate the work that he did on behalf of insurance litigation vs some of the shortcomings that came up in his personal life? caller: i do not care about his personal life. john f. kennedy -- i would consider him a political hero. he would be right up there next to him. it does not make any difference. i think all of them do the same thing. host: we're going to move on to scott on a line for republicans,

in tallahassee, florida. who is your hero? caller: i would like to be bipartisan. republican rick santorum and democrat harry truman. host: why those two gentlemen? caller: rick santorum because, regardless of what the polls say and what the majority opinion is, he stands by his principal and he does it without being nasty. he is able to present things in a clear and thoughtful way. that is rare today. if we had more people like him in office, there would not be so much cynicism and distrust. for harry truman, i really appreciate his story as someone that grew up in the midwest, farming roots. he had to work very hard to get where he was. when he got in power, he never

forgot where he came from. he always tried to help everybody. he did not try to put one group against another. host: even though they are from different parties, senator santorum and president truman, do you see any sort of similar thread that passes between the are two styles of politics, or -- between their two styles the politics or the way they deal with people? caller: i do. he likes to do the whistle-stop campaign. they have both shown great patriotism in times of national challenges. host: we're talking about our poll, which can find out our facebook page, talking about who is your political hero -- which you can find on our facebook page, talking about who is your political hero. governor romney is leading. representative ron paul is rising in the new hampshire

poll. gingrich's surge muted as first u.s. primary nears. again, that is from "the boston sunday globe." next up is charly from topeka, kan., on our line for independents. who is your political hero and

why? caller: good morning. my political hero is franklin roosevelt. host: why is that? caller: because he was basically the only president that took serious what the financial and big corporations did to our economy during the great -- after the great depression, and what he put in took care of us for 50 years. and then this one, this one we just went through, nobody was taking responsibility for it. host: charly, if fdr was president today, how do you think that he would handle the relationship between the white house and congress, in order to try to get things done for the american people? caller: i would think that he would have realized by now,

hopefully obama is getting to that point, that sometimes you just cannot negotiate with people that completely despise you. and you just got to go to the american people, point it out, and explain what you want, and they will go along with you. host: andrew in boynton beach, florida. welcome. who is your political hero? caller: thank you to this service -- thank you for the service you provide. i would echo the sentiments of the previous caller, definitely franklin delano roosevelt, who created the new deal, took a lot of senior citizens of the poverty, and ended a lot of disparity between citizens. he will eternally be seen as one of our great presidents. in addition, lyndon johnson.

there was a civil rights legislation in the 1960's that gave blacks and minorities the right to vote and fully participate in our democracy. i would like to make one comment regarding frank luntz. i'm curious why you are inflicting this man on us every christmas morning. this man is a propagandist, who uses -- language to upset the whole political process. i am curious why, each christmas morning, we are subjected to this. here is his one approach. blame washington. never take responsibility. this is the advice he gives republicans. los now we will leave it there. we'll let our listeners know that, -- host: we will leave it there. we'll let our listeners know

that frank luntz, the president and ceo of luntz global, will be our guest. he will be here to talk about the focus currency has been working with leading up to the first voting of the 2012 -- focus groups he has been working with leading up to the first voting of the 2012 campaign. frank luntz will be our guest in about another half hour or so. stay tuned and check out what he has to say. back to the phones, cincinnati, ohio, donald on our line for republicans. donald, you are on the "washington journal." caller: merry christmas and god bless c-span. my political hero is ronald reagan. he helped restore faith and belief in this country and a time when there was -- when it was so necessary, coming out of 1970's.e 1970'- i truly believe that barack

obama, in my opinion, has been a necessary experiment, but his views have turned -- have attempted to turn this country upside-down on all of the fundamentals that it was founded upon. and i truly believe it is time for this country to have some faith anin itself again. host: donald in cincinnati, ohio. the lead story in this morning's quoting your times -- this morning's "the new york times."

a different look at the same story in this morning's "the washington post." michael birnbaum writes --

ofu can read more c article thisbaum's morning in "the washington post ." a caller from thurman, iowa. caller: thank you for c-span. i watch it almost every day. my political hero is chuck hagel. he is the only one who is electable against obama. all other republicans who have participated in the debate -- none of them are delectablelect. host: how do you define "?electabelectable caller: jon huntsman is

terrific, but he is not anywhere close. i have problems when anyone says, you elect obama and iran will have a nuclear weapon. you elect me and they will not. come on. life is much more complicated than that, especially in the world out there. newt gingrich is smart, it has a lot of good ideas, but he is going to implode. ron paul is a great hero. they simply will not be elected. barack obama will be elected against any of them. look at the convention. look at haley barbour. he is too far in the south. they will look at and jeb bush. do not need another bush. mitch daniels would be terrific. his wife will not let him. who are we going to do? they will look and say, why don't we do check a gold -- do chuck hagel?

strong on national security. host: you're going to leave it there -- we are going to leave it there. sarah, who is your political hero? caller: happy holiday to you. thank you for c-span. my political hero is president obama. the reason president obama is my hero is because he is a family man. he is smart, intelligent, represents family values. he came into office by the time when this treasury was about to go over the cliff. he has got a lot of things done in spite of opposition. the financial markets, the oil spill, the don't ask, don't the killing of bin laden and gaddafi -- he has gotten so

many things done and he does not get credit. in spite of all the opposition, he has kept his cool. and i just love that he is a good family man in the midst of all this turmoil about adultery and everything else. he loves his wife and family. i just adore them. host: sarah in dayton, ohio. we have two tweets to read to you. the first comes from cspanjnky. emery4545.et from next up is ronnie on our line for republicans calling from naples, florida. caller: good morning, mary

christmas and happy holidays. i support from paul. he is my political hero -- i support ron paul. he is my political hero. i have learned a lot from him, about centralized banking, keynesian economics, our currency used to be based on the gold standard. the wars that i used to see as necessary i now see as part of the military-industrial complex, which president eisenhower warned us about. our representative form of government no longer represents us, we, the people, but corporate banking interests. if the elected, dr. paul could begin getting our nation back to our original, constitutional form -- if elected, dr. paul could began getting our getting our nation back to

our original, constitutional form. i believe that america can be great again. the liberties and freedom that we have from our creator must be preserved and restored. host: ronnie in naples, florida. in the "baltimore sun," the headline is --

sacramento, california, bobby on our line for independents. who is your political hero? caller: elizabeth warren. she taught me how the economics of the middle-class have been going down. they throw credit at you. it is just credit ruining the middle class -- debt and credit. host: even though you are in

sacramento, california, give me some thoughts about elizabeth warren's run for the senate. caller: she is going to win. her opponent switches tactics. you can read about his past decisions and past actions. she is going to win the senate. host: all right. we will leave it there. bill wilson sends us this e- mail. it says -- a reminder, if you want to see the folks that made our list, you can go to our facebook page, facebook.com/c-span. back to the phones, rick on our line for republicans, calling from summitville. caller: merry christmas. it is the day we celebrate the

birth of jesus christ. my hero is rand paul. he is a veteran and a doctor who has delivered 4000 babies. he has been elected to congress four times. anybody who says he is not electable -- any time i read a newspaper that has a negative comment -- it is like 90% positive for dr. paul. he is the only hope our country has, especially when they are looking at an economic collapse. he has been warning about this for the last 30 years. i appreciate c-span. i thank you. host: next up is michael on our line for independents, calling from manhattan. caller: good morning. you have a great show. my political hero is robert kennedy. host: why is that? caller: i will tell you the

reason. obama said the following statement -- i am going to cut $400 billion per year out of social security, medicare, and medicaid, but i am going to make no cuts in the military. you have $1 trillion military budget including the intel agencies, and a cut in medicaid for poor people is totally against what robert kennedy believed in. so, obama is really taking the right position, similar to nixon, in his idea of social security. so, i would go with robert kennedy. he would not have $1 million per soldier in afghanistan, which their number one export is drugs. 90% of the people in prison are there because of heroin.

the drugs should be destroyed in that country, because they are killing the youth and the blacks in the inner city. host: justin, macon, georgia, on our line for democrats. caller: my political hero is senator sanders. he makes it pretty clear that government is not a problem. the problem is that government should be even more responsible than what it is. i think republicans and democrats as they look at what is going on here, they all agree that we have to make our communities stronger, and that begins idle local level. in this day and age, -- that begins at a local level. in this day and age, people are

aware that capitalism has to become more -- host: jeff in macon, georgia. dw sends us this tweet. we also have a tweet from kentuckybelle1957. phones on our line for republicans, brent in

illinois. caller: i really did believe in george w. bush. he did what he had to do in the time that he had to do it. sure, he bank -- andsure, could have done better. obama has laid everybody off. if they were working, their money could be spent and they would be better off. how is obama left with his legacy and then we got worse? host: we're going to move on to audrey in macon, gerogia. -- georgia. caller: first of all, merry christmas. thank you for c-span. my political hero is president barack obama. in spite of the other person that just called, talking about

how president obama has laid people off, i lost my job in 2005. president obama was not president then. my thing is, he is steady, he is calm. he is strong. he is smart. he is very articulate. everybody wants him to lose his cool so they can say there goes an angry black man. he is not giving them that. my political hero is the president, barack obama. host: in "the washington post," "china criticizes the u.s. official in hong kong."

back to the phones, albert, you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. merry christmas. happy hanukkah. my political heroes are the founding fathers themselves. they did it through faith and sacrifice, including abraham lincoln, who had to undergo a, i think, the most challenging times of all when he was trying to save the union.

my favorite modern-day president is president reagan. i served in the military with him a couple years -- a couple of years with him as the commander in chief. he did not get into the white house until he was a senior citizen. in fighting the cold war, he was a very, very strong man. i'd think you for your program and i bank you for your time -- i thank you for your program and i thank you for your time. host: what do you think it was about president reagan paused age when he got into the white house that made him who he -- president reagan's age when he got into the white house that made him who he was vs. other presidents like clinton? caller: i just like his character and his strength. nowadays, people get alzheimer's in their 50's. this man was the commander in

chief of america when he was a senior citizen. i just found tremendous strength in the man. that is what we need right now, someone you can really believe in, someone you can put your faith in. host: in "the new york times" this morning, "kim jong-il son cleared as top military commander."

in queens, new york, on our line for republicans, our next call comes from bernie. bernie, you are on the wall "washington journal." -- on the "washington journal." caller: george washington. after the revolutionary war, he decided he was giving up his leadership of the army. most of the people in the authority -- in authority wanted him to maintain his leadership, which would have given him almost dictatorial potential. later on, when he was president, he decided that two terms was enough. they wanted him to run for more. he said, no, giving it back to

the people. he gave up power. that is something that this group of politicians do not want to do. they want to use power for his purpose. he was doing something for a greater principle. thank you. host: in "the washington post" this morning, montreal, leakey says he will fight -- nouri al- maliki says he will fight iraq break up.

you can read more about that in this morning's "washington post." at 8:30, will be having a discussion on the future of iraq following -- we will be having a discussion on the future of iraq following the u.s. exit. back to the phones, victor. good morning caller:. good morning. my favorites would be abraham lincoln and john f. kennedy, because they are the only two presidents who fought for the poor people. you can watch -- and understand

these guys. obama is just getting more and more money. host: what do you think -- are you still with me? all right. let's move on to benjamin in arcadia, south carolina, on our line for republicans. caller: good morning gussies band. i hope you give me the time to make a few points -- good morning, c-span. i hope you give me the time to make a few points. it is about eisenhower. i want to set the record straight on lyndon johnson getting all the credit. they see the photos of him signing the bill -- the civil rights bill with martin luther king, who was a great man in his own right, in 1965. he fought to the nails on eisenhower on the first civil rights bill in 1957 -- two-and

with eisenhower on the first civil rights bill in 1957. they were trying to deny black children the rights to go to school, to integrate schools. it was republicans who were trying to do the civil rights thing. that is enough about that. so, definitely, eisenhower does not get enough credit. lyndon johnson got who was guarding against civil-rights in 1957, -- lyndon johnson, who was fighting against civil rights in 1957, gets all the credit. my favorite politician right now -- i have several of them. it is the tea party members. i have one especially that i really like. he is my favorite. it is not paul. it is not some of the other ones. it is not my representative.

it is one allen west. all the people down south are not the racist homophones that we are made out to be. west is a champion. he is a 1 and under -- is a 100% black man. he is the best. i wish he was the president. i would feel a lot safer. host: more regarding the war in iraq. from "the houston chronicle" --

that is the lead story in this morning's "houston chronicle." next is ray on our line for democrats, calling from laurel, maryland. caller: good morning. mcfadden, born in 1876, died 1936, 10 years as head of the banking committee in congress. he was a congressman from pennsylvania. he was there when the federal reserve was enacted.

one of his quotes, "the federal reserve banks or one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen -- abanks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen." he knew what was going on with the international bankers, the zero who was running the federal reserve. they put him out of congress because he would not stop trying to warn people about the federal reserve. i would remind everybody to look him up. he warned us about what is going on today years ago. host: in "the new york times" --

back to the phones, on our line for independents, rosemary. rosemary, are you there? caller: hello? host: hello? is that rosemary?

caller: this is butch in connecticut. host: go ahead, butch. caller: i would like to nominate george "rub-a-dub- dub" bush. host: we're going to move on to sebring, florida, doug. caller: i do not have any political favorites, because i think they are all a bunch of crooks. the other thing is we do not have a president, because you have to be going been in this country to be president of the united states -- be born in this country to be president of the united states. host: you do not believe the documentation that has been provided that says that our president was born in the 50th

state? caller: no, i don't. i believe what others have said, that those documents were falsified. his brother and aunt were here illegally. his uncle -- [unintelligible] that's all i got to say. host: phoenix, arizona, sarah on our line for democrats. caller: the last comment shows the ignorance in our country. i know obama is darker skinned than most white people in america are used to, but he is an incredible him and being -- incredible human being. that is what matters to me.

his characters dance for himself. -- character stands for himself. barack obama gives me hope. he says he is going to do things and he does them. he loves this country. he is an incredible human being. host: in "the chicago tribune," the lead --

you can read more about that in "the chicago tribune." next up, joe in martinsburg, west virginia, on our line for republicans. caller: i would like to discuss my hero, which would be abraham lincoln. i would like to portray the feeling behind abraham lincoln and the way it is expressed. you cannot help small men by tearing down big men. you cannot strengthen the weak

by weakening the strong. you cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. you cannot help the poor manned by destroying the rich. you cannot keep out of trouble by spending more of your income. you cannot for the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred -- further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. you cannot establish security on borrowed money. last, you cannot help man permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. host: joe in martinsburg, west virginia. in "the new york times," this op-ed --

we are going to take a break. first, in 45 minutes, we'll be talking about the future of iraq here on the "washington journal." after this break, a discussion on the public -- on public opinion and campaign 2012.

you're watching the "washington journal." today is sunday, december 25. we will be right back after this break. >> with the iowa caucuses next week and the new hampshire, south carolina, and florida primaries later in the month, c- "the contenders"the contender looks back at those who ran and lost, but had an impact. "the contenders" -- every night at 10:00 eastern on c-span. >> so, i am here, arguing in

favor of higher taxes on the wealthy. i am one of the wealthiest 1%. >> would you guys be willing to donate to the department of treasury? them individually -- >> individually? >> nno. >> you can put in your credit card number and donate to the government. >> that is not going to help anybody. i want our class -- you have heard me. you are being silly. >> i am a video journalists. i would say that what we're doing is almost like citizen journalism, which is basically when an individual who does not have that much training in journalism as the tools of modern technology to capture or -- has the tools of modern technology to capture a live event. >> video journalist michelle fields shares are experienced

reporting for the 24-hour news site the daily caller, tonight on c-span's "q&a." >> next week and, "booktv " and "american his three tv -- "american history tv," a look into the history of fastenebatoe and jean paul marat. it only aired once, but it may be the most famous political ad ever produce.

=--- produced. historians and participants on the impact of the 1953 baton rouge bus boycotts. also, tour the louisiana state archives. plus, louisiana's state could documents. -- statehood documents. all next weekend on c-span2 and c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: frank luntz joins us to talk about public opinion polling and campaign 2012. we want to talk about your prediction that ron paul is going to win the race in iowa, the iowa caucuses.

do you still stand by that? guest: i still stand by that. can we first say hello, mary christmassy, happy hanukkah -- merry christmas, happy hanukkah. i have been on your christmas show for years. i assume people will be relaxed. every time i do the show, i listened to callers, and i wonder, it's christmas, y'all. host: may feel support for the candidates and they are supporting. guest: 1 called in and said obama is not a citizen. another said that bush is "retarded." it is christmas morning. host: that is the great thing about this country, that we can

say that. guest: we also hope we can agree -- disagree without being disagreeable. we can respect each other. host: you stand by your prediction. let's take a look at this ad and then get your comments. >> i think this is the court challenge of america, -- is the core challenge of america, that, beyond the words, there is a real question of policy, of of values, and the seriousness -- of seriousness. >> we do not always see eye to eye, but we do agree. >> we must take action on climate change. >> he has been on the same side -- in different sides of the same issue, sometimes on the same week.

ryane cut the at offer support the obama administration. >> are real question of values. >> let's look at the politicians who created the environment, the politicians who profited from the environment. >> he took $1.5 million. freddie mac paid gingrich at least $1.6 million. host: frank luntz, talk to us about the effectiveness of this ad. guest: the campaign against gingrich has been so severe in iowa because no one ever expected him to be where he was. his numbers have fallen in the iowa while they have stayed high nationwide. it is interesting to me. ron paul, up to this point, had been one of the most positive candidates. he has been running negative

after negative after negative. the reason why i think he wins is that he has a greater organization than any candidate in american politics today. his people are active, committed, young. they do not mind if it is snowing. it just gives them a greater fervor. i think they will come out and vote. i follow the tone of american politics. dr. paul, because he is more proud of his medical profession and he is politics -- profession than his politics, he is a very bright man. it would be a tragedy to me, if i were him, that some of his people are so negative and so vicious awards those -- vicious towards those they oppose. i urge viewers, go to the blogs.

read about where dr. paul stands. see how vicious they are to each other on the blogs and to others who might disagree. if you really want to elect ron paul, you won't be as vicious towards those who might disagree and he will promote the candidacy -- you will promote the candidacy more effec tively. host: we have the numbers up on the screen. we want to take a quick look at this article that was in this morning's "new york times." gingrich falls short of signatures needed to get on the primary ballot in virginia."

"he said he already had the requisite -- first off, how does this story affect how people are going to react in iowa, which happens in, what, about 2 1/2 weeks? guest: it affected me. i look at this and say "pathetic." hillary clinton got more votes

than barack obama in the 2008 democratic presidential primaries, yet she lost. obama won 10 stakes in a row. the clinton people, who were paid millions, got rich off of her campaign, yet they were not smart enough to understand the importance of organization. gingrich is the best indicator of the bonds. if you want to put someone up against barack obama -- gingrich is the best debater of the bunch. host: to the phones, robert on our line for independents. robert, you are part of the occupy d.c. movement, is that correct? caller: yes. i have been tracking the republican candidates. i really do not see any of

them having any chance. it keeps spiralling downwards. you have mitt romney, newt ronrich, and especially paul, his libertarian nature is to shut down as many government institutions as possible. my question is, with all of the different the regulation -- different deregulation and shutting down portions of government, i am sure it would cripple the security and exchange commission even more than it is right now -- guest: the issue is, what is the role of government, and i understand your question, what is the role of government and what is the role of freedom. how much freedom should they have and how much freedom should they sacrifice? it is interesting to me. this is one of the reasons i

like doing this show. it gives me a chance to clarify things that happened during the year. it used to be that i could find language that would read the left and the right, that i could find things we would agree on -- would thread the left and the right, that i could find things we could agree on. now there is no compromise. there is no cooperation. there is no common ground. i managed to upset both "the edge" show on nbc and -- the american people do not trust capitalism anymore. it goes to what congress said. the issue is that capitalism is a negative term. those people who want to the and capitalism are defending the definition that carl marks -- who want to defend capitalism are defending the definition

that karl marx had for it. what we have here is crony capitalism. all of the special interest groups in the lobby, the building that is about 16 blocks from here, 1500 pennsylvania avenue, what they do for their friends -- is all about economic freedom. what i would say to the caller is, most people will benefit -- most -- when you make this country as free as it can be, give people both individual rights and responsibilities. that is what we always forget, with the rights go responsibilities. we have to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves, but let's do it in a way that promotes the most freedom possible. over 80% of americans believe in that philosophy. economic freedom is what we should be promoting right now. host: next up is donna, calling

from baltimore, maryland. caller: i agree with the capitalism part. you had said earlier that you tried to intertwine the democrats and republicans. why does capitalism had to be so closely intertwined -- have to be so closely intertwined with democracy? they give you sound bites and you only hear the ones that you here. i was wondering if you did any polls about how people felt if nafta had contributed to this. host: sorry about that. you have given us a lot to work with. guest: i feel one way, and the public feels another. i support free-trade.

it is good for politics, good for democracy, and good for human rights. the public does not see it that way. they are very concerned about the weakness of the man out that in many of these trade agreements. they do not have a positive view of nafta. i hold the business community responsible for that. why is capitalism so closely intertwined with democracy? economic freedom and political freedom go hand in hand. i knew what he was even before i could see it. holy cow -- i am grateful to be here. what is my message? my grandparents on one side came

from kiev. i would be one of those kids right now protesting trying to get my freedom. my grandparents and great grandparents did not speak english, had no money. they were courageous. i was not born when they were alive, so i can never thanked them. but that would be me. hundreds of thousands of people in red square protests in. be grateful for what you have in this country. we have a free country, a free society. thank god my family had the courage to come here. host: next up is roberts calling from milwaukee. caller: good morning.

in regards to what you just said about your family, part of my family is of indian descent. part of my family is from african descent. someone took the land away from my indian descent and brought the african descent over to build this nation. that part -- since you said that about your descent. in regards to the political aspects, it seems as though the republican party is trying to put us back into the 1940's and 1950's.

not wanting us to have the right to vote. things are just changing. the republicans are trying to make things change for the worse. what is your opinion? guest: i appreciate that question. it is that told woody allen line. i go back to 1900, at 1876 on the other side. host: it seems as though what he was addressing has more to do with the story in the associated press. it was the first voter i.d. lot to be rejected by the federal agency in nearly 20 years.

this is according to their assistant attorney general. guest: voting was always easy. my parents used to take into the voting booth when i was a child. you should have to show identification. we have a voter i.d. problem in this country. i worked in new york. i watched what happened in 1993 when busloads of people who were trying to cast wrong ballots would go from polling place to polling place. i was there. i get to how this process works. if you lose faith in free and fair elections, we have lost faith in democracy. you cannot take a train or fly

without having some sort of idea. government official government -- government official idea. host: the of there are thousands of people who go through their daily lives to do not need any kind of ide.d. they deal with their merchants on a cash basis. there are lots of people who do not have voter -- a photo ids. >> it is a driver's license. they are trying to find a way to detach the individual from the picture. we allow people to vote by mail, a week early. elections are very special time. it is a coming together of the community.

it is accountability, ensuring that the right people vote in the right place. that is all it is, accountability. host: our guest is frank luntz, a republican pollster. if you want to give us a call, the numbers are on the screen. our next call comes from california. caller: good morning, gentlemen. merry christmas. happy hanukkah. i think you really have a brilliant observation, frank. i endorse the idea that -- be the change you seek. the authenticity will translate to the voters. especially be ron paul voters

like myself. host: can i ask you a question? have you been to some of the pro-ron paul blocs? have you noticed how mean they are to people they disagree with? caller: there is a lot of that. if we're going to promote freedom, we have to be very tolerant. the most fundamental freedom we have this freedom of conscience. if we're going to bring voters along and promote the idea of freedom so that they get it. guest: if you were the typical -- ron paul is gaining ohio -- iowa and new hampshire.

if other ron paul supporters had your philosophy, you can add five points to his total support. there would be much more of an embrace them pushing people away. host: in the boston sunday globe this morning, they have a poll. according to their survey, they have mitt romney with 39%. no surprise there. new to gingrich, 17%. jon huntsman 11%. guest: it is his first stand and his last stand. he has not the race -- he has not raise the money. i do not understand the rationale for his campaign. jon huntsman is the most likely candidate to attack other

republicans in these public forums. republicans, their focus for the election should not be on each other. it should be on the differences between themselves and barack obama. host: how did your friend g8 -- how do you differentiate or tell the public, i am the best one of these seven to go up against president obama without talking about what you see are the negative aspects of other people's campaigns? guest: it is easy to disagree without being disagreeable. in the debates, when he has been negative toward other candidates, it has a sharpness to it. every time he doesn't, he gets a negative reaction. he only has three weeks to do it. host: oklahoma, a republican

line. caller: ok, yes, i have a couple of comments. i am in support of ron paul. many veteran support him. he gets in more donations and then all the candidates, including barack obama. that is overlooked many times. do not confuse -- i lost my train of thought. the very first caller said barack obama wants to get rid of a lot of federal agencies. what he wants to do is get rid of the federal agencies that is not guaranteed by the constitution. everyone can see that maybe it is a problem for our country going further into debt. the government spends too much

and is too involved with everyone's lives. guest: thank you for your service. i was in atlanta three days ago and i saw a flight filled with young men and women heading to germany. i do not know where they will be stationed. i thank you for your service. for those of you watching today, and want to do something for the men and women in uniform or not having a christmas dinner, there is an organization. you can send a message that stays with you forever. it goes into the blogosphere. it is one of the new technologies. it allows servicemen to send messages to their loved ones for free. it stays forever. it never gets deleted. i also want to thank those men and women who have spouses and kids and parents. we always talk about people who

serve, i do not know how these moms are raised to an three and four kids when their husbands are gone for three and four years. they do so much for this country. it is a chance for people to go back and said thank you, a visually. as far as what the caller said, americans want to see less government. we disagree on what government we want to cut. is it military? is it social services? is it reforming entitlements programs? the public does believe that government is too big and does not do enough for them. we did a survey last year and we found that americans feel less free today than they did five years ago. that is remarkable. it is something we should consider.

host: next up is on our line for democrats: from trenton, new jersey. caller: to really give expression to my feelings about the political discourse of today, it is people like you and newt gingrich that people cannot compromise in washington. you have offered the practice of demonizing your opponents. -- authored the practice of demonizing your opponents. what the inheritance tax did was to allow a fair taxation that was not earned by the recipient. the benefits went to the child

of someone [inaudible] the quality and discourse in washington is because of people such as yourself. you're kind of like the drug dealers -- guest: you just did it. you just referred to me as a drug dealer. you just participated in the kind of communication that you say you absorb. that is what i do not understand. and on christmas of all days. she was making a legitimate point. we may disagree, but then she created this visualization comparing me to a drug dealer. why do we do this? host: why do you think we do it? guest: i think we feel no one listens to us. i think we feel handcuffed.

host: liberals look too liberal commentators. there are conservatives and they take things from conservative commentators and blow things out. the commentators themselves blow things out. host -- guest: let me give you an example. there is an african-american mayor for a large city in america. my favorite mayor in america is the democratic mayor of los angeles. my favorite governor was the democratic governor of pennsylvania. they never use that kind of the trio. a majority of americans -- vitriol. a majority of americans want to take america back. i do not want to say -- he said to me, take america back to what?

are those the values of the 1950's or early 1960's? the values of segregation, a division, the values before civil-rights? i was stunned. i understand his point. for some people, take america back is to return to face, a family and freedom. to others, it is to return to a time of racism and segregation. i understand the power of words. if you do not want that kind of division, do not use language that automatically raises hate. that is what this is about. host: randy on airline from independents. where is the queen arkansas? caller: is in the southwest corner of arkansas. host: what is your question or comment? caller: iac and a population

become more and more educated. when i first order supporting ron paul, hardly no one could talk about the problems in europe, central banking, etc. now almost everybody i talk to understand those concepts. guest: he is doing very well for the society who sees government as intrusive. he is also doing well for those independent voters who do not believe the u.s. should be as engaged in active in foreign affairs. there is a segment of american society that just says no to everything it wants to go live their lives. he has had an effective appeal. by the way, the one who no one talks about, is his son rand

paul, senator from kentucky. a great communicator, a very bright. not as polarizing as his father. very impressive senator. host: you bring up the term polarization. it was part of what we saw in the last couple of weeks regarding the house and the senate and the way they dealt with the tax cut extension legislation. guest: or did not deal with the tax cut legislation. host: at present holland is our guest on newsmaker is -- chris van holland is our guest on " newsmakers" this morning. we talked about the next steps in congress. this is what he had to say. >> we began the work of trying to extend all of those items

beyond the two months. we will have to find those areas of common ground. there remain some significant differences between the two parties. it is why it was important to put this two month extension in place. for example, i think we should look to cut a lot of the loopholes. the republicans put forward ideas to increase medicare premiums for seniors. there is going to be a big discussion as to the best way to move forward on these issues. host: you can see the entire interview today at 10:00 and 6:00 on c-span. it is also available online. he talked about a common ground, how to the two political parties find common ground when elements in both parties believe that if you compromise, if you

look for common ground, it is seen as losing or giving the or given the advantage of the other side? guest: it i like congressman van hollen. i think he is very smart. i think his heart is in the right place. he and paul ryan disagree. their willingness to give in certain areas. paul ryan introduced legislation on medicare reform. the two of the more able to find common ground. senator bennett, michael bennett of colorado, and senator tom coburn, a democrat and republican, are seeking to find ways on the senate side to

coalesce a compromise position on the budget. even though you have on talk radio and television, people pulling to the left and right, there are people in the house and senate trying to get the job done. host: next call from illinois this morning. caller: thank you for c-span. i am retired law enforcement and a veteran. i want to talk about the border idea fraud. especially in the chicago area. my concern is that i used to stop people who did not have some form of id and i did not know where they were. we had to bring the men. -- bring them in.

my concern is that -- her last time hall meeting was like a gestapo. frank, you have hit it on the button. you are doing a great thing for this country. when i went to work town hall meeting, if you did not wear a sticker across your chest and you raise your hands -- guest: i am going to ask you a favor. you use the phrase gestapo. there is a way to describe the town hall meeting without using such harsh language that you know is designed to affect people. can you find other language to describe it, sir? please. by the way, if it is good for the gis, it is good for the gander. we have to do it on both sides.

caller: i want to ask exactly why no republicans stepped forward during debate and if it was a congruent effort to try to discredit barack obama as not being somewhat american and why no one on the right to have the nerve to speak up towards these birthers and say he is an american citizen. guest: there were hundreds of people on capitol hill and across the country that said, this is a ridiculous debate. he has been elected president, move on. this is the problem.

we somehow get sidetracked. our unemployment rate is still horrific. the underemployment rate is horrible. we are more likely to reject -- we get our news from people who offered us, rather than inform us. -- of firm -- affirm us, rather than inform us. so few areas bringing us together. host: we troop -- we did that to try to get as much influence as possible. like various groups like david from new jersey. caller: good morning, c-span. i would like to wish the

american people happy holidays. i would like to say, thank you very much for what you are saying. as a world war ii veteran who has voted in every federal, state, and municipal elections since president harry truman, i am very angry. i am angry because are wonderful country is in great trouble. the country is in trouble because the overwhelming majority of our elected representatives do not represent the american people. these politicians run for office, they will tell you anything and everything you want to hear. look at their record. do their actions speak louder than their words? when these politicians are elected, they have the following

four priorities. do everything possible to get reelected. do everything possible for the party. do everything possible for the special interest. do something for the electorate, if possible. what we the american people have to do, we have to get people in office that have the following four priorities. do everything possible for the american people. do everything possible for the american people. do everything possible for the american people. host: david, we get it. thank you for the call. guest: david sounds like a cross between my grandfather and mel brooks. my favorite people in these focus groups are these world war ii vets.

he has to be in at least his mid-80's if you voted for harry truman. only 9% of americans have a favorable impression of congress. muammar gaddafi had a 14% job approval rating. over half of americans would vote out all their members of congress if they could. i think 2012 is going to be just like 2006 and 2008 and 2010. host: a tweet -- guest: one of the things we do -- if you go to luntzglobal.com,

we will send you a custom. -- question. the limitation of focus groups, only 25 or 30 people at the time. it teaches me about emotions, but the intensity you cannot get to and a telephone pole. i will never project the attitudes of a focus group to the american people. a dusty to be about passion and intensity. -- does teach me about passion and intensity. host: our last call comes from stephen in orlando, florida. caller: good morning. a very merry christmas and happy hanukkah. thank you for giving up and doing this on christmas day. i am a republican.

actually, a conservative. what happened this week would south carolina is ridiculous. this goes on every year. if you drive a car, you have to have a driver's license. it is not -- he has nothing to do with prejudice. i do not understand how hard this is. if you rob a bank, you get arrested. if you jump defense, you are illegal. you must have a driver's license to drive a car. my mother does not drive and she has a picture id . guest: explains why we have these divisions. there is a segment of society to believe that these laws are deliberately put out to prevent people from voting. he represents the greater majority. we have no one out there trying to explain them. you cannot just watched 50

minutes of c-span and get the whole story. you cannot just read the wall street journal, you have to read ""the new york times." your average, sir, it is understandable. sir, it isge, understandable. i hope people watching have a wonderful holiday. my parents are not around anymore. enjoy your family. enjoy your community. most and partly, into your country. we could be let those posters -- protesters in russia. trying to get freedom. host: frank luntz is a republican pollster. you can find out more about the

organization at their website. thank you very much for being on the program. coming up, and about 45 minutes, we will be talking about presidential pardons. after the break, a discussion on the future of iraq following the exit of u.s. troops. we will be right back. >> with the iowa caucuses next week and the new hampshire, south carolina, and florida primaries later in the month, "the contenders" looks back at 14 candidate who ran for president and lost. on monday, thomas dewey.

tuesday, at least even soon. wednesday, barry goldwater. thursday, hubert humphrey. friday, george wallace. saturday, george mcgovern, followed by ross perot. every night at 10:00 on c-span. >> i am here arguing in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy. i am one of the wealthiest 1%. >> would you guys be willing to donate to the department of treasury? >> no. >> right here, i have the donation page. all you have to do is plug in your credit card number. >> that is not going to help anybody. >> you do not want to donate to the government? >> you are being silly.

>> i am a video journalist. what we are doing is almost lexus in journalism. it is when an individual -- citizen and journalism. an individual has the tools of modern technology to capture a live event. but does not have a background in journalism. >> michelle fields shares her experiences reporting on issues. >> michele bachmann is here, i understand. she is thinking about running for president. which is weird because i hear she was born in canada. [laughter] this is how it starts. [laughter] >> id is so amazing to be in washington, d.c. here we are at the hilton.

the red carpet outside was amazing. the are you wearing? what does it matter, i am going into the hilton. >> the coverage from the white house correspondents' dinner. watch them on line on our youtubers channel. "washington journal"continues. host: we began this segment with the future of iraq. welcome to the program, sir. are you there? guest: i am here. thank you for having me on. host: tell me about the blast in baghdad. we are suing a headline from

friday's "financial times." tell us what what the situation has developed into over the last two days. guest: there is a political crisis in the days leading up to that. everyone was very concerned about the politicians going back and forth. on thursday morning, 6:30 baghdad time, we had about 15 explosions that happened over a two-hour period. killing 63, 65 people. they were very coordinated and they happened quickly. the jury concerning -- very concerning.

people knew what they were doing. host: what is the situation there today? guest: it seems calm today. since then, it has gone back to operating level of violence. it is a lot better than it was three or four years ago. yesterday, there were some incidents scattered around the country. [inaudible] host: are you still with us? it sounds like we have lost dan morris. we will continue our discussion regarding the future of iraq with daniel serwer. he is a scholar with the middle

east institute. welcome to the program. let's start off with this morning. there was a headline in "the washington post" -- he will fight iraq's break up. he warns that he has on taps power to try to keep the country together. what is that all about? guest: the constitution allows provinces to choose their regions based on the referendum. that process is seen by somebody like maliki as breaking up the country. that is a basic tension between the center and the periphery. in the periphery, you have some provinces that are majority- minority.

there are some provinces they already have their own kind of autonomy. host: do these provinces feel like they have gotten a little more leeway? they can exert more pressure for separate provinces? guest: i am not sure how much it is related to the u.s. leaving. it is more related to the feeling that they're not being treated correctly by the majority. that is a feeling that has been growing over the years. it used to be that the sunni population worse supporters of a strong central government in baghdad -- were supporters of a strong central government in baghdad. now they are having second thoughts.

host: of the headline in yesterday's ""the new york times" -- is iraq headed towards a civil war? just felt it could be headed towards a civil war. it is not impossible. i did not see the science of it in the street yet. there is a big difference in this situation today and the situation in 2006, when iraq really was in a civil war. the difference is that the population is not yet engaged. there have been bombings, there were bombings this week that were very serious, but you do not demobilization of large numbers of people. you do not see the same kind of widespread fighting between malicious and different sects that he saw five years ago. host: we're talking about the

future of iraq following the u.s. exit. if you want to get involved in the conversation, the numbers -- we will also take your comments and questions before daniel serwer over e-mail and twitter. you can also join in the conversation on our facebook page. our first call comes from buffalo, new york. caller: in baghdad, as you know, we have a relatively new embassy. supposedly, our largest and deceit in the the world. much larger than paris and -- are largest in the seat in the world. much larger than paris and

london. who are these contractors guarding our diplomats? why such a huge embassy in baghdad? host: it is a big embassy because it is a dangerous situation. a large part of that embassy is the support staff that goes with the security risks. when it comes to are the the security guards, i do not have a breakdown in my head as to what country they come from. i have been to baghdad many times. i have been guarded by people from britain, all sorts of countries. they are all, however, registered with the rocky --

iraqi government. it is not a situation in which you can do the kind of diplomacy that is required. this very large embassy is not a great way to do business. host: next up is maria for our line for independents. caller: when you analyze what is going on in the world, it seems that multinational corporations are going into sovereign nations and picking winners and losers to have nuclear weapons. it destabilizes any sense of the national identity. i understand there might be as many as a million refugees from iraq. what is going to happen to them?

or any officials going to be held accountable in the world court? guest: i do not believe that any american officials will be held accountable in a world court. they are accountable to the american electorate. that is about all the accountability, i think, most of them are going to see. so far as refugees, there are a large number of iraqi refugees. some are going to go back and some are going to go elsewhere. they have to be free to do either one, by choice. it cannot be forced. be somey, there'll other countries that will take them. the united states has not taken many, and to take more. host: our next caller is calling

from new york. caller: thank you for having me on. good morning. we would all agree -- before i even start, i hope i am wrong. saddam hussein was a monster. if you stepped out of line, you were dead, your family disappeared. all lot of these arab countries, that is the way they rule. unfortunately, by us pulling out, which was incredibly fast, whatever we did improve is going to go right back to the way it was. again, i hope i am wrong. it is going to be nothing but civil war. america is a funny country. he get into a war with the united states, they beat the

hell out of you, and then they say, let's be friends. we see what is going on there. it will go right back to the weight it was. all the money we spend less for nothing. we should have it iran. host: let me add this tweet. guest: i hope the caller is wrong. i cannot say that i am sure they are wrong. we have to reserve judgment, it seems to me. the violence in iraq is at a much higher level than we would want to except in the united states.

it has not mobilized large numbers of people. it is not extraordinarily widespread. it is my hope that iraqis still come to their senses and deal with this true political process these, using the institutions that they do have today. they have provincial governments, they have civil society. it is a hope that i admit i would not put a lot of my personal fortune on it, but it is the best bets if iraq is to come out all right. there are a lot of scenarios in which iraq does not come out all right. host: next up is florida, walter on our line for democrats. caller: please have them to explain to the american citizens that they refuse to grant immunity to our veterans.

that is why the president had to pull them out. the country would not grant immunity to our troops. guest: this is the issue, which is believed caused the failure of the negotiations that were intended to allow some americans to stay in iraq as fighting forces. when americans are deployed in a country, they get immunity from prosecution by that country. they can be prosecuted in the united states, but not in the receiving country. there was an agreement already, the iraqis refused to extend that and not provide the same protections if americans stayed past the end of this year. that is the reason president

obama felt compelled to withdraw all of them. that is the negotiating reason. there was no way an agreement could be negotiated not would have allowed them to stay under conditions that were acceptable to both countries. host: michael on our line for independents, calling from california. caller: good morning. i was requested by the state department to design a building project would iraq in 2000. i worked with the iraqi u.n. ambassador. the government was inviting american oil companies into iraq to do business. he was promising full compliance with all u.n. mandates.

he called mr. bush a slang term for an unwanted child. it is obvious that the iraq war was thanks to the neocon agenda. i do not believe that the iraqi people are going to stand for this zionist-imposed government on this country. guest: the whole question of how and why we went to war -- i think we went to war by mistake. i think that mistake was a very serious one. but i do not think it means the current iraqi government lacks

legitimacy. it has been legitimized a number of times by free and fair elections. we just have to live with the consequences of what we have done. and did knowledge what we have done. -- acknowledge what we have done. mistakes were made, and i think president bush made a big one. host: politicians accused the prime minister of maneuvering to curb sunni power. is there any evidence that maliki is reaching across these political lines? to try to find someone on the other side will help them work to bring these two sides together and move forward as a united iraq.

guest: i have not seen evidence of it. i will be very surprised if he does not do it. there are a number of members of the coalition at the main sunni base to have been talking with maliki. it would be a relatively small number of them. i do not think it will completely settled a political issues that are at stake. maliki wants a majority government that he can rule with a strong hand. a quite understandable desire, by the way. our leaders like majority governments. they like to have a majority in both houses of congress. there are institutions in the united states that prevent that impulse from being autocratic or

dictatorial. those institutions in iraq are still very weak. host: we are talking about the future of iraq following the u.s. accept with daniel serwer. he is a scholar at the middle east institute. he is a professional lecturer at george washington and georgetown universities. back to the phones. pennsylvania on our line for republicans. caller: merry christmas. we want to thank you for your work at the u.s. institute of peace would cost about -- kosovo and its government. how do you think this whole middle east than a facts -- effects turkey?

could you explain to the audience about your work at the institute of peace? guest: i would not want to go too far from iraq. one of the things people need in the aftermath of the war is to be talking to each other again. a lot of what ia and elsewhere did at that time was to get people talking to each other. we did the same thing in iraq and continue to do the same thing in iraq. i have been involved in a dialogue project in the iraqi parliament for quite a few years now that gets lawmakers to talk to each other. they formed a caucus for reconciliation in the iraqi

parliament. i think that is a good thing. it does not entirely solve the problems when the leadership gets in the kind of spats they are in right now. they are in a big fight with each other. it is my hope that the parliamentarians are still talking to each other and trying to find a way to resolve this without any further violence. host: "handover iraqi vice- president" --

what is the situation with the iraqi vice-president? what is seat in the custody of the -- why is he in the custody of the kurds right now? >> there has been an arrest warrant. he is hiding out in kurdistan. the kurds have not handed him over. he is accused of plotting terrorist acts using his personal security detail. i have absolutely no idea, but you can imagine how serious such a charge is.

if the president of the united states or to accuse and majority leader in the house of terrorist acts, that would be quite a dramatic moment for us. i do not know how it's going to be resolved. i do not think it will be resolved before the new year. i think parliament will not reconvene until the new year. that is when we will see some kind of movement towards resolution, or not. host: would that include going in? it would maliki send in troops or his security forces to go when -- go in? guest: s sending security forces into kurdistan would be very dramatic. kurdistan has its own security forces. the iraqi army has no authority.

that would be a move in the direction of civil war, but it would result in civil war, i do not know. i do not anticipate that. i think they will try to manage this in other ways, but it is not impossible that there will be military clashes. host: back to the phones. caller: good morning. i just -- i will make a short comment. before president obama started pulling out the troops, 120 soldiers were getting killed. the earlier caller said all the

achievements we have made, they will go down the drain. there is no guarantee. if it does happen that way, i would not blame that on pulling out the troops ahead of time. if you state in a country more than you should, you wear out your welcome. i still have a lot of respect for his father. he had a clear goal, and he finished his goal. president bush -- his congress, they are the ones who killed every thing. will it be possible that the

current government' make a public announcement and say, we have no problem of guns to -- against you. we welcome you, please forgive us. just because we are the host: daniel serwer? guest: i think, in his own way, prime minister maliki is trying to say exactly that. he is trying to say, this is a matter of rule of law that has to be settled in the courts, it cannot be settled by politics. the trouble is that it looks very sectarian to the population of sunnis in iraq. maliki is not winning this argument yet. he may in the end win it. he may get a court to try --

it is hard for me to picture, but that is a possibility. i do not think the sunni population of iraq is going to feel good about seeing their vice president, their highest- ranking leader in the government, on trial in an iraqi court, especially in baghdad, which is now dominated by shia. i think we have a real problem. host: we're talking about issues surrounding the role the state department and what, if any, influence iran will have in iraq. peter calling from st. louis, missouri. caller: good morning. i'm calling to ask for follow-up to an answer you give a caller earlier about accountability for leadership's actions around the world, whether there is any

accountability by world body. your answer was that our leadership is on the accountable to our electorate -- is only accountable to our electorate. can you follow-up on that? that would seem to imply that we can act with impunity around the world. that implies that there is american exceptionalism in place around the country. guest: there is no question that there is an american exceptionalism in place in this country, whether you like it or not. we are not signatories any longer to the international criminal court. there really is no institution a way of holding american leadership accountable, except through the electorate. there are some countries that claim to be able to arrest anybody for any crime against humanity and placed. -- against humanity any place.

i do not think that is likely to be exercised against american leaders. if it becomes apparent that it is likely to be exercised, there are countries that will not be traveled to. as a matter of fact, there is an exception, not only for the united states, but for many other countries as well. i do not see putin being held accountable, except by the russian electorate, either. you know, the fact of the matter is that great countries make big mistakes. i think we made one. the important thing is that we should learn from that. i am not convinced, myself, that i would get much satisfaction from seeing, from seeing president bush in court someplace. host: next up is teresa on our

line for republicans, calling from somewhere in texas. go ahead. caller: yes. i have a question. the problems that maliki is having in iraq, how -- how do you feel it will affect the iraqi -- host: you still with us? what was your question again? caller: with the problems that maliki is having in iraq, how do you feel -- with the dinars? guest: ah, dinars, yes. sorry. i was having trouble understanding exactly what the question was. i am not sure exactly what is happening with the iraqi dinar. i am not particularly concerned about that. currencies go up and down. the dollar goes up and down. euro goes up and down.

that is for the iraqis satori about, not the americans -- iraqis to worry about, not the americans. host: question from daniel, what you think iraq would be like if the americans had not invaded? guest: that is a hard question. if they had the opportunity to see what happened in tunisia and egypt, i wonder whether they would not have done as the tunisians and egyptians did. it would have been dangerous. there would have been people killed. i do wonder whether revolution would have eventually come to the raft as well. hos-- to iraq as well. host: where is memphis, mich

igan? caller: the sentiment that we made a mistake going in there. that is the wrong word -- the gentleman said that we made a mistake going in there. that is the wrong word. it was foolish. we left the job in afghanistan and unfinished. -- afghanistan on finished. in the bus -- unfinished. he said that we went in to get saddam hussein. connectionis bush's to oil. it was the neo-con's and the right-wing, jewish influence. host: talk to us about the

influence that our -- the u.s. invasion of iraq had on the relationship between the iraqis and the iranis, and how that situation has changed now that we have pulled out. guest: i think the caller is right. it has strengthened iran's handed the middle east, in general, and in iraq -- hand in the middle east, in general, and in iraq, in particular. they have a complicated relationship. they are, on the one hand, very close in some respects. there are shia shrines on both sides of the border. they are very far apart in a different sense, because iraq is an arab country. iran is not an arab country. it is majority persian. there is a complicated relationship there. our invasion tilted the balance

in favor of the iranians, who gained a great deal inside iraq by supporting various shia political parties. maliki, in my view, is not the ranian's favorite guy, because he is not reliable from their perspective, but he is supported by parties that do favor iran. they have been strengthened as a result of this. i will take "foolish" as a description of what we did. i hastened add that i do not think oil had much to do with it. -- i hasten to add that i do not think oil had much to do with it. it seems to me that oil had very little to do with it. host: tony calling from capitol heights, md., an airline for independents -- on our line for

independents. caller: first, let me say, i thought president bush was -- now, the invasion in iraq was illegal. they said it was an illegal invasion. the ground that saddam hussein committed was he stopped trading u.s. -- the crime that saddam hussein committed was he stopped trading u.s. oil. he was removed. the invasion -- the uranium in iraq. -- if they wanted to cripple that population. host: daniel serwer?

guest: i have heard that being said about saddam trading oil with others. i just do not think it is a cause for war. host:, but farmers asian boys on between the prime minister and our representatives -- host: how much of a conversation goes on between the prime minister and our representatives? things that they would like to see happening over there, warnings, gentle chiding daytogs. guest: there is a great deal that we did not see in the united states. there is great diplomacy today, normal diplomacy on steroids. we know that vice president biden has been talking to political leaders there.

our ambassador is doing it on a daily basis. he has a couple dozen diplomats doing it on a daily basis as well. this is a situation that requires diplomacy. it does not require the return of american troops to iraq, which is really out of the question. i was surprised to see it even discussed seriously in "the new york times" this morning. this is a situation that requires a lot of diplomacy and no military action. host: springfield, missouri, you are on the "washington journal." caller: i have heard this one time. i have heard that china has made ein for $1ith hussai trillion for his oil. i wondered if anybody else had heard that. i will go off to listen. guest: i have not heard that,

but it would not be surprising if china had dealings with saddam hussein on oil. china has dealings with virtually every country that produces oil, because it means a lot of oil. -- needs a lot of oil. they will buy some iraqi oil. they made by more than we do. -- may buy more than we do. oil is traded in a world market by large companies, small companies, shippers, every day, without any real interference on the part of government. it is a mistake to think the american government is going to

war over oil. the chinese government do need a lot of oil. they will make offers a real- world. i do not really have a problem with that. it is the world market. they are entitled to whatever they can buy at market prices. host: sally calling from waukesha, wisconsin. caller: mary christmas -- merry christmas to all of you on this beautiful day. i wonder what you think america should have done when our twin towers were blown up. we know they were from the mideast. i was just wondering that. no. two, i remember a time when george bush made this statement, if we could only establish one democratic country in the mideast, maybe it would take hold. we did try with them. the iraqi people had -- remember

them dipping their finger in the ink? wish we had something like that in our country. i think what happened is the other countries wanted to do the same thing. they wanted to vote for their government leaders. they did not want these dictators there. saddam hussein, if for no other reason, like in world war ii, when we went into the germany and freed those jewish people in those camps -- my god. do you think that saddam hussein was not worse or any worse than hitler? host: sally in wisconsin. if you would address, specifically, her statement regarding president -- former president bush and the establishment of one democracy. is that what has happened in

iraq? will iraq have problems at other countries in the region have had during this year of the arab -- have problems that the other countries in the region have had during this year of the arab uprising? caller: many of the shia, the kurds, the sunni will not accept this. i do not see that it is clear yet what we have establish. i do not believe that what we have establish in iraq was in for thean inspiration arab spring. arabs you should look at iraq as a catastrophe, not as a model -- arabs usually look at iraq as a catastrophe, not as a model. we have to make it come out as much in a democratic direction as possible, but by diplomatic means, no military.

host: we have been talking with daniel serwer were of the middle east institute, a scholar there, as well as a professor of international studies at the john hopkins still -- school. thank you. guest: my pleasure. host: a look at presidential pardons -- who gets them and why. that is coming up after the break. you were watching -- you are watching "washington journal." is sunday, december 25. we will be right back -- it his sunday, december 25. we will be right back. >> with the iowa caucuses next week and the new hampshire, south carolina, and florida primaries later in the month, c- span's series "the contenders" looks back at 14 candidates who ran for president and lost, but had a long-lasting impact on

american politics. on monday, thomas dooley. tuesday, adlai stevenson. wednesday, barry goldwater. thursday, a hip -- thursday, and hubert humphrey. friday, george wallace. saturday, george mcgovern followed by billionaire businessman ross perot. every nightders" on on c-span. >> i am here arguing in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy. i am one of the wealthiest 1%. >> would you guys be willing to do it -- to donate to the department of treasury? >> individually? >> yes. >> no. >> i am very active, philanthropic leagcally. >> i have a donation paige for the government.

>> that will not help anybody. you heard me. you are being silly. >> i am a video journalists. what you're doing is almost like citizen journalism. that is when an individual who does not have that much training in journalism has the tools of modern technology to capture a a live -- capture a live event, but does not have a background in journalism. >> video journal as michelle fields shares her experiences tonight on c-span's "q&a." >> next weekend "booktv and american history -- "booktv" and

"american history tv." a trip into the macabre -- the bloody book was said to be in the hands of john paul -- jean paul marat when he was assassinated. it may be the most famous political ad ever produced. on american history tv -- historians and participants on the income of the -- on the impact of the 1953 batten ruched -- baton rouge bus boycott. the 1810 document decorated a short-lived west republic of louisiana -- the 1810 document that created a short-lived west

republic of louisiana. >> "washington journal" continues. host: jeffrey crouch is an assistant professor at american university and is here to talk about the history of presidential pardons. he is the author of "the presidential pardon power." talk to us about what exactly is a presidential pardon. what happens when a president -- when a person receives a pardon. guest: a pardon is official recognition that an offense has been forgiven by the federal government. it is the power of the president's to say -- president to say, "your offense is forgiven." there are several different forms. one is a poll pardon -- full pardon. is accommodation, which is a reduction. he can grant a commutation. the president is explicitly given the power to grant

reprieves -- pardons and reprised for offenses against the united states, except in cases of impeachment. the president is able to offer pardons, reprieves, and a variety of other forms of clemency. he is able departed offenses against the united states, which means federal crimes, in pretty much any circumstance, except for impeachment. host: so, in order to get this process started, a person have to apply for a pardon. do they go directly to the white house or the justice department? both.: there is an attorney website and an application that needs to be filled out. usually, you are not eligible until five years have passed.

if you're lucky, there is an investigation. sometime in the future, you'll get a phone call that says, you have been pardoned. in recent years, the phone calls have been pretty sparse. another track to the president has developed over time. that is the direct approach. usually, that is only available to the folks who are fortunate enough to know someone that knows the president or, if they have made a lot of money, perhaps they have made generous donations. the odds of getting plenty through the normal process are pretty low. a lot of folks are trying to get directly to the president. host: we are talking about the authority of presidents to grant pardons and the history of this power as it has been used by past president. our guest is geoffrey grout, assistant professor at american university -- jeffrey crouch, assistant professor at american

university and the author of "the presidential pardon power. -- author of "the presidential pardon power." the numbers are on the screen. you can send us a message by e- mail, twitter, or on our facebook page. what is the difference between a pardon and a commutation? guest: pardon is the most complete form of relief that the president can offer. it does not allow you to expunge records of your conviction, but it is a recognition that your crime has been forgiven. that is the type of release you want if you are someone who is applying for a pardon. a commutation just reduces the amount that sentence. the most famous recent commutation was george w. bush's decision to commute the sentence of scoter libby, who, of course,

was vice president cheney promised -- of scooter libby, who, of course, was vice president jaime paz chief of president cheney's cheif oief of staff. guest: some people are trying to regain their right to vote, to serve on a jury, and, in some cases, even to own a handgun. there was a case where someone wanted to own a gun. that is why they wanted a pardon from president bush. host: our first call for professor crouch, author of "the presidential pardon power," comes from maryland. you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning.

my question was in regards to pastas presidential pardons. i know there was a bill before congress -- in regards to posthumous presidential pardons. i know there was a bill before congress about -- and another historical figure. i was wondering how likely those pardons are. i know both bill clinton and george w. bush have given these pardons in the past. what are sort of the historical currents and political currents that motivate these posthumous pardons been granted? guest: that is an interesting question. you cited the recent posthumous pardons by george w. bush and bill clinton. as far as scholars are aware, those are the only posthumous pardons that have never been granted. the second went to charles

winters, an israeli war hero. as far as callers are aware, those are the only two posthumous pardons. the caller mentioned marcus garvey. he has had his sentence commuted, but he has not received a full pardon. jeff johnson, this was a controversial person who was convicted of violating the mann act, transporting a woman across state lines for mimmoral purposes. he was a boxing champion. there has been a lot of talk about how he was railroaded and how his sentence was not bear. --fair. was a movement spearheaded by senator john mccain -- there was a movement spearheaded by senator john mccain to try to get a pardon for jack johnson. at the end of the day, president

obama decided against that. i think the reason for that is because presidents, very generally, do not like to be prodded into giving pardons. that is where things stand with that. host: jeff online for independents. -- jeff bonn our line for independents. caller: my question is about military court marshals that result in dishonorable discharges -- court martials that result in this honorable discharges. could a presidential pardon apply? guest: my understanding is that is a different process. if you go to the department of justice, there is a separate application for military clemency. host: we have a graphic we want to show you. it is the history of presidential pardons.

it talks about who was doing the most heartening. at the top of the list, franklin roosevelt issued 3687 pardons in 12 years. woodrow wilson, 2480 in eight years. harry truman, 2044 in eight years. calvin coolidge -- 1545 in six years. herbert hoover, 1385 in four years. why were these guys -- is this unusual for president to hand out that many pardons? why were these guys at the top of the list? guest: the fact that clemency has disappeared from the president's repertoire is unusual. president barack obama has pardoned 22 folks and committed one sentence in his entire presidency. -- and commuted one sentence in his entire presidency. the numbers are far cry from

some of the folks that were decided. there are a number of reasons, one of which is that there are some issues with an apartment just missed -- with the department of justice. if you look at the numbers they're small staff is expected process, it is kind of -- if you look at the numbers that their small staff is expected to process, it is kind of staggering. who should have the authority to look at that? anotherrney's office -- problem is who is looking at the applications. a lot of folks are reviewing the worker other prosecutors. there are a couple of issues that have developed that contribute to this environment where we see few were pardons coming out. -- fewer pardons coming out. host: you are on the "washington

journal" with jeffrey crouch. caller: they asked him, "how many people in the government are you paying off?" 0. said over 10- why aren't those people being separated out and put in jail? guest: i think the caller is referring to jack abramoff. he is touching on an important point. if you cannot trust people in high positions, out union have a system of government, how can you have these -- in high positions, how can you have a system of government? there are people in power, pressmen who have developed a reputation -- congressmen who have developed a reputation for

advocating on behalf of large supporters. it is an issue that should also be addressed. host: we have a tweet. talk about some of the military pardons, the mitchell pardon, the pardoned by president draft of the vietnam-erra dodgers. guest: the most important error is less vietnam era and more civil war --e important era is less vietnam era and more vici civil war era. in terms of military pardon, i

think the civil war is probably the best answer for that particular question. vietnam, bringing people back to the old, using clemency as a sort of safety valve to bring people back to the fold. we're talking about the authority -- host: we are talking about the authority of presidents to grant pardons and the history of this power with jeffrey crouch, author of "the presidential pardon power." if you want to get involved, we have plenty of space on our phonel ines. -- phone lines. send us messages via e-mail, twitter, and on face-book. you were talking about the fewer

number of pardons and mutations. how much of that involves the president's or administration's perception of these commutations being perceived as political, not wanting to take the heat? guest: if you go back 30 years and look at the most infamous pardon of all time, the pardon of richard nixon by gerald ford, that certainly had a political angle to it. a lot of people were upset about that pardon at the time. over time, public opinion has changed. ever since then, folks have really paid attention to who the president is heartening -- pardoning. the president's actions are scrutinized all the time. i think that particular part in was important. if you look at our last three presidents, excluding barack obama, they have each made a very controversial clemency

decision got all at the end of their terms as president. -- decision, all at the end of their terms as president. it was circumstances where bush could be called to testify at weinberger's trial. bill clinton, at the end of his term, pardoned marc rich, a fugitive living in switzerland at the time, the beneficiary of an undercover campaign, conducted by his ex-wife, which involved contributions to the democratic party and the clinton presidential library. he gets his pardon as clinton is out the door. there are a couple of really volatile pardoned that have happened at the end of presidential terms that have really caught the present -- the caught the public's attention and made them -- that have really caught the public's attention and made them suspicious. are on the "washington journal."

caller: good morning. would you put a percentage on the possibility of a person with no money, no political contacts, who puts in a letter and mails it off -- after all your studies, what is the percentage of that person actually achieving a hearing and the possibility of a pardon? thank you. guest: that is a great question. your odds are abysmal. i think the percentage during the bush years were always about 7%. it is a process that needs some reform. i think it could work better than it does. host: next up is john in st. petersburg, florida, on our line for democrats. caller: how are you this morning? happy holidays to you. i do not know whether it is a question or comment. many of us out here were incredibly mystified that bill clinton did not pardon leonard

pelletier -- peltier. i am completely -- i wonder what went into the process of clinton pardoning margaret and not leonard -- pardoning marc rich and not leonard. guest: there are a number of folks who pop up and have a constituency that back them and tries to get the president's ear. today, all of those folks have not received clemency. i think the president has decided, on balance, it is best to pass. host: we have an article from "the washington post," from their website.

does this disparity shocked anybody besides the people who are doing this poll -- shock anybody besides the people who are doing this poll? guest: first, let me say they are making a very important contribution. they went above and beyond in terms of tracking down

administration officials and folks who had received pardons. they are to be commended for that. two things jump out at me. how the process seems to favor white folks. and about the folks who can afford the president's ear tend to do better. this is an important first up first step in - looking at how the parting process works -- pardon process works. it is hard to make an informed decision. host: you say it is difficult to get the information. are these pardons not a matter of a public record? is there a special process? is there a freedom of information act process?

guest: they do not like to receive -- release any information about any one-day are considering. a couple of years ago -- about anyone they are considering. a couple of years ago, someone sued just to find out who had been denied clemency. you can imagine how hard it is to get the names of the folks who are in the system. there are privacy concerns. at the same time, it is hard to hold anybody accountable when you do not have enough public and permission to do so. host: you are on the "washington journal" with author jeffrey crouch. caller: good morning. clinton pardoned marc rich, which was terribly puzzling, and then he pardoned a gaggle of crooked rabbis. i was wondering if he did that

to buy jewish influence for hillary in her senate race. guest: i think that is an interesting point. why did clinton pardon who he did? his decision to offer conventional clemency to the members of the puerto rico and national terrorist organization -- puerto rican national terrorist organization. during an investigation, the law-enforcement had been opposed to clemency. when you look at the political implications, it was a time when hillary clinton would be running for senate from new york, of war would be trying to succeed bill clinton as president -- called for -- gore would be trying to

succeed bill clinton as president. there are several political considerations that may have played into his clemency decisions. host: what kind of conditions was the administration going to put on this clemency? guest: they were told they had to refrain from the tides of advocacy they had been involved in in the past. host: our next caller is from julie on airline for democrats -- on our line for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think you touched on the issue. i heard something on npr regarding the issue of race, as far as the applications for clemency and pardons go. by the time the pardons reach the president's office, all right for a -- all racial references have been scrubbed.

these are completely -- the applications are completely unbiased. the actual selection process before they get to his office are extremely biased. i guess what it boils down to -- are there any safeguards in place that can help, you know, make these more fair, more just, and less racially biased? guest: the caller makes a couple of important points. what is the role of race? do the folks making the decisions have access to racial data? i think evidence is mixed. i listened to the report that she mentioned. there was confusion about at what point racial data is taken out of the information, if at all.

the safeguards, i guess, would be considered to be the criteria for receiving the pardon. on the web site, they talk about what kind of life you have blood center offense, how you have contributed to society, that sort of thing -- what kind of life you have lived since your offense, how you have contributed to society, that sort of thing. could it be more fair? i think so. that isn't in the attorney's office needs to address. -- that is something the attorney's office needs to address. host: you are on the air. go ahead. caller: and president pardons someone convicted -- can a president pardon someone convicted of a non-federal crime, or is that up to just governors?

guest: great question. president is limited to pardoning federal crimes only. if someone is convicted of a state crime, they need to go to the jurisdiction in which the crime was committed. talk to the governor, the parole board. in terms of having rights restored, the president apart and is -- a presidential pardon is, in some ways, a silver bullet. the downside to pursuing just a presidential pardon angle is that it takes a very long time for an application to be processed in those cases. a lot of the time, you are not going to receive a pardon. if i were to advise someone who was trying to get a pardon, first of all, figure out who has the jurisdiction. pursue it from both ends. host: we want to show our

viewers some of historical presidential pardons of note. 1869, and johnson pardoned and the doctor who treated john wilkes booth -- andrew johnson pardoned the doctor who treated john wilkes booth. in 1974, gerald ford pardoned richard nixon. 1979, jimmy carter commutede patricia hearst's sentence for the armed robbery. in 1992, george h. w. bush pardoned six defendants in the iran-contra investigation. can we go back to the 1989

pardoned by ronald reagan of george steinbrenner's? what kind of illegal contributions was mr. steinbrenner's making to the nixon reelection campaign? guest: steinberger is a universally beloved figure. he was a big republican -- steinbrenner is a universally beloved figure. he was a big republican donor. they can get pardoned by a president of their same party. post in a back to the phones -- host: back to the bones and our line for -- host: back to the phones. go ahead. caller: from the quantitative standpoint, how has the president's -- affected their ranking among presidents over

time? i am thinking of lincoln and his pardoning of all the confederate generals and officers with a simple statement like, "just go home." do you have an idea on how that has affected the presidents' rankings over the years? guest: thank you for the question. it is hard to say. there are only a few bargains that have helped the president's standing. the civil war pardons' helped president lincoln -- pardons help president lincoln. president johnson still needs all the help he can get. it is more the opposite. pardons can really hurt a president. we need look no further than george h. w. bush, president clinton, a george w. bush. their commutations have negative

impact on their standing. host: jim, you are on the "washington journal." caller: what were the pardons that george walker bush gave to his father, george herbert bush, before he left office? guest: i am not sure there were any pardons between them. the only party that has gone to a u.s. president was the ford pardoned -- the only pardon that has gone to u.s. president was of nixon.ardoned of u.s host: john, go ahead. i think we lost john. let's go to our line for independents. caller: i would like to make a comment. i just wonder who obama is going to pardon.

also just like to make a comment -- where is the country had eaded to? host: how far in advance of the public find out about someone being considered for pardon? guest: we really have no way of knowing. there are probably several hundred applications pending. when the president is ready to issue some pardons, there will be a press release from the department of justice that will say, "this list of people has been pardoned." beyond that, it is anybody's guess. host: go ahead. caller: mr. croucher, you dropped hints of what your research -- the conclusions of your research. how about stepping back just a bit more and taking a macro view instead of a microb view?

i think we're getting the impression that money will buy almost every one of these pardons we're talking about and how unfair that can be. guest: that is a great point. context matters a lot. when you are talking about a president who made dozens of decisions, what are the ones that people talk about? what are the ones that people remember? the ones that were an abuse of power. clemency decisions that most presidents make, especially in recent years, they are not controversial at all. there are four old offenses, nonviolent offenses. -- they r. for old offenses, nonviolent, offenses. host: during the clinton administration, there was a part of a gentleman who had been in the navy -- an african-american gentleman who had been in the navy during world war ii.

are you familiar with this? guest: i am familiar with a couple of pardoned that president clinton made to address past incidents of racism. one of the things he tried to do with clumsy par was to recognize there had been times in the past where african -- clemency power was to recognize there had been times in the past where african americans had been -- i do not think he wanted to go far in making large amounts of pardons or posthumous pardons, but he did explicitly recognize a couple of folks that he thought were treated unfairly. i mentioned the first black west point graduate, who clinton decided was treated unfairly. he pardoned him. meeks was also pardoned. host: that was the gentleman i was referring to. what was the offense that -- had been convicted of?

guest: that is a good question. i do not remember exactly. i think it had to do with stealing money. it was concocted by people did not like him. there was a recent case of a gentleman who was registering for the draft board. he faced some issues there. clinton espousal it went after that type of situation. i do not think -- clinton explicitly went after that type of situation. i do not think george w. bush did so. to this point, i do not think barack obama has done so either. host: las vegas, nevada, your question or comment for jeffrey crouch? caller: my question is about the border patrol agent that was pardoned. i was wondering if you could give us a little more information on that, the one

that was pardoned by george w. bush for shooting an illegal immigrant for bringing drugs into our country. i was wondering what the outcome of that was. in my personal opinion, that is probably one of the only pardons in the last 20 years that made sense. guest: that is a great point. i say that this was one of those pardoned that had been percolating below -- i think that this was one of those pardons that had been percolating below the surface for awhile. there was another situation that came up after that involving a part in that was rescinded by president bush -- a pardon that was rescinded by president bush. this was the last gasp for the george w. bush pardons. the offenses were committed, if i am not mistaken -- were commuted, if i am not mistaken.

host: you mentioned the six commutations during the iran- contra investigation. is there anything that deals with the appearance of a conflict of interest? you mentioned that former president bush was possibly going to be called as a witness in the trial of these gentlemen. is there no process to say, wait a minute, you cannot part in these guys because it is clearly in your best interest to do so? guest: there is no best process -- there is no process. this power is virtually unlimited. can congress make noise if it disagrees? can it hold hearings? can it have initiatives? it can do all those things. what it does not have the political will to do is use the hammer, the impeachment power, amending the constitution. you had these types of

situations that come up. the real remedy that framers provided was the impeachment power. today, i do not think anything has risen to the level of impeachment, but i think that could happen. host: 7 on our line for independents -- kevin on our line for independents. caller: hello and god bless. i have -- i am confused, in a sense, where -- ok. you have one president pardoning another president, ford pardoned nixon when he was absolutely guilty. is there a pardon on treason? -- should have been --

host: i am sorry to have cut him off. the treason question? guest: that is a really interesting point. one would think, if they were going to limit the pardon power in any way, it would be limited in regard to treason. they decided, even if the president were to pardon someone participating in treason, there was always the impeachment power to protect the country. host: so, the federalist papers, number 74, alexander hamilton wrote about the process. also, on top of that, this tweet from matt smith. he writes --

guest: that is exactly why the pardon power was included in the constitution. it is a system of checks and balances. this is one of the most important checks that the president has on decisions that come out of the justice department. host: our next call for jeffrey crouch comes from queens, new york. you are on "washington journal." caller: happy christmas to all america. hello? host: your question or comment? caller: in the spirit of christmas, a realistic question -- [unintelligible] is this pardon [unintelligible]

guest: i think the caller was talking about the christmas season. if you look back over the last four decades, this is a time when roughly half of clemency decisions are granted. i did that is because christmas is traditionally looked at as a time of -- i think that is because christmas is traditionally looked at as a time of forgiveness and renewal. host: the other half of the commutations come at the end of the president's tenure? guest: the more controversial ones. generally speaking, they are spread out through a president's term. host: we have been speaking with jeffrey crouch, author of "the presidential pardon power." thank you for being on the "washington journal." tomorrow, we will be talking with kahlil byrd about

securing ballot access in all 50 states for a third-party candidate. we will also have historian and author richard gordon smith, -- richard norton smith. we'll finish the program with david becker. he will talk to us about the money spent to improve the electoral process through the help america vote act of 2002. thank you very much for being involved in this edition of the "washington journal." see you tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] ..