to deny a permit for the keystone oil pipeline. you can call in with your questions about this year's campaign to gans, director of the center for the american electorate. host: we have a lot to talk about this morning on the "washington journal" including the new report that rick santorum is now the leader in the iowa caucuses vote count. joining us on the phone is jennifer jacobs, the chief politics writer for "the des moines register."

guest: good morning. the party is not able to declare an outright winner. host: in your article, you said rick santorum is ahead by 34 votes. guest: that is true. he did take the lead. party officials were not able to get verified results from so many precincts. some of the precincts they were able to verify, there were typos and mistakes that shifted the votes by more than the margin of the final certified tally. they just cannot say if the results in those missing figures, if they would have shifted their race to romney. host: in the eight precincts, what are they going to do with them? it's the end of the road? guest: it is the end of the road to peary did iowa gop officials

were unbelievably dogged in trying to track down the precinct figures from all precincts. they were able to get all but eight. they believe that there never were official documentations from those eight precincts. without the official documentation, called for e's, they just cannot certify those precincts. it's never going to happen. host: so there's not going to be a winner in the iowa caucuses this year. guest: i believe that is correct. host: when will the official announcement come from the republican party? guest: at 8:15 iowa time, they will release the counts from every precinct. they have been very open in letting reporters see all the paperwork. they will open the doors to party headquarters this morning. host: jennifer jacobs, we look forward to getting an update

from you a little bit later at 9:15 eastern time. we will keep you updated on the story. thank you for joining us first thing on the "washington journal." guest: you are welcome. host: many of these papers lead with this story, as open " the washington times" thosdoes. host: we want to get your reaction to president obama rejecting this keystone

pipeline. the numbers for you to call -- you can also contact us electronically via e-mail, via twitter, and finally, you can make a comment and vote on facebook on whether or not you are in support of the keystone xl pipeline. the speaker of the house, john boehner, spoke about this yesterday. >> president obama is destroying tens of thousands of american jobs and shipping american energy security to the chinese. there is no other way to put it. the president is selling helped american jobs for politics. the president was given the

authority to block this project only, and only if he believes it's not in the national interest of the united states. is it not in the national interest to create tens of thousands of jobs in america with private investment? is it not in the national interest to get energy resources from an ally like canada, as opposed to some countries in the middle east? the president has said he will do anything that he can to create jobs. today, that promise was broken. host: "the financial times" also has the story on its front page. "usa today" -- competing editorials.

host: this is how they conclude their editorial. host: heather, an energy adviser to president obama, has a competing op-ed this morning --

zichal, an energy adviser to president obama, has a competing op-ed this morning. host: the first call up on the the president's decision on the keystone pipeline, rick on the

line for republicans, you are on the air. caller: yes, i have a major problem with president obama turning that down. we need the jobs in america. he has been not for the unions and everything that's hassuppord him for president. i am finally tired of everything being held up by this president of the united states. host: eagle river, wisconsin, ron, democrat, good morning to you. what do you think? caller: the guy who just called should think about whether he would like to have fresh water to drink. greati think it's a decision to slow this down. it does not seem like our energy policy is guided by common sense anymore by the republicans. they think, as long as there's

one little tiny gallon of oil in the ground, we should be going after it. our policy, as far as energy goes, we should be going in the other direction. they should be investing in green energy processes that are grenoble that we can use over and over again. i have a perfect example of this. arage now, my house, my gro , and all my hot water is fed by a pellet stove outside my house. it's energy efficient. it's very clean energy. these are the things that can be developed. it's made from wood scraps. it is renewable. it is not illegal. this is the direction we should be going. thank you. host: steve is a republican in virginia. good morning, steve. caller: yesterday, the congressional research council said all the years the united states has only used 17% of our

known recoverable oil. we are the no. 1 producer of oil on the planet. you can get the report on climate depot and peer review yourself. you still cannot get the raw data that was generated by michael mann and james hansen. host: what is your point, steve? caller: we have plenty of energy and there's no reason whatsoever. the guy who just called about the pellet stove, he is releasing carbon monoxide, which is poisonous. carbon dioxide is the most essential element to life on earth. host: nancy pelosi also spoke about this issue yesterday at a press conference. >> if the republicans care so much about the keystone pipeline, they would not have narrowed the president's auction by putting it on the timeframe that they did. if, in fact, the decision is as

you indicate. third of all, of this oil was always destined for overseas. it's just a question of whether it leaves canada by way of canada or leaves canada by way of the united states. without taking a position on the pipeline, i do not agree with the stipulation that this is oil going to china instead of the u.s. it was always going overseas. it was not for domestic consumption. that's an important point. the advertising is quite to the contrary. host: "the washington post" also leads with this story. johnson is an independent in athens, georgia. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. a couple of things. i was watching you guys this morning. it's really nice to have c-span. you guys are important. i appreciate you being on. also, just follow the money when

it comes to this energy game. it is always going to be wherever the money is going. i am somewhat concerned that we do not get the construction throughout this country straight down the mississippi. that might be a smart thing, especially with only 45 days to review it. i just want to say thank you to you guys. host: from tennessee is cal on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. this is a good example of what this administration is about in the first place. they have been tied down by the environmentalists since ever since the administration started. we had a lot more oil in tennessee that we could not grow because of the epa. we cry about everything else.

he says he is concerned about us. let me ask you something like that. when you start paying $3.25 or $4 or $5, he is really concerned about us? i do not think so. this pipeline was a very good idea. he has his hands tied by the environmentalists. host: "the houston chronicle," as well. you can see in it there. from "the washington times," this is their editorial this morning. host: we also have an editorial this morning from "the new york times" which says "a good call

on the pipeline." host: mary in north carolina -- robert on our independent line, what do you think? caller: light of the building pipeline and the northern states and that when they will not have to ship it so far? they can ship it to the northern states, instead of all the way from texas all the way up. host: charlotte, north carolina.

you can see the map of the proposed pipeline. two different maps there. charlotte, north carolina. joel is a democrat. caller: yes, thank you for accepting my call. about the pipeline, i do not think it is necessary right now. as far as job creation, president obama is trying to get the infrastructure line going. 2/3 of the american people told congress to pass that law. those jobs would have created a couple million jobs that i know of. peoplenfrastructure would have had to buy materials to do that work. the other companies would have to furnish materials. that is at least 3 million jobs. republicans in the congress refused to help. they blocked it.

they knew they would try to destroy -- they are destroying our country just to try to get one man out of our office. they better think what they are doing. thank you. host: you can go to facebook .com/cspan and you can vote on whether or not you think it's a good idea to have the pipeline. currently, it's about 60/40 or 70/30 on our facebook poll. matthew on the line for republicans, what do you think? caller: thank you for taking my call. the democrats talk about jobs. this is easy. this is a clear job creator. they do not want it because of the environmentalists. do you have a map of how much

pipeline's cost the country? it's ridiculous. there are so many miles of pipeline. they do not want this one pipe. i do not get it. host: the former governor of mississippi has an op-ed this morning in "the washington post." "why i freed 26 inmates" is the title of his of p-ed. he writes --

"my experience has been that this view is correct. about a third of the inmates were sent back to prison because of rules violations or infractions, but most worked very successfully during my terms." host: that is a little bit of bearber's op-ed this morning in "the washington post" and also in "the post" --

here is the commercial. >> oil billionaires attacking president obama. independent watchdogs called the president's record unprecedented. for the first time in 13 years, our dependence on foreign oil is below 50%. president obama kept his promise to toughen ethics rules and strengthen america's energy economy. host: this article from "the washington post" concludes that the president will hit the road for a three-day, five-state tour, making stops throughout campaign battleground territory. byron is a democrat in

louisiana. what do you think about the president's decision on the oil pipeline? caller: i tend to agree. first, thank you for accepting my call, peter. i was wondering if you were aware or if the public was aware that in the business section of our paper within the last month, they printed that the counties with the controlling interest -- also, a portion of the pipeline. it is going to china, where ever china wants to send it. they need to do a little fact checking and see who owns it and why they want to send it down to the gulf coast of texas and louisiana. that's all i have to say. thank you. host: you can see the map, the proposed pipelines, on the screen. 1,700 miles long. it would be about a $7 billion project to put the pipeline through the u.s.

700,000 perils of oil per day from alberta, canada, and it would extend to illinois. there's currently a pipeline from illinois to oklahoma. this would be an extension of that. art, augusta, georgia, on the line for independents. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think it was a bad decision to not go forward with the pipeline. you made a reference to this in "the wall street journal" and i have a comment about that, as well. this article in "the wall street journal" -- is he an expert on this? two, "the wall street journal" is what? for big business. look up the description. i think that's a joke. i also wanted to make a comment briefly on the haley barbour issue with the inmates. that's kind of sketchy there. i am not for that necessarily, but we need to take individual

cases and really look at those cases. the caller who said you need to look deep into this, yes, you better look the people we need to get the food stamp president out of office. thank you. host: "the wall street journal" which we have not read yet this morning. had anshington postimes" article against it. here is "the wall street journal."

"and that their rallies against keystone xl will keep the carbon in the ground."

host: that is "the wall street journal" editorial this morning. the national resources defense council will be here a little later to take your calls on this issue. from "the baltimore sun" this morning to a new south carolina polls. mitt romney, 32%. gingrich, 23%. rick santorum, 14%. ron paul, 14%. rick perry, 5.6%. a new national poll. mitt romney, 30%. gingrich, 27%. santorum, 15%. ron paul, 13%. rick perry, 4%. that is in "the new york post" this morning. this is looking at the house of

representatives and election 2012. a rough estimate of the current house fields. stu rothenberg writes -- he goes on to write that "the democrats' best hope of shaking up the 2012 elections seems

increasingly remote. one of her strengths and we this is, mitt romney is a relatively safe choice -- whatever his strengths and weaknesses, mitt romney is a relatively safe choice." "democrats would make gains in the low double digits, leaving them still about a dozen seats short of the majority." if you are interested in reading the whole thing, rollcall.com. back to your calls on the pipeline. this call comes from topeka, kansas. lou, a republican. how close would it come to kansas? caller: western kansas. one question has to do with the

offer that this would cross. where is the water going to come from to pump the oil sands from canada to texas? this is naturally dry country. we need something to put in the pipe the size -- pipe besides sand and oil. the second question is, somebody -- i have heard inflated numbers on both sides from the range of 8,000 jobs to20,000 jobs. surely somebody has a better estimate than the political people who wants to make a case for the big numbers or the little numbers but i hope you ask somebody those two questions. where is the water going to come from to put in the pipe to boost the oil? how many real jobs are there?

thank you. host: if you are just joining us now, "the des moines register" reported this morning that the iowa caucuses are up in the air, that rick santorum is currently leading by 34 votes, but there are eight precincts out that cannot be certified. therefore, at this point, they are not declaring a winner. 9:15 eastern time, the republican party in in what is opening its doors and holding a press conference. from politico, the debt ceiling going up despite a house vote. "the resolution of disapproval, which passed the house, will

ultimately have no practical impact. both the house and senate and the chance to block the increase in a multi tiered process approved last august after an acrimonious debate. if both chambers passed a resolution, and there's a slim chance of that happening in the democratic senate, there would not be the 2/3 votes needed to overturn a presidential veto." that is from politic

host: again, that's from politico. from pennsylvania, barry is a democrat. what do you think of the president's decision on the x.l. pipe line? caller: i agree with him 100%. frul, i want to thank the fans. i've been a longtime listener and i remember when mr. lani was sitting in your seat. but i wanted to tell you, this

oil is one of the fifthiest oils we have. do we really want to pipe that through our country if there's a break, it could cause consequences. our republican friends, at any expense is unnecessary, i agree with the caller earlier that we need to go for green alternatives, and with the campus republican, i agree with him also. how are we going to run the oil through those lines and at what expense? so thank you for taking my call. host: grudge report. the news that gingrich says she could end her husband's career with a singlal interview. she sat down with abc news' brian ross for two hours and her explosive revelations are set to rock the trail but now a

civil war has erupted inside the abc network and an insider claims on exactly when the interview will air. they determined it would be unethical to run the mayorann gingrich interview so close to the south carolina primary, a curious decision, one insider argued since the network has aggressively been reporting on other candidates. >> newt's wife of 18 years explained the to esquire last year. in reference to the article. in august 2010 mary ann gingrich sat down with "esquire" magazine and this is a long, long article. in case you're interested in reading it.

search mary ann gingrich- "esquire" and that is from august, 2010. and from the hill newspaper, gingrich's daughter try set tone before the interview with ex-wife. they sent an open letter to the leadership addressing rumors the network was prepared to air an interview with the former speaker's second ex-wife quote the failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for anyone involved and anyone who has had that experience understands it is a personal tragedy filled with gets and sometimes differing memories of evens. kathy will you bers and jackie cushman said in a letter circulated by the campaign. we will not say anything negative about our father's ex-wife. he has said before privately and publicly that he gets any pain he may have caused in the fast people he loves. this article came out at 9:30

p.m. eastern time last night. one more abc story. and this is another brian ross story, romney parts millions -- parks millions in cayman islands. mitt romney has personal wealth and investment wealth funds set up in the cayman islands a notorious caribbean tax haven. they say -- his spokespersons say he follows all laws. if you're interested, go to abc news and read the whole thing. boston globe on their front page this morning has this article that few americans pay full tax rate. you can see here todd of the globe staff writes in fact nearly half of u.s. taxpayers will probably pay no taxes at all for 2011 including $24,000 in the top 1% of income

according to the tax policy center. eureka springs, arkansas. back to your calls on the president's decision on the pipeline, what do you think? caller: well, thank you, c-span, for taking my call. i would like to remind all my good american citizens that reside in the states that would be affected by this proposed pipeline to think of this one fact, the number one economic business most profitable has been the oil industry. and my reminder is that exxon valdez, the people up in alaska have still not been paid for the damages, so the most precious resource we have is our water, and that aqua forin the midwest state, you can't mutt a price on it, and if we can't get the citizens paid and conferencen stated for the exxon valdez damage, how do you

think once the pipeline ruptures and gets into that aqua per, you're going to have no alternative. think. good day, america. host: arizona, mike, republican line, what do you think about the pipeline? caller: well, i just turned your conversation on and immediately reminded of the energy crisis in the early 1970's where the alaskan pipeline among other things came out from that, and that was supposed to solve the nation's shortage of oil. now we know that that pipeline did not actually serve the country. my understanding is it went east. now, also at the same time we were always reminded,, too, through the years that for instance the oil producing nations met in vienna a few

years ago,, too, as the chairman of the oil producing countries indicated that they got together to seek a way to lower the prices. i think from that time on we could pretty much forget the so-called supply and demand laws of economics. and there's more from politics, greed and self-serving interests than any events. so i don't have anything -- president obama so much as it is, it kind of stinks. and to me, i don't see how it's going to solve any of our energy problems. thank you very much and congratulations on the job you're doing on c-span. host: another poll out of south carolina. this is sponsored by politico, and you can see mitt romney has

37% of the vote, newt gingrich 30% and ron paul at 11%. from miguel, this twitter comment on the pipeline. barack obama isn't more interested in politics and jobs and energy. he's interested in this planet having a future. albuquerque, betty, good morning. caller: yes. good morning sir. thank you for taking my call and thanks for a great show. goodness. i don't know where to begin on this one. congratulations to the administration. congratulations to the "new york times." this pipeline would have crossed eight or nine states. it would have crossed, if i'm not emistaken, according to many articles i read about 2,000 rivers. the potential for a disaster would have been phenomenal. and oh, that this administration were tied up by environmentalists.

up until this point this administration's environmental stance has been somewhat abysmal. drilling has preceded in the gulf after the ballpark fwp disaster and we're -- after the b.p. disaster and we're led to believe all is fine down there although that's not the case. and we're led to believe drilling off the coast of alaska -- as far as energy goes, let's put our energy into education, our infrastructure is falling apart. we need bridges rebuilt, public buildings rebuilt. we need more schools. a potential out there for job creation is phenomenal. and it doesn't have to go into oil. thank you so much, sir. host: thank you for calling in from "the new york times" this morning -- david axelrod, longtime political strategist for barack obama is already making plans after the election and they do

not involve another trip to iowa.

host: and that again is in "the new york times" this morning. from georgia, susan, what do you think about the pipeline and the president's decision? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my interest would be in finding out how much environmental roots receive from opec and if you finding. and i've been told that they don't have to make that available. and i was just wondering if anyone out there knows? appreciate you taking my call. host: thank you for calling in. by the way, the associated press is reporting that abc news has not indicated what gingrich's ex-wife said in the interview. but the network planned to release excerpts ahead of

thursday night's g.o.p. debate and "nightline" broadcast so they might not be showing the entire interview but will release excerpts. -- "why in the world would republicans think he would say yes?" that's katrina the san francisco. this is sue from ohio. good call from president obama. the 350eu7 line would be dirty and dangerous. the green energy would create 10 times under jobs plus reduce the price of i'll. -- the price of oil. >> and the pipeline jobs it would create would be temporary. the fuel would be sold to asia and europe where they capture the most attractive prices for their poisonous addictive product. and another -- the president does not want jobs. he wants an entitlement society

. host: last call on this topic comes from john. on our democrats line. caller: good morning. this is john in oklahoma. host: yes, sir. caller: talking about this pipeline. i'm an old 72-year-old oil driller myself. i worked on them oil drilling rigs a lot ever since i was real young. and i know about oil. and i know about these refineries and pipelines. there's one running -- that pipeline if they laid it would

have come within five miles of where i live in oklahoma. and the reason in canada, and they want to bring this pipeline all the way to houston is not to benefit the united states of america, we got all kind of refineries north of houston, tulsa, oklahoma about 1,000 miles we got one of the largest refineries in the world. we got other refineries in oklahoma and other places in the midwest. the reason they want to take it to houston is to put it on the world market to the highest bidder. it's not to help the united states. they are trying to sell the american people a bill of goods. as they would safe, i didn't fall off an old log or come in on a tater wagon. and i know what's happening. they want to sell it on the world market. if they wanted to help the united states, they'd stop here tulsa north of houston.

host: all right. john. thank you for calling in. finally this twitter comment by representative barbra lee who tweets in putting our environment ahead of politics. very pleased the obama administration rejected the g.o.p. rider to approve keystone pipeline. now fuve a close watcher of c-span, especially some of our state white house dinner coverages, you've probably seen a c-span interviewer talk with this woman, nancy clark. she was the florist at the white house from the carter administration up until 2009. she died yesterday, january 14 in richmond of a respiratory ailment. she had just come out with a memoir of her years in the white house as well. about her first -- it's called "our first ladies" or "my first ladies," and she was the

florist of the white house. nancy passed away at 66 years old in richmond, virginia. we're going to return to the xl pipeline discussion in about 45 minutes with the defense council but first representative joe wilson from south carolina, a republican. we'll be right back. >> leading up to saturday's south carolina primary. c-span's road to the white house keeps you with candidates all week. >> every time you turn around, this is an administration which is against american business and american jobs and american energy, and then they seem surprised that they are putting

people on food stamps and think it's an accident of nature. >> there's no way we can compete making cars. you're making b.m.w.s here and selling them around the world. we can manufacture -- [applause] >> this idea, we can't manufacture. that's wrong. we can compete. foreign companies are coming here in right to work states. by the way, you want states to have more jobs? support right to work. >> candidates get their message out meeting voters. >> there's role for every one of us in life.

it's just finding out where that is. and find more video from the campaign trail at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> he argued a couple of things. he argued american policy towards japan in 1940 and 194 is was rather provocative and perhaps in a jufe nile way he said we're putting pins in a rattlesnake and eventually the rattlesnake will strike back. >> saturday night on "afterwards" on book tv, george nash on executive branch decisions starting with the second world war and also jeff charlotte on religion on america. sunday night at 8:15, jay weather conditionsler on understanding our constitution by looking at the odd clauses.

book tv every weekend on c-span 2. "washington journal" continues. host: and now joining us on the "washington journal" is representative joe wilson a republican of south carolina. representative wilson, we were talking with our viewers this morning about the x.l. pipeline decision by the president. if you could weigh in on that. guest: certainly. thank you for raising the issues. i've enjoyed listening to the comments and it's clear to me, it's jobs. i had the opportunity to visit alberta, canada, and i know the issue of jobs in that the tires which are used in the earth moving equipment there in alberta made in lexington, south carolina, we have 300-500 people making the tires. it concerns me. these are nice tires, about $12 feet high and cost about $60,000 each. so sadly what the president is

doing is affecting jobs not just in south carolina and grateful the engines for the equipment that carry the oil sands are made the the county i will be representing. so over andor again i think people will find out that this is really sad the president's actions, because peter, for every dollar spent in alberta canada on the oil sands, 90 cents is spent back in the united states on services and supplies. this is not a good decision. i am really appalled. and then i even found out recently that indeed the pipeline goes from alberta to houston and then goes through other transmission pipelines to north adjusta, south carolina. to atlanta, georgia. this helps, offensively, within north america to develop the energy resources we have. it makes us less dependant on other countries. this is such a win-win, and i'm

very disappointed in the president. i can't imagine why he's come to this conclusion according to the "washington post," he's blaming the republicans. host: for the deadline. guest: for the deadline. but for three years this has been studied. there's no safer way to transport oil than by pipeline, and we've been doing it for well over 100 years, and whiff tens of thousands of miles of pipeline and with the new technologies indeed this is the safest way. and i'm very disappointed, because so many people are not going to have jobs. they can have jobs without one cent of government money. host: i also want to ask you about the vote of dis approval on the debt ceiling. what's the practical effect of that? the debt ceiling has to be increased, right? guest: i'll admit it's symbolic. but the speaker, john boehner,

he wanted the issue to be voted upon. that's a great disappointment. because the senate has not voted on the different legislation that we have proposed for creating jobs. but to let the american people know that the republicans are making every effort to try to reign in the borrowing and spending which now on the debt we have exceeds the value of the american economy. it's over $16 billion. the president i well remember came to the conference at the capital in february of 2009 and said that the deficit that we had, the borrowing that we had was not sustainable. it was $600 billion on the date that he was speaking, and sadly, peter, i said since that time, even that year, he doubled it to over a trillion dollars. and his spending since that time truly has put

extraordinary debt on the people of our country. host: you mention speaker boehner, there's a recent column calling you one of the 12 republican thorns in the speaker's side. >> well when the speaker is right i'm happy to point it out. but don't hurt his reputation but when he was writing on the surge of troops in afghanistan i pointed that out. but indeed, i'm voting as i believe the people in the second district of south carolina -- i am voting as i believe they would want me to vote. now sometimes the leadership would not like this, but the bottom line, i am representing the people of south carolina. host: and speaking of south carolina, we're going to put the numbers on the screen if you would like to talk with representative joe wilson and put aside our fourth line for south carolina residents. speaking of south carolina,

you've got a lot going on down there. have you endorsed in the presidential race? and would you like to this morning? guest: well, i was the state chairman for governor paw plenty 69 when he withdrew i have become uncommitted. so i will remain uncommitted. but i am so proud of the people of south carolina. since 1985, the republican of south carolina has been correct in selecting the nominee of the republicans and later the president. in the community i represent, nearly 75% of the people voting in the primary on saturday will be transplants. most of the transplants are from the midwest and northeast. mid level executives. people have come with a positive attitude. then we get to hilton head. on c-span two, 95% of the

people voting in the primary will be transplants with about half of the people being from ohio. so we feel like we're a composite america and we should have nearly half a million people participate on saturday. host: congressman wilson what do you think about the fact that the state is going to be penalized for having an early primary? >> well, i regret that. guest: because actually -- and we love florida. but it was florida that forced this armyy vote. i wish it were later. because it's been difficult, particularly during the holiday season to organize campaigns but the bottom line is they are organized. the people of south carolina are engaged. we are so engaged that we want to nominate someone who can be victorious in november. host: i want to give you one more opportunity to endorse a candidate before we go to calls.

guest: on primary day i'm really looking forward to mr. peter the ambassador from the slow vac republic visiting south carolina to observe the election. i'll be taking him to precincts in the district i represent. columbia, aiken, so this is an international situation. and people around the world are looking at south carolina, looking at the political process of our country, and it's exciting for me. for the people of south carolina and the people of the united states. host: first call up from -- for congressman, a democrat. hello. caller: hello. i am disappointed with you making the comment about the president because of the choice about the pipeline. isn't there any other job plans that the republicans can come one besides that which is nothing but a political floy say we came up with a job plan? that costs taxpayer money. what was wrong with us using

the taxpayer money to help rebuild infrastructure, which is crumbling here in america? what is wrong with that? that's more needed than this ridiculous pipeline which would be temporary for jobs once it's done built and the majority of the jobs would be in canada. guest: i'm sorry. you're just wrong. and i appreciate you calling in, but this doesn't cost the taxpayers one cent. we're talking about long-term jobs. as i indicated, the tires are going to be built for the earth-moving equipment, and this would be long-term. and it would create good jobs, and we know the engines being built in aiken county, south carolina, this is long-term. and the jobs are here in the united states. that's why i hope you'll look into it. because the president is just dead wrong. because threes jobs that are created in the united states without any government money at all.

and in fact, it would generate tax revenue because people would have jobs and then we would have money so then we could address what you have correctly. host: next caller. guest: special election 2001. host: vienna, virginia here in the suburbs. go ahead, kenny. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to make a comment. i am in favor of the pipeline but doing something like that in the absence of regulations is irresponsible. and i'm also wondering why everything is not on the table. why the hard left and hard right positions can't find a way to meet in the middle and comp nies november country forward. guest: i share your concern. in fact on energy issues, i've been working with another to promote mod yooler nuclear

reactors. and we have had a republican and democrat working group on all the above energy. so there has been an example of this. i worked with congressman neal abacrombi now the governor of hawaii in promoting an all new energy plan, and there is extraordinary needed regulation of pipelines, and that's why they are the safest form of transporting fuel in our country. but the regulations are in place, and i'm really excited in nebraska itself. constant lee terry has taken a real lead in this. i hope you go to his website. you'll see where he explains regulations and safe guards for the people of nebraska. . .

all science indicates this -- that placing this where the nuclear testing has previously occurred, this is not going to be an area that will be developed. the people in the immediate area of yucca mountain support the storage of waste. but it is created not just in

ksk. i believe 23 other states are at risk because the president has not come up with an alternative to yucca mountain. host: two of our twitter followers send us that kodak has filed for bankruptcy. and senator rob roy in -- and we go to roy in virginia. caller: i love the way democrats call this a do-nothing congress, but when you pass a bill, reid refuses to vote on it and president obama says i'm already ready to veto it. you take the pipeline. that's a way to create jobs and lower energy prices. gasoline at the pump, $3.25 a

gallon. fuel oil, $4.50 a gallon. america has just fallen to 10th in economic freedom, canada has moved up to sixth. america is 10th in economic freedom and nobody seems to care. america has no jobs, nobody seems to care. it seems like it is all good as long as obama is president, even though it is not good because he is the do-nothing, good president. >> thank you very much. richmond, that's where my family originated. i'm proud of richmond, virginia. we're also proud of eric cantor, our leader. that's why we have passed 30 bills which would actually create jobs and create an environment for jobs. we'll keep making this to let them know that the house of representatives sincerely cares. we have 25.3 million people that

want a job that don't have a job in the united states. sadly in the president's agenda, he stated to sky rocket energy costs. this has a dramatic impact on the people i represent. i represent the wealthiest people on earth at hiltonhead, but not far away i represent some of the poorest people in north america. they must be able to commute to work. we must be able to reduce oil, gas prices, energy costs for the people that i represent who commute. so i think the policies are clear that the president would -- this would sky rocket energy costs. host: we have a caller from chester.

do you know where chester is? guest: i certainly do. host: i punched the button. we'll have to move on. william in cleveland, ohio. hi, william. caller: i'm concerned about the eefficiency of the pipeline. i believe cleveland, ohio is one of the original refineries. obviously the rockefellers, standard oil. i believe in regional. i think it is safer. i believe we should not take the chance of the pipeline. i think congress demonstrated that. as far as south carolina and the republican candidates, i, as many are in south carolina, a

christian fundamentalist or evangelical. i have certainly considered bob jones university. i think it would be a good host for debate. first of all, i cannot see governor romney being accepted by christians. that concerns me that we have someone of that caliber with that type of mind set and the flip-flopping over the years. so i'm still struggling to find a candidate as a christian. guest: the people of south carolina are looking at the issues. we are focused on jobs, creating jobs. our state actually has come under assault from the current administration. we were very thrilled.

i was there for the boeing. then this administration filed a lawsuit that the plant could not open. ultimately in the district i represent, the tubing for the jetliners made by seduce -- zus, the president was making an effort that would destroy nearly 8,000 jobs in south carolina. so the issue people are foke focused on in our state are jobs. then back again, the savannah river site, the president creating havoc in terms of our addressing the very pressing issue of nuclear waste. host: if you were not with us at the beginning of the program, first off this morning on "the washington journal" we talked about a new exclusive report that the caucus in iowa is unresolved. rick santorum currently ahead by

34 votes. there are eight precincts that are uncountable. 25% at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. the iowa g.o.p. will hold a press conference to talk about whether or not they are going to certify a winner in this election. weeling keep you -- we'll keep you updated as the morning goes. justin, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a self-described libertarian . i want to say i appreciate you taking these calls. it is tragic in our political structure there is a vilinization from the other side. i guess that you are not a cartoon character, you are not a comic book character. i appreciate that we differ on a lot of things, but i appreciate you standing up for what you believe. congressman paul made the point

several times that these cuts that are over 10 years which are $1 had you been hundred million a year, are -- $100 milling mill a year are not real cuts because our debt grows every month. what do you see working without hurting the people that get these benefits? where do we see a positive impact on our country with a real cut in the debt? thank you, sir. i appreciate your taking the time to answer these questions. guest: i would like to see an effort made. and we did with caps and balance. i would like to give credit to one of our freshman in the congress, mulvaney. this would be to reduce the size of government back to 2007. we want people to have a safety net.

we don't want people to fall through the cracks. we need to reduce the level of borrowing. this truly, with the increase in the debt limit to such an extraordinary level puts senior citizens at risk. i'm concerned the value of the dollar is at risk because of the borrowing. obviously i'm excited. we have six grandchildren. we have a new one coming in july. i'm concerned about the debt being placed on the young people in our country. people in universities and colleges need to look carefully at the extraordinary explosion of spending that's occurred in this administration. i know they would then be voting for change in december. >> this tweet has come in for you congressman wilson. the g.o.p. had raised the debt limit seven times for bush and paid for nothing in eight years as president bg obama came into office. >> i would agree, indeed, it is a bipartisan problem scomprks it

needs to be addressed. i, in particular, believe that we see this year, actually a discretionary spending has gone down because of the republicans in the house. this is the second year, i believe, in 30 years. we do need to be, and we are cognizant that there are people that need a safety net. so the reductions that we're proposing take into account that there are reduction ns government. so i know we are equally accused of not being sensitive. of course we are. these are our friends, neighbors, and families. >> next call for congressman wilson. we have 20 minutes left. andre. democrat, florida. caller: i wavent you to know that i have been affected by the pipeline, and that pipeline will

only generate 6,500 temporary jobs. i have already had problems with bills. the creation of this pipeline could be damaging to the aqu ifor. no one in the republican party has come out to say that those things are unacceptable. guest: someone who has really gotten involved in this area is ron shimkus and the other representative in this area. these are not temporary jobs. these are permanent jobs.

michelin tire corporation. these are 60,000 each. we want to sell more. we want to create jobs. m.t.u. in akin county, south carolina, graniteville, these are made long-term for the recovery. there are 700 billion parrels available to the united states. it is good for alberta, good for canada, good for america, and these are long-term jobs. it can be done safely. i appreciate you looking into it. i hope you'll look further. you will see this is very positive. it is a win-win. our number one trading partner, canada, in the united states. host: "politico" has a new poll out in south carolina. mit romney, gingrich has 30% of

the vote, and then ron paul. that's a poll out in south carolina. newt gingrich has bumped up a little down in your state. why is that? >> well, he's our next door neighbor, georgia, of course. but he's well thought of. he's a visionary. i would indicate, too, though that it is understating the strpt of senator rick santorum. he has family that lives in hiltonhead, his brother, dan, and his sister, missy. so he's well thought of in south carolina. congressman barrett is leading his campaign. we have strong candidates. host: do you think the potential for him to be declared the winner or considered the winner of the iowa caucusses could

help? guest: i think so. truly, a caucus is difficult in this regard. in that, i much prefer what south carolina is going to be doing. that is, we have a primary. it's open 7:00 to 7:00 on saturday. it will be run by the state. i want to give credit to the senate, to the speaker of the house, bobby harold. they are certainly pushed for there to be a state-run primary so that the people of the united states around the world would know it is correctly being followed. they work hard to make sure this is an open primary to the people of the united states. host: is this an open primary? guest: we do not register for primaries in south carolina.

host: anyone can register? guest: you must be registered 30 days in advance. it is a wide-open primary. the reason why it has become a wide-open primary was the presidential primary. we were receiving votes in the rural community, but nobody would identify themselves. we had the presidential primary, and suddenly we had lists of people. from that in 2010, now every state-wide official, all 11 of south carolina-elected officials state-wide are now republicans. the first time in 134 years. host: our representative wilson is our guest. we have a caller from north carolina.

caller: if it is not newt gingrich or ron paul, i believe i will stick with who we got. i think younger people in the government -- guest: thank you. hey, we're proud of north carolina. they have a republican senate for the first time in 30 years. i believe the technology is clear, that the safest technology, todd, will be used for the development of this pipeline. it would not make sense. it would not make sense to have a pipeline that is not of the latest and highest technology. whether it is above ground or below ground, i have faith in the engineers that are putting this together. it will be safe. i believe in november there will be a clear choice between what i believe are the failed policies

of our current president. sadly, we have had unemployment over 8%, and it is currently at 8.5%. we can do better. i believe any one of the candidates, including your choice in south carolina, would do better than the current president. host: g.o.p. always prosmses fiscal thift, but gets in office and spends like there is no bottom in the well." guest: i have to tell i, that's not true. you can look at the budgets that we propose. i remember working with the republican steady committee, which is a conservative bloc. we would have a budget, and it was significant reductions in spending. that's just not true at all. spending truly is engrained in

the idology of the democratic party. they believe in big government. i understand that. i am not being mean-spirited about it. we believe in limbed government. we tried to pass the balanced budget amendment. i hope she looks at that. 49 states have a balanced budget amendment, but the democrats defeated that last month. that's just not correct. host: you know where donald, south carolina is? guest: oh, yes. caller: you guys got us into a

war that we've never been inment can you answer that -- been in. can you answer that for me. guest: i will point out when the president is correct or when he is incorrect, i will point that out, too. i believe the th president's policies have not been good, especially for south carolina. this is a direct assault. whether it be at boeing or yucca mountain. the president has made efforts to destroy jobs in our state. i am so glad that in donaldville you will have an opportunity to meet the candidates. i am thrilled you will have an opportunity to see a list of stops across the stace where you have an opportunity to meet with

the candidates running for president of the united states. host: bob little university does not seem to be -- bob hill university does not seem to play as big a part as it has in the past. guest: they have one of the finest education departments in the united states. they train a large number of teachers who are at schools throughout the united states. i am proud of bob jones university in greenville, south carolina. host: what's the population of south carolina? guest: 4.4 million. host: how many do you expect to vote? guest: we have about half a million people. it is a broad cross section of the people of our state. it is a composite of america.

we have people from every state, virtually every country who live in our state and they have come because of the climate, the lower taxes. we welcome more people. we want more transplants to locate in south carolina. host: do you have any idea what the economic impact is of holding this primary in south carolina? guest: i am glad you asked. there was a question whether the taxpayer funds should pay for the primary, but it has more than paid for itself. $11.3 million has been spent on television alone. i know, too, the hospitality industry, so important to mirtl beach, hilton head, columbia, that the hotels are full with political correspondents, campaign workers, volunteers. we have volunteers for all the candidates that have come into the state. every corner has someone with a

sign. it is very uplifting. host: this tweet from tony, "joe wilson did you sign the noquist pledge?" guest: i did sign the no tax pledge. the problem in washington is not that there are too few taxes and too little revenue, it is too much spending. by looking at how we can adjust spending, that's how we can adjust fiscal responsibility. i appreciate governor norquist. he has made a relevant positive difference. in terms of selling overseas or refined products, it is ironic. the president decided to sky rocket energy costs. by doing that, inadvertently they didn't mean torks they have

made gas in our state economical where we produce so much it can be sold overseas. it is unironic, the unintended consequence of the president. host: next call from rome, georgia on our democrat line. caller: we need jobs on the best coast and the east coast and every place in between. the bottom line is the democrats, the republicans, obama, bush, all the rest of them, they have never worked together. they are like the cripts and the bloods, no different, the red and the blue. the people are suffering. what the people need, is the people need to revolt against this system and vote these guys out of office. he called obama a liar and he's screaming lies through his face. bob jones is not a good college. it is a racist college founded

on race. this whole country is racist. guest: i disagree. i have faith in america. we're an exceptional country. indeed god has played a huge role blessing our country, blessing our people. i wish you knew more, and that is, we do work together on issues. congressman jim claiborne, he has been a real champion for the savannah river site. he and i work together to create jobs and create an opportunity for energy research, hydrogen fuel research. so we work together. i'm really proud of congressman cliborne's efforts along the i-95 corridor. i worked with him when i was in the state senate to create road systems so we could create

opportunities for the people of south carolina whoever they are, whatever color they are. we don't look at it that way. i'm really grateful that we have positive examples of working together. i hope you can truly look into this. you will see there are positive efforts of democrats and republicans trying to help and certainly promote the people of the united states. host: jerry is a republican from springfield, oregon. you are on the republican line. caller: i have a question. why couldn't you build a refinery up next to the border line so there wouldn't be an environmental problem? thank you. guest: i know the cost of building refineries is extraordinary. we have the refining capability in houston and multiple refineries in which to refine the product. as i mentioned, i was thrilled to find out that then it goes

into pipelines that go to atlanta, georgia, go to north augusta and aiken county, which i'll be representing. what occurs, that reduces the cost. that is, if we have greater cost, supply and demand, then it reduces the cost. i see this as a positive system which is good for canada, our number one trading partner, and to good for the united states. host: a call from ohio. caller: would you or your republican colleagues be willing to introduce into the house of simpson bowles resolution into the deficit issue, and if not, why not? guest: i wouldn't oppose.

i'm happy to take votes. in the simpson proposals of dramatic reductions in spending, to me -- again, i'm not averse to taking a vote. i want the american people to know i want my constituents from achen, lexington, columbia, to know what my position is. i would actually favor a vote on the simpson bowles proposal. host: how would you vote? guest: i believe as you raise taxes you create an environment that destroys jobs. taxes are not the way to promote a creation of jobs in our country. we need to reduce spending. this can be done.

host: monks corner, south carolina. go ahead, walton. caller: representative wilson, i am so glad i got in touch with you. i am a retired colonel, recently, four months ago. i believe you are a competent man. i have a problem, a question of integrity. i believe you side-stepped the question earlier. i was disappointed of you having a military back gruned -- background that you chose the form of the state of the union to use fighting words. you and i both being from the south. my mother did not allow us to use the word "liar." those were fighting words. i think as a military officer you represented your lack of president for him, and i think it has -- your lack of respect for him, and i think it has race

. you did it to the president in a national forum. host: that was a couple years ago. caller: i think he side-stepped the question. host: congressman wilson. guest: i am proud of the president. on the evening that i had a town hall, that evening i spoke to rahm emanuel. i apologized as a gentleman one time. they accepted the apology to the credit of the president. but like ronald reagan, the next day when the media asked about this issue, he said the apology has been accepted. the agreement is to discuss the issues, and that's what i'm doing. and then the next day they asked the president, he said the same thing. the next day the vice president was asked about the issue. he said, i know joe wilson.

i know he has made his apology. we need to turn the page. i have turned the page, and i am happy to discuss issues. i believe we need change in november. it is all about the issues and it is about creating jobs in our country. host: several callers have brought up that statement you made at the state of the union. it is something you get regularly? guest: i hear it from people. it was not the state of the union. it was the health care take-over speech. it was not the state of the union. hey, there's no excuse to interrupt anyone. so i, as a gentleman, i apologized one time. i give the president -- rahm emanuel, can you imagine, i'll give him credit. they accepted the president. as the vice president said, i know joe wilson. i've traveled to iraq with joe wilson. in fact, my son is the attorney

attorney of south carolina, allen wilson, and a good friend of his, and i hope i don't ruin his reputation is beau biden of delaware. we in south carolina are very proud. michelle obama, her family is originally from georgetown, south carolina. they were neighbors of my mom and dad who prior to passing away lived in mccellenville, south carolina. there are relationships here. they are not personal. we need to discuss issues. host: your son, who did he endorse anyone? guest: yes, he did. he endorsed governor john huntsman. of course governor huntsman withdrew this week. we're happy to be involved. sometimes we win, sometimes we don't make it through. host: joe wilson, a republican from south carolina.

we have two more segments left here on the "washington jufrpblt" we will be looking at a new voter survey out of american university with curtis gans. that's later in our program. we'll keep an eye on the iowa situation, whether or not they hold a press conference and whether or not we can get news out of that. coming up, we'll continue our discussion on the xl pipeline. if you want to go to our facebook page, you can vote on whether or not you support the keystone xl pipeline at cspan. no hyphen in c-span. we'll be back with the national resources defense council. >> checking on the headlines at 8:33 a.m. eastern. politics. newt gingrich speaking earlier on "today" says he's still the best conservative alternative to

mit romney. he went on to say, if you look at your own poll i'm within 5 points of beating romney in south carolina. when asked about a report in the des moines register today saying a canvas of the g.o.p. caucusses shows santorum defeated romney, newt gingrich said santorum is a fine person but running well behind in south carolina. the south carolina primary is saturday, january 21. the florida republican primary is scheduled for january 31. president obama is headed to florida today to talk about a plan for boosting u.s. tourism near orlando. we'll have life coverage of the president's remarks at 12:30 eastern time. those are some of the latest headlines. >> the spiritors' plan was to have the streets lined with their guys, part of whom would

create a distraction so that any police he is court would be drawn away and the rest would close in for the kill and murder abraham lincoln. >> 1861, allen pinkerton discovers a plot to kill the 16th president of the united states. this week on c-span3 lectures in history. saturday at 8:00. sunday at 7:30 ob on "the presidency" f.d.r.'s military advisors and their role in fighting the world war. american history this weekend on c-span3. >> on "road to the white house." >> every time you turn around, this is an administration against american jobs, against american energy, and then they seem surprised that they are

putting people on food stamps and they think it is an accident of nature. >> there is no reason we can't compete making cars. you are doing it here. are you making b.m.w.'s here and selling them around the world. [applause] this idea we can't manufacture, that's wrong. we can compete. foreign companies are coming here in right to work states. by the way, you want states to have more jobs, make them right to work. i support right to work. >> and as candidates get their message out. >> i have some people that are artistic, have gotten their eagle scouts.

there is a role for every one of us in life. it is just finding out what that is. >> and find more at c-span.org/ campaign 2012. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is the international program director for the natural resources defense council. what is your opinion on the keystone pipeline? guest: we have been opposing expansion. as you know, it is a destructive form stripmined and drilled under the memorial forest. it represents a dirty form of energy that we don't need in the u.s. we have better choices.

host: your position on the president's position? guest: we think the president showed real initiative. it was a real important step. we need to destroy this destructive pipeline. host: is it over? guest: it can be reopposed so the company transcanada can reapply. any company can apply to build a pipeline in the united states. for now, this proposal is over. host: do you expect them to reapply? guest: we do not know. we'll have to see what happens in the coming days. host: if you would like to comment, susan casey-lefkowitcz

is on the natural resources council. guest: right now the united states is the main target. canadians themselves have not committed a major pipeline across their line. the current proposed pipeline that would go to british columbia from which the oil could be exported from california to asia is not being allowed right now. it is facing strong opposition in british columbia. keystone is about the canadians themselves not wanting such a

destructive pipeline and trying to put it across the u.s. host: how much of this pipeline currently exists already? this is an extension, right? guest: it is called an exsenks tension, but there is only one relatively small part of it that exists. most of it would be completely new build across montana and nebraska. so really we're looking at a major new piece of infrastructure that frankly is primarily to bring this oil to the gulf coast where much of it would be exported. host: our guest prior to your coming out here, representative joe wilson, said the technology exists to keep this safe. that we have been using pipelines over 100 years, that this is a no brainer. guest: what's interesting is, there is something new here. in the past we did not have

pipelines that carried this raw oil. it is more corrosive. it is more likely to leak. the first pipeline keystone made leaked 14 times in just one year, which is a lot of leaks for what is allegedly a new state-of-the-art pipeline. host: how is this different? guest: what a tarsas pipeline is essentially transporting this gunk over vast areas. if you look at the potential for having a spill in our farmland, it could be devastating to farmers, so it is different than what we have seen in the united states.

host: when we talked to our other guests they mentioned the aquifor. how do you respond to that? guest: i think water is one of the key oppositions to having this pipeline go through. a -- they made a decision to choose a different route. that's something we don't even know yet. there is a large piece of this pipeline where the route has not been determined yet. host: please allow 30 days between your 'cause calls. susan casey-lefkowitz is our guest. the keystone pipeline is our topic. caller: ma'am, i understand if you are saying this because you love nature. i believe there is an alternative motivation here.

i want you to look at all the people in their homes sitting on unemployment. i want you to tell them, we're worried about a squirrel or an endangered caribou and we don't want you to go to work. we don't want america to go independent, and we want to have windmills in our back yard. the reality, is all of these new technologies for clean things are a hoax. i want nuclear power in my back yard. i want america to become independent and not be tied into the middle east with oil. host: thank you for your call. guest: thank you for your comments. we raise the -- we believe the

way to reduce our independence on foreign energy is reducing our dependence on foreign oil. national security is involved. there have been military leaders speaking out saying how expanding our dependence on any foreign source is not the best choice. we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. we have been doing that in the united states and can continue to do that. which means we do not neet expansion from tarsans oil to do it. host: won't oible the primary energy source up through 2040 at least? guest: you know the oil companies have it in their interest to keep promoting oil as their energy source. i would say every major oil company in the world is invested right now in the tarsans and has been pushing this pipeline. it is not in the interests of

americans, not for jobs, not for security, but so they can reach the deep water port in the gulf coast and have the world oil prices at their fingerat this points and be able to export this anywhere they want. ironically this pipeline would cause oil prices in the midwest to rise. because instead of having more oil coming to the u.s., what it is going to do is divert oil and take that oil to the gulf port instead leaving a glut in the method of supply in demand. that's something the pipeline company, transcanada has said. host: jeanette, concord, california. go ahead. caller: good morning. i watched the senate hearings with the transcanada people and the president of trans-canada was asked repeatedly "is there any quarnt that the oil that's

going to come to that pipeline, any part of it, will go to america?" and he said, unequivocally, "no." and he said it over and over and over again. so i'm really curious why we're going to destroy the aquifor in all of these states -- along the pipeline -- to create 20,000 jobs over what, nine states? come on. this is ridiculous. plus the waste water stuff is going to be injected into so-called "empty wells." no, they are not empty. they actually go into the aquifor. host: susan casey-lefkowitz. guest: thank you so much for your comments. those aquifors supply our

farmers with the water they need. transcanada has not been able to guarantee that this oil would stay in the united states primarily because it is destined for export. the companies in the gulf coast have said they will turn a lot of the oil into diesel and that would go overseas to europe. there are wildly inflated job estimates out there about this pipeline. what this pipeline would actually bring by trans-canada's own numbers is a few,000 construction jobs, a few00 permanent jobs. not the 10's of thousands of jobs that we hear people claiming right now. it is actually cruel, i think, to hold up a single pipeline construction proogeect as though it is a national jobs plan when it is not. what we need is a clean energy program that would bring us clean energy jobs so our water and land does not have to suffer at the same time we are getting

the economic jobs we need. 6 host: has the president's green jobs initiative been successful? guest: i think we have seen a lot being done to create clean energy jobs in this country and a lot more needs to happen. one of the barriers standing in the way has been the oil industry. when you look at the kind of opposition there has been to clean fuel standards and to clean energy initiatives and initiatives to fight climate change, a lot of it is ultimately coming from the oil industry. which to our way of thinking needs to start changing itself from an industry that's just looking at oil as its profit to looking at energy. then it could essentially join with, i think what the majority of americans want which is a clean energy future. host: susan casey-lefk. wit -- casey-lefkowitz.

a call from oklahoma on the independent line. caller: i have a caug in this fight. first of all, i do pipeline work. i would like to say i'm unequivocally against this pipeline coming across our aquifors. i am for the reason that i used to have some of the best water in the country. my well had the sweetest water in the area. i have had gas wells around me, and now now my well is poisoned. this is what is going to happen to everybody's water if this pipeline comes across this aquifor. i can quarnt you -- quarntee you it will start leaking at some point.

guest: that you for your comments, especially coming from someone who knows about pipeline construction. they had 14 leaks in their first year of operation. it is in part because of the type of oil which makes it more possible for the pipelines to leak. also it is making sure these companies take care to make sure there are no leaks. we have not seen those assurances from trans-canada. the first pipeline agent said he made a lot of claims about bad practices in building that first pipeline. i think we see how many leaks and spills they have. host: our call from texas.

guest: i would like to refute what she is saying. man has always had climate change. you can look it up. you can see greenland was raising crops and then it froze. man did not cause that. the climate changes. that's number one. number two, when you refine oil, you get gasoline, diesel, and any other byproducts. you don't just get gasoline. we refine more diesel than we use, so we sell it. you don't say that whenever you are talking. you are a fraud, woman. you should not be able to have a platform on tv. guest: thank you for your comment. i appreciate you bringing up the climate change point because it is an important one. in the scientific community there is no doubt that climate change is real and is happening.

although in the past it has been said it is happening elsewhere in the world. in this country we have seen the effects on our everyday lives. there have been droughts, wildfires, storms all of these things attributeable to climate change. these things not only hurt our homes and communities, they hurt our pocketbooks, frankly. the costs of climate change have started to be tallied and they are high. especially in this past year in the united states. part of the way to fight climate change is to reduce our dependence on oil. that means we should not go after higher carbon forces of oil. host: miss casey lefowitz, it is not a fact that america will take generations to get off of fossil fuel? guest: we have talked for years about what would be our

transition fuel to get off fossil fuel. as long as we keep talking about it and not doing it, it will take generations. i think we can much more rapidly, more than the decades the oil industry would like to see us take, get off fossil fuels. we can start by not going after these dirtier and expensive forms of fossil fuels like tarsans oil. don't start expanding. don't start going after every drop before we finally get off oil. host: have there not been efforts for years to try to get on other forms of fuel? hydrogen cells? is that going anywhere? >> i think our clean energy initiatives are making great progress. the other thing making great progress is our fuel efficiency standards. our use of oil in the united states is actually going down. that's a great thing. we should be proud of that.

america can be a leader in clean energy, and that's frankly where our future lies. america should be a world leader. clean energy is an inspiring path to choose to do that. host: just to tie it in, we have gone relatively paperless in the 10 years or so in a lot of electronics, but those electronics take electricity which takes grid and more power plants. is that better than using paper? guest: i think ultimately we need to be reducing our use of oil, but also moving ourselves off of fossil fuels in our electricity grid, moving to solar, moving to wind. we can do that. we have it at our fingertips to make that happen. also we need to look at more electric vehicles. and also it is smart growth. we can get around. we can do all the things we need to do in the day and with the

same ease that we do them now without the same level of dependence on oil. host: how did you get interested in these issues? guest: i went to law school in order to do environmental work. i have been doing environmental ad vow case casty now for 20 years. it is something i care very passionately about. with climate change right now being the major threat facing our world, i think we all need to be doing everything we can to build our clean energy economy and move off oil. host: sue on our democrats line, good morning to you. caller: good morning. i tend to agree with the gentleman that called about the climate taking its nal natural course and changing its own self. i would like to know how this woman got to c-span today. did she take a jet? how many cars she has in her family?

if people aren't willing to do a little riding a bicycle, combining to transport themselves to work and back, then you are part of the problem and not the solution. i just don't believe -- i'm going to have to say she's false because you have to put your acks where your mouth is. i live where there are windmills and i hardly see those things running at all. that's my point. i thank you very much. guest: you are absolutely right. it is going to take a china in behavior from individuals to reduce our dependence on oil. i agree with you. i actually walked here this morning. i live in arlington, virginia. it was about 4.5 miles. i walk back and forth every day because i think that is the best way to show how committed i am. and frankly it is a healthier

way to live. now, i'm not saying people should all walk to work, we need our cars. host: how long does that take you to get to work? guest: it takes about an hour each way. and that's my exercise. it saves me going to the gym every day. host: do you think that helps encourage energy efficiency? guest: i think anything we can do to encourage walking and taking public transportation is a good solution. more than that. more than individual choices, we need to make sure that it is easy for people to make those good choices. that comes back to the oil industry. because as long as we have an industry that is so rich and so powerful and so set on

essentially raking every last drop of oil out of the earth, we're not going to be able to proceed. they are going to keep setting up barriers to achieving clean energy goals. whether that is in the big picture of changing what our energy picture looks like in the u.s. or whether it is in the kinds of choices that you and i have in our every day lives to getting around. host: susan casey-lefkowitz who walks to work every morning. our call from illinois. caller: thank you for taking my call. i will talk quickly because i have a lot to say. to the lady on the show, i would like to say that a lot of us here champagne, this is a university town, and we are well aware of the environmental damage the oil companies are doing. in the 1930's the united states government paid a man named dr. john carey to perfect a process called low-temperature carbonization of coal.

he didn't create it, just perfect it. this is where you take a ton of coal, you heat it to 800 degrees. you get a barel out of -- of oil out of it. you get 500 feet of rich fuel gas, which is basically natural gas. at the same time the off-peak steam you use can generate up to 10,000 kill watts of free power every day. we went to the department of energy, myself and some macro economists here at the university. they would not give us a loan to do it. we went to the commodities department to talk to some men. at the end of the meeting, a gentleman who works for the largest oil company on earth sat and told us, as long as there are billions of barrels of oil in the ground, they are going to see to it we go nowhere because as long as we can suck it out and send sell it for money, we will do it. get on google.

look up low-carbonizati. n to coal. they sent the idea to japan. how do you think they fueled their war mn against us? they inveileded the manchurian coal fields and they turned it into oil. guest: thank you. those are excellent comments. it shows there is a lot of creativity and ingenuity in america. it shows with american leadership we can be inventing and continuing to develop great ideas for clean energy. .

not do anything to reduce global warming. >> this is an argument we hear a lot. guest: there is a proposed pipeline across british columbia from the coast and from there and have very large oil

tankers that did take it to other places in the world -- california, asia. all along, that pipeline path, people are completely opposed to it. in canada, you're hearing thousands of people speaking up and voicing their concerns about their water and their land. all of the same kinds of concerns you heard in the united states around the keystone xl pipeline. host: am i saying that correctly? guest: yes. it is sort of a rock, tar-like substance. -- a raw, tar-like substance. the use steam and the demand from the sand. it is this par like substance under the ground. -- tar-like substance under the

ground. traditionally, that is what has been done. they have had the raw stuff brought to the u.s., mostly because they found ended up being more expensive. the existing ones are almost at capacity and have turned instead to the midwest where there have been a lot of refinery expansion. host: next call for susan casey- lefkowitz comes from sal, holbrook, new york, a democrat. caller: i have a three good questions. in 1985, we were talking about gas. a diabetic car that got 85 miles to a gallon and another -- a guy invented a car that got 85 miles to a gallon and another guy

invented the car was 65 miles to a gallon. all the gas we have been buying over the years, we help them. we should get away from all of the middle eastern oil. i do not know why we are now drilling right here in the united states. we have plenty of gas and oil here. utah got animals and birds that -- and preserving it. -- you talk about animals and birds and preserving it. they decide -- if you do not think that into consideration, you talk about lives being lost through look at all the troops that died over there. what about that? you talk about life. you talk about preservation. what is more important? maybe we should dig right here in our own country. guest: thank you. you raise a lot of excellent points. i was speaking with the general stephen anderson who did a lot of logistics' over in the gulf

and in the war. what he says is that, indeed, our troops are being put in danger every day because of oil. what that really means is we need to get off of oil. it is not about our oil comes from. unfortunately, it is all tied together in a global market. taking it from canada will not make us safer. it will not make our troops as they prepared what we really need to do for our energy security is to reduce our demand for oil and eventually get off of oil altogether. that is the way to relieve this dependence on places we have like in the middle east right now. host: next call, and we have about 10 minutes. comes from georgia. republican line. caller: can you hear me? host: go-ahead. caller: she comes across like she is an expert on this technology. i want to ask her a question and please do not avoid my question.

number one, how much does one wind mill cost? number 2, what is the maintenance on one of those windmills for a whole year? number 3, how long will 1 turbaned last? i know it cost $100,000 just to put a base in to get one when the bill up. i want to know because of the windmill, how long will the turban alas, and what is the maintenance cost for the whole year. i bet she cannot answer one of those questions. guest: thank you. you are right. i cannot answer those questions because i am not an expert in that area. what i can answer our questions about the keystone pipeline. i know it is a risk to our safety, of our land, our water, and to our climate. at my organization we have a lot of people who do work on those types of issues. we would be happy to follow up. if you go to our web site at www.nrdc.org we would be happy

to give you the costs of the wind turbine. the natural resources defence council has been around for many years. we have a team that works on clean energy. we believe that you have to do both moving forward together in order to really fight climate change and make sure we can build a clean energy for ourselves. host: who started it? guest: it was started by a group of people. john adams was one of our founders and was actively our president until he retired a few years ago. he has been an inspiration in the environmental community. we have many activists right now, most of them in the united states. some are from around the world. most of our work is done right here in the u.s.

we work throughout the americas. i would work in india. there is a major program in china working on clean energy. host: what is the difference? how would you describe china's environmental regulation at this point? guest: china is such a fascinating country. they are making huge strides forward on clean energy. and on trying to reduce their dependence on fossil fuel pillared -- on fossil fuel. at the same time, they are growing rapidly. people are wanting to drive more. it is a race there to see if they're going to succeed. are they going to succeed in becoming a leader in clean energy? or are they going to increase consumption to the point that their use of fossil fuels is also still part of the picture? host: do they have strong, environmental laws at this point? guest: it is a mixed bag there.

they are trying to increase their environmental laws. the people there really care about their environment. there are such problems in the past about pollution. there has -- there is outrage about not having clean air, not having clean water. our laws have really helped us breed -- a breed easily and keep our water clean. not -- breathe easily and keep our water clean. not a lot of other countries have that. host: an independent scholar. caller: thank you for caught -- to walking to work every day. would be effective for obama supporting the keystone pipeline? why is he not on the -- on tv every day the telling how this is? guest: thank you for that

comment. there is actually more information coming out about the contributions from the oil industry to members of congress who have been supporting the keystone xl pipeline. it has been a part of this story all along. i think you are right. we need to have leaders from our administration talking about just how dirty and disgusting this is. the debate has really grown in the united states. people are learning where this tarzan's oil comes from. -- tar sands oil comes from. host: when you read the statement from the president, he is essentially not saying this is a done deal. guest: i think he is saying this round, it is done. the permit is rejected. any company can always come

back and propose a new pipeline in the future. we know this is essentially a fight for it -- for the long haul. we're up against one of the biggest and most powerful industries in the world. that is why this decision was made to reject the keystone xl pipeline. host: from the president, this announcement is not a judgment on the members who this together. austin, texas. our independent line. you have a few minutes left with our guest. caller: thank you. i want to bless c-span. thank you for all of your programming. i wanted to comment on the idea that somehow avoiding the

pipeline is going to kill our jobs. i point directly to oregon where the lumber companies and all of their companies were focused on keeping the lumber industry -- and i am not giving this any recommendation. however, it has turned out that their economy is stronger. all the ego tourism and jobs are related in that industry. e -- co -- ecotourism and jobs are related in that industry. why you think this will be any different? that is all. i just have a comment on that. thank you for the nrdc. i am a member. guest: thank you for being a member. thank you.

if there is an oil spill, you may have a farmers losing their jobs. their homes. their livelihood in america's heartland. i think that republicans, congress, the oil industry, are using the job issue as if somehow this single pipeline is a national jobs plan. people need jobs in the u.s.. what we need is not a single project, but a real plan for how our nation can move forward and grow stronger economically. clean energy is good for that, as opposed to dirty energy which has such high costs to our land, our water, and our climate. host: rick perry once again is suspended his campaign. we will have more on that as it develops. c-span radio and news update in just a few minutes. please go ahead with your question or comment.

caller: i would like to ask your guests, since she is avoiding the question, if she gets any taxpayer money to support her organization. and, she avoided the question, does she own a car? the she fly? do you get on a plane? do you walk everywhere you go? i would like you to tell people that straight out. thank you very much for taking my call. guest: i would be happy to answer this question. natural resources defence council is funded primarily through independent contributions. i believe there is a little bit of government grants that nrdc receives. i do own a car. i inherited through my grandfather a few years ago. i use it to visit family. of course, yes, i do fly. i regret having to do it. i wish there were better ways to

get around. what i am encouraged by is the aviation industry, especially in europe, is one of the industries that has really been doing what they can to change the kind of fuel that they use. looking at biofuels that are sustainably ground. looking at ways to reduce their oil. it is really interesting the kind of stress they are making. i think they can get there. host: last call for our guests, susan casey-lefkowitz, from natural resources defence council. a republican. caller: thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak. i am watching the guest of talk about climate change. a lot of us do not realize that climate change is predicted in the bible. everybody tries to blame it on

oil and all of these things. i would like to ask the young lady what kind of electricity does she use, what kind of power does she used to generate power in her homes? you know what i am saying? they say that they want to get off of oil, but they are not bringing up solutions. at the same time, right now, our country is on the threat from iran and other countries. what are we supposed to do? just about down to these people here? abide by their own rules and regulations? our country goes into chaos like it has under this president? it is ridiculous. host: we will leave it there. guest: i hear the concerns that you raise. i think a lot of us are worried about the middle east. that type of dependence on oil

from the middle east is a problem altogether. as long as we continue our dependence on oil, we put ourselves and our people at risk. clean energy, which is home grown and depends on american ingenuity, that is the best path forward. you look at something like tar sands, which is so destructive to the people up there, it strikes a blow at our fight for climate change. tar sands is not the past -- not the right path for for the united states. host: can you see any trends in the internal combustion engine was first developed in the last century? do you see any trends in environmental concerns? guest: it is interesting. i think when we look at our dependence on oil over the last

few years, it has been a concern for a long time. i think it is flaring up now more than ever in the environmental community because conventional sources of oil, were you put a well in the ground and welding comes up, those are starting to dwindle. we're looking at types of oil in the past that were not considered economical. now with the higher prices of oil, they are. they are more expensive, risky, more difficult to get, more destructive. that is our future if we continue our dependence on oil. i think we have cleaner solutions we should be turning to in our future. host: susan casey-lefkowitz is with the rigid -- is with the natural resources defence council.

first, news update from c-span radio. some economic news at this hour. our numbers show that fewer people applied for unemployment this week. that is 50,000 less than a week before. the lowest level since april 2008. the decline adding to evidence that the job market may be strengthening. as for consumer prices, they were unchanged last month. excluding all fooled and -- food on energy costs. that is different from the year before.

those of the some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> only those who show the resolve to defend the freedom of the west -- in the unpredictable times that lie ahead. [applause] we must see a lasting triumph of liberty. the world needs of britain and britain needs of us. >> nickname to the iron lady by the soviet media, margaret thatcher is being portrayed on screen by meryl streep. what the real iron lady on line in the c-span library. >> there are some people in the

financial markets who would like to hand over -- that is not our view. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is curtis gans, from the curtis gans -- from the center for the study of the american electorate. mr. gans, if you would, you have a new report out on of voting trends. if you look at 2012 as a turnout here, what kind of turnout do you expect for 2012?

guest: i expect a low turnout in 2012. we have had increases up through 2010. it will not continue. why? because the republican party is deeply divided. the democratic party is supportive of obama, but disappointed. young people were driven by anger in a 2004 and by hope in 2008. there is none of that in the present climate. latino support for president obama -- but they are worried about him, because there has been more deportations been in any time in the past. there are all these things that

essentially, likely will produce lower turnouts as well as the fact that the people in the middle and the independence have no real strong feelings for either party at this point. we have a huge number of people who feel the country is moving in the wrong direction. increasingly, a number of people feel a pass on both of the houses. i think all that will lead to a lower turnout. host: here is a chart we put together in looking at presidential election turnout from 1948 to 2008. you can see the turnout of the elector was about 52% jumping up to 60 some than%. -- up to 60%. it looks like the second hi mark is 2008.

that is at about 62% turnout. if you were to predict, where would you say turnout is going to go here? guest: i think it will be in between 55% and 58%. something like that. it is going to go down. there is a wild card. the wild card is whether in the people will be looking for another solution. that is way in the future. at this point, you have to be looking at a pretty sharp decline. host: curtis gans, who votes? who are the most reliable voters? guest: a man put for a book called "who votes?"using census

data. that book essentially says that the people who vote most are more educated. the people who are older. the people who are more presidentially stable. and of the people who are married. also people who have a higher income vote than people who have a lower income. host: what about regionally in the u.s.? guest: regionally what you have is it is lower in the south. host: why? guest: because they are catching up. the contrast, prior to the voting rights act in 1965, was a stark. but because of the voting rights act in 1965, african americans were enfranchised. conservatives and people with racial concerns the moved to the republican party. what you ended up with was a

two party competition, which you never had. it is still behind-the-scenes. most of the rest of the nation is higher, but prior to the 2000 increases, most was declining where the south was increasing. host: curtis gans, current population trends, which party do they favor? guest: long-term, favor the democrats. host: why? guest: because we are going to be a majority/minority population. largely because of latinos. the republican party does not have much risk there and did not have much roots in african-

americans. the second thing is there are places where essentially the republican party does not have a prayer at this point with their current advocacy. they almost cannot win in new england. they lost most of the ground that they used to have in the far west. they are even having trouble now in the far midwest. of the industrial states, only indiana seems to be reliably republican. but what they have is the south. and the south is going to be less republican at its edges, where you have latino migration. and places like virginia where northern virginia is growing in that area. both of those areas are democrat

areas. the republican base is going to narrow. unless they change their advocacy to be more inclusive and more moderate, you know, they are likely on the long haul to be losing ground. that does not speak to this election. this election will be decided by the unemployment rate in may, june, or july. host: when this country is in a recession, it does that encourage or discourage voters? guest: under normal circumstances, it encourages voters because they are angry and mobilize. there are places with significant increases since 1960 during the period of decline or 1982 when we had a recession. 1990, when we were coming out of a recession. 2004, 2006, and 2008.

particularly 2006 and 2008. the problem right now is that people do not see hope of coming out of the recession from either party. so, if you get to may, june, or july, and we are not looking like coming out of a recession, it will be hard for people to vote for president obama appeared at the same time, -- for president obama. at the same time, people do not see the economic policies of the republicans. host: hour to talk about the midterm elections. this is a chart that your organization, center for the study of the american electorate, put together. you can see that turnout was about 38%. but it has been increasing up

through 2010, approaching 42%. do you see this trend continuing? guest: i do not see any trend toward increasing turnout. there is an underlying problem of declining motivation of the electorate. we have had a decline of the quality of education. that only now is beginning to be reversed. we have two political parties at this point that do not engage the electorate where people feel one party is right at the american center and the other party is not affected. we have the way we build our campaigns. and overrun glut of attack advertising that denigrates each

candidate and undermines people's faith in the political process. it is increasingly demagogic. we have the impact of technology. it started with television. it brings the world community into your living room. it's atomizes our society and makes people spectators. we had three networks with nightly news and information. then we got cable and satellite. it gives you lots of wonderful things. at 95% of the channels, you do not get any intersection with politics and public affairs. you can watch espn as i often

do, all day, every day, without getting one. and then you go to the internet. it is a self-choice medium with millions of websites. politics and concerns are not the choices of everybody. by and large, they go to separate websites. and then you have the ipad and the iphones, facebook, that create personal networks that fragment our society. for all of those reasons, the state of political institutions and communications technologies, we have an electorate that at times when we are in crisis, people do not participate.

host: curtis gans is our guest. he is the director of the center for the study of the american electorate. he has been doing that for some time. one of his positions was the staff director for eugene mccarthy in 1968. he was a senator from minnesota. we're going to go to calls. the numbers have been on the screen. very quickly, some political news. rick perry is dropping out of the 2012 campaign and in -- and endorsing newt gingrich. that is the headline i was reading just one minute ago. the most recent polls show that newt gingrich is gaining quite rapidly on mitt romney in south carolina. i also want to point out that rick santorum, tomorrow morning, will be a guest on this program. 7:45. he will be taking your calls

from south carolina. this call comes from greenville, tenn.. please go ahead with your question or comment. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would just like to inquire of your guest, why he thinks that there are so many of these groups that are set up for study in the united states? i feel like we are getting less and less truth and more and more opinion. many progressives seeing if they can predict the future. the studies are often very bent in one direction. all of the liberals get together. all of the environmentalists get together. i just feel that their promises are based on their own opinions, almost an ideology that not all of us share. i think we cannot compromise

with those that share a different world views. guest: i think there are studies done by the heritage foundation, there are studies being done by people with points of view, and studies being done by people without points of view. people who are seeking truth. i like to think of myself as that. i have worked for the last 36 years in it deeply non-partisan, what ever my personal political bent is. there are a lot of places that define research. even places with some biases, whether it is in barman or libertarian or conservative or liberal, the often produce information that is useful, so long as you take it with a little grain of salt.

we cannot have too much research. what we have to have is good research. host: next call comes from delaware, brandon on our independent line. caller: how are you doing? good show today. i would like to mention about felons of voting. if you can give me a little history on that because i know most people to think that felons cannot vote, but in every state is different. to my understanding, most can vote after a certain period. can you give a little information or history on that? because you can even have a business in the past and you can vote. they pay taxes and things of that nature. and have the knowledge that people think you cannot vote. host: all right, we got the

point. curtis gans? guest: it is a mixed picture. i think only massachusetts allows a felons, while in jail, to vote. several states believe that once you finish your penance to society and return to society, you ought to have the right to vote. that is my position also. but some states either deny felons the right to vote after their return from prison or create obstacles for their participation or craig long waiting times for their participation. -- or create long waiting times for their participation. i think once they have been released into society and done their time, been restored and all other aspects of citizenship, the right to vote

should be included. host: something else you have written about is a voter i.d. laws. you have a chart here that shows where voter i.d. laws are and how different states look at them. the state in green all require a photo id. the states in yellow require a photo id but they can sign an affidavit. they do not necessarily need a photo. there are a lot of states that you do not need a photo. is it important to the integrity of the voting process to have a voter i.d. laws? >> it is not necessarily important to the integrity of the process to have voter i.d. laws. on the other hand, it is also not harmful to the process to have voter i.d. laws, provided they are paid for by the state and distributed widely the

people without photo ids tend to be the people who do not drive. they tend to be the people who are more poor. if you only make them available at the department of motor vehicles, it is not very good. but the principle of having i.d. is not a terrible thing. people on the liberal side want to deny that any sort of fraud exists. that is not true. it does not dominate our political process. i know a famous person who was a contributor to my mccarthy campaign who voted both in michigan and in maryland. i know the new jersey newspaper and in florida, when they did the investigation into the

campaign in which lauretta sanchez one in california, they found that illegals had voted but not enough to return a result. we have in places. it is not wrong to try to protect the integrity of the process. it is wrong to make it such that it really is -- it makes it hard for people to get these i.d.'s. host: curtis gans is the director of the center for the study of the american electorate. the next call comes from kansas city. caller: in just one to make a quick comment and ask a question. my comment is that i am a professional. i have a degree. i am around 60 years old.

i have waited for obama to do good in this country and i have not seen him do anything that helps this country. therefore, i am voting republican this year. the question i have for him, is don't you see the surge in republican people wanting to vote republican this year? wanting to make a change this year? and the demographics of the way this country is being run? guest: i do not see a surge in that direction right now. i see a republican party that is divided in its most conservative elements and its more moderate elements. whichever one is not battling the other, the others have less motivation to participate. i do not agree with you that president obama has not done much for this country. he has done several things for this country. but what he has not been able to do is turn the economy around and create jobs.

that may be a terminal failing. people will be asking if we are not moving in the right direction on unemployment, do we want four more years of this? but what we have in the republican party is a divided party. we have a disappointed democratic party. all of that does not necessarily lead to an activist polarized election. host: curtis gans, the lead story in the n.y. times, if you have not seen it. obama is faulted by swing voters in a new survey. guest: well, you know.

i think, again, the dominant issue in our country right now is the economy and jobs. there has not been much movement on that. people who are independent do not have a strong feeling that anything is going to change if you essentially are reelect president obama. he has, as far as i am concerned, based on history, sometime between may and july to see a turning of that employment situation. if he does not, if we are still in the 8% or 9% range, and 15% or 60% out of the labor force or working part-time, -- or 16% out of the labor force working part- time, people ask the question of

do we want four more years of this? i think president obama will have a very difficult time being reelected. host: if you're working for the president and 10 months out use of these numbers, the overview numbers of 77% approval by democrats, independents 37%, would you be worried? guest: of course you would be worried. i think obama is worried right now. he is worried that the young people will not turn out the same level. he is worried about how he is going to persuade the numbers of those independents to show up for him. if i m in his position, i am running scared too. -- if i am in his position, i am running scared, too. host: new jersey, mike on our

independent line. you are on c-span. where is that? host: north west virginia -- northwest new jersey. guest: that is a pretty area. host: yes, it is. first, i want to tell you thank you for the opportunity. i want to commend you, sir. your assessment is an extremely accurate. i think the surge away from voting is the impatience with the fact that what we -- what we are presented by most parties are the best that money can buy. both people are associate with heavy funding, special interests. they do not represent the middle class. that is manifested in the fact you have the democrats who want to dominate america through the

government and the republicans who just want to dominate the whole world. consequently, that shows up in our federal budget. they take taxpayer money away from the middle class and they do not have education money. my question is, sir, would this be the right time for ron paul, who seems to address both of those issues, as a third-party candidate who could cause a resurgence towards the electorate and finally have a choice that represents the middle class which currently there is no representation? guest: well, i think people are unhappy with both political parties. i do not think that money dominates either political party. i am a sort of apostate on the conventional wisdom of campaign finance reform. i do not think ron paul is the answer. i think he carries too much a

logical baggage. in certain aspects of his advocacy that is not presidential. he has served good on a few issues. he has raised some issues of importance, but i do not see people seen him as a person who could be president. i may be wrong. this may be a great time for ron paul. i think he has, at best, within the republican party between 20% to 25% of supporters. that is not very much at all. host: if you have been watching this from the beginning, you saw that we spoke with the reporter from the des moines register about the situation in iowa. their report that rick santorum is actually the lead go -- the leading vote-getter.

no winner has been declared, but he has certified what we discuss that point that rick santorum is currently ahead by 34 votes. and that eight of the 1700 precincts are unaccountable. so no winner will be declared. at the current accounting rate, rick santorum is ahead by 34 votes. any comment on that? guest: i think it is old news. i think the train has moved out of iowa and gone to new hampshire and now south carolina. i do not think it changes anything. people looking at the vote in iowa, on the night of the election, saw election night that there were neck and neck. it does not matter which nec is a slightly higher. which noses over the tape. whether this knows is a much

behind. it does not change anything. host: rick perry is dropping out of the race today. according to political, endorsing newt gingrich. is that affected? guest: i think it will help newt gingrich. i think it will help consolidate the more conservative elements of the republican party around newt gingrich rather than rick santorum. i think that is what may emerge out of this south carolina primary. there is a wild card which is only beginning to surface as news. his second wife is about to hold a press conference. host: she was interviewed. currently, it looks like abc may have some excerpts from interview tonight, but then the awful thing on monday. guest: but whatever, that is a

wild card right now because we do not know what she said. how much damage it may do with former speaker newt gingrich. but right now, it looks like south carolina is a two horse race. should newt gingrich be able to overcome romney's lead, we are likely to have a fairly long primary process. i would not be surprised down the road if somebody else got in. host: who is that somebody? guest: i think right now there are a lot of graybeard in the republican party that do not have a lot of tauruses. -- a lot of choices. the graybeards are looking for the person to give obama the greatest competition. there is no enthusiasm. when you look at the polls,

you're looking at, most recent polls showing there is less enthusiasm this year than there was for 2008 republicans within the republican party. you are having problems. you are having problems with speaker gingrich's history of shooting from the lip. you're having problems with some of the baggage that governor romney has. his inability to connect on a feeling level with the electorate. i think the whole republican nomination process really hinges on a south carolina. i think romney has a fairly clear path to nomination. if he does not win, a lot of things are up for grabs. host: curtis gans is our guest,

director of study of the american electorate. caller: yes, i am listening to this conversation this morning. i have been a long-time of your of c-span. at one time, i think you are a great service and to show what is going on in congress and those committees. but this is a "the washington post" -- "washington journal" program, i watch it be great. the relatively -- this man is obviously partisan. i think c-span to do a great service to the american public by showing there are still opinions, but there is only one truth. host: thank you for calling in

this morning. are you a right-wing, think tank person? guest: i operate my center on a strictly non-partisan basis. my history and my personal views are liberal. i try not to get that to in fact what i do. you know, in terms of studding the american electorate and making judgments about the -- about what the electorate is saying. i am surely not a right-wing person. host: you used to work for eugene mccarthy in 1968. when he got into the presidential race, was he the first to be opposed to the vietnam war? guest: he was the first presidential candidate to be opposed to the vietnam war.

and there is a few people in the senate. i started before there was a mccarthy. we organize the don johnson movement. we did not have a candidate then. allen wanted kennedy to run, but he chose not to. eugene, who had considered before, now had a base to go to. he decided to run. he was the person that was willing. he has had my loyalty ever since. host: atlanta, michael, a democrat. good morning. caller: how're you doing? guest: i think i am doing all right. caller: we have a president that

got 50% of the popular vote. over 300 electoral votes. people are not dumb. we see what is going on. i do not think the election is really going to be that close. guest: the answer is we do not know. tell me, again, there are things that he has actually done. you may agree or disagree with the health-care program. you may agree or disagree with the financial regulation. i do think george bush's tarp and barack obama did not save us from any collapse. there are things he has actually done. but he has not been able to turn the economy around. there are people, including myself, who believe his stimulus package of 2009 was not adequate

enough and now it is impossible to get it through because there is a strong obstruction in congress. i do not know whether it is close or not. again, tell me what the economy will look like in june, july, -- may, june, july, when people really make decisions about the economy. if it is going in the right direction, obama has a reasonable chance of being elected. it is not, he has almost no chance of being reelected. host: curtis gans, here is the study that the center for the study of the american electorate has just put out.

host: if you are interested in reading the study for yourself, you can go to csaelectora te.blogspot.com. when did you end your a social with american university? guest: beginning last year. host: you had been associate with them for years and years. guest: it was something called the committee for the study of the american electorate. that was a nonprofit. you know, the beginning of 2011, i left. voluntarily. host: curtis gans has been our guest here on the "washington journal."

all sorts of political news has come out today, beginning with iowa. rick santorum up 34 votes in the closest iowa caucuses ever. but, the iowa gop has not declared a winner. marianne gingrich sat down with brian ross from abc news. abc may have an excerpt tonight before the gop debate. it is looking like monday it will be the full interview. by the way, she sat down august 2010, esquire magazine. she sat down with esquire and there is a very long article. if you go to an internet search for marianne gingrich and esquire, you'll find the article immediately. you can also find it on the c- span.org web site. tomorrow morning, rick santorum will be a guest on this program. that will be at 7:45 a.m. eastern time. according to political, rick

perry is a dropping out of the race and in forcing newt gingrich to night. and finally, the state of the union speech is january 24. and next tuesday. governor mitt daniels of indiana will be doing the republican -- to that speech. that is some of the political news that happened today. it will be fun to watch a develop. we appreciate you being with us. by the way, if you go to c- span.org you can also see our coverage from south carolina and for everything else that we are covering today. c-span.org is our web site. the house of representatives is coming in for a short session. we are about to bring that to you now. thank you for being with us. enjoy the rest of your day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]