later, the fair vote an executive director outlined problems of the current election system and his suggestions to change the process. "washington journal" is next. caller ♪ host: good morning. this morning, the debate will continue over extending the payroll tax cut. the deadline is approaching, both parties remain apart on how to pay for all of that. meanwhile, tomorrow the president will submit his budget with familiar themes -- more

money for infrastructure and taxing wealthy americans. and mitt romney, winning in marathon -- narrow victory in the maine caucuses. the republican primary in arizona and michigan, just two weeks away. we will focus on a story this morning regarding political flip flops. there are a couple of pieces that are notable in "the new york times," and "the washington post." but our question this morning is -- is a flip-flop good or bad, politically? for republicans, 202-737-0002. for democrats, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. we went to the merriam-webster dictionary to get to -- get a definition for flip-flop. this is what it looks like -- the sound back and forth, the motion of something that flaps. it is also a backwards

handspring and, in terms of politics, it is a sudden reversal as a policy or strategy. we want to ask you if you think they are good or bad, politically. other news this morning, this is the headline from the bangor daily news. mitt romney wins the caucuses by a narrow margin, edging out ron paul in what is a non-binding republican preference poll. according to the unofficial results, this is what looks like to the associated press. a narrow win for mitt romney. rick santorum and newt gingrich did not compete in the maine caucuses. by the way, mitt romney got just under 2100 votes, compared to 1900 boats, a small percentage

for those participating. abbey joins us on the phone. good morning, thank you for being with us. caller: thank you for having me. host: this comes on the heels of yesterday's straw poll where mitt romney also won, rick santorum coming in a strong second. what does this tell you about the race on a sunday morning. caller: governor romney has had a tough week. things have gone back and forth on this like nothing i have seen before. between c pack and maine, he needed a boost. romney is in a better position, but who knows what could happen. host: this is the photograph from the front page of "the new york times." a lot of folks in the mid romney campaign were expecting him to -- a lot of folks in the mitt

romney campaign were expecting him to lose the maine caucuses, but in fact he won. this is a non-binding preference vote. we have heard in the past from the writ romney campaign that the boats did not count -- from the mitt romney campaign that the votes in missouri did not count, but they were quick to jump on this one from last night. caller: i made that note as well. what ron paul said today in "the washington post," these folks may get allocated. ron paul could get more delegates than nit romney. it is what you want to make of it, for each campaign. host: this is what many have called the february intermission. there is really nothing until the next debate, which is scheduled to air on the 22nd. arizona and michigan, the buildup to super tuesday on

march 6. caller: in 2008, it is supposed to be -- it was a devastating time for hillary clinton. everyone thought that it was to just going to be bad for newt gingrich. i do not think that everyone anticipated what it would be light -- what it would be like for rick santorum. it is a time of volatility. host: looking at the campaign moving ahead, the brick santorum campaign indicating that they would put a lot of effort into the michigan primary. this is the home state for mitt romney. he was born and raised in michigan, his father was senator there. is this going to be the next test? caller: i think so. not because mitt romney is the native son, but it is one of the most heavily hit states in the economy. i do not suppose that rick santorum will come out and

support the auto bailout, but along with what president obama did, he thinks that was made a softer blow. if mitt romney does not win michigan, that would be very bad. i would not rule that possibility out, though. nit romney has downplayed the significance of the maine caucus, but then pointed to michigan and arizona and saying that they had to win both, which i thought was setting expectations very high. host: at the -- abbie, thank you very much for being with us. caller: thank you. host: this sunday morning, we wanted to step back and take a look at a couple of pieces. david ignatius is headed to

china, riding "the greatest flip-flop is nixon in china." he puts it this way -- "even nixon, the practice hypocrite, -- "sometimes the gop in congress -- host: the question is -- do you think a political flip-flop is good or bad? there's also a story that mitt

romney has been dealing with since 1994, his twist on abortion from a friend -- affectively pro-choice to pro- life. in 1994 he invoked the story of a co-family friend who had died from an illegal abortion, so he thought that abortion should be legal, though he was personally opposed. host: that is on the front page of "the new york times," this morning. on your phone calls, flip-flop, good or bad? tucson, ariz., good morning. you are on the air. please, go ahead. caller: i would not vote for a guy that flip-flops', on this reason.

back when nixon was president, it was the republican party who said that communism was no good. so, this was a conspiracy -- conspiracy between the political parties at that time. the people that control the political establishment, multinational corporations. host: thank you for the call. jamie, indianapolis. your thoughts? caller: id is the context that you look at it. if you are a flip-flop for in the context of mitt romney, just telling you what you want to hear, you cannot respect that. but if there is a position where you have evolved because of things you have later learned, i would not necessarily call that a flip-flop, it is evolving to what is going on. some politicians cannot make that adjustment, it costs the

than that politically. i think that if hillary clinton could have acknowledged that her vote for the iraq war was a bad thing, she could possibly have gotten the primary. because she did not want to "flip-flop," it cost her the nomination. your physician can evolve when the facts become clear. when your political opponents call it a flip-flop, it is cast in a negative light, but you just have to be able to articulate why you changed your position. that way people realize that your actual position changed, not that you're telling them what they want to hear. host: thank you for the call. a writer for "the national journal," says -- "the mitt romney flip-flop on the social safety net."

host: the story looks at his views after the comments that he made on cnn. next, ellis, augusta, georgia. democratic line. good morning. caller: the second caller really articulated what i believe, 100%. political flip-floping really came to life when john kerry was running for president. the republicans jumped on him, backwards and forwards, because he was flip-floping, they called it. john boehner, or anyone else talking about that, who else is there? republicans, it is good. democrats, is bad. host: there is that famous advertisement of john kerry windsurfing off the coast of

nantucket. caller: say that again? host: it was an advertisement where he was windsurfing, if you recall. caller: did he not say something about them being a flip-flop for? host: yes, your point is well taken. thank you. reversals in politics are typically cast as character blights." "president obama, changing his views on superpac's, saying that he is contributing his supporters to contribute to his own superpac, as it is a reality that republican superpac's are raising a lot of money." our question is -- flip-flops', good or bad, politically?

from carol, ohio, good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: i hear people talk about flip-floping all the time. if i find out what i have said might be wrong, if i thought wrong, i change it. if that is the worst thing about politicians, flip-floping, i am more concerned about what they will do when they become president. obama has changed so many times, who many -- who knows what he stands for? i did not like john mccain. there i am. i had to. the nice thing about super tuesday, may 4, may 6, i will get a vote before hand, maybe i will have a choice and a voice. host: carol, super tuesday is

march 6, not in may. want to make sure you vote in the right month. our twitter page is twitter.com/c-spanwj. you can send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. patrick is joining us from norfolk, va. caller: good morning. it is totally ok to flip-flop. i really believe that. i have made mistakes in my personal life, and i have a flip-flop from negative to positive. -- flip-flopped from negative to positive. it is changing and evolving. host: i want to read the last two paragraphs of the piece from david ignatius.

host: so, that is why we are asking the question this morning about political flip-flops. are they good or bad? a reminder, our "newsmakers," program, airing after this morning's "washington journal," our guest is senator jeff bingaman. amongst the issues this morning, the controversial keystone xl pipeline. [video clip] >> the basic point that they are making is a valid one, they should not be forced to be issued a permit until they are

satisfied that the issues on the effects to the environment are understood. whether that requires another six months to eight months, that is another question. it is a good issue to give result, one way or another. the american public would like us to move forward on the project in some way or another. it sounds meritorious. we have pipelines all over the country. that is true with most members of congress as well. most members of congress would like to go ahead and get the issue resolved. maybe there is a way to get it resolved, contingent upon certain things been determined. host: our conversation with jeff bingaman is on our "newsmakers," program this morning at 10:00 a.m. many of you are commenting on

our twitter page abouts political page. politically, good or bad? one of our viewers says it is the -- it is "the business of politicians, requiring integrity, and not much of that these days." you can comment on journal@c- span.org -- on the twitter.com/c-spanwj. newt gingrich, from "the atlanta journal constitution," getting three-quarters of the vote. meanwhile, a profile of elizabeth warren, from "the boston sunday globe." from "the pittsburgh post- gazette," "republican hopefuls locked in a rocky contest." a statewide story from virginia, "social issues dominate the

session." virginia will be one of the battleground states in 2012. with republicans in the majority in the state legislature, social issues are taking front and center in virginia. back to your calls. indianola, iowa, flip-flop, good or bad? caller: i think it is bad. i am disappointed in barack obama. i at -- it is ironic that you brought that up, i forget the name of it. host: superpac and his reversal on it. caller: i am disappointed in him. but you can expect it, because he is green. i am a democrat who was for john edwards. he stood up for poverty. my insurance is going sky high. i just do not trust any of them.

they flip-flop too much with their policies. they run to tell us what they are going to tell us and they get nothing done. host: jim, republican line, good morning. caller: the biggest flip-flop by the president was his failure to close guantanamo bay. during the campaign, with other carelessness, said that he would close it. when he found out how needed it was, he flip-flopped and changed. he lambasting hillary for saying that she would fail to find the premium of health care payments, but now obama care does just that. he changed his mind on his contraceptive directive as well. those are some pretty big flip- flops. for someone to run for president without understanding the dynamics of fighting terrorism, then realizing that he was

wrong, is a pretty big thing to make that mistake and chastised george bush for that. george bush made incredible flip-flops, saying that he would never use the army to nation building. yet now we are in two countries, still, rebuilding nation's. host: thank you for the call. from one of our later twitter -- from one of our regular twitter messengers -- host: ron paul, he came in a close second in the maine caucuses yesterday. a " from routed -- rudi -- quote from rudy giuliani. "mitt romney's flip-flops give me pause." he told bob schieffer that he is not ready to endorse a front

runner, but that he "would be inclined to support someone like mitt romney, but all of his changes in position give me pause." just one of a number of stories on the issue of flip-flops that david ignatius writes about this morning. the greatest one, in his a pot -- in his opinion, nixon in china.

host: that began, again, in the fall of 1971, culminating in his trip to china in 1972. christian, good morning. caller: good morning to you. i am a first-time caller. this show is a great addition to my sunday morning. host: we appreciate that. thank you for tuning in. caller co-starred with that. the aspect of flip-flops, we can take it back, if you know your history, and really look at the isolationist views after world war ii. i think that there is a pervasive attitude in

washington, d.c., of let's just tell people what they want to hear. i do not think that that is good for the country. i think we need to have a hard line on something. host: thank you for the call. again, the results from the maine caucuses, the first in a series of caucuses that will determine the delegates the code to the convention at the end of august, mitt romney won a very narrow victory, 2100 votes, over 1900 votes for ron paul. rick santorum got 18%, just about 1000 votes. newt gingrich, 350 votes. neither rick santorum no. newt gingrich competed in those caucuses. pat, democratic line, south carolina, good morning. caller: i do not know if anyone watched the sea pact this

weekend, but they said that all they needed was someone to sign on as president, because the house and the senate was running the country. that is all that they need. the flip-flop did not matter, as long as someone consign. host: gordon, altoona, good morning. caller: it is fine to have a change of position or epiphany, but to change your stand because it is the hottest idea amongst polers, that is not good. like governor mitt romney, who has flip-flopped so much, it is hard to believe him. senator santorum has been authentic and honest and he has my vote on april 24. host: let me go back to the peace.

here is a photograph of mitt romney, from saturday morning. the comments about mitt romney, reflecting his evolution from abortion advocate to abortion foe. host: david ignatius, writing about flip-floping this morning with nixon in china, and other comparisons. john, jackson, good morning. caller: yes, sir. i would like to question health care. yes, sir? host: turn the volume down on your set. there is a slight delay. please go ahead.

caller: can you hear me better? host: yes. you are on the air. caller: the bill -- [no audio] host: we are going to move on to cathy. remember, there is a slight delay. if you get on the air, please turn down your television. host: -- caller: it has been quite a morning. on this flip-flop issue, the president will have to be in the position of flip-floping, if he has to get concessions from the republican congress. they are determined, it does not matter what it is, good or bad, it will not go through, that way he can go -- he will be a failed president. have a wonderful day. host day -- host: from john, treating --

host: jerry, portland, ohio, a super tuesday primary states in march. you are on the air. caller: i wanted to make the comment, to " the book of james, chapter 1, verse 8, "a double minded man is unstable in all of his ways." i use that as an example, looking at the different candidates. i have watched countless videos on the internet of the different candidates and what they have said over the years. the only one i have seen that has not changed his stance on anything is ron paul. a lot of times, he can, with all of the speeches that he makes, he is not even reading anything,

as it comes from his heart. lately i have been hearing the latest thing being that anybody, any of the republican candidates would be better than what we have now, but i do not necessarily think that that is true. because, basically, we will get the same thing if we get someone who does not stand on their word and keep their word. host: thank you for the call. anna, boulder, colorado. your thoughts on the issue of political flip-flop? good or bad? caller: is an individual issue. a difficult thing to say. i am recently out of surgery. forgive me for [unintelligible] i represent an independent

voice, which is difficult to find. i do not find the people on either side support flip- floping. the reason that i say this, in truth, is because it is difficult to manage a person's life. host: thank you for the call. tom has this point -- "we criticized politicians for flip- flops, but voters do it often. example -- support for different people." this is from the front page of "the washington post." "what in the world is wrong with the republican party"?

host: mitt romney won the straw poll at the sea pak conference, it is available on our website, c-span.org. here's a portion. [video clip] >> family, faith, businesses. i know conservatism. i have lived conservatism. as governor of massachusetts, i had the unique position of

defending conservative principles in one of the most liberal states of the nation. there are three people from massachusetts here, i appreciate that. the economy was in a tailspin. even with a legislature that was 85% democrat, we cut taxes 19 times, balancing the budget for all four years. i cast over 800 vetoes. [applause] i cut entire programs. i raised a $3 billion budget shortfall, leaving office by putting $200 billion in a rainy day fund. if there was a program, agency, or department, that needed elimination, we did it. host: the conference wrapped up over the weekend. all of that is available on c- span.org.

a focus on mitt romney and his father from the outlook section of "the washington post." "his father, the onetime governor of michigan in 1968." "dreams from his father," from the outlook section of today's open "the washington post." we are taking a poll on our facebook page, political flip- flop, good or bad. many people saying that it is bad, but you can weigh in as well.

beverly, cleveland, ohio. good morning. ,caller: regarding flip-flops -- good morning. caller: regarding flip-flops, you have to look at the circumstances. president obama was against citizens united, but when he made that commitment, the supreme court had not ruled on that. there was no challenge for him. after the supreme court ruled on it, he could have campaigned with one hand tied behind his back. it is about playing the game by the rules. if the rules change, it would not be smart to change -- it would not be smart cannot change with them. as far as guantanamo bay [unintelligible]

host: this is from t.j. -- host: on the issue of preventive care and birth control, one of the issues that dominated the headlines and was part of the sea pak conference on friday, it was what the president called an adjustment to the health care plan. >> as we move to implement this, however, -- [video clip] >> as we move to implement this, we are aware of religious freedom. as a citizen and christian, i cherish the right of religious freedom. my first job in chicago was working with catholic parishes in poor neighborhoods. my salary was funded by a grant from an arm of the catholic church. i saw the churches often did

more good for a community that a government program ever could. i know the importance of faith based programs and how much impact they can have in communities. i also know that some religious institutions have religious objections to directly providing insurance that covers contraceptive services for employees. that is why we originally exempted all charges from this requirement. an exemption, by the way, that eight states did not already have. today we have reached a decision on how to move forward. under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care, including contraceptive services, no matter where they work. the core principle remains. but if a woman's employer is a charity or hospital with religious objections to providing contraceptive services as part of a health plan, the

insurance company, not a hospital or charity, would be required to reach out and offer contraceptive care, free of charge, without copiague or hassle. host: the president on friday, announcing his change or adjustment in a position on preventative care for catholic institutions as they provide it for their employees. this headline, "archbishop dolan, blasting the obama bitter pill." "we remain fully committed to the strong defense of our religious beliefs." the headline, "the attack on birth control compromise being used as a double cross." -- viewed as a double cross." it is also available online.

there is a related story in "national journal," as well. we are asking about the issue of political flip flops. are they good or bad. michael, good morning. caller: i am sitting back here, looking at this program, trying to be objective. what i am seeing are a lot of articles written by reporters against republicans. it started out with nixon, then that romney, that was basically the threat. i am not seeing a balance where you are seeing reporters talking about president obama and his flip flops. host: if you read the piece from david ignatius, he is praising nixon's view on china.

"hardly a role model, but a clever strategist, with the opening to china culminating in the 1972 visit to beijing. but even nixon, the practice hypocrite, may not buck conformity today." there is some praise by david ignatius for the changes the nixon had of china. caller: i understand. i am trying to say that i wish that there were articles talking about mitt romney. president obama, he campaigned as the president's, and his record was for campaign finance. john mccain asked him about doing that.

he saw it too is a vantage. huge saw more money during the presidential campaign that the history of any one candidate. again, wanting to raise money, like $1 billion to run his campaign, talking about a superpac. there are other issues, like guantanamo bay. nice backtracking and flip- floping with the catholics. that is his health care bill. i would wish that the program would be balanced. these reporters that show, specifically, about the mitt romney flip-flop. host: thank you for the call. let me get to the article about the flip-floping issue of

superpac. meanwhile, "the baltimore sun," writing about the president renewing budget battles. "it will land in the throes of a full ramp up." "house republicans are expected to call for their own major overhaul of medicare, although it is not clear if they will endorse the same voucher program that was endorsed by paul ryan last year." joseph has this point, on the issue of political flip-flops' --

host: anthony, miami, florida. good morning, your next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i disagree with flip-floping. it is amazing how most americans are here, talking about president obama flip-floping on different subjects, and yet they are supporting newt gingrich, who is one of the biggest hypocrite or flat floppers. mitt romney, also a huge foot locker. ron paul has been consistent for over three decades. that is pretty much what i wanted to say. host: a newspaper and a legacy,

reordered for a digital future." the washington post," shrinking its scope. revenues have sunk as the web and a tough economy have hurt advertising, but in some ways the problems are more daunting. "the post," feeds only a local print market, and advertisers have since fled to the web." there is more on "the washington post," this morning, as well as the capital education program. jim hines has this --

host: remember, our twitter page is twitter.com/c-spanwj. 51% of households to not pay federal income taxes. nanticoke asks the question, "should they"? the joint committee on taxation released its own study, estimating that 51% of federal taxpayers do not pay federal income taxes. there is a related study by the urban institute that says that 47% of americans pay no income tax. rory is on the phone, good morning. democratic line. caller: i cannot blame them.

mitt romney is a liar. newt gingrich, for him -- i need to say the president obama needs to have a plan. that is what i have to say. host: all right. this point, "putting flip-flop in quotes, a ridiculous word that represents the dumbing down of english and its users. i hate hearing it." going back to david ignatius and his piece this morning, he points out "the leader that can deal with american problems today is the one the correspond to complaints that his policies go against past positions." the thoughts of david ignatius and many of you this sunday morning. thank you for calling in.

again, if you have just joined us, the next round of the voting is in michigan and arizona at the end of this month. primaries in a number of key states that will take place in early march. we will taken -- a look at the issue of citizens united in just a couple of minutes. the president of citizens united will be joining us in a couple of minutes. first, a look at the guests and topics dominating this sunday morning, all of which can be heard this morning on c-span radio. >> we have rears of five network talk shows the begin of -- began at noon eastern. presidential politics, and the situation in syria. beginning at noon, here "meet the press." including rick santorum and jack

lew, who is on all of the programs this morning. the senior strategist and co- founder of priorities usa is also a guest. on "this week," rick santorum, jack lew, and paul ryan. "fox news sunday," airing at 2:00 p.m. including former candidate, sam -- sara palin. on "state of the union, rick santorum, jetblue, and joseph lieberman. finally, at 4:00 p.m. eastern, "face the nation, with paul ryan, -- nation," with paul ryan and mitch mcconnell, with an appearance by jack lew.

listen to them all on c-span radio, 90.1 fm in the washington d.c. radio -- area, xm satellite radio, downloadable on your iphone or blackberry, or go online to c-span.org. >> should your president not have the highest moral and ethical standards, being an example in this country? ask yourself these questions, please. should anyone that you elect to this office always keep his promises? >> go to our website to see

videos of "the contenders," who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> who appointed us to sacrifice the lives of young americans, trying to weigh in on the side of a government who represents perhaps 15% of the people of lebanon and have little to no apparent support from the other 85%? >> c-span.org/the contenders. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back to c-span, david bossie, the president of citizens united. guest: thank you for having me. host: let me ask you a background question on the citizens united case. did you realize that the floodgates of money would open

like this? guest: being the president of this company is a surreal experience. people are talking about this and that without really understanding the underbelly of what we were doing. it is always nice to have a fresh start, and i appreciate the opportunity, but we went to the supreme court because we were a small, nonprofit. conservative, nonprofit organization. we worked on a host of issues with a plethora of programs and projects to work on. one of the things is documentary films. in them, we saw the success that michael more had in "fahrenheit 9/11." the success not just at the box office, but entering the popular culture. participating in the discussion in 2004, whether or not i agree

with the content. we wanted to be able to do the same thing. the fec told by organization that not only could we not, but if we did, it would be considered a willful violation of the law. mccain fine gold, the law that stopped us from doing it, actually took political speech and criminalize it. it was not a civil wealthy any longer, it was a criminal penalty. my board of directors and i would have been under penalty of criminal prosecution, five years per count, for making a documentary and advertising and on television. i literally had to stop and say -- how is that possible? do we not have a first amendment? they said i did not. i said that we could not wait for the government to come after us.

that we would go after them. of course, their lawyers laugh at us. the first time we were in court, the judge laughed at us in open court. it is really a remarkable odyssey. host of this was 2007? guest: yes, we went to court about the documentary film that we made about hillary clinton. obviously it was not a positive piece for her, but that did not matter to us. it was the principle of the fight. we went all of the way to the supreme court. of course, we were asking for the ability to make films and advertise them. this is what people do not remember. in open court, in the first oral argument, one of the justices asked the deputy solicitor general, who had been arguing on behalf of the government -- is it a logical extension of the

government's argument? if the government can ban documentary films, kenya banned books? the deputy -- can you ban books? the deputy solicitor general said yes. it was a devastating thing in the courtroom. people do not focus on that. people will argue that it is a split decision. i wonder what the four justices that voted against us are thinking, when they believe that there was some principle in that, that the government has you right to ban books, newspapers, or pamphlets. it is the single most important amendment. within that, political speech is the single most protected. that is the essence of america. if you do not have that, you cannot fight for any of your other rights. all that we did was do that.

to fight the government. by the way, it was really a david vs. goliath story. the government had unlimited resources to bring upon us. we were a little organization that had to spend a lot of our resources to be successful. thankfully, we were. now, historically we did not ask for what happened. when we made our first are given in march of 2009, that last case in june, if it is the last day of the supreme court session, it is always the most controversial decision. they came back and they told us, we will have another hearing in september on much bigger and broader questions. because we did not really ask the right ones. that is how we interpreted that. we came back on the much bigger ones in september.

which was part of the mcconnell decision in 2003. also, the austin vs. michigan chamber of commerce case, the underbelly of corporate contributions. they were trying to right a wrong that they felt the supreme court had left on the books. they asked us to come back and bring these bigger questions. in september we had another argument. january 21, two years ago, we had our decision. which was earth shattering for us. you want to hold on to something in court. little did i know that we would break down the house of cards that is mccain fine gold. host: i want to been to -- i want to read to the audience the direct impact. here are some of the figures

from these political action committees that are aimed at electing republicans or helping the president restore our future, which is a pro mitt romney superpac. the president isn't urging supporters to contribute to his superpac, a change of position for the white house. host: the mint -- the supreme court, asking about corporations. guest: first of all, those numbers are fairly small. barack obama in 2008 spent, between his campaign and the

unions, combined, $1.2 billion for him to win the election. john mccain was the only one who was adversely affected by his own law. he was hamstrung and was only able to spend about $640 million. those numbers are enormous. it is not the citizens united case that makes it available. if anyone understands the law, it was always the ability for individuals to give enormous sums to outside groups. remember the swift boat advertisements? people remember them. those came from big donors, legally. in 2004, they helped to defeat john kerry. it was always able to be done. it has always been able to be available to donors and

individuals. this has allowed corporations to donate into these groups. we have not seen enormous amounts from corporations. remember, publicly traded corporations have the first views. they have stockholders with diverse views. you can be helicon -- accountable, for any decision the to make, including supporting a candidate. if you own the candidate and are not beholden to anyone, that is your decision. to me, if people understand, it has always been available for people. dan abrams, a tremendous constitutional scholar, floyd abrams son, argued the case with us that olson argued for me and floyd. one of the most articulate and

phenomenal supreme court lawyers on the first amendment cases. he does articulate the passion for the first amendment. he wrote a piece in the last few days that really reset what people know, and what they do not know. when you are on camera, it is easy to say -- citizens united open the floodgates. which is not true. i find it funny, but it has brought citizens united into the political lexicon as never before. we appreciate the shout out by the president this week. i am sending him a membership card. obviously, for two years -- and if i could, two years ago, january 21, we had our supreme

court victory. eight days later the president of the united states held the state of the union. he attacked, for the first time in american history, attacked the supreme court over the ruling. the justice was mouthing the words not true, over and over. he was correct. what the president was saying was not accurate. foreign contributions, unlimited contributions, all of those things. he did not let the facts get in a way of a good narrative. but it has never been done before. the democratic leadership, jeering the supreme court. unprecedented, demeaning the court in my opinion. host: ronald reagan also singled

out the court on past decisions. guest: never in that way. the president has talked about court cases all the time, but never like that. what i am saying to you is that we have this divisiveness and partisanship that they love to rail against, when it comes to republicans. partisan john boehner cannot get anything through the house or senate, and they become part of the problem. the supreme court is supposed to be non-partisan. they are supposed to not be attacked. i feel that it is really an and of course, he says, our case, no direct democracy, how dramatic can you beat? it is one thing to say i disagree. it is another thing to say as

president of the united states is a threat to democracy. for two years, he attacks the supreme court and he attacks us and then embraces us this week and says i need to have a level playing field and i cannot unilaterally disarm, sure, you consider the. you can say anything to get reelected, clearly. it is a shame that it has come to that. host: our guest is the president and founder of citizens united. he has done many documentary -- documentaries. the president did say, you cannot fight them, -- a comment

from twitter. good morning, david. caller: the supreme court ruled that individuals have a right to free speech. they not be obligated to pay for this right? in other words, a cop -- if a profit is made, should they not be taxed about that without corporate loopholes? guest: if that is to me, not the guy to answer that. corporations are taxed for a reason. if somebody wants to bring an action that tries to do that, that is their business. congress can change that at any time, but to the since united has nothing to do with -- citizens united has nothing to do with corporate tax rate. host: flynt puts it this way, if

you cannot beat them, join them. he has the right to fight fire with fire. guest: he does. but i disagree on these points. i think the citizens united case was wrong on these points, x, y, and the. but to use the inflammatory words, the damaging words that it is a threat to our democracy, you cannot get any greater than that. there is no defcon 0. that is the essence of going nuclear discussion. when your zeal to allow you to do that, i just think it brings the hypocrisy front and center. i don't care that he did it. i am fine with him following the law. we follow the law. he wants to follow the law and , but touper pac

disparage the citizens united -- and the biggest problem i have with it is what he did to the fabric of the supreme court. the destruction of the president of the united states, the political could, from his -- the bully pulpit, from his position telling people what he thinks of the supreme court, that is what i take umbrage with, how he can so disregard the stability of the separations of powerball. you may disagree -- separation of power. you may disagree, but to save these people are bad, you really allow the destruction of the veil that we have. people on our service. people honor what our government tries to do, and the people within it.

and sure, it happens, but to attack this accord in this way, that is my problem. -- to attack the supreme court in this way, that is my problem. i will be honest as a political analyst, he has to outspend his opponents. he cannot run on the record he has and get reelected. he has to run on the component, which is the super pac and he has to do the negative campaigning. he would have to -- he had to outspend john mccain 2 to 1. he will talk to outspan whoever the republican nominee is. -- outspending whoever the coracle denominated. host: here is a question for you on twitter.

guest: absolutely, it is a great question. you can see our host of phones -- the film's online. all of the leaders of the come totive uniomovement citizens united to make films. we are really excited to be able to have our new film out in about six weeks. we unveiled the klepper of it. host: and the title? guest: it is called occupied unmasked. it is the true story behind occupy wall street. host: next caller from georgia. caller: -- from florida. caller: i'm not sure i agree

with citizens united, but america is scared about it because you have the individual vote. but the most important thing is the aclu back to you guys, right? guest: yes, they did. caller: that means you are right in the pocket with that. i guess, my main question is, this is a supreme court decision on who the president- elect is going to be. i mean, if we vote for barack, grover norquist says there will be two switches next year. we need two switches because i do not believe in corporate america unless texas? execute one. host: and not sure about that --

unless texas executes one. host: i am not sure about that last point." guest: the supreme court may or may not have one. they could open one in the next few years. that is clearly a driving force for republicans and that is the living legacy of the president, who you put on the supreme court. it is an important issue and the pending on who wins the republican nomination, it is one of the more important issues that the base will turn out for. host: you and i had a former station thursday at the cpac conference, 10,000 people, a record number karroubi separating -- a record number participating in this conference. mitt romney announced he was

dropping out of the race for years ago. he used his speech on friday to try to run his own conservative credentials. so guest: yearlykos conservative -- a severely conservative. host: is the base supporting him? guest: not at all in my opinion. in my opinion, as someone who has been around the conservative movement since 1984, when he says the words "severely conservative" in the same sentence, it says everything you need to know. he is not know how to speak to the conservative movement. you could say you are a constitutional conservative or a reagan conservative. severelyidered -- sincerel conservative, you say that

because you are trying to win votes. you look up the cpac, yes, he won it. it is a tremendous kick -- gathering of conservatives all across the country. votes in the straw poll are down from last time. anywhere he wins, the vote is down. it should be a telling tale for the establishment that they are pushing forward another losing general election candidates, in my opinion. mitt romney is not the strongest, but the weakest. i think newt gingrich would be the strongest. i think rick santorum would be incredibly strong against barack obama because, like newt gingrich, he provides a strong defense against barack obama. mitt romney is barack obama

lite. it is our weakest candidate. i am dismayed how we are in this position again. host: i want to follow up on that point, but let me remind our viewers on our facebook page, the question we asked in the first 45 minutes, is a flip- flopper a good thing or a bad thing -- is a flip-flop a good thing or a bad thing? how would you answer that? guest: whether a flip-flop is a good thing or a bad thing? host: president nixon on china, but a good thing. guest: when there is a core of principle and there is a change of position on a piece of policy, sometimes you could link richard nixon with china. when you learn things, when the

dynamic of a policy you are discussing, the detail and the dynamic of the policy changes, it is not a bad thing to change. evolving policies -- ronald reagan had the evolving policies as he grew older and wiser and became president. but on his corr presba -- core principles, smaller, ltd. government, corporate bonds on defeating the soviet you in, those things did not change. it was how to defeat the soviet union. it was strategies and tactics that he changed all across his ascendancy to the presidency and in his presidency. the flip-flopper usually has something to do with you -- with something you are for. you are pro-life or you are pro- choice. those are the things that drive

the narrative. it is usually on a core conservative set of principles, or a liberal set of principles of your democratic, that is what the base is talking about. host: mitt romney on the abortion topic is indeed paper today. our next call is from nantucket, mass.. caller: good morning. mr. bossie, didn't you work for dan evans? -- dan burton? and then you got fired because of mrs. clinton. guest: that part is not true, but i did work for dan burton. host: that is true.

you went to a party at the dan burton's house. they addressed a watermelon upon as vincent. i would like you to address the. guest: first all, you lied about that. people are smart enough in this day and age that they can go online and verify that. i never attended a party at dan burton's hawes grindle let p5 get in the way of a good story. host: when did a citizens united begin? guest: it started in 1988. i started in 1992 as the political director when it was in its infancy. when i took it over close to 2000, about 12 years ago now, we were a small but dedicated group. i came back to citizens united

after working in the u.s. senate on the whitewater committee, and then i worked for dan burton as the chief investigator for congress. i got to know speaker gingrich very closely. that is how i know him. it was a wonderful experience. host: another critic of yours, vivian, says any documentary that has andrew buy part -- andrew breitbart giving you the truth, how do you believe that? how do you answer that? guest: we look at all of our fans and -- films and we take very seriously the fact.

look at a "fahrenheit 9/11," very important to rally the base. it was not factually true. what we focus on is providing the facts. people may disagree with how we present them, but it is a fact based film. everyone of our phones, whether it is michele bachmann or -- and rich central was in a film. the andrew britbart of film, it will stand on its own. we were very proud to stand behind that film. andrew is his own guy. a guy like me goes to him because he can bring the attention to the film. that is what we are about. we do not want to bring enda -- making the films that nobody watches.

maybe you agree or disagree with him, but take a look at it. the only way to get it out there is to make sure that people know it exists. somebody who is a firebrand of like britbart, he is a courageous guy. host: linda in tennessee, good morning. caller: my money was taken and given to the democrats, which i did not agree with. and if you hear them call and cannot -- call in, they always cut off. [unintelligible] the day after giffords was shot. there was not any truth to it. he blamed the tea party. i hope he will ask him to apologize. he is a radical are not the

never speaks the truth. he is a democrat, -- radical. and steve, i know you're a democrat. i would appreciate if you would ask him to apologize. and obama loves the health care. and he said you cannot make the people do that. you'll have to nudge them. and paying for abortions, with our insurance, that is what you call a nudge. host: linda, thank you for the call. guest: the essence of what she was st. i understand. there is a lot of frustration out there across america. i see it every day. and i saw it firsthand at cpac.

the tea party movement, to be compared to the occupy wall street movement, that is an insult to those very people. look at those two elements. the 1.2 million people came together on the mall for a tea party rally a couple of years ago when it first began. they left it more beautiful than when they founded. they cleaned up after themselves. they came, were there for a day, and left. the park service found a place cleaner than when they got there. there was no violence. they were not burning, looting, ransacking anyone's raila -- anyone offices, and in business, and the government office. there were no scuffles with police. there was no tear gas used. there was no pepper spray used. these people came together truly doubt about idea, an ideal, to fight for less intrusive

government, lower taxes, low or regulations, and a plethora of conservative ideals and issues. and then on the other side you have the occupied movement. it is banded together to radical -- and that is really the only word you can use for it, a radical set of beliefs, whether they are a socialist -- truly going back to david horowitz, a was an old timer who has been on this program many times. he is an older 1960's as radical leftist. he has come to the conservative conversion. he calls it the anarchist movement within america. i say that to you because if you watch what is going on, you have these elements within a, you have good people who come to these occupy movements that are coming out of this ideal that the government should do more for people. and i can understand why they should -- would do that. but then you have this insidious

underbelly, which is what our film is about, that underpins that an briza and the radicals, the more violent extremists. and they use these nice folks because they want to do good, and that is by that they want to do that. but they do not even know they are being used by these folks. and then you get in there and you see that they destroy a city after city, park after park. they ransacked city hall. look at what they did to even liberal -- and what is a liberal, the most liberal mayors in the country. portland, ore., oakland, calif., denver, colorado, where mayors have been lived for many, many years, and some people can argue that they do a fine job for their economic condition in each of those cities. that is not my discussion. for me, they bent over backwards for these people. they were the police to bend over backwards.

let's give them the benefit of the of doubt. and they are paid back which rights in the streets. by the destruction of private property. by the destruction of government property, which is taxpayers' property in essence. but no matter what they do, it is not enough. that is why i say there is this insidious radical nature in it. it is a small cluster mind is really what is driving the occupy movement. that is why we decided to make a film on the occupied movement. it is a fascinating thing. host: our guest is david shaw bossie of citizens united. you can send us a tweet or an e- mail. this is a statement from the president last week on our source show. "one of the things about being

president is that you get better as time goes on." guest: i think that is right, that you get better at the job. first of all, like barack obama, who has been a failed president in my opinion -- jimmy carter, who was a failed president -- bill clinton was a successful president. he got in peach, but years later, people wish hthey got him back. host: and looking back, was that a mistake to try to impeach him? guest: absolutely. was the impeachment a mistake on the issues related to monica lewinsky? i wish it had been different. in hindsight, ken starr is a tremendous man. he went for the case took him. host: because you worthy -- a part of the whitewater

investigation. guest: yes, and i feel that if we had stayed with the financial crimes aspect of whitewater, if we had taken the law firm billings records that showed up in, you know, in the residence two years after a subpoena, and if we had done these things that people do not remember, but they were very important of the time, it was financial issues, financial crimes. the reason mike huckabee became governor of arkansas is that jim guy tucker in the whitewater investigation, we uncovered something called casagrande, a cable and water and sewer company, that jim guy tucker, who became governor after bill clinton, we uncovered his illegal activity and he was then indicted and convicted by a court and jury in arkansas, only

the 10th time in history that a sitting governor was removed from office and sent to prison. mike huckabee was lieutenant governor and he ascended to became -- to become governor of arkansas. webster hubbell was a trade journal. he was partner of the rose law firm -- webster hubbell was attorney general. he was partner of the rose law firm. jiabao off the people that were influencing the 1992 and 1996 -- to blow off the people that were influence in 1992 and 1996 campaigns, there is a plethora of opportunities there. to go to your question, yes, i wish it had been a different set of articles of impeachment because i do believe bill

clinton was a corrupt president. but barack obama was not -- in essence, was not a good debater, in my opinion, against hillary clinton. i thought she was just so far superior in 2007 leading into the nomination fight. he got better as he went along. he was not a good debater. and he did not even do that good a job, in my opinion, against john mccain. however, when he debate six months from now, i think we will see a different guy. as president, you have to deal with so much information and you have learned on the job for four years. the problem is kayaleh we're headed for a crisis -- the problem is, we're headed for a crisis. that is why i believe of the three or four were broken contenders, newt gingrich is the best.

-- the three or four republican contenders, newt gingrich is the best. going back to 1997 or 1998, he is the best person today. host: a quick tweet. guest: no, we have never received a donation from the cowger brothers, but i have an address -- probably koch brothers, but i have an address and a phone number, and we would love to. host: next caller from florida. caller: i am reading your so- called wikipedia that says dan burton fired due early in the investigation for supervising the recording and editing of transcripts -- i assume, webster

hubbell's thoughts on the phone to implicate hillary clinton in some sort of white water fault, or what have you. also, in "blinded by the right" e.u. made every -- it is suggested that you made every attempt to cover up your own vehicle dollars -- your own developers at the university of maryland. guest: it is shocking to me. i have never heard the loud delegation ever in my life. first, when you are running a very aggressive investigation -- and i was. when you are the leader of an investigation, sometimes leaders take it on the chin. and in washington d.c., that is no new story. i was the leader of the most

controversy operation or on the 1990's, which led to the impeachment of president clinton. it was number one on the hit parade. they wanted me out of their very bad day. did we run a perfect investigation? no. did we make mistakes? absolutely. i am also man enough to admit that when we do make mistakes, the leaders of the organizations take responsibility. i resigned my position. are was not fired. people like to rewrite history. newt gingrich came out and said i was fired. and he led that effort to have me out, absolutely. but good people can have this agreement. and when everybody is trying to do the right thing, i guess, at the time -- was it pretty? it is not pretty to make the sausage. it is a tough, grinding business

provided is not fair for people to come on and make allegations that are not true. host: citizens united is what? guest: we are a conservative organization dedicated to our founding fathers principles, smaller government, elected government, restoring power back to the people. it is much more on the state and local level. it is much more of a reaganesque and national security, peace through strength. and leaving -- a leading up to september 11, we were living with our head in the sand. the weather that is the clinton's fault -- whether that is bill clinton's fault that robert.com with our head in the sand, or whether it is -- that

we were caught with our head in the sand, or whether it is continuing through today. our guys ordaz -- are doing an incredible job, our guys and -- are men and women in the military. it is something we need to focus strongly on huizar -- strongly on. we are a conservative organization host: if ron paul winsleigh, what happens in november? -- if ron paul wins, what happens in november? guest: i just do not see that. he will do a tremendous job in a gathering of the economic conservatives. i think he will rally that very well. and he is pretty good on a lot of social issues. his problem is on foreign policy. he will have a huge part of the party not be energized, or even be in support.

that is a troubling thing. host: and if newt gingrich is the nominee? guest: i think he is the leader for this crisis. but the base has problems with him, which is why he win some and loses some. i think that goes for all of them. but i think he would be the strongest to take on a clear vision against barack obama. i think he would rally the base very well. host: orix and robert guest: is similar to new ordaz -- host: rick santorum. guest: very similar to newt gingrich. they can both gather that energy and forced to get those votes out in the key states -- ohio, pennsylvania, virginia, north carolina, florida, mesut -- minnesota, wisconsin. iowa, nevada. they need to win that strategy

of the 10 or 12 states. and if you look at the turn of where they win, the republican base is up the nose, and down in the places where mitt romney -- is down in that those, -- is up in those, and down in the places where mitt romney went. host: and if mitt romney is the nominee? guest: that i will support them. the republican establishment should be embarrassed by itself and its actions to support a guy, who in my opinion is incredibly weak in the general election. he is the closest thing to barack obama from a policy standpoint. we need clear, concise leadership and a difference. you need to show the american people a difference. newt gingrich and orix and rahm, time and again, they bring

podcast -- and with santorum, time and again, they bring a stark difference to barack obama. whoever the nominee is, we should present the most conservative host: we will leave it there. we appreciate your time on a sunday morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: when we come back, we will continue our conversation on 2012 politics. bill press out with a new book ."lled "obama hate machine this is the "washington journal" on sunday morning.

>> of of just the way i will remember, here is pikus -- that wonderful moment where senator lott has his business -- appeared to take a look. >> when pastrami voted for the president, we were proud of him. >> on the internet and to his website emergence into the news banking business. >> the media is such a different world than it was 10 years ago. and things like that happen all the time now. i know there are certainly many big stories that we have had over the next decade. now we have an editorial staff of 20 people. we're breaking stories right and left. it has almost become commonplace.

it is not nearly as surprising today as it was back then. >> more about tpm and george marshall on tonight q&a. >> shouldn't or president have the highest moral and ethical standards and be an example to our young people in this country? ask yourself the question, please. shouldn't his life make him a role model for your future children? shouldn't anyone you like to this office always keep his promises? >> as candidates campaigned for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for office and lost. go to our c-span.org/contenders to see a video of these men. >> do we not have the right to protest a government that they feel does not serve their interests?

who appointed us to sacrifice the lives of young americans trying to weigh in on the side of a government that represents perhaps 50% of the people of lebanon and has no -- 15% of the people of lebanon and has little or no support from the other 85%? >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back arthur and radio talk-show host, bill press. the book is titled "obama hate right into let's get it. you point out that no president should be scared criticism. guest: i think that any other president since abraham lincoln,

who we think of as st. abraham, it was not in this lifetime. i love seeing those protesters in front of the white house every day. it reminds me of who we are. criticism of any president is valid and important and important to our democracy. but when it gets to be personal and just a vicious personal attacks, that is what i think is wrong. that is what we have seen against president obama. no president since abraham linkedin has been the subject of such attacks. host: you go on to say that no president has been such a subject of personal attacks. and since the beginning it was largely personal and mean- spirited. guest: sure, and in fact, i am

critical of president obama, and i have been as a liberal and a democrat. i think he spends too much time trying to make deals with mitch mcconnell and john vader went from the get go, they indicated they are not interested. mitch mcconnell, our number one goal in the next four years -- he said this in the congress -- was to keep president obama from having a second term. when you start out that way, you are not going to accomplish anything. at president obama davi when he started the recovery program -- president obama, when he started the recovery program, he invited john boehner, so he could explain his plan. he said, come on up. before he got in his limousine, he spoke to his caucus and said,

we will unanimously oppose this plan. he had not even heard it yet. host: we have heard administration officials saying they can deal with of speaker brainard and dot eric cantor -- they can deal with the speaker boehner and eric cantor, but not their a caucus. -- but the republicans cannot deal with their own caucus. guest: i think he represents the two-party freshman who do not want any compromise on any issue. -- t party freshmen who do not want any compromise on any issue. you mentioned this in the last segment with david bossie. the koch brothers have built with the single purpose of taking down president obama. and they have done it with think tanks and universities -- they are everywhere.

they are the state and federal level. and they got their corporate bodies together are in palm springs to raise $100 million -- but the corporate bodies together in palm springs to raise $100 million to take down president obama. host: in a previous publishing usyou said -- guest: we always thought growing up it will be difficult for an african-american or a woman to get elected because of the residual racism in this country. and it is just the opposite. it is impossible for them not to get elected because we have so much white guilt.

president bush called obama -- not a jerk. he is one of the biggest name callers against president obama. on the radio he called him a jackass. but as you know, he has been called marxes, fascist ahman comet -- fascist, communists, liar, a trader, terrorists. it has nothing to do with his policies. if you do not like the way he is doing something, fine, go after it. if you do not like his approach to health care, put another approach on the table. that is what we should be doing as americans, not calling him a jackass. host: but when you look at what has been written about president washington in the 1700's in newspapers, is there any difference between what they said about our first president and what people like rush limbaugh may say about our

current president, or what ready or talk show hosts like you may have said about george borussia? guest: i never said anything like -- george and bush? guest: i never said anything like that about george bush. i may have criticized his policies. i knew that he loved this country and i knew he was trying to do what he thought was best for this country. i just think he went in the wrong direction. i talked about this last night. in their early days of this country, if there had been talk shows in those days, george washington would have been reviled. politics was not privy in the days of the founding fathers. probably the ugliest election we ever had was an aging hundred between -- with john adams. after linkedin's assassination,

-- after lincoln's assassination, politics to a new direction. i do not think that is healthy for our democracy. host: we have a tweet. i love this guy, he is driving the conservatives crazy. guest: [laughter] host: we have with us bill press, radio talk-show host and columnist. and of the author of "obama hate machine." caller: new democrats -- you democrats, i do not know why you call yourself progressive. guest: i call myself a liberal. it i think a progressive is afraid of being truthful of who they really are.

caller: to be elected, year after being united, not divided. look what is going on -- you have to be united, not divided. look what is going on now, ok. host: she hung up. guest: i think this president is going out of his way to work with these thoughts and members of congress and has been shot down at every attempt. on the debt ceiling, the jobs bill, immigration. sean hannity last week said that if president obama had his way, osama bin laden would still be alive. where is that coming from? who gave the orders to go get him? who gave the orders to find him? who approved the plan, even though it was a risky plan with only 60% certainty that he was there? it was not george bush who said, he is only one guy and i do not

care if we find him or not. give the man credit for something. host: a want to preface this with the saying that linda, who was very critical of you and me and this network, she said that you came on and said that you blamed the two-party network for the shooting of garver -- the tea party on.net work for the shooting of guard pergo giffords. guest: -- the shooting of gabbro giffords, you blame that on the tea party guest: network i did not. certainly, the political atmosphere in tucson was very porous and this. -- very poisonous. i think whoever shot her was caught up in that. but i never blamed her or the tea party. words have consequences.

host: to go back to that, verbally abused by tea party years guest: walking into the house of representatives. absolutely unacceptable. john lewis is an icon, i believe. and what he has done, he should get the respect of all americans. that does not mean you worship the ground he works on more risk everything he does, but treat him with respect. i am friends with a lot of these republicans on the hill. i did crossfire for six years. you name it -- john boehner, john mccain, i am on good terms with all of them. and they know i disagree with their policies, but i treat them with respect and they treat me with respect, and that is the way it ought to be.

if there are so many people in this political system that the ink dot anything -- there are so many people in this political system that think anything goes. i do not think it to be that way. host: here is the next caller. caller: i think this guy is this delusional and he loves to sell these books to liberals. how can you say that rush limbaugh and others hate president obama because they vehemently disagree with them? you say that i was march of fox news, so i disagree with the left media. then you get the media and everybody wise and cries about fox all of the time. -- wines and cries about fox of the time. they give obama a pass on everything. you tell me where this tape

machine is. i do not see it. -- hate machine is. i do not see it. guest: if you are watching fox, you are watching the tape machine, a good part of it. you ought to take your blinders off. i am a talk-show host, right? when george bush was in the white house, there were many times i agreed with him on policy and said so. there have been times i've disagreed with barack obama on policy and i said so. i think that george bridgepoint -- george bush was right on immigration and it was his conservative talk-show hosts that killed it. i defy you do tell me one good thing was limbaugh or sean hannity ever said that was probiotic rock obama. and rush limbaugh said that if he were not black -- ever said that was positive about barack

obama. rush limbaugh said that if he were not black he would be a tour guide. sean hannity said that he would like osama bin laden to still be alive. guest: yes, he did. and he said, i've got a tape to prove it. he said that michelle obama said that we hate whitey and we are born to go after whitey. the tape never existed. he spent hours on it. host: is rush limbaugh, a hateful person? guest: he says he'd for things. let me put it that way. -- he says hateful things. let me put it that way.

host: why? guest: i think it is just because that is his shtick and it works and it brings people to his radio show and they buy his products and he is very successful at it. he is a very successful businessman. and i could take our hat off to him as a radio host. nobody is as good as he is. host: from ohio, good morning. the democrats line. caller: the answer is yes, the -- rush limbaugh is a very bad guy. he changes everything around and lies about it. what i want to talk about is the energy commission, the other day they pass a bill. eric cantor put a bill in that said he was going to give line- item veto to -- a line-item power of veto to the president. the democrats rejected all over that. what is said was, if they sent

the bills to him and they added that pipeline, for example, then he added -- and if he knocks down the pipeline and it comes back to him, then they decided it never went to him. the democrats, i cannot believe they are reading this stuff. if it does not go back to the president, it makes it automatic lock. the and just because he is getting the veto, they are not reading the bill. they got another one from the energy commission and they sat right in the meeting saying that they are going to get that show oil from canada and put our oil in it all the way through various of using water from canada and from alaska. host: thanks for the call guest: i must admit i do not know the details of this

particular line item veto. it has a -- an issue for a long time. i support a line-item veto and i always have. i remember working the california legislation and ronald reagan supported by. it seems to me that he should be able to go through and before they sign it and say, these are the things i disagree with without having to veto the entire budget. it makes sense from a governing point of view. i do not know if that makes a liberal or a conservative. i think that just makes good government. host: that was overturned by the supreme court decision, but it allows the president to highlight the areas that he once said back to congress for that ordaz -- once sent back to

congress for the item guest: which seems to me to achieve the same goal. host: here is a tweet. guest: abercrombie, who is a good friend of hawaii, i heard him speak about a month ago in los angeles. he said, this whole thing turned around and got a personal and nasty -- and by the way, 24 hour even between elections attack mode on the part of members of congress, the two parties against each other, it started in 1994 when newt gingrich became speaker. and what he came out -- we talked about this on the show. there was a list of words of all that you save your republican.

trusted, loyal, patriotic. and here are the words for liberals, lazy, not trustworthy. the winners of both parties should get together and say, ok, what are the problems we have in front of us and how are we going to fix them? are they willing to reach across the aisle? right now, it is 24 hour campaign. there is no letting up on the campaign mode between elections, and that is why you do not see progress getting anything done is -- and it is certainly true, some degree on both sides, but particularly true with the republican caucus. host: you are heard on how many stations around the country? guest: we are heard on a series xm, which made everywhere around the country, and about 60 ground

stations around the country, seattle, portland, go down the list. host: how do you prepare for the show in the morning? guest: [laughter] i do not. no, it is three hours of it is a lot to fill. host: tell me about it. guest: i am always preparing. i do not mean to dr. question. right after each show we sit down and talk about -- i do not mean to? -- duck your question. right after each show we sit down and talk about what we might want to talk about the next day. we have a conference call at 5:00 p.m. and we look at what's new is the day has brought and decide on those topics. and then we go in the next morning at 5:00 a.m., an hour before showtime, and put the

show together. i am on lineme daman, all the time. by reading news websites, getting my hands on whatever papers i can read. most of the issues we talk about give people the updates are around the country, the capital, are around the globe. i give my spin on it and then take calls an interview our guest peridot -- interview our guests. it is a 24-hour cycle. we're always preparing for the show. host: the white house will reveal and some news tomorrow and it will have familiar themes group raising taxes on corporations republicans will offer an alternative saying no new taxes. and we have seen this before.

will anything changed? guest: i do not think so. i think it is clear that until after november 2012 there will be no resolution to this. republicans really have dug in their heels. it is a temporary tax that george bush put into place. it is a temporary relief. they believe that should be a permanent relief for millionaires and billionaires. it is just the right. -- not right. host: if a republican is elected, will anything be different in january of 2013? will republicans negotiate on some of these issues that barack obama is talking about in 2012? .com guest: first, i do not accept your premise -- guest:

first, i do not accept your premise. i believe the congress is getting stronger. the republicans, whoever they put up, it is going to be a weak candidate. and none of the afford you are currently can beat president obama. -- none of the four can beat president obama. i think he will win and that will pick a bit of a more seats in the senate. host: in 1994, even when he won, -- in 1984, even when he won, he only brought in a few more seats. guest: if republicans do have the house and senate, i do not think things will change. i think it will double down. they will not cooperate with

this president. they will not say, all we tried to defeat him and he got reelected, so now let's hold hands with him. i think is going to be ugly. host: hi, frank. caller: i am an independent and my motto is, one party stinks' and the other one don't smell so good. both have gotten us to where we are today. i used to consider myself a republican. a, part of the republican party. the democrat party is not what it used to i'm sorry, it's democrat. guest: democratic is the word. look it up in the dictionary. let's talk the english language. caller: excuse me. but, first off, you're not partisan. i know that.

secondly, if there's a republican president, it's not the prime directive of the democratic party or democratic party to unseat him. perhaps those on the right are being more honest. it's all partisan. the real problem we have is the office of the presidency has become monarchial. i used to be, like i said, i'm not a neoconservative, i'm a conservative. 30 years ago, when there were primaries in the republican party, they used to demonize candidates who were "neoconservative" but today we have the neodemocratic party. guest: you touched on so many things. number one, i hear that all the time, it doesn't matter whom we elect. oh, yes it does. oh, yes it does. think of the supreme court.

that's the number one reason is makes a big divhorches gets -- difference who gets elected president of the united states. do you want more ruth bader ginsburg's or more steve briar? i wrote a book called "train wreck," and the presidency -- the office of the president has gotten stronger and stronger. dick cheney, that was his driving goal, to bring back what he thought they had given away under jerry ford and richard nixon and he started that with george w. bush and in many ways the obama presidency has continued some of those almost super powers of the presidency in terms of when we go to war, the use of drones without

getting approval from congress. i think they are very, very troubling questions about super powers of the presidency under this president and the last president that all americans ought to be concerned about. host: and it is the democratic party, not the democratic party. guest: that's such a silly thing to hang on to but republicans think they're being so cute, following rush limbaugh's lead by saying, democratic party. it's childish. host: did you see the c-pac conference over the weekend? guest: i didn't go down there. i saw a lot of clips of it. what surprised me is that mitt romney won the straw poll. the last two years, ron paul won the straw poll at c-pac. this is the 38th year they've come to washington and the fact that santorum went in, i thought he would get it. the fact that mitt romney won

the straw poll, i find that impressive. host: ron paul didn't speak this year at c-pac. guest: he spent time in maine and came in second in maine. it was a good day for romney. host: highlights from our weekend coverage of the c-pac coverage which started thursday, wrapping up yesterday. ann coulter speaking at the gathering. >> even with all this, obama will be very difficult to beat this year. number one, he's an incumbent. number two, americans keep telling pollsters, they like him personally. he's our first black president and the n.f.m., the nonfox media is gaga about him. obama is not mockish like carter, not sleazy like clinton. he'd probably make a lovely next door neighbor as long as you're

not chinese then he'd be constantly borrowing stuff. [applause] voters with 40 years of politically correct education are ecstatic to have the first black president. they love the idea of it, even if we did get flavo flav instead of thomas soul. when is it going to be ok in this country to admit we elected a man based on the color of his skin? host: some reaction, ann coulter? guest: she's a friend. she's probably the most colorful person still out there not running for office in politics today and her whole schtick is making outrageous statements in front of crowds like that. she had her moment but no impact on the political process. she picks up that line that the

only reason he got elected is because he's black. that, to me, is so low. the book, you say barack obama is the first black president of the harvard law review, the fifth black man elected to the u.s. senate and the first black u.s. president but many critics question his ethnicity. say he's not black enough because his mother is white, they can't accept him for who he is. he's a man who has made remarkable achievements under very difficult circumstances -- raised by his grandparents, grew up in indonesia, split family, saw his father twice in his lifetime, didn't have a dime, got to occidental, able to get to harvard. why? based on his academic skills and his drive and his push. in chicago as a community organizer and then gets elected to the state senate and then

gets elected to the u.s. senate, then president of the united states. he didn't do that just because he's a black guy from the streets, you know. you know what this is. i noticed that david bossy in the last hour referred to david horwitz. david horwitz calls this the obama derangement syndrome. that's what you hear from ann coulter, that's what you hear from rush limbaugh. they hate the man so much, they can't help themselves. i know i'm rampling on here. at c-pac, wayne lapier, head of the national rifle association, said at c-pac that it's true, president obama in four years hasn't done anything at all to take our rights away under the second amendment but if he gets

re-elected, he's going to come after every one of our guns. where did that start? stoking fear in the part of the united states. the president, as a liberal, i wish he had done something about gun control. he gave a speech in tucson after gabby givds was shot, saying he would do something, he's done squat. wayne lapier saying that's his secret intention. host: ask the guest why the liberals could not find someone better than barack obama. guest: we found the best candidate we could and that's why he's the president of the united states. i supported hillary clinton, i think she would have made a great president and she's made a stateenal secretary of but i think barack obama will make a better president.

host: do you think she'll run in 2016? guest: no. her career's not over, i would hope she'd be president of the world bank or secretary general of the united nations but running a national campaign, again, i think she's had it. after her husband's two campaigns and her campaign and running for senate twice, give the woman a break. phonerepublican on the from california. good morning. yout: mr. press, i've heard for years. you're a good proponent on your side but you're totally wrong today. you say everybody's against obama in a fashion different from anything else in your lifetime. i remember how the press went after ronald reagan and look at they treated him, a fine man. look how they treated first

george bush, who was a flier in world war ii. you look at obama and you want to know why we're against him? we're scared by obama. he's the one raised by a socialist mother. read his book. he stated in his autobiography that he wished he'd done better in high school and other schools but he partied too much, he drank and did drugs. he followed saul ulinski. this is insane. wants to do is radical and everybody he says he hung out with in college was a radical. guest: you just heard the obama hate machine. that's total nonsense. we're supposed to love pappy bush because he was on the baseball team. whoop-dee-do, that's how we choose our presidents? i liked daddy bush. i thought he was a reasonable guy. i knew ronald reagan and

respected ronald reagan. this is the obama derangement syndrome you just heard word for word. the idea that president obama admits he experimented with drugs, the only difference between him and george w. bush is he admits it and bush denied it. look where he is today, look what he's accomplished in his lifetime, look at his policies as president and tell me where you disagree with him, rather than, which this guy just did, that's the book, go after him personally. they cannot help themselves. host: michael savage, radio talk show host, you quote him saying "president obama is more of a terrorist than hugo chavez." guest: what can i say? how can you stoop to that level? i think they lose all credibility at that point. when you say something so outrageous.

tom cradle also said he thought barack obama was more dangerous than al qaeda. now, sure, there are crazies like our last caller who are going to believe that but i think most of the american people know that's just nonsense. host: there is a narrative. guest: i come back to, sure, sure, that's legitimate criticism of any president which i think is healthy and i welcome it and i've been part of it, right. but i don't know that anybody ever said, ronald reagan was a terrorist or george w. bush was a terrorist, right? that's where this is not just a slight difference, it's a huge difference, the level of attacks we've seen against president obama. host: but part of that criticism is that he is isolated and many call him and his administration arrogant. address those concerns, because it is out there.

guest: i don't see -- "isolated" i've heard and i guess i've heard arrogant. i don't see an arrogance around the white house and i'm there almost every day but i do think they're more isolated than we reporters would like. the access is not always easy with the president, certainly, or his top officials. and i hear that complaint a lot in the white house press corps. and i think the president himself is not -- he's not a glad hander. he's not out around washington going to all the parties and he is a very tight circle of friends. a lot of them chicago-based and i think that has -- i think that has hurt him in a way that he hasn't built as many friends as he could here in washington who could help him further his agenda. i think that's a legitimate criticism of the obama white house.

host: to your earlier point, the last caller was nuts. she just proved bill press' point. let's go to monica, columbus, ohio. good morning, democrat's line. monica, good morning. caller: i would like to say that i believe a lot of theat -- attitudes towards our president is because of racism. i remember when george bush was in office, he said if we weren't for him, we were against him and when the country singers, the girl country singers made comments against the war, everybody was out tearing up their c.d.'s and the music that they put out but with this president, you're allowed to go to places and brandish a gun. it's so obvious that the attitudes towards this president is because of his race and i

wish that the media would stop trying to deny it and not recognize it and make statements about it. guest: the dixie chicks, yeah, certainly, if they were out there criticizing president obama today they would be hailed as heroes and i bet you they would have been invited to play at the c-pac conference but monica makes a very important point. my book is not about racism, "the obama hate machine." i do not say it's all because he's black, but -- because i don't think it is. i don't think everybody who disagrees with president obama is a racist. i do not make that -- i want to be clear, i do not make that accusation in the book, but you cannot deny that part of what motivates people, some people, not to like this president is the color of his skin. there is still latent racism out there and i think that's

particularly true among some of the tea party party and you can't deny it, you can't sweep it under the rug. it's a fact, some people are not with the fact that there's a black man in the white house. host: you write "the greatest challenge of the obama presidency would be dealing with the unprecedented barrage of hate level against him. we have a long way to go to get from the politics of personal ."struction sarah palin delivering these remarks. >> his washington regulatory wizards, they didn't prevent the financial meltdown, these folks have helped cause it and you had to bail them out. the president says "small town americans." we bitterly cling to our religion and our guns because we're just gaga and frustrateed. you say, i say, we say, keep your change, we'll keep our god,

our guns, our constitution. [applause] the professor obama may have forgotten the bill of rights but we shall not forsake it, including those rights thattor thattor -- our founders risked their lives for, freedom of religion, our right to bear arms. we will rise up, we will defend them. the president believes that your tax dollars should subsidize planned parenthood. we believe that every child is created equal with that right to

life. host: comments of sarah palin yesterday. let me have you respond to her comments and this morning's story on "the washington post," what in the matter with the republican party, this is an election year where everything should be going the g.o.p.'s way and it's not so far gompt i'm amused by the fact that c-pac brought back all the losers and gave them the spotlight -- herman cain, rick perry, sarah palin. sarah palin has zero impact on the political process today. and i also have to say, you know, if i were in that audience, i would be inas a resulted by her -- insulted by her comments. she says the obama is the financialr meltdown. anybody with any brain knows it happened in october 2008 when george w. bush was in the white house and if you recall, they suspended the campaign and bush called a meeting at the white house and brought

john mccain and barack obama, in, to say what, can we do about this? so whatever else you say about barack obama, he did not cause the financial meltdown. he wasn't in office at all. still trying to dig us out of it. just a sample of where they don't care about the facts anymore. they just throw this out there and you saw the people and they love it and stand up, they don't even think. i find it amusing. back to your question. look, i was really worried about president obama's re-election because the economy not coming back as fast, unemployment up, 10%. president obama i didn't think really had the right -- he wasn't forceful enough, spending too much time dealing with these republicans, he wasn't putting his message out there, he lost the fight over the debt ceiling, i thought, had to give up and extend the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest people so i thought guy is really vulnerable. i still think he is vulnerable

but the republicans, i think, have blown -- i don't want to count my chickens before they hatch -- but i think the republicans have blown a great opportunity by number one, not coming up with the strongest possible candidate. i think there are people out there. haley barbour, chris christie, mitch daniels, jeb bush would have been a stronger candidate, any one of them, than mitt romney, newt gingrich, ron paul or rick santorum. so i think they're putting up their weaker candidates and getting off message. they're talking about contraception, home schooling, same-sex marriage and they ought to be talking about jobs. i think they are in the process of blowing an opportunity. host: we're talking with bill press, the author of "the obama hate machine." anthony joining us from morris cove, connecticut. good morning to you, sir. caller: this is anthony and i approve this message. to say is, when

president obama came to office, the fourth quarter unemployment rate was 8.1. february was 8.3, march was 8.6 and on and on. and i can't let it get away, either. the lady from florida, she got to read cray crawford's book, "attack the messenger" because they blame the media, they have no other answers. i was a republican in 2003, i got so tired because i have two small businesses, hockey shops. one is hockey equipment and i made a boot that makes custom skates and i make over $1 million, you know. president obama gave 16 tax cuts to the middle class, gave tax credits to the middle class,

gave tax credits to small business like mine and on and on and any republican that is all for, like bill said, nothing compares to haley barbour or anybody else and. host: we only have a few minutes left. we appreciate your call and your comment. thanks for approving your message. guest: most people don't realize this, 95% of americans got a tax cut under the stimulus package and i said that on talk shows and talk radio hosts have said, no, no, that's not right. yes, it is right. but it came out as a lower payroll tax cut at the time so people didn't get a check, they didn't realize it. and so if you believe in tax

cuts, obama's your guy. host: michelle has this question, "does bill press think there is any chance of a brokered convention?" guest: i do. mitt romney says, i'm a businessman, i know how to make deals. he hasn't been able to close this deal with the members of his own party and i can see rick santorum and newt gingrich are not going to give up and the republicans could limp into tampa without romney having enough delegates, in which case, katie bar the door, it could be wide open and i think you might see a jeb bush, for example, despite his last name, come out of the convention. host: is that why jeb bush has not endorsed mitt romney even though his father has? guest: could be. i don't think we've seen the end of this story. host: as you put together this book,.

"the obama hate machine," what one thing did you learn? >> how even more widespread i thought, the personal attacks against the president, is the incredible reach of the coke brothers, the third and fourth wealthiest people in this country, combined wealth of $50 billion. david cook is the richest man in new york city. they have put more money into politics than anyone else in this country. george soros is a pinny pincher compared to these guys. here in washington, heritage foundation, coke brothers, scott walker, coke brothers, proposition 23 in california, coke brothers. and i think i mentioned two days before this book came out, they had another conference in palm springs and they put together $100 million to defeat president obama. so far, all the super pacs in

the republican primaries have spent a total of $56 million. so these guys are much more money than anybody else and most people have nerve heard of them. charles and david coke, the coke brothers are the most powerful political force in this country today. host: bill press, the author of his latest book. "the obama hate machine, the lies, distortions and personal attacks on the president and who behind him." thanks for being with us. we're going to take a short break, when we return, we'll continue our discussion on presidential politics. rob richie will be joining us, the executive director of fairvote, on the process of electing a president. the topics of sunday morning all heard on c-span radio and xm radio. here is nancy calo in the c-span radio studio keeping track of all of that. >> the re-airs of the five network tv talk shows begin at

noon eastern on c-span radio with topics including presidential politics, president obama's budget and the situation in syria. beginning at noon, nbc's "meet the press," with david gregory welcoming rick santorum, white house chief of staff jack lou and bill burton. at 1:00 p.m., it's abc's "this week." guests include rick santorum and white house chief of staff, jack lou, as well as house budget committee chair paul ryan. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, chris wallace speaks with jack lou and sharp. at 3:00 p.m., hear cnn's "state of the union" with rick santorum and another appearance by jack lou, white house chief of staff. also connecticut independent senator, joseph lieberman. at 4:00 p.m., it's "face the

nation" with paul ryan, ron paul and senate republican leader mitch mcconnell. also another appearance by white house chief of staff, jack lou. re-airs begin at noon eastern with nbc's "meet the press," 1:00, "this week," listen to them all on c-span radio. listen on your iphone or blackberry, or go online to cspanradio.org. >> shouldn't your president have the highest moral and ethical standards and be an example to our children and young people in this country? ask yourself that question, please. shouldn't his life make him a role model for your future children? shouldn't anyone you elect to this office always keep his

promises? >>ad candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to c-span.org/thecontenders, to see video of those who impacted the highest office. >> who appointed us to sacrifice the lives of young americans trying to weigh in on the side of a government that represents perhaps 15% of the people of lebanon and has little or no apparent support from the other 85%. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. "washington journal" continues. host: so often on this network we talk about the politics of elections. we want to turn our attention to the process. rob richie is the executive director of an organization

called fairvote. you've been with the organization for 20 years. thanks for being with us. let's talk about the basic questions that come up every four years and first and foremost, the electoral college versus the national popular vote. this debate was front and is it in november of 2000 as al gore won the popular vote only to lose the electoral vote to george w. bush and nothing has changed 12 years later. >> there has been one big change, there's been an ongoing debate about reform and we've seen tremendous movement in states towards reform so the rules we're going to use in 2012 are the old rules we've had for a long time where states allocate their electoral votes so the winner of the statewide popular vote. that happens in 48 states so that rule will be in place and whoever gets the most electors, if they have a majority, will be president, but what we're seeing in states in more than 2,000

state legislators have endorsed this concept, nine states have passed laws, is to move towards a national popular vote for president which has a chance to be in place for 2016 so that's the big change in the years i've been working at fairvote. host: you have written a piece for "new york times" and asked people to weigh in. as people share their thoughts about the popular vote and the way we elect our president overall, what do you want to hear? guest: i think it's a great topic because people have so many good ideas and there's a lot of ways we can make things better. think we have a great opportunity in states to be insidious, to be laboratories of democracy and we're seeing a lot of innovation out there. the letter i wrote talks about -- and it's a fun project that the "new york times" does where i wrote a letter, then a bunch of letters came in and i wrote a response and that package is in the "times" today but i talked about ways to

change the nomination process to make more states matter and have a nomination process that promotes deliberation and participation and i hope get better nominees for the parties, but then look to general elections and ways we can have better general elections and for president, that's a national popular vote plan. the idea of instant runoff voting is something we're excited about. rent choice voting, something that comes up any time we are in a situation where more than two candidates run and people say the third candidate is a spoiler or splitting the vote and there's a direct means to deal with that. if are congress, which is the heart of a lot of people's concerns about politics in america, there's ways to change method of election there. we're backers of moving towards american forms of proportional representation, non-winner-take-all systems to provide voters with more choice and better representation in

congress. host: the writer in the "new york times" said we need a second party. he says when you play scrabble sometimes you look at your seven letters and you have only one vowel that spells nothing. what do you do? you go back to the pile, throw your letters back and hope to pick up a better one that works for you. that's what the republican primary voters seem to be doing, they keep going back to the pile but coming up with vowels that spell nothing. he's writing about the politics of the republican party but taking that to your point, your response? guest: i think americans are hungry for better choices and better choices not only within the republican party and i'm sure some republicans are happy with their candidates, there are ways we could change the nomination process to make it easier for a late-breaking candidate to get in. right now we have candidates having to make those decisions back last year about whether they want to the run and that doesn't have to be the way the major parties nominate and one

of the proposals we make called the american plan for the nomination process would make it easier for a candidate to say, you know what, the field isn't strong enough, i can get in. in general elections, we should have more choices, too. we actual doe have choices. there will be more than two candidates running in the fall for president but they're often put in the role of being a spoiler and it's really a product of statutory rules that could be changed within the constitution. we should keep an eye on what the americans elect movement does. they are sort of a process to generate a third major choice that we'll hear more about in the coming months but they expect to be on the ballot in all 50 states with their still to be chosen nominee so the process isn't over and the process isn't over, either. that will be interesting to see what happens. join rob richie's dialogue, part of the "new york times" sunday, online, in which his letter and responses are

posted. this is what it looks like from their website. welcome to the program. caller: my question is, by watching and listening to the process for the coming election, i would like to know, a lot of people are saying about voter suppression rule going on in most of the states, mostly i must say, southern states, to a certain extent, where people have to have identification in order to -- voter i.d.'s in order to vote. my question is, do you think those laws will be put into play where it would make the election a lot harder for people to vote in those states? host: thank you. guest: important question and it's a real concern, that part of what makes a democracy work is the other points i've been making that every vote should be equal, we shouldn't have a

majority system with fair raining representation but we also have to have basic fundament access and we all have a right to vote as americans. we do not have a constitutionally affirmatively protected right to vote. the origins of which go back to the fact that that was not a broadly accepted value that was ready to be in the constitution in the 1700's. it was not -- the suffrage wasn't limited, it was punted to the states so the states still make a lot of decisions about suffrage and the debate over photo i.d. is a passionate one. people who believe we should have photo i.d. think we should make sure that people who are voting are eligible voters. the problem is that, well, photo i.d. might seem like a natural concept to people, there's a lot of people who don't have a photo i.d. and it's not an easy thing to get one and if you say that's

a a mandate to vote, that can keep people from voting so we have to look at alternatives, if we move forward with photo i.d., we have to protect access and a lot of that will be fought over in states and cities and communities can rally and in any state that has this, they can make sure none of their citizens are denied a right to vote because of the identification but we need to be vigilant and protect that right and move toward having a right to vote in the constitution. host: i want to share one of your specific proposals but joe has that point -- the electoral college was not just an unfortunate necessity, it was designed purposely so that states are more equal in influence." guest: that's the looking backward justification. at the time, that was really -- what is in the constitution on the electoral college was to

say, let's let states decide how to do it but it's not about states having equal power, it's about states coming up with a method of electing the president and in the early decade, a lot of states didn't have elections and they didn't use the winner-take-all rule and this is an important way to on the other hand the flaw of the current system. right now, for partisan reasons, states give all their electoral votes to whoever wins that state vote, they don't want to share electoral votes with the other party and once you're in that it's hard for any state to change the rule and that's where the national popular vote plan is so exciting because really what we need to have equal is that every voter is treated equally and their vote is treated equally and when that's true, every state will be equally based on their numbers of voters. the way it is now, if your state, if a candidate's sees that state where one party is comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind, they write it off, and

the number of states seen as in play, ones where that's not the case and where competing can make a difference and the winner-take-all rule means they can win that state, otherwise, if they don't compete, lose it, is now down to single digits so that's why we hear about the same old states again and again and very few of them are small states. almost every single small state is not a competitive state and voter turnout is dropping more than other states and they're not treated equally but if you treat every voter equally, you treat every state equally in the sense that every vote counts the same. host: and yet new hampshire and new mexico, geographically large but population-wise, small, are not in play. guest: the 11 single states are not in play. if you can find one that is, which is new hampshire, but the great majority aren't and they're completely ignored but if their votes counted equally, get out the vote would matter

everywhere. host: so to donna's point, why don't they put pictures on voter cards? guest: i think we need to think through how to do this. pictures on voter cards could be done but the state has to invest money in it and make sure that that is run in a way that doesn't block people from voting. we have so many people voting by mail these days and their signature is what the check is because when you're sending your absentee ballot, you're not sending in your driver's license. and if a signature is good enough for an absentee ballot, it seemingly should be for an in-person voter but we then need to have a system where we can believe that signature check doesn't disenfranchise people, either. we want to make sure every person who is registered to vote is eligible to vote. we need a sensible, modern registration system and we need

to have a means to make sure people voting are who they are and we can move past these problems but right now the steps being taken are more likely to disenfranchise than protect voter rolls. host: cynthia, republican line, good morning. caller: i'm so sorry to do this so quickly but i'd just like to say, this must be coming straight from the white house itself, because you do not want to rush all of these people out before we -- all the illegal aliens helping to make decisions for our country which we have lived in for so many years, all of our lives, our ancestors who have to make these laws and while leberals have such a liberal view of how to take

this, i would like to say that -- and i'm sure a lot of republicans, we can all see the possibility with this, but we see certain steps that must be taken first. the laws have to be -- certain things have to be taken care of but you have to understand with the liberals, they should be helping this fight, not looking at it as where the liberals against the republicans and vice versa. guest: there were different things jump out with that caller. i'm thinking that might have been more for bill, the previous guest. i think we can all get around the idea that we should protect the right to vote as the way we all get around the bill of rights or we all stand on its foundation and i think the idea of making sure the right to vote is upheld which is both access and security, i think we can do that.

and for presidential elections, sure we all count, which, by the way, i thought where she was going at first was the idea that in the nomination process we shouldn't prematurely reject candidates and say the fact that someone finished third in iowa versus fourth means they're out. one thing i'm liking about the republican process is having the pundits get a wake-up call, that we should let the states vote, let the process go forward. santorum did not do well in many states and now he's doing well again and we had candidates like pawlenty last year drop out because he didn't do well in a straw poll in august. we can have a process where more states can participate and that's one of the things that would be sensible. if we wrote off the new york giants early in the regular season, they lost to the washington redskins twice, they have had a chance to win the super bowl, which is

part of how i think we can establish a process where let the process go through, let all the states vote, let the liberation and dialogue happen think we'll have a better democracy. host: the question is called, a better way to elect, part of a dialogue our guest is weighing in on the "new york times" website, part of the opinion pages. both rob richie's comments and many of your comments are posted on the nytimes website as of today. one of our viewers saying, "it should be one vote, one person." and matt joins us from atlanta, independent line. good morning to you, sir. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i define myself as an independent conservative. i want to comment that rob richie's contempt of the electoral college is systematic of the rampant

anti-constitutionalism these days and anybody that acknowledges constitutional history will acknowledge it was put in place to be against mob rule and i would ask rob, what other parts of the constitution would you like to dismantle while you're at it? the exciting part of the national popular vote plan that has led to a lot of conservatives being is thers of this. this is not something that is a democratic plan, it's not a republican plan, it's not a liberal plan, it's not a conservative plan. it's a plan that establishes the principle, the way we elect our senators and governors and can be done for president within the constitution and that's the fact that the states maintain the key constitutional authority which is control over what to do with the electoral college. this is a state law, a state decision, and states are joining together, passing an interstate compact which is a binding agreement, like a contract, to establish the principle that they think when the president

runs, that they president should seek votes everywhere and the candidate with the most votes should become president and that's something that 75%, 80% of americans want and the states have the power to do this. what the constitution says is the states -- it doesn't get rid of the electoral college. it means, when enacted, it becomes a rubber stamp for the national popular vote. but the states want to change their mind in the future, it's their decision, but right now, i think that we need to look at the fact that as we go forward, after the nomination process is done, the candidates will turn away from south carolina, from most of the states that are getting attention, the nomination process, and will exclusively focus on a handful of states and in 2008, it was 99% of campaign attention measured by resources and ads and visits are states

representing barely a third of americans. it's going to be smaller this year. that's not what american democracy, what, i think, a republic should have, where the people of the states are respecting. host: our guest is the executive director of fairvote funded by whom? guest: funded by individuals. we have some foundation support, the ford foundation is one of the foundations that have backed us over the years. it's mostly individuals and it's a range of individuals who especially are believers that we don't have to be -- we don't have to settle. that we can actually make democracy reflective of what we want and all these changes can be done within the constitution. there's a lot we can do and a lot being done. some of the most exciting changes we are interested in are at the city level where cities are moving towards instant runoff voting, rank choice voting, in minneapolis, m&ms, a mix of sites, the bay area,

portland, maine, are doing plans where you can have two choices and split the vote. host: and caucuses would take place in 10 two-week intervals, calling for a gradual increase in total population of randomly selected states holding contests and you would begin with contests some small population states and territories. does that mean new hampshire and iowa would not go first? guest: correct, which certainly isn't in the constitution and shouldn't be mandated they have that special status. i'm sorry, new hampshire and iowa, but can you share. there's two parts of it. one is this process of encouraging a real set of contests, moving forward, that retains what i think is valuable having retail politics and the intense focus on a smaller number of voters, but doesn't make that decisive because we would move through essentially like the regular season, there'd

be these series of contests growing in size but it would narrow the field. it would get to the playoffs, and the playoffs would be a national primary, the way i'd like to see it in the first tuesday in june and the parties could take advantage of a contest happening everywhere and have two or three nominees, or two or three candidates that had the playoffs. if they did three, they would use the instant runoff system, but then have every vote count at that point but they would have competed in all states before then. some interesting changes in the nomination process. the republicans have won that is making a lot more states count. i think that's good. i think that's good for the party and ultimately one that's good for americans and i think both parties can do that and we can have more choice with other parties and independents in november. host: mike from waukegan, illinois. good morning to you. caller: good morning. my question is, well, i don't really agree with the republican

because i'm a democrat, but why should it matter in the season as far as votes go that the democrats because they have incumbent with obama which i voted for but i won't vote again and i would like it see more mix actually with the democrats as far as to i guess what run as far as the republicans and why is that so late in the season? it seems like during every electoral process with the incumbent. guest: maybe he was getting to is why the democrats didn't have a nomination contest themselves and that's obviously a decision by those who might have challenged barack obama in a serious way not to mount a candidacy and i think that's part of a reflection that a lot of democrats want to see him get

re-elected. i would think -- thought a nomination contest might have allowed more discussion about the party, more of a chance for barack obama to defend his presidency. but it didn't happen. but there are ways that the general election could have a different mix of choices and this is one-on-one politics that leads to a lot of negativity that i think is a problem and we can could change electoral rolls to help this problem. host: one of our viewers said, i'm a democrat, i live in kansas and that means i don't have a vote for president. guest: the candidates treat you as if you have no vote for president and if you were a republican in kansas, it would be the same way. when george bush was running for re-election, he was in the same

obama is inesident now. they never polled one person who lived outside of potential states.ound they didn't need to know anything that person wanted, any interests, if they lived outside of battlegrounds. that's a product of the statute that the national popular vote can change. people should check out nationalpopularvote.com for that proposal but there's a bill in kansas and there's been bills in all 50 states and it's passed in a number of states and i don't think it's going to change this year but i think it is absolutely on a trajectory to change 2016. host: i want to frame the next question about congressional re-districting. one viewer says, i'm curious about what rob thinks about the re-districting process and a viewer from ohio, a democrat

does not have a chance of winning in my congressional district, will my democratic vote be counted in your scheme? guest: it's a good question. on re-districting, the 200th anniversary of the first gerrymandering, signed his plan, the famous salamander map, so we about that moment. but it's a reflection of the fact that when you give certain rules and powers to elected officials, you shouldn't be surprised if they play by those rules in a way that makes the game less fair, so that we can look back at the power we've given, which is to draw single member districts and to be guided by helping your side and hurting the other side. helping your friends, hurting your enemies. there's incremental steps we can do it make it a less political process to be criteria driven but for us, the core is to say, why are we doing single member districts first in place, why do

we only have one person per representative? it's not in the constitution. there's a long history of states not doing that for congress. a lot of states don't do it for state legislature. in maryland, i have three members of the house. a lot of cities have had multiseat districts and we don't need to use a winner-take-all system meaning that 51% represents 100% of people so we can look at systems that aren't winner-take-all so if a state with, say, 15 districts, 15 seats, had five three-seat districts ran 15 one-seat districts and it it took about 30% of the vote to win one of those three seats, then pretty much every district in that state and every state or district across the country would have shared representation because there's that many people in the minority in almost every part of the country, even within the two parties, and we'd have a better balance of left, right and center, a more natural

representation of racial minorities, political minorities, and real contests which, right now, we don't have enough of. in our states, by the way, just -- they just do the same things almost always that congress does and they're supposed to be laboratories of democracy, they tend to do almost the exact same goals or too often and winner-take-all, single member districts, and we could see more experimentation but right now, more than a third of state legislators didn't face an opponent in 2010. host: peter is joining us, republican line, oxford, mississippi. good morning. caller: mr. richie, you represent fairvote. fairvote is your stocking horse for the democratic party. what you're interested in is trying to win an election with the popular vote. the popular vote in this election may even go to mr. obama but he will not win

the electoral college. that's what's in the constitution. you are being funded by individuals who are democrats, large donor democrats. do you know that by having an election so that individuals, the total population, how could you run a presidential candidate when in states like california, york and illinois will come in with large pluralities, probably stolen pleurallities in those states to win for the democrats. host: i'm going to stop you there so we have time to respond and a follow from an earlier viewer who wants to know who are the major voters to fairvote.org. so on both points, electoral college, the president's re-election effort and your donors. guest: we are not a democratic stocking horse. our long-time chair and his 90th

birthday is this week so i want to give a shout out to him is john anderson was in 1980, independent candidate for president and john was an independent, challenging the outside of the major parties and that really is a reflection of the fact that we are trying to put voters first and we look at the national popular vote, that's one of our several proposals and there's other groups doing terrific work on that you should check out. we're not saying that's our issue exclusively but that it is a nonpartisan proposal. if you every evidence look at any evidence, strong evidence, both marriage -- major parties have an equal chance to win the popular vote and they do. rond reagan won by a landslide and barack obama can win under the electoral college. he just did in 2008.

this is what we know. it's not going to help one party or the other. but it does -- the current system -- but it means that 40 states won't matter and all the voters in those states and that's a problem to us and a problem for what democracy is. for fairvote, our budget was about $400,000 last year and i think our single biggest donors were in the $25,000 range but one generous donor is our chair, chris novacell itch, who was in the band, nirvana. and he really sees these issues as ones that politics should be about people coming together for the common good and we should make that accessible to people and votes should count. host: the discussion will continue on the "new york times" website, nytimes.com and fair

vote. we will continue the conversation tomorrow morning here on c-span, "washington journal" heard live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern time, 4:00 for our viewers and listeners on the west coast, also heard on c-span radio. among our guests and topics, we'll have a conversation kathleen kennedy townsend on the issue of birth control and the directive by the obama administration and news on the budget. we'll hear from the president tomorrow, doug hotel -- holtz-ekin and the cost of incarceration in america's prisons, michael jacobson, former new york city corrections commissioner, that's all tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. "news makers" is coming up next. thanks for joining us on this sunday. i hope you enjoyed the rest of weekend. have a great week ahead.

[captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> next, "newsmakers" with jeff bingaman, and then a hearing with ben bernanke. after that, a house hearing on cyber security. >> this week >> jeff bingaman, a democrat of new mexico. two reporters to help us. elana schor