at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. this morning, debbie wassermann schultz, chairman of the democratic national committee is talking about 2012 and how the they're countering against the republican primary. and ralph nader talks about his book, talks about tz political landscape, and the thoughts of a third party candidate. and michael singh discusses iran and the u.s. presence in the persian gulf. "washington journal" is next. >> he says, i've got business experience. well, business experience doesn't necessarily match up with being the commander in chief of that country. the commander in chief is not a ceo, it's someone who has to lead. being a president is not the ceo you. can't direct members of congress or the senate on how to do

things. >> i think people who spend their life in washington don't understand what happens out in the real economy. they think the people who start businesses are just managers. people who start as entrepreneurs to start a business from the ground up and get customers and investors and hire people to join them, those people are leaders. and the chance to lead in free enterprise is extraordinarily critical to also being able to lead a state like i led in massachusetts. >> well, there were at least some exchanges like this at last night's debate in new hampshire. but most of the writeups suggested swings at mitt romney and he eluded the attacks. again, they'll be at it again today. a debate two hours from now. and from there, more crisscrossing across new hampshire in search of votes. primary is tuesday. we'll continue to track the candidates and their calls here

on "the washington journal." here are the numbers. democrats, 202-737-0001. republican, 737-0002. independents, 628-0205. and a fourth line for new hampshire voters, the number for folks in new hampshire this morning, we'll have on the screen as well for you. here's the front page of "the washington post." the sub head points out that other candidates were exchanging jabs with each other and the leader of new hampshire mitt romney is complacency this tuesday. the second paragraph talks about the debate itself a little more intense. he said it failed to live up to expectations that romney's rivals would use the occasion to blunt his momentum.

his opponents criticized him sporadically and to little effect, allowing romney to get through the forum. the governor is cruising to victory in tuesday's primary, an outcome that can put him in a stronger position in south carolina's primary on january 21. let me read that phone number for the new hampshire residents. make sure you can hear your voices as well, 202-628-0184. "the washington post" below the fold has an interesting piece today. the headline says heading to the primary, the gop finds itself stuck. write that voters are not exactly witnessing the golden age of political oratory. the candidates are predictable, verbose, sullen, and combative. they quote the declaration of independence a lot. mitt romney quotes "america the beautiful," and rick santorum gets so deep of the minutia of

the legislative process, hep all but declared himself a creature of washington. ron paul's followers will walk across a frozen lake here, but none have gotten them to full blown political rapture. they head to tuesday's primary in an unexpected and uncomfortable position. the party that seemed to have so many promises going to 2012, a fired up base, an unpopular president, and struggling economy, now finds itself stuck. they're ambivalent on the front-runner and unable to decide on an alternative. on the debate, on the rates itself, anything regarding the new hampshire primary in a race coming up. first call from baltimore this morning, leroy, democrat, good morning. >> good morning, sir, how are you today? >> doing well. did you watch the debate last night? >> caller: yes, i watched the debate last night.

i wanted to piggyback to one of the previous debates, one of the caucuses when mr. rick santorum, he made a comment. and the comment was he did not want to give black people a welfare check. what he would rather do is get them a job, an opportunity to do things for themselves. i was very upset about that because the way i received it, he's thinking only black people get welfare checks. to single out black people, that annoys me. there are quite a few people. white, hispanic, asians, all wealthy. but for him to center in on black people, that shows insensitivity. and i always say, you are what you are no matter how you try to clean it up, you are what you are. >> that was leroy from baltimore and "the new york times" lead story talks a little more about the point leroy made.

he became the leading conservative alternative warned republicans that mr. romney's pedigree would make it more difficult to push back against the income and equality argument that is the central theme of the strategy. here's the quote. there's no classes. he needled mr. romney for the term, middle class. the idea we're going buy into the class warfare argument of barack oh what should not be part of the republican lexicon. leapt's hear from missouri now. marissa on the democrats' line. good morning. >> i'm so grateful for c-span. they're the shining light. you guys are single handedly keeping demock are a sip alive in america. i have a couple of things. number one, i hear these republican candidates saying building the infrastructure will not help the economy. that's completely untrue. in red bud, montana, they built

a rodeo grounds, a civic center, a pass up to cook city, a ski station and our economy still is completely dependent upon those things. so that's completely untrue that building public works program. let's give people jobs, not money. can you please start asking the republican candidates about two things, animal rights welfare association for so-called animals, livestock animal, and population control. those candidates are never asked those questions. thank you so much for everything you do for america. thank you, c-span. >> thank you for calling. one of the reporters flowing the debate last night is maggie hagerman senior political reporter in the tairia of politics. you write in your piece in politico today it was more of a discussion rather than a debate. a letdown to a lot of people? >> i think it was certainly let down to the press, which is

something more of a knockout fight. i think the person for whom it was not a letdown was romney. it's a great night for him. the candidates barely focused on him. they focused to the extent they barely focused on anyone else. there was a nasty back and forth between ron paul and rick santorum. but even there, there was not too many moments of engagement. for every minute that goes by does not have a standout moment as anti-mitt romney is great for romney going forward. we're in a different phase of the race than we were prior to iowa. votes are cast. romney won a state. didn't win by much. >> a comment you made sets up your own piece. you talk about eight takeaways in your view. mitt romney's interview is running out the clock. tell us about your takeaways. goip sure, i think romney is rubbing out the clock. grinding it down is the term i

use in the piece. he's trying to chew up time. the more time he chews up without it focused on him, the better he is. santorum is a great night, he did okay. he seemed a bit off kiltered, very fired up when he's talking with ron paul in engaging him and he faded for a while. in a moment towards the end when he tried to land a hit on mitt romney but he meandered a bit and had a hard time getting there. newt gingrich expected different things. went back to being positive. at other points suggested that he wanted to take on mitt romney hard. he did neither, actually, he's not causative, but he did not attack mitt romney. he seems unsure of which way he wanted to go.

john huntsman had an odd moment to speak mandarin on stage in an exchange with romney with trade with china. he's prone to making jokes at the debate. the journalists seemed to understand and not anyone else. they all get a chance to do it over again in two hours where they'll be at the nbc news. they could end up being very tired. we in the media all are. i expect they're not going to be at their best. so there is an opportunity for more to happen. but this is really the last chance to change the narrative heading to south carolina after the vote in new hampshire. >> we'll see a lot of exchanges that maggie hagerman speaks of. moving forward, then, is there a number in mind for mitt romney in terms of it was winning percentage if he wins in new hampshire sh that's going make him look great in south carolina

or not so great? guest: sure, i think if he gets north of 40%, that's a terrific number for him. i don't examine him to get that. doesn't mean he won't. i don't expect it because there's a fair amount of apathy among voters. people like ron paul have such fired up and motivated supporters. rick santorum had good crowds yesterday. that's what i saw. we discovered in iowa that it's not determined by sheer vote share. it doesn't matter. there may be more energy for rick santorum that's come out so far. i think as mitt romney gets below 36%, that will feel not great for him. again, a win is still a win. he's expected to win here. one thing that his team has done little of is manage expectation for the poll numbers in new

hampshire. he could have said polls go up, polls go down, we expect the margin to shrink. he has not said that. there's an expectation he'll do well. democrats are trying hard to make that point as well. a win is a win. 40% would be great for him. the reality is he would win iowa and new hampshire which would be a precedent and a big deal. >> maggie hagerman, senior politico reporter from "politico," you can read herpes. thanks for spending a few minutes with us this morning. >> thanks for having me. >> we continue to go on, here's the front page of the sunday version of the manchester union leader. the new hampshire sunday news. one story about celebrities and the debate spiking up the contest, a shot of rick santorum, the campaign trail. below that, they have a headline saying the gop rivals are

turning up the heat. a lot of the focus is not so much on the attempted attacks on mitt romney, but everybody going after each other. we'll see some of that shortly. but scranton, pennsylvania is on the line first. william, republican, hello, scranton. >> how are you. first-time caller. i started watching a bit ago. enough of that. i got really interested in ron paul maybe about two or three years ago with his policies and whatnot. but it seems as though people just seem to attack him constantly because of his radical foreign policy. sorry. the phone is going off. >> try to hit the button there, keep going. caller: okay, anyway, i was more concerned as to why everyone keeps labeling him as unelectable. might make it as a young voter. but it seems as though there

hasn't been a paradigm shift as to how the foreign policy is to step away from warmongering to more or less something

koip i was struck with how the republicans don't realize how war weary many americans are. we don't have nuclear weapons. still they say iran will create some catastrophic thing and we should go to war with them. the two wars in afghanistan and iraq, i don't want another war. i don't want a republican. >> okay.

let's go to red state.com where daniel horowitz writes about the biggest mistake of the worst debate. let's face it, the abc news/new hampshire debate is the worst debate of the entire election cycle. that's saying something considering the sheer volume of debates. how many years and election cycles will it take before republicans learn to turn to conservatives as moderators as presidential debates instead of washed up democrat hacks described as journalists. toward the end of the piece here written last night after the debate, to be sure, it was refreshing, that i write, to hear that santorum took on romney to task for his class system rhetoric. however, he obviated his argument by making a blue collar worker as part of the lexicon. santorum should have used that response to attack romney-care. romney-care disincentiveizes success and upper mobility by

offering greater subsidies for lower income earners. i can't get over the fact we're about to nominate the godfather of market-distorting government health care against government health care. this is insane. philadelphia, bob, republican. thanks for waiting. hi. caller: greetings. i want to make a couple of fast points. one, i like perry. he did well. the moderators were terrible. they asked him a total of six questions during the entire hour and a half. they were totally oriented towards asking so and so to comment on what two other people said, but never involving perilry. he was very polite, on point, and correct in my judgment. regarding the war issue of the prior speaker, the key thing to have to be understood is that no one wants to go to war, but you can't be blind to what iran is doing. and warmongering themselves as they pose a threat to america that cannot be denied.

war weary or not. america has -- america exceptionalism is behind it as rick perry constantly emphasizes. i hope i made myself clear. >> bob, thanks for calling. we have another bob on the line from elvin, missouri now. next, independent caller. hey, bob. >> yes, i want to say that i totally agree with what ron paul had to say last night. this continually beating the war drum, it's not getting us anywhere. we got start in this mess when daddy bush said we have to put sad dabbing in a box. that's all over kuwait and iraq. a dispute over oil. it's led one thing to the other. we don't need to bother iran. they pose no threat to us. we were held hostage in that

country years ago and we were told to get out. we didn't get out. when you're in another country and they ask you to leave, you need to leave. >> bob from missouri there. last night's debate here is rick perry going after ron paul. >> i'm telling you anybody who's had as many -- here's what frustrates me. is you go get the earmarks and then you vote against the bill? now, i don't know what they call that in other places. but congressman paul in texas, we call that hypocrisy. >> back to the phones, phoenix. republican, seine. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i'm getting sick and tired of how someone just mentions ron paul's name and you show a video of someone talking down about ron paul when he's the only one for decades that's making sense. the media is ignoring him. reading newspaper articles. they're talking about other people, except for ron paul.

the thing about walking on ice. but nothing really about what he's saying. he's so greatly ignored. it's ridiculous. it's disgusting. it's beyond disgusting. it's ridiculous. thanks. >> from south carolina, the stop after new hampshire. glen's a democrat. caller: how are you doing? >> doing fine. caller: thanks for c-span. the only thing i have to say is every president running on the republican side, nobody wants to consider the fact that he was in office, his name never gets mentioned in none of this stuff because you think of the eight years in which he was in office,

every one of those candidates supported him and his policies. they supported the war that went on in iraq, which was illegal. and you know, okay, they think we have a better way of doing things. they have the same methodology of george w. bush. they believe in ronald reagan's trickle down theory and everything about going to war. you look at iran. iraq was there also. but it's something we went in there illegally because there was nothing that was done. they had nothing to do with 9/11. but they wanted to make you believe that's the reason why. you consider all of the candidates, no matter how they spin it, no matter what the rhetoric is coming from, they all think the same way, just remember george bush and dick cheney. these guys will pull them every time. nobody wants to consider that. if you think about george bush, it never gets mentioned, none of this stuff. never mention his name. going to run for -- going to run for office.

and george bush -- >> glen, thank you for calling. a reflection via twitter this morning of all of the folks that were up there, one of them is going to be president, according to this viewer. one thing i'm confident of, last night, we heard from the president to be elected in november. here's the front page of the boston sunday globe. of course, not far from the action in new hampshire there. a primary day, a reputation for beating expectations. they're talking here about rick santorum being proudly unrelenting. you can see him in am hurst, new hampshire yesterday. mitt romney campaigning at pinkerton academy in derry. another event we covered. romney's bane effort and early debate target. but some of the headlines suggest he definitely handled some of the attacks against him. miami, florida, it's kevin. >> good morning. i think abc news is pretty much lost their credibility as

serious journalists regarding politics, especially regarding republican candidates. >> whip? >> they harp 15 minutes on issues of -- nonissues, really, of contraception and gay marriage. the thing is they just to try to needle certain candidates about their positions on it. it's no surprise what rick santorum thinks about gay marriage. but the abc news failed to ask the question to rick santorum, what is your priority, sir? are you going to get into office and spend more time trying to ban gay marriage than fixing the economy. that's the proper question to ask a candidate about rick santorum. they failed to do that. >> caller setting up this headline in the report today hearting george stephanopoulos. their head line is stephanopo-mess. here is the clip from the debate. >> this to ban contraception. they don't want to ban

contraception. why would we try to put it in the constitution? with regards to gay marriage, that's when i would amend temperature constitution. contraception,ist's working just fine, leave it alone. >> alexandria, new hampshire now. john on the line. hi, john. >> hi. i have a few concerns. >> mm-hmm. caller: one of them is, i never hear the candidates speaking about fraupd and controlling it. where it would be an excellent way of cutting costs. it really has to be controlled in some areas. 34i other concern is that it seems like the media is gaining control of the elections in some ways. and they're telling us who to vote for, who they think is electable, who's going to win. and they really need to let the chips fall where they must. and let the people, you know,

determine who's going be the candidate. >> isn't that what really happens at the end of the process? >> well, you could say that but it seems like they've already determined who the winner is. and you know only one state is, you know, said who they want. there's 50 states. and it seems awful unfair to those that, you know, have no say in the end if the election's already been called. i think it needs to go back to the people and away from the media. >> thank you, we do get the point. thanks, john, for calling this morning. jason is calling this morning from afghanistan. hi, jason. caller: hey. >> what do you do out there? caller: satellite connections. >> mm-hmm. what would you like to comment about regarding new hampshire and the voting.

caller: my question is -- i'm a marine corps veteran. >> mm-hmm. caller: my question is how can people attack ron paul about his foreign policy when he gets more donations from veterans and that community than all of the other candidates combined? on top of that, why did you not show ron paul's response on newt gingrich's comments about how he knows about the family and stuff like that. why don't you show that response? >> thanks for calling, ted, democrat. good morning. caller: curious. what plan does republicans have for america. the fullest notion that they're talking about abortion and gay marriage and all that, what plan do they have to help america get on its feet? they're standing up here and saying nothing that's going benefit the american people as a whole. i thank you so much. >> all right, ted, for all of the talk of the candidates going

after each other last night, here's a piece of rick santorum going after president obama. >> iranian people have come to the streets, taken to the streets repeatedly, still do. try to overthrow their government. and we have a president of the united states who stood silently by as thousands were killed on the streets. and did nothing. did nothing. in fact, he tacidly supported the -- the results of the election. now, ahmadinejad announced right after the election polls were closed that he won with 60% something of the vote. and the president of the united states said that sounds like a legitimate election -- obviously a chicago politician. >> one point about iran specifically. specifically learn about the straits of hormoons that's getting so much play in the moon, michael singh, from the institute of near east policy. we have several political events today beginning at 11:55 a.m.

this morning. mitt romney will be with the former minnesota governor, tim pawlenty who ran for president, of course, and they'll be holding a rally at the new hampshire opera house. 11:55 a.m. eastern time. and the "post" has this story today. no mitt summit on the right. a meeting of evangelical leaders according to "the new york post." he hasn't gotten a prayer, they say here. hasn't got a prayer, mitt romney, according to the post piece. that is the most prominent evangelicals in the country are holding talks in texas over the herd of gop challengers. i was asked to be a convener, part of the people who called the meeting, said tony perkins, adding that he's declining a scheduled conflict. not fair to characterize this meeting coming up as a stop romney meeting.

it's a meeting over who's acceptable, who's not. people are looking for a true conservative. you can read more in "the new york post" this morning about all of this, the upcoming meeting of the evangelical community. amarillo, texas, jacob, republican, good morning. >> good morning, sir, how's it going in washington, d.c. this morning? >> fine, how are you? caller: i'm doing well. sitting back, watching a all of this. initially, i was rallied behind newt gingrich because i feel like anybody who can come in and balance the budget for two consecutive years and based on the policies of the president put forth during their time together. i'm going to rally behind him. he threatened the lincoln douglas style debates. he threatened to fire everybody at the epa.

and completely redo it. you're not going to make any friends sailing something like that. coming off of those two things, i think i see a lot more of a rise in those numbers. other than that, the other republican candidates are not ready to get behind because they don't have the experience that newt gingrich has demonstrated. >> let's hear from kofington, kentucky. good morning. caller: good morning, i love c-span. newt gingrich -- these candidates need to get up in the 21st century. here we are. i'm sorry, i'm an independent. the only two candidates in the republican primary are maybe ron paul and john huntsman. the other candidates, i mean, are so out of touch and it's a shame. i mean, i just -- it's appalling. i hope they have a little more

backbone at this next -- at 9:00 on msnbc. maybe they'll have a little more to say. >> thanks for calling telehoma, tennessee now. caller: the ron paul supporter is a closet racist. this guy is waiting on the ambulance, not the nomination. and for mr. santorum, you mentioned the argument, why not three. if you can take a dead baby home overnight for two hours, two days, two weeks, two months, prop it up in the highchair. give it a name. he's a freak. they don't have to worry about obama, for their bull hockey for souls, they have to worry about an open flame. they're all going to burn. >> john huntsman doesn't insert himself in the second or third place in new hampshire, he should call obama and move back to be china. a couple of other callers mentioned, john huntsman and china last night. here's the clip from the debate, mitt romney going after john

huntsman on china, plus the response. >> my own view with the relationship with china is this -- it's that china is stealing our intellectual property, our patents, designs, know how, brand names, hacking to our computers, stealing information not only from corporate computers, government computers, and they're manipulating their currency. for those who don't understand the impact of that, i've seen it. i've seen it. that is if you hold down the value of your currency artificially, you make your products artificially low priced and kill american jobs. that's what's happened here in this country. >> important to note as they would say in china. [ speaking chinese ] he doesn't understand the situation. what he's calling for is leading to a trade war. it makes for eeftz si talk and nice applause line. it's far different from the reality. >> we're not going to let them run all over us and steal our jobs. >> got it. fresh poll information sunday morning two days before the

primary new hampshire. mitt romney, 35% of the vote in this poll, ron paul, 20%. john huntsman, 11%. newt gingrich, 9%. rick santorum, 8% in this poll by suffolk university and 7 news. rick perry, 1%. mr. santorum, 8%. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't see none of these candidates maybe other than ron paul but he doesn't always explain it good. the united states would be in

1940 again and had to ramp up a true world war, we wouldn't be able to do it. when we talk about the job crisis in america, well aware of jobs, it's because everything that you go by is made overseas. you want to call it a trade war. and then in the interest of the united states, we should have everything we use manufacturing in the united states. only import what we cannot manufacture, our raw materials. and that's basically my comment and i'd like to get some feedback from you, sir. thank you. >> mobile, alabama, betty. how about some feedback from you, betty, on the independent line. >> yes, good morning. may i take a few minutes, please, because it's been years since i made a comment. >> go ahead. caller: i -- in the last election, i voted for obama. i will not do it again. >> how come?

caller: because i don't like the class warfare that's going on. he's putting blacks against whites, whites against black. he's trying to want people to feel that white people are hate blacks and that's not true. it's not true. the problem in the black community is problems, rather, are self-imposed. black ignorance, black -- people having babies out of wedlock, 70% according to the statistics. and not going -- not trying to educate themselves to make their lives better. and so obama and the democrats are taking advantage of that. and the democrats are creating more poverty in the black community than the white -- than the republicans ever will. if the republicans are giving people. and i thank god for the rich people. i really do. and so i would not vote for obama again. and democrats wake up. the democrats are not in your --

do not have your livelihood and lives -- not concerned about you. they're using poverty for votes. they want to take it. i figured i heard about it a long time ago. and now it's become a reality to me. >> from mobile, alabama there. we'll do this for about 15 more minutes or so. then our next guest will be representative debbie wassermann schultz from florida who's head of if dnc from new hampshire. last night's debate fully met my expectations, so much so, i could only stand a few minutes. do any of these clowns have an end to crony capitalism that corrupts washington? good morning. caller: i would like to say it seems like nobody is even thinking about it is that obama

inherited this mess from bush, the republicans. i mean, how could anyone expect him in just the, you know, couple of years, to pull us back out of the mess that he inherited? i file -- i feel he's representing our country with pride and dignity. i'm very proud to see obama as our president. and those republicans? that's like a saturday night skit going up there. i would be -- i couldn't even imagine one of them leading our country. >> thanks for calling. in addition to mitt romney in new hampshire just before noon eastern time today, we're following ron paul for president. his campaign as well. the speakers there will be the congressman and the presidential candidate ron paul, his son rand paul, the senator will be there as well, meredith, new hampshire, 3:00 p.m. eastern time. lots of callers about ron paul today. there's a piece of the debate about ron paul and the

possibility of a third party run came up. >> i essentially have but i don't like absolutes like i will never do something. no, not for a debt ceiling -- >> please don't interrupt me. >> so i have said it in the last go around. i have said it -- they asked me that about three times. i have think you've asked me four or five already. and the answer is always the same, you know, i have no plans to do it. i don't intend to do it until they push me a little harder. why don't you plan to do it. i don't want to. i'm doing well. i wasn't too far behind and doing pretty well. catching up on mitt every single day. the addition of ron paul.

we'll have john huntsman live on c-span at 5:00 p.m. he and his wife and others will be in bedford, new hampshire. your calls will be on this program at different points today. morris calling from san diego. good morning. caller: i feel special. i must be the only republican awake in the entire united states. that be it at 4:42 in the morning, that's something. anyway, as far as the primary in new hampshire goes, i don't think it moves anything, really. and whatever polls they show from day-to-day, month-to-month, so many here because most of america by now should know that the main stream media is left leaning to put it mildly and in their pocket to put it bluntly of the democrats. the trash the republican candidates. light weights, no one can make up their mind about it.

>> rick, good morning. caller: my comment is as americans no matter who we elect, we are missing the point. we should poll every member of the house and senate and ask them who they can work with and get something done. because we are wasting our time arguing about people that are electable and we're not arguing about people that are workable. it's such an impasse. it's a joke. so we should really turn it over to congress. as to who they would elect to work with. >> okay. this ron paul ad running up against rick santorum came up.

we'll show you santorum's response to the ad in a minute. but first, the ad itself. here it is. >> one serial hypocrite exposed. >> he went the other way when he got paid to go the other way. >> now another has emerged, rick santorum, a corporate lobbyist and washington politician, a record of betrayal. the facts, santorum promised the balanced budget amendment and voted five times to raise the debt ceiling for the bridge to where. adding trillions to the debt. then he admitted, i'm no longer a deficit hawk. i had to spend the surpluses. santorum promised to stand with workers but opposed the right to work act. he promised to fight the special interests and took the most lobbyist cash in washington and named one of the most corrupt members in congress. america's challenges are too great. don't be fooled, rick santorum, a record of betrayal, another

serial hypocrite who can't be trusted. i'm ron paul and i approve this message. >> a lot of news play on that ad. we'll look at the response in a minute. here's a call first from keterring, ohio, good morning. caller: thanks for making my call. republicans still see him as far right enough or far wrong enough is what i say. in regard -- a sharp distinction -- i don't know if the press really focuses on this enough. in fact, chris aili is a was on the other day saying that there's no sharp distinction between the republican candidates. and people like ron paul have progressives and independents, sending them money because of the sharp distinction between

him and the other candidates on foreign policy. a sharp distinction to obama. he's for fact-based information when it comes to, for instance, iran or for instance, the israeli-palestinian conflict. so the nonintervention is based on unsubstantiated claims appeals to a lot of people. so there is an incredibly huge sharp distinction between him and the oh candidates on foreign policy. and i wish the media would hammer away with that. he's got me sending him money and others sending him money based on that. based on that ad with santorum are these alleged pro life stances. i'm a catholic. and pro life to me means supporting people after they're born, making -- not talking about handouts, i'm talking about bottom level needs like health care, equity in education, fair wages.

if you're pro life, you would support all of those things. you may be pro fetus as well as perry, but, you know, after these children are born, again, i'm not talking about handouts, i'm talking about basic foundational tools that everyone needs to access capital and access the alleged american dream, which i called an american mist. >> thanks for weighing in. with your opinion. we'll get to more calls in a couple of minutes. she mentioned the ad we just ran. here's the response to the south carolina ad. >> the group that called me corrupt was a group called crew. if you haven't been sued by crew, you're not a conservative. they're a left wing organization that puts out a list at every election of the top republicans who have tough races and calls them all corrupt because they take contributions from pacs. it's a ridiculous charge and you should know better than to cite

george soros-like organizations to say that they're corrupt. >> larry is on the line from canton, massachusetts, republican, hey, larry? >> hi, good morning. >> good morning. >> good morning, america. caller: my name is larry, i'm from massachusetts. and i, again, i voted for mitt romney. and for four years in my mind, he used it to run for high office. he did nothing here in my humble opinion except to use the only resume he could run for, the national office. so, again, seen it, been there, done it, you can have him. ron paul, very intrigued with him. his ideas -- his ideas are on time. a lot of folks may not be at ease with him. but the man speaks the truth. but also, if you look at the last 3 1/2 years, everything

obama tried to do was to block them. obama, one-term president. and this is where i knew we had some really just awful people here. when they said -- if we gave you democrats -- we gave you $1 in increases in -- in increases and will be cut, all eight folks said that's a good deal. that's how i knew that president obama had no chance of working with these people here. so, again, america, no matter who wins or loses, at the end of the day, if we're still all america is our country. but to me, if you're not voting for president obama, trying to work with republicans, many i party, whom i 50e am very disappointed in, i'm not voting for you. i'll send him some financials to help him get re-elected. >> larry from massachusetts there. rick perry made the news last night regarding iraq.

here's a look. >> i would send troops back to iraq. i will tell you. >> yeah? >> i think we start talking with the iraqi individuals there. the idea that we allow the iranians to come back in to iraq and take over that country with all of the treasure both in blood and money that we've spent in iraq. because this president wants to kowtow to his liberal leftist base and move out those men and women. he could have renegotiated that time frame. i think it's a huge error for us. we're going to see iran, in my opinion, move back in, literally the speed of light. they're going to move back in and all of the work we've done, every young man that's lost his life in that country will have been for nothing. >> next calm, rick seals, missouri, glenn, you are up. hi. >> from brookfield, mo mo--

missouri. it doesn't matter who you put in as president. if you leave those guys in there, democrats and republicans, you here not going to get anything done. stop and think about what your senator and congressman has done. and if they've done what you want them to, leave them in there. if they haven't, get them out of there. that's all i have to say. >> chattanooga, tennessee now. democrats' line. hi there. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> . caller: a quick question. i would like to know from democrats and republicans, what you -- hire -- hiring the president of the united states of america, all of the immigration that make up one people. and if we tried to divide it.

and the immigration -- and the eagle representative stood out on the world. so what are we fighting for -- to unite together and becomes one. >> here's the headline in "the new york times" about newt gingrich. as the primary loom, a donor boosts. gingrich, his candidates tried to catch up with mitt romney. a long-time supporter of gingrich donated a super pac. backing his presidential bid, the donation by sheldon was ordered saturday night by "the washington post." a long generous patron of mr. gingrich's political career. it's called winning our future formed last month by becky brick get who served until last year as the political action committee that mr. gingrich

founded. as for the former speaker himself, hep spent a minute or two yesterday or last night at the debate talking about the news media. >> the question is, should the catholic church be forced to close the adoption service was in massachusetts because they won't accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done. should the catholic church be driven out of providing charitable services in the district of columbia because it won't give in to steck ullr bigotry. will it find itself discriminated against by the obama administration in the key delivery of services because of the bigotry question? there's a lot more anti-christian bigotry today than the other side. and none of it gets covered. >> time for a call or two. arlington, texas, james, good morning. caller: good morning. >> what would you like to say about the race.

caller: i was watching the debate last night. i'm disappointed in the republican candidates' inability to be factual for them to speak in false terms. i want to talk about food stamps. rick santorum made a comment about blacks and food stamps. statistics clearly showed 31.4% of food stamp recipients are white. and around 21% are black. unfair just to make these comments. and someone is going to this whole idea of class warfare to talk to the public, to talk to potential constituents about race and be nonfactual. i look forward to a debate hopefully at some point in the future where the candidates will cite their sources and not just say stuff zhen, eight, nine, ten times and figure they say it enough, then it's true. it's one of the biggest problems with this whole primary is they

repeat, repeat, repeat the same things, people believe it's true. >> thanks for calling, james. one viewer via twitter has a response to governor perry's clip about iraq. maybe troops should go back to study that part of the world. governor perry needs to stuffdy what happened to the soviets after their ten years in afghanistan. hi there. >> happy new year to you. >> same to you. >> you know, a statement that john mccain made towards president obama when he was running. he said trying to describe president obama, he said he's not in touch. we're stuck with him because you look at john mccain and heard what he was talking about, look at his wife, how she humbled herself behind him. she was so scared to show how insecure he was. he's talking about himself. none of these republicans are in touch. they've never been through

anything. they've never gone through anything. and therefore, they don't have no idea what they're talking about. i mean, they're talking about less government? i guess you mean less government and more religion? please, give me a break. they're like a cloud, you know? they really are? >> before we wrap up this segment, we want to take you ever so briefly to south carolina because that's the next stop on the 21st after new hampshire. here's the front page of the "post & courier" today. charleston, south carolina. the coast, they right, could be the key for mitt romney. the impressive performance along the coast, a competitive showing, and more socially conservative upstate counties running slightly ahead across south carolina's mid lands. a strategy that propelled senator mccain to a narrow 33% win here four years ago. a blueprint, they write, could build similar success for mitt romney on january 21.

we have a short piece from our news makers' program. if you're not familiar with, runs every sunday at 10:00 a.m. on this network. 10:00 a.m. eastern time with a replay at 6:00 p.m. the news maker guest is chad connolly, the south carolina gop chairman. at 10:00 a.m., he'll talk in part habit -- about the ground games of all of the camps in south carolina. here's a look. >> some camps have great ground games. speaker gingrich has poured time and effort to having a great ground game. he's got good people around the state working with him, some within the party, some within the tea party itself. senator santorum. i made a press a couple of days ago when i gave the numbers that each candidate had been here in south carolina in the previous months. he's been here the most actually. in his 26 visits, he assembled a great ground game. more specifically in the

upstate. he's got talented folks that are politicos, they've been around this game for a long time. they know how to break that turnout out in the last 72 hours. they're formidable. and governor perry has a great set of talented people helping him on the ground. some political people that have been running races for quite sometime. and then i told the story somewhere yesterday or the day before, i don't remember, you know, ron paul's folks are just there -- they're extremely eager and engaged and excited. >> a name you left out of the whole list asoff ear going through everybody and complimenting folks on their political teams, what about governor romney. he hasn't had a big presence in the state in the last year or so. is that the truth? >> he's been the latest to ramp up. and that's why i didn't mention him in the other thing. you were talking about ground team. he's added some political operatives and other friends of mine on his team that have been around the block. he's got the smallest staff in the state that i know of.

but he has governor haley's endorsement and our state treasurer's endorsement. >> chad connolly, south carolina republican party chairman. our news maker guest today at 10:00 a.m. with a replay at 6:00 p.m. eastern time. front page of the greenville news this sunday morning. has some information about a poll there in south carolina they write that the state's pivotal role in the gop race sharpens. they write that santorum has the best shot at romney. romney, 30%. gingrich, 23%, rick santorum, 19%. greenvilleon-line.com if you want to read more about that. claremore, jim, republican, what would you like to say? >> well, a few things where -- they tried to support obama and say how he can't get anything done because of the congress. well, for two years, he had a majority of congress and senate and did nothing but destroy our

country. so we saw for two years what he wanted to do. and he did it. and no one liked it. that's why in 2010, we had the majority republican party in there to say -- to tell him, okay, stop. you obviously don't know what you're doing. and the other thing, the one cause and the other obama supporters called and said something about putting all of the republicans in one group, which is really bad. they said they don't know anything. . .

first, we are checking and with campaign supporters and volunteers for this morning's presidential debate in concord, new hampshire. >> we are here at the nbc debate.

what is your role in organizing this morning for the debate? >> my role is to make sure that things move smoothly. people get through the front door. my role is to check the list and make sure we know who they are. >> what goes into organizing for a debate like this? when did you start? you are a volunteer. >> this is three weeks worth of work. for the last week, people have been sleeping in offices. there is a lot of work that goes into making sure everything works well. all the candidates expect that this is their time to shine. >> give us an idea of some of the logistics that you have to work out before a debate. >> the biggest problem is getting places for people to meet. prices for the press to set up.

we need parking. parking is one of the toughest problems in a town like this. satellite trucks take up a great amount of space. obviously, food. the most important thing is black coffee. >> what is the cost for a debate like this? >> i have no idea. i know it is a substantial amount of money. it is well worth it. i do not care what it cost, it is worth every penny. >> who goes to the debate this morning? >> candidates, supporters. there are a lot of groups, like cornerstone, who is a group that watches the social issues. there are a number of people who are just interested. there are a lot of undecided voters that will be here today. >> why do you think new

hampshire voters are undecided? >> i do not think we have for the right words come out of the candidate yet. i am not so much worried about what they have done in the past , as much as what they will do in the future. >> did you watch last night's debate? >> i watched last night's debate. i was less than impressed. i am hoping that today's debate, we will hear the real talk. >> what do you mean by real talk? >> they are always rehearsed. every candidate is rehearsed. last night was a long night. tonight, they will forget what their staff told them to say. i think the answers will be more honest. >> do you think you'll be undecided up to the moment he walked into the polling? >> i will have to vote for someone.

>> we are in the spin alley. what is the point? >> to help get the message out in case people are confused. i want to be able to explain what my candidate meant. >> how much media are you expecting? >> this room will be crowded. it will be very difficult. people will have signs above their heads. >> thank you, sir. host: that debate will happen in less than an hour. 9:00 eastern time. we will track the candidates throughout new hampshire. we will do this again tomorrow. we believe there tuesday in new hampshire for the voting and the results. joining us now from manchester,

new hampshire, is debbie wasserman schultz, a democrat from florida. she is chair of the dnc. which of these candidates or is he the most? guest: there is not an issue of which one worries us the most. we are focused on trying to make sure we organize and stand-up the most significant grass-roots present a campaign in american history. through 2011, we have been making sure that we make hundreds of thousands of calls to our supporters. we have had 500 different meetings with house parties, training sessions in new hampshire alone. by tuesday, we will have seven offices here. we're getting ready to make sure we can reach out across the country to talk about president obama's record of accomplishment. bring our economy from losing

750 jobs a month to three years later, having gone through 22 straight months of private sector job growth. 200,000 jobs created in the last month. the unemployment rate is starting to come down. we have made slow and steady progress. host: we welcome our viewers to phone end up with their questions and comments. we have separate lines for democrats, republicans, independents. our guest will be with us for 25 minutes. there was this headline at 2:00 in the morning today quoting nyou -- guest: it has been pretty clear for the entire candidacy for mitt romney. he is a candidate with no

conviction. someone who appears to be willing to do anything or say anything to get elected. in 2002, he ran on a platform of supporting the upcoming of roe versus wade. because he feels the need to move very far to the right and embrace tea party extremism, he is no longer pro-choice. he is anti-abortion, supposedly. he has changed positions on so many different issues. if there is one thing the american people want to have confidence and, it is that they know where they stand. i do not think anyone could have confidence in mitt romney. he is willing to stand and where he needs to get elected. host: by attempting to exacerbate the divide between mitt romney and the gop base,

you're reinforcing the notion that president obama's allies -- he is the most threatening candidate in the field. guest: far from it. i think mitt romney and the entire field is lackluster. this is an on remarkable group of candidates who are not generating the enthusiasm on the republican side. look at mitt romney coming out of iowa. if you spent five years trying to win the state of iowa and new onlybeat the candidate to spend the least by eight votes. to have essentially tied the person who spent the least, when you spend the most. coming into a state where he was the governor of the state next

door, mitt romney should be coming out of this primary with more than 50% of the vote. if he does not comment able be an example of how unenthusiastic the republican voters are. there has been a very large anybody-but-romney contingent. the reason for that is reflected in the fact that mitt romney has no conviction. no one knows where he really stands. host: first call for our guest. caller: my concern is if mr. obama remains the president, gets reelected, we will have a problem regaining our guns in our home. i think this is pretty important. the balance -- we're going to lose our second amendment rights. guest: i think it can take some

comfort in the fact that president obama says he supports the second amendment. that is not a concern i think you should have. that is not an issue that president obama has expressly taken nine. he has expressed support for making sure that we have a gun control laws to ensure we can keep people safe. host: what did you make of the debate last night? guest: i thought mitt romney grabbed asia will and dug himself a deeper hole -- grabbed a shovel and dug themselves a deeper hole. he repeated that he had created 100,000 jobs as the head of -- abc news fact check out last

night. there is no evidence to back it up. he produced no evidence to back it up. he is claiming credit for jobs that were created after he was no longer with the company. it is unbelievable that he continues to repeat that. he was 47 in 50 states for job creation when he was governor. let's look at the economic record that he supposedly touts as a qualification. if mitt romney's job was as a corporate buyout specialist, someone who dismantled companies, fired tens of thousands of workers, outsourced jobs. for a living, major that companies were taken apart, broken up into component parts, sold off to make a profit for their investors. that is not something i would be -- it is not what i think the

american people are looking for to put in the white house. host: let's go to port charlotte, florida. michael, at independent color. caller: thank you very much for taking mike -- independenct caller. caller: thank you very much for taking my call. i am newly independent because of of the logjam in the government bureaucracy today. i am of said that the obstructionist of the current republican party platform and how proud they are of sabotaging they have perpetrated. the hoodwinking they have done with a public. i am perturbed and the way the

obama administration has chosen not to attack what has gone on in the real-estate scandal. i understand the political nature of it, but i do not understand -- i think he has made a grave mistake. guest: can you tell me what you mean? caller: from what i understand, there has been comments. he says he wants to leave that alone for now. anything that was done with the previous administration. in accordance to the fact these

people are getting bonuses now. host: michael, let's get a response from -- a response from our guest. guest: it is deeply concerning to me that even though i am a democrat, i do believe we should reach out across the aisle, work together, try to find common ground. you have leaders on the republican side, like mitch mcconnell, who said at the outset of this congress that is number one goal is not creating jobs, but defeating president obama. it is true that lens that republicans and congress look through when they are making decisions. anything they do that against president obama at a victory --

is why they fought us on the payroll tax extension, the debt ceiling issue, the budget -- they refused to work with us because they know any success that we have makes it more likely he will get reelected. that is a sad commentary. you may be confusing who said we should not do anything about the real-estate market. it was actually mitt romney in nevada. we should just let investors scooped up the properties, turn them around, and sell them. let the markets take care of itself. that shows a callous disregard for people who need their banks to work with them on working out

their mortgages. in florida, 45% of homeowners are upside down. in nevada, it is 75%. we need to make sure we have a president in the white house who has supported housing programs through executive order and legislation to make sure we can rebuild the housing market and help people remain in their homes. caller: good morning, c-span. i am a 100% disabled veteran. i want you to take this down. wall street journal, january 9, a 2009, the worst track record on record. three quick statistics. democrats were in there for 27 years.

republicans for 36. democrats created 21 million more jobs. the apparel expanded almost double what the republicans did, which was -- the payroll expanded almost double what the republicans did. have an honest it comes -- have an honest discussion with republicans about the was building jobs for america. guest: it has been somewhat challenging having honest discussions with the republicans. they have preferred to repeat mischaracterization is about the president's record. if you look at the set of problems that the president inherited when he took office, it was the largest set of problems any president has inherited since fdr. the economy was dropping like a rock. you had 750,000 job losses every

month. fast-forward three years later, and we have had 22 straight months of job growth in the private sector. last month alone, we had 200,000 jobs added. the unemployment rate has dropped below 9%. we had the lowest unemployment filings in years. we're beginning to turn things around. the republicans, though, ignore that fact. mitt romney made some wisecrack last night about president obama taking credit for the job creation is like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise. they refuse to give him credit for the job creation. they're trying to give him plenty of blame for the mess we are in. he inherited the massive deficit that george w. bush handed him from a record surplus that president clinton handed him before that. it is pretty disingenuous. and we're going to call them out

on it. the direction that president obama has been taken for fighting for a middle-class, working families, tax breaks for 95% of americans. the republicans are fighting for millionaires and billionaires and to preserve the status quo. caller: i am concerned about feeling sorry for president obama and concerned about the people who are fighting him. he has tried to turn the united states into europe. europe is filled with the stupid people who did not even come to america. america, of course, is filled with people who are smarter than the europeans. i would like to challenge anybody to come up with an example to show that president obama did anything but failed at columbia and is

did anything else but to study comic books. guest: i am not sure the caller 's comment weren't a direct answer. -- warrants a direct answer. we have a huge problem with people who are uninsured. 47 million people are living without health insurance. people being dropped and denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. i am a breast cancer survivor. the passage of the affordable care act made sure that insurance companies cannot drop or deny you coverage for that pre-existing condition. a major that young adults can stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26 years old. 2.5 million young adults are in charge because of that

provision. the doughnut hole, the medicare gap in prescription drug coverage, leave seniors without any coverage at all. the doughnut hole is beginning to be closed. 2.5 seniors have seen a reduction in their prescription drug costs. we needed to make sure that we provided an opportunity for everyone to have quality, affordable health care coverage. it was helpful for seniors because they have access to eight free wellness' visits. be able to focus -- a free wellness visit. that is one example of what president obama has begun to make life better in america for everyone.

host: we will continue to take your calls. albany, new york, independent. caller: good morning, c-span. i am a registered independent. i am not caught on president obama, but i am not called on him either. -- hot on president obama, but i am not cold on the meter. i wanted hillary clinton. but if we look back, republicans controlled the white house and the congress. look what we got with one party in control. the same could be said for a few democrats, too. you give us something that only answers half the problem. you need to regulate the insurance companies. i should go back to a statement

my mother said to my father when i was a little boy about republicans. you vote republican, and devote yourself on unemployment. if we do ask -- are you better off now than you were four years ago? i am a little better off than i was four years ago. i am looking forward -- i will go for obama a second term. guest: you just convince yourself. he started out saying he was neutral on president obama. if you think about it, and whatever we were when president obama took office, and a huge set of problems he inherited, he fought hard for the middle class and working families and promise from a dismal economic

situation. we were on the purpose of disaster. -- precipice of disaster. the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. that is what president obama inherited on top of the notion that banks were too big to fail and the financial-services crisis. we had no one minding the store, protecting consumers. now he helped pushed through wall street reforms of vatican never again have banks to be too big to -- reforms so that never again you have banks to be too big to fail. we can no longer have consumers can run over by financial institutions, like credit card companies and big banks.

it is really important reform. he is going to continue to fight hard. that'll be contrasted with you covered the republican nominee is. -- whoever the republican nominee is. these are folks who say they are for deficit reduction, yet they want to keep adding to the deficit by protecting only the wealthy. we need to make sure that everyone gets a fair shot at success and the american dream. host: we have henry on the line for democrats. michigan. caller: good morning. it is a pleasure to speak with you this morning. i am so thrilled to get in because i have had to endure a

year of listening to people call and who say, i voted for barack obama of. i am so disappointed. i believe that is such a big lie. anybody who voted for president barack obama is thrilled because he has done a fantastic job. i do have a bone of contention to pick with the democrats. that is message discipline. words matter. we need to understand that we need to repudiate all of these the republicans are putting forth. there was a color that said barack obama had control of the house and senate the first two years he was in office. that is blatantly false. it has been perpetrated throughout his term. all i have to say it is in his first two years, he has a 60-

vote would to independents. one of those independents was none other than the one from connecticut to, who campaigned with john mccain. host: let's hear from our guest on that point. guest: henry, you are right. president obama did not have effective control of both houses of congress. unfortunately, we have seen the republicans in the minority of use the filibuster process to require every single motion, every single bill, the republicans have used the filibuster process even a simple vote on the adjournment, the required that meets the 50-vote

threshold. that is not what the founding fathers envisioned. they do that only when it is convenient and works to their advantage. otherwise, they make the rules up as they go along. host: before we take our last call, to date is january 8. one year later. out in arizona, they're having a big event. i think you are attending. it is a memorial service in tucson. here is a shot of gabrielle giffords. the memorial -- how was the congresswoman doing these days? we know you are close friends. what is your political future? guest: she is doing great. i just had some time to spend with her in houston.

she is making so much progress. her walking is getting better. per initiating speech is getting much better. she's still haunts for words -- hunts for words. the occupational therapy -- that has been her full-time job. fighting hard to recover and try to come back for her constituents. nothing has been decided about that. she has about five months until she has to turn in the signatures to file for reelection. she will use every bit of that time to make sure she can recover fully. host: do expect to see her back as a full voting member? guest: it is too early to tell. she has about five months before she has to make that decision. host: one last call for our guest. caller: and i am an independent

and i voted for barack obama and i am going to vote for him again. yesterday, i got of said -- upset. i was watching the town hall meetings. there was one for mr. santorum. there was nobody from that town in that hall. they were from all out of state. there were from new york, pa., and all the townspeople got stepped outside. there were over 200 of them that could not get into the hall. i am trying to be open-minded, to look at everything. here is the republicans, a big proponent of a voter aideei.d. they are doing town hall fraud. guest: one of the most remarkable things about new hampshire is how closely they get an opportunity and take pride in their opportunity to

look under the hood of the candidate, kick the tires. i saw the reports of about half the room were made about people who did not live in the state. it does not sound like the organizers of the meeting did a great job making sure that new hampshire residents got in first. i have some new hampshire pride myself. i have a family home here. i spend a lot of time in this state. i have seen how proud the state's residents are about their special role in the primary. this is a wonderful state. i can see where that source of pride comes from. host: joining us live from manchester, debbie wasserman schultz chairman of the democratic national committee. thank you for your time.

coming up in a couple of minutes, ralph nader. he has run for president five times. he will give us his perspective on president obama and the current process that is happening right now. in the meantime, there is another debate this morning. in less than half an hour. we will check in now and find out how facebook is playing a role in this morning's debate and in the campaign. >> we are in concord, new hampshire, for the nbc news- facebook debate. int's is facebook's role this morning's debate? >> we have been working with nbc to make sure that facebook is integrated in all parts of this debate. we announced in july on a live stream under facebook page. we took questions from viewers and they could start telling us what they wanted to see in the

debate. as we move forward, we have been helping them integrated into their website. we have been taking questions from the audience. as people are watching it on mine, they can provide feedback. -- online, they can provide feedback. that could get inc. into any follow-up questions that david gregory is asking. in the lobby, we have a facebook photo booth where people can register with their facebook account, take a picture. sure it immediately with their friends on facebook. -- share it immediately with their friends on facebook. >> what happens? >> nbc has a team that is monitoring of those reactions, positive, negative. feeding data into the moderator said that he can use that in his decisions in the next questions. >> you may be able to see some

of these comments on the screen. >> correct. they will be showing them on the lower part of the screen. you can also see all this by going to be open " meet the press" facebook page. >> what was the process like for picking the questions? >> we got thousands of them. people on facebook are very politically active. they really want to talk about these issues. the questions ranged from the economy to foreign policy, technology. we will see a wide range of questions from facebook users. >> how were they picked? >> i do not know what if i once got past. it will be exciting to see how they are incorporated. >> we have seen such a media at incorporated into this debate over the last few years. what does facebook get out of this? >> politics is a social. for us, this is a great way to

incorporate the political process that has always been about candidate talking to voters and voters talking to each other. >> you are sponsoring this morning's debate. is there any cost to facebook? >> it was all resources. it was a true partnership with nbc. it is everything from doing the surveys, brainstorming, helping to publicize its. >> you have another job besides organizing. you were helping the republican candidate with their social media. >> i am the liaison for all of the republican candidate. we work with them a lot in terms of brainstorming different ways they might be able to integrate facebook into their campaign. newt gingrich, on its web site, as a tool or people can log in with their facebook account and see which of their friends have made phone calls. it helps make it a shared experience.

>> how does that differ from the traditional phone banks system? >> normally, when you go into a volunteer bank, he might not know those folks. if people see their friends are taking action as well, they are much more likely to do so. this helps you see what your friends have done. previously, with campaigns, you might walk in there and not know anybody. >> how does it help the campaign? >> people, if they note other folks are doing it, they might be more inclined to participate and take action. it helps those word of mouth spreading in terms of talking to your friends. >> facebook was active in the last campaign. what are your plans throughout the rest of this primary process? >> we are working to keep building out there facebook

presence. we are adding tools every day. we have senate races coming up. >> thank you. ralph nader is here. after three years in office, what do you make of president obama? guest: i think he has not been aggressive enough against the minority republicans. they seem to run the show. the republicans are in charge in the house, of course. now he has the argument that he is gridlocked so we cannot do anything. but he did have two years when he could have done a lot more. he is not a very transforming president. there are two kinds of presidents, transaction president, transforming presidents. he is also to concessionary to wall street. not tough enough on law and

order on the wall street gamblers and crooks. on foreign and military, i'm afraid he is even worse than george w. bush. he has been aggressively plotting any sovereignty of the nation. go anywhere, at any time. he has turned himself into a prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. there is a new grouping formed, bipartisan, with a forthcoming caucus called the national commission on the misuse of intelligence to justify war. host: we invite our viewers to phone in with questions and comments. we will have lines for democrats and republicans and independents. we saw this story yesterday.

the white house pressure democrats not to challenge obama. what are they saying here? guest: there were some indications. not necessarily defeat him. but to put the liberal progressive agenda on the table and have the media coverage. right now, they're just able to cover the republicans. a one-man primary is not very good. whenever a name came up, the democratic national committee would move to discourage it. we tried to develop a slate of six distinguished citizens, education, poverty, foreign, military affairs, just to have an agenda challenge.

that was very difficult, too. they do not want debates in the primary, the democrats. that is unfortunate. all these issues of labor rights, minimum wage, cracking down on corporate crime, at deflating the bloated military budget, tax reform. none of these kids any airing because out -- none of these gets any airing because it is a one-man primary. it is so bad that they cannot challenge each other other than on jury minor points. when rick santorum says something that is inaccurate on social security, the others cannot challenge him on social security because they think social security should a private accounts. it is not a very functional debate. they are ignoring the huge areas of concern by the american

people. can any of these folks be the president? -- beat the president? guest: look at the way they are excluding people. they have not raised half a million dollars. that is the entry fee to the primary. it is pretty unheard of. somebody with that kind of background would be on the debates. host: first call for rafik nadir. -- for ralph nader. caller: i am so excited. this is my most admired person and the whole world. it is so good to see him.

i have written your name and for president every time you ran. ever since the second term of clinton. i have always been a lifelong pressed -- democrats, but i could not do it after that. it is so unfair the way you are kept out of everything. if i had a million dollars, you could had three-fourths of it. somebody has to get a spread of this john ashcroft patriot act. it is killing people. i felt like i was an alien in my own country. i have never had reason to get a photo id. i did not choose to drive.

i do not travel. i do not have a passport. i cannot even see a doctor. it has been turned over to a private company. i went free trips. they told me each time, wrong information. it cost a total of $168. i finally got it. that is a disgrace. on all these other issues, too. guest: there is an attempt to pass clause requiring identification that cost money. it throws people off balance. in this country, it is more difficult for people to vote or

run for office than any western country. there is more obstruction than any other country in the western world. why is that? we do not have a competitive democracy. if we had multi-party is, we would have more of a competitive democracy. she makes a good point. the patriot act is replete with provisions that allow search and seizure and people's homes, no notification for 72 hours. they can go after your library records, your medical records. we are moving toward a police type of government. if we ever had two major terrorist attacks, we would have a police type government. people tend to be panicked and they will go for security

instead of liberty. benjamin franklin once said, those to subordinate our liberties security deserve neither. host: a green party nominee in 1996. an independent in 2004 and two dozen 8. >> ipod slightly more democratic votes in the 1992 -- i got slightly more democratic votes in the 1992 new hampshire primary. if you get down to issues like civil liberties, living wage, clean air, if you get down to getting corruption out of politics, if you get down to a shifting power to people, which is what we have to do, it resonates. whether you are a republican or a democrat.

it is the idea of coming down the abstraction latter. -- ladder. they will name an agency they want to abolish. by and large, they state -- that is what drives people in the media crazy. they're bored silly. what happens is they look for anything trivial. they start talking about the ground game, the spin room. is that the campaign should be about? host: we have scott on the line from connecticut. caller: i suggest c-span change its so-called independent line to green line. in a country flawed by elections for money is political speech, i

was lucky to comment on the move to amend movement. it is growing right now. corporations do not have the rights of u.s. individual citizens and what can we do as citizens to resend the charters of cooperations that cause harm or do not represent the common good? thank you very much. guest: we never used to talk about this. ron paul talks about corporate personhood. mitt romney says corporations are people. in the early part of the republic, corporations were not considered equal under the constitution. it was a supreme court decision in 86 that gave the railroads the right of personhood under the 14th amendment.

corporations that were charged by state governments -- in massachusetts, in 1810, you have a 10-year lease for good behavior. we need to renew that discussion. i do not think he can have equal justice under the law between real people and to exxon mobile or general motors. i do not think it is possible. they're not only given the rights of human beings, but they have enormous privileges and immunities they have been using to control government and to move to control almost anything that might oppose them. host: back to that last caller's point. how do you break up the perception of a third-party candidate being viewed as a possible spoiler?

guest: held the used oil is boiled political system to begin with? -- how do you spoil a spoiled political system to begin with? i take great -- been called spoilers. there should be a change in the access laws. there is a center for competitive democracy, which i helped start. it is dedicated to reducing the barriers to just get on the ballot. if you cannot get on the ballot, you cannot contribute to giving voters a choice. choice of different agendas, different proposals. unfortunately, the people in charge are not interested. host: georgia, republican line.

caller: i listened very closely to the budget discussions on television. the general who was there, i cannot remember names well, said he was called up to go to vietnam and he told the president his men were not qualified at that particular time. the answer was, we did not ask you if they were qualified. we said go. he lost 44% of his men. if the budget was cut for the military, at this particular time, the same thing would happen. if so -- is obama willing to accept 44% kill rate?

guest: what are we dealing with an empire all over the world? 700 basis. we have the obama doctrine to go anywhere and kill anybody on suspicion of terrorism without due process. if we were not all over the world, messing around, supporting a dictator is against their own people, or opening up opportunities for oil companies, we would not have to send any soldiers over there. the automation of the military, there will not be that many soldiers sent over there. the key is, when the soldiers come back after the trumpets stop sounding, how are they treated? right now, you see the figures.

double the rate of homelessness for veterans. double the rate of unemployment for veterans. huge traumatic syndromes. even after the gulf war in 1991, there were hundreds of thousands of people over there. they came back a sick. what we have to do is become the a humanitarian superpower. dealing with the prevention of infectious diseases, clean water. for a fraction of what we are spending on a bloated, corrupt military contractor and budget. host: let's here from new castle, pa., right now. caller: after eight years of george w. bush, i was proud and happy to vote for obama. after three years of obama, i will have to give my vote to ron paul.

it is mainly due to the tsa. i do not know why obama would run a free prosperous nation. now we're going into other nations. we should be addressing our free and civil liberties here. i would like to hear ralph nader's responses to each one of those. host: we get plenty of ron paul supporters. guest: almost nobody agrees with all of his positions. but they strongly agree with some of them. they agreed there should never be a war that we're plunged into without a declaration of war. the second is, the patriot act

is an abomination. it was passed without any hearings. there was a fairly good bill passed by the judiciary committee and was immediately replaced by the bush version. it was sent to congress in a panic after 9/11. it is not a good way to legislate, taking away people's freedoms. this is not america. why ron paul is stirring people and support is because he raises the fundamental issues, whether we are a nation under the rule of law or whether we are a nation under the rule of politicians. i do not agree with ron paul on social security or medicare. i do not agree with him on his opposition to single payer, full medicare for all. i do not agree with him. but i do agree with them on

revising the patriot act. protecting people's privacy. hitting at of the empire and all the support of dictators and involvement that is into the squad myers and divert trillions of dollars away from rebuilding america -- quagmires and divert trillions of dollars away from rebuilding america. that is why he gets such passionate support. host: could ron paul be the next ralph nader? they could vote their conscience and voiced their

frustration. could i ron paul b. the next ralph nader? guest: we are not that much alike. if ron paul feels badly treated by the republicans. mitt romney hardly ever goes after ron paul. if he makes them into an adversary, ron paul can get the libertarian party nomination and win 10% of the vote. i do not think the republicans want that. they just want a two-party contest. host: you said you are not that much alike. but there are things that you do like about ron paul. here is a tweet.

let's go to west virginia. caller: good morning. i would say that one of the best documentaries ever about your work and your campaigns is a movie called "unreasonable man." you can watch it instantly on netflix. joe paterson is one of those hypocritical democrats. the people who came after you during your campaigns, be little your campaigns. now that you are not running, they're saying, what a great man he is. the hypocritical democrats who say he is a great guy, but he should not run. that is a problem. i think i disagree with you on the question of ballot access. the problem is the american

people spend 0% of their time on civic action, engaging -- they are watching football, they are distracted by shopping. if they spend 1% or 2% or 3% of their time supporting your causes, supporting your work, engaging in the political system, we would be better off and we would have a chance. guest: i have kept my website prompted thousand eight -- from 2008 to show the agenda we ran on. it has to deal with getting private money out of the elections. it has cracked down on corporate crime, fraud, and abuse. it has full medicare for all.

the most important part is shift of power. people call in, very few of them say, i think the citizens of this country have more power. the constitution does not even mention the word company or corporation or political party. why are we allowing them to rule us? they should be our servants, not our masters. or. participator. politics is too much of a spectator sport. there has to be participating and the functional answer to that is that we need to have a couple of dozen presidential

debates over the country and break the grip that this debate commission which is a company created by the two parties to exclude others and pick their interrogators and their own reporters. we are trying to get underway. the mayor of the district of columbia wants a presidential debate in the district of columbia on district issues to deal with the congressional colony and a lack of voting rights, etc. i don't know if president obama has voting rights here. imagining the president of united states, if he cannot vote for anybody in congress as a citizen host. host: here is a tweet -- >>it represents what abraham lincoln said. it resonated because it says enough is enough. we cannot let workers and

families in this country continue to decline economically and the powerless politically. it is a cold winter and they were evicted from their encampments in most boys but not washington, d.c. there were probably not that i'm happy given how cold they are but they will be back for occupy spring and on march 30, there will be a massive entry into the city of all the occupy people around the country and we will have a real burst of democracy. host: we have about 15 minutes less. ft. palo text -- hello? caller: nobody seems to be talking about the background deals that the president is doing with these immigrants who can vote for during the election.

he ended iraq after three years but we still have the afghan war that he started. he is a flip-flop are. per. he is trying to make it look like he does things. >> would feel like an republican side? >> and mitt romney. >> why? >> he is a businessman. you should be able to hold these corporations accountable. they left us hanging. we have to support the president to get things right. we should have a right to be able to sue a president. they should not be able to do whatever they feel like doing and we have to pay for it. guest: there are essential flip-

flop questions about president obama. he campaigned and said he would adhere to the constitution on like george bush and has not done that. many scholars have shown again and again that he has violated a whole series of constitutional provisions in his foreign, military provisions. he said he would raise the minimum wage by 2011 and he has not moved at all on that. in $9.50 minimum wage adjusted for inflation is less than the minimum wage in 1968 when the economy was half as productive per worker as it is to bettetod. he promised a card check to unions. there are tens of millions of americans would like to band together to against the giant corporations and have a say and he has not pushed that at all. there are serious questions.

because there is lack of a primary challenge to president obama, these issues are not likely to be aired. the republicans will not accuse him of backing down on minimum wage. they don't believe in minimum wage. host: we have a democrat from boston, good morning. caller: no one seems to talk about newt gingrich and'wreck santorumen -- and rick 's best friend. he wants to increase the settlements on the west bank and he wants to bomb iran to make israel saith. safe. host: here is a ""washington " peace.

what do you think of the so- called super pacs. guest: i think they are detonators of democracy. they have taken money and politics to an unheard of level. $52 million was spent in the iowa caucus. not that many years ago, that is what a presidential candidate spent for the entire presidential campaign all over the country. we have to get a voluntary well- promoted system of public finance which have on my website votenader.org where people can give up to $300 or do not think and a ballot-qualified candidate would have a certain amount of free time on tv and radio. otherwise, we have to amend the constitution. that is to difficult to do but not impossible. host: tells the story behind this book you wrote a little while back but it is coming out in paperback.

"only the super rich can save us?" guest: i take 17 real life multi-billion errors like ted turner and warren buffett and yoko ono and others i put them in fictional roles and they get together at a mountain top hotel in maui. it happens in one year. it is political fiction and they ask how they can turn the country around.0 this is the story of how they do it. the use their influence and their rolodexes and they use their ability to buy up radio and tv stations. they go right to communities and they organized with communities. it is a top down, bottom-up

strategy. it is dramatic and and got -- and as good humor in it but it is designed to expand people's imagination. without imagination, you cannot envision new possibilities for our country and our world. it is the first time i have tried political fiction. i pour a lot of my experience on how to make change and deconstructs power and how to shift power and how to find the incredible talent in the neighborhoods and communities that are now repressed by a corrupt political system and a plutocracy. host: let's go to akron, ohio, independent. caller: hello, mr. nader. i think you'd make a great commander in chief because you are the only one who talks about conservation. why are all the american soldiers supporting ron paul? guest: that's an interesting point.

why is he getting more contributions from active duty soldiers than anyone else? it is because the soldiers in iraq and afghanistan don't think we should be there, a majority of them. they will do their job and play the good soldier and don't speak out but there was a poll in january, 2005 that had 70% of the soldiers in iraq water this out in 6-12 months. it was not challenged by the pentagon. they see ron paul saying what are we doing over there creating more insecurity for us, more trillions of dollars, more dead soldiers, were injured soldiers, more injured and dead civilians in iraq and afghanistan, what for? what is the purpose? that is why they are responding to ron paul. it is their way of expressing themselves.

i am a member of the veterans for peace and there are iraq veterans against the war and they need more air time. veterans for peace, world war veterans, vietnam war, korean war, iraq or, afghanistan war -- they have not gotten any air time. that is unfortunate because they speak from experience. they speak from a deep well of concern that we are going the wrong way overseas. it may blow back on us in terrible ways in the future in terms of the amount of revenge we are banking of their wedding parties are blown up and innocent people are destroyed and iraq in effect is subjected sociacide. drinking water is contaminated and there is sectarian revenge. that is what happens when innovators taken -- come in and take sides. caller: i am considering the

situation and our country is in and the questions being asked -- what can we do to correct the problem? there are several solutions and that is to return to the principles of our founding fathers. and except the constitution as to what it says. who would believe we would have someone occupying the white house that supports tax money to kill babies. this is unbelievable and it's anti-constitutional. he will not defend the doma act. he will not defend the situation with illegal immigrants because of his desire to have their votes. we have to get somebody in the

white house who has the courage to take a stand here those who came over on the mayflower as well as others. if we don't do this and we have the people today who are talking about global warming -- i feel global warming is nothing more than we have gotten so close to the gates of hell that we got this confused with sun warming. guest: one of the founding fathers brought successes was to place the authority to declare war in congress. they did not want another king george plunging the country into war in the white house that is what has been flouted by republican president and president obama and the iraq situation. libya was a classic case of the

imperial presidency. we attacked libya and the dictatorship without a declaration of war and without an appropriation of funds and without an authorization of funds and without a war resolution. it was decided in the white house and he picked the money from the pentagon and other budgets to supply the planes and other logistics. that is an impeachable offense by any definition but the congress is like in in k blot. they are very satisfied. there are a few exceptions. it is satisfied with sending its constitutional authority to the white house and not of holding its sworn duty to obey its constitutional responsibility like declaring war. host: here is a tweet -- guest: i have done enough.

we need someone else to carry the progress of banner. rocky anderson, the foyer -- former mayor of salt lake city is running as a green party candidate. we have documented through court cases and documented reports that it is a two-party tierney and that is contrary to the kind of choice that voters deserve with multi-party candidates and independent candidates. it is not just at the national level anybody out there wants to run as an independent, local, national, state, run./ it is your duty as a citizen, not just to vote but if you think you can contribute, run. host: winter haven, fla., a democrat -- caller: what do we plan on doing? we have 65,000 veterans act and that's not including the

veterans coming back. a majority of them are women, homeless with children. what do we plan on doing about that? what are we planning on doing with what is going on in campbell is genentech's all these veterans are dying in the marine corp from contaminated water. guest: that was amazing problem at camp lejeune. i think he should contact congressman walter jones. that is in his district and he is an independent-minded person and he knows a lot about that. the va is totally overwhelmed with mental health problems, traumatic syndrome, they cannot handle them all. there is too much demand. this is a problem. these presidents love it when the soldiers are going abroad

and they have these big military rallies but when they come back, the family is broken up and domestic violence -- it is a terrible thing to witness. for what? why did we get into these wars? because we are not controlling our government. we simply say pox on all their houses and drop out of democracy. it only takes one or two% of people organizing to change it whether it is foreign military policy. there are a much larger number of people who passably agree with them. host: norwalk, conn., last call, independent. caller: i thought you are running, ralph, i was so excited and i hear you are not. what do you think of phil donahue running? he would get the women's vote in a heartbeat. i do not want ron paul because i

heard him one time saying he would do away with social security. also, i would like to get rid of the electoral college and let the independence vote in the primaries and get this taken care of before 2012. whoever runs for the common man, please let them use the alan jackson song "little man." is about the corporations taking over that will sock it to the people. guest: i am a supporter of phil donahue. he opened up the areas of americans that previously had no rights. he is a pioneer for the women's movement and i urged him to run for the senate years ago from connecticut. he could have won especially in a three-way race. i think he should put together a book. he has a lot to say about the

media and what it is not doing. he has a lot to say about the decay of our culture and the commercialization of childhood. i am with you on that. i am not running. i am very concerned and i am trying to organize all americans with this book. the real political problem in this country is the corporations have dominated in almost every area you can imagine from genetic engineering to political, electoral, commercialization of childhood, our food, porn, military budgets -- the corporations are there and that is incompatible with democracy. that is what we have to pay attention to. how many of us are willing to put a certain amount of hours a month on our said the duties of a town meetings fill up the elections go to 90% turnout and the courts are probably used --

properly use of the impact on congress -- those 535 people that represent us in congress, they put their shoes on every day like you and i -- there is almost no organized pressure back home except for a single issue groups on representing the american people. the represent about 1500 companies to get their way with the majority of these members of congress. host: ralph nader, as always, thank you for joining us this morning guest: thank you and thanks to cspan. host: we will take a break and talk about u.s.-iran relationships including the strait of hormuz and why it is important in the news lately. we will be right back ♪ >> if you want to see the candidates, the cspan road to

the white house political coverage takes on the campaign trail. go to town halls, campaign rallies, and meet an agreeds. and greets.

>> what a tax code -- >> to our new hampshire primary coverage on television and on c- span.org. >> president obama talked about procurement reform and everyone leaned on the military and they leave out the one part that is going to make a difference which is lawmakers. go ahead and lose hundreds of jobs in your district. that is how that falls and that is where it always stops. >> ward carroll provides his numbers with information and support. he will discuss how american tax dollars are spent on the defense department and current procurement procedures on q &a. "washington journal" continues. host: we have a former member of

the national security council. he is here to talk to us about a place called the strait of hormuz. take us on the underside of the world and explain where this place is and why it is important. guest: it is one of the world's maritime choke points per it is about 34 miles wide at its narrowest point. it is the body at least in the persian gulf or you have a great deal of world oil out into the indian ocean. even though it is 34 miles wide, the actual shipping lanes in and out is two miles in and 2 miles out. it is quite narrow and to pass through the strait of hormuz you have to pass the territorial waters of some of surrounding countries including iran. this is a very vital and sort of in periled place in the world. about 20% of the world's traded

oil, the oil that is shipped out from one country to another, goes through this strait. host: the story on the cover of "the weekly standard" covers this. guest: the u.s. has the fifth fleet based in the persian gulf. there is regular movements of u.s. ships that are assigned to the fifth fleet through the strait of hormuz. we are policing the global areas. this is a strategic waterway for the united states but also for the oil producing countries which are our allies in the persian gulf and all oil consumers and the world because so much oil passes through here. any disruption to the movement of oil through this straight would have an impact on global oil prices and an impact on everyone in the world. this is part of the united states role as the global

superpower, to police this common good. host: to the politics and pressure and we will put your phone numbers on the bottom of our screen as we talk about the u.s. and iran and the strait of hormuz. here is an ap story -- what sanctions are in place and what is the effect? guest: u.s. has near comprehensive sanctions in place against iran. no one in the united states has been able to purchase anything from iran including oil since 1995. president clinton actually put a comprehensive trade embargo on the iranians. increasingly, international parties, other countries, are following suit what has happened

recently is that new u.s. sanctions have been put in place which target for companies or foreign countries who are purchasing oil from iran and in addition, the eu has reportedly come to an agreement in principle on its embargo on iranian oil. this would have an impact on the iranians. host: whenever we hear about sanctions, we read about how they get around the sanctions. what is different this time? guest: is true that countries can get around sanctions. you can develop a work around prove black markets but that only succeeds at the margins. you can generate some revenue but to replace all of the iranian revenue would be difficult. 70% of the iranian government's budget revenues come from oil exports. there is no way you can replace that. host: from your expertise, what you see are the chances of a

class or a skirmish? guest: it is always a danger there. it is a danger in any case because you have opposing forces so close to one another. these days, the iranians are making threats and they make these threats all the time. they do it on a regular basis. they are holding military exercises and are very worried about their oil exports being blocked and that is the new factor. could that lead to a rash decision and making a miscalculation or targeting a u.s. navy vessel? it is possible. they have come close in the past but because our commanders and staff has shown restraint and self control, we have not born into a national conflict. it's the irony is pushed that envelope too far, we could find ourselves in a conflict we don't want to be host: let's get back to the map of the straits of hormuz and who controls this water and what is allowed and not allowed in this narrow

space. guest: it is an international waterway. it passes through a would normally be territorial waters of several countries, according to international maritime law, this is open for all countries to transit through. the u.s. and allied navies police had to make sure it stays open. that has not been a problem. the last time this was a problem was in the late 1980's. both iraq and iran were starting shipping through the strait. host: 15.5 million barrels per day passed through the strait of hormuz. the first call is from massachusetts, independent, good morning. caller: i understand and i think we are on the mat estimating -- we are underestimating that if iran makes any serious move to block the strait of hormuz that it will be a perilous move for them.

i don't think they would actually do it. i think this is a lot of posturing. i have many iranian friends and they're very upset pat nobody ever talks about 1953 when the u.s. and the cia had a role in overthrowing the government and instituted the shah which led to the revolution in 1979. with respect to the u.s. role in that region, notoriously supporting dictators and intervening with regard to the strait of hormuz in international waters but actually getting involved in politics bear really inflames people. i think this is part of the blow but foreign policy that many presidential candidates are talking about that has led to the deterioration of the central u.s.-iran relations and the government we have no pin are run is hostile to the united

states. guest: that is a good point. iran is on likely to make a pre- emptive move to close the strait of hormuz because they depend on the straight. all of their oil exports pastor that straight and i think the iranians cannot compliment -- contemplate closing the strait. there is a question of whether they would do that. they would have to think very hard because if they get into conflict with the united states or regional navies, willett and -- will it end or will it be a broader conflict? the second point about 1953 -- the overthrow of the prime minister in 1953 and a real installation of the shah - there was a lot of negative history between the u.s. and a run on both sides.

if you look at the iranian population now, it is very young. i don't think that the decision making is guided by the past. i felt -- i don't think it is guided by what happened in the 1950's or 1960's or even 1979. people see a regime that is brutally oppressive and see an economy that is in shambles. i think people inside iran larsa want to change and want better relations with the rest of the world. host: democrat, good morning. caller: i have a question about the nuclear reactor they have in iran. that was made back by the russians in the mid-1970s. they just started that reactor opup. if they would have chernobyl, how could we get non-radioactive oil out of that golf?

gulf? how many capitals of the arab nations are saying is that would ever go, is our country susceptible to radiation? that would be something for them to think about guest: the reactor that you are talking about was started with construction in the 1970's. it was germany and the united states that were initially in charge of that and the russians took them over. that is a concern i comes to nuclear safety. it is in an earthquake-prone separate from a military conflict, is a concern. that is a separate question and a sense of nuclear safety. iran does get assistance from the iaea which is the nuclear

safety body at that facility. host: lots of stories flying around this morning on iran -- what do you make of this? guest: iran has "the iranian -- uranium enrichment facilities. one has been enriching uranium since 2002. as a second facility which was a secret facility that was announced by president obama and president sarkozy and the british prime minister in 2010, i believe. that is the one that is being discussed in a news story. the recently installed centrifuges. they are not advanced. they are called an ir-1. it is a concern because this

facility is under a mountain. it is much harder to get at with weapons and the other facility they have. this is a potential red line for the west. if they start to bury those centrifuges and a place where they cannot be attacked, the window of opportunity for a military strike on a nuclear ins -- installation starts to close. host: here is another story about the sanctions -- how much does china relies on oil from i ran and could they entered this whole puzzle? guest: iran is a big supplier for china. but their top supplier is saudi arabia. china is concerned not only by sanctions on iran in oil but all this tension in the persian gulf. unlike united states, people

forget the united states only gets 49% of our oil from abroad and only about 1/4 of those imports are coming from the persian gulf. most of ours, and the western hemisphere. china gets most of its foreign imports from the persian gulf and its supply would be in peril that there was a conflict. to is not surprising that china is pushing back on these sanctions. they sent their deputy foreign minister out to tehran after iran started making threats. getting shot on board will be very difficult. host: the straits of hormuz is a large part of a conversation this morning. we will look at that map again in a second. in 2009, roughly 33% of all seaborne-traded oil passed

through here. 16.5 million barrels in 2009. 3/4 of japanese imports in half of chinese imports passed through there. it is an important place. economically and therefore strategically as well. we are talking in washington with a managing director of the washington institute for near east policy. he is a former senior director for national affairs. guest: i was there from 2005- 2008. host: educated at princeton and harvard. lakewood, new jersey, independent. caller: how large is the iranian navy? do they have the understanding that the fifth fleet is prepared to sink every ship they have? guest: it is a good question.

iran has two navies. it has its regular navy and it also has a navy with his associate with the revolutionary guard. the regular navy which consists of the big warships is quite weak. iranians have not invested very much in that ship to ship capability. the iranians have invested in the revolutionary guard navy and especially asymmetric capability like small speedboats which could conduct swarming attacks on u.s. naval vessels. also sea mines, like influence mines which don't require you to run into them. they have divers who could put explosives on ships and so forth. they have invested in those asymmetric capabilities and the look at their defense doctrine and the gulf, it relies on those asymmetric, but built -- capabilities as well as anti-

ship cruise missiles which are based on launchers on the shore and would target u.s. of vessevessels. it is a regular navy that we could dispatched quickly but the asymmetric a bill is would be more troublesome to deal with. the u.s. navy could take care of them quite handily. if they were to lay mines, how long would it take to clear them? that is the real danger here. host: let's hear from san diego, a democrat, good morning. caller: [inaudible] the iran-contras situation, they took hostages. do we foresee an alliance with china? they are launching missiles that are pretty accurate.

aristotle said it is better for the injured -- indigent to rule rather than serve. a reporter -- are going to put boots on the ground in iran? what is our position? icn allies between iran, china, and north korea. all of them don't like america. guest: the question of iran acquiring nuclear weapons is a serious one for american national security. if you look at the polls which are conducted and the feelings on foreign policy, many people find this to be concerning. the real question is how we prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons without necessarily having to go to war. that has been the focus of successful administrations and i would say this with new oil

sanctions by the u.s. and eu to stall this problem without having to result in military force. is it serious enough that we would have to resort to military force? i think the answer is yes and it is important their iranian regime understands that. they believe that we might resort to military force and that is likely to have some deterrent effect on their decision to go forward with this program. host: carriers and warships and exercises are big public showings. are there any discussions between the two governments that are happening? guest: it is hard to answer their question but they would probably be secret. engagement between the u.s. and iran has been tried by every u.s. president since jimmy carter. it has never really borne much there have been panel discussions and open negotiations like now between the u.s. and iran and international partners but iran

is not authoritarian regime. is a closed regime. regime know that there as an interest in opening to the united states and all american culture i think they would fear that would threaten their own control of their country. all those young people are disaffected with the regime. i think it will be very hard to use engagement and open up relations or solve the nuclear question. host: the government may not necessarily be unified is what we read about. can you speak to that? guest: the government in a iran seems increasingly fractured. you have a growing opposition to the regime we saw that in june, 2009 and those protests we saw industry. there is increasing divisions within the regime. there has the power struggle

between president mahmoud ahmadinejad and the supreme leader. there are very valid questions about how long this region can last? regimes in iran tend to have a shelf life of a few decades and this was over 30 years old. is it really anything we can do to affect the dynamics? are we simply watching something unfold in iran that we don't have much influence over? host: republican, good morning. caller: why are we going through iran on oil and not other middle eastern countries tex? host: what is your perspective on your own question? caller: i think we need to be drilling in our own country. i know a veteran who has been to iraq and iran.

we go over there to buy this oil and we should be drilling in our own country. guest: it is important to understand we don't get any oil from iran directly. it is possible for them to ship oil to another country where it gets refined and then shipped to the united states. we're not getting that much oil on an absolute basis from the persian gulf. most of our imported oil comes in the western hemisphere. even if we got no oil from the persian gulf, we would still be very concerned about the security of the persian gulf and the security of the strait of hormuz because what happens there affect global oil prices. it affects the price of a barrel oil matter where it is coming from. it is good in the sense that we don't depend that much on the persian gulf for our supply. if the strait of hormuz were to close up, our supply would not be terribly threatened by oil

prices would still go considerably for americans. host: utah, independent, good morning. caller: although i am an avid supporter of israel and i don't think we should be that avid a supporter of israel, i understand the situation there but it didn't we, the united states, kind of mistake by allowing iran to sign the npt? they should have the right to fuel cells under that treaty, shouldn't they? guest: we what i ran to not only be signatory to the npt but we also want them to have further obligations. we want them to comply with their requirements.

that is what is driving the u.s. security council resolution and iaea resolutions. right now, the iranians are not living up to their obligations. what we have said with united nations is that they don't have the trust necessary to go forward with the uranium enrichment to control the fuel cycle. until these questions about the military obligations are cleared up curren. caller: i would like to see the iranian regime move toward peace. most of the irony in-americans i have met, that is what they

share with america and that is what they like about america moving here from i ran. in the straits, i would like to see a beach or something open up where people from all over the world could go and that would work. that would have something to give for the future. i think the iran regime would be able to do that. what you think about something silly like that? guest: i think the iranian citizens in iran do want peace. genuinely, the united states and american people also want peace. there is no desire for war in this country. the iranian regime -- look at the most recent storming of the british embassy in tehran which was badly organized and orchestrated. there is a paramilitary security force which were the participants in that raid.

the regime is going on the other direction in a sense. they see things like outrage and dialogue with the united states and with other countries and the west as threatening to their whole power structure. they want to maintain control between interactions of their own people and to the western countries. the iranian regime that is opposed to this idea of dialogue and engagement. host: secretary leon panetta spoke this past week on confronted multiple threats -- clip: you could face a land war in korea at the same time, face of threats and the straits of hormuz we have the capability with this joint force to deal with those kind of threats to be able to confront them and be able to win. that's what counts. host: anything else you want to say about the military

capability and the scope of action in that part of the world's? guest: what is our signal to iran and our allies in the gulf about our commitment to that area of the world? i think the defense policy and strategy debate will be very important. if iran feels and our allies feel that we are not militarily committed, iran will feel a sense of impunity which could be very dangerous. that lead to the danger of inadvertence war or a slide into a confrontation that we were discussing earlier. i think is important that our allies now we are committed to the persian gulf and a strong navy and a sizable navy and we will continue to police the global commons. host: let's get the map of that part of the world again. here is a totweet--

guest: the united arab emirates is building a pipeline which will bypass the strait of hormuz. there is a pipeline that runs east-west across saudi arabia to the red sea. right now, the infrastructure is not robust enough to carry the 50 million barrels per day. much more of that work would have to be done. i think it should be done. that is wise for an energy security point of view. even that does not really resolve this question. you still have tankers passing through and those pipelines would be vulnerable to attack by terrorists or missile attacks from iran. host: let's hear from south bend indiana, a republican. caller: are you saying that it

is possible that this entire situation can escalate where we are going to have to get more involved militarily and there could actually be a military action or any type of war? does anyone knocks -- does anyone know the child protective services is picking up children from iranian families that have been a part of this country for 40 years or more. ? guest: i think there is a risk, an increasing risk, that this confrontation between iran and the west -- it is not just iran and the united states -- there unanimous u.s. security council resolution that demands that

iran sees its nuclear activities and iran has refused. this could lead to a military action against iran by a the united states with a coalition or israel. i think our policy makers are still keen to avoid that. they want to find a third option between iran having a nuclear weapon or using military force against them. i would see that is the purpose behind things you're seeing. hopefully we can avoid that but frankly, unless the iranian regime is willing to shift course, it may not be possible. host: here is a cnn story on line -- what it is the president of iran made from south america? guest: he wants resources for --e every confine them varia

wherever he can find them. around looks for support everywhere. even if it is symbolic. there are agreements for political purposes. we see increasing numbers of revolutionary guard forces stationed at their large embassies in south america which lead to concerns about what they're up to in those countries. you remember the alleged plot to assassinate the saudi ambassador involve the mexican drug cartels. there is a worry that chet the revolutionary guards and has along with increasing presence in those countries in south america and latin america. they could use this for simple things like funding their own operations in the middle east with drug sales or things like this terrorist plot we disrupted. host: we have read plenty of stories that suggests that if there is every problem within

iran that israel will have a big problem guest: i think that's right. they are concerned about the nuclear weapons program in iran. they share the concerns of our allies and the united nations security council. they're much closer to the problem. they are within range of iranian missiles. if the united states or someone else went to war with iran are got into a conflict in the persian gulf, israel could find itself in the way of those missiles. will israel decide on its own to attack iran is one that weighs heavily on u.s. policy makers. host: picture the population in general. what is their collective frame of mind about everything going on? guest: there is a lot of worries about the possibility of war inside iran. people are very concerned and

rightly concerned about where there regime's policies are taking them. they also worry about the economy. we've seen the value of their currency which died dramatically over the last several weeks. that causes the price of imports to a run to rise dramatically. that is a fuel in part by their economic policy. the people in iran are focused on the hardships of their own lives and not looking at what is happening in lebanon or israel. they are focused on their own lives like people everywhere today. host: virginia beach, independent, good morning. caller: this is an informed discussion. are you advocating a military involvement in the middle east? guest: when you say military involvement, we have forces in the middle east and my hope is that we will show a continued

commitment to having a military presence in the middle east because i think it is important. if you're talking about a military conflict or war with iran, i am certainly not advocating that. i think the goal of our policy should be to deter iran from continuing its nuclear weapons program without resorting to military force. is important that the military regime believes that we would be willing to use military force of necessary to prevent, acquiring a nuclear weapon. we have to have a credible deterrent on the table otherwise, we cannot hope that things will shift. caller: so you are in support of a military intervention of necessary? host: keep going. i think our caller has expressed himself. caller: would you be joined the navy tomorrow?

it is one thing to contemplate a war. guest: and a decision to go to war or use military force is a serious decision. you're putting troops in harm's way and you will cause casualties inside iran. any u.s. president would and should only take this decision with the -- make this decision with the greatest possible caution. iran armed with a nuclear weapon is a threat to u.s. security. caller: in light of the political climate lately and people having the internet accessible and finding the media is hard left and the government does not represent the world of people -- of some of these countries that pay us like iran

and other countries actually could get past our government ought and get to know the american people instead of us being misrepresented by them, maybe some of this conflict around the world would go away is the american people and people in iran were standing in the streets. they're begging for president obama to help them not too long ago. guest: united states ultimately wants peace in the persian gulf and peace with iran. our best hope for that, i think, is for the young people to be listened to in iran. what we can do to support them in their aspirations for their rights and democracy is get them accurate information on the united states but also on everything that is happening in the world. i think we should do as much as we can. if, in fact, you have a different sort of government in iran, a conservative regime in

the future, i think that will be positive for the united states but frankly for iranians themselves. host: one more call, a democrat, welcome to the program. caller: there is no proof that iran is angry for nuclear weapons. s angling for nuclear weapons. the sanctions we are imposing are an act of war. i don't think american patriots want this. thank you. guest: i have to disagree with you. on your point of no proof of around pursuing nuclear weapons. there is strong evidence and that comes and the international

atomic energy agency as well as our own intelligence agencies in the united states. they are pursuing an active uranium enrichment program and weapons -- and a weapon as asian program. they are also pursuing any missile program. no country has gotten to the point that iran has with its own weapons position program without having a weapon. the window is closing to do anything about it. host: thank you for your time and expertise this morning. guest: thank you. host: stay with us all day because we will have live coverage of the presidential candidate in an answer and have more of your phone calls and more of the same tomorrow and we will track tuesday evening for you on primary day.

tomorrow, judd gregg will be joining us, the former u.s. senator from new hampshire. he is a supporter of mid runyan. -- of mitt romney. senator rand paul, son of ron paul, will be our guest. he will talk about the ron paul new hampshire strategy. there'll be lots more action today and tomorrow. we will see you later, enjoy your day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]