discusses the role christian conservatives play in the iowa caucuses. then we will talk to ed fallon, organizer of occupy des moines. 9:15 a.m., or spotlight on magazines features author and historian amanda four men on her newsweek cover story about margaret thatcher. -- amanda foreman. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: welcome to the "washington journal" coverage of the iowa caucuses. we will be like each maureen -- each morning from des moines between now and january 3, when 1774 precincts will hold caucuses. that is a live picture on your screen of the iowa state capitol, looking east from

downtown des moines. we have two guests from iowa this morning, and are opening question is off of rick perry's comments saying he is the most conservative candidate in the race. but this segment, we want to hear from republicans only. who do you think is the most conservative candidate in the race? the numbers are on the screen. and for iowa gopers -- and you can send a message via twitter or e-mail or our

facebook page. here is the article from cbs news. this is from yesterday. that, again, is from cbs news. this is from "the hill" newspaper this morning. santorum says he will exit presidential race if he does poorly in the iowa caucuses.

mr. bob vander plaats will be a guest on this program in about 45 minutes. this is from "the national journal" this morning. sorry, this is from yesterday evening.

then, republicans only for this first segment of "washington journal." who is the most conservative candidate in the race? anthony, a republican in palm beach, florida. caller: good morning. host: what do you think? i really think it's -- caller: i really think it is rick santorum. he was put out by the liberals and democrats in the 1990's because of his views on abortion and homosexuality -- he is against homosexual marriage. he is a true conservative christian and i believe christian america will vote for him, especially iowans.

host: if you were in iowa, would you vote for him? caller: absolutely. my second would be perry but i think those are the only two candidates christian america would vote for. host: and by the way, we set aside our third line for iowa residents. and maybe get a little bit of your experience with the candidates traveling. but here are the most recent polls. this is iowa state university. rasmussen has mitt romney at 29% -- 25%. what if one of these three kids the nomination? would you both for them? caller: no, i could not vote for any of those three. the bottom line is mitt romney looks like something what disney world created. there is no substance. he is the father of gay marriage in massachusetts and most

christians and america are well aware of that and cannot support him on his abortion issues. really, our country does not need to worry about economics. our country needs to return to god, jesus christ. we forbid children from praying in school -- we should never hate homosexuals but we should not be married homosexuals. we should not be allowing them to serve openly in the military. we have a moral problem in america and we need a christian back in the white house. obama is a phony christian. the bible says he will know the true christian by his friends and obama is not a true christian. host: thank you for your time this morning. "the new york times" lead editorial --

jeffrey is a republican in of falls church, virginia. who is the most conservative? caller: actually, probably huntsman or romney would come closest. but we don't have in this country conservatism as it is historically understood -- a respect for institutions, stable social order, reference to tradition. we have elements to that, but if you look at the republican party, it is classical liberalism -- government that governs best govern least -- thomas jefferson, adam smith with free-market capitalism. on the democratic side, you have

radical liberalism -- which was not radical in the sense we think today with bomb throwing, but the way the ancient greeks understood it, which is getting to the root of -- of course, you could talk about rights and freedom but you cannot really do that unless you have economic means so you have a government intervention. there are tensions between and within both camps. but romney and huntsman show more deference to tradition, more deference toward established institution. the government bashing -- you are not getting conservatism. that is why we keep having the ridiculous argument over and over again because the level of government because they are approaching it as a problem of individual freedom as opposed to governing institutions. so, if you are a classical conservative in the tory tradition you are sort of left looking at from the or huntsman as your best choice is. but certainly not the other ones. host: thank you very much for

your call. reminder for iowa residents -- here are comments from our facebook page. adam keller -- next call comes from the week. caller: glad you have me on. i am going for newt gingrich.

i will tell you why. he seems to know everything that is going on. the other ones take gases -- i think it, maybe. the second one would be romney. i really believe they should stop picking at each other. this is enough. it is obama that is making all of these mistakes and doing all of these things. and every but -- everything is being covered up. wheen know nothing about what is going on over in iran, we'd know nothing about two months ago when the american was taken -- we hear nothing. the story is what is on tv and then no more. we have to find out what is going on. we know nothing anymore. we are being kept in the dark. host: thank you for calling in this morning. from "the washington times" --

that is an "washington times." we will have ed fallon on later, he is one of the occupy organizers in the state of iowa. the next call comes from hagerstown, maryland. teddy on the republican line. are you there? we are going to move on here and show you "the new york times."

ok, teddy in hagerstown, maryland, on the republican line. caller: first, i would like to say it depends on an individual 's definition of conservatism. a lot of people associate that

with religious conservatism. i believe ron paul is the most conservative candidate -- and he is a religious person and his brother is a pastor, but he does not believe in forcing his will or the lease and other people in the way that rick santorum or pretty much any of the other was -- of the ones. basically in layman's terms, sticking their nose and people's lives. i did not believe it is a conservative position. conservatives minder own business and they did not bother their neighbors. the religious conservatives, they are just too -- they want to force their views on people and this is much too diverse of a nation to do that anymore. and i believe as the feature goes on, their vote is going to mean less and less in this country. host: that was teddy in hagerstown, maryland.

a couple of events coming from iowa live on c-span today. newt gingrich old town halls and i would -- he will be in mason city. alive at 11:30 a.m. this morning. and mitt romney is also going to be live on c-span. he will be in clinton, iowa, at home where's deli and bakery. also live at 1:40 p.m. on c- span2. michele bachmann will be in bed asserted, live at 1:00 p.m. today. and finally tonight at 8:00 p.m., ron paul host a salute to veterans in iowa. and you can find the full schedule of events that c- span.org. nick in tampa bay. how were you? we lost nick.

we will move on to the needs of -- anita in mississippi. caller: thank god for c-span. i love your show and i catch it every morning. i am so sick and tired of this award conservative. every time it is applied to a republican candidate or any candidate that speaks ill against blacks and women. and what is going on in the united states, they use key words to say i am most conservative. i looked up the word conservative and i did not see racism anywhere near that word. but i watch c-span and cnn and i even watched fox to see what's lies they are telling -- host: are you a republican? caller: i am an independent. host: if you were to vote who would you vote for? caller: it would be jon huntsman because he is not playing that i

am a racist kind of guy. he is putting out the issues. a if i am a republican -- he is putting out the issues, but i am an independent and i will wait until everybody put out what they have to say. if a bank he starts playing i am the most conservative -- is a bank he starts playing i am the most conservative or he has letters from the 1960's like ron paul says he is against blacks, newt gingrich is against blacks, michele bachmann is against blacks, she is against gays, and she is married to a man who wants to convert people from being gay into being straight, and he is gay himself, that is why they do not show him on the news anymore. he says a couple words and raises his hand and everybody jumped all over and everybody knew she was married to a gay man. she is not going to win. let me tell you. i am a woman. i love women and their progress

is, but america is not ready for a woman president. host: all right, anita, we will leave it there. here is the front-page of the link nebraska "journal star." he is not running for reelection. the front page is taken up with his photo and a story about him. here is ben nelson talking about his retirement yesterday. >> there is much more that needs to be done to keep america strong. and while i relish the opportunity to undertake the work that lies ahead, i also feel it is time for me to step away from elective office. spend more time with my family, and look for new ways to serve our state and nation. therefore i am announcing today i will not seek reelection. is simply put, it is time to move on. i encourage those who will follow in my footsteps to look

for common ground and to work together in bipartisan ways to do what is best for the country, not just one political party. host: that was ben nelson yesterday talking about why he is not going to run for reelection. republicans only for this first segment of "washington journal." if you live in the east and central time zones, we want to know from you, if you are republican, would you think is the most conservative -- from "the wall street journal" this morning --

right below that story is another political story, and this is laura meckler's story. they have a chart over here. this is the portion of newly registered voters nationwide who lean democratic. they say it has fallen significantly since 2008. in 2008, newly registered voters -- 49% democrat, 26% independent, 25% republican. in 2011, this year so far, 32% democratic, 33% independent, 34% as republicans. the next caller is from -- chris from browning, new jersey. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: who is the most conservative? caller: by far if you look at

the record, ron paul. as far as the newsletters go, the woman stated before that she watches cnn and fox and msnbc -- people overlook something as far as the media goes. this liberal media and it is conservative -- conservative media but when you break it down the are all owned by a handful of corporations. one thing that sets ron paul apart from other candidates include in barack obama is he does not believe that corporations should be people. somebody needs to ask themselves, if you believe corporations are not people, why would the corporate media get behind the metal? instead, they will run a smear campaign. when you trust television, what you get is what you got. host: from our facebook page, where you can continue the conversation or just make a comment, michael says --

that is from our facebook page this morning. mark in louisville, ky. who do you think is the most conservative candidate in the race so far? caller: the only conservative candidates is one paul -- ron paul. i believe that because i have been following presidential races four years. i voted for ronald reagan back in the 1980's. reagan, who is the example of what a conservative is and

reagan was not conservative. he overspend -- overspent and did not do things of the definition of a conservative is. the only true conservative is ron paul. i believe the smear campaign going on right now is just because he is against corporations,, and if you were elected the military industrial complex would suffer because he would pull troops away from the world. we have a $16 trillion debt. our dollar is being devalued constantly. and the only one who knows anything about economics out there, democrat or republican, is ron paul. host: thank you for your call. a couple of e-mails on who is the most conservative candidate.

another viewer send this in -- this morning in "the washington post" is a column --

that is just a little taste of what dan balls writes in "the washington post." and this hotbed --

-- op-ed -- winning two state wide races as a -- in funding.

santorum has seen a slight bump in the iowa polls -- back to your calls on who you think is the most conservative in the race. bob in the columbia, south carolina. what do you think? caller: i think rick perry should get the nomination to fight obama. i lived in texas and i know what he is about. host: what is he about? caller: i think he makes a good point -- but the only thing that hurts him is the immigration thing, illegal kids. host: thank you for calling this morning. bill and boils down -- in

doylestown, pennsylvania. i am not sure who was on the line. jane in cincinnati? how are you? caller: fine, thank you. how are you? host: good. who do you think is the most conservative? caller: ron paul, all the way. everything about him. i trust him, i believe in him. i do not think he is prejudiced. no, i don't. i think he is a very good guy. and i think he could help our country. yes, i do. host: what positions of his do you like? caller: oh, my gosh, just so many of them. he believes and everybody making their own way. he believes in bringing everybody home strewn all over the world. i like that.

host: thank you for calling in this morning. a reminder about the january 3 iowa caucuses, c-span will be live on c-span and c-span2 that evening covering two separate caucuses. they start at 7:00 p.m. eastern time, which is 8:00 p.m. on the east coast. 1774 precincts in iowa and all 1774 precincts will be holding a caucus. it is a secret ballot and you must be registered with the republican party to participate. no independents allowed. some of the past winners. on the republican side, in 2008, mike huckabee won the caucuses. george w. bush ran unopposed in to thousand four and he also won the 2000 iowa caucuses. bob dole won them in 1996 and was the eventual nominee. george h. w. bush ran unopposed in 1992 but bob dole again in

1988 won the caucuses even though he did not get the nomination get ronald reagan unopposed in 1984, george h. w. bush won in 1980 -- that, of course, eventually went to ronald reagan. gerald ford was the nominee and sitting president won in 1976. on the democratic side, barack obama won in 2008, john carey won in 2004 -- howard dean, quite a bit in the news, can the third -- john kerry 1 in 2004. tom harkin, favorite son, won in 1992 but the eventual nominee, bill clinton, came in fourth. 1988, richard gephardt took the caucuses and michael dukakis, who became the nominee, came in third for walter mondale the nominee, also won. jimmy carter beat kennedy. uncommitted one in 1976 but

jimmy carter came in second when he got the nomination. 1976, and committed one again and ed muskie came in second and the eventual nominee, george mcgovern, came in third -- who is the most conservative gop candidate in the race and is that a point -- the port -- important? caller: yes, i believe santorum is. but the conservative part is not important, but it is the person who is running. you've got a very different batch of candidates running. gingrich, i consider him like a hypocrite. you have ron paul, and this guy is very, very scary. i am 71, so i know what he was like when he first got started and he is a racist. he is more of a neo-nazi type guy. very scary if he got in.

gingrich, he likes to throw stones -- i mean, when he helped to stop clinton he was running around his desk with his secretary. then you've got romney. he does not like unions and he is not for labor. ok? bachmann -- she is not really -- i mean, i am not as much afraid of her but the thing is she is really not that much of to date. sometimes she really does not know everything going on. host: if you were living in iowa right now, who would you call this for? caller: i would caucus for santorum. i voted for huckabee, the last one, and you guys did not give him very much of the jets and you are doing the same thing with santorum. you've got huntsman -- he is a spoiler.

it is set up right now for obama to win, the way you guys got things going, because the people who want to vote for a certain person, you are trying to do a popularity vote instead of the person who is right for the job. and that is what is scary about this country. we are going to lose our freedom -- no, as a woman, i have to worry more. you get somebody like ron paul in, he wants to get rid of the military, he was to get rid of the taxes, this and that -- well, then you did not have nothing for defense for your country, you know longer have a democratic country, all you've got is other countries coming in and taking over. host: thank you for calling in this morning. here is the front page of "the the morning register -- "the boy register -- "des moines

register." we will have one of the organizers of occupy des moines a little later this morning, ed fallon. we are live from des moines every morning between now and january 3 when the caucus is happening. a front-page out of the "richmond times dispatch."

that was the front page of the "richmond times-dispatch." and "the l.a. times" this morning. a lead story -- of our with romney in iowa voting, is how they see it. the next call comes from sally from wisconsin. who is the most conservative candidate in the race? caller: definitely michele bachmann. i am very sorry to ruth, but rick santorum is not. he is pretty much a phony. he has voted for a lot of big spending bills and he endorsed mitt romney the last time, and i did not say a difference between mitt romney, newt gingrich, and obama. there is no real difference there. and rick santorum has pushed muslim curriculum in the schools, and he has taken a lot of money from wall street, and

ron paul is not as conservative as people think he is. he is a little bit deceitful. but michele bachmann is the best debater we have in our party. she took down newt gingrich, which, to make, shows -- host: what is an issue that is important to you? caller: well, life, abortion, gay marriage, all the moral issues are very important, but to get the economy that is important as well and i believe she is the only one with a good tax plan to do that. host: if where the nominee were mitt romney or newt gingrich, would you vote for them? caller: no, i would not vote for them. i would not vote for obama so why should i vote for mitt romney or newt gingrich? host: where is clanton, wisconsin? -- lanham the law wisconsin?

in a gun near milwaukee. host: in other news, a tax bill set for increasingly rare tax committee.

that is "the washington times" this morning. pennsylvania. bill, good morning. caller: good morning. i love c-span, and you are doing a great job with this segment this morning. the only conservative in the bunch is ron paul. yes, you have sent to arm and bachmann -- they have some good ideas. -- you have rick santorum and bachmann, they have some good ideas. but they are neocons who want more in iran. you talk about scary, when i hear them talk about how we have

to have sanctions in iran and all of this other stuff -- the world is not supporting that. we are the only ones only oneswar in iran. the other thing i think a conservative is is someone who does not spend money they do not have. when i think of the word conservative, there is the word conserve their. if i am spending more than i have, which is what our big government democrat and are big government republicans have been doing, then how can i be called a conservative? romney is a big spender, gingrich's a big spender. who are you left with? let's face it. va has a right -- down to two men. ron paul at the top against romney. host: gary post on our facebook page that he likes newt 2.0.

jonesville, virginia bank -- sorry, this is john from ohio. caller: i am thinking about ron paul. i think why i want to pick ron paul is i have been unemployed since 2007 -- or, 2005. i got wrongly fired in ohio, john boehner's territory -- it was unjustified. i were to that they before that and i just got injured on the job. to waiting for john boehner get my job back. i am still waiting.

host: this is from "the hill" newspaper. and also from "the hill" newspaper in --

last call on who is the most conservative comes from floyd in the jones bill, virginia. caller: i think rick perry is the best one -- he is conservative. i think if we miss out we would miss out on a great president. he created millions of jobs in texas. the only reason he isn't at the top is the debates -- but if you compare him to what obama said, was said there were 57 states, and it confused about holidays, memorial day, mixing it up -- everybody makes

mistakes. a simple mistake and people hold against you. everybody makes mistakes. everybody does. but he would make the best present. the other thing is, we need to be praying for who god wants to be president and not what we want -- let us pray that god will be done. host: "usa today" -- that is just a little bit of the story from the money section of

"usa today." finally, a couple of twitter comments on who is the most conservative in the race. we will begin with joseph ramirez -- coming up next is bob vander plaats, head of a group of a family leader, in iowa, and he will talk about the role of christian conservatives in iowa and in iowa caucuses. he has endorsed rex santorum. we will be talking with him in just a minute from des moines,

but first, a look at some of the campaign commercials iowans are seeing on a regular basis -- from mitt romney, newt gingrich, and ron paul. >> i am going to do something to government. i am going to make it simpler and smaller and smarter. getting rid of programs, turning programs back to states, and finally making government itself more efficient. i am going to get rid of obamacare. it is a moral imperative for america to stop spending more than we take in a. it is killing jobs and keeping our kids from having the right prospects they deserve. the experience of balancing budgets is desperately needed in washington, and i will take it there. >> let us look at the politicians and created the environment, the politicians -- >> newt gingrich on the defense for taking $100 million. >> newt gingrich, $1.6 million. >> some of the just before the

housing market collapse. >> a think-tank founded by newt gingrich collected at least $37 million from major healthcare companies, the group supports individual mandates. >> he renewed his support of individual mandates, a key provision of president obama's health-care law. >> don't ask me to explain this. >> everything gingrich railed against when he was an house, he went the other way when he got paid to go the other way. >> demonstrating to be the essence of the washington insider. >> it is about serial hypocrisy. paul and i approved this message. >> the american people create jobs, not government. [applause] >> it starts very simple -- lower taxes, less regulation, and american energy plan, an act to be positive about people who create jobs. the opposite of the obama plan. >> nothing will turn america

around more than -- on election night when barack obama loses decisively. >> i am newt gingrich, and i approved this message. >> "washington journal" continues. host: that is a live picture of the iowa state capitol in des moines, on the east side of downtown des moines, and you can see the christmas lights are still up and the capitol is let as well, and our temporary studio is in downtown des moines and there on your screen is bob vander plaats, president and ceo of the family leader. what is the family later? guest: it is a conservative organization, statewide, whose mission is to strengthen families. we do it through church engagement, marriage matters, a family nurturing ministry, as well as civic engagement, which

is why we are heavily involved in the iowa caucuses as well as other legislative matters here in the state of iowa. >host: what are the issues important to your group? guest: anything that in past the family, peter. a lot of people say that has to be the sanctity of human life -- it is. we believe life begins at conception and ends at natural death. marriage, one man and one woman. but also we are very much about the economy, limited government, free enterprise, national security, energy policy -- anything that impacts the family, we are going to be very concerned about. if it is strengthening families, we are for it. if it does not, we are against it. host: why did you indorse with santorum -- rick santorum? guest: he has been to all the counties and communities, and every time he traveled the state

people said how much they liked rick santorum but there is always the looming question about could he win. you and the viewers know very well we have seen a lot of people rise and fall in this process. i really believe rick santorum could be poised for a january 3 surprise. i think he will do much better than people anticipate and an outside chance that he could win this thing. people like rick santorum, he debates very well and very good on our pro-family values. he comes to us and speaks our language. i truly believe he is one of us. we threw our support behind rick santorum. there are a lot of good candidates in this race, and i believe what will happen potentially is they may fragment or divide their vote, and if that happens you will see obviously a governor romneyprobg in iowa. host: there was a story in "the new york times" on december 12

that you were quoted in bank, saying i was evangelicals are split over the caucus endorsement, that there are a number of candidates evangelicals could naturally gravitate to. do you agree? guest: there really are. right now you see 52 are divided support. congressman ron paul has several evangelicals supporting him. newt gingrich has a lot of evangelicals supporting him. then obviously rick perry and michele bachmann and rick santorum. as i said, we are not going to talk down any candidate. they all have a lot of assets to bring to the table. they are all people who we could galvanize around as the nominee. but the advantage for romney is these votes will be fragmented and he will be able to come out of the state of iowa. that is the predicament we are in, but what i am trying to do is lead probably a coalescing movement to say let's give rick santorum a chance, he has not gotten his rise yet and i think

when he does and goes to the top of the polls, i think he will handle the vetting extremely well and the scrutiny extremely well and i think he would be our best choice against barack obama. that is why we threw our support behind santorum, but we are not going to talk down any candidate. host: you have been involved in iowa republican politics for a while. how many people normally participate in the republican caucuses, and what percentage of that would you characterize as evangelical christians? or christian conservatives? guest: four years ago i was of the state's share for governor mike huckabee. and i believe four years ago we were right at around the 120,000 benchmark of people who went out to a caucus. obviously caucuses are very different from primaries. people have to take two hours in their evening, and they have to stand up and let people know who they are voting for. you really have to believe in a

candidate. but about 120,000 people would come out. i have seen reports that up to 60% of the 120,000 will consider themselves to the people of faith or authentic conservative, evangelical voters. these are people who take this process very, very serious. they are betting these candidates any way you possibly can, and they are going to put their name on the line when they stand up for that candidate on caucus night. host: 120,000 people -- and this is a quadrennial argument that is held -- if only 120,000 people in iowa are participating, why is it so important that iowa be the first day, and is it significant anymore? guest: i believe it is very significant and i believe the candidates who come through here and participate know how significant it is. because in iowa, we are not really a red or blue state, more people stay.

we sent chuck grassley to d.c. as well as tom harkin's. but the other deal is these candidates have to come, they have to do one on one, small groups, they go through a rigorous process and they get ask every question imaginable. iowa is very good at separating the wheat from the chaff, and saying who will stand up. four years ago, it was a natural for a lot of this caucus goers to coalesce around mike huckabee because he had john mccain and guiliani and romney and thompson in the race. this time you have a lot of conservatives in the race, and because of those conservatives in the race, that is why a lot of this vold will be splintered -- a lot of the vote will be splintered. romney note advantage goes to him if it happens. host: in your view, is mitt romney pro life and if he were the nominee, would you support him? guest: well, the problem we have

with governor romney is that not only has he been on both sides of the life issue, but the marriage issue, and the healthcare issue -- and not just on both sides, but he has been passionately on both sides. so, there is a huge trust gap with us with governor mitt romney. now, the reason why we are going through this caucus and primary process is to determine who could be the alternative to mitt romney to beat barack obama. i think the poll numbers show about 80% of americans are coalesced around one thought -- they would like to see an alternative to mitt romney. if mitt romney becomes the nominee, i think you would get a lot of conservatives and evangelicals who will vote against barack obama, probably more than they would vote for governor mitt romney. but if he becomes the nominee, i believe the pressure is on governor romney to earn our endorsement. so far, he bypassed us.

we have a caucus event, peter, where we have 3000 caucus goers in attendance and every one of governor romney's peers other than john huntsman was in attendance. he completely skipped the event. if you are going to diss events like that it is hard for us to rally around the campaign saying we want to elevate you. governor mitt romney, if he becomes the nominee, he has a lot of spade work to do to get the conservative vote, and more important, their work and full effort. host: please allow 30 days between your phone calls. bob vander plaats is our guest, president and ceo of the family leader and he is joining us from our studio in des moines, iowa. we will be live every morning between now and january 3 when 1774 precincts hold caucuses and the state of iowa and we will be live on c-span 1 and c-span2.

there have been a couple of news articles in the national press about your endorsement of mr. santorum and whether or not there was a quid pro quo for cash for the family leader. would you like to take a shot at explain that? guest: yes, if we were going to do a quid pro quo at gb or have this endorsement to be about money, we probably what with the wrong candidate. any time we take a stand or the family later takes a stand, there are going to be allegations. this is politics. you are not going to make everybody happy. i think iran to you -- guarantee you, first, from the family leader standpoint, there is no quid pro quo. the family leader is not endorsing. they believe they are a standard bearer for the pro-family issues. so they are not in the endorsement business. but the board unanimously gave

myself and my colleague the full ability to endorse, so we both endorsed senator santorum. and there was no quid pro quo there, either. i cannot getting paid anything. chalk hurley is not getting paid anything. all we are trying to do is benefit center on's campaign. but when we do endorse, we want to do everything we can to make it stick, which means we will mobilize our network and whatever else we can to benefit rick santorum. no quid pro quo. we. roll that way, that is not how we play. that way.t roll host: bob vander plaats previously was chair of iowa for freedom, who ousted three iowa supreme court justices. was it because of the game marriage issue? guest: same-sex marriage

happened to be the issue, but it was more than that, peter. what happened is our supreme court stepped outside of the constitutional lines, its constitutional authority, and they actually legislated from the bench. now, if they want to avoid legislation -- it is up to them under article 12.1, but the second sense of article 12.1 in our constitution says the legislature will be response will to enact all legislation, however, they decided that not only did they played the defense of ameritech, in an immensely passed by a legislature and signed by government, but then they said they will be a same- sex marriage state. all 99 counties will policy. now they are not only being a court, but a legislature and interest -- and executing their own opinions, so they are being the governor.

we said it was a separation of powers issue. if they do this to marriage, they will do it to any freedom that we hold dear. we held them accountable, the people of iowa, i just happen to be the chair and the spokesperson for that issue, and people voted all three justices off the bench, which was within their right and they did what they had to do. host: conservatives in the iowa caucus. mike is a republican in a virginia. you are on with bob vander plaats of des moines. caller: as a christian conservative myself, i want to caution my fellow christian conservatives in this coming election not to cut off your nose to spite your face. i noticed a lot of times christian conservative movement is politically get so hung up on the issues of light and gay

marriage if they are willing to turn their backs on people that would be good solid conservative candidates, who are not willing to address those issues directly. as you remember, there is no president that an outlaw abortion. there is no precedent that will be able to al blog gay marriage to us by a stroke of the pen. -- there is no president that will be able to halt what a marriage by the stroke of luck -- outlaw gay marriage by the stroke of a pen. we do not get rid of barack obama, we will be in trouble. guest: that is good insight to not cut off our nose to spite our face. but the good news here mike is that of all the candidates in the race, they have gone to the

iowa process including mitt romney, they are all on record to be pro-life and to be pro-one man and one woman marriage as god intended it. as i said at the onset of the show, not only are we concerned about life and marriage, and we just talked about the separation of powers and the constitution and that impact on the family in the court, a big issue in this campaign as well, that anything that impacts the family, we want to be concerned about. mike, i agree, we want to fire obama and get a pro-family candidate in the white house. when you strengthen the family, i believe you will have a strong america. they go hand-in-hand. host: dan on the independent line in tennessee, you are on the "washington journal." caller: the first thing he mentioned is that life begins at conception.

that is not in balance with that today a-christian ethic. where did he get that? guest: back up your statement with your resources. what do you mean? caller: in the literature, long before christ, life begins at first breath. and there is other major religions around the world that feel the same way. i want to know, where does he get the idea? host: we got the point. guest: dan, where we stand on that is we go to a song 139 -- psalms 139.

every day is ordained before you even came to be. sciences outlining that fact that life begins at conception. i do not be dead is a belief that i believe. i believe that that is of fact. host: brooklyn, new york, don, a democrat. caller: do you consider killing iraqis to be a christian conservative family values? and i think it is an oxymoron to call yourself that. 100% pro love and defense of marriage, i mean, being pro-war is not being pro-life. guest: i am not sure they got all of that board -- if i got

all that. greetings. congressman paul is pro-life. i have travelled with him for a whole day in the state of iowa, three different locations. and with his wife, one of the days that we traveled together, no doubt that ron paul is one under% pro-life. -- 100% pro-life. if you get the sanctity of life right, you'll get a lot of other things right. if you get that wrong, you get all lot of other things wrong. he is also about one man and one woman marriage, as is rick santorum. you're getting in the foreign- policy issues. i happen to believe that rick santorum probably stands above on those issues. newt gingrich is very solid on the foreign policy issues. as much as i like ron paul, on a lot of his conservative values and issues, i am concerned about when it comes to iran and a

ahmedinejad and the capability to have a nuclear weapon and the threat to israel. so i agree so much with what ron paul's and if he is the nominee, i'll be enthusiastically behind him, not only because of life and marriage, his economic issues. he is been -- he has been almost prophetic in this process. host: bob vander plaats, could you see christian conservatives supporting a third party? guest: i do not see the -- the third party being our option. the third party would elect barack obama. when i hear third-party rumors of different people that might consider a third-party run, i really hope that is not the case. i believe we are going to get a good candidate out of this republican primary. and i happen to believe that there is a lot of time left. there still should be a surprise out of iowa. with a guy like rick's santorum,

i think there is going to be a long nomination process to take place. i think we will get the right candidate that we can enthusiastically get behind, but i do not think that third party is the option. host: we showed you some ads earlier from the candidates. i am sure that iowans are being inundated. here's one from rick santorum. ♪ ♪

♪ >> i am rick santorum and i approve this message. host: bob vander plaats, that was one of the pop-up ads that he has been using. the next call comes from ed in elmhurst, ohio. caller: i am a christian and conservative and religious. but i feel we republicans are being extremely hypocritical year. how can we as christians possibly support someone like newt gingrich, who has been married three times?

how can we support someone like mitt romney who has sat in the past that he is pro-choice and pro-gay rights? that really bothers me that we do not have a candidate out there, a republican candidate, that absolutely reflects religious conservative values. thank you. guest: peter, i want to address that adverse. that is one of the reasons why rick santorum is running a positive campaign and we will have paid january 3 surprise. what happens with negative ads is that it tears down one candidate, but the candidate launching the attack usually hurts that candidate as well. i do not think there is any room for someone to be president when the best they have to offer is to tear someone else down to build themselves up. to get to ed's question as to

newt gingrich and governor romney, that is one of the reasons why we've vetted here in ottawa. i think newt gingrich would be the first to say that he has made a lot of mistakes, some he wish he could have to overs on. this was not a road to des moines the conversion. i think this took place several years ago. for us as christians, when there are light changes the heavens rejoice. maybe uni on earth should rejoices well. it does not mean that newt is a perfect person. he has been very open that if you want a perfect candidate, it is not him. but he has been open and honest about his mistakes and he is concerned about this country. that is a good thing. governor mitt romney, that is one of our concerns. not only has he been passionately on both sides of a lot of issues, it seems like he has selective memory in

determining where he has been on both sides of the issues. he is never said that he was wrong or apologized that the romney era in massachusetts is good and that is why he would repeal obamacare. he keeps saying that it was right for massachusetts but he would repeal obamacare. i guess for a guy that is for rick santorum, i am glad you did not mention him in that question. host: the next call for bob vander plaats, president and ceo of the family later group, our independent line. kimberly, we will have to hang out because we simply cannot hear you. your phone connection, sorry about that. moving on to dave, a democrat in pennsylvania.

caller: hello. i am really surprised that people call themselves christian because in the 2000 election, you saw the republican- controlled supreme court stop the voting in florida, put george bush, a republican, into office, and for the next six years after that he had republican control in both houses of congress. they did not stop abortion. i do not know why your christian people are talking about that. they voted for people that took us to iraq and killed 375,000 innocent people, made 5 million innocent widows and orphans of the there, and they worry about a few people having abortions over year. i think you're confused. that is not a christian basis to make. guest: maybe i missed the question in there. i think i got scolded.

i do not think this is going to be an election where obama wins based on what george bush did. between 2000 and 2008. these things are now on president obama's hands. we know that president obama -- under him, present -- unemployment has skyrocketed, we have a foreign-policy issue all over the place. he will not defend the defense of marriage act. i think there will be a referendum on president obama, a community organizer does not make a president. and david, in regard to christians, i would be the first christian to say we're not perfect. our faith is built on the understanding that we're not perfect. that is why we do need a savior. there is only one that was perfect and they nailed into a cross. believe me, if you're looking for a perfect candidate like

newt gingrich or a perfect spokesperson for the christian faith, i would not be him. host: but tweet for you. guest: no doubt. we are free to implement our teachings regardless of who is elected. but our belief that -- i forget the person of the -- the name of the person who sent the text, is that god has three institutions. his first institution was the family. he also instituted the church, but he also instituted government. he has three institutions, they are all near and dear to his heart. therefore our goal is to say godly birches and values. i think everyone would agree that we would be a lot better off not only in this country but all over the place.

host: another tweet. guest: you know, gordon, you're not going to get an argument from me in regards to saying, we're going to discriminate against anybody, but we're not going to talk about what we are against but what we are for. i think they got's design is clear. for the institution of the family, one man and one woman marriage. when you start messing around with marriage, you remove the parameters and the boundaries, anything becomes up for grabs whether you want to have polygamy. if someone believes that, maybe that is what they should have. if they want to marry my son or another man was to marry his daughter, if i want to marry a business partner for tax

purposes -- marriage is simple and overwhelmingly supported in 31 states where a vote has been taken on in, we're 31-0. in iowa, when three judges when outside of their constitutional bounds and declared iowa same- sex marriage state, we removed three justices. that gay saying families -- gay people are not for families. but marriage as designed and its intent is one man and one woman, designed for procreation and the training of our replacements to develop a civilized society. host: another tweet. guest: our organization is tax exempt. everything is according to the irs code. one is primarily our organization for education and for research. that is called the iowa family policy center, that as of 5 01 c 3.

the family leader is actually a 501 c 4. it is an advocacy arm, and we have a political action committee which as allowing campaign intervention to promote a candidate or to promote an issue. under our umbrella, we have several things because of the irs standards and the tax cuts and tax laws but we try to dot every i and cross every t and be as diligent stewards as possible. host: bob vander plaats is the president and ceo of the family later. caller: an earlier caller had a question about like beginning at conception. -- life beginning at enmeshed --

conception. i enjoyed the answer that you gave the caller, but i have an objection that in the old testament, -- the new testament, elizabeth the mother of john the baptist talk to mary the mother of jesus when he was six months -- when she was six months pregnant. mary speaks to the angel gabriel and she realizes she is pregnant with jesus. when elizabeth comes into the room with mary, john quite literally left in his mother's womb. m very moment that mary finds out that she is with child, that baby john the baptist in his mother's womb detected the presence of the holy spirit. host: what is your point here? caller: that is my point.

people want to know what our evidence is. guest: brian, that is a really good answer. one i did not choose to use but you are right. according to the scriptures, john did leap in his mother's womb. when mary came in and found out that she was with child. host: green bay, wisconsin, all on the independent line. you are on the air with bob vander plaats. caller: i agree with you, rick santorum will make the best president we will -- we have had in a long time. that is all i want to tell you. guest: i want you to know how refreshing your call is. what is happening across the country -- what i found that as i was going around iowa and the country is hearing people say they might be for one candidate, but they like rick's santorum.

rick santorum always been -- always seem to be in the top two. i think he is catching on at the right time. another news network talk about this dealt santorum campaign, that there could be a search for santorum. if they coalesce around him, they can lift him to victory in the state of iowa and becomes an alternative to romney. if that is the case, i think rick santorum wins that battle and becomes the next president of the united states. he is feed it -- he is defeated three incumbent democratic senators and representatives. even people who disagree with him, although you do not agree with him on the issues, he does not, crosses disagreeable. he comes across as awful, intellectual, and logical. -- as thoughtful, intellectual, and logical. host: an e-mail.

guest: first of all, what she pointed out there with president obama is that he of the and michelle have been a model. they have been a model for their own personal family as a husband and wife and being committed and married to one another. they have been a model in raising their two daughters before the country and for the world to see what the family looks like. a concern with president obama is not about his marriage and about he and michelle raising their daughters. my concern with president obama is a lot of the policies i do not believe are pro-family. i want my children to have an america that is better than what i inherited. i want them to have the opportunity of free enterprise and have an ultimate freedom in

living in a world where there are some basic core values and core principles to elevate the family, such as marriage and a respect for life, such as judicial restraint and separation of powers. those are all things that i do not believe his policies would reflect, being pro-family. it is hard seeing michelle and raising their two children, i applaud and admire them for that. but when it comes to actual policies to benefit the families, that is where we disagree. host: another campaign ad from rick perry. >> i am not ashamed to admit that i am a christian but you do not have to be in the q every sunday to know that there is something wrong in the country when gays can serve open in the military but our kids cannot openly celebrate christmas or pray in schools. as president, all in the obama's war on religion and i will fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.

feith made america strong. it can make her strong again. i hamrick perry and i approve this message. host: your reaction to that ad? guest: the first time i saw that was a few weeks ago. i thought was a bold ad. obviously i like that at and the response i got from a lot of people in iowa was just the same. they thought that if rick perry had introduced himself that way to the people of high -- of iowa, a person of faith, not ashamed to stand up for his faith, he is not going to leave his faith that the white house steps, that is actually hillises' -- who he is, they may have given him more passes in his debate performances. but it was behind the curve instead of the head of the curve. i think what rick perry points out in the ad is that it seems like we're being driven by a lot of agendas right now, versus

what is right and what is good. and obviously rich. to has served in the military and served our country so well, and other candidate we could enthusiastically get behind if he was the nominee of our party, it points out that even in the military, he sees that being used as an agenda and a lot of people i would agree with him. host: bob vander plaats is in the "washington journal" studio in des moines. we will be live every morning from now until the caucuses in iowa happen. a democrat in north carolina, you're on the "washington journal." caller: let me have a little time to get my thought across. all these people that is out of work, people need jobs. every time that mr. obama for president obama it gets something going, the republicans

of struck him. their main goal was to make sure that he is a one-term president. people are not worrying about marriage and abortion. also, speaking of christian values, the churches, they do not even called god, has named where you can find his name. they do not know christian values. they teach that hellfire doctrine and the immortal soul. all those things are false teachings. i know that he reads his bible. host: any reaction to his comments? guest: up your reactions. i agree with william that this country does need jobs and it is a per-family issues. for someone like myself who has not only studied economics but has taught economics and has been in private eye business and industry, we did an environment where jobs can be created.

if government is creating jobs, they are treating the wrong jobs. we need jobs right here with private industry. you need industry with fairtax station unfair regulations so that businesses and industry can develop, grow, prosper, and so they can have jobs. i think it is a very pro-family issues. when we get to life and marriage and why sometimes we make that up focus here and i'll let to start out with, any time we are hiring someone, and that is what we're doing for the president of the united states, we are hiring someone and you want to find out what their core values are. your determining why you can trust them and their level of integrity. if you can trust them on issues like a life and marriage, then you can trust them on leading the economy and national security or energy policy. that is why governor mitt romney has such an issue here in iowa and across the country.

people feel that trust gap with him on a core value issues and they wonder if he will really do what is right when it comes to the economy and other family issues like that. host: bob vander plaats, this week for you. guest: without question. take a look at his history. senator santorum won in a democrat state of pennsylvania. he did not only when the u.s. house rate that he should not have won by defeating an incumbent democrat, he then went on to win a u.s. senate race and he was very effective. he had to have a lot of independent and conservative democrats voting for him. when he went to washington, he was basically tea party before tea party was cool. it was part of the gang of seven, taking on the

establishment of washington. he went forward with welfare reform that gave people the dignity of work, which william pointed out, gave them the dignity of work. poverty rates drop to the lowest levels in our recent history. i think rick sort forum -- santorum could win across this country because he is a true american that happens to love america. host: last call for bob vander plaats comes from arizona. caller: u.s. put down mitt romney in almost every one of your statements. why don't you say, because he is a mormon you do not believe he is a christian. you talk about what that could man newt gingrich is. i do want one his mistress to be in the white house. and he wanted little kids to go to work. you know why they should not? people like newt gingrich, all

of these men they leave their wives and have affairs and these little kids on welfare is and everything else, but newt gingrich, he is fine. host: what about mitt romney's religious affiliation? guest: you sounded like a political action committee going after new gingrich for a separate. i never mentioned his mormon as some. a lot of people and i will do not come up to me and talk to be at about his mormon ism, but his passionate stances on issues and how say -- how they seemed the very dependent on the audience is addressing of the campaign is trying to win mid-1994 campaign against senator kennedy when he was very pro-choice and very pro-same-sex marriage is way different than the campaign he is waging in 2011 and 2012 to

get the republican nomination. there is a trust factor. nothing to do with his mormon faith a religion. if i thought that was the key issue for me, i would've brought that out because that is the kind of guy i am. that is not the key issue. as far as newt gingrich is concerned, as a christian and person of faith, a hallmark of our faith is forgiveness. cost is very clear saying that if we are not willing to forgive others, how can he forgive us? newt gingrich, no doubt he has made mistakes, but he has apologized and i believe he has repented. if he became our candidate, i couldn't do is a classically get behind him. host: bob vander plaats has been our guest for the last 45 minutes. thank you for being on the "washington journal" this morning. guest: i appreciate and i hope you enjoyed des moines. it is a great place to kick off his presidential caucus. host: every four years they make

us feel welcome. coming up next is ed fallon, one of the organizers of occupy des moines. >> the net attacks that killed 24 pakastani trips in november, the pentagon says it has identified mistakes in the border incident but no one has been punished today. the u.s. maintains that its soldiers were fired upon first and are acting in self-defense. an investigation released monday says that a persistent lack of trust between the united states and pakistan and a series of communication and coordination mistakes on both sides. the commander of u.s. central command is telling commanders to share military practices with pakistan whenever possible. meanwhile in nearby iran, the second iranian official in two

days is issuing a warning about blocking a major oil rigs. he says his country can easily expose the strait of hormuz if the west imposes sanction on iranian oil sanctions. saudi arabia says that gulf arab states can pick up any slack. north korean leader kim jong il's son and heir apparent walked alongside his father is hers and saluted during the funeral procession to baker there is a 21-gun salute as part of the tribute as tens of thousands of wailing mourners attended. there is a memorial service to martyred there was some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. ♪ >> with the iowa caucus next week and other primaries later in the month," looks back at 14 people who ran for president and lost but had a long-lasting impact on american politics.

tonight, barry goldwater. tomorrow, hubert humphrey. friday, george wallace. on saturday, george mcgovern followed by ross perot. ." every night at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> have you tried that three c- span radio act? >> if is fast, easy to use, and digital appealing. the audio quality as convincingly clear. insanely great deal considering it is also free. it took me 10 seconds to learn how to use it. >> anytime, anywhere, it's streaming audio of c-span radio and all three c-span television networks, including live coverage of congress. you've listened to our interview programs. c-span, available wherever you are. find out more at c-span.org.

studentcam year's video competition, tell us which part of the constitution has meaning to you and why. let us know and apply it to eight minute document and get it to us by january 20, less than a month of away, to win the grand prize of $5,000. did the thousand dollars in total prize as. -- $50,000 in total prize is. for complete details, go online to studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is that "washington journal," and we are live in des moines isle of where on january 3 the 1007 how for caucuses will take place in that state and on your screen is the welcome to occupy des moines i was signed. the headquarters are just a few blocks from the state you can

see that on has broken out there. this is the occupy site, and maybe a mile or so away on our set is ed fallon in downtown des moines. he is one of the organizers of occupy des moines. last night, you held quite a caucus meeting. what was that meeting last night about? guest: it was the people's caucus. it is time for the people's voices to be heard over the voices of corporate interests and politicians who are to some extent bought and paid for. this is our chance to jump ahead of the official iowa caucus and hold this first in the nation's people's caucus and get our message out about the issues raised by the occupy wall street movement and to empower people to begin the process over the next three days of going through their campaign headquarters and bringing our message directly to

them. host: you decided last night to visit campaign headquarters? guest: much like a regular caucus, we had resolutions and people shared their concerns and grievances and priorities. then we've broken the preference groups. these were not preference groups for the candidates that we support. there were preference groups or dispreference groups for those we feel who are most off base, who we want to occupy over the next few days. host: who won? guest: santorum was the most disliked by one measurement. about 30% of the people plan to go to obama's headquarters. another 50% chose another republican candidate, and 10% indicated they were uncommitted. host: ed fallon, quite a few

tweaks are along this line. i want to start with this one from a regular viewer of the "washington journal." dirty water is his twitter handle. we have gotten a couple of comments along that line. what is your goal? guest: pay attention, jim. we are saying it as loud and as clear as we can. we're tired of the corporate corruption on wall street. we are tired of the political corruption that is part of that problem in washington, d.c. i am a former politician, a recovering politician. i have seen this stuff from the inside and it is not pretty there either. what you can see from the outside indicates a clear problem. we want to reform and we need to

reform so many different laws. reinstating glass stiegel bank settlement so that the banks that defrauded some many americans are held accountable, not given a slap on the wrist. the list is long and we articulated clearly. if people want to dismiss it as -- if they want to say we are not being clear, i just do not think they're paying attention. host: ed fallon, what will your group do between now and january 3? guest: people will be working after the presidential preference groups that we've broken to yesterday, those become an affinity group and they determine what kind of action if it wants to engage the particular candidate with. you can see people going to their headquarters and maybe just showing up and trying to dialogue, getting more clarity on with the candidates' stands on some of the grievances of the

occupy wall street movement, or you might see people deciding to stage a sit-in. maybe they will gather outside the headquarters. maybe they will be going to its senses well that the candidates are organizing and making that corporate-political connection, there may be appended to groups that may go to wells fargo or bank of america or other institutions that are the corporate poster children of the occupy movement. host: several articles talking about the fact that your group may look for disruption and that the police will have to be called. is that part of your goal? guest: we have a very good rapport with the des moines police department. i hope that model can be replicated across the country. the mayor has been a real ally to the extent that is been willing to find a part for the movement operate out of.

and the police were at our office last night. we have a good report. they know that some of us may be risking arrest. we know it makes sense for us to do so in a way that does not put them into physical harm. this movement in des moines, and i think nationally, i cannot speak for them but my impression is that it is very strongly committed to non-violence. the last thing we did last night was mic check the pledge of nonviolence in this movement. there may be arrests. it will not be disrupted in the sense that there will be any violence or activity that would cause the police unnecessary concern. we certainly will not disrupt the iowa caucuses of january 3. i will be participating in those myself. i get into the iowa caucuses as since 1988. we were disappointed in the selection of candidates that we have this year.

host: ed fallon, did you serve in the state legislature as a democrat or republican? guest: a democrat, but i will be going to the republican caucus. i am very timid -- the democratic party has left me. it was not a party that i thought represented people's values. it is a huge disappointment. president obama, who i supported, is a huge disappointment. i felt really homeless when it comes to major party affiliation. the system is opened. you can register as a democrat or republican in cut to that party's caucus. host: can you register that day? guest: yes, and i feel like and have a much bigger impact on the republican caucus. they're people going to the democratic caucus will vote uncommitted and that is good. that sends a message to president obama that a lot of

his base is very unhappy with the policies on iraq, afghanistan, the patriot act, on environmental concerns, oil drilling, the keystone pipeline -- all long list the things that people are concerned with. on the republican side, we have a bunch of candidates and some in the occupy movement will go uncommitted there as well. i will go with the candidate who did the best job in the field that is very dissatisfied, articulating some of the primary concerns that i think this movement is raising. host: let's get to our phone calls. first comes from new york city, a democrat. caller: thank you for c-span. i think occupy has an image problem, and no offense to the fellow. i consider myself one of you. for example, you should have on a jacket and shirt. maybe not a tide.

guest:, on, jim. don't be my mother. caller i am not trying to be your mother but talk about pulling in more people that some many people across the country are on your side. but for one silly reason or another, they are not feeling it. i and understand that people need a place to stay, but that tents, it seems like there is an image problem. and i am not the image consultant expert. that is the first thing i wanted to say, that the image thing needs to be stepped up a bit. i think ross perot, if you look closely at what he was talking about, campaign finance reform, etc., i think he had it right. i am disappointed in obama for a couple of reasons as well. i think that he should have let the bush tax cuts on all of us

expire because we have serious bills to pay. i do not know why he is going back and forth and just targeting the wealthy when i think it should have gone back to the meager 39.5%. host: we got a lot of facts out there. guest: if we have an image problem, certain things that the movement as a whole could do differently, but for the record, five bay that this morning and i have a job. i am a talk-show host. almost all the people involved with the occupy des moines movement work and are respected. i did not wear a coat and tie because it is not my style. i think this is a cool shirt that indicates the focus of armament. -- of our movement. the bad image stuff you hear is coming from right-wing talk-show hosts and others who are defenders of the corporate

agenda, who do not want us to succeed. they will try to continue to harp on isolated incidences that had misrepresented the movement. they will continually harp on the fact that this notion that we have no goals and objectives. i think we have to put that stuff behind us. if you really do believe that there is corruption in wall street and in washington that is unprecedented and needs to be addressed, put the small differences aside. don't worry about whether i am wearing a coat and tie or a few isolated incidences of misbehavior. let's get together and focus on the changes that we need in this country so desperately. host: c-span has a live camera at the occupy des moines headquarters. ed fallon, did people spend the night there in that sense last night? guest: at start square part, i guess, the park where we are in

camp is about 10 minutes away from the occupy caucus headquarters. one woman in her 40's, a muslim, a health-care worker has spent every single night there since october night. a handful of others have done it, and she has come -- and others come in and out on a regular basis. that is an important symbol of this movement. they may not be able to make the commitment to sleep out in the coal, but they are as important to this movement as anyone else. they do the organization and make the signs and they make the phone calls and manage the website. so much work involved in creating a movement out of the cabalistic event that has energized the country. it is -- catalystic event that has energized the country. host: next call comes for

pocahontas, iowa. go ahead and turn down the volume of your tv. john, we have to put you on hold. we will come back to you. a reminder -- just listen to the program for your telephone. union, missouri, great on the republican line. caller: i was going to ask ed the main goal in this occupy situation. it does not seem like they have a goal. they just make it up as they go along. and the other question i had, is he being supported with money? with other funds? guest: at the scene that church mouse, tell him i in the is well. i implore than a church mouse

and most people in this movement are either struggling or doing or living lives that are very middle-class or marginal. no, george soros is not fun in this campaign here in iowa and i suspect he is not funding it elsewhere. so many myths being put out by people who want to discredit the movement. you need to look at the facts and pay attention to what is really going on, who is really involved. some people become the poster child for the opposition, that dirty guy, the homeless girl, the person who does something pilot. that is not who this movement -- the primary person involved with this movement. i can say it until we're blue in the face, but we have goals and objectives. some are very broad and some are very specific like reinstating glass eagle. that would be a huge benefit. i mentioned the bank settlements. not a mere slap of the rest on

bank of america, that would be huge. i may turn blue in the fate but we have specific goals and objectives. we're not funded by george soros or other left-wing conspiracy kurds. many of us are just truckling to get by as much as many of you it in america are. host: john in pocahontas, go ahead and make your comment. caller: how're you doing? guest: hello in pocahontas. caller: amusing that the last caller said that. i enter your well, because a man that rides his bicycle to wealth is amusing to me. -- to work is amusing to me. trust me, you are not wealthy. that being said, i did not even know about this occupy des moines going on. but being told that obama failed

as, he takes a lot of money from wall street. is also passed this unbelievable presidential power that is going to give him the right to lock up of american citizens? alaska's two questions. -- i will ask you two questions. one, where can i sign up for it? and can i get one of those t- shirts that they show up? guest: one of our local occupiers but together these t- shirts and i'm sure we could find a way to get you one of them. various ways of signing up. there is a occupy dsm, that's des moines, iowa, facebook page. i had updates on my radio show

as well. there is also an occupy the caucus website. most of it is online right now because that is our best way to communicate. great to hear from you and i hope you can stay involved and maybe get more engaged. host: continuing our live coverage from des moines, we take this next call for one of the organizers of occupy des moines from butler, ky. richie is an independent there. please go ahead. please go ahead. we're going to move on to help pass a, texas, david, a democrat there. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk to your guest. i think is going to the republican caucus is kind of hypocritical.

99%ers, they should know that they are only for the 1% of the 1% and they are not going to change. it is like newt gingrich telling a gay person to vote for obama because we're not going to do anything for you. it is the same way. so go start another party or vote democrat or just not been have occurred -- hypocritical. guest: i don't see it is hypocritical. i do not think that the thousands of other people who are going to go to the republican caucus who may be independent or a democrat or hypocritical, just as i do not think the tents of thousands of iowans who went to the democratic caucus for obama were hypocritical. we have a very open process. we've valued input from the electorate regardless of what they might normally identify

themselves as politically. right now i am very dissatisfied with obama. i look at the republican candidates, and i do not know what will happen in the general election, but i like to see a healthy debate between now and the election. fred carter would provide of great discussion on gays and lesbians. ron paul, he would bring the troops home from afghanistan. it would close military installations along the work and nullify the detention provisions. any of those would provide a healthy debate with obama. i do not know who law will support. and jon huntsman, he has a more reasonable position on climate change. even though they may not be someone i would support in the general lection, ala like to see one of them have their issues

moved toward the general election so that we have a healthier debate than what would be provided by michele bachmann or rick santorum or rick perry. host: 82 week for you. -- a tweet for you to. guest: that is something we have not discussed in any detail. my only feeling is that we have to embrace every tool and offer -- an opportunity that we have a common non violently and of course, whether protest reeducation. we have had teach-ins here in des moines, and helping to elect candidates who represent the interests of the majority of americans. and there needs to be a discussion about a third party at some point, or maybe more

than one. an interesting event on friday here in des moines, 1:30, the progressive democrats of america and other groups organizing a forum to discuss that very question. jesse jackson will be here. that will be a good event. again, i think that helps us engage that conversation of how we move beyond a two-party system that has created a stranglehold on our democracy and prevented us from moving forward in any substantive way. host: ed fallon, how will you measure your success after next tuesday? guest: we already measure some success from the first month of the occupy wall street movement. 650,000 new credit union accounts were opened. people move their money from national banks to credit unions. bank of america instituted a $5 monthly charge that was dropped.

data success. how do we measure success in this case? trying to get the candidates to do a better job at indicating their position on key issues. i do not know what we will succeed much in that room. but it is an important step in a movement, and hopefully what comes out is more people understanding that confluence between corporate corruption and political corruption, and continue to make those connections in new hampshire, florida, nevada, other states where the presidential candidates will soon be coming up for a vote -- let them know continually, constantly throughout this primary cycle, that the issues of the mass of the people of this country, the issues that right now are hurting people because they have been neglected for so long, those need to be addressed. we do not want to continually hear about abortion and gay marriage in all these other issues that may be important to

certain people and concern -- and to certain constituencies, but that will not sink or swim america like environmental concerns and economic concerns and foreign-policy. these have to be addressed and the candidates are not addressing them. maybe we will come out of this work, the encouragement to other states to continue to make these issues part of the presidential primary process. host: minneapolis is our next call. richard, a republican. caller: i have two things. when you're at your caucus last night, ted, did you have a dislike obama? if not, why not? and could i suggest that you occupy the city of minneapolis? the imposed all kinds of field mice, that put up $5 b on us because they are not making

enough money to spend in drive out of our homes what they are high taxes, higher regulation, high fees -- why not occupy a few cities driving us out of our homes because of high taxes? guest: a fair point. i strongly encourage you to get involved with the occupy movement in minnesota and take that up with local organizers. i do not know the details but there are plenty of occasions where city governments and state governments, you know, the institute taxes that are unfair. here in des moines, we are battling a problem with the use of tax financing for a big national hotel. some of us do not feel that it is a profit. so there are plenty of local issues that people can focus on, not just national claims. and again, sometimes that is the best way to build a movement,

finding those financial transgressions, shall we call them, that hit home local l host: ed fallon is in the "washington journal" studio in downtown des moines, and we also have a camera about a mile away at the occupy camp, is that about a mile from where you are? guest: about a mile and a half. host: we will show you the tense -- tents as we are talking. caller: i am a member of the georgia of socialist workers' party and i want to thank you for support of our platform. until we bring down the corporate giants that are run america and give power back to the proletariat we will never achieve our goalsf ourrom each

according -- from each according to their ability, to each according to his need and what you all please, please fly the red flag above your camp more. we need americans to know that the socialist party is a viable option. guest: candidly, i am not a fan of the socialist workers party and i have seen their activities in des moines and a senior newspaper, "the militant." i do not like the way they organize. i agree on some of the issues, perhaps. i do not think american a socialist party. no offense to people who may think otherwise. i feel the free market works pretty well if it is regulated and if there are antitrust laws that keep monopolies from forming. unbridled crony capitalism is the problem. we have something worse, a government that has become an

ally to crony capitalism. let us get back to a true free market economy that lets people take their dream and passion and turn it into an economic success without the help of locks -- lots of tax subsidies, but with a regulated framework that allows them to succeed and compete fairly. that, to me, is a much more sensible strategy than trying to embrace some kind of socialist workers party agenda. host: ed fallon jim tweets -- -- meaning? host: i think he is talking about the caucuses. caller: i -- guest: i am not quite clear of what he meant but we have no plans to disrupt the caucuses. i spent the last 20 years registering people to vote, benefiting from people who might have voted for me when i was in office.

the system is really a mess. it does not mean it is unworkable or not fixable. we have plenty of work to do but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. there are things that we can do to, again, make sure that voting happens responsibly. but more important, i think a big part of the problem is people feel they did not have candidate worth voting for because many of them are so beholden to corporate interests, to big money, that there is no confidence they are the one to represent the interests of the majority of people. i would not say disregard the value of voting but, yes, let's challenge the validity of candidates that and don't truly represent the people, because they do not run a campaign where they connect with people. they are connected to their donors, big lobbyists. that is what is driving the country in the wrong direction. host: the video from a second ago was from last night where

the occupy movement held their organizational meeting in downtown des moines. you can see the crowd, and that was shot last night by c-span. bloomington, indiana. george, a democrat. guest: how is your morning going? host: please go ahead with your question or comments, sir. caller: what i wish people would grasp is this country was founded on a rebellion -- and the corporations can occupy thousands of places at once and they can be a holding company, financial co., manufacturing, retail outlet, a dozen of different things. and they can pick and choose because they can't afford the high rent commercial developers rent to. you end up putting whole communities against each other to attract outside corporate interests, and they can pay the high rents.

host: where are you going with this? caller: when i am saying is they can subvert the free-market system with their size and ubiquity. you cannot throw publicly traded corporations in the realm of free -- free market. that is why you have to regular corporations different than sole proprietorships. host: any comment for the caller? guest: i would like to compare a well-regulated free-market to a football game. you know, the green bay packers, a great team. but if you don't have any rules or bring regulations in terms of how the game is played -- i mean, people will be tearing other players down with face mask and violating all sorts of rules and regulations -- it will not be fun to watch. it would be chaos. similarly, if you take any kind of regulatory framework out of a free-market economy, you've got chaos. right now we have something even worse than chaos. we have conglomerations.

we have this consolidation of power because of the ability to use money to pay for really pricey lobbyists, to by politicians, to get our tax dollars into the pockets of companies. they say sometimes that they need that subsidy or they will have to go somewhere else, but i think by and large when you look closely at the problem, it is because they know they can get it, that they asked for it or been demanded. host: pittsburgh. nicole, republican. you are on with ed fallon. caller: i am curious -- you said you are for a free market of the net breath it seems you want to regulate more. it seems like the more politicians and government go into wall street and banks, the more loopholes, the more crack they keep spewing out. i don't understand, in one breath you wanted and the other you -- you want it and the other, you don't. over-regulation has not worked in about seven months now.

no jobs. i don't understand what the goal is. i like what you just said about the free markets -- and that you are not down with socialism. but what is your economic goal? how do you see -- host: alright, nicole. thank you. guest: let me be clear about my free-market comment. i am for minimally regulating the market. let me give you an example here in western iowa. there is a small farm where two women are raising goats for milk. they have been classified as industrial, they have been required to jump through ridiculous groups and hurdles, paying a thousand dollars to upgrade equipment. it is ridiculous. but get big corporations, some of the huge multi-state operations here get away with all sorts of things and much more minimal regulated requirements. you see it with small business owners, restaurateurs will have to play ridiculous rate stood at

a table on the sidewalk. those are way over the top. we need to get rid of those. let me be clear. but we need a framework that allows people to compete without having to be crushed by some big corporate competitor that not only can crash because of size but because of the cozy relationship with political power. again, the goals -- the problem is so big and so deep and it has taken ourselves so long to dig out of the whole, that it will take a walk to dig ourselves out and it will take a lot of initiative, a lot of changes. again, we can start, through the list of changes. i already knew -- reiterated a couple of them several times. reinstating glass-steagall, a fair banking settlement -- the attorney general working on a bank settlement. right now it is a slap on the wrist. it needs to be a significant settlement to hold the big banks accountable for what they did in the financial crisis. a long list of grievances. lots of policy changes needed.

but it is going to take time and we have to have patience and we have to form the kind of coalition that can truly match big money. because the only way to be big money is to organize people. host: a few minutes left with our guests, ed fallon, from occupy des moines. guest: i cannot speak to what happened elsewhere in the country, but here in des moines we have done a really good job picking of the litter and the park where we are occupying. we even had a playground equipment fixed when it was broken. oh, and the one time we had snow, we shoveled it before the city crew we could come out and do it. maybe we have actually saved the taxpayers money here in des moines.

certainly, it is our right to have access to public places to make our voices heard. and we have less and less opportunities for that. sometimes cities will create these so-called free speech zones or a mall, for example, has often replace the public square. and yet it is private property. you cannot go there and make your public statement because it is no longer a public place. we have a right to be in these places. we have the obligation to be responsible. i am very confident we have done it here in des moines. you can ask the police chief and the mayor -- they are very happy about how we behave. host: did you have to get a permit or put down a bond to get the space? guest: we had to get a permit. and we had to comply with certain requirements on lighting and heating and electricity. we pay every week for the electricity we use at the park.

it is only $25 a week. but the space we aren't using for our caucus occupation, we raise the money to rent the space. so, and if anything, the people -- the activity we are generating in des moines is probably helping the local business community. i think that is another way of trying to dismiss the relevance of what we are doing, is to say we are some of costing the taxpayers money. actually, we are trying to -- we are exercising our first amendment rights in ways that are intended by the founders of this country, for purposes that i think are noble and needed. host: just a few minutes left with our guest, ed fallon. tim on the independent line. it caller: good morning. happy new year. host: thank you. caller: i would have preferred to have given this to you in the form of -- but given time

constraints, i will not. i am a ralph nader supporter and i am also a wealth producer. people who create jobs -- everyone i ever worked for became a millionaire. no, i am serious. but because i belong to a union, i earned a strong middle- class wage. i would just like to say -- i am sure you have never heard of rick cruzack, diane mcconzic, but i'm sure you heard of henry ford. if it was not for people like those, who were uaw people who built the cars and created the wealth -- without them and millions like them, you would have never heard of henry ford. that is what i would like to say. they were 99%ers that made henry

ford a 1%er and made him a household name. guest: 1 herman cain was still a candidate i got tired of him claiming to be a self-made man. how many people had to work at really tough, low wages, to help him become a millionaire? what about the cheap flower he used to make his peace across? -- the cheap flour. i get tired people tell me they are a self-made man. that is a great example, my fellow red sox fan. to be great and famous and powerful and wealthy on your own. it takes a lot of other people. hopefully you do so in a way that respect the integrity of other people, who pays them well, gives them decent working conditions, gives them decent benefits. let's remember that we are all in this together. there is some much work to do.

and if the wealthiest sliver of elites in the country continue to stomp on the working people of this country, continue to take advantage of our taxes through government subsidies that benefit them and hurt the rest of us, yes, this country is going to be in big trouble. we are, to continue to struggle and see our status globally decline. i don't think this has to happen and i think this occupy movement -- in my 30 years of fighting for social justice, this is the best thing i have seen coming along. there will be differences. there will be struggles and conflicts and a personality clashes, but we have to stick together. we have to continue to fight to make this movement viable because it is -- right now, i think what is poised to help change america's direction for a very positive reasons. host: when does your radio show air? guest: it is monday through thursday, 7:00 p.m. central

time. you can hear it on 90.3 if you are in des moines or you can hear it live strain on the fallonforum web site. host: it is on wow fm in des moines. jonathan martin writes in politico that the iowa gop is moving the caucus vote count to an undisclosed location because of attempts to disrupt it. what are your thoughts about that? guest: that is more crap, i am sorry. i get tired of hearing the head of the iowa republican party pretend that the world is going to end, the occupy movement will disrupt the caucuses. we could not disrupt the caucuses if we wanted to. there are almost 2000 locations. it is not physically possible, not politically productive. it is not desirable in terms of what we want to accomplish with this movement. we don't want to disrupt people's right to vote.

we do not want to disrupt the ability to will caucuses. i will go to vote for a candidate least offensive among a field of candidates really out of touch with the grievances raised by the occupy wall street movement. host: ed fallon, organizer of occupy des moines has been our guest. thank you. guest: thank you. host: that will wrap up today's opening coverage of the iowa caucuses. every morning we will be live from des moines with live comp -- cameras, so tune in every morning for iowa caucus coverage. now we are going to change topics and we are going to look at our weekly magazine spotlight segments. on the cover of this week's "newsweek" is meryl streep dressed as margaret thatcher. we will talk to the author of this piece, historian amanda

foreman. but first, the news. >> occupy d.c. has caught the attention of park police who say they remove a structure in an encampment near the white house. an officer discovered the 12- foot by 12-foot wooden structure near mcpherson square last night. nobody claimed ownership and no arrests were made. earlier this month, 31 protesters were arrested after refusing to the cementing -- dismantling a structure they erected in the park. protesters have been living apart for months. turning to international news, syria's state run news agency announced the release of detained dissidents arrested in the past nine months. the agency said 755 prisoners have been freed but none with, in their words, blood on their hands. it comes as an arab league observer team is in the country. in yemen, hundreds of government

employees walked off the job in a spreading strike over alleged corruption linked to the country's outgoing president. the employees are rallying to demand reform and the firing of top managers. corruption was one of the grievances that prompted mass protests against president saleh. those are just some of the latest headlines. >> middle and high school students, for this year's studentcam video competition, we want to tell you -- you want -- we want you to tell us which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you. get the documentary to c-span by january 20, 2012, for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. and there is $50,000 in total prize is. it is open to students grade 6- 12. for details, go to studentcam.org. >> with the iowa caucuses next

week and the new hampshire, south carolina, and florida primaries later in the month, c- span's "the contenders" looks back at 14 president -- candidates who ran for president and lost but had a lasting impact. tonight, barry goldwater. thursday, hubert humphrey. friday, four-term governor of alabama, george wallace. then on saturday, george mcgovern. it followed by billionaire businessman ross perot. "the contenders," every night at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: visit our last segment of the day and it is our weekly spotlight on magazines. the cover story of "news we" this week is about margaret thatcher. -- the cover story of " newsweek." "iron lady" opens this weekend.

>> one simply has to maximize your appeal, make it look and sound like the leader you can be. >> dennis? >> i want the authority and conviction. >> dennis? no, no. >> you look magnificent. >> i decided to run. of them are you saying you want to be prime minister? the rest of us -- me, the children, we can go to hell. >> where there is discord, there will be harmony. host: joining us from our new york studio is the author of the "newsweek" cover story, amanda foreman. why is your article entitled " the new thatcher era." why is he back in popularity or back in the news?

guest: the newsweek team felt very strongly that the issues that helped to bring thatcher down ironically are the very same issues that are confronting europe today. most important of all is the question of european integration. as you know, the euro is sinking. there is a desperate attempt to keep it afloat among countries like portugal, ireland, spain, and greece. the proposal is for a european superstate where there will be complete fiscal and political integration. that was the very topic that margaret thatcher put her stake in the ground on. she said that greater fiscal and political integration would leave it to a sclerotic undemocratic, low enterprise, high unemployment entity where

individual countries would not be allowed to control their own destiny because they would not be able to set their own interest rates, they would not be the to set their own currency exchange. and she fought against that and lost -- why the party kicked her out. and now we have the same argument again. host: that was in 1990. and that was the issue. but great britain did not join the euro, did it? guest: no, it did not. and fortunately so. there is still a very strong pro-euro, pro-european wing in the country. it is divided between the conservatives who are now in power, in coalition with the liberal democrats, and also with labour. but they are not the dominant wing. so you have this ongoing fight between these two sides over whether britain should be in the heart of europe or stand aside -- beat in europe but not in the

heart of europe. host: what will margaret thatcher's 11 years as prime minister most be remember for -- or 12 years? guest: she remade the face of britain. when she came into power, the relationship between the people, parliament, and the trade unions had become completely inverted, and it was the trade unions who were in effect running the country. and she arrived just after there had been something called the winter of discontent, where the 157 unions in the country had gone on strike one after the other, and often at the same time. so, during that winter of 1979, bodies did not go buried, the trains did not run, there was no heating, there was no

electricity, there was no garbage collection. if you were sick, depending on which. you lived in, you might find yourself not accepted in the hospitals, or if you were not -- if you're accepted, your sheets were not changed or bring you not fed, and you might not receive the medicines needed because the truckers were on strike. in some cities, like one in the north of england, it was turned almost into a kind of stalingrad, a city under siege. no cargoes unloaded, rationing in stores, farm animals starved because the feed could not be transported. the country was in chaos. so, the first thing she did was immediate -- it took awhile -- she inverted the power of the unions and she stopped the unions having the right to strike at will without a valid -- ballot, secondary picketing, the right to have sympathy strikes for matters unrelated to

the loan industry. the second thing she did was she floated the pound. in 1979, there were exchange controls. you could only take a certain amount out of the country. she opened it up. the third thing is secret it was called the big bang, which means she deregulated the london financial center in the city of london, and that created a huge wealth and power that exists in the city of london today. finally, she released the power of the entrepreneurial spirit in britain. yak remember, before she came to power, the country was a socialist state. for example, if you wanted to get a telephone line, you had to make an appointment with british telecom and it could take you from six months to a year and a half to get a telephone line put into your house. if you wanted to get a new kocher, you had to make an appointment with british gas --

if you wanted to get a new cooker. you had to go to the store and get the phone number from a store assistant, then go home and call and would for your appointment. she did away with all of those regulations. and we now have a country which is as wealthy and profitable as any other. whereas in those days, britain was known as a third world country with first world crisis. host: our guests is amanda foremen. if talking about margaret thatcher and her influence. here is a picture from the "newsweek" cover story that amanda foreman wrote. here is margaret thatcher with her best political ally, ronald reagan. the numbers are on the screen. you could go ahead and start dialing in if you have questions about margaret thatcher.

we will begin taking your calls in just a minute. what was the importance of her relationship with ronald reagan? guest: oh, thatcher's relationship with reagan, i think, is one of the great defining relationships of the late 20th century. they understood each other totally, and they supported each other totally, and they shared a vision of an enterprise society where every man and every woman had a right to rise and the right to better themselves and that government should not be redistributing wealth, government should be creating a level playing field where anybody could create wealth for themselves. and they also had a vision of a democratic society spread throughout the world, and wanted to see the end of the soviet union. and between them, they forged in

this remarkable coalition that brought in mchale gorbachev -- mikhail gorbachev as a third partner and they ended the cold war. and for that reason alone, reagan and thatcher will be remembered. host: amanda foreman, did margaret thatcher talk to you for this cover story? guest: unfortunately, lady thatcher is unable to give interviews. she is very rarely seen in public. since 2003, she has had a series of strokes that have incomes passenger -- incapacitated her short-term memory. so, although she is very clear on things that happened in the past, she has difficulty having sort of a normal day-to-day conversation with people. host: cents -- since she let the prime ministership, wauconda

steckler she have? guest: it has wound down. when she started off in 1990 -- don't forget, this is a woman with a tremendous verve and energy and a desire to be doing things. she was able to assemble a very efficient staff, and she was still very involved in politics. for example, she was one of the first and only invoices to call for -- only voices to call for allied intervention in serbia and then she was joined by van when albright -- madeleine albright. but as she got older and stopped giving lectures, obviously the staff wound down. and then recently, a few months ago, it was announced, office was closing completely. so, she no longer has any staff at all except for care. host: her daughter is very

active with her, correct? guest: both her children live abroad. so, i think the film perhaps makes that relationship out to be possibly more than it is. not to say she is estranged from her children, the lady thatcher definitely has a very close core of supporters and friends, lawyer friends, who do go around to see her and check on her and keep her company -- loyal friends. host: where does she live? guest: my understanding is they like to keep their location quiet. host: ok. the cover story has meryl streep dressed as margaret thatcher. did meryl streep speak with you about this? guest: yes, she did.

we had some hilarious times talking about margaret thatcher, because meryl streep had great access to a lot of lady thatcher's former colleagues, and they opened up to her and away they may not always open up to a journalist or even a historian like myself. and so, they gave the anecdote'' they would possibly observe for late after dinner drinks. for example, one of them told her that whenever they saw lady thatcher take up her handbag and put on the table, their heart just sank like a stone because the handbag, which was originally a symbol of ridicule and of weakness, became a symbol of strength and power. you never knew quite what was in it, what notes she had taken, what research she had done the

night before. so, she would land some kind of zinger and they would not be able to answer and they would look foolish. host: was margaret thatcher personally popular or was at her policies? guest: they say that lady thatcher was never really a people person. if you were to compare her to bill clinton, for example, clinton famously has a kind of aura and magnetism, so anybody who has never met him said they felt for that one second it was just then and him in the room and they had an incredible experience. lady thatcher was not like that. her own father once said famously, margaret is 99.5% perfect. the other half percent, she

could perhaps be a little bit warmer. that is her own father who said that. she was very brisk. she was all business. i think that what started out as somebody who just like to be doing things -- she was not a particularly sensitive soul. but she answered an arena -- entered an arena where you are being knocked down all day long by critics, parliamentary sessions, and she developed this tough exterior to deal with these knox. if you look at anybody who is being continuously kept under attack, that will change their character. they will become tougher, more aggressive, ready to attack. that is the mechanism they use to protect themselves.

they squash everything else. no, she was not very popular by the end. she was kind of a raging, fighting machine, and nobody likes a raging, fighting machine, but that is what gets things done. host: amanda foreman is an historian with a doctorate from oxford and her most recent book "a world on fire: britain that a crucial role in the american civil war." this just came out in 2011 and it won several awards and also made several notable end of the year lists. by the way, amanda foreman has been covered by book tv. you can watch her at booktv.org. and one other note, our encore "book notes" program interviewed margaret thatcher won her autobiography came out in 1995 or 1996.

that will briaire this weekend at 6:00 p.m. on saturday -- that will re-air this weekend. gary, you are on the air. caller: i am from california but currently in phoenix visiting. i am 44 years old. trade labor unionists -- i may democrat. probably more democrats than most democrats. if i were in britain, i would be a labour party member beyond, you could call me comrade. i would like to say i remember well margaret thatcher during the reagan era. i remember some friends in school who thought ronald reagan was a great president. i don't remember that at all. i remember ronald reagan destroyed jobs, sending tons overseas and him and margaret thatcher being best house and heard taking on labor, destroying standards in britain and england, trying to free

market, and capitalize by conservatives trying to do -- and right in doing the same thing -- killing steel, labor. deregulation -- we lost pan am. host: lettuce the response. guest: -- host: let us get a response. guest: one of the criticism levelled against the conservative government at least was when they went into power in 1979, they had a plan that was based upon monetarism. monetarism, the way at least the conservatives understood it to be was a theory that came out of chicago that the said that to stop inflation from rising, you need to shrink the money supply. attached to that was the idea that government needs to be smaller and to be deregulated. what they did not prepare for,

though, as your question points out, is when you shrink the money supply and you stop government subsidies for ailing industries -- whether it is steel or manufacturing -- you need to have some kind of safety net. what the conservatives failed to do, they failed to prepare for the great social distress that followed once these industries that were ailing went to the wall. and there was a time when over 3 million people in britain, a small country of under 60 million, were on and floyd -- a common ploy -- unemployed, and there was great social unrest. i think if you were to ask any of the politicians to they would they have done anything differently, they would all say we should have had some kind of

safety nets in place. and they would also perhaps -- they did not know what their policies were going to produce because nobody had ever tried them before. but as all of these things, you can come up with an explanation for why things happened and what went wrong, but it does not always excuse what happens. host: michigan. you are on with amanda foreman. the topic is "newsweek's" cover story about margaret thatcher. sorry about that. we will move on to independence, missouri. icaller: i was curious as to wht you thought about margaret thatcher's anti-european integration with the european union, and with the party in the

united kingdom in trying to push the anti-european movement, where do you think it is going? do you think they will win the next general election? host: got the point. amanda foreman? guest: right. there is absolutely no chance was whether for ukip, united kingdom independence party, to have any impact. it is to party -- two small. it is a single-issue party and single issue parties cannot have a chance and bridges elections -- british election. that is not to say they cannot take votes away from the conservative party, and possibly other parties, but mostly the conservative party which might aid the conservatives' opponents. but the issue itself, what britain should be doing with the european union, is a very hot-

button topic. for years and years, the so- called euro skeptics, the journalists, critics, bankers, politicians, who argued that the kind of integration that brussels was calling for would end up producing an unholy mess, were ignored and laughed at. it is now -- now these critics are seen as profits. is there going to be a european superstate with perhaps just 10, 12, or 16 countries and then a european alter ring? if you were to put it in american terms, you would have a united states of europe, and then you have out lawyers like guam -- outliers liked guam, and they would be like britain, poland, hungary, romania, some

of the lesson of all european countries. host: this tweet from peter -- guest: that is a very interesting question. when i began the piece, i did not actually know that much about thatcher, and i had not really thought about her in 20 years. and when she was in power, i was a teenager, and i just saw this rather bossy middle-aged lady with a rather awful voice who would go on and on about things. and i instinctively kind of recoiled from her, and just never thought about her. when i began researching the piece, the first thing that struck me was that she is a feminist icon and that the things i have achieved in my

life, the achievements that i see my female friends and acquaintances and colleagues achieving are inextricably linked with her groundbreaking success in politics. that we believe in ourselves because she believed in herself. and a mere fact that a woman was at the top, the very tippy top, confirmed to me that i could do anything. it was not something that i thought about. it was not something that i worry about because there was a woman at the top. so, if you were to say and i it supporter -- am i a supporter of margaret thatcher? yes, i am. i am not a complete political supporter of every policy, but i embraced her as a feminist icon. host: philadelphia, patrick. caller: i wonder if her article,

wrote -- covers the brutal and illegal occupation of northern ireland while thatcher was in power? does it cover the number of catholics sent to prison based on falsified information? and what about the of 13 peaceful marchers who were shot to death on bloody sunday in northern ireland when she was in power? or is it nothing but letter? i think she is an evil woman and does not deserve to be given any kind of good status. guest: could you confirm the date of bloody sunday? i thought that was in the early 1970's? and i believe it was something that happened before 1979. i think that what one can look at in the thatcher reign was the

good friday agreement which brought dublin and london i think on an index of all path toward reconciliation -- inexorable path toward reconciliation, which was sealed this year with the queen's visit to ireland which was some -- certainly for me in my lifetime one of the great moments of reconciliation, to see a british monarch accept resigned -- accept responsibility and ask forgiveness for what has been several hundred years of misery and missed opportunities to do the right thing. so, although every government makes mistakes, i think that the good friday agreement was profound and historic. host: amanda foreman, what

happened october 12, 1984, the ira bombing? guest: lady thatcher's own relationship with the northern ireland politics began with the murder of one of the -- a man who had in 1974 put up a bounty, i think 25,000 pounds, to pay to anyone who would provide information for ira terrorist activities. one week later, he was shot dead on his doorstep. they have been friends. she knew that people who spoke out against the ira were marked people. five years later, the politician who was responsible for her leadership campaign and won have

heard great mentors, was blown up in his -- one of her great mentors, was blown up and sent to then she received protection from scotland yard. now you go a few years forward, as you mentioned on october 12, 1983, the conservatives were having their conference in britain -- brighton and a bomb was placed two floors below room but it was not placed exactly in the right spot. although it killed three people and injured 17 others, it did not kill her or her husband and the conference continued. but it was actually one of the defining moments in her life, and it was definitely a before and after thatcher. and the confidence that you see before that turned into a super aggressiveness and defensiveness after that.

it perhaps actually affected her more than she realized. host: bloody sunday was january 30, 1972 and margaret thatcher came into prime ministership in 1979. anthony it. caller: to talk about the concept of wings in the party, and in this campaign season we have seen a disavow it of certain wings -- disavowing certain wings, and that is a way to cut down the party. talking about how factor comes into power -- there are wings and the conservative party and how she worked with them to get things done. were disavowments of the wings of her party? host: one of the interesting aspects of the early years of thatcher's prime ministership

when she was the head of the party, but yet her own cabinet was mostly against her policies. the way british party politics works is that she does not have a right to put just about anyone in her cabinet. it has to be senior members of her elected party. if they do not like you, you do not like them, you are sort of stuck with them. so, they put together a cabinet where the majority actually supported the policies of the previous leader, edward heath, and they were against monetarism. they thought it was a divisive, they believed in the one nation toryism and they fought her policies were dangerous and would lead to the unrest that it did lead to. but then a small wing of what we call thatcherites.

what you could see were these rebellions. for example, she would try to introduce policies and then one of her cabinet ministers would leak parts of it to the press before they had been properly formulated so the resulting outcry and out rage would lead to its complete disruption -- destruction. or, for example, during party conferences, there would be an unattributed leaks or criticisms were no one could point a figure to who said, but it would make the rounds. one of the things she had to do was to find a way to dismiss them or get other people to freeze them out. so it was like a court, like a turkish constantinople court and the 15 -- in the 15th century, a

byzantine way of filtering out the power. host: an e-mail -- guest: i have seen the upcoming movie and i have the verse in -- i have never seen such an extraordinary performance that meryl streep gives as leading natural -- as lady thatcher. it is supernatural how she got her bearing and it is great to watch to cover that. whether or been not people in this country will feel all that comfortable watching the decline of thatcher -- the film does make quite a lot of the thatcher in her current state, suffering from a mental decline. if you were to turn it around and have a film about ronald reagan shuffling around in his pajamas looking unshaven, i am

not sure it would go down all that well. host: what is the current opinion of margaret thatcher in great britain? guest: the current opinion -- well, i think that the film actually has prompted a massive rethinking of lady thatcher. most people share my opinion, that this was someone in power 20 years ago, that she was a big, towering figure but kind of like an out-of-control sherman tank and was bossy and loud and it just seemed to create more discontent than anything else. and this film reminded us that she was also a great feminist pioneer who changed the face of the world in terms of what was possible for women to achieve. and that she ended the cold war. those are two things that somehow i had managed to forget.

host: the next call -- we have about 10 minutes left. norman, oklahoma. caller: i have a couple of questions questionsmrs. thatcher. -- question about mrs. thatcher. what was her take on alternative medicine? and how would she compare ideologically to david cameron? host: as to the first question, i am afraid i don't know what her stance was on that. she was a tremendously practical woman and i would suspect she would accept anything that would work and reject anything that did not. as to the second, she seemed to have had a lukewarm relationship with the current prime minister. she didn't embrace him like she embraced some of her other ministers, former leaders of the tory party. at the same time she was not as

disappointed in him as she was in her immediate successor, john major. i think prime minister cameron is the perfect example of the new tory, somebody who embraces the free enterprise way of the tory party, but also reaches back to the one-nation idea of a caring, big society. host: new carollton, maryland. caller: my question for amanda is, what would you describe as margaret thatcher's policy toward africa? from my understanding, all the years she was and how where she did not promote anything that would advance africa. she supported mandela to remain in prison. so, if you have to ask margaret

thatcher and a question today, what would you ask her and how do you think her actions toward africa would be regarded in that era? we have a black as the president of the united states of america. guest: well, that is a very interesting question. obviously two different aspects to it. the aspic you just brought about having an african-american -- aspect you just brought up of having an african-american president would have absolutely delighted her. she very much believe in the concept of the right to rise, and she would say her whole political life was about freeing social constraints on individuals so that they can have the tools to make anything of themselves. it so, she would be absolutely delighted to have the opportunity to meet president obama. her attitude toward africa was very much, i think, shaped by

her pre-second-world-war upbringing. she was not convinced that african states were models of anti-corruption and free-market policies. and she tended to dismiss the entire continent as a basket case. and her ministers certainly really had to convince her that nelson mandela was not a terrorist but, in fact, fighting for freedom. once she understood that and open up her blinkers to the situation in south africa, she did it come on board. but she tended to be more interested and have her views more colored by, for example, what was going on in that zimbabwe.

for example, she was very concerned about what happened to the ugandan asian who were expelled and obviously most of them ended up in britain. so, she tended to see the data rather than the good in africa, i think. host: amanda foreman, do you follow american public is close enough to have any thought on how margaret thatcher would view the current republican race for president? guest: well, she would probably embrace somebody like mitt romney. she prized competence of all else. she said she was in the business of getting things done. and of all the candidates, mitt romney has both the government and the business background. he is a free enterprise promoter like she was, so she would

probably have felt most comfortable with romney. host: amanda foreman -- november, 1990, what was less they like? you write about it in your article. her last day as prime minister pierre guest: in november of 1990, she faced what was essentially a coup d'etat by members of her own party. finally the split over europe drove two wings to go to war with each other, and this time it was the pro-european wing that one. it was a leadership challenge against. and she failed to win enough votes to prevent a second round. and she was persuaded by her cabinet to resign. excuse me -- she did not want to resign. and she called each other cabinet members in one by one, expecting that her formidable

persona and her handbag would intimidate her, only to have each cabinet member saying i person and support you -- personally support you but i advise you to resign. after she got it 19 times, she called her secretary and said, they deserted me. and she spent the night writing her resignation speech, apparently in tears. and the other wing, the euro- sceptic wing sent delegations to downing street to try to persuade her not to resign. three of them sat outside her office door waiting for her to come out after midnight so that they can try to persuade her, but she had made of her mind that she had to go. the next morning, she had to go to the palace, give her resignation to the queen, and then she had to walk into the house of commons for one final debate. and one of the people closest to

her said it was the bravest thing that they had ever seen anybody do. she went into a baying mob. host: is this the beginning of a new book? guest: is the germ. i will write a new book called "the world made by women," from cleopatra to market bircher -- margaret thatcher. it host: amanda foreman has been our guest. thank you for joining us on "washington journal." and on book tv this weekend, you could watch margaret thatcher in her own words on her autobiography, 6:00 p.m. on saturday on book tv on c-span2. on c-span today, lots of coverage from iowa. you can go to c-span.org to get a lot of the