the chamber of commerce, and then joined by wall street journal reporter ari melber -- amy schatz to discuss supreme court arguments involving rules about indecent language on broadcast television and radio. "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: one of the big political story lines of this thursday morning is gop attacks on mitt romney are leaving the gop divide it. talking about his time at bain capital. this morning we want to hear from republicans only on the battle within the party for the nomination. here are the numbers to call -- and "wall street journal" has in the headline.

"the wall street journal" has this photo of a younger-looking mitt romney posing earlier in his rear with william bain, pointing out his experiences at bain capital has drawn criticism. and this headline -- "romney lashes back."

we have a one-minute piece of video from a much longer documentary from them. here is a look. [video clip] >> took foreign seed money from latin america and began a pattern of exploiting dozens of american businesses. >> they fire people, cut benefits, sell assets. >> ok, let's look deeper. let's look deeper in his life. what did he do when he was the ceo of this holding company?

>> the spill will highlight just four of one as romney's many targets -- four businesses and the thousands of employees who work there. >> that hurt so bad, to leave my home, because of one man who's got 15 homes. >> he is tearing down his 3000 square-foot house to build 11,000 square-foot house. >> i feel that is a man that destroyed us. >> i am intimately familiar with how our economy works. everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. where do you think it goes? which pockets? host: now, "the wall street journal" continues to point out that texas governor rick perry is continuing to hammer the issue as well.

first call, from republicans only for this first 45 minutes of the program. "wall street journal" headline says the attacks on mitt romney leaving the gop divide. bob, what do you think? caller: i just think the attacks by governor. -- governor perry and speaker gingrich are misguided. i think in their attempt to get back in the race, overlooking the fact that they are really attacking something that is pretty basic to american

business, and while not all of it is pretty, the end results for bain capital has been that there have been a lot of good companies that have done well because of them -- stables, the sports authority. mitt romney mentions the steel mill in indiana. the child care centers -- i think they are called new horizons. so, i think that this is a mistake and hopefully it will be short-lived. host: let's hear from brian in albany, new york. what do you make of this whole story within the gop? caller: good morning. i would like to comment on how i think the republican candidates are definitely divided, not so much on this issue of capitalism but divided on this view -- issues such as mitt romney making a comment about contraception, and he said it is working just fine, we should leave it alone.

but senator santorum would completely disagree with the comment and i am sure would be much more interested in having a debate about such issues as contraception, marriage and what sort of defines these issues. also, for example, ron paul, he could actually swing either way -- republican, independent. he wants to bring the powers back to the states. he talks about the 10th amendment and i think that also sort of divides the republican candidates. host: on the bain capital example, specifically, do you think it plays into the democrats and president obama's hand, as some have pointed out? caller: yes -- to be honest, i have not been following this story to much. host: we will let you go. a little more from "the wall street journal" piece and there is a lot more and other papers

about this. playing -- bob is up from pittsburgh. caller: three quick things. when you have your phone lines, you have democrat, republican, and independent. can't you just rotate them from the bottom to the top, and that way we get all three opinions. host: we do every month we have the three lines.

in this particular segment we are doing republicans only. caller: i think gingrich shot himself in the foot. i was all for him. and i know mitt romney started the attacks. he should take the upper road. this guy right now is just being a commercial for obama. listening to your calls all the time -- then the other two days, you had one guy, with michele bachmann's comment, and yesterday, mitt romney. there are a dinner of people out there and mostly seem to be democrats. -- there are some ignorant people out there and the mostly seen democrats. and you have the black people calling saying we are racist. it is getting a little -- but the hatred. host: and in addition to phone calls you can post your comments via facebook, facebook.com/cspan, and there is also twitter. here is a tweet this morning. 1 viewer's perspective.

we have augusta, maine. peter? caller: good morning. i just wanted to comment. you know what -- mitt romney is the one to run on his great business record, then i think it is wide open to do these ads. of course, is at some of it is misleading, it is not good. i think my problem is that the news media does not seem to really get into it like they should. even newt gingrich, why did he get, i think $1.6 million from fannie mae or freddie mac. why aren't they asking him what is it bay -- he did for them. i think it is wide open. i am glad people like doing it but i hope they are honest. host: "the washington post" below the fold.

the concept as gospel to many business people, but the intersection with politics is creating what may be a recurring line of attack. the primary goal with these companies was and job creation, but making them more profitable and valuable.

st. pete, florida. blair, republicans only year. go ahead. caller: yes, hi. i think at this time everyone needs to unify behind mitt romney. i am very disappointed to see republicans losing votes for who is obvious. mitt romney has come out on top. i think we are in a very, very critical time. i think if 1 republican loses one vote because of a negative ad against another republican, shame on us. and i really, really think we had a chance as a party to look at all of our candidates. i started with mitt romney but i'd look in a little bit -- i thought, maybe rick perry will come and save the day.

i love the michele bachmann. though i do not think she could win. and i love to hear newt gingrich to debate. he is brilliant. but in no what -- if newt gingrich is a great american which he says, he needs to get behind the winner and it is clearly mitt romney. and i think newt gingrich should think about being in the cabinet and not being a candidate. we need to unify. we need to think we've got a guy -- not one vote, if they put those terrible as out, there is a residual and the residual will haunt people who are in the middle, who are independent, and we -- i really, really hope we can rise above. if they are the great americans they say they are -- they say it is a critical time. republicans must unite. host: down and for lauderdale, where stock is calling in. welcome to the program -- in

fort lauderdale where scotty is calling in. caller: yes. host: go right ahead. caller: i am a sincere christian, very active in the tea party here in fort lauderdale. i have studied everything everybody else has. and it is obvious to me that newt gingrich is the only one who can literally out-the date of barack obama -- with his experience and no ha -- know how. he is the only one. because i am a republican, this restore our future sent me three very extensive cards slamming newt gingrich and trying to get mitt romney. i am so mad at all of this

propaganda, that all of these people and the news media and these organizations, that is just propaganda. fair and simple. i am going to be out here in my street corner in fort lauderdale advertising newt gingrich for president. of course, anything but obama when it comes down to the two, but for right now, i am voting everything on newt gingrich. i do -- think he is the only one who candidate barack obama. host: we will see an ad in a couple of minutes coming out from the campaign. but more on the notion on capitalism -- venture capitalism or vulture capitalism, as rick perry called it. here is a commentary in "the washington times." a sketch of mitt romney. the author is jeffrey tuner, a columnist at "the times" but president of the edmund burke institute.

we will stay in florida for the next call. mario in tampa. go ahead, mario. caller: -- host: you are on the air. i think we lost mario. jim, a republican in oklahoma. are you there? caller: yes, hello? i am calling to comment on a comment made by an earlier caller is saying we should unite as republican behind mitt romney. what we should do is unite as americans behind ron paul -- listening to the former chiefs to endorse him an overwhelming with the military and veterans' support ron paul. because he is the only one who can draw a difference between barack obama. romney is just like obama.

he will lose. what we need is less government and more freedoms, not more government and less freedoms. host: all right, jim. sue is on the line from des moines, iowa. what do you make of this infighting, "the wall street turned -- "the wall street journal" it is leaving the party divided. you agree? caller: yes, i do. i do think it will take more than just who we have running to make a difference. i don't believe the president now has america's best interest at heart in any way, shape, or form, and i think we have to have somebody who can beat him. i am not sure anyone can because we seem to have so much grass in corruption in our system now that i am not sure he was legally elected last time, so i am not sure anyone can beat him this time if we did not do

something about enforcing the fact that our votes are all completely counting -- counted. i am disappointed because my candidate was not mr. romney. i know people who say if he is chosen, they will not vote for him. but i do not see what option we have otherwise. i just wonder what other people in america think. thank you for having me on. host: a lot of caller's mentioning newt gingrich. here is a look at his campaign ad in south carolina. [video clip] >> what happened after massive to ships moderate romney changed his view to pro life -- he but a pro abortion. appointed a pro-abortion club, put planned parenthood on a state medical board but failed to put a pro-life group on the same board and assigned government mandated health care

with taxpayer funded abortions. massachusetts moderate mitt romney -- he can't be trusted. >> i newt gingrich and i approve this message. host: that from the campaign itself. "usa today" talks about the super pac ads. the headline here -- which saw a minute of this earlier in the program.

marcia in hartford, ky. caller: yes, sir. good morning. host: good morning. it the caller: i am very interested in this upcoming election and have been watching it closely. i have the hardest time. i cannot trust mitt romney. i don't trust him at all. he needs -- people need to take a stand, you need to take a stand and stick to it. you don't need to be so wishing watching. how can we vote for somebody we can't trust? he is for whoever he is talking to. you know, trust is not easy. i do not want to call him a liar. we are not to call names. it is not kind. but the devil is a liar and the truth is not in him, either. and as a republican, i would make a statement and if mitt romney is our nominee, i will vote for obama. and i can't even think hartley

of voting for him. i am just praying and asking god to help us. thank you. host: a reminder that republicans are calling this morning. and marcia was a republican from kentucky willing to go with president obama if the conditions were not right. the next call is jim, gillette, wyoming. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am what you call a hard- working republican. i have been a manager in two businesses for big corporations that are no longer existing, so i will mention the names if i can. alltel telephone and hollywood video. these will all taken over and sold and on to other companies, larger companies. what happens -- the culture of this kind of taking over that goes on. within the working people, i was

a very successful manager, took two stores and brought them in the top 20 and 40 in the nation out of thousands. but they killed us. i was working 80-hour weeks. they thought they were going to run the managers that were on salary into the ground. and it nearly killed me. and the people who liked to work under may were always being treated, they were being -- under me always been treated, they were counted on to waste time -- the simple idea that people who work in all of these corporations have to be run really hard like horses and make them drop because we can replace -- replace the with another and that is the culture of this is all bringing about. that is why i really resent the kind of work that somebody like bain co. -- it was goldman sachs with us.

they come in and people are just being driven to death. and when somebody like that comes along, it is like looking at doctors coming through a death camp deciding who will be thrown into the ovens. it is a general feeling of this whole -- host: jim, what does it mean for the whole gop race, do you think? caller: i think for most people who have to earn a living and see -- well, i think we are going to see a backlash. just circling the wagons for what we think is the most viable candidate -- as another -- this romney thatclass -- a glass jar. host: from "the hill" this morning.

that is the front page. you go to "the washington post" ne writes -- we will read and loved it more from that later. emporia, kansas. -- we will read a little bit more from that later. bee, emporia, kansas.

caller: i am sitting here and when i had to listen to all of that coming on, i thought he spent itself was -- sorry about that. i am very aggravated at the -- how can i say it? when newt came on first, i said, ok, but he has become -- in other words, mr. romney is the only one i believe can help us get out of this mess. and he can debate versus obama, and he will win. right now from listening to all of that other stuff, i am so angry. thank you so much. host: that was bee calling, supporting mr. romney. here is another viewpoint from florida by e-mail.

new mexico. michele, good morning. caller: good morning. i find the ads that are attacking mitt romney very disturbing. along with that, i find it disturbing, being in in mexico, i am not going to get to vote for who i really want to vote for. by the time the primary gets to mexico, there may only be one or two candidates left for me to choose from. and i am upset with the press because they focus only on who the front runners are, and a little bit i have heard, for instance, about jon huntsman, i find very interesting.

problemsave any real with mitt romney. i understand business. i have worked in business for the last 30 years. but i really believe what i am hearing from jon huntsman is he may be the best person to go up against barack obama. host: how come? what do you see? caller: on foreign policy. republicans are betrayed by people as being warmongers and into expanding the united states all over the world. i do not think all of us feel that way. and i think the country is very tired of war, and we realize that we've lived in a global economy, and the world has become a much smaller place. it ended jon huntsman has more diplomatic experience -- and jon huntsman has more diplomatic

experience than anybody else i see running. from that standpoint, i find him very interesting. one of the callerss mentioned newt gingrich. i think newt gingrich has way too many skeletons in his closet to win the presidency now or ever. and he is a very intelligent man. and i do agree that probably a cabinet seat is a better position for him than actually being a president. some sort of adviser. host: let's hear from carl in orlando. caller: hello? before i have my comment, i will join -- enjoying the discussion. i have been listening to c-span for several years and in the last few days have had the highest amount of obscene callers, so i would like to ask a procedural question. what are you doing to crack down? host: whenever we hear something -- we tried to cut them off buying as best as we can. we are not on any kind of delay.

and hope we are getting the best from our callers. caller: just a shame. the level of discussion going down bit about the romney situation -- i think the attacks are the best type of attacks that could happen for mitt romney because they highlight his business experience. you go to the exit polls in new hampshire and see what they are voting for him for. they are voting for him because they care about the economy, and they care about winning the election. and because of his huge -- host: callers getting the best of us -- he set himself up nicely. we do not need that kind of stuff on the program. solomon, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call.

do not support mitt romney because we did not know who this -- do not know who this man is. i am a christian, number one. i in a very successful businessman. i do not support mitt romney. we want somebody we can trust. [unintelligible] i hope somebody stops and before he gets to california. host: fred barnes writes in "the wall street journal" about the corporate raider critique --

the words of fred barnes. to the white house, "the new york times" writes --

that is in "the new york times" this morning. new york. good morning. caller: mr. romney, in my opinion, should assert that he has acted in a way that is both -- both legitimate and honorable, and the same way "the washington journal" article asserted that fact, and would do the elected a service -- electorate a service. host: north carolina. faye, you are on the air. caller: i am supporting mitt romney. i think newt gingrich is doing the republicans a bad deal. i think that he should want the republicans to win in the fall instead of a democrat. and he is playing right by their handbook. thank you. host: let's hear from al in bridge, texas. caller: good morning. the reason i am calling is, i

am not a particularly religious fellow at all, but i go with my wife to church, and at church, the last meeting, they were mentioning a bunch of things i have never heard of. they handed out a bunch of mormon bibles. the mormon bible's do not seem at all christians. i know after the sermon, they were asked how many people were going to move -- a vote for mitt romney due to the religion factor and there was one guy. i feel like this is another thing that really the republicans have trotted out mr. romney again. i think when they get down to religious areas of the country

that maybe they will not be acceptable. i know that a lot of people are not going to vote for him on that religious thing there because mormon does not use a christian bible. and that is all i got to say about it. host: thank you for calling. several stories we found about u.s. mormons. a new poll is being put out and the headline in "the washington post" says tension in u.s. mormon world view.

here are some of the findings, if you are interested, again, from "the washington post." one of the many write ups on this poll. steve, what do you make of the attacks on mitt romney? caller: my first note -- i wanted to mention -- i wanted to say thank you for taking my call and i watched c-span for quite a while and i appreciate

the fact you did not edit and put together an misquote. i really enjoy hearing what all the people have to say -- republicans as well as democrats. we definitely have divisions in our party. at this point in time in the race come out and really feel like it is to be expected. just because of the sheer number of potential candidates that we have. we have six people who are debating. there's a lot of information being disseminated. everybody out there has their opinions. i feel very strongly about mine and i am going to be up front i am 110% for newt gingrich. but i want to tell you why. first off, before telling you why, i think mr. romney is probably an excellent businessman. i understand business, too, and you have to make some hard decisions. the one thing i can't get past as far as mitt romney is this romneycare and the fact that these people -- if obama is

correct and i understand all the information i am getting through the different networks and people in the know, obama actually used romney's table to help draft obamacare. i have a real problem with that simply because this whole thing moves us closer to socialism and away from the free capitalist form of government that we have had in this country since its inception. i did not have anything personal against mitt romney. i am just concerned about that aspect of his leadership. the florida lady who called in a few calls ago, she is absolutely correct that newt gingrich is brilliant. and with all of the skeletons in the closet -- he does have some -- i do not think this point in time we will find people who did not have some skeletons. everybody makes mistakes. he is the only one who has come out and said, yes, i did these

things wrong. and has made the changes in his life and his lifestyle to show that he no longer is going to make the same mistakes. i unwilling to give somebody like that a chance, an opportunity -- i am willing to give somebody like that a chance. host: erie, pennsylvania. what do you say? caller: i supported governor romney. i had the chance of meeting him in 2008 when he was campaigning for senator mccain. i think, you know -- when i met him, i felt he was very sincere. so, i have been supporting him for the past four-five years. but on another note, i do fear running mates of senator santorum from my state and ron paul. i feel ron paul's foreign policy is a little bit scary for me. i just do not believe senator rick santorum has enough executive experience.

i think he was a great senator for our state. i want to end with thinking the troops throughout the world. host: "the wall street journal" says the republican vote is up by 3%, turnout in iowa and in hampshire breaks records and the share of independent voters rises as well. "the new york post" this morning -- the south carolina primary coming up on the 21st. back to "the washington post." a little headline here --

in many ways based on the disgust of the party. two numbers jumped out, almost seven out of 10 people who voted for ron paul in new hampshire would be dissatisfied if mitt romney became the nominee. that is a little bit from "the washington post" this morning. let's hear from tennessee. marcia. caller: the people cannot understand -- america was built on capitalism, not european socialism, and if you look at mitt romney's background, he did it -- he is a capitalist. he worked hard for his family and increased their wealth.

and demand that worried about the religious part of it -- jesus said the one who did not work to increase his wealth was wicked and slothful. if ne does not provide for his own, especially of his own house, is worse than an infidel. that is socialism. jesus was not a socialist and mitt romney has worked to increase wealth. america is built on capitalism and not european socialism. host: five minutes left for your calls. and then we are going to talk with a guest out of new york, ari melber, a correspondent for the " venation." another live event at 6:30 p.m. -- entitled remaking america. tavis smiley in a symposium --

and the panelists include -- this is live on this network, 6:30 p.m.. moving on to south carolina and them florida. this is the front page of "post and courier." they have a shot of ron paul. a big group of media here in columbia, south carolina. sizeheatrics and crowd's varied but a common theme emerged. all of them talked about reviving the economy and replacing barack obama. they held rallies across the south carolina in hopes their campaigns would not just survive, but thrive. the game is on. here is "the miami herald" with the florida primary coming up on the 31st. mitt romney is in the lead.

grass valley, california. tim. caller: thank you for c-span. i would just like to make a comment on the in capital and mitt romney's business practices. how he built up sports authority and staples and domino's, three ies.he company' when people -- thing people may want to look at is these companies, how they treat their employees. if they are good jobs, if they

are paying a fair wage, or if all the money is targeted to the upper echelon. i am sure some of these things will come out. i really do not know. could be one thing -- maybe people go to the businesses and ask people if bank these are careers or people who are just working for minimum wage with no benefits. this is one way we can take a look at the bigger picture and see what his ideals are, his business practices are. host: al from tampa. you are our last call. our last republican for the segment. caller: they are going to be here in a very short time. i am a disabled veteran and the

issue of veterans has not been brought up, especially the way -- i have been waiting eight years for my claim, and the poor condition at the va health centers especially, being down in miami where over 800 people had colonoscopy is that were not clean. i had incidents -- vets are killing themselves as a -- at a rate of 15 people today and i did not hear the candidates saying what they will do for us who served our country and cannot get jobs, and cannot get medical treatment. if they are looking at socialized medicine with the obamacare and they cannot get it right with the va, i don't know what it is. but we will let them know and i will let them know when they come to tampa. i just hope people realize that we are being -- getting the

short end of the stick. i would like to hear your comment. host: a comment from tampa, florida. our last caller for this republican-only segment. more on politics but we will turn more to the obama campaign strategy. in a moment, we will talk to ari melber from "the nation" and a little later in the program we will get a u.s. chamber of commerce viewpoint on the economy, david chavern, vice president and chief operating officer. but ari melber is coming up next, and we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> in this place you will stand for all time. on monuments to those who fathered this nation and those who defended it, a black preacher of no official rank or

title, who somehow gave voice to our most lasting ideals. >> saturday at 9:30 a.m. eastern, president obama is joined by civil-rights leaders and the king family for the dedication of the martin luther king, jr., memorial on the national mall. saturday at 6:00, civil war scholars look at the direction of the war as well as northern and southern strengths and weaknesses at the end of 1861. sunday at 3:00, from all history -- after serving from 1960 until 1970 in the navy, now senator john kerry became a vocal opponent of the vietnam war. his story this weekend on c-span 3. this weekend, book tv looks at the life and legacy of dr. martin luther king, jr.. saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern with an encore program. congressman and civil rights activist john lieu was on

"walking with the wind." and sunday beginning at 3:00, growing up "king." and the many speaking styles of the rev. king and the international manhunt for james earl ray. also this weekend, in her new release, "the new york times" washington correspondents jodi kantor looks at the first couple and their efforts to balance a busy --public life with their personal life. it is easy to follow president to candidates with social media. it go to c-span's "campaign 2012" web site. read the latest from political reporters and what viewers like you are saying on facebook, twitter, and more. and access to most recent video. at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: more politics as we talk with ari melber, a correspondent from "the nation" joining us from new york this morning. thanks for being here. guest: absolutely. host: we just spent 40 minutes talking to republicans only about the infighting, and specifically attacks on mitt romney over bain capital. how do you think all of this plays for the reelection bid of president obama? guest: i think any time we have any kind of seriously competitive primary there are concerns whether it pears down the eventual nominee. but if you look throughout history, that is usually not the case. anything that is known or bank emerges publicly can be used for months in a general election regardless of whether it was road tested in the primaries. secondly, fiercely competitive and long primaries actually tend to sharpen candidates, and more importantly on the ground intends to increase voter participation because as everybody knows, we have a

somewhat weird process in this country that starts with a couple of states and is often done after a couple of states. if you look at the last cycle, for example, when this president fought off a very strong challenge from vans senator clinton, what you had was increased participation and interest in states that rarely see primary action, hire voter registration rates. as a consequent result. and ultimately higher turnout for the democrats writ large once they got united. that is the general trend and there is nothing i am seeing that will hurt the eventual nominee, be it mitt romney, as many expect, or bring somebody else who might emerge. host: how about those votes so far question of big and little bit deeper. your take a wisdom of putting in a iowa and new hampshire and moving a little further to the south. guest: if you measure elections by the votes cast, which is not, of course, how many people do in the country and the media likes

to focus on excitement and money raised. but we are looking at two leading candidates. one is named mitt romney, of course, and the other is named ron paul, who is somebody, a variety of reasons, many i think a legitimate, he is someone who is often shut out of the conversation -- for a variety of reasons, many i think illegitimate. he did not have as much money as mitt romney but has done very well. running second in the votes cast. and i think interestingly, to drill down on the numbers, and c-span audience knows a lot of the general facts already, but if you look closely at the exit polls in new hampshire among voters who identify as very conservative, the leading candidate malt -- was mitt romney and ron paul. and under another category which is very important for the base, registered republicans also preferred mitt romney and ron paul. i think that is very interesting because if you listen up to a

lot of chatter, you have the sense that maybe mitt romney was a moderate compromise but not the first choice of the activist conservative base. again, we do not have all the voices of the people yet, but the voices that we do have suggested that the republicans, both by registration -- a tangible thing -- or self identification, actually also are gravitating toward what i call these two candidates leading among the votes -- mitt romney and ron paul. the last thing i will say is there has been a lot of talk about the tea party searching for its alternative and being interested in certain issues. but ron paul did very well among tea party supporters in new hampshire. again, suggesting that perhaps our sort of cliche or headline about that group of voters missed the fact they warmed to a candidate that is not appealing to them in traditional ways. host: ari melber is a

correspondent for "the nation." we will put the numbers on the bottom of the screen. please call in, we will get to you in a moment. but i want to touch on the president's reelection strategy, essentially just getting started. "the chicago tribune" has this headline about his appearance. here is a short clip from his speech, and then we will get a response from our guest. [video clip] >> that same spirit of common purpose, it still exists today. it may not exist in washington, but all in america -- out in america when you talk to people on main streets and town halls, they will tell you we still believe in those values. our political parties may be

divided, but most americans, they understand we are in this together. we rise and fall together as one nation, one people. that is what is at stake right now. that is what this election is all about. [applause] so, chicago, yes, it has been three tough years. there are times when the changes we wanted did not come as fast as we wanted. and after all the noise in washington, i know it is tempting to believe some times that maybe change isn't possible. but remember what we said during the last campaign. yes, we can. host: ari melber from "the nation." how would you assess the strength of the obama re-

election bid? guest: i think given the macro economic factors they are looking very strong. if a new look of the fundamentals of the campaign, money raised and staff on the ground and the field organization, they are light years ahead of whether the opponent is going to be. that is one of the benefits, of course, being an incumbent. i think what you just heard in the clip you played, of course, is the core message to the base. it is using the exact same phraseology, obviously. talking about in 19 a divided america. the exact same lines from last time. which may work for some people and for revving people up and giving obama a rhetorical platform to say i have not given up on any of those things, and i will continue to invoke some of these lofty ideals even if it is difficult. i don't think, of course, that is the general election message we will hear when there is an

opponent ready. what he is doing, i think smartly and consistent with what incumbents often do, is trying to make sure that his people and his core supporters know where he is at. use this time for that telegraphing. and of course, speaking very pragmatically, this is a time where the media is not going to focus as much on the president's general election campaign messaging anyway because if you look at, say, the pew news inde x, which sort of measures out all the stories and media, what you see over the past several months is political stories have been focused, i think understandably, on this campaign for the republican nomination. so, given that, given the general intention is elsewhere, the white house is going to have these sort of in-house conversations with democrats. briefly, i would add, the general election message will presumably draw a very sharp contrast with the whether the

nominee is, try to make an argument not so much about the past four years but where do you want to be in the next four years, take time to do an economic recovery, and really drill down on the details of what the opponents offering. i think one thing you will hear from the white house is all of these republican components are basically outlining a hands off or what economists like to call plays a fair -- laissez faire attitude. everybody can point to things the white house has done in the auto sector or financial sector, dodd-frank, health care -- there has been action. and some of it seems to be working in small ways but not enough for the way people are hurting and the white house is going to say this is our action agenda, and what are getting from, say, a mitt romney is basically a statement there should be no more student -- stimulus spending, no more federal action and that some of what we have done should be

rolled back like health care. that basically we are in to tough times to have the president be elected on a platform of doing nothing domestically. host: you can read ari melber act thenation.com. -- at thenation.com. beverly? caller: the past year you had republicans-only nine times, for 45 minutes to an hour, and you only had democrats once for 45 minutes. i would like to see democrats- only tomorrow, even if i would not be able to call. host: look for us to do that again very soon, okay? caller: my question is to "the nation." there is no way that president obama can get anything past when he does not have 60 votes in the

senate. they keep saying the democrats have the majority in the senate. that is true. but a 51-vote majority does not stop a filibuster. host: ari melber? guest: a very important point especially because of all the talk about the roads not taken. elizabeth warren, a very popular now massachusetts senate candidate was up to run the consumer protection broke -- bureau which is something congress acts to the past, to try to provide consumers with counsel, protection, and regulated approach to deal with some of the standoffs with the banks and the practices of the banks, including fees that pileup for people and potentially discriminatory treatment. congress passes it, has someone ready. elizabeth warren had the

majority of votes of support in the senate but not come to a floor vote because of the -- filibuster. and now a fight with the recent appointment, mr. richard cordray, looking on later when there was a still ntc because as beverly said, there was never a fair majority vote offered. it was always blocked by a minority. it was blocked by the minority. those are the rules of the senate. how you work with in those roles -- there are plenty of things to do that are technically legal or still bother your colleagues. i did not think anyone would argue with the fact that it has become an extremely difficult work environment and the numbers show the filibuster use has risen, and is worse now than almost any point in history. both parties have done it over

the last 15 years. when you see the so-called cloture vote that would end debate, you see you can not give the closure vote. it is a huge problem. it has emanated at times from both parties, but the raw data shows the republican minority has used it far more often. host: for those tracking elizabeth warren, there are reports she raced $5.7 million in the last quarter of last year, out-raising the incumbent. let's move onto connecticut. joan, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i want all republicans who are listening to get behind mitt romney.

they have to stop thinking about petty things. i am retired. i hear everything. amanda thought romney was doing something wrong with the health plan, he did not hear the story. they do not listen. they are being brainwashed by newt gingrich and rick perry. there are losers, and they're full of venom. the republicans have to deal together. host: what of the fighting here er?the party, mr. melbour guest: the caller said mr. gingrich is a loser. i would not say that, but it could play out. i could say that as a citizen, someone thinking about democracy regardless of who wins the republican primary, i do not think it is a bad thing to let this play out.

newt gingrich has set a lot of outrageous things. he seems to hold a lot of views that are outside of the mainstream of american life. whether they are outside of the republican electorate, we will see over time. let's play that out with a conversation and an exchange. i think that is okay. to the point about rallying around mitt romney, it is happening. his vote total in new hampshire was higher than that of john mccain, hillary clinton, or john kerry. there was this chatter again, because some people may have heard it, but it is not true, that nick -- mitt romney is not doing well enough. as i mentioned, he has higher support than recent winners of that state, and they hire a margin because so many other republican candidates are fighting among themselves. there is an eagerness within the

republican party to get this settled and done, and i understand where that comes from, but i do not think there is evidence that that is necessary for mitt romney to be a strong nominee. if he has a close finish in south carolina, there will be talk about the race continuing and let's see what happens in florida. if he rides the momentum to a larger margin, 10 points or more, you will hear the pundits say this thing is over. again, not to beat a dead horse, but i do not think that is true. whether it is 10 points, five, or 15, you are counting delegates. it is a question of whether stronger opponents will stay in the race and try to give him a fight. host: our guest is a graduate of the university of michigan and has a law degree from cornell. is currently a correspondent with "the nation."

anthony. good morning. caller: i was calling concerning commodity trading. i'm in the petroleum business. because of manipulation by the banks, manipulating the commodity trade, i think the least it would be 75 cents a gallon cheaper if the administration, the democrats and republicans, would push for those commodity trader regulations to be enforced. host: thank you. is there a way to plug that into the presidential race? guest: i will say candidly i do not know enough about the regulations at issue, or the commodities market as described.

to give an honest, informed answer. i could tell you the caller probably knows more about it then me. gas prices are often a political issue. remember last cycle when we had our debates over having some kind of tax holiday. you could remember the over a range of topics that are on voter minds. host: back to the white house, melber mr. -- mr. melber, bill daley resigned and the white house says they were surprised. were you surprised? guest: i was surprised it let him go. i think the president has not always been served very well by the insiders that he has sought

to staff senior positions with. if you remember, there was a little bit of shock right after he won when so many cabinet leaders were fixtures of washington, and some of the bush administration's foreign policy , and that caught a lot of people by surprise given how much she talked about fundamentally changing washington. your chief of staff is your most important position. it is like the super scheduler, the person that controls access to the president. we think in terms of debates like what are we going to do about iraq, stimulus spending, the payroll tax cut, but before those debates rise to the level of the president, you have a large federal bureaucracy and a cabinet, and the chief of staff could get a meeting delayed.

he is very important. we have had a slew of insider chief of staff's who do the -- who do not bring a lot of barack obama's campaign promises to bear. wrong lamont ewell was a controversial chief of staff -- rahm emanuel was a controversial chief of staff. he was directly advocating that obama should pre-surrender on health care. we know now that at least was not necessary because he did get the bill passed, and we know from a lot of supporters said that what of robbed them from their main achievement, which is important in a down economy politically and substantively. then rahm emanuel left to become mayor of chicago, and mr. bill daley, who among other things has worked for a al

gore, i do not think, by any account, was a strong chief of staff, although he is a talented individual in other ways. people will tell you that. now they bring out in jetblue, and it is too early to say -- shakeup -- jack lew, and it is too early to tell. there are three people in a row that do not come out of a democratic agenda, but come out of the ruling washington establishment consensus. whether that is good or bad, the people at home can decide, but that is the trend. host: let's hear from a democratic caller. barbara, from martha's vineyard. caller: hello. you are doing a fabulous work.

i'm involved with the occupied martha's vineyard group. i am calling it a -- i am calling to suggest stopping the flow of money into television commercials by either changing remote controls to other channels, or temporarily turning the television off, so the ratings on the campaign commercials go way down. we need msnbc to lean forward on this because it is not in their financial interest. if you click your mouse you can go to a site that aggregates the campaign commercials. you could see them all there, or watched them once, but then change the channel or turn off the television, whatever will drop the ratings.

host: anything else about the race itself? the president's reelection strategy? caller: i think what he did yesterday was awesome with begin-sourcing. i had this idea for returning veterans that they create a virtual networks within their units. you hook them up digitally with their own squadron because they already have this camaraderie and relationship with each other, and then they become these called centers all over the country, and companies can give them call center work. guest: interesting ideas. i have to get some of the coffee that barbarous is drinking and martha's vineyard. she sounds more energetic than i

do. she is referring to a campaign where finance reform -- 28 campaign read -- campaign finance reform idea. i generally have written positively about that, of supporting a format like what senator dick durbin has introduced, something that would provide a voluntary public funding to reduce the role of private, corporate donations in our politics, while keeping it voluntary, which is important. it is modeled after what did work for many decades at the presidential level, though it does not been in disarray did. there are a lot of other interesting ideas out there. there is an organization called change congress that looks at something called democracy vouchers. people at home, in either party

or no party, who are worried about what does become the most expensive election in our history, and that distorting the people's vote, should look to any or all of those proposals. the campaign finance reform is a fundamental issue. it is one of those issues that is not 50/50, like so many debates we have, or debates over social issues, for example, when we know people feel strongly on both sides. i think campaign finance reform is like a 95/5 issue. you can be on the side that benefits from the massive walls that goes into politics, and those people have the right to advocate it, or you could be the 95% of laws that do not have that kind of wealth, and the lead -- of us that do not have that kind of wealth.

i think this is an important issue. thank you to barbara for raising it. my answer is too long, but her second point is digital networks among returning heroes and veterans. an interesting idea. i would point to the iraq and afghanistan veterans organization, specifically for our digital age. there is a social network platform there that paul has advocated. it would overlap with something barbara was talking about host: let's hear from an independent -- about. let's hear from an independent. bob. caller: good morning. i heard everyone talking about obama, mitt romney, and ron

paul, but what no one has bothered to address is that if you are baking a pie and you keep putting the same ingredients in, it will come out the same every time. what the american people need to do is realize that they're being brainwashed by the entire government system. plain and simple, it is time for the american public to say we need to clean-up the senate, we need to clean out congress, we need to clean up the white house. every one of these people should turn their backs on everyone involved in this election and go to the right-in, when the american public decides who is going to run this country. remove the corruption, the pets, and start fresh. host: strong words there. mr. melber?

guest: the caller reflects the views of a lot of people. rating is atroval an all-time low. i think that reflects more than opposition. it is more than saying i disagree with you about who do vote for for president. you look 50 opposition and distaste for the way the government is run, it is stronger than that. the idea of throw everyone out, or is all the same, or all corrupt, i am not in dorset all of the ingredients, so to speak, but i understand the sentiment. i mentioned the campaign finance reform that would have a replenishing effect and how we pick all of these people. the caller mentioned we should write somebody in. you have to look at the rules of democracy. one of the things that impairs

the newt gingrich campaign was they did not submit the necessary signatures to get on the virginia belloc parent any organized campaign should help -- to get on the virginia ballot. any organized campaign should have done that. if you look at the patchwork of states and their different rules for getting on the ballot, you realize that is one more of the many hurdles that prevent a range of different candidates from getting in hearing. we have the right-in as an option, but i would note that steven colbert is shooting up to 5% in the south carolina primary, of all i did not think that joe kennedy is but the caller had in mind. -- i did not think that kind of joke candidate is what the

caller had in mind. i am not one that says anything was better in the past, about in the past, but it's had more opportunities to go out, -- candidates had more opportunities to go out, pound the pavement, in meet with the voters. it is much more difficult to get change agents considered in today's elections. host: helen, a republican. ari melber is did new york city. caller: i do not think president obama is challenged when he tells how to end out lies. we waited three weeks for him to come out with the jobs bill and

five weeks for it to be brought to the senate floor. host: what is the lie? caller: the media said it was all the republican's fault, and president obama says it was defeated by republican blocks. if you are not up to over 51, you can not do anything. host: here is the front page of "de new york post." host: we want to get your perspective, and show you the style section in a "washington post." here is a piece from a interview

with the first lady. [video clip] >> there are so many books with my picture on it and i do not know what is going who can write about what i feel? i guess it is more interesting to imagine this conflicted situation here, and a strong woman, but that has been an image that people have tried to paint of the me -- of me, that i'm some angry black woman. host: mr. melber, what does this all mean in the campaign? guest: it does not mean much in the campaign. these things titillate the media. people love to talk about them. the report that she had a fight with robert gibbs or rahm emanuel about health care and

other issues -- i did not think it has a large significance. i think it is interesting and there are a lot of stories we talk about because they are interesting and we get a window into the lives of these people or their rebuttals. people have to make sense of themselves. what struck me as the most interesting line, and what "the new york post" is probably trying to play up in the more divisive manner is the concept of the "a greek black woman." i think what michele obama -- the angry black woman." i think michele obama is trying to get the idea that you cannot win. there have been so many attempts to seize and just about everything she and barack obama did. examples abound. people might remember when they

did a fist balled, which is a common practice -- bump which is a common practice among young people, if you see it in sports. you see it done, ironically, among hipsters in brooklyn, but ironically it is done by a lot of people, and when they did that, fox news ran at a segment saying it was a "terrorist fist ." others ran stories about michele obama's bear arms. i feel queasy talking about it. it is weird, and it is not what other first ladies in history, in my opinion, have been

subjected to. i am not suggesting there is no other record of intrusion, but specifically to the point about stereotypes facing african- american women in our society, these are serious issues. i do not think michelle obama brought this up. what happens is you have this kind of book, with these kind of narrative, and she is either to ignore them, or occasionally when asked directly about them she responds. that is how i took it. i am obviously very sympathetic to the concern she is raising. i do not think, quite frankly, this white house raises those concerns very often, even though they're very frequently, unfortunately, raised in some sectors of the society. the last thing i want to say, and i know this is a sensitive topic, but the other point i

will mention is we spent an inordinate amount of time on a made up, say, race-driven issue in this country and the president of the birth certificate. that related to race, and it went on and on to the point where the president had to work with state officials to dig up a supplemental document to quiet people that were not interested in facts. i think these issues are important. "the new york post" would lead casual readers to think is michele obama driving this. host: the author will be on c- span2.

the offer will be interviewed by "new york times" columnist david bruck said 7:00 p.m. eastern time. -- david brooks at 7:00 p.m. eastern time. tampa, florida. you are on. caller: i supported obama in the last election cycle, and i find it amusing watching the republican race how the republicans head of the alienated their own base as far as strategic alienated their own base de cit have alienated their own -- have alienated their own base. i find it ironic that ron paul has been a stone in their shoe that will not go away. as an obama supporter, ron paul

has piqued my interest. i'm going for the best candidate. host: and independent from dayton, ohio, you're on with ari melber. caller: there are a lot of weird things going on in america. 40% of us are independent. i voted that way. i look at our presidential candidate -- president obama, i hope he sticks to his guns. i voted for him. what irritates me is mitt romney is exactly what i dislike. a ceo in arkansas laid-off 5000 people and got a $30 million bonus. 49% of us are right at the poor

level. people making millions and millions of dollars. somehow this test to stop, or we're not want to be a country anymore. we cannot afford it% of us try to put food on the table, and other -- we cannot have 49 percent of us trying to put food on the table, and other people taking jet rides to wherever they go. guest: the caller hit it on the head and the macro data backs up the feeling you have. we have high unemployment. we went to extraordinary measures to try to help a range of financial institutions, the gigantic bailout of the banking sector, and help for some auto manufacturers. that was our money. yes, to this day, what we see is the macro data shows we've gone from being an economy where the average ceo makes about 40 times

what the average worker makes, which is a wider gap and many countries, to being about 450- to-1. also, the bonus and compensation issues have gone out of control. in many cases, and we will see this as an issue on the campaign trail is mitt romney is the nominee, many are being paid through accounting gimmicks to have much lower taxes paid than their secretary, which is an issue warren buffett has raised. it is treated as if it is an investment. these are huge issues. the policies, the rules that govern these issues, really make

a big difference. it might be perfectly legal under the current system for these executives to pay the bonuses that they pay themselves or to take preferential tax treatment. my point is not to vilify them as individuals. a lot of people, if given the opportunity to will pay themselves instead of more giving money away. if you change those rules, people have to abide by them, so it is a question of what policies we want. host: thank you for your time, ari melber, the correspondent for the -- "the nation," during us from new york. after the next break we will look at the business community in canada in 2012. first adopted from c-span radio. >> president obama's campaign manager says the campaign has raised more than $68 million

combined for his reelection during the final three months of 2011. campaign officials had hoped for $60 million. in taos bed was made in a video released earlier today to set -- the announcement was made in a video released earlier today to supporters. senator john mccain says today the supreme court ruling that led to the formation of super- pacs was one of the worst decisions he has ever seen and he said he predicts there will be huge scandals. meanwhile, republican presidential candidate newt gingrich speaking earlier on "fox and friends call says questions he is raising about mitt romney are not the centerpiece of his campaign, but that his record as head of bain capital is an important question. when asked about a statement at a campaign event that he should

lay off questions about whether mr. romney benefited from a culture of corporate greed, the former house speaker told a questioner "i agree with you." >> in this episode of fact video, we will look at rick perry's comments on climate change. >> there are a substantial number of scientists that have manipulated data. >> i rate different comments from politicians on a 1-4 scale. if you say something that is of radius, you'll get four pinocchios. if you say something that is out of context, you might get as little as one pinocchio. >> he rates the truthfulness of political figures and others. >> whether they are deliberately lying, if a politician says the

same thing over and over again, even if it is pointed out to be untrue, they know they're saying something untrue. >> glenn kessler, sunday night at 8:00 on c-span compel "q&a." >> chris matthews on the presidential maneuvers in the nixon debate. >> nixon gets control, so he brings the temperature of the room to 40 degrees. it is a meat locker when kennedy are reps. -- are arrives. there is a nixon guy standing guard on the thermostat, and he says if you did not give -- get out of the white, i am calling police said they had a standoff -- out of the way, i am calling

the police. they had a standoff. the idea was they did not want richard nixon to sweat. they all knew what was going on. this is a boss who was going to rule america, and the stuff is going on. >> sam donaldson interviews chris matthews saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern. >> "washington journal" continues. host: at the table, david chavern, chamber of commerce. thank you for being here. guest: great to be here. host: in "the mihill" -- the hill, " today -- explained keystone. why is this important to you? guest: we are talking about a

proposed pipeline from the oil sands area again western canada down through the midwestern u.s., for the gulf states where there are refineries. this pipeline, which by the light which by the way, there are pipelines and follow this -- with this pipeline, which there are along this line, it would add jobs. we think it is important. host: described the onslaught as "the hill" puts it. guest: i would not describe it as an unsolved -- onslaught. it is passed the tests. we are educating the public and policymakers about the important -- importance of the project. we are encouraging the president to act in the next 60 days and

let's get going, creating jobs. host: phone numbers are on the screen. our guest is david chavern, vice president and coo of the chamber. he will be taking your calls on the business community and campaign 2012. what is the number one thing the administration and congress can do beyond keystone to create more jobs? guest: we advocate several things. you are looking at infrastructure investment. one of the things that drives business climates is what is the infrastructure like. this is an area where we agree with organized labor and numerous others about the need for increased infrastructure spending in this country. we need to address the tax code. it is currently awful and anti- competitive. we need to get more aggressively

into the trade does this, and we need to address our debt and deficit. host: the president held a big in-sourcing event. here is one of the headlines. it's all here is a short piece from the president yesterday. piecest: here's a short from the president yesterday. [video clip] >> the economy has changed rapidly. factories were people thought they would retire went overseas. at the same time, we live in a global economy. global companies will pursue those markets and employ workers, and make investments all over the world.

right now, we are in a unique moment, an inflection point, it. where we have the opportunity for those jobs to come back. the business leaders in this room are ahead of the curve. they recognize it. i will give you a few examples. after shedding jobs for more than a decade, american manufacturers have added jobs for two years in a row, and that is good news. when a lot of folks are still looking for work, now is the time for us to step on the gas. that is why push congress to extend the payroll tax cut this year so that 160 million working americans were not hit with a tax hike. now is a time to extend that tax hike -- tax cut for all of this year. is the right thing to do, and we need to get that done. we need to do more. that is why will push for new tax proposals that reward

companies that choose to bring jobs home and invest in america. host: david chavern, what did you make of that meeting yesterday? guest: more manufacturing, we are on board. we promote that idea all of the time. you will not get there for one tax provision or a gimmick or another gimmick. if you what manufacturing to increase, you have to make this the best climate for business growth, economic growth in the world. we have done that in the past. we have to address things like our energy policy, infrastructure. education, by the way, requires skilled labor. the president was not detailed about his proposals. i do not know what tax proposals he was talking about. in general, we're supportive of the idea, the we have to start

by making this the best climate for business and investment anywhere in the world. host: let's get to the phones. quincy, illinois, jim, a republican. you are up first. caller: i have concern with the double talk president obama comes up with. in a situation where he had an opportunity to support the keystone project he indicated a he wouldveto it. there was information on fox news indicating that obama had won this argument the keystone project and the extension. in other words, he would have vetoed the keystone project, and

nellie seems to want to take credit for it. in regards to -- and now he seems to want to take credit for it. in regards to the extension, two months did not make a bit of sense, and republicans were full a full year or more of extensions, the keystone project, and the media came out and said obama won this debate. of course, dead on arrival harry reid would not even consider what the republicans presented to him. host: thank you. let's hear from our guest. guest: the administration now has to decide yea or nay within the next 60 days. so, we are fully supportive of encouraging the president to act within that 60 days and improve this project.

this is a critical project for our country. we have this time to make the case for the critical nature of the keystone pipeline. obviously, the administration is under pressure from two sides. u.s. environmental groups on the one side that are pressuring the administration hard against the pipeline. organized labor, business groups, and other local groups across the midwest who are very much in favor of the pipeline. i have to hope, and we certainly are going to encourage the president to do the right thing, and build that pipeline. host: here is a a tweet. guest: there are pipelines across the united states, including those that go from canada to the midwest to the golf. every industrial operation has the potential for risk, but if

you look the history of pipeline operations, for which there are tens of thousands of miles of pipelines, it is incredibly safe, and certainly safer than alternatives like bringing oil him through shipping across oceans. -- in through shipping across oceans. is there ever no risk in life? no, but this is low-risk. host: how many jobs are created, and how many are long-term or permanent? guest: it has been estimated to get 25,000 jobs from construction. over a long term, you get a lot of job creation, particularly in the gulf states, which have been hit hard, because that is where the refining capacity is, and then you have the potential for hundreds of thousands of jobs. host: a democrat. good morning. caller: how're you doing?

guest: i am doing well. caller: there is a reason why canada does not want the oil to come three area. be that as it may, this guy, when he says it creates jobs, it sure it does. even if it creates two jobs, it creates jobs. whenever the assigned a specific number what it is is the number is an absolutely wrong. you heard it will create 20,000 jobs, but most of those jobs are in canada. let's say it creates 500 jobs in the u.s., that is great. when the pipeline is built, that oil is not in the united states of america. 98% of the oil is going into

international waters and will be sold internationally. that is the way the market works. ?t's called mr. chavern -- host: mr. chavern? guest: i have to object to the characterization of the number of jobs. the numbers we have the best estimates, and we are confident about the. in terms of where the oil goes, this is oil from canada exported to the united states. we just talked about wanting to do more manufacturing in the u.s. refining it is manufacturing a common good, high-paying manufacturing jobs in the gulf coast, they need those jobs desperately. that is job creation in the u.s., and certainly better than having jobs created in other parts of the world and brought over on an ocean liner.

host: arlington, virginia. vincent, a republican, you are on the air. caller: this is c-span, right? host: yes, sir. caller: i have a question about the pipeline. they are building refineries in south dakota and illinois. why does it have to go all the way down through texas and they will have to rebuild those refineries? host: let's see if the gusts can explain that. guest: i am not an expert on where the refineries are located. there are refineries all over the u.s.. the largest are in the gulf coast. some of that is refined and exported and earnings export money for the united states. amen.

we have a trade deficit with the world. exporting is a good thing. utilizing refining capacity in a place that desperately needs jobs is a good thing. host: economic stories in the news today -- "the washington post" -- host: that was from the federal reserve. here is a story about hostess' brands, the maker of twinkies, filing for bankruptcy in "the new york times." host: you look at the front page of "the financial times" -- oil refiners are cutting links with iran. can you connect that with things economically back here?

guest: a couple of things. your initial point about job growth, and we attend some, but very moderate job growth over the last few months. it is good, but not enough. with estimated we need to add 20 million new jobs over the next 10 years to employ the people that lost their jobs and to deal with new entrants into the economy. so, a few jobs here and there, great, but we need a much accelerated growth strategy for the u.s. economy if we really want to employ everybody that needs to be employed. with regard to the iran sanctions, this gets to the issue of energy security. we have a friendly neighbor in canada that has tremendous oil resources, the wants to ship them to the u.s. to utilize our manufacturing and refining capability, that is not in the middle east, in other parts of

the world. we should do everything we can to embraced it. host: san antonio. mike, independent caller. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. a couple of people had the same question, but my question relates to if we really want to save energy for the united states and be self-dependent, exporting it on the global market s oil futures rather than a commodity, it does become a way for guys on wall street to make a bunch of money, but how does it do us any good to export oil we are getting from canada, should we send it into the markets when we are troubled by having a dependence on other people for our energy? guest: the oil from canada would be brought in to the u.s., to

then have our businesses had tremendous value to it by refining it and turning it into gasoline, or other refined products. it is a way to bring stocking to our manufacturing capacity, and i will be a good thing for the u.s. economy. host: jill is a republican on the line from chicago. caller: city -- thank you for having me. i want to say i am so very proud to be an american. there is no other country like this in the world i think the american people should realize this, and i am not an obama fan. i did not vote for him. i will not vote for him again. i have no clue as to why he thought the american people want a socialistic country.

our forefathers must be rolling in their graves. they gave so much,, us so much, and he is undermining everything that they did. host: that was g.o. from chicago. mr. chevron, from the chamber. i want to give effect to the -- mr. chavern, from the chamber. i want to get back to the white house, and bill daley leaving. what is his departure mean? guest: it is a loss. bill daley was a great public servant. from our perspective, we did not always agree with mr. bill daley, and often had vigorous disagreements, but it was someone we could talk to you and engage with. we certainly hope to have that going forward in the future. it is a loss, but this is washington, and people decide to

move back home. other people step up, and certainly mr. lew has a reputation for being smart and savvy. host: this from twitter guest: there are networks of american chambers of commerce overseas. they are independent organizations, but we work with them. there is 117 all over the world. did we tell companies to outsource overseas? now. we have made an argument to you have to engage in the world. the world and the world market is more of an opportunity than a threat. if we dig ourselves in a hole and build walls, there will be more of a negative than a positive. host: another knock on the chamber from intel.

-- e-mail. guest: you have to protect consumers. i assume he is talking about the consumer financial protection bureau. we are not objecting to the creation of the bureau, but how it is set up in an unusual way with oversight by one individual, extremely limited budget and substantive oversight by congress or anyone else. it is a recipe for disaster. i am a consumer. i would like to be protected, thank you very much. we just did not think the way the organization sets up is a good idea. host: bowie, maryland, thank you for waiting. caller: the lastly said she will not be voting for obama. i will. i am working with other sittings -- citizens to get him

reelected. by martin with congress to get into the structure and people back to work. -- i am working with congress to get into a structure and back to the work. i watched the hearing. the man representing canada said he could not promise the oil coming from canada would be used in the united states, and he also said this oil will probably go to china. so, if there is a leak in one of the pipes, who cleans it up? americans have to clean it up. the rule of our land. obama has never said that he would veto the pipeline. the one time you are talking about it is the tax bill. he did not want the pipeline in the tax bill. he wanted that to be on its own.

i work in the government for 37 years. i hear people call in and say obama is making this country a socialist america. well, we had social security, medicare, and a drug program -- that is the only thing that is social, and that was here before obama came. they do not know what they talked. the everyone who calls in who work for the government for a year find out how government works. guest: i work in government for a while myself and it was an educated experience can we have a friendly neighbor was tremendous oil resources -- experience. we have a friendly neighbor with tremendous oil resources. why would we not excess those resources better. a friendly nation because the alternative is to -- access those resources from a friendly

nation because the alternative is nations not here. host: will the chamber reports a republican candidate? guest: for president ne? host: yes guest: no. we do not do presidential politics. we do endorse senate and house candidates, and in some state races. we do the -- we will not endorse a republican or democratic candidate. host: to the race, what you make of the pummeling of mitt romney with his 15 years at bain capital. it is all over the papers. guest: i will not dive into the horse race. i will takeda the u.s. chamber is all about making the -- i

will tell you the u.s. chamber is all about making the case that the free enterprise system is not the problem. it is the answer. we encourage companies to take risks, and sometimes there is failure. we will defend the position across all the boards that of the free enterprise system is, again, the answer, and not the problem. from george's on the line upstate new york. caller: the pipeline is an engineering problem. i believe -- i do not believe your guest is an economist or an engineer. i think you need to keep them separated even more.

we had a valve in the gulf of mexico that should of been a $100 million belt. we require things to maintain the safety of the ecology and the economy. if you want to talk politics, talk politics. if you want to talk engineering and economics, no those fields. that is all i have to say. host: anything you want to respond to? guest: that is correct. i'm not an economist or an engineer, but i will make the point that we currently today, you and i sitting here, -- we have tens of thousands of pipelines in the united states better safely run day in, day out. making the argument this is a particular leave risky business is a difficult one. host: philadelphia.

jim, a republican. one last chance. let's try erie, pennsylvania. bob, are you there? caller: simb. good morning. i wonder if there was any thoughts about this system promoting high-voltage power. you will be digging anyway. the material will be minimal compared to the engineering and labor cost. guest: not that i'm aware of. what you talked about, the need for expanding transmission capacity is critical, but i'm afraid i did not have any information about whether this would be a good place for a conduit or not. we need to take every opportunity to look at things like that because we need tremendous transmission capacity in the u.s. host: congress is due back in session next week.

what your top two or three issues in the first half of the year? guest: they have a lot to do. the normal thing people say is in any election year nothing is going to happen. they cannot afford to take this year off. we of the payroll tax holiday that has to be dealt with. they will be dealing with the extension of unemployment benefits, medicare, medicaid, faa authorization and, by the way, the budget would be nice. host: you have had meetings with the white house over the last couple of years. this being an election year, described the relationship you will probably have with the white house. guest: i am not sure it will be that different. we are working on issues. there are usually working and issues, trying to get things accomplished, and what you just described is why we do not get

into presidential politics. the chamber has been here 100 days. -- 100 years. we have to work with the administration, and they have to work with us, and we expect it productive relationship. caller: good morning. the chamber of commerce -- he said they do not side with republicans or democrats. all the money they are spending is to defeat president obama. i would like to know why anybody with democratic views as those numbers and maybe he can answer. guest: we spend our money to advocate on issues for our members. i have 300,000 member businesses across the united states.

a huge percentage is democratic folks who care about the free enterprise system. we are about business and free enterprise. we're not about playing partisan politics. caller: good morning. i'm just fine. i wanted to reply on the caller earlier. i worked for my state. i like consumer protection also and i am a disabled now. she replied to social security and medicare and the part d program. i have worked all my life and i paid into it, so i deserve it. i do not understand the problem.

i have been calling my representatives and fighting about this. i do not understand the problem with the situation here. i wanted think c-span for all that you do. i appreciate everything you do for the program you work for. keep up the good work. host: some other headlines in the paper today. "the irs is strained." host: anything to say about the irs? guest: if we improve the tax code and make it easier for people to comply, i think that would make it easier for the irs to oversee it. host: interesting piece about

health care. 5% of patients account for half of all health-care spending. person.about $90,000 a any perspective on the health- care issue? guest: we still have a health- care cost problem. the health-care bill that was passed was a health insurance reform bill. it was not a health care reform bill. it does not do anything to address the underlying cost of health care. we will continue to suffer from a in terms of medicare and medicaid in the future. health care costs continues to

skyrocket and at some point you hit a wall. host: indianapolis, a democrats, good morning. caller: i was calling about this oil. you don't have to worry about it too long because that is what is going to happen. people are stupid. all you have to do is look at the -- you didn't have to worry about it. host: 20 from myrtle beach -- tony. caller: thank you for taking my call. in our area, every spring the chamber of commerce requests employees to take jobs.

are you any part of that? how many people do you have coming in? we have so many people struggling and light off in our area. they do not get on the local tv stations where they have an employee of a motel that says, we cannot get people to come and work. this is a lie. we cannot afford to work for what they pay. do you bring in people to take jobs? guest: the state and local chambers of commerce are separate organizations. most of them are themselves members of ours. we are separate but we have an affiliate relationship. they are completely focused on

the need for job creation in their communities. what you have described sounds unusual to me. i think what you'll find it is most chambers of congress are focused on bringing jobs to those communities, getting a work force that is skilled and educated to meet those jobs and embracing people who are looking for work. host: back to those recess appointments by the president. there were several members that were recessed appointed. guest: the president has pushed the envelope in terms of the recess power under the constitution. those appointments will be dealt with in court. there'll be any number of challenges.

i do not think there was a good use of the recess power. i think there are underlying issues that have to be dealt with. this agency is unaccountable. the nlrb has been extremely active best. -- activist. the boeing plant is one problem. we would not have suggested the president used the recess power in that way. host: does the chamber planning to sue? guest: probably multiple people will sue. host: hey, normal. . caller: you should penalize any factor that goes overseas or to

mexico and reward those a comeback. companies like walmart, most of the merchandise comes from china or overseas. they should be penalized. mr. cordray did a fine job for ohio and i think he will do a good job. the chamber of commerce put up money to help governor kasich in ohio. state beat the unions -- thtey ey beat the unions. thank you. guest: a number of different issues. we want more manufactured here in the u.s.

we are the largest manufacturer in the world. everybody wants more here. we will not do that by building walls. we have to make this the best place for folks to do business because we have great tax policy and a highly educated work force. this is where you want to be if you want to invest. you are not going to get folks to build manufactured here just by trying to lock them down. host: 1 viewer wants some clarification. guest: we support the right of workers to organize. there is a distinction between private-sector unions that

understand that economic growth is critical. arter's, laborers -- carpenters and laborers. we have had more disagreements with the public sector unions because they tend to view their role as getting more from the government. with that productive relationships with unions -- we have had a productive relationships with unions. host: charlotte, north carolina, jeff, a republican. caller: as far as the keystone project, i am in favor of it. i think it would create a multitude of jobs. it would build more refineries and truck the product by rail or truck down to the gulf, building

refineries in the midwest. i think that would create more jobs. unions in the south, they do more harm than good, in my opinion. i work for two major companies. the management treated employees at 10 times better. public-sector unions should be illegal because they just create more have oc. the teachers cannot get fired because they have security. other teachers just starting in the union cannot move up. i'm for the keystone project. there would create more jobs if

the ship by rail or by truck and build more refineries in different parts of the midwestern area. i understand the refining capacity is in the gulf coast. if they build more refineries, that would create more jobs. it would create more jobs verses the pipeline. guest: i appreciate your thoughts and your support for the keystone xl pipeline. i don't have the expertise in oil and i do not know how your proposal would compare, but i appreciate your thoughts. host: mike from iowa. caller: unions are no good.

my factor was moved from indiana to iowa -- my factory was moved. union.ere doing we made more money. unions, to me, just no good. i will go on another subject. if the chamber of commerce wants to do more good, they need to get rid of the jobs aczar. he took 25,000 jobs to china. get rid of that guy. tell the president is the wants to take an american bus tour -- he came close to iowa. if he is caring about jobs,

let's do something about it. let's make something in america and make it mean something. thank you for the comments. the president's job council has tried to gather a bunch of disparate folks to do some good thinking about job creation. it comes back to policymaking and politics in washington. we have to be out there fighting for the correct policies to create jobs. we have to make this the best place to do business. we can. we have been there before. i do not think the u.s. is in decline. we have great natural resources if we use them. host: kansas city, missouri. caller: good morning.

i'm calling about the keystone pipeline. your transporting -- sandblasting from the inside out whatever thickness of mental that you run -- whenever thickness of mental. and burying it several feet underground and are running under the rivers. we have pipelines all over this country that are collapsing and on monitored and leaking -- and unmonitored. there are refineries in the north that the process it and barge it down the mississippi river. guest: again, the keystone

pipeline has been through exhaustive in our mental reviews at the state, local, every level. it is not a question of safety. it is a safety of political will. host: our guest has been david chavern from the u.s. chamber of commerce. host: we will talk in a couple of minutes about the supreme court and a case they've taken up this week. amy schatz will be with us to talk about that and take calls for about 40 minutes as we wrapup "washington journal" this morning. i want to talk about tv coverage about supreme court arguments. c-span has asked the supreme court to allow our cameras.

there is a new poll on this issue and joining us downstairs in the newsroom is robert green. thank you for joining us. we want to hear about the results of the poll. u.s. public opinion -- you asked public opinion and we will show the first slide. you are asking should the court allow coverage of its own proceedings. give us some more insight. guest: this number is holding a very steady at nearly 2/3 of all american voters. support remains at nearly --

better than threei in five support cameras in the courtroom. host: you are asking for an exception. guest: i have never seen in any polling a stronger number for support for tv cameras in the courtroom. this is a key finding. gallup had a poll a month ago with 72% support. there is so much interest and excitement in of learning about how the court decides health care reform law that was passed in the last congress, supported by president obama. there's so much interest in that decision.

we're seeing four in five american voters wanting a onetime exception. if there is a time, this is the time for the onetime exception. these days, you see -- i have never seen such support recently. democrats, republicans, and independence agree. 51% of independents agree. that is strongly support. 80% plus, regardless of partisan views.

host: you set up the poll this way. guest: well, this question illustrates perfectly why the supreme court needs tv. it is the institution that needs tv. voters want tv. boardse the editorial and media would like tv. the supreme court needs to be. v. it cannot be in the court's interest to be viewed at like congress. i think it is true when decisions will be made about

measures that are as controversial matter how the court decides. host: you ask more broadly about supreme court job approval in this poll that you've done. host: put that in perspective. guest: that has dropped -- the hasn anexcellent and good dropped in the past 18 months. they are dealing with important issues. the citizens united decision was a good deal before june of 2010 when we last looked at these issues.

i think this is because of what we're talking about a moment ago. the supreme court is not taking charge of how it is reviewed by the public. we want to see if they are serious with cameras in the courtroom. by not taking that step, by allowing them to be taken interpreted, their job performance numbers are dropping sharply. i was a pollster and the implication going forward, likely implications -- they will make a bunch of controversial decisions within the next few months. the need for it one time exception is to demonstrate how serious they are and doing that demonstrating is very important.

the supreme court needs tv. we would like cameras in the courtroom and to be able to review oral arguments. host: new polling information from robert green, thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: we have a supreme court page included a letter about having cameras in the court. go to c- span.org/topics/supremecourt and you can get a lot of information there. joining us now is amy schatz from "the wall street journal." she tracks the fcc. explain how this case first came

about. guest: this came about because broadcasters were upset because they were getting indecency fines from the fcc. broadcasters became concerned about some of the fines and sanctions that they fcc was putting against them. there was a fox case in which ritchie saideole profane words. in this case, they said no, there were not getting a pass if somebody says the f-bomb, we will find nyou. fox took this to the supreme

court. the other case involved fleeting nudity on an abc show, "nypd blue." in this episode, a woman was taking a shower and a child cae me in and saw her bare rear end for a couple of seconds. that went to the court. host: so we wind up in the supreme court. guest: i'm not a supreme court reporter. you didn't have cameras in the supreme court. it was interesting. this is a case about in decency and nudity.

the justices said they did not want the words used. the justices were growing there broadcasters and the government about whether there is still a need to have the fcc be a cop and patrol the airwaves. fcc. the case on mthe tomorrow night, c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern, we will listen to the oral argument from the supreme court. they released the audio on fridays. we will capture that audio and put some pictures to it at present that to you at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. take us deeper into the arguments made by each side in the court this week. guest: broadcastsers are asking

the court to put aside. about 90% of americans subscribe to cable or satellite and they said it does not make sense to read these rules anymore because these rules don't apply to cable. the government says that is crazy and that you shouldn't do that. 10% of americans are watching this over the airwaves. radio falls under the same rules. host: what was the most interesting question? guest: it was across the board. the justices did not sound excited about tossing the regime. justice breyer was asking if it

was necessary to toss this out? justice kagan was asking about the first amendment part of this. it has been a little bit uneven. it was fine for abc to run " saving private ryan" but wrong for a station to run a documentary that used profanity. she asked if you have to be a steven spielberg to see these kinds of words on the air? host: there was one refusal. guest: sonya samar -- sonia sotomayor recused herself. host: john is a democratic caller. caller: it is and honest to be first.

i keep looking for mike invoice in the mail -- for my invoice. thank you. personally, i have no problem with nudity or with language. that is part of the free discourse. i don't think the supreme court has any business whatsoever editing language or nudity. i think it is a first amendment matter. is something raises my ire enough for you to consider a profane word -- between 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on television, that is one thing. but on the internet or facebook, i did not feel like the supreme court has any business -- they

are being unconstitutional in regulating this. guest: the fcc does not have any authority to police the internet. there are rules of things like child pornography. there are not any rules say you cannot take a picture of your body parts and put them up on youtube if you liked, if youtube will accept them. justice alito said, "is is making any sense? are we going to need these rules in a few years?" caller: good morning. i wanted to make the comment that i am in southern christian and i believe that people have the right to change the channel if they do not like what they hear or see.

when these ratings came out to where it said adult people 13 are -- or nudity, violence, language, all that was placed on these television shows. people should be aware that this is the content of the show. i have a granddaughter and stays with me. when she is around and this kind of program comes on, i turn the channel. i did not feel like they are appropriate. i cannot judge the whole world. then i have the right to bleep them out or turn my head and turn the channel if my granddaughter is around. i don't think the supreme court

has an issue with this. i think there will uphold the first commemorates to freedom of the press and freedom of speech. i think we have to understand that sometimes this is just a part of the world that we may not like, but to be a part of the world. guest: there are some issues. some people think there's a difference between having scripted nudity prescriptive profanity forces live profanity during an awards show or a football game when broadcasters are not expecting it. broadcasters wanted to get some clarity on a case. if a football player says something after a live game, they do not want to get fined for it. some people get offended by this and others do not.

they want some kind of expectation that these words will not be on the air when their children are watching. host: you remember this. this issue does the back a little it. bradley in north carolina. caller: i hope that the supreme court is taking in consideration the violence in a violent programs like wwe as well as the language and nudity issues, as well. guest: the fcc does not have any authority on violence. there is the restrictions on how much violent contact you can put on the air. host: why is that the case? guest: i am not sure. i think it has something to do

with congress given the authority. they have never tried to expand their portfolio to cover a violent entertainment. host: explain more about the fcc in terms of curse words. guest: that is the problem. it has changed over the years. there was a case involving a rebroadcast of a skit by george carlin known as the seven dead you cannotds say. in fact, there is -- broadcasters have fewer first amendment rights that newspapers or magazines because they are using a public resource.

limited first amendment rights and restrictions on that. the fcc enforcement came about because of that case. as people have complained, the agency has said this might be ok. the fcc uses a lot context. so broadcasters have no idea what is going on. i think the janet jackson thing was interesting. people were very offended by what happened at the super bowl halftime show when janet jackson -- justin timberlake ripped away part of her costume. more than 1 million people complained. host: sam, good morning.

caller: i have a couple of comments. back on your first segment about whether the supreme court should be able to tell lies, the biggest percentage said they should. i disagree with that. i think if the onetime thing, that might set a precedent. just like in congress with the tv cameras, i think we should have them. i watched a lot of that. the congressmen and congress' they are up there playing to the cameras, like hollywood actors. they are hollywood actors. i did not think they should be allowed in the supreme court. you can hear it on the radio,

whenever. about the fcc, 50 years ago, you cannot say the word "damn" or "hell" or any other will recall profane words in a movie. you cannot say that. those were the only profane words you could say in a movie before the mid to late 1960 's. that is when the rules, chang gt changed. it has to be in context. it has been a nation -- the rules have changed forever and ever. i know people came along and

this and that. most of the profound it comes with what you buy extra for cable, the max and the hbo and all of that. i am not a religious zealot. that has been -- that has had a detrimental affect on society as a whole because the kids have grown up in the cable generation with all the stuff thet didn't use todao be congress and the nation frowned upon. guest: community standards can change over the years. things you might have heard 20 or 30 years ago you hear these days.

this is something justice ginsburg brought up during oral arguments. children will not be shocked by some of these words because they hear them in the streets and at ball games and in movie theaters. some of this comes into the context of what the fcc does as standards change. the attorney to be a safe haven? host: one of your touches on sports -- one viewer touches on sports. guest: they don't like it. that is a problem. fox and nbc and cbs, you constantly are getting crowd shots of people in the holding up signs with dirty words or having players are people in the audience saying these things.

in the past, the fcc did not fine broadcasters for these things. that was a big reason why the broadcasters took this up to the court. host: what is the structure for monetary fines? guest: you can defined $325,000 for each incident. each station that ran a broadcast could get fined for that. the fcc has been inconsistent. sometimes they find stations where the complaint was filed. host: how often are court cases generated from this finding? guest: the fcc was not funny people millions of dollars.

after janet jackson, the fcc does serious about finding. they have been waiting for the supreme court and others to decide what to do. host: portland, oregon. caller: i appreciate some much for being able to be on the show. the point to comes to my mind in regards to the fcc -- i unhesitatingly do agree that there should be rules in place for profanity and for foul language. i don't think the majority of people would abuse that freedom. it just takes a handful to run it into the ground. when there is room for views of

any freedom that we might have that might be detrimental, someone will be useabuse it. we do need some rules and regulations. as far as the supreme court with some of the rules they have precedence is that they have set in the recent past and up to now, especially in regard to the corporation is a human being. and also they come at a certain age when they get to the supreme court that kind of throws us back. they have a tendency to go into the access of things with their biases and their prejudices and their bigotries. that is a part of the ruling, too.

supreme court justices need to be elected and not appointed by presidents. thank you. guest: there are people -- this is an issue that divides people. people either think it is ok or this is overblown. other people are offended at think this is not something good to have fun today. this is the balance the fcc has been trying to deal with. people to have different views on it. host: christie from redding, california. caller: i was calling because i feel that the cable companies have most of the program. just last week, it seems a lot

of shows are sexually oriented with adult humor, which is fine. but the commercials they put on are not regulated. so they are bringing up these different sexual things that your child is watching nat-geo and there is a taboo show with a ith two husbands and a girlfriend. then you have "two and half man." why is is not regulated? guest: commercials on tuesday -- i think indecency rules apply to them.

the broader issue is that advertising do not want to offend viewers. that is what you're not seeing indecent content in commercials. those tend to be racier. the fcc is not supposed to regulate for content and lost to the a dirty word or a nude body part -- unless it is a dirty word or nude body part. cable channels have more leeway. they can pretty much put on anything that they want. host: a perspective on movies. guest: there is not. the mpaa came up with a rating

system because they did not want the government to comment and start regulating their movies. that is one reason why jack valenti came up with a rating system so you have r-rated movies or whatever. you have tv-14, which is shows for kids over 14. the mpaa was successful in keeping government out of regulating movies. host: hi, mark. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was wondering if your guest had any information about low- power fm. it is a type of radio that serves smaller communities. i guess they froze applications for brand new low-power fm's.

host: thanks. guest: i know the fcc has done a few things to make it easier for a low-power fm stations to move forward. i have to apologize, i have not written about that recently. caller: good morning. in the tv -- the government saying that they want to teach the kids about the gay and stuff like that in the classroom at five years old. host: any thoughts? guest: i didn't understand the question. the government does not tell networks that you need to run this show or that show.

host: take us back inside the court. they did not use any curse words in court but it was quite colorful. guest: colorful for a supreme court case. they usually are dealing with much drier cases. there were talking about -- a lawyer was talking how nbc had gone complaints about the olympic broadcast in greece because they showed statues that showed a woman's nude breast and behind. the lawyers said this was kind of crazy. there are not merits do these kinds of things. we have a statue in the

courtroom and you can see her breasts and her behind. the justices looked over to a statue. host: eight justices reported on the case. guest: they dealt with this case if you years ago. we have had a few justices come in. we do not know how this will play out. it will be interesting to see. host: oral arguments will be released tomorrow. we will take it and put it on at 8:00 p.m. right here on c- span. we have a call from maryland, a democratic caller, helen. welcome to the program. caller: i am so glad that this

topic is on c-span. my comments are regarding the commercial that is constantly played. every evening i cannot focus because this commercial keeps coming on. i know the pharmaceutical companies are behind this. all we want to talk about is the commercial were these people have to have an erection. when my grandmother is in the house, i cannot believe my ears. i wonder if amy would comment on a commercial like this. thank you for your comments. uest: i don't think the fcc would consider this indies cents. -- would not consider this

indecent. it is an issue. these commercials are always on during the nightly news. to do something that offends quite a few viewers. viewer writes --r righ matt is calling from nashville. caller: we have a contest of committee standards versus free speech. i work with inner-city youth. for children, you learn the language by talking to other people. children learn by talking to adults. we have folks that are excited that they have the ability to swear. they do not realize the

unintended consequences that these children are learning. research shows if this trend continues, a large portion of american children if they want to learn english would have to be taught english in the same manner in which they teach spanish and french, making a complete breakdown of the language. there's a great first amendment rush. the impact it has on our children -- research shows the average communication and the amount of time between a child and adults, just a natural communication is less than five minutes a day. these kids are coming from a home with a vocabulary -- these kids are coming from a home or the average usage is between

500 and 800 words. some of the shows are so pathetic and stupid. we do everything we can to turn these kids around. this is the kind of support that we get. we want to do everything for children. start talking like adults and start acting like them. your first amendment rights is not abrogate them to teach the children this way. guest: both comments were merit in the court. it is important for broadcast tv to be a safe haven for people who do not want to hear coarse language. if you want to see lewd

rogramming, there are80 800 channels you can turn to. host: bea in san antonio, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am disappointed in our country. it has gone completely down all -- downhill. it hurts to see all the things you see on television. you cannot sit down to watch something with your kids without something coming on showing them how to have sex. it is sad that we did not have moral any more. this is sad for our children. i do not understand what happened to our country.

host: west chester, pennsylvania. caller: hi. how are you? my comment is related to the previous caller. tv and moviet -- th has played a great part in acceptance of certain crosswords. -- curse words. amy mention that the mpaa was given a great amount of focus on the supreme court to get into rating movies. how could people go about having a greater say into what goes into the content on tv, music

videos, and things like that? should they contact their congressmen, or try to get more of an influx so that they can influence the supreme court and whoever is responsible for making the rules for the language and content on the shows and everything? guest: there are a lot organizations that do talk to the studios or the tv networks about their concerns about what is on these movies or on these tv shows. one group spends a lot of time looking at what is in these movies and talking to the studios and to the networks about what is appropriate. the court cannot do anything. there is a case -- congress could pass rules but that is hard. these it thing to do would be to

ban together with people that are equally concerned like the television council or common- sense immediate to lend your voices to there's so you can have some kind of impact. host: our guest writes in walt " -- wall street journal host: do you what to add to that? guest: it will be interesting to see. there are millions of complaints

that a piled up at the agency. no matter what happens, you'll say the fcc moving for doing something and perhaps up holding some fines. host: ed in south carolina, an independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. the biggest thing that i would like to say -- we have gone to a place with the dumbing down of society. we have taken our eye off the ball when it comes to our kids. one of the things i know is i'm a father and i have two small kids. when you can turn your tv on and see shows that are cartoon programs that appear like they are cartoon program and they

have swearing words on their and your kid and you walk into the room and it is a cartoon show, these are things that are being missed by a lot of parents. parents are leaving their kids in these rooms and letting them watched these tv shows that appear to be normal. you go back in and look and you see your kit watching, your kid, thinking they're watching another show and thinking they may of changed a channel. the fcc needs to regulate it because i fear that when we first saw kids walk down the street with their pants up their behinds,