after that, andrew weiss on the russian president reelection and what it could mean for relations between russia and the u.s. >> supertuesday has arrived with 10 states holding primaries or caucuses today and more than 400 delegates at stake for race at the white house. of course you can tune in our coverage tonight. we'll have the candidates speeches, and viewer reaction to the results from your calls, tweets and facebook. go to cspan.org for more details. president obama will hold his first news conference of the year.

good morning everyone on this tuesday, march 6. we'll begin with the speech yesterday laying out the rationale for killing american terrorists overseas. what's your take on this? remember, send us your comments, email, or a tweet. also you can post your comments on facebook.com/c-span. let me show you the "baltimore sun" this morning and their headline on eric holder's speech yesterday. we covered it here. holder lays out the rationale for u.s. targeted killings. it says this. the president has legal authority to target and kill americans overseas who are working withal kide and its allies. when they pose a threat to the

country and cannot be captured "we must take steps to stop them." want to show them more of what eric holder had to say in his own words from his speech yesterday. >> an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a u.s. citizen who's a senior operational leader of al qaeda or associated forces and is actively engaged in planning to kill americans would be lawful at least in the following circumstances. first, the u.s. government has determined after a thorough and careful review that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the united states. second, capture is not feasible. and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles. >> that was the attorney general

laying out the rationale for killing suspected terrorists overseas. this is what the "baltimore sun" has to say about it. it says this -- against the perpetrators and those who help them. the other is the president's power to protect the nation from any imminent threat or vie leapt attack. that authority is not limited to the battlefields in afghanistan, holder said. adding that we are at war with an enemy prone to shifting operations from country to

country. we'll show you a little bit more of what the attorney general had to say, and those that oppose this maneuver. gregory, democrat in silver spring, maryland. you're up first. what's your take? caller: good morning greta. host: good morning. caller: so i did watch the end, and i've had plenty of time to gather a perspective on the situation. clearly it is not as qualified as the officials in washington. however one thing i would like to point out is that eric holder made an insin wation at the end of the speech that the government wouldn't hesitate to, you know, information of terrorists that were going to attack the united states of america. and that, excuse me, cut me off at any time, but that is, in my

opinion, the preface to what allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place. in that it was the american agencies and what have you that pay attention to everything around the world. and that they can choose when to let a threat develop, so that if a threat were to be manufactured , their industrial complex would then be accelerated with unscrupulous use of money. host: ok. warren, an independent in d.c. what do you think? warren? good morning? oh, i think we lost warren. we'll go next tolan caster, pennsylvania. democratic caller, go ahead.

caller: i'm calling, i feel the policy is out of bounds, it's overstepping bounds. it's just a way to kill people without due process. after world war ii the israelis had many nazis they wanted to bring to trial and put on trial. they tracked them down where ever they were and they captured these people, no matter what, and they brought them back and they gave them a trial. and they proved in law that these people were guilty of crimes. then they did what they did. they executed them or gave them long prison sentences. host: ok. caller: i'm a democrat, but i don't agree with this program that you just kill people. i mean the only reason that obama is doing this is because he has the weapons to do it. host: all right. attorney general holder laid out this issue of due process. he talked about it yesterday in

his speech. here's what he had to say. >> some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a united citizen who is a senior operational leader of al qaeda or associated forces. this is simply not accurate. due process, and judicial process, are not one and the same. particularly when it comes to national security. the institution guarantees due process. it does not guarantee judicial process. host: so here's the argument from the other side, the american civil liberties union had this to say -- host: norman's an independent in massachusetts.

good morning to you. caller: yes, i think it's preposter rows that the president would take it upon himself to murder someone just on the basis of an accusation. these accusations are very often wrong. they come from the c.i.a. which is very often wrong. look at all the targeting killings with their drones. very often kill people that weren't intended. al-awlaki's son was killed a few days later and he doesn't fit that criteria. that certainly was premeditated murder in this case. host: we posted this question on our facebook page as well. want to show you some of those comments. this one is from steven hammond who says whatever the constitution and law permits should be carried out is his opinion. mark preston just says dictatorship. and dave clemens says the biggest terrorists have given more nightmares than anyone else are the americans.

others say judge, jury, executioner and bye-bye america, land of the free. those are our comments on facebook this morning. remember you can go there, facebook.com,/c-span and post yours there as well. this is from the "washington times" this morning. mr. holder did not mention the classified legal opinion that details the government's justification. some law makers, among them chairman of the senate select committee of intelligence have called on them to publish it. their office had no immediate response to the speech which did little to reassure critics of the targeting killing program. this also makes the headlines in a campus newspaper up on capitol hill. they say, in a lawsuit filed under the freedom of information act, the aclu is demanding that the government disclose the legal basis it hold for making

such a decision which the administration has refused to do. it also goes onto say that holder did not talk about specifics but the administration has worked especially hard to keep the appropriate members of congress informed. mike rogers, ranking members, were told about the al-awlaki operation ahead of time while on a trip to yemen. so arguing that that is the checks and balances. alex, a republic in maryland. go ahead, alex. morning, alex? caller: hey, good morning. host: you're on the air, go ahead. caller: yeah, i have the opinion that if you're a terrorist and you're not a citizen of the united states, and even if you are a citizen of the united states and you're a traitor to the united states, you don't really deserve jurem pro -- judicial process.

host: what about this idea of proof though? the evidence? those people who say that one person or the administration is beginning to make the decision about whether or not this person is really a terrorist. what about that concern? >> well, i'm sympathetic to that and i'm aware most of the evidence that they have is considered to be classified. they can't just let everybody in the public know everything that we know. because then it starts to release certain things that they don't need to know. host: so alex, you're a republican. you trust president obama with this authority? caller: i trust the government enough to believe that most of the time, because i can't say all the time, we have made our mistakes. but most of the time they're going to get the right person. host: ok, garth in san diego, an independent. go ahead garth. caller: yes, this is a classic

case of treason and anyone who voted for it should be imprisonned. a complete and direct violation of the constitution, violates our due process rights. and for anyone to have the audacity to try amend the constitution without due process of amending the constitutions deserves to be in prison. pure and simple. host: ok. caller: this is a violation of everything and anything that this country stands for. host: all right, bob's an independent in palestine, texas. you're up next, bob. caller: good morning. one of our greatest presidents thomas jefferson said never trust your government. putting that type of power in the hands of too few people is a very dangerous move. thank you and have a good day. host: the american civil liberty union echos that. some international law experts have criticized holder's comment saying the administration is

asserting the authority to kill any american whom the president declares to be the enemy of the state, that's a breath-taking assertion. this is a quote that's in the "baltimore sun" this morning. darla, a republican in pittsburgh, pennsylvania government ahead darla. caller: hi. my comment is while people are so afraid of the big boogey monster of the head of state declaring the president has this power, these people themselves have boldly declared themselves to be enemies of the state. as far as al-awlaki goes, he has boldly declared numerous times over and over again on youtube. you can go to youtube, any of his speeches that he is recruiting an army of people to destroy america. this is the crux of the situation. we are giving miranda rights to

people who don't deserve them. they've declared an act of war against the united states. host: all right, paul, democrat in ohio. did you just hear darla's argument, paul? what do you think? caller: well, it looks to me like we're going down a slippery slope here. host: why's that? caller: well, previous caller mentioned about us using our power and money to put people in power in these other states, which i think is kind of what turned them against us. besides our religious beliefs and so forths. it just looks to me like bad policy, all these wars we're getting into. we hear the statement, we're a peace-loving people. usually just before we get into another war. host: all right. that's paul in ohio. we're going to keep taking your commenlts on this. question this morning, eric holder, the attorney general laying out the case yesterday for killing suspected american

citizen, suspected terrorists, american citizens abroad. we want to take your comments. but first a handicap of campaign 2012. it is supertuesday today. and by the way we will have tomorrow's results in our first hour of the "washington journal." we'll be combing through them with the help of a political reporter to give you the latest on the race. but here's how it's looking on this supertuesday morning. here's "denver post." primary motivation goes through all of the amount of delegates that are at stake in each state. for alaska that's 27, georgia 76, idaho 32. massachusetts 41, north dakota 28, ohio 66, 43 in oklahoma, 58 in tennessee, 17 delegates in vermont and 49 delegates in the state of virginia. so, 10 states voting today. more than 400 delegates at stake. that is the headline in "u.s.a.

today." four candidates, and they pose the question -- one knock out punch? probably not. here's what the "u.s.a. today" says. the former massachusetts governor for a victory in the ohio primary and a show of strength across the country would enable him to argue that he is the only contender with the realistic chance of claiming the 1,144 delegates needed for nomination. >> rivals say he needs to score elsewhere too. ron paul, winning any state, most likely the north dakota or alaska caucuses would provide bragging rights as well as

delegates and give him some power in and persuasion for the nomination in tampa. and in the "richmond times" this morning, only romney and paul are on the ballot in virginia. this is the their headline. and then in the "tulsa world this morning" courtesy of the museum, state finally gets its say in the g.o.p. fuss. that's what "the tulsa world" has to say. "the columbus dispatch" the ohio paper, super showdown is their headline. the race to be the republican parties presidential nominee gathers no men tumble. a lot of eyes will be on ohio and what happens in that state, as well as tennessee. and then, in oklahoma this morning, that paper, "the oklahoman" paper endorsed mitt

romney. he is the best choice for g.o.p. victory in november. saying that he has the best chance against president obama. and then the "tennesseen" has this. makeup life for early turn out today. in their view it's been not such a super tuesday. fact is that too few of any party are exercising their right to have a say in how their local state and federal governments are run. so those are some of the local headlines for you this morning, giving you a taste of the race, a handicap of what needs to happen for these candidates on super tuesday. again, look for our coverage tonight on c-span.org. go to our website and our campaign 2012 hub. you can see all that we've been covering so far, including the closing arguments made by all the candidates yesterday as they were in different states laying out their case for why they should be the g.o.p. nominee.

all right, back to our question this morning and eric holder's comments. steve, an independent in columbus, kansas. thanks so much for waiting. what do you make of what eric holder had to say? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. this tactic has a history that i remember going back to president clinton and janet reno when they went after david coresh in waco texas and then the massacre at ruby ridge. the difference being they sought judicial oversight i believe and actually had warrants. however, this administration and this attorney general has decided on their own that no judicial oversight is required in order assassinate american citizens abroad. i wonder if it's only a matter

of time before they actually assassinate people here in the united states. a very dangerous, damage rows tactic and presumption on their part. host: all right, thank you. let me show you this tweet here from mary who says one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. ed in massachusetts, good morning. caller: good morning c-span. no president should have this kind of power. tim think mcveigh was captured, executed. he launched the if we give up our liberties to get security, we will end up getting neither. host: ed, what does that mean for gaub. are you in support of that prison? caller: i'm sorry, can you repeat that?

host: guantanamo bay, are you for giving them a military trial? caller: well you know, i think it's pretty interesting that obama said he was going to close that down and he hasn't been able to do that. i don't see why we can't. for military tribunals, combatants that are captured on the battlefield, that's a different thing. but right now, u.s. citizens can be arrested by the military under the defense authorization act that was recently passed and held without access to a lawyer, without due process, that is not constitutional. and nobody's talking about that. host: all right. ed, are you still there? go ahead, finish your thought. caller: an american citizen expected of being associated with a terrorist could be

spirited away to guantanamo and held there without access to a lawyer, or due process. and nobody's talking about that. host: well ed, the attorney general did say yesterday that one of the criteria that has to be met, there's no way to capture the suspected terrorists, and therefore this type of operation needs to be carried out. caller: i don't believe that, they captured bin laden. it's not true they can't capture these people. host: what do you mean they captured bin laden? caller: they captured and killed him. host: yeah, but he didn't go through any trial. caller: right. host: so, the point -- caller: i'm not sure i understand the question. host: well the point that eric holder made yesterday is there's just no way to capture them, therefore detain them, therefore put them in some sort of, have

some sort of judicial process for them. so the military feels they need to take them out in this type of operation. caller: so assassinate, give the government, the president, the right to be judge, jury and executioner of the american citizens who are suspected of being terrorists? that is unamerican, unconstitutional. host: ok. so ed, let me ask you this. what if the united states were to do this type of operation and then lay out the case for the american people, show them what evidence they had in justification of carrying out this act? what do you think about that? caller: what happened to due process? under the constitution. he's shredding if you're doing that. we captured the blind chic terrorist who attacked the world trade center in 1993.

al-awlaki, who was hit by a drone in yemen, i have a hard time believing that we couldn't have captured him. we have a very effective special operation forces. if we could drop a missile on them, we could drop a special ops team on them. and then a son, a couple of days later, barbecuing in the backyard. sounded like a real threat to america. host: tony, go ahead what do you think? caller: yes, good morning c-span. host: good morning. caller: i worked at the national security agency and our motto was trust in god and monitor everyone else. that includes our government. i think this is a terrible idea. i find it very strange that the evidence that our government and other governments claim they have on so-called suspected

terrorists is always classified. i find that very strange. i also find it very strange that al qaeda, a name that no one's never heard of before 9/11, is all the sudden everywhere. if you're not al qaeda you're affiliated with al qaeda. whatever the heck that means. i think we're sliding down a slippery slope with targeted american citizens overseas. because before you know it will be here. host: can you tell us a little bit about what you did at the national security agency? caller: i really can't because that issue is classified. but i know one thing, that i don't think that it's classified to pick somebody up overseas that you claim is a terrorist. now if you did it in a classified manner as far as getting them, that should be the only thing that's classified. letting these people speak is a

totally different story that's not classified. then you will find out if these people are terrorists or not. just like the people in gitmo. they're afraid to let these people speak because they're not terrorists most likely. host: ok, that's tony from maryland. some other news this morning. many of you probably saw the press conference held, or the press ops held between president obama and the leader of israel. here's "the new york post" this morning. hand of a friend, let's hope iran believes it's for real. then this headline. obama will always have israel's back. quoting him on that. later addressed the annual conference of the american israel public affairs committee making clear that he is running out of patience to allow sanctions to work. these sanctions are hurting iran's economy but unfortunately

iran's nuclear program is marching forward. he said in his speech without naming the u.s. or other allies that say iran has not made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon, he brissled at such a notion. if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then what is it? time to start calling a duck a duck. we covered that speech. so go to c-span.org to see the speech in entirety. and headline, they are feeling the bite of the sanctions on their economy. inflation is now up over 20%, yes analysts say it is unlikely the u.s. action will force a change in the regime. and then the washington times has this headline. palestine feels left behind over obama's pro israel stand. mitt romney says how i would

check iran's nuclear ambition. i will take every measure necessary to check the evil regime until iran stops the nuclear bomb pressure. i will press for tightening sanctions acting with other countries if i can, alone if i must. but i will speak out on behalf of the cause and support iranian dissidents fighting for their freedom. they say this about the candidates and their approach to iran. they are hammering obama over the issue, but their approaches differ little. that's the headline in "the new york times." some other international news for you this morning. senator john mccain, the ranking republican on the senate armed services committee came to the floor yesterday and called for u.s. led air strikes in syria. here's part of that speech. >> forces are on the march. providing military assistance to the free syrian army and other

opposition groups is necessary. but at this late hour, that alone will not be sufficient to stop the slaughter and save innocent lives. the only realistic way to do so is with foreign air power. therefore at the request of the syrian national counter, the free syrian army and local coordinating committees inside the country, the united states should lead an international effort to protect key population centers in syria, especially in the north, through air strikes on assad's forces. to be clear, this will require the united states to surround press enemy air defenses in at least part of the country. the goal of air strikes should be to -- especially in the north. in which opposition force cans organize and plan their

political and military activities against assad. host: senator john mccain will be able to run his idea by the defense secretary when he testifies before the senate armed services committee on wednesday morning. look for our coverage live on c-span 3. 9:00 a.m. eastern time. leon 9:00 a.m. eastern time. you can be sure this will come up. we posted the video of what senator mccain had to say on the senate floor yesterday on our facebook page. judge greene says, "i am for it. it is kind of pointless if you let this stuff happened." but donna robinson says, " another guy who likes to settle all disputes with bombs and guns -- please." defense secretary leon panetta

recognizes that this is an extremely complex crisis. "at this time it could exacerbate problems inside the country. also weighing in on this issue in the opinion pages of "the wall street journal," mark palmer and paul wolfowitz, saying "u.s. secretary of state should have more to say that simply that anti-aside forces will somehow find the nmeans to defend themselves." that is a headline in "the washington post." we will talk about the russian election in our last hour of today's "washington journal," from 9:15 to 10:00. neal, an independent in fort lauderdale, florida, we're

talking about eric holder's comments, the rationale that he made yesterday north american university. what do you think? caller: good morning. i have a strong concern of opinion prior to listening to ed and tony. i thought they hit the nail on the head. my idea was, yes, it is a clear and present danger. yes, it needs to be done. but in doing so we close an eye and have a blind eye to our constitution. reducing ourselves to the level of those that threaten us. is that necessary? i am perplexed. it is a catch-22. i do not know what to say. except to listen to the opinions of others and sit and discuss and formulate a plan, if you

will, that commensurate with the spirit of america, not something contrary to everything we fought so hard for over the many years. thank you so much. host: you want to see more discussion by members of congress? caller: yes, we need to see more discussion. we need to hear more discussion, to learn to listen. there has got to be a way to resolve this. does the process allow sufficient time to respond to these situations or to these people as opposed to reacting? sometimes time is of the essence. santa and assassinations have been a part of this nation -- sanctioned assassinations have been a part of this nation since its birth. now in the public eye, most of us say this is wrong. is it justifiable at times? yes, perhaps. i am perplexed. i would like to hear more discussion. host:, a republican, in ridgway,

pennsylvania. -- steve, i republican come in ridgway, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i find it ironic that and trouble it -- erotic and troubling that there are people in the democratic party who would use the patriot act as leverage, something about terrorism. now we have a democrat and a so- called progressive, and he is coming right out in public, "if i determine that there terrorists -- that there are terrorists," and he is bashed.

i think we are heading -- people call it the slippery slope. we are not going down a slippery slope, we're going down a sheet of ice off niagara falls. we vote the same people in congress year after year after year. it is not going to change. host: would you trust a republican president with this authority? caller: no, i would not permit any politician with this type of authority. george bush, he said we cannot wait for an imminent threat after 9/11. 911 -- 9/11 was a game changer. "we cannot wait for an imminent threat," because he said iraq was an imminent threat. no, he did not say that.

he said we cannot wait for an imminent threat. to go after the defense of marriage act and things like that, it is all fine and dandy. host: we showed you what erik holder had to say about the right to -- what eric holder had to say about the criteria. first the government had determined that the individual being targeted poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the u.s.. that evaluation would consider irrelevant window of opportunity to act, possible -- the relevant window of opportunity to act. second, capture is not feasible. third, the operation would have to be conducted in a manner consistent with four and fundamental rules of war. the target must have military value, must be lawful, such as combat or civilians engaged in hostilities, collateral damage

must not be excessive, and the weapons must not inflict unnecessary suffering. a democrat in jacksonville, florida. go ahead. caller: good morning. my name is muhammad. i want to comment on the guy talking about the bond check in new york -- the baht -- the blonde chick in new york. you cannot take them and put them on a helicopter and take them and send them -- she went and hid when nobody could get him because he knew he was wrong. eric holder, i back him 100% for the simple fact we have not had an airplane or building or anything blown up around here. thank god for our president for that. host: president obama will be giving his first news conference this year this

afternoon at 1:00 p.m.. it will be live on c-span2. the president is expected to talk about jran situation, as well as the gop presidential primary situation, super tuesday bill clinton has agreed to join obama at campaign fund-raisers, and politico has this story. senator joseph lieberman says he could back a third-party candidate. the retiring senator is still willing to stick it to the democratic establishment. "the washington times" has this pole on the issue of birth control. 30% in the republican party back obama's stance on that issue. what the majority of republicans side with party leaders, the striking -- while the majority of republicans side with party leaders -- regarding young

leaders, the poll has worst news for the gop. on the senate side, here's a story from "the washington times. democrats bids and that olympia snowe seat runs into a snag. angus king says he is not the holding political party and no one will be able to tell him -- he is not beholden to political parties. he's as nobody will be able to tell them how to vote except for the people of maine. a three-way race involving the popular mr. king could change the dynamic of that race. also in the papers this morning, trying to find a headline for you -- up in massachusetts, the senate race of scott brown vs. a elizabeth warren, showing scott brown pulling ahead of elizabeth warren. michael, republican from monroe, michigan. good morning. caller: i just wanted to say

the defense authorization act, it involves america, too. will that involve people in our own country? if there are terror suspects? host: joke, an independent from silver spring, maryland, what is it -- joe, an independent from silver spring, maryland, what is your take? caller: that article claiming that, number one, the government had to prove that there is an imminent threat -- ok, who is proving what to whom now? number 2, how is it established that somebody cannot be captured? osama bin laden, we got basically into his face. this is a person who committed the worst terrorist act in the

history of the united states, ok? but a united states citizen does not have the same courtesy as mr. osama bin laden? that does not even make sense. what is mr. holder talking about? this is insane. host: susan, a republican from illinois. caller: good morning to you . thank you for taking my call. this reminds me of an incident of the soviets as an act -- assassinating a man on a bridge with a poisoned umbrella. are we going to become the soviet union, where they can go anywhere? i am sure they did this during the cold war, where they would assassinate people wherever they wanted. i am not a big fan of the obama administration, i have to admit. i think it is another case of walking on the constitution. about capturing bin laden -- if they could go to that house in

pakistan and get him, why could they not go to yemen? this guy was not in a special house. they could have picked him up and brought him back here. i think this is another walking all over the constitution. i do not like it. host: here is a tweet from jodie -- host: in other news, "the hill" newspaper. the latest on the rush limbaugh comments. he apologized over the weekend and yesterday on his radio show said the apology was sincere. he shrugged off his advertisers saying -- he said what we are going to do is replace those who leave. on monday, aol announced it would step away from advertising on his show, making it the ninth

advertiser to do so. xhe other companies are citri systems, sleep number, sleep train, gotomeeting. this headline -- "g.a. gone, spotlight stays -- "g8 gone, spotlight stays." yesterday the white house said it will happen at camp david instead. this will -- this is how "the chicago sun-times" displays it this morning. "g8." kenny, a democrat from baltimore maryland. caller: good morning. i think eric holder is wrong because what happens if a country wants to come over here

and get someone that they are after? would it be right for another country to come to the united states and grabs somebody they were after? another thing i would like to ask -- since everybody wants to go to war, will they ask these people that want to be president, will they raise taxes to fight these wars? they want to go into iran? are they willing to pay taxes, go up on taxes for the rich people to pay for these wars? these are questions we need to ask. thank you. host: our producer found a story about the latest polls about the massachusetts senate race. the latest poll shows 49% of registered voters, 41% for ms. warren. likely voters would show brown at 49%, warrant at 44%.

-- warren at 44%. this piece by ted nugent, "i endorse misr -- i endorsed mitt romney, best choice for the white house." our last phone call on this, what do you make about operations to kill suspected terrorists, american citizens, overseas? caller: war today is an unconventional and very vicious, and i do not think our government would take lightly assassinating another human being, but i think it is necessary to ensure the protection of america and americans and our allies abroad. i think it is just fine. host: you are sounding a different tone than many of the other callers that we have heard

from today. what makes you take that stand? caller: i am a veteran. i work in veteran affairs as a volunteer, and i see or as necessary but unfortunate -- i see war as necessary but unfortunate. not something that we want to be in, but we have no choice to be in wars and that is how it has always been. i do not think it would be taken lightly. it is not just the administration, it is the military advisers that would be advising the attorney general. because it is so unconventional -- i am from the vietnam war era, and that was not a conventional war. it was something we did not know how to fight. we are talking about people who woant to kill americans and our allies, and this is their goal. their goal is not to fight a

conventional war. their idea is ideological, and it is to annihilate people that they do not agree with and that they do not believe in their system of government. we are their targets. host: we will have to leave it there. the key for that comment and for all the other comments this morning. today is -- thank you for that comment and for all the other comments this morning. there are more than 400 delegates at stake today on super tuesday. look for coverage tonight on c- span.org. we will cover the candidates' speeches and bring in politico's coverage of campaign 2012. we will get your comments and phone calls, on facebook as well. coming up, we turn our attention to the economy. we talk with former governor of

michigan and current president of business roundtable john engler. >> watch super tuesday election results tonight on the c-span network. while you watch, use our second screen webpage to see results maps, social media from candidates and reporters, and treats from other viewers. you can also monitor on c-span blog. made especially for our super tuesday coverage.

c-span.org/screen2. >> there is a real anxiety within black america when confronting a successful black americans since decided because this anxiety to be successful, especially if you're in a predominantly white setting, to get the backing of white people, the trust of white people. what do you have to do to get that backing? what do you have to do to get that trust? what do you have to do to get the recognition? there is fear that one of the things you have to do was to betray, in some form, your community. >> the first sunday of every month, booktv's "in-depth." randall kennedy spoke about race, politics, and the obama administration. watch on the c-span video

library, with more than a quarter of century of politics and public affairs on your computer. host: airbag with john engler, the former governor of michigan, currently the head of the business roundtable. president obama will -- we are back with john engler, the former new governor of michigan, currently the head of the business roundtable. what do you want to hear from president obama to that? guest: we want to hear about president obama getting the economy moving more rapidly, what are some of the plans, decisions? i think, like a lot of americans, ceos are worried about the unemployment rate. we need to pick up the pace and we need to compete globally, so

these are many companies that are out there competing and you're seeing much faster growth rates around the rest of the world and we would like to see what we can do in the united states to pick up the pace. host: so on the competition front, what will the business roundtable be saying to the president? what will be ceo's be saying? guest: round table is unique. pluss the ceo's of 200- major companies here in the united states, $6 trillion of the economic impact, so i have a pretty good palls on all the economic sectors -- so they have a pretty good pulse on all the economic sectors. there is too much uncertainty, too much doubt, and that creates risk. everywhere you look, we are in the process of implementing something, whether it is not frank, the health care law --

whether it is dodd frank, the health care law, it is massive in scope. the implementation cost, the uncertainty, runs billions of dollars in terms of regulatory impact. we mentioned the environmental protection agency, labor department, and a number of the changes. host: why is it off the record, closed to press? why not meet the -- why not let the american people see the exchange? host: there is plenty of that. he has had many of them involved in different commissions he has put together. the simpson bulls commission, -- the simpson-bowles commission. the ceo and chairman of boeing shares the president's export council, the economic

competitive jobs council. a lot of them have been very public and involved with the advanced manufacturing work. the ceo of xerox is very involved. our practice is not to be only an off-the-record with the president. we don't do public meetings, and we'll have a little press conference to release are taking action for america's strategy. after that, we think it is important that the ceo's be in situations with policy makers, with public officials, where we can have a very direct, open conversation and nobody has to worry about being on camera and having it excerpted. host: you tell us which ceo's will be attending, household names that viewers might

recognize? guest: nearly 100, and very many of them will be household names, starting with john mack and ernie, jimmy diamond will be -- -- jamie diamond will be there. it is really a stellar turnout. the president was last with the round table two years ago. he came in 2009 and 2010. this will be an opportunity that he will have. we meet four times a year, so in june you'd expect maybe to have the republican nominee there. we have tried to get everybody in the past year, both leader reid and speaker boehner -- one of the more impressive sessions with swift chairman ben bernanke at our last meeting.

he took a lot of questions -- was with chairman ben bernanke and our last meeting. he took a lot of questions. this is only my fifth meeting of the round table. our ceo's really care about this country. they have been through a challenging time because there are a lot of things aimed at the ceo's as if somehow they personally did something that changed the economy. there's no question, when you look at the complexity of the economic system, there's no question there's a big global set of factors out there, including a lot nations i like to say that if -- they have decided not to take the year off. they are still working, competing. part of our message is that we have to work with congress to get things done. nobody can do anything in this town unilaterally.

it is cooperation and leadership, but as ceo to ceo, which is what the president is, the ceo of the country, you have got to make it happen. so if the senate does not pass a budget, you had better get them to do it because we need a budget for the company -- for the country. host: i am sure our viewers have noted that you have an "i voted" sticker, so i'm sure you voted. mitt romney's father was very helpful when i was running first time for governor, and after being elected, i worked a lot with him. he was a marvelous leader. he has done his public service as an elected official and even as in appointed official. he was really a national leader

in volunteerism and was inspirational in setting up the development of the michigan community service commission. he was a tremendous and tireless ambassador for people getting involved and giving back to their communities. i think mitt romney is pretty special, to. i think the campaign process, at the end of the day, there will be a couple of candidates for president, and as it turns out, they election day piedmonts from this very day. there is eight months, and we will see what happens in the eight months. it is very important for the country that we have a real, open debate about our future, because i do think we have got to make some fundamental decisions. we cannot keep putting things off. one of the things, the number- one thing we mentioned in the

report is, you have to get your physical house in order. you cannot expect to be strong in almost any way if you are not managing your affairs properly. host: let's get to phone calls for you, and then we will get back to you. kenny, a republican from new york. you are first. go ahead. caller: you know, you look at the future of what we called jobs and what not. you know, i get a very mixed economy in this area. i do have a job. now we are -- host: i want to get in as many people as possible, so what is your comment or your question for the governor? caller: i am looking at --

notice what they're doing here at the federal level, but i am also looking at what are they doing at the state and local levels to get our jobs. guest: let me try. kenny i think raises something on a lot of people's minds. i think i heard him say he is working but it is a part-time job. one of the challenges we have got in this economy, a lot of people attached to the work force are underemployed, not getting enough hours, family incomes have taken a hit. we have seen for three or four consecutive years people living in poverty as the government finds that has actually been increasing. we know that one of the drags on the unemployment rate, even as it starts to improve, a lot

of people are out of the work force that maybe we come back if we started to see some improvement. he asked about the interaction between state and local. you introduce me as governor of michigan. but at one point in the 1990's, unemployment was down to 3.1%. we were competing. you see in all 50 states, governors with strong economic development efforts. all pay attention. what is interesting, you see that in other countries, too. you can see the governor of singapore knocking on doors and saying come invest here. the united states is the only nation that does not have an economic growth strategy. when the state of north carolina

competes against the state of ohio, they are offering benefits to work for a company. some really important benefit. but today, we often send north carolina or ohio out to compete against singapore, brazil, where european country. that is one of the reasons why we talk about the highest corporate tax rate in the world. you cannot as a state provide any incentive to come here verses' going to canada. we think the nation needs to be thinking in a much more competitive way. host: this is from "the wall street journal." all of the different options from the candidates on the corporate tax rate. which one has the best plan? guest: they are all better than what we have.

the president i think broke some new ground. they talk about coming down to 28%. governor romney is at 25%. the problem with the obama plan is there are other pieces to it. we do not think it is competitive enough on an international basis. i think the collective republican plans at this point are more helpful in terms of being more competitive than the president's plan. let me step back from corporate taxes and look at the tax structure in general. at the end of this year, we have 101 different provisions of the tax code expiring. that is unprecedented. we do not even have a tax code now. it is all temporary. how can anybody whether you are or a smallly

business or a large corporation know what the rules are going forward if they are all temporary? what of our strong recommendations is when you fix this tax code, it has to be permanent. host: this tweet coming in -- let me show the effective corporate tax rate by industry according to "the wall street journal." al below the nominal tax rate of 35% right now. guest: yesterday, "the financial times" save the effective tax rate was about 31.5%.

you get a lot of different calculations that people make. it is all comparative. let's stick with the comparison. if you take the comparison on the effective tax rate, the u.s. versus other nations, we are still almost a highest. for the nominal rate, we are the highest. i would not say that is the only thing but it is a part of a. it is a big part. we do not have a tax code that has been modernized since 1986. that was even before we had common internet usage and the 24/7 business and news coverage cycle. a lot of things have changed since that time. host: good morning, bill, from texas.

guest: i do not even know where to start with this gentleman. he is a capitalist. and a free trader. you talk about america's goals. the free trade that you push for is exactly what gave away 44,000 factories and jobs. host: let's get a response. guest: if it would have done that, we would not have to change to go there. the premise of the question is a little bit flawed. also, what bill has to keep in mind, taxes as a state has done very well in competition with other states. there are certain jobs that are going to be in this country regardless. there is a big debate about where those jobs will be. texas has been very competitive

compared to california. i think there are two concerns. we do not have enough jobs, period, in the country today. and we are not competing in of globally. to double exports, you have to have a highly competitive sector. there are things to do but i think his point -- the changes that i want, if they would have been in place, they would not be necessary. we are changing something that we do not have. host: let me go back to your home state of michigan. go ahead, fred. caller: good morning. one of the things that is missing in this country is the republicans and democrats are starting to look a lot alike. day flip-flopper back-and-forth. the only presidential candidate that i seem hopeful for is dr.

ron paul. he is consistent with his methodology for the past 30 years. he has the same program. he has not flip flopped back and forth like mitt romney and obama. obama's is a constitutional lawyer. for him to go in and start a war with iraq, iran, libya, or syria -- host: ron paul was also on the ballot in virginia today. you voted for mitt romney. what do you disagree with from ron paul's economic message? guest: i am not quite clear what his economic message is. i looked at his career in the congress. it is not a career like a paul ryan who clearly has been a

leader of what to say on the deficit. ron paul had plenty of opportunity as a member of congress. i do not think he has done that. it is great to be a novelty in the presidential race, but i do not think there is a serious record of achievement in the congress. host: this tweet says -- guest: i think most ceo's pay the highest rate there is. now, i do not know if ceo's are as good as tax avoidance than warren buffett is, but there is a debate. we have seen interestingly enough with the height individual tax rates. they have been hired. you have at the end of this

year the lower tax rate expiring and there will be a popup in the highest tax rates in the country. one of the things that is important that gets missed in this conversation is there are a lot of businesses in the country that are run by entrepreneurs and small businesses, even medium-sized companies, that are not incorporated. they pay that individual rate. as the individual rates go up for you and me, they also go up for those unincorporated businesses. host: the kellogg ceo's pay jumped 90%. last week, we did a segment about ceo pay. "business week" wrote about whether the ceo's are worth

their salaries and benefits. what is your reaction to that? i want to show our viewers from the bloomberg piece and ccn money. what is your reaction? arecibo's consistently overpaid? guest: i do not think so. when you look at the trends in ceo compensation, because of the concern about articles like this, and the concern about the value and stock performance, there is much more linkage today. i think you will see this trend in the committees on these boards to link more and more of the ceo compensation to overall performance with awards of stock

being linked again to the company's performance having to be held while the ceo is there. the kellogg example may be unfair because this is a brand new ceo. i do not know what the situation was. it may not be an apples to apples comparison. they should take ceo's who have been in place for a while. you are seeing a shift. i think it is a healthy trend that will continue. there has been a lot done to have more transparency and public accountability to the say on pay proposals that are on the ballot that are going out to shareholders. to me, it is a maze issue but it almost is a part from whether or not the congress is passing the budget or whether we have the right tax policy.

it is not determining -- the issue is a bit of a red herring. it fits into a populist 1%/99% campaign narrative, but if there was a change in its ceo pay tomorrow, would that change our ability to compete against a foreign-headquartered company? probably not. host: let's start with a tweet. where are the new ideas? let's hear from michelle from new jersey. you are up next. caller: good morning. i have a new idea that is extremely old. we should be economically independent. not dependent on multinational companies. we should be making everything in this country from space

stations to hair pins. these multinationals and their shepherds in this country are criminal enterprises. it has not worked and it passed to stop. host: thank you. let me get to her point about what she had to say about jobs in this country. she talked about the g8 a little bit at the end of her statement. that people are protesting these companies. she said that we should make every thing that we can possibly make in this country. is that realistic? guest: i do not think. people like that caller is part of the reason.

she might say it is hard to find things made in this country. the success of walmart or even some of the bigger food stores -- there is a diversity of population today asking for a diversity of products. we have food stuffs, and from all over the world today. -- we have foodstuffs coming from all over the world today. host: when we see this headline in "the new york times," -- guest: it means that export market, they are for u.s.-made goods that might be softening which would have an impact. host: with this headline concern your ceo's? guest: sure. there are two parts to it. is not only a market for trade

-- if it is not all the market for trade -- if it is not only a market for trade -- it is not only a market for trade. procter and gamble, a lot of their products -- you cannot ship a diaper from the united states to china in a cost-effect of fashion. so you have to build the plant in china for the domestic market. amway corp. in michigan, another one. they have had tremendous success. they are able to blend the product and ship it to china. in both cases, there are significant jobs created in the united states because t there is because there. -- because there is a market there. if the china market softens, that is under pressure.

i think something like 40% of their jobs in ohio are dependent directly or indirectly on international trade. that is a big number. we are in this globally integrated economy today. if everybody else made everything that they used there, we have less than 5% of the world's population today. 95% of the customers would be out there. what we are trying to argue is let's be more competitive so we can do more here. there still is a value to a made in the u.s. product. host: president obama speaking to the nation's ceo's put together by the business roundtable tonight.

jim adds this to the conversation. lower his , i'd secretary taxes. first of all, we ought to tell both mr. warren buffett and his secretary what their rates are going to be for a long time to come. we need to settle down cannot make it permanent, and figure out what it takes to be -- we need to settle down, make it permanent, and figure out what it takes to be competitive. we know what the rules of baseball are. now you need people who can play the game better than the other guy. tell us what the rules of the game are. i think we have some people that can play better than the others.

let's get this thing stabilize. one thing that is going on with taxes are around the world is the following. if i go -- we want to double exports and sell more. if i earn money offshore, if i make profits, let's compare us to a german company. we both pay taxes. the german company can take their money that they made in malaysia and do whatever they want with it. the u.s. company and the same situation would pay their malaysian taxes and then take it anywhere in the world except if they brought it back to the united states, it would be another 16% tax on it. host: i want to get one last phone call. wayne is a democrat. you are on the air.

caller: governor, i would like to talk about -- you were talking about the united states has the highest corporate tax rate. i saw an interview with bernie sanders from vermont and he said that exxon mobile made $16 billion profit, paid no income tax, got a $6 million tax refund. we also know caterpillar paid no taxes, ge paid no taxes, and you want to lower the tax rate? host: u.s. corporate tax rates reached 10-year low. guest: if you go into the article, it points out that the effective tax rate is 31.5%. we had a lot of companies -- you

have such things as net operating losses carrying forward. that is not the whole story with exxon mobile. companies that have losses -- general motors got losses as far as the eye can see from the past. those are still being applied to lower current tax bills now that they are showing record earnings. it was the case in the steel industry. what we are saying is for that marginal rate, when that next investment dollar decision is up, where do you put it? we are saying we ought to have an environment in this country -- take canada. they have a more valuable research and development credit that is allowed for a company of their. throw in talent. they do not have an immigration

problem. we think we can do a better job. i think congress needs to address this. host: this tweet -- guest: the aftermath of the financial crisis and the great recession resulted in an increase in competitiveness. wage rates came down. productivity from consolidated facilities. ad rates are rising in places like china. -- and rates are rising in places like china. they have tightened up the supply chain. they are competing. we have become more competitive. remember, agriculture is far more competitive than anyone else in the world today. how do you keep jobs at the same time you are increasing

productivity? host: one quick headline for you. this cloud technology. expected to create 1 million jobs in the united states by eliminating the use of resources. people will be able to put their resources on line instead of their own systems which could create millions of jobs. is this the next big technology to help our economy move forward? guest: there is no question that technology and manufacturing has been an early and rapid deploy your of technology. the service sector, the same way. we need to see the same applications in the public sector. one of the areas where we have strong agreement with the president is a government reorganization. let's get our government reorganized. this is all part of the future of. at the same time, we ought to be

thinking how do you take that are around the world. we think intellectual property is pretty important. we should not have somebody stealing if we figure this out. host: hopefully you will come back and talk to our viewers. up next, we turn our attention to a "huffington post" series. in our last hour, we are talking about the russian presidency. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> a new associated press survey from late last month of leading economists find that the u.s. economy is improving faster than expected. they perceive is slightly stronger growth and hiring then two months earlier. -- they perceive slightly

stronger growth and hiring than two months earlier. the president is holding his first news carbons of the year later today. the report says he will announce housing initiatives to help members of the military as well as homeowners. hear live coverage of the event on c-span radio or on c-span2. more on the issue of iran's nuclear program. the eu says the five permanent members of the security council and germany have accepted an offer to resume talks on the nuclear issue. the foreign policy chief responded today to a letter from an iranian nuclear negotiator in which he proposed the new discussions. he says the eu hopes that iran will now enter into a sustained process of constructive dialogue. the time and the venue of the talks have not been determined.

those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> watch super tuesday election results tonight on the c-span networks. you can also use our web page two-seat result maps, and a public forum for your tweets. you can also monitor our blog where we will be posting news information and stories. made especially for our super tuesday coverage. >> in this crazy world of ours, -- the question is not how to use them. how do you restrain yourself from using them? particularly when you are commander in chief. it takes a wise man to get this country out of trouble. >> we look back at 40 men who

ran for the office and lost. go to our website to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> shouldn't your present have the highest moral and ethical standards and be an example to our young children in this country? ask that question please. shouldn't anyone you elect to this office always keep his promises? > "washington journal" continues. host: tom zeller joins us from new york, a senior reporter from the john engler." out with a new series, "breakdown: americans on the edge." what is it all about? guest: thanks. this is not entirely new

territory for "the huffington post." we looked at dispatches from folks around the country. this particular series is our attempt to recognize that there is something more systemic happening in the economy. we really wanted to focus with a laser on folks who are either finding themselves in the middle class slipping down below the poverty line and those who have subsisted at or below the poverty line for a long time. so, part of that involves the recognition that we have -- and i do not think that these are controversial statistics -- but we have a growing in come gap. we have a fairly entrenched group of people who are on the very bottom rung of the economic ladder.

we also are discovering, i think, that mobility in our culture, mobility in our economy is not quite as fluid as we would have liked to have thought it was. we are a bootstrapped country. we tend to believe if you work hard and play by the rules, you will get ahead. we decided to take a year-long look at this from a variety of angles which includes poverty and education, the effects of poverty in health care, and also looking at the middle class looking down into poverty. the digital divide is another angle that we are looking at. a large number of citizens who cannot get onto the internet. children in poverty.

violence as it relates to poverty. what is the impact on at this segment of society, particularly children, that are regularly exposed to violence? i think all of these things taken together are our attempt to figure out why we are experiencing these things economy-wide and whether or not there are solutions that we have not tried. host: "the huffington post" tells a lot of personal stories. we want to hear this morning about your economic situation. we have divided the phone lines. the executive editor wrote last week that there are about 17 million americans living in conditions that most people would describe as desperately poor. pointing to the census report,

in one of the pieces that you wrote, extreme poverty rose to 6.7% in 2010. what does that mean, extreme poverty? guest: well, that particular statistic refers to the number of people who are living at half of their particular poverty structure. the census bureau of signs a certain poverty threshold depending on a variety of statistics. roughly speaking, the poverty threshold for a family of four with a couple of the. kids is about $22,000. this statistic refers to the percentage of people living at half of that amount. it is the highest measure since they began tracking that statistic in 1975. we are talking about roughly 70

million people to 20 million people that are living on less than a dollar a day. that is what we aim to explore in this series. once you get below the high level discussions and onto the ground, i think you have a large contingent of folks for a variety of reasons are having a hard time finding a leg up. they subsist at the very bottom rungs of the economy. although we like to believe there is a safety net in place, it is not always clear that that safety net is not in fact a trap of some kind, that folks are hitting barriers that are preventing them from accessing

higher rungs on the ladder and bettering their lives and perhaps even accessing the middle-class. host: before we get to phone calls, you talk about how many americans are born into poverty and some fall into it later in life. which is worse? guest: these studies show that it is worse to be born into poverty. the urban institute has done some analysis of this, and they find folks who are born into poverty face a considerable disadvantage in rising out of poverty as adults, as those who were either middle-class or working-class who slipped into poverty have a better chance of rising out of it. however, i think in all cases, slipping below the poverty line introduces new challenges.

existing below the poverty line introduces new challenges that i think folks have a very hard time recognizing. host: born into poverty if you are white, the solid blue line represents those who are not poor at birth, and the striped line are those who are born into poverty. if you are poor at birth, your likelihood of being poor increases. as we go to our first phone call, i want to show what the statistics say if you are born into poverty and you are black. the solid blue -- not pour at birth. the blue and white lines are those who are poor at birth. caller: thank you very much for what you are doing. please do not hang up on me, c-

span. i appreciate you guys. there is -- we are a couple that have lived and worked for most of our lives. we live in a home that has a mortgage of about $160,000 with a value of $50,000. we are not the only ones. there are millions of people in our position. the consumer does not have the money to purchase it. this is happening with the banks. the consumers cannot go to the banks and get the financing. host: does that story sound familiar? guest: yes, it does. it resonates in the reporting that we are doing up and down the spectrum. i don't think anyone would be

surprised to learn there are a lot of folks like mike who find themselves completely underwater. there is a sense of real -- i do not know if it is in betterment or outrage, but there are a lot of folks who find themselves in this position. our charge is to look at their really poor, folks who have not had a chance to own property in the first place. i think the combination of folks who are in a situation like mike and those who see widening disparities in income, widening disparities in wealth -- a lot of outrage over the bailout -- find that there is some incongruity with the idea that we are an opportunity society.

i am sure mike is a fine fellow and played by the rules and finding themselves in a situation where they cannot better themselves. they may end up worse off than the previous generation. host: good morning, peter. caller: good morning. i think part of the problem that i have noticed and from what i have read -- i have read many sources on the subject matter. what seems to be the problem even according to jack abram loft is money and politics. it seems that a lot of this outsourcing and a loss of jobs in america has to do with not that politicians are bad people but they require large sums of money to get reelected. it seems as though money has corrupted the system against the common working man. a lot of these big companies are

outsourcing a lot of jobs all of america because they can make more money doing it. the politicians seem to be going along with it and hurting the american people. until we find a better way of keeping money out from corrupting politicians, i do not think this problem is going to be solved. guest: i think there are a lot of people who think similarly. certainly, i do not think anyone would argue that you need an awful lot of money to be elected to office in this country. the question is, how do you solve that? i think there is a lot of disagreement on that question. although i can always be surprised, i do not think we will solve that problem quickly. i agree with the caller that certainly money is prevalent in

our political system. how do we break that cycle? i am not entirely sure. host: here is a tweet for you. guest: that is a great question, and is one that comes up a lot. i think the simple answer is yes. the poor, even the very poor in the united states, enjoy a standard of living that is a fair bit higher than it impoverished nations like sudan or developing countries. i think there is no question that america's poverty level does not compare. in some ways, it is an apples and oranges question. the the real question when you look at people at the very lowest end of the economic ladder is a relative one.

on much access to they have to the resources in the economy in which they live to better themselves to realize their full potential as human beings? that is the more useful question when gauging poverty levels between the u.s. and other countries. host: let's go to bethlehem, pa. pennsylvania. caller: thank you for your loyalty. there has been an ongoing conspiracy for a long time to break the safety net in the united states. these people do not believe in helping their fellow man. we are 16th in the world in minimum-wage. i am sure you know that. the germans refer to us as the new china. there are hundreds of new

companies moving in here. all of the high name companies are well known like bmw, volkswagen, mercedes. they are all moving in here. we are the lowest paid industrialized nation in the world. as prices move up, the working class are expected to pay these high prices. host: tom zeller. guest: again, i think the frustration there is probable. one thing that occurs to me is there are two kinds of ways of looking at this. a lot of is it is about mobility. there is absolute mobility which means how people are we as an economy to make all boats rise. when the economy is doing well the statistics-

yesterday showing that much of that expansion is among the top earners -- but when the economy is expanding, how capable is it of lifting all boats. and then how capable hall individuals are able to move up and down the economic ladder. there is some evidence that in both scenarios, it is harder for americans to move up the economic ladder. just expanding the economy or just insuring that individuals on their own merit can rise does not seem to be the full answer to the question and to the problem. host: gary in oklahoma. caller: good morning. nice talking to you. i am not a real big fan of "the

huffington post." you seem like a pragmatic individual. sir, i am one of those people from the 1960's who went into the service and burned my college degree. -- and earned my college degree. my biggest problem i have seen over the past 50 or 60 years as the liberals taking control of the democratic party and the accesses in government getting involved in people's lives in the 1960's and 1970's. we gave away -- congress gave away rights to bureaucrats. if you look at it, this country has poured more money into trying to help the poor, better giving themlives, access to education, and yet we

have not gone nowhere. obviously, what we have been doing right is not working. host: is that what you are hearing from the people that you talk to? the report personal stories in a lot of these articles -- you report personal stories in a lot of these articles. guest: if the question is -- is the safety networking -- i am not sure there is a clear answer. we went under a whole system of reform. that largely was driven by a sense that we do not want large numbers of people on the dole and relying on government assistance. so we made a lot of the benefits contingent or training

contingent hoping to put people on a path to work. there is some evidence that that has some impact in moving a certain percentage of people off government assistance and out of poverty. although the caveat is we also underwent that reformation at a time when the economy was greatly expanding and there were jobs available. there is some question as to whether the system performs just as well as the safety net, performs just as well when there are jobs available. i am not sure if that directly addresses the question. there is certainly a lot of debate about whether or not what we have done so far as a society and not just since 1996 but going back 30 years has actually addressed the problem, perpetuated the problem, and i am not quite sure if we know the

answer yet. host: you mentioned that the stories looks at education and poverty. here is a headline from "the new york times" this morning -- does that contribute to the middle-class' downward mobility? guest: i think the debt burden is certainly a major issue. for students who are pursuing higher education, there is no question that the most substantial debt that they will incur is the debt they will take on as students. i think there is no question that that is contributing to the downward drive. i have met some folks at a

homeless facility in youngstown where today's story is based. i met some folks who came out of that cycle of poverty and are pursuing an education for themselves now. they do not have a lot of money, but they have taken out enormous loans. it was not clear to me that the education that they were pursuing would necessarily be enough to pull them out of not just poverty but to put them on top of the debt that they were in corrine to get the education. host: sean is next from washington. good morning. caller: good morning. i was born and raised by a single working mom. when she died in 1998, i was left a little bit of money. i wanted to workhelp out a close friend of mine. he disappeared with my money.

needless to say, i have had in for wall street for a long time. i have written a -- i have read a couple of books. what i think people do not understand is the capitalist class -- the best way to think of them is as coke snorting frat boys. it is kind of an "animal house" situation. one book tells the story of indians who came across a party. they've responded with one sentence. "they eat each other." i think that best explains what is going on with the american economy. it seems like it is ok to have central planning when it comes to the wall street bailout, but

no central planning when it comes to the people. when you have labor laws not being enforced over the last 30 or 40 years, we had a combination of the regulation and the lack of enforcement. host: this is a tweet from one of our viewers. guest: i am not sure that i can pinpoint that date. i think there is some sense that the economy obviously has been retracting for not necessarily since the beginning of this recession, but the economic conditions that we are now experiencing have put in place for quite some time.

perhaps the last 30 years. i am not sure i can pinpoint a date. host: let's go to tennessee. philip, you are the next phone call for tom zeller from "the huffington post." caller: it started about 30 years ago when reagan allowed the get rich on real-estate to start. on the other things, and also with reagan, the trickle-down theory has and will never work. you cannot get the extremely rich tax breaks because all that does is it end up with a service-related society. if we tax the extremely rich 5060 per cent sign, then they can tax other people because we will have jobs and then they can

tax us. does that make sense? guest: you are not alone in your sentiment. there is a lot of sentiment out there that why are we not speaking more about adjusting tax rates on folks over a certain income level. the effective tax rates of folks who are much further down the chain are a fair bit higher. i think he is tapping into a very rich vein of the dadebate d frustration. host: we will go next to florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i feel our country is turning into medieval times, allowing a few crumbs for us on the bottom

level. i would like to see real people and have them take their place in government. i think there are a lot of poor people that can advise the rich of how to save money. there is a lot of waste in this country particularly in the health care field. i would like to see the rules of bankruptcy to be changed to allow a free open market of health care. host: ok. tom zeller, you have done some stories about how the lack of health coverage contributes to some being stuck in poverty. guest: yes, that is true. i also think the caller is

touching on an issue that i heard over and over. that is a lot of folks on the ground really do feel disconnected from the system and disconnected from their elected officials. they are in fact invisible and not being heard. in a lot of cases, i do not think a lot of people would be surprised to know that they do not vote and do not register to vote. the census bureau had a steady i think last year that looked at correlations of whether or not a person would be registered to vote and would actually vote during an election time. there is some relationship. i do not think it is entirely because -- a lot of folks say when you are on the bottom rung, it is difficult to find the time and ability to register and to vote. i think there is some truth to that but also i think there is a

sense that elected representatives in the united states do not speak for me or represent me. not to pick on mitt romney, but we have heard some sentiment related to that. in that he has struggled to connect with ordinary voters as a man of wealth. host: we are talking about economic stress and downward mobility with "huffington post" reporter tom zeller. we will keep taking your phone calls, tweets, and facebook comments. we want to let you know of something we are learning this morning. a u.s. representative dead at the age of 77. payne announced last month that he was under treatment for colon cancer but expected to make a full recovery. he was hospitalized at georgetown university hospital

on friday, flown back to new jersey. he was the state's only black congressman. his son, a city council president. donald payne, a congressman, at dead at the age of 77 after a battle with colon cancer. let me read this tweet from one of our viewers about our topic here this morning. guest: well, you know, in some respects, it is not high on the radar for a lot of politicians that are currently running for office, especially when we are talking about intergenerational

poverty. when speaking to campaign representatives, there is a wide sense of solutions out there. ron paul's campaign mentioned that getting inflation under control would go a long way toward pulling some folks out of poverty. representative newt gingrich said the corporate tax code was a bit onerous. and regulatory structure prevents businesses from taking root and flourish in that would lift all boats. the caveat being it is not entirely clear that an expanding economy would solve that problem at the very bottom. one thing i heard a lot when visiting these impoverished urban corridors was the services are often conflicting and contradictory and not very streamlined. it is kind of a labyrinth that

people at that level need to navigate in order to get a leg up. you are going to one agency for your food stands and going over here to try to get health care or child care coverage. you are standing in line to acquire diapers at a food bank. if there was a way to streamline some of these services -- there were some suggesting that would go a long way to give people a leg up. host: you write about suburban poverty and one of your pieces. guest: there is some sense that it is somewhat a new phenomenon in that the rates of concentrated poverty which is a term that refers to neighborhoods in which 40% or more of the population is below the poverty line, the greatest

growth in concentrated poverty tends to be in suburban areas. there was a huge housing bubble and a lot of suburban trackts where people find themselves suddenly under water and are slipping below the poverty line. so, i think there is no question that concentrated poverty is metastasizing outside the urban corridors in which we associate and are not necessarily rural. these suburban areas of growth are of major concern. caller: hi. i have been in business for a little over 20 years. it was important for me to put my daughter through school. however, this would not have

happened had it not been for the safety net. one of the things i have noticed i would say in the last three years since obama has been in office, there is this push in the state of oklahoma to remove the black workforce. they are highly educated, but their jobs are being demoted. to have other people, less qualified people, put into their positions. there is this a racial component that is causing people like one of the other callers that you had talking about the poor. it is not that they are demonizing the poor, but they want to hurt what they perceive

as the rising employment of african americans and non- whites. guest: thank you for that. i think the caller is touching on an important point which is there are distinct racial and ethnic lines cutting across the poverty issue. it is certainly true that the largest percentage -- let me say this. the number of pork in the united states, the largest number is white or non-hispanic white. african americans and latinos experienced much higher rates of poverty than whites. this is one of the most compelling and important questions that i think we face today, figuring out why that is so. this cuts across all lines.

the incarceration rate is far higher for african americans and latinos than it is for whites. we just had a study released that showed that discipline in the city schools falls disproportionately on blacks and latinos than it does on white's. i we have difficulty speaking out about this as a culture. there are lines running to the poverty problem that need to be moved to the forefront. host: talk about the impact of technology, access to the internet/ 80% of fortune 500 companies only except job applications online. you show a graphic in your story.

40% of people making less than $20,000 have access to broadband. it goes up with the more money that you make. guest: in some ways a glass half full, glass half and the situation. even poorer americans have access to computers at home and technology at home. not nearly enough have that sort of access in order to gain access to the sort of jobs you pointed out. and so they are forced to navigate a very complex maze in order to get the kind of taxes that they need, whether going to a library. some people don't have computers or telephones at home.

they use computers to look for jobs online at community centers. as the economy and as the information economy moves forward, we are leading -- leave a fair number of people behind. this is whether or not they can find work. host: one last quick phone call. joe from georgia. caller: i loved c-span. i was a speaker for mitt romney. if he is elected, the stock market and economy will do the best it has ever done. he will give all americans an opportunity not to guarantee to be successful.

isn't that the way to go -- cut taxes and government? host: tom zeller. guest: i can feel the callers enthusiasm. we do not as a society tend to guarantee it is necessary to guarantee success, only opportunity. if mitt romney is positioned to deliver that, i think there are people that will be excited about that. host: tom zeller, thank you very much for your time. the series can be found on the website. we have a link on our website. up next, a discussion on russian

elections. first would go up to capitol hill to learn more about the senate youth program. >> tell us about the program and have you got involved. guest: it is a wonderful opportunity. it brings students to washington to learn about government. i was chosen based in 1971. i had never been on an airplane or never been to washington and never met a united states senator. this was a program that changed my life in many ways. it is a great program. host: what was it like to meet the woman that holds your seat

now? guest: ed muskie. i had the best senators in the united states. what was special is that senator smith took nearly two hours talking with me about the issues of the day. she gave me a copy of her declaration of conscience in which she spoke out against the essence of senator joe mccarthy. she was the first senator to confront him. she taught me to stand tall for my principles. host: what does it take with you? -- what did you take with you? you saw so much. guest: i didn't realize it at the time, when i look back at

that week and might meeting with senator margaret smith, i think of the first step in a journey that left me 20 years later to run for public office, to run for the senate and to win the seat that she once held. getting involved is a lesson that my parents reinforced at home. you could make a difference. i met a wonderful students from all over the country and a wide variety of public figures. it it opened my eyes to the fact that you could make a difference but you needed to get personally involved. host: what inspired you to run for office? guest: i was convinced that i could make a difference and that matter to me. my parents said, you have no

right to complain about government and policy if you sat on the sidelines and when not willing to get involved. both of them were involved in the community and the state and in politics and civic organizations. u.s. senate youth program helped me put all together and to see politics at a different level. it is an extraordinary experience for the students who are chosen to participate in this program. i happen to be the only alum to become a senator, many other have gone on to jobs -- there is a house member, jobs in politics and the judicial branch. it has made a real difference in their community. i think they would point to this program as an important reason why.

host: you are serving in congress. this is the 50th anniversary and students are gathered in washington this week. guest: recognize that they can make a difference and that they should go for it and follow their dreams. so many people are afraid to take the risk of running for office or whatever their dream maybe. they talk themselves out of bed and years later they are filled with regret that they did not try -- they talked themselves out of it. so i would encourage them to follow my lead. if they're interested in running for public office, go for it. the young women. a lot of times young women talk

themselves out of running for office. they convince themselves they are not ready. young girls need to have more confidence in their ability and that young women and older women need to know that america needs their talents. host: olympia snowe announced she is not running for reelection. as you talk to the young people and share your message, what is your take and what is your hope for the future? the you think other people will find other ways to serve -- do you think/ guest: it is a huge loss to the state of maine and to the country and to me personally.

i would tell people not to be discouraged. they hold the future of this country in their hands. i believe it is the public that needs to demand. this has led to so much gridlock in washington. if they start demanding that workers work together, it will happen. it used to be that those of us who brought people together to solve problems were applauded for efforts to try to find solutions, for compromising on the issues. now "compromise" has become a dirty word. to correct the problem, the american people need to demand that their legislators work together for the better of this country, that we try to solve

problems rather than a score political points. that will be part of my message tonight when i speak to the delegates. host: senator susan collins of maine, thank you very much. guest: thank you. host: we turn our attention to the russian elections. vladimir putin is again voted into office. let me read you the latest in the headlines about the russian elections. we will start taking your comments and phone calls until our guest arrives. this is the headline in "the baltimore sun."

host: "opposition leaders pledged to stay in the square." "the washington times" this

morning put together a chart of voting violations. "there were several serious problems." host: that is in "the washington times" this morning.

there are several opinion pieces this morning about the russian election. put out yesterday by the state department yesterday was this -- "the united states endorses the preliminary report --" host: that is from the u.s. state department on the russian elections.

tom and alexander, a virginia, -- tom in alexandria, virginia. caller: my wife was concerned about the government and that it was a sham. she is from the far east, near japan and china. the government decided to increase the sales of russian cars. they were going to ban the import of cars into russia. this caused riots in the far east because they did not have access to affordable russian cars. they sent in the russian special forces. a lot of people died and many were seriously injured and that

did not make the news. the russian government is so hesitant to criticize regimes like those in syria. they make in gauge in the same package to ensure that this is -- she left because she didn't want to live under a government that denied her any voice in the political system and did not change that much from the communist era. you're free to speak in private about your disagreements with the government without somebody snatching you out of your house, but things have not changed out of the public square if you speak out too loudly. you find yourself poisoned or any number of other horrible outcomes because the government

is run as a fascist organization with eight democratic front. host: george in massachusetts. caller: my comment is about the u.s. working more closely with russia. the issue i see we find ourselves at opposite ends. this issue with iran. i do not see enough getting done at the government level to improve the relationships between these countries. that is my comment. host: george, are you still there? there was speculation in the papers about whether vladimir putin could survive one term, that russia is changing.

how do you think russia should react to his presidency and how to deal with him? caller: we have to let the russian people go to their process of either keeping him or getting rid of him. we need to ensure that the united states relationship with the russian people and the russian government is not degrading and we're not taking sides through our actions or comments alienating a country that after the cold war, we made good steps to become closer and then things are going back to finding ourselves at opposite ends. my comment would be support the people of russia through their process and try to take an independent approach without

taking sides, but put in programs that bring in more cooperation between businesses, more cooperation between individuals, tourism. host: so the future of russia it is on display in the headlines. this is from "the new york times." lots of footage from russian tv about the protesters yesterday in the square. we read a headline about the many that were arrested after vladimir putin return to the russian presidency. our guest is andrew weiss. thank you so much for making it. i know the traffic can be tough.

we heard from the last caller. we need to deal with russia as it is and let the people sort out who the leader will bay. what is your reaction -- who the leader will be. guest: putin created a system over the last few years and we have seen problems with that system. there's a big part of russian society which feels they want a voice and they want to be citizens. we're seeing growing pains right now. people feel like their rights as citizens have been trampled. host: good he survived his first term, six years? the first of possibly another 12 years.

guest: i think we're seeing a system in transition. there was no public descent. they're talking about changing some of the basic rules. we'll see him have to govern with give-and-take. a key reform is allow people to choose their own regional leaders. so people will not be taking cues from moscow. this is a period of transportation -- transformation. that read to me as the comment of a putin dyed-in-the-wool

public supporter. for them, i think this is a period where they want to show authorities we were right behind you and will never doubted that you would destroy your opponents. there is sort of a saying in russia -- you have to win with cruelty. you don't see victories like that. elections are supposed to not be predetermined. that is the fundamental flaw. host: your question the credibility of the outcome. guest: he could have won a free and fair election. they prescreened out anybody who was a credible alternative.

2/3 of the russian electorate probably would have supported putin. right now russia is split into three parts. western living standards. those are the people who have been leading the protests. host: we will get back to comments from our viewers. andrew kramer is joining us on the phone this morning. le mt me begin with your headlie in "the new york times." what happened in the polling place? guest: this is just one polling place. i would not want to extend what i saw into russia as a whole or into chechnya as a whole.

some of the statistics speak for themselves. as there were flipping through the ballots, the members were growing nervous and it became apparent there would be more balanced than they had registered voters for the district. this can be explained by absentee voting and something called mobile voting work they carry two ballots to people that are home sick. i was offered three explanations for this. there were fewer votes than we saw counted. it was a confusing scene. host: what are the implications of this? guest: the observers are saying that the vote was not

necessarily fair throughout russia and there might a bit less ballot stuffing. there are questions about the fairness of this vote. having witnessed this, i drove that point home for me. there are certain regions in russia where wrongdoing in the electoral process is more common than elsewhere. the final result in chechen is that 99% turnout and 99. % turnout for mr. putin. some people were not able to vote. one would assume there be other support for other candidates. host: tell us about the

opposition groups. do they continue? guest: that is in question. the next protest is 1march 10. police arrested several leaders of the protest movement. the question is whether the protests are sustainable and what the government's reaction will be. tickets to a broader question -- that gets to a broader question. host: what are you hearing? guest: it is leading towards more management. host: the suspect you'll hear from the russian government -- do you suspect/

? guest: this is not conveyed through an open manner. host: what are you watching for today and the weeks to come? guest: it will be important to say who was on his cabinet. there will probably be a few new figures there. the question is whether he will assert his authority. people are on the watch out something like that. maybe a prominent bureaucrat who might be arrested on corruption charges. maybe there will be dismissals of bureaucrats in a manner. host: andrew kramer, thank you

for the update. andrew weiss, your reaction. guest: we do not need to wait for reactions of his authority. he has created a system and presides over it. he doesn't have a lot to prove. in some ways, he is basically -- this is a referendum and he feels he has nothing to show anyone. he is top dog. people look up to the next level. he sits on top. he is not an autocrat. there is room for people to ignore decisions when it is convenient. people know if they do not

respond to these signals, there is possible cost. host: richard is on the air. we are talking about vladimir putin ascending to the presidency. caller: thank you. i was a member of a group in 1993 and was asked by the yeltsin private patient committed to go to russia and to deliver a speech on how russia could become a market-driven economy. i met vladimir putin. after that speech and being involved in russia, there are many trips that were made to silicon valley by russian enterprise companies and to the united states.

a lot of these did not succeed between 1994 and 1996 or 1997. they did not want russia to become an economic power and hence a military power. there seem to be a double standard. i grew up on the south side of chicago. ballot stuffing was and is a common practice. we continue to not rush a doubt instead of reaching out and trying to help them -- we continue to not reach out. guest: in some ways when putin meets with eastern audiences, he

says, we are who we are. what is notable is that is a place where we're seeing russia's impact already. russia has money reserves and the recent profitst to buy shares in facebook and twitter. this is a cash-rich society. that process, that integration is all happening in a fairly evolutionary process. host: we have a tweet. not talkingnk we're about a record that is an upright rebellion. this is a group -- they like to

denigrate them as snobs. i think a lot of that negativity coming from the regime is what this is about. this is not about a mass uprising. host: we have a piece by russian blogger.

guest: i think that sort of view is understandable, that you need a better program and if you any good program that people would believe. under putin, the whole playing field has been wiped clean. there is no alternative. he was running against people that were tired and predictable. so for him with the exception of a colorful face -- a russian that is the owner of the new jersey nets. he's a very dynamic very dynamic guy. there are not a lot of new faces.

russian is in a period where putin presides. the premiership in russia has not been -- has been more of an implement your role that a coordinator and fix-it guy. the face he shows and the work he did as the president to promote reconciliation with the united states, that's still a very valuable to the putin system. so the idea that he's being tossed aside is premature. host: knoxville, tennessee, democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i appreciate c-span. first-time calling in. you read the statement from the state department. it appeared to me that the u.s. was more laws giving the green light to the results of the election and let it was over. in the second half of the statement, it sounded like we were backing up and trying to step across the line and say all these things that were identified as problems need to be addressed and should be addressed. host: let's get our guest's reaction to the statement by the state department. they have back reports and there needs to be some investigation into what is going on. guest: they struck a balance

about transparency. there is a big set of issues that the u.s. and russia needs to tackle -- iran, syria. these are urgent problems. there are all sorts of questions about the conduct of the election. host: that is another headline in the paper. the u.s. expected to press pressure on syria. guest: the russians in conjunction with the chinese are serving as protectors. this is not a comparable position to be in. tremendous harm is being done to the civilian population by the regime. it has become the staunchest defender and put itself at on its with the arab world.

my sense is they have to scale back their support. host: we go to baltimore. caller: thank you for taking my call. putin is trying to reverse the things that happened in russia under yeltsin. many people came to power in russia and secured a large amount of the wealth in rusher or people that russians have been against in most of their history. there's an element of anti- semitism in russia. their work jewish so they took a lot of the wealth. reconstruction in the south when the blacks rose to power and the congressman and senators from

the south and there were carpetbaggers' that cayme in. putin is trying to reconstruct rusher and take back the wealth that these outsiders had taken in russia. he has tried to keep that power. that's why you see wealth being taken. many of these guys were in the black market. they were able to take advantage of yeltsin's weakness. guest: i think that over draws it a bit. we have seen under putin 8 flourishing of- a jewish life. you can go to high holiday services in moscow.

you see people practicing their faith openly without any persecution. you saw a small group of people who called the shots and were able to manipulate yeltsin and to do things that were profitable. power and wealth remain intertwined in russia. it has been away for centuries. putin has demonstrated to the economic leaders he does not want them involved in politics anymore. russia has a tradition where the czar demonstrates to people what the rules are and the expectations are. that is something that is deeply, deeply rooted in the political culture of the country. host: 20 in massachusetts --

tony in massachusetts. caller: we have think tanks and people running in and out of government all the time. we are no different than any other communist country. we say we're trying to protect the citizens against terrorists. corporations are doing business with terrorists. government is the only one that can do business. host: that was tony in massachusetts. next up is brian. caller: i was wondering about the question about some of the breakaway areas like chechnya and how your guest feels about whether these places will continue to be ruled by strongmen or will putin

allow for the breakaway region's or will try to centralize the government more? guest: that is a good question. there's a big section of the north caucasus region with countries like georgia and i azerbaijani which are basically an open revolt. they have not been present in that part of the world for centuries. so you see it violent attacks and gangsterism. this is one of his security challenges going forward. the government has not found an easy solution. host: dakota in salem, oregon. caller: i am a college freshman and i'm taking foreign policy.

we have come to the debate in my class that this election was preplanned. prime minister putin always planned to return to power after his term limit had expired. this is my second point. do you think relations between the white house and the kremlin could be the same as it was during president clinton's administration and president bush's administration. guest: nobody knows how putin ironed it. dveded you had putin , and set it was a put on.

that made the russian establishment angry. on the question of the relationships, i worked in the clinton white house. i've never seen cooperation work as well as it is between this administration and rushes opposite numbers. they have built something. this far exceeds anything i saw in bush 43 or the clinton administration. host: what do they need from us? guest: they feel they were on the losing aend. they would like to find a new role for russia in the world. what we're seeing is that russia is pragmatic.

russia agreed to a series of new sanctions against iran. the process for additional sanctions looks unattractive. when russia sees a benefit, they can do wouit. putin is hamstrung. host: there were comments put up by putin blaming the west for the demonstrations. guest: i think they were nervous about where this would go and what the consequences would be. they went out and attacked protesters. they said these guys are not real russians. the idea of the foreign press and that russia is a fortress was met by foreign agents has

helped to legitimize the regime. host: what do we need from russia? guest: the biggest priory's will be to prevent the mess in syria -- the biggest priorities. much of the backsliding and keeping that to a minimum. host: bill in new jersey. go ahead. caller: yes. thank you for c-span. how come in russia they will not confront the horrors under stalin? can we have an explanation on that? guest: there is a deep problem

in the russian political establishment. putin pays tribute to the victims of stalin. of stalled asval a great leader -- of stalin. there is an intensely mixed and disturbing message that has happened over the past 10 years. i think there is little doubt that russian espionage activity has returned to cold war levels. we have seen arrests across the eastern united states. what are these tactics being used against the united states? why would you want to spent the time to put people like that into u.s. society? a big part of the russian

establishment and for whom this is what they do. the united states is an easy target for them. millions of russians travel abroad every year. that they have been given a green light by putin. a tweet. have 8 tw guest: i think there's a tendency in the west to characterize putin. he came out of no work with low expectations. it basically has created a reinforcing dynamic. he looks at us with great skepticism. a lot of that, there's plenty of bases for.

host: you say he came out of nowhere. we have a tweet from a viewer. is he a billionaire? guest: nobody knows. there are stories about ill- gotten gains. these images are out of date. host: where did putin come from? guest: he was a mid-level kgb operative. he basically established himself as someone who you can rely on and was very thorough.

his career led him to the presidential apparatus inside moscow and into the kremlin. the team was looking for someone who was loyal and could assure a predictable transition and where he would not go after the yeltsin crowd. host: how would you define putinism? guest: i think it is about the state. he has demonstrated that the answer to russians problems are a strong state. we probably do not sure that approach. russia has oscillated in its history between control and chaos. host: kim from louisiana. good morning. -- tim.

caller: i'm trying to find out these people that were arrested by the police. did anybody say what they did to get arrested or what they did and that they needed to arrest these people? guest: i think we're seeing a new face of the russian government overnight. you needed to be careful not to make things worse by cracking heads. there was a permit for people to have a demonstration in moscow. it was until 9:30. people decided to stay after the demonstration was over and to have a town hall. the police came in and said, you are finished at 9:30 and everybody go home. my friends say it had to be a message to the opposition.

if you come out it will be at great personal risk. host: springfield, massachusetts, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i have a question about the future. i was wondering --what is the best that can come -- the benefit for the future for all the problems that are going on. what do you think will be the most benefit that can happen in the future if it happens? host: difficult question to answer because the it is a little broad. of their benefits to the situation in europe or the arab backg or having putin

in power. guest: benefits are what happens in russia's internal development. russia is still going through a transformation where they want a benign environment. people love seen tremendous social economic gains -- people have seen. they want to see that kind of progress continue. there are -- that is the difference that the average person will be feeling and focused on. host: is there another putin in the wings? guest: people are focusing on a

man who was arrested last gennady zyuganov righ. the big guessing game is well putin look to an equivalent of themselves who can keep the system to gather? my sense is that he is not under great pressure to do that. host: not medvedev? guest: there was a question about whether there was an opportunity for putin to do that. my guess is that was probably not what was going on. host: 4 lauderdale, florida -- fort lauderdale. caller: interesting show. i want to say that in russia, it has become a christian nation. it is wonderful to see how they

have move from communism. they passed a wonderful law to protect the children. the christian faith is very strong in russia now. i hope it grows even stronger. there are bad things happening. this is a huge issue that you cover-up in the united states media. host: christianity in russia. guest: there is a chasm between the protectors of dignity and the society as a whole. so we see a society that is going through a transition. a new attitude toward personal life style and personal choice.

there are parts that see it as threatening. at election time, this not a coincidence. use of people tried to impose a new law that would make it a crime to propagandize a homosexual lifestyle. these are tensions that russia is undergoing. the people who work at magazines and in the media and in the financial industry, those are the people that have been the vanguard of the demonstrations. people look at those people as negatively and with great hostility. there's a tendency to look at elitists and people living the good life as opposed to the everyday life that most people live. host: has there always been that tension?

guest: i think so. most of the political change is driven by the people at the top of society. the change will be dependent on the people that putin is denigrating the most. host: we have a few minutes left with our guest. john in san francisco. caller: good morning. i watched the russian elections on "russia today." there was quite a different story than what was betrayed here. that is a pretty impressive station. i wanted to get your thoughts. it is quite effective journalism. they pointed out the double standard between how we view the

russian elections and if what happened in 2004 had happened in russia, we would be this and that as an illegitimate election. i wanted to hear your comments. guest: that is a state-owned operation intended to shape western perception of what russia is. i tend to view what they do with skepticism. they allow extremist american voices on their shows. the first in new source-- that is not the first news source i would turn to. the state news does a pretty straightforward job. host: there is an article on a website. he is the longest serving senior level politicians

serving. 16 years. guest: this goes to why he says, why are you asking me to change? he feels he is the longest serving leader of a major country. he doesn't have a lot to apologize for. host: patricia in illinois. we're talking about love our putin seeking a third term for the presidency -- we're talking about vladimir putin. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to ask him what he response would be to the iranian situation if the u.s. were to of fact military

action against iran or if israel would to do so. if he could collaborate about russia's policy as it concerns the first strike use of nuclear weapons and if he could elaborate further upon any of russia's military policies. host: the house is about to, come in. how vladimir putin views iran anad israel. guest: this raises oil prices which is beneficial to the russian budget and the russian leadership. as far as the actual publication, that is what they are worried about. there could be a war in