center of technology joins us to talk about recent claims that google bipe passed the privacy settings of people using the safari web browser. "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] . . the showdown is the headline this morning of the "chicago tribune."

it is sunday march 18 and we begin with the question about whether or not we could see an open republican convention. phone lines are open. numbers are on the screen. front page of "that day york times." the headline -- white it or not. -- like it or now. t.

host: "the l.a. times" is talking about missouri caucuses. clowe it what you want, but a day of the lead toro uncertainty in missouri has proven what many knew.

voting will not quite cut it in missouri on saturday. the state's republicans first had to go through some expected political pileups to compete -- complete the next day in mid jerry -- misery's nomination process. that is one example of what has been happening in this primary and caucus process. missouri had a beauty contest with the delegates being selected during the caucus process. all eyes on the illinois with the campaigning -- the campaigners there today. rick santorum campaigning in illinois. miss romney will be in the northern part of the state including rockford, alan lawyer with the delegates at stake on tuesday. the only scheduled on tuesday. if you go inside "the new york times" we want to bring in this photo.

it is and generations as the republicans have seen a convention in which the nominee was not decided going in. gerald ford was the fitting -- sitting president. the appointed president did not have enough delegates before working out an agreement to get that nomination. we want to take you back to the for the convention in kansas city to give you one snapshot of what that was like in the summer of 1976. [video clip] >> i think he is the vice chairman of one of those delegations. >> something to do with a sign, i do not know. >> did he get a phone back? >> no. >> which phone? >> my white cord phone. that goes to the trailer. my other phone is damaged.

host: 1 snapshot of what happened during the summer of 1976 -- all for getting the nomination on the first ballot. for some questions because of the surge by ronald reagan who got the nomination. of your phone calls of the possibility of an open convention. james is from california. good morning. >> good morning -- caller: good morning. if this is the best the republicans have to offer, they should have an open convention. host: why is that? caller: there is no clear front- runner or person that speaks to the american people. i am working bricklayer and i am a veteran in. i come from a family of

veterans. if this is the best they have to offer, then they should have an open convention. host: thank you. the numbers are on your screen. you can send us an e-mail durnell@ -- journal@c-span.org or facebook.com/cspan. more for the republican convention in which gerald ford astro ready to come to the floor and then delivers remarks before the delegation in kansas city -- assistant ronald reagan to come to the floor and then delivered remarks before the delegation in kansas city. [video clip] >> live in a world in which a great powers have a voice and in debt each other horrible misfiles of destruction, nuclear

weapons that can arrive in this country and destroy it. . it dawn on me, those who would read this letter 100 years from now will know whether those mis files were filed -- were fired. they will know whether we met our challenge. they will know that the freedoms depend on what we do here. [applause] thank you. thank you. host: from the 1976 republican convention in which ronald reagan coming a close second, almost ousting gerald ford who was president seeking the full nomination for a four year term. he lost to jimmy carter. the issue in 2012 is rule number 38 whether or not you are bound by the actual results in a

congressional district or in your state. this is how the republican party has identified rule 38. it states "that no delegate or alternate delegate to be bound by any attempt of any state or congressional districts to impose the unit rule." of the primaries and caucuses through april 1 are proportional -- that is another party rule. it states that the delegations must be allocated on a proportion of who wins in congressional districts or across the state, meaning there is no winner-take-all. we have a call from oklahoma. democrats' line. good morning. caller: good morning. a duet for letting me talk. i am calling from oklahoma. host: go ahead. caller: i am a democrat. i would never -- i have never

seen anything so horrifying than what the republicans are trying to do now. they use to the honorable. what they do to this president is not necessary. i am so proud that i am a democrat because president obama is doing what he can and bush, i have never seen anything so ridiculous. president obama is a good person. host: u.s. for the call. springfield, oregon. the possibility of an open republican convention your your thoughts? caller: if it is only the two that are left, we could be -- santorum am romney -- and

romney. i was all for santorum and dela learned his convictions and so now i wish somebody else could step in. i want obama out of the white house. host: thank you for the call. "chicago to be enclosed but falling rick santorum as he campaigns for illinois. it is the only major primary contest on tuesday. this is how the "chicago tribune" is reporting. jay is on the phone from new mexico. good morning. caller: good morning. let me turn this thing down so i can hear you. hold on. host: let me read to you what is set on to the turk. the republicans will pay at the

convention for republican -- for promoting a mediocre candidates and self-centered candidates like the rest. if you can join that candidates -- you kidron the conversation at twitter.com. host: you are on the air. caller: i'm not terribly familiar with how this works because i have never been able to get through before. host: what are your thoughts about an open convention caller: i am very concerned -- an open convention? caller: i am very concerned for my freedom of religion. analysts familiar with -- i am most familiar with mitt romney's it is. i was just listening to rick santorum a little while ago on your previous program and he scare is made. i am really afraid for my freedom of religion. that is the first thing.

the second thing is, i want to know where he wants to -- he is talking about cutting entitlements. is my social security -- is that an entitlement? would he cut that? or medicare? i am disabled. i actually have two disabilities. i am worried about that, as well. host: thank you for the call. rick santorum -- santorum is ahead in the missouri carcasses. he seemed poised to capture missouri again yesterday, a potentially giving him the momentum into another crucial mid will show down. he was awarded the show me state's beauty pageant vote last month. election's bizarre rules led republicans to turn out again yesterday for caucuses. --

host: b. "new york daily news" is talking about rick santorum, also. host: the idea of an open convention is a media fantasy. the gop establishment will get their ducks in a row. romney winds on the first ballot. next is franklin from new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a democrat. i been a democrat for 55 years. i am 78-years-old. the most important thing that amazes me is i would love to see an open convention because to me, that is just like a three ring circus. number one, none of them have talked about the minimum wage

being raised. they're afraid of the union. why? that is exactly what this is all about. it is nothing but a three ring circus. thank you for taking my call. host: thank you. alexander burns is riding in " -- on saturday march 3, romney stood with santorum and gingrich on the floor of the dhl warehouse in ohio next to a makeshift said constructed for a forum hosted by mike huckabee. each had filmed the q&a sessions with huckabee. they discussed the nominating process and romney raised the possibility of an undated candidate getting into the race

and spoke of the perils of such a scenario and what that would present to the party. not surprisingly, the other two agreed that each would reserve his support for someone now in the race. again, that is being reported this morning. the possibility of an open convention, which means that the nomination would not be set on the first ballot. what would that mean for the republican party? joan is joining us from florida. good morning. you're on the air. go ahead please. caller: good morning. i am calling because i have seen presidents come and go. i have seen elected officials come and go. there are some i have been proud of. as an independent in florida, i am having a problem because the primary is closed a machine or republican. you cannot vote. as a taxpayer, i would like very much to be able to count my

vote. i am not saying i would vote republican or democrat or an independent based on party lines. i would possibly vote them in on what they are promising us and hopefully somebody that would honor their promises. now, as the president of the united states that we have had, i do think that he deserves honor, respect, and loyalty. i hate the fact that everybody is blaming everything on everybody else and also, i think if they would stop pointing their finger, they might get their word across a little bit better. thank you so much for having this open line. host: to live. jack mentions -- what impact will ron paul have on an open convention as delegates switch loyalties? we go back to the party rules

that change will be saw from 2008 to to an 12. -- to 2012. host: those are the party rules. a rule number 38 indicates that you may or may not be subject to what happens in your state and that is something that rick santorum's followers are looking at carefully. at linda, georgia.

steve is on the line on the idea of an open convention. caller: good morning. i want to respond to the caller from new mexico who was concerned about his social security being cut. in his other disability benefits being cut. i am a republican year have been a republican since ronald reagan. i wanted to say that all republicans and independents, stop voting against your own interest. the same programs that a lot of republicans are up the country really care about -- all over the country really care about, social security, medicare, the republicans do not like them. they do not like them. they do not support them. it will cut them. president obama, for the first time in my life, i am going to vote for a democrat.

please come independence throughout the country, please stop voting against your own interests and vote for obama. host: to live for the call. front page of "the washington post." he promised change in washington and then the debt ceiling collapsed. there is a photograph inside of one of the meetings that took place with the speaker of the house, the vice-president joe biden, harry reid and mitch mcconnell. also speaker boehner. i want a deal, obama told others. that never came about. this is a story that is written by laurie montgomery and scott wilson inside a "the washington post." our line for independents -- good morning. caller: good morning.

if you for c-span and "washington journal." there is a strong possibility of an open convention because within the republican party, we have that he does it warring factions. we have got the conservative base consisting of conservatives, evangelicals, the bible belt and the tea party anders. and the other hand, you have the establishment. rick santorum is the only conservative. romney is the establishment candidate. if you believe in the constitution and the freedoms our founding fathers gave us, we need to go with rick santorum. with romney, it will be business as usual in washington. steve, i am very sick and tired of having the republican party leaders pick my candidates for me. i want to be able to choose whom i want and it my man is rick santorum. host: thank you. cindy mentions --

we are asking about the possibility of an open convention. rick santorum and newt gingrich approached by mitt romney last week on the possibility of a late entry into the race. inside the washington post, it is about a block and a half from er.e -- the dublin a the president put down his irish roots. this is what the scene looked like at the bar. he put on his irish. a bloodline that he shares. there is a picture along with others. the president did not wear any grain. -- green.

he had to pay $10 to get inside. there is the president yesterday afternoon. 45 minutes having a guinness beer at the irish pub. another call. good morning. caller: i have been closely following all of the hubbub of the republican candidates and from this perspective, it is ludicrous. we have four candidates and they do not care about anything other than their own caucus. we should get rid of the two party system and make everybody run as an independent. that is what i think. host: to live for the call. antti from new jersey. good morning. -- eddie from new jersey.

good morning. caller: an open convention will only hurt us further. it there are two sides, the true conservatives and the establishment -- whoever is left. i think most people that are supporting romney are supporting him because they believe he is the only one who has a chance of beating obama. i want to touch on the bush tax cut, if i may. i think it will be a very big issue in the elected. i want to see how the republicans -- 71% of the country wants to do away with the bush tax cuts. i want to see how the republicans will defend them because they keep telling us over and over again that the rich need the special tax cut because they hire people and they invest in america. midge romney -- mitt romney has not hired anybody over a decade and he has $34 billion in

switzerland and the cayman islands. i want to see them try to defend that. host: thank you. from twitter -- id is not in the character of either party to have a totally unscripted convention. it should be interesting to see. twitter.com/cspanw. j. padron the conversation. "cq weekly" -- obamacare lands in court. ken cuccinelli weighed in on all of this. he is going to be next on " newsmakers." the health-care debate came up and he thinks the supreme court will decide -- [video clip] >> some people look at justice roberts joining the case as a

harbinger of doom for our side. i do not see it that way. despite the broad language of the case, which is a necessary cost case, the very last paragraph of the majority opinion brings very broad language down for a very thin funnel. the federal government cannot get this bill through that final. if that is a requirement for justice robert, i am confident that -- there has not been enough time since the case for us to really assess how he will -- >> this is necessary and proper? host: you can watch our interview with ken cuccinelli, virginia's attorney general after this program at 10:00 eastern time it it re-years -- it it re-errors at 6:00 p.m.

the commerce clause is key in six hours of oral arguments over three days later this month, the most on the court has been on the case in 45 years. the obama administration will try to convince the justices that the constitution grants congress broad power to regulate interstate commerce and provide for the national interest. broad enough to require that every american purchase it health insurance or pay a penalty. that is one of the key elements in the case of the court -- that the court will be deciding. they turn down requests to the television cameras inside but they agreed to have audio release. when that happens, you can listen to it on c-span radio or hear on c-span tv. ash road, north carolina. good morning. caller: i am in favor of an open convention because i think it

would make the republicans put more meat on the table for what they're talking about. i remember open conventions in the early 1970's and they really made everybody see with the national issues are instead of just i believe in this and the talking points -- and we would get to your beyond those. host: thank you. inside "time" magazine -- end of the road. host: he is the best advertisement for third place.

he sit behind mitt romney and 6 -- rick santorum. gingrich's belen to go on, which he does all the time since he is usually losing. he can keep running if he wants to. it is a free country. gingrich said realize that his romantic image of himself is never going to match elect or a reality. next is thomas joining us from phoenix. good morning. caller: good morning. i think that they will not get to a contested primary. i think that -- convention open convention. i think that romney will win it because -- even though i think it gingrich probably would make a better president because of the objects. i hope anybody wins except for

obama because he is such a fake and a lighter and the democrats are so naive and uninformed. he takes credit for increasing domestic production and oil and that all comes from drilling on private land and from leases approved under bush. he gets away with that and nobody challenges ihim. host: we are talking about the smoke-filled rooms. jim mentions -- how can you of a brokered convention when indoor smoking has been banned everywhere? twitter.com/cspanwj or send as an e-mail. "the new york times" -- rick santorum has hired a delicate specialist to comb through the tax work of state by state rules and to find unpledged delegates

who could swing him. romney says they are prepared to counter. gingrich will hold on to delegates even if it is clear he has fallen short only to keep mr. romney from reaching majority. helen is on the phone from atlanta, good morning. >> good morning. host: is this helen? caller: i just wanted to respond -- good morning -- who made the comments about the president's liking. i think this campaign has been one of the most to ridiculous ones that i have ever seen in my

lifetime and i am nearly 75 years old. i think the republican party and republican candidates should say what they are going to do about the situation instead of pointing fingers at the president whom i think has done a marvelous job in spite of all the things he inherited. i never saw anybody make all this noise while the president was in office who created all these problems. i think it is about time that somebody stepped up to the plate and told the truth and republican party is not doing that. i think everybody who is running should be out of the race and more people, if there are any in the republican party, who could be less is ingenuous should run. thank you. host: our question this morning is whether or not there's the possibility of an open convention. this is from inside the washington examiner --

on our republican line, david is joining us from illinois, welcome to the program. caller: thank you for cspan. i dunno about an open republican convention. i wish our whole country would get behind mr. santorum. if we want this country to move forward and protect religious and constitutional rights, we should get behind mr. santorum.

if not, obama will get reelected and this country is probably done for good. host: the obama campaign released a new 17-minute video being called the longest campaign advertisement, narrated by tom hanks, taking a look at the key issues that have shaped the obama agenda over the last few years. this is how it concludes -- ♪ ♪ [video clip] >> time and time again, we would see tax results from the decisions he made not for quick political gain but for long-term and enduring change. when we remember this moment and consider this president, then and now, let's remember how far

we have come and look forward to the work still to be done. ♪ host: from the obama campaign, a 17-minute video that is available on-line at barack obama,com. in "the national journal" --

good morning, where are you calling from? caller: i am calling from new york city. host: you are on the air. caller: my name is michael. host: go ahead. we will move on to some other calls. the business section of "the washington post" --

next is south carolina, democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. i think the thing with the open convention would probably be good for republicans because they are split between the class a conservatives and the moderate conservatives. i don't think modern conservatives have had a voice in this campaign, not near to the strength they could have had an open convention. i think it would be good for them and they could probably find a candidate that would run strongest against barack obama. while i am a democrat, i think we need to have a consensus about the direction we need to

go in this country. i just don't think it is good for a president to all go his way. they need a stronger candidate and we could have a vote and that will be that. host: boston, independent line, good morning. caller: good morning, everybody. i think the republican party, should retire. they should have an open convention. host: ok, joe is next republican line from south carolina. the headline from "the washington post" -- we will go next to al in gaylord, mich..

caller: good morning. host: please turn the volume down because there is an echo. caller: ok, i believe mitt romney is going to spend his way into the presidency. one thing that i would like to see is all people that are running for president to release their stock holdings and or making equipment. host: thank you for the call. will move onto south carolina, good morning, republican line. caller: we got a clown show in the republican party unfortunately. i republican but i am very disappointed in the candidates.

i think it will be a dogfight at the convention. i don't think it will be good for the party. the clown show continues. i would like to say a word about the candidates, if you don't mind. i tried to view this as if i was a democrat and i cannot think of a thing that any of the republican candidates offer that would make me change parties at the polls. mitt romney represents wall street which is everything the democrats hate. he talks a lot about staples and helping them out and a major piece of jade of the last time i checked, most of those jobs are minimum wage and the only one a makes money is the guy at the top. that does not appeal to democrats. when of the people came out and voted last and who had not ever voted for a president or in 20 years and the only thing republicans can count on as

though people -- those people getting lazy the simon not coming out. i think it will be a dogfight at the convention. host: thanks for the call. a reporter for the fox news channel as a review of a new book -- it is a book by max holland. it is a look back at the watergate era. the review is available this morning inside "the new york post." welcome to the program. caller: i would like to say that the possibilities of an open convention are probably really good but it probably would not benefit the republican party to much. i am an independent. i would like ron paul to win for his stances on liberties and constitutional values and what not. you had one caller that called

up talking about it republicans voted against their values are what they want and about social security and all that -- i am all for people if they needed to get social security but there are many people who could be working that get social security. host: thank you for the call. one of our viewers is saying it is time for a third party. mary is on the fun from burlington, new jersey. caller: i am listening to all these calls from all over the country. the president of the united states does not make block. it is congress. that is ridiculous. president obama does not make laws. the other thing that bothers me -- whose religion has been infringed on? i know of no one in this country. we have freedom of religion and we have freedom of speech.

i wish americans would wake up and change congress. they make laws, not the president of the united states. i just pray that this country will stay free and vote their minds and not be influenced by the tea party and all these other radicals. we are americans first. the country is first and their religion and party is second. host: ken ruden of npr will be joining us and a few minutes on our sunday round table. we will talk about the obama campaign with his new effort released last week with his 17- minute video documentary. that is coming up on "washington journal" in a few moments but let's look at the other issues

dominating the sunday morning programs. >> morning. beginning at noon, cspan radio re-airs five network tv talk shows and the topics include the presidential election, the economy, the afghanistan, and the situation in sudan. beginning on "meet the press," john mccain. an actor and human rights activist june -- george play along with a co-founder of the pdf project. then we have abc's "this week "with rick santorum. fox news sunday is at 2:00 p.m. and they will have mitt romney and another appearance by actor george colony. -- george clooney. after that, rick santorum, and

house budget committee chairman paul ryan. at 4:00 p.m., it is "face the nation" will have david axelrod. and reince preibus, chairman of the republican national committee. these are brought to you as a public service by the network and c-span and they begin at noon eastern. listen to them all on cspan radio on 90.1 in the washington d.c. area. you can go online to cspan radio.org. [video clip] >> there are garments made of homespun cloth and this clock would be much or rough-textured

and be much less fun than the current of goods they could import from great britain but by wearing this homespun cloth, women were visibly and physically displaying their political sentiments. >> tonight at 9:00, george mason university professor on a role of women's role during the revolutionary war. >> i was quite a radical as a young person and i was the one who thought that we should -- that we shall overcome as a not a very effective way of gaining rights. i thought more confrontations was needed. >> economics professor, walter williams, on being a radical. >> i believe that a radical is any person who believes in personal liberty and individual freedom and limited government.

that makes you a radical and i have always been a person who believed that people should not interfere with may. i should be able to do my own thing so long as i don't violate the rights of other people. >> more with walter williams tonight at 8:00 p.m. on cspan's "q &a." [video clip] caller:"washington journal" continues. host: open convention, the front-page story of " the new york times." what is the possibility? guest: it is still march. if you ask me in june with no clear front runner, i would say we could have a repeat of 1976 or 1952. it is march. we still have 50% of the primaries still to come and after april, a lot of them will

be winner-take-all. it is possible alibi with momentum could start pulling away. host: the essence of the story is that the party is preparing for the possibility advising campaigns about what rules state of what can and cannot happen. guest: i agree, it is possible. there is a real strong second candidate to mitt romney. that will bring it to a temple where they have the convention. you can see the possibility of people refusing to drop out of a ann romney can come up with an -- right number of delegates before them which he very well may, this argument will end right there. at this point, you have a strong second candidate to mitt romney and because of that, they are wise to prepare for the possibility but i think is a pretty small possibility. host: you are quite familiar with rural number 30.

let me read you what it states -- guest: that is exactly what the rick santorum forces are trying to push. mitt romney may have 1 million more votes than rick santorum ord newt gingrich or ron paul and he may have more delegates than the other candidates combined but when you come to tampa, anything goes. like when ted kennedy tried to make an open convention in 1980 against jimmy carter, the rex santorum delegates will say we need somebody who will be president obama. host: the headline from "the chicago tribune" -- guest: illinois will be the big fight. it is an industrial state and they stay where rick santorum

needs to prove he can win yet mitt romney is really favre. mitt romney loses, that is a huge loss but they will split these delegates. each of them will walk away with some delegates but it is a big prize. guest: we talk about how the money being important but rick santorum did not have the money to file and the organization to file and all 18 congressional districts in illinois. even if he does well in illinois, he will be shut down several congressional district because it does not have ballots there. guest: this has happened before. he was not on the ballot in virginia. this is a problem that demonstrates how mitt romney is out of debt financing these other candidates. host: from "the washington examiner" -- guest: york to get rid of

newt gingrich, all those voters would come to wreck santorum and if you combine with the two of them have, they would be ahead of mitt romney in half of these primaries but that is not necessarily true because if you look at some of the polling that has been done, it suggests that only some of the votes for newt gingrich would go to santorum if he were to drop out. it is not a guarantee that rick santorum would get ahead of mitt romney if newt gingrich dropped out but the two of them are competing to be the sole alternative, a conservative alternative to mitt romney. host: wreck santorum made this prediction yesterday in new jersey -- [video clip] >> this is a primary and turnout is everything. you do your job. you do your job. this is the pledge -- if we are able to come out with a huge

surprise win, i guarantee you, i guarantee you that we will win this nomination. will nominate a conservative and it would nominate a conservative, we will be barack obama in the fall election. host: reaction? guest: we have heard predictions before a new gingrich insisted he will be the nominee and south carolina and we have not heard from him since. it will be a big story of rick santorum wins illinois. we keep saying that mitt romney has to win florida or he is finished. he has to win ohio, he has to win michigan. he wins them but we have to say he needs to be better and better. every time rick santorum pulls off a victory, the headlines are bacon while mitt romney keeps talking about the inevitability and numbers, rex and torn keeps saying momentum. -- rick santorum keeps saying

momentum. host: many view this as a weak field. guest: this demonstrates that there is a big divided the republican party of what kind of candidate they want. mitt romney comes across in moderate some ways and as more of a centrist. then you've got conservatives like santorum and gingrich who are to the right. the party is divided. the party is not all in lockstep. it is demonstrating there is some divide over which candidate should best represent the party going into the fall election. some people backing santorum saying you need to have a big contrast. others say mitt romney will track that key independent segment of the voting population. mitt romney may be better at winning them over. host: one of our viewers says -- guest: somberly think that in

the party. -- some really think that in the party. there are people that back newt gingrich that say they are tired of the gop establishment saying they should tell them who they should vote for. many people say that. they are tired of being told and being forced to pick a candidate they don't like. they like newt gingrich as a big ideas kind of person and a great debater they think he would be the per person to go up against barack obama in the fall. depends who you ask. host: he can also be a kingmaker, rick santorum. guest: you don't get to 1140 quick enough and in that sense, newt gingrich could make a difference of it gets to tampa.

if you look at the arithmetic, it looks like mitt romney could very well have these numbers in hand by the end of the primaries on june 5. host: let's go back to the party rules. there are some changes from 2008 on the republican national committee rules. guest: originally, they looked at what happened in 2008 and how exciting that was and hillary clinton and barack obama, they could not stop talking about it. the republicans looked at that and said that would not be so bad for us. they set the example of this thing would be more protracted than has been. i think there is a lot of regret by the republic is that this thing could be over by now but by their own design, they have it set up so it has allowed santorum and gingrich to pick up delegates along the way even though they are not winning all the states.

it is retracted until we get into the winner-take-all and that is where it will order -- really matter. santorum have to win if he was to keep winning delegates. host: the president will have five campaign fund rises. this is what he had to say in illinois. [video clip] >> you might have noticed that we have some guests in illinois this week. apparently, things have not quite wrapped up on the other side. [laughter] so there's actually some interest in the primary we have here on tuesday. my message to all the candidates is welcome to the land of lincoln. because i am thinking maybe some lincoln will rub off on them while they are here. [applause] licoln, the first republican

president knew that if we as a nation through our federal government did not act to facilitate these things, then they likely would not happen. as a result, we would all be worse off. he understood that we are a people that takes great pride in our self-reliance and independence and we're also one nation and one people and that we rise or fall together. host: the president on the campaign trail friday raising money for his own reelection effort. yesterday was st. patrick's day, about a block and a half from here, the president going to one of the well-known irish pubs, the dubliner and this is what the scene looked like as the president was greeted. he had about 3/4 of his guinness before he departed. guest: that is why he spells his

nameo'bama. the rules are different but the party is different. look at what happened in 2010 with the advent of the tea party with more conservative candidates elected to the house and that is reflected in the electorate in the 2012 primaries. host: tuscaloosa, alabama, good morning. caller: i may c-span junkie. -- i am a c-span junkie. i am african-american. you talk about christians. pascrell were the people who brought the institution of slavery into the united states. the election of president barack obama let the world know what our people lived under for 400 years. i will say another thing -- i love this president but if he had not had a white mother and

he had gone through the institution of slavery as our forefathers did, he never would have gotten elected in this country. there was some young intelligent white people whose grandparents voted for this man because they are not as prejudiced as the 60- year-old and opera there are some good ones but the good white people do not often get elected to office. do this for us -- to this for me as an african-american -- when you say that the solid south for the republican party -- that is not true for black people. host: he pointed out that the president's race is the subject of this story inside " the new york times."

any comment on the caller's view? guest: barack obama did not campaign as an african-american. he campaigned as an american who happen to be an african- american. barack obama said in 2008 that all the issues that affect the economy, unemployment, job growth affects blacks and whites. i think his race and color was not a big issue. it may have been more of an issue for the voters and may be a big issue in 2012 t. guest: we are not beyond racism as a people. barack obama ran as that would not be a big issue and that helped him. guest: there were other issues to worry about in 2008, the wars, the collapse of the

financial system, but perhaps there will be other directions this year. host: dan ball writing in illinois for "the washington post." guest: mitt romney is ahead in illinois and it doesn't win, this is an opportunity for rick santorum to pick up more momentum. mitt romney is aware of this and he has to win this in the same way he had to win michigan and some of the other states outside the south. he has to win these other states. these are big industrial states or he will not look like a

viable candidate. host: if mitt romney loses illinois, what does that mean? guest: it is more doubts about mitt romney as the inevitable nominee? it is now up and tucked between himself and rick santorum. are're still -- is people still preparing for a united republican party to take on obama but if he is seen as a social conservative, he could have problems. caller: good morning, gentlemen and the lady. anybody from the republican party, anybody can beat obama. mr. obama kept only one promised since the election, redistributing wealth. everything for mr. obama, if you pay attention, everything is a joke. he has a little smarter than any

time he comments about the republicans, he makes a joke. all the people that vote for obama, 70% of the white people, will wake up and say we made the biggest mistake and it is time for change. thank you, guys, have a nice day. guest: this caller and the collar that was falling in earlier, there is a really big divide over the direction the country should be going and whether we should be pursuing policies that seem to be redistributing the wealth or should we pursue more aggressive policies to straighten out the economy that would result in pro-business kind of measures. i think you really see that divide especially when you talk to voters. everybody has a different philosophy on what the government's role should be. as we move into the general election, in the primary season, is less an issue and wants to move into a general election that will have a can trust --

and we have a contrast between the democrats and republicans, we will talk more about what the different parties want to do to move the country forward. host: power we doing? guest: if we are talking about jobs, you can make the case that 220,000 jobs were created last month and is a president obama's numbers move up. he was up to 50 percent but we also see a continuing drag on employment numbers. 8.3% unemployment and no president since fdr has been elected on those numbers. every month, the numbers go up and down for president obama depending on the news that way. if present obama is beatable and it is about what he accomplished, he could have a tough battle. if he frames the issue of us

against what the republicans are suggesting, he has a better shot. host: this is our sunday roundtable, independent line, good morning. caller: i would like to clear something up. i live in the 23rd congressional district and four years ago we had an election here. we had a very conservative candidate and we had a democrat and a third candidate who was a progressive. mr. gingrich is a progressive, not a conservative. rick santorum is the only conservative and he's the one his policies will be the best contrast to obama. thank you.

host: thanks for the call. guest: newt gingrich has definitely had some issues with people taking moderate stance is in the past. he did that commercial was filmed like public-service advertisements with the former speaker nancy pelosi where the two been talked about climate change. that hurt him. things like that that mitt romney used and ron paul used more effectively and i want to really hurts newt gingrich in that state. it made it impossible for him to win just by highlighting some of the things he has done in the past that show maybe he is not such a conservative candidate. after he left office, he has a bit of a checkered past in terms of embracing moderate views and it has come back to haunt him. it was most important in iowa where he was unable -- he lost all of his momentum and his

campaign was damaged. host: this is from one of our twitter followers -- guest: the republican party got more religious after 1980 but it has always been a white and conservative party. the question is is it losing female voters as well. with all the debates and language on contraception and reproductive rights and planned parenthood, that may play well to the base but many independent women are looking at this and saying we're not sure which way to go. the mitt romney numbers in women and independent voters have collapsed in the wake of all of this of this rhetoric going on in the debate. that is something the republicans need to recapture. host: trivia question --

how many campaign button do you own? guest: have about 70,000. you can send me your buttons and send me yours. guest: going back to what year? host: going back to 1876. where do you keep 70,000 buttons? guest: is privileged information. host: i have a button room and everything is organized. it sounds like we should visit. let me go back to an issue that will drive this election, health care.

we will have a chance to hear how this debate is unfolding. guest: it will be a fascinating debate. we will see how they will debate on states having to buy insurance to be a citizen in the united states and that will be the big anchor of the argument from opponents that say this thing should be overturned. the big question is whether this will be overturned and when and will it happen. it will be a huge issue in the coming general election season depending on who the nominee is. some republicans don't like mitt romney because they feel he endorsed the individual mandate as governor of massachusetts. they feel like he would be weaker candidate because how could you contrast his ideas about health care reform with the obama ideas when obama has

talked about mitt romney as a person whose ideas about health care reform or the basis for the national health care reform law that the democrats put forward. that will be a big issue once we get into the general election. host: this is in the outlook sectio of "the washington post." guest: anthony kennedy has become the sarah -- sandra day o'connor and the modern-day corporate you get anthony kennedy on your side, you get the majority of the court. guest: it will be fascinating and this could really shape what will happen in the general election, too, because what do people think of the health care

law. some people love it and some people can't stand it and it will decide to the next president will be, frankly. host: guest: he voted for some things that republicans said expanded the debt ceiling for one. that increased our bar wing and put us further into debt. there are things he has voted for the people think did not go the standard republican voting history. he calls and selfish conservatives. he has worked on things that are really important for the conservative base like welfare reform. some people consider him the most conservative of the three

candidates. host: franklin, new york, democrats line -- caller: morning, everybody. i believe in a brokered convention and i think they will bring in governor petechia after the first votes. pataki?vernor caller: is strong in the northeast. newt gingrich flip-flops' on marriage three times. and on the issues are you have mitt romney who has taken a position on every issue for and against. rick santorum is far off to the right. i cannot imagine a woman voting for him. your guests said the republican party has always been a white party. if another history of lincoln, 99% of the african-americans

always voted republican up until the 1930's and 1940's. that has changed due to the flip-floping of the democratic and republican party. host: thank the for the call. guest: we had these fantasies that someone will come in and save the party. it will not happen and when these candidates get in the race, they get tarred and feathered. ted kennedy was the ideal candidate in 1979. he runs and a moment he announces his candidacy, he went downhill. in the fantasy world, these other non-candidates would be great but once they come in, they need to be vetted all over again. host: "politico" has a story

that mitt romney had with rick santorum and newt gingrich and it was an agreement that they would vote for each other if one should drop out. guest: why would any of them agree after spending the money they spent on the campaign trail, millions of dollars, will they let someone else walk away with it? no way. it is natural for the three of them to get together to agree on this one thing. host: donna is joining us from louisiana, good morning. caller: good morning, i was curious about this campaign and what is politically correct and not correct with republicans. they are no longer kissing babies. obama, on the other hand, every woman for the last three years have pulled let him to them and kissed them very that is improper for president of united states. host: you are smiling. guest: we have seen a lot of

strange things in 2012 but the thought of the president kissing babies, that is one of the perks of being president. host: this is more from team gingrich -- [video clip] >> it means that anybody who can tell you can drill our way out of this problem does not know what they're talking about or just is not telling you the truth. [no audio] >> if you would like to have national energy has a national energy policy, never bowed to a saudi king and pay $2.50 for gas, newt gingrich will be your candidate. [applause]

host: on this issue, $2.50 per gallon, the president has been going after new gingrich and others on his strategy. louisiana is next for the new gingrich campaign. guest: newt gingrich needs a win. this is ripe territory for him to pick up a win. the drilling issue is perfect down there. he proposes that if we just go for the energy sources we have here through drilling and other means of getting out fossil fuels that will deliver the gas prices and america and he is going full bore with his campaign strategy and he will do it in louisiana which is the perfect state where more july is certainly supported by many people there. it is the south. he was not able to win and the two southern primaries a week ago and that was a big blow to his campaign but he said they are not giving up and they will go for winning more states and

louisiana is prime territory. what you just showed is the perfect example of the way newt gingrich has been trying to pick up voters by showing the way he has this drill here and now strategy. that is what he is using as his big campaign push. we will see how that works in louisiana. host: roy from illinois, independent line, will you vote on tuesday? caller: yes, probably will. i am hoping that mitt romney loses. he is spending a fortune here in southern illinois. i cannot watch a television program or pick up my telephone without hearing from somebody that is related to him or 1 cent to be elected. i wonder what the panel thinks

about this supertax. pacs. will we be in bark -- bombarded by them forever? i have never seen anything like this. i think obama is a slam-dunk in the fall because of these people that are running. that's all i got to say, thank you. guest: that is interesting. the super-pacs a big story in this primary. they're propping up newt gingrich in some cases and resort -- and rick santorum because they have the money and a way to put forward the message. they are behind a lot of these calls and a lot of these ads. host: this is the latest from the mitt romney campaign in illinois. >> who can turn around the economy and beeper barack obama. not rich sent thornberry his weakness is the economy. he has never run a business or a

state. his plan -- economic illiteracy, the worst idea of any gop candidate, rick santorum, another economic light weight. mitt romney is ready to lead the nation to a new era with the ball this gop agenda since reagan. >> i am mitt romney and i approved this message. host: we have had a tweet and an e-mail of being inundated with television advertising. at what point do you get to the law of diminishing returns? guest: may have happened in some states already. i was in iowa and illinois and you cannot get away from them. if you had the impression that mitt romney is buying the election and all you see our mitt romney commercials or these super-pac ads, it may boomerang

on him very you need to overwhelm them because of mitt romney does not have a conservative message that conservatives want to hear, he will have to attack on the airwaves. host: this is a political story about mitt romney approaching rick santorum and newt gingrich. he was the one that initiated the conversation and said it has to be one of us, no late entries into this race. guest: if we are still having this conversation in june, things could change. we still have 25 -- 24 states to go and things could change. we have plenty of time to look to another candidate who might be thinking of coming in. host: you even have buttons for 1976. guest: these guys are not

liberals but when ronald reagan tried to win the nomination in 1976, he picked a liberal hoping that that would get the pennsylvania delegate on his side and that failed. host: this gives you a sense of what was like in 1976. this is the picture from "the new york times." this gives you a moment of what it was like and potentially what we might be able to see in tampa this year. [video clip] >> i think he was a vice chairman of one of those delegations. what reason did he give? >> don't know. >> which phone is that? where does that go?

>> that goes next to the trailer. >> of the ford trailer? >> yes. host: you see ronald reagan watching the proceedings. there was a lot of back-and- forth and horsetrading great going into that convention, it was not clear that gerald ford would have enough delegates on the first ballot. if that did not happen, potentially pandemonium with the specter that convention hall. guest: yes, they would have made the party structure in november and they were only off by 2%. given all the things that gerald ford had coming in, a disastrous debate, a debatable choice as bob dole as a running mate and yet he only lost by 2points. ultimately, voters don't decide until late october and that

could be the case this year. host: headline from " the new york times"--- many viewers say this is a fantasy. guest: mitt romney is way ahead in delegates. his lead will increase as time goes on and we move into these winner-take-all states like connecticut, delaware, new york, pennsylvania, rhode island. these are the states are highly favorable toward mitt romney. it comes to the point where he will start getting so far ahead that the rest will be trailing. i think will make it more difficult for them to have financial support. guest: has to win. >> guest: that's right. i'm assuming he will win in illinois and will continue to win in states that technically

favor him in polling numbers. if that does not happen, that is when we get more into this looking more fuzzy. at this point in time, it is hard to imagine this of this will be a brokered convention for there is a chance to record is small. look host: and at that video for 1976 -- kathleen on the phone from chicago, good morning. caller: i almost forgot what i had to say. if the republican party does not like the people they have running in their own party, why in the world do they think democrat, independence, and some republicans who will vote for president barack obama, not obama, president barack obama -- i don't understand.

these republican candidates, mitt romney, he said around talking about obama care. there is no suspect. it is the affordable act health care. we have been looking for health care for 70 years and why is it such a nasty were all the sudden? the same model that he has, the president almost endorsed his. how could you get rid of something that you said was good for your steak but is not good for the whole country? if it is good enough for one state, we are all in the same union. host: to the call and that is what rick santorum has been talking about with red mitt romney and it was in -- and it is an issue that will come up in the general election guest: mitt romney point is that he believes in states' rights. rick santorum said the precursor of obama care was romney care and mitt romney does

not like that term. host: republic in line, welcome to the program. caller: i have at least two points. we will not cut you off. caller: i voted for newt gingrich and i hope the day to all the way to the convention. mitt romney and rick santorum wants to raise the age in which you collect social security to age 70 and only newt gingrich is in favor of keeping the age the same perie. during the last presidential election, john mccain took his 90-year-old mother on the campaign trail with them. they had the primary debate and remember that asking what would you do about social security. mitt romney gave the on a master of response that he would increase the age to 70. a member of my family cracked

-- if they keep increasing the agency further, the only person that will be eligible to collect will be senator mccain's mom. the other thing has to do with the rules -- in this country along with our name, our vote is one of the most sacred things with our person's good name. our vote is one of the most precious things we own. i have concerns about whether the republican establishment is trying to push the boat toward mitt romney. in iowa, i think they said eight districts lost their vote. how you lose your vote in eight districts? host: who are you supporting in this republican primary? caller: i am supporting newt gingrich. i voted for him.

they lost district in maine and then fla. -- i don't get it. they said mitt romney got all the votes. host: we will stop you there and say goodbye and thank you for the call. guest: she makes some good points. and tell the programs are in trouble. democrats agree that there has to be some kind of get back on entitlement programs. at the same time, democrats insist the republicans need to give something as well and that could be tax increases. that is a no-no on the republican side. as far as continuing with the vote, it is precious and important but the establishment does not vote for it 1 million more republicans voted for mitt romney rather than the other candidates. ultimately, you either make the choice whether it is more important to beat barack obama

and did you think mitt romney is the guy, you vote for him. if it is ideological purity, mitt romney is not that candidate and that is what the argument of rick santorum is. host: he will be spending all lot of time in ohio, new hampshire, pennsylvania. barack obama was campaigning in pittsburgh. this is the headline for the pittsburgh "post-gazette." guest: it will boil down to a handful of states. look at the red and blue states and it boils down to these purple states, a swing states. there's a big fight over voters which will be those states. ohio is probably one of the most important swing states. you may remember back in 2004, it boiled down to what would

happen in ohio and that is what gave the election to george bush. you look at this time around, pennsylvania is important and ohio and florida and virginia will be really big this year. in these places, -- look at where the president is doing fundraisers and endorsing his agenda and talking to the public. he will be going to these very important states, these battleground states, making these points. these are the voters he needs to win over if he is going to be a second term president. host: here is what the president said friday in chicago on that very point. [video clip] >> our politics may be divided but most americans understand we are greater together and no matter who we are where we come from, we rise and fall as one nation and one people and that is what is at stake. that is what is at stake. in this election. that is what we are fighting

for. as much as 2008 was exciting, as much as all this, i think, saw that night ed grant park as the culmination of something, it was just the beginning of what we are fighting for. that is what 2012 is about. host: that kind of plays out in the video that was released last with by the obama campaign which was 17-minute narrated by tom hanks. it begins with that moment in chicago at grand park. guest: obama is trying to create narrative that this is a work in progress. he needs to get people away from thinking this is the end of his first term and things and not looking great pretty wants to make it look like this is a 80- year process. we are only three years in and gave -- this is an aide

your process. -- this is an eight-year process. i think is a smart narrative for him because it changes the direction of people's thinking. the economy is still struggling and gas prices are rising and now he is trying to change the direction of people's thinking. he is saying to help me get to the rest of this and fix up by the end of my second term that is what you heard yesterday in atlanta and the campaign speeches. host: these could be key players at this convention guest: would be absolute chaos. even 1976 was not really a convention where anything once. it was still two candidates but here you have the possibility of

other candidates coming in. you have the possibility of ron paul a new gingrich and how many delegates they have. the power brokers could decide this thing. the ultimate dreams of the republican establishment, this is the ultimate nightmare host: fla. is next, and the deadline, good morning. caller: good morning cspan. good morning panel. old a staunch 80-year- independent voter and i am appalled at the mentality level of so many people in this country. if you were to ask the public runs the country, inevitably they would say the government. i think it is wall street and k street and who since their lobbyists to congress to run this country. look at all are single issue voters. i honestly believe if [inaudible]

was alive and anti-gay, people would vote for him. look at our supreme court. they are supposed to be nine independent voters. they are not. they are politicians. you have five conservatives and four liberals. why should nine people have the power to tell 320 people what they can do retell 320 million people what they can and cannot do. host: the argument over the health care bill, next week. guest: all the supreme court members are appointed by presidents. many of them are just as that are not political in nature but are just either conservative or liberal. it was the case during fdr and reagan and today and that has

not changed. host: this is from "the detroit free press." guest: he has had to spend money. even though he is winning and beating in the delegate count, he has had to fight harder than anyone predicted he would have been some of the states. as we look ahead to illinois, he will have to spend more money just to hang onto that state and in louisiana as well. this is getting expensive for the mitt romney campaign. host: quick note about the nebraska senate seat. guest: democrats were gleeful because olympia snowe was stepping down.

now independent is the front runner and scared away some strong democratic candidates in maine. he looks like a likely successor. he is not fully committed to to voting with democratsbob perry is exciting for democrats in nebraska. however, a new poll has come out that shows an almost 30 points behind in the polls which is bad for democrats. it is early but he has to close that gap significantly if he is going to take office as a legitimate candidate in this race. if democrats have any shot that seat, it would be through former senator kerry body as to close that gap. >host: he has not lived in that state in years. guest: that is why he is saying it is good to be back but people look at that skeptically.

guest: it is hard to come back to nebraska. you could commence in the york as hillary clinton and bobby perrydy did but for bob to come back to nebraska from greenwich village, that will be a tough battle. it looks like angus king will win in maine. think nebraska will vote for that kind of candidate. host: thank you both for being with us. coming up a little later, we'll turn our attention to the issue of internet privacy. coming up next, our relations with afghanistan, a weekend in which 16 afghan civilians were killed and the soldiers back in the u.s. and what it means for the future of troops in that country. [video clip] ""washington journal" continues

and we are back in a moment. [video clip] >> the strong support we have in our region of the counter with this move gives us an excellent base to go forth on the day of november 5 to win. we will go forth in the beginning with at least they 107 electoral votes that comprise the states of the south. when you couple that with a few other states in the union, then you have 270-odd electoral votes necessary to win the presidency. >> as candidate's campaign for presidency, we look at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website c-span.org/at the contenders to see video of the contenders to have a lasting impact on american politics. >> there has been honest intention, a serious

disagreement, and i believe, considerable hot arguments. anybody be misled by that. you have given here in this hall a moving and dramatic proof of how americans who honestly deford close ranks and move forward for the nation's well- being shoulder to shoulder. >> c-span.org/the contenders. >> three days ago while we were in the nuva mountains three bombs were dropped and a neighboring village and when we got there, we saw children fell with shrapnel including a 9- year-old boy who had put his head blown off. as we travelled further north, we were greeted by hundreds of villages carrying signs reading "stop the abnobs." we were met with 3 300 millimeter rockets fired overhead. we witnessed hundreds of people

running to the hills to hide in caves for their safety and that happens every day. these people are not the cave people of nuba. they actually live on farms and at one of the oldest societies in the world. they are now forced to live in caves. >> george clooney is one of many actors who supported political actions in washington d.c. and you could watch other actors and their causes archived online at c-span.org/video library. host: joining us from new york is jerry van dyk. he is an analyst with cbs news. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: let's get to the possibility of civil war breaking out in afghanistan.

how likely is that and what would be the impact be on u.s. troops in afghanistan and our long-term objectives? guest: i think it is a very serious possibility. i think it is something -- the number alliance -- those and ethnic groups and the north -- the number alliance -- those ethnic kurds have been thinking about and planning for and afraid of since we invaded in 2001. we went into a northern alliance city, a homeland is the southern part of afghanistan. when we moved in in 2001 in october, already the number alliance people were starting to husband their weaponry to move their armed personnel carriers in north to prepare for what

they felt might inevitably happen. i think is what we are starting to see now. they are increasingly afraid that the u.s. will pull out this really caught my attention is when the koran during demonstrations started and i was watching the news on television and looking at the photographs, i noticed these were tajiks demonstrating against us, number alliance people. they were upset at the burning but equally they were upset in voicing their anger that we, the united states, had begun negotiating with their arch and internal enemies, the taliban in the south. these demonstrations we saw were in kabul, a northern alliance city. it is possible there for a civil war. host: it has been clear that president karzai has had to

struggle between the concerns of his own constituency in afghanistan and the presence of u.s. troops in that country. does president karzai have credibility among the afghan people? guest: i think he has credibility in the south primarily because of the tribal structure of afghanistan. afghanistan is the largest tribal society on earth. karzai is denigrated tremendously in the west as the mayor of kabul and that his government is extremely corrupt. to a degree that is true however, he comes from the clan of the pashtuns and most of the kings of afghanistan have been from this particular branch of the pashtun nation. they are the principal as the

group in afghanistan so he has a certain standing simply by virtue of being king of afghanistan. -- of being president of afghanistan. i recall vividly when i went to interview him in 2008 and we did not go into the office or the main room where you see most of the photographs taken, it was a friday evening after evening prayers and we went into his office and we were talking and i noticed he had one photograph on his desk. that was of the previous king of afghanistan will also comes in the same ethnic group. therefore, i think he has a certain allegiance throughout the country. yes, he is certainly aided by a great many people particularly the taliban. one reason he acts the way he does today since the massacre

allegedly by this particular soldier who was working in can do far, is that he is trying to stay alive. most of the leaders of afghanistan since 1978 have been killed. secondly, he is trying to stay ahead of the taliban. they are not just opposed to the united states but trying to win over the hearts and minds of the afghan people just as we are. in not only has to straddle the united states and the afghan people, he also has to take into account the taliban. host: i will come back to that point. let me share one moment last week as defense secretary leon panetta in an unannounced visit to afghanistan went to camp leatherneck and one of the soldiers who is returning stateside after spending a tour of duty in afghanistan aston the question of what he should tell

his 8-year-old daughter about what afghanistan and what the mission is all about. here is a secretary and had answered that question. >> it is because of that dream i talked about, the dream of giving your children a better life for the future. the reality was -- look, the united states of america was brutally attacked on 9/11. we were attacked by al qaeda, terrorists, whose goal continues to be to try to attack the united states of america. the reason you are here is to make damn sure that never happens again. and we have come a day in and day out because of sacrifices by you and everyone else, we have made significant progress in that effort. you have seen here in

afghanistan. violence levels are down, the afghan army is engaged greater in day-to-day operations showing they can do the job. we transition to key areas to add get control and security. that will be the key. the key to making sure that the taliban never gets a safe haven here is to have an afghan that is secure and can govern itself and is a sovereign and independent country and make sure the taliban never returns. host: that was last thursday in afghanistan. what is your reaction? guest: what caught my attention was that until the very end, he never mentioned the word taliban. under president bush, we went in to destroy, dismantle as much as we could, the taliban government but particularly, to destroy and eradicate as much as possible al-qaeda.

this is what consistently president bush said and this is exactly what president obama has said. toward the end, general petraeus' stint in afghanistan, we heard constantly and even under condoleezza rice, we heard constantly that there were no more than 50 may be al qaeda people in afghan itself. most of them were across the border in pakistan. the war was never a war against a taliban for the war was against al qaeda. under president bush, he always said al qaeda. i have been in a situation where i have seen two people from al qaeda, i don't know how many there are in afghanistan. there are a tremendous number of taliban and more across the border in pakistan but this war has morphed into a war against the taliban increasingly because of missteps, and tragedies,

mistakes. this is in the eyes of deeply rural afghans, 33,000 villages in afghanistan and 80% of the afghanistan is rural. how can they leave the country that is dependent on the united states on the one hand and frightened on the other hand are close to the taliban. they have always been an integral part of afghan villages. they have been the ones who provided care when a child is born and conducted services when someone was married or at a funeral. in exchange, they would receive payment. they have achieved power and become bullies and are threatening element to a great many people bill it all tom lee,

when leon panetta talked to a soldier about his a-year-old daughter, i agree completely. the unit -- the united states is there so that a chemist and does not become a place where al qaeda can wreak havoc on the united states and its allies or any other place in the world. the taliban have never attacked the united states outside of afghanistan. they have never launched attacks against us here. one could say they don't have the capability but their goal is to try to create and has always been, a pure islamic government with the that is in afghanistan or pakistan ver. ultimately, the united states has to find a way to withdraw itself so al-qaeda does not come back to afghanistan and that afghanistan can stand on its own two feet and not just to keep al-qaeda out but to keep its neighbors out, pockets stand,

iran, china. host: our guest is joining us from new york. he began his career in washington working for senator henry jackson of washington state and has written for " the new york times" and the national geographic. is the author of a book -- marietta, california, thanks for waiting. caller: good morning. i'm really confused. ift have been granted german and french diplomats had drawn lines in the middle east? that is another story. the question i was curious

about -- do you ever see the day where it turns to a civil war where you have the number alliance and the taliban -- what are the odds of the northern alliance to defeat the taliban and what kind of government would be number alliance like to put together? -- the number alliance put together? host: thanks for that call. maybe take a step back and explain with a taliban is. guest: i will do that. the taliban - talib main student or seeker in person. taliban is the plural. is anyone who attends a madrassa

for school. it means religious school in many cases. in 1994, when afghanistan as a result of the 19 80's war between the mujahedin which means holy warrior and the soviet union after the united states and soviet union pullbacks support, chaos ruled in afghanistan out of which former members of the mujahedin, like mullah omar, were trying to eradicate the chaos and anarchy and began to try to clear the roads and formed the group to bring peace and at some point, this is disputed by many people, is clear that pakistan cavemen and began to back the taliban and became a strong

military force, moved north and defeated what we call the northern alliance which is this group of ethnic groups from the north and pushed them back to the northeast corner of the afghanistan. the military leader of that alliance was massoud who was assassinated by al-qaeda two days before 9/11. the middleing about east. the middle east is completely different from south asia, from afghanistan and pakistan. what we have is what is call the he was thee. british foreign secretary and he and emir and 8093 drew what we

have which is the border between pakistan and afghanistan. one single afghan legislature has never proved that border. hamid karzai does not accept that border and the taliban does not accept the border. that border goes right through the pashtun nation, cutting through what was once, when the british were there, afghanistan. the pashtun, the taliban, the border in afghanistan does not end of the drumline grid it ends indes river which is deep in the heart of pakistan which is why we have a war going on. host: place finish. guest: the final question was what would happen in a civil war. when you will see, as has happened in the past, in the

1980's, and is made clear in a popular sense and in the move " charlie wilson's war," united states and its allies principle of saudi arabia and to a lesser degree egypt, nato nations that were of all -- involved, china, were back the pashtuns, the mujahedin. a great many people around the country would be against the north or against the communists. the communists have largely been defeated but they are part of afghanistan with an underground war between the mujahedin, religious elements and secular elements in afghanistan. what you would see in the future is t at theajiks in the north allied with india and probably russia, would fight to againpashtuns in the north allied with pakistan and maybe saudi arabia and it would be terrible. it would be lethal.

the afghans have been at war for 33 years and over 1 million were killed during the soviet-afghan war. i think they will do everything possible to stop the civil war. it is a distinct possibility. host: over the last decade, 1800 soldiers have died in afghanistan. 15,000 were wounded at an estimated price tag of $400 billion. this question is from one of our viewers -- guest: very interesting -- i

don't think that the united states military wants, in any way, a repetition of the saigon pullout. we don't want to see a photograph on the front pages of our newspapers or on television of a helicopter on top of an embassy with people clamoring to get on and the ride out with what we call today, even though we don't like to admit it, a defeat even though we did not lose any battles militarily, we lost these battles politically in vietnam. i think you have a real serious problem here and the crucial thing to prevent a saigon-like exodus is to go to the heart of the taliban itself. it is not just negotiating with the leaders. where does the taliban leadership make its preparation? it takes place in pakistan.

we need to level with them about this. $400 billion is a tremendously large sum. i have been in the army. my sympathies are 100% with gi's on the ground and we're talking about those troops that have been killed. how many maimed? how do we justify this lawten- year plus time in afghanistan and not leave with our tail between our legs? we have to work it out with the taliban in the ground and have to negotiate something with pakistan and people don't like to hear this but iran has a tremendous influence in afghanistan, 20% of afgha ns are shia. iran will play a role one way or another and so will china and so will russia and so will india.

this is a much larger think and just afghanistan itself. it will be very complicated but i do think -- i do not believe, as mitt romney has said, we must kill our way to victory. we must not stay there to kill all of taliban. the difference obscene the afghan national army and the taliban is the exact same difference -- the difference between the afghan national army and a taliban is that deep mujahedin added motivation. the glue that held them together t washe koran. they're willing to die for what they believe in. the afghan national army has -- does not have the motivation. too many people are not committed to that army. the taliban, using the same weapons as the moves a i did -- they live in the mountains and are willing to die for what they

believe in and live on very little and that is a very difficult type of army to defeat. therefore, it will be an extremely complicated thing and the only way we can do this is by bringing people together at a conference table and hashing this out. otherwise, the united states will be in a vietnam-type quagmire there and more vietnam. more american soldiers are want to be harmed. host: a couple of comments from our viewers and listeners on sees bill -- c-span radio. host: from jack, in new york city. host: neverland joins us on the phone from pennsylvania. go ahead. you are on the air. caller: hello? host: good morning.

caller: i am running out of minutes. why do we have to have these forces in afghanistan? host: thank you. jere van dyk, your response? caller: having been in the army -- guest: having been in the army during vietnam, i do not think that i meant to imply that the u.s. left with its tail between its legs. the perception was that the united states left as the loser in vietnam. i do not think anyone would disagree with that. it is not just politicians, but a great number of people in the country were opposed to the war. the second point, i forget, was -- host: it was on iran. guest: excellent point. the main soviet base in afghanistan, now the

headquarters of u.s. military in afghanistan, northeast toward the pakistan border somewhat. the second-largest base in afghanistan was built by the soviet union and is in the west. it is near the iranian border. the united states is most definitely building up that base. we are still very much there. i think that one very integral and excellent point -- reason that the united states has been in afghanistan is to keep pressure on iran. by building up our base in the north, the whole region. i do not think the united states wants to leave afghanistan. our plan is to stay and leave special forces so that we do not find that afghanistan is once again a place from which al

qaeda can attack us in the west, but i also think we want to maintain a presence there to keep other elements down. i think that iran is one very strong reason that we are there, in iraq, saudi arabia, and now very much on the western border of afghanistan, right next to iran. thirdly, in so far as three or four deployments into afghanistan is concerned, that is something that the military, the pentagon decides that is their policy. i come from a different generation. 12 were one year, sometimes two years abroad overseas, in or out for three years. yes, it is tragic and wears down the soldiers. unfortunately, one reason we have such difficulty in a place like afghanistan is is such a

complex, such an alien culture to us. soldiers and marines go in for six months, eight months, it is not a very long time in which to get to understand this culture and until such time as we truly learn to understand it, we will always have this great divide. we have read the newspaper articles and now it is getting increasingly worse as afghan soldiers are firing and killing american soldiers, our allies, very sad things. that is something that the pentagon is responsible for, working out deployments. host: responding to your point, kathleen says on the twitter page that military families did not sign up to fight for corrupt dictators or mideast countries like saudi arabia, who killed the wrong people. john is on the phone, out of rural massachusetts. good morning, john. caller: the information you are

giving this morning is probably the truth. thank you very much. let me get to my question. i want to focus on a particular point in time, when stinger missiles, the charlie wilson war era. my question to you is, at that point, did they make it a religious caliphate? my feeling is that this is blow back policy from making it a religious caliphate. i cannot comment on it. there are problems with getting that far in the part of the world anyway. it is extremely complicated. i would appreciate your touching on the complexities of the issues over there. host: thank you for the call. jere van dyk? guest: when i first went to

afghanistan in 1981, i lived in the mountains with a man who was our very close ally at the time. today his headquarters is in pakistan. he is the leader, the patriarch of the network, which is one of the most dreaded, lethal, anti- american forces in the entire region. i recall that it became so fascinating to me years later, when we were there. an egyptian army major disguised as a journalist came to us on a darn -- on a town q&a. he had stayed with me. he hated me because we were americans. he had a stinger missile -- we had a stinger missile there. he wanted to fire it. and he did that. all of the afghans said that he

killed a lot of rocks. he was upset and that they were allowed to fire the missiles. second, the did not like him. years later i realized that he was the beginning of what became al qaeda. from the west point counter- terrorism center, someone came to me a couple of years ago and said they were still trying to find this man that you wrote about -- i wrote about it in a book, and he is still a member of al qaeda. what i am trying to say here is that this war, initially, was a war against communism. a war that the united states back fully. afghanistan was the battleground in the cold war between the soviet union and the united states. proxy armies were the mujahedin in the south. we have billions of dollars in clearing charlie wilson's war.

the soviet union, which of course disbanded in 1990, giving the communist government out of and other parts of the country. there was a secular and religious element. yes, you are correct. religious groups like that became increasingly powerful. the taliban were disgusted at what they saw as the corruption and anarchy that came as a result of the in fighting amongst the mujahedin after we left. they wanted to cleanse the country and create an ever more pure islamic government, and they became ever more lethal and fundamentalist. i think that it is far, far worse today than it was at the beginning, when it was just war. yes, it has become fundamentalist in the eyes of

the taliban state. but they certainly want to make it ever more so. host: if you have just tuned in and are still listening, our guest is jere van dyk, cbs news analyst and author of the book "captive, my time as a prisoner of the taliban." dan, good morning, thank you for waiting. caller: thank you for your insight, and thank you for c- span. my question is -- how do the saudis and the lobbyists play a role in afghanistan and pakistan? guest: pakistan and saudi arabia have a very close eye, and have had one for decades. , and have had one

for decades. in the 1980's they decided they needed to back up the holy warriors, the mujahedin. the former secretary of defense, robert gates, said in his book, as well as the former national security advisor to jimmy carter, they both said publicly in interviews, and have written that the united states began to back the mujahedin six months before the invasion of the soviet union, the summer of 1979. as they said, it was to draw the soviet union into afghanistan, to create for them their own vietnam because the soviets and chinese back our enemies in vietnam. a bit of a payback. the americans would put out $1, the saudis would put up $1.

it was an equal amount of funding. we funded the mujahedin with billions of dollars. all of that money went directly to pakistani military intelligence. the principal military intelligence agency in afghanistan. i remember stan turner, the head of the cia at the time, said that they expected the government there would take the elements of private generals, taking a certain amount for themselves. the pakistani military intelligence, working with the united states, distributed all of this weaponry and money that we were supplying to these particular groups that were supported. one of which was the half tiny network. we were a part of that. now, that is where the saudi arabia political involvement began. when you look at when the british were there in the 19th

century, and you read the books, they felt, particularly around the border region of -- pakistan and afghanistan, which was then the border between british india and afghanistan, they thought they were fighting hindu fanatics. they are the same as today. when i was kidnapped, captured, and imprisoned by the taliban, the people that had me were the wahhabi's. new osama bin laden was a wahhabi. they are the most military force vanguard of anti-western, anti- moderate muslims in the world. they were said to have been the best fighters, the most militant fighters, the most willing to accept and seek martyrdom. when the taliban was fighting

the northern alliance in the 1990's, yes, they played a very important role and many people say that there's a lot of money flowing from saudi arabia to the wahhabis and that they supported many of these mudra us -- mudrases. host: the perspective of jere van dyk, a cbs news analyst. his work is available online. the book he has been talking about, "captive." thank you for being with us on c-span. please return. i also want to bring your attention to a related story about afghanistan in "the new york times." the headline -- it begins with these words, "americans in

afghanistan are considered demons." host: you can read more on this this morning inside of "the new york times. our guest on "newsmakers," which airs at 10:00 eastern time, focuses on the health care act. virginia is one of the state bringing the fight to the supreme court. here is a portion from the program. [video clip] >> is justice kennedy the voter to watch on this issue? >> i do not think that there is one. i think that justice kennedy everyone presumes is a swing vote, but if you look back of their cases and the main ones since 1995, he has been a solid proponent of structural federalism. what that means for this case is the separation of some realm of

a 44 states versus the federal government, where the states can invade federal 40 and the federal authority can infect the states. if we lose this case, it will be very inconsistent with justice kennedy's very consistent jurisprudence in this area. so, i view a ruling by him that the individual mandate is constitutional as a substantial departure from his past jurisprudence. there are other people who do not think it is substantial. justice scalia, the last cut -- commerce clause case in 2005, that is a cause for concern and it was unique in that it was an applied challenge. this case was not as an applied challenge. that was the case about marijuana. there are some people that think that certain justices will extend themselves to bring anything drug related by and

with a federal power. justice roberts, some people look at his joining the majority in the comstock case the week before the federal government filed a motion to dismiss as a harbinger of doom for our side. i do not see it that way, despite the very broad language of the comstock case. the very last paragraph of the majority opinion brings very broad language down through a very thin funnel. the federal government cannot get this bill through that final. if that is a requirement for justice roberts, i am confident -- again, there has not been enough time for us to reassess -- >> and it has not in proper. host: that is the virginia attorney general expressing his opposition to the health care act being considered in the

supreme court. "newsmakers," airing at 10:00 a.m. eastern, 6:00 p.m. eastern is the second airing. focusing on politics today in puerto rico, then tuesday in illinois, nancy as more from our c-span radio studios. >> beginning at noon, you can hear the real air of the five network talk shows. be beginning at noon, here "meet the press." david gregory welcomes the ranking republican on the senate armed services committee, john mccain. then an appearance by george clooney, along with john prendergast, co-founder of the enough project. then, at 1:00 p.m., "this week." a discussion with rick santorum. "fox news sunday," beginning at

2:00 p.m. talks with presidential candidate mitt romney. then another appearance by george clooney and john prendergast. "state of the union," with rick santorum, ed gillespie, and house budget committee chairman paul ryan, along with anita dunn. finally, at 4:00 p.m., "face the nation," from cbs. five network tv talk shows, all brought to you as a public service by the networks and c- span. they began again at noon eastern time, with "meet the press," "this week," "fox news sunday," listen to them all on c-span

radio, 90.1 fm in the washington, d.c. area, nationwide on satellite radio at channel 119, download as an iphone act, -- app, or listen at c-span.org. >> this morning, on news makers -- "newsmakers," the virginia attorney general discusses the supreme court case. >> their suffocating economic opportunity, the way they're functioning. i do not think that any entities will do anything to reverse that trend, at least. you have to release play by the rules in the constitution. >> you can see the entire interview today at 10:00 a.m. and again at 6:00 p.m. it is also a veiled --

again at 6:00 p.m. >> i was a radical young person. i was the one that thought that thinking we shall overcome -- thought that singing we shall overcome was not an effective way of gaining civil-rights. i thought that more confrontation was needed. >> walter williams, on being a radical. >> a radical is any person that believes in their personal liberty and individual freedom, and little -- limited government. that makes you a radical. i have always been a person who believes that people should not interfere with me. i should be able to do my own thing, so long as i do not violate the rights of other people. >> walter williams, tonight at 8:00 p.m. on "q&a."

host: we are going to turn our attention to the topic of information privacy. joining us now, erica newland. guest: thank you for having me. host: what happens when you are on search engines, and why is this an issue not just in the u.s., but europe? guest: when you visit different websites, they often use or partners of those websites often use what are called cookies or other technologies to attractive from site to site. last night i went to c-span.org and they placed what are called first party cookies on my computer, to track settings if i wanted to check something out from the store, or something like that. it appears they are also working with a company called scorecard research, which placed a cookie on my computer as well.

then i went to the website for the wall street journal. it looks like they also have a relationship with scorecard research. the third party cookie that support our research placed on my computer said that this user not only visited c-span, but also "the wall street journal." using this kind of technology, companies are able to trace us across the web. the uses four different things. market research, targeting interests, and better advertisements in a callous advertisements that we see. host: let's take both sides of this argument. for those who go to these sites and enjoy or want to get information, like going to amazon, if you like this book you might be interested in these other books. is that positive? guest: absolutely. one of the key steps that need to be taken over the next few

years is figuring out how to make sure that publishers are able to make money off of their content while giving users control over their own personal information so that they have trust in the system. trust that their privacy will be respected and that they do not worry about what they are doing so that it does not chill their speech. host: what is the downside? what are the real concerns for people who are surfing the web and being tracked? guest: one real concern is that they are not going to be looking for the information or sifting out the information they might be embarrassed about. for example, if i go to search for medicine or health conditions, we are starting to see a space where e commerce will be chilled for the next few years, partly because of consumers being concerned over their mobile data.

it is necessary for the medium to grow. host: the white house bill of rights on consumer internet privacy stated that individual control, transparency, and respect for context -- that consumers assume that these companies will not as chivvied information in ways that are not consistent, focused collection, accuracy, respect for context, and accountability. is this fair? host -- guest: absolutely. what they have done with the consumer privacy bill of rights is brought in the fair practice principal, principles we have had since the 1970's, putting the other a coherent structure for privacy. enabling countries -- companies to take advantage of the technology at their disposal. to be able to interact with consumers in a fair way, that

empowers customers. so that they feel like they have some control and a sense of understanding over what is going on. host: our guest is erica newland, who has been studying this issue for over a year in china. she also worked for the center for democracy. you can send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org, or join the conversation online at twitter.com/c-spanwj. when it comes to phone calls, we have to do not call phone number, and now we have do not track. guest: that was mobilized by the center for democracy in 2007. the idea was that companies are using a lot of different technology to track us. third-party cookies, flash cookies, history settings, a number of different technologies.

that company contracting with one technology gives consumers a technology-neutral way to say i do not care how you are doing it, please do not track meet. in 2010 jon leibowitz reintroduced the idea and called on companies to reintroduce this. so far his recommendation, fire fox and internet explorer, and send signals to web sites so that when consumers visit, they will communicate to those websites that the consumer does not want to be tracked. this begs a really important question. what do we mean by saying -- do not track me? if i click on the setting in firebox, what am i trying to communicate? right now there are a lot of efforts at the world wide web consortium, which i myself am very involved in, the finding

not track. a group of advertising networks has come together and are committed to. over the next nine months, we will see some consensus. here is what it means. host: a question of access in stories. how much information is collected over the internet, even twitter messages, and who has access to those archives? host: i do not know if you can put a number on how much information is collected. i know that one company that deals with information follow something on the order of 50 million bits of information every single day, a couple of years ago when they did the report. an incredible amount of data we are sending every time that we visit a web page or go to a source -- social network. host: nick, good morning, welcome to "washington journal."

caller: good morning. i would like to make the public aware of something that is not true on all of this privacy debate. there is no privacy. all of these people providing access their the internet are gathering all of this information and passing it on to their associates and advertisers. that is how google is making all their money. guest: there is no question. we talk about this a lot in washington. is privacy dead? the answer is no, it is not dead. we have a fundamental respect for privacy and making sure that it is respected. the question is, how can we bring privacy protection along with advanced technology in the 21st section -- 21st century? host:, to this will be self- regulating, how much of this

will be imposed by congress or the white house? guest: a great question. there is a video privacy protection act to protect very specific sectors, very specific types of private information. dealing with it that way this kind of like emptying the ocean with buckets. we do not have anything right now that says no matter what technology comes down the pike, there is a certain expectation. the white house privacy bill of rights, there is an effort to move in that direction. the white house called for the information in the bill of rights and they're trying to step up speculation on privacy, but it is an election year in the u.s.. the chance that legislation will be passed is pretty small. these multi-stakeholder groups as companies, law enforcement,

agencies and others have come up with something of a self- regulatory framework, it is one that will be enforceable. yet the accompanies stand up and say we have promised to respect certain rules, we have come up with codes of conduct and we will abide by these codes of conduct. >> the federal trade commission will be able to hold companies to those promises. companies promise not to release certain information and they do -- collect certain information and they do, the ftc will be able to discipline them. host: caller on the republican line from new jersey. good morning. caller: one question would be, where is the funding for the center secured from? is it from google. is it from facebook? is it from people who have an interest in obtaining a personal data?

that would reflect on the position that you have on this issue. thank you. host: thank you. guest: my organizations is founded by grants. we have companies that are also funding us. that helps fund us. host: why is the you involved -- the eu involved? guest: they have been called since the beginning. they had one of the first comprehensive, privacy laws out there to deal with the internet age. they are stepping out and saying, it has been over 15 years, how can we update our directive? happily make sure our privacy standards are staying up-to- date? -- how can we make sure our privacy standards are staying up-to-date?

they are trying to figure out how they can protect european privacy when the countries that are, from their perspective, invading user privacy, are located here? host: you spent some time in china as a fellow. what did you learn? guest: i learned chinese, for starters. i started thinking about how my internet activity was being washed and how careful i sometimes had to be when -- was being watched and help care for all i sometimes had to be when going online -- and how careful i had to sometimes be when going on line. it was difficult to access information without feeling like big brother was sending over your shoulder. i think that is important to protect in this country. host: good morning. caller: i would like to know what is collected, why it is collected, and to it is shared with. guest: i would like to know that from the too.

the irony about the privacy regime that we have developed in this country is that it is built on privacy policies. google has been in the news for rolling out a new privacy policy. problem with privacy policies as they are notoriously difficult to understand -- the problem with privacy policies is that they are notoriously difficult to understand. if the average internet user were to read every privacy policy that he or she were visiting in an average year, how much time would it take and what with the cost be? -- what would the cost be? the numbers were astounding. the average american would have to spend between 180 hours and 300 hours per year reading privacy policies. this could amount to 367 billion hours per year. if we put that in numbers of economic activity loss, that is trillion.-- and $1

host: i compare this to the do not call because it has to be renewed. how long does it take effect? guest: do not call and do not track are fundamentally different. do not call is run by the federal trends -- federal trade commission. do not track, like the internet, is going to be -- is a lot more distributed. there is not a central authority keeping track. you sign up with different browsers. depending on how browsers implement, it may be saved for a long period of time or a short period time. host: good morning. caller: i want to comment -- i do not understand how there is such a huge disparity when you think of information technology and the privacy that you are

supposed to have as a citizen. i do not understand how it is so hard to get accurate polling in urban areas. or to get channels for information for resources in the places that are hard hit. but it is so easy for us to go on the web site and the information can be obtained and shared with multiple companies and you would not have any idea. for instance, on your cell phone, they have -- pretty much every cell phone, they track your text messages and things of that nature. i do not understand the disparity of why it is so easily -- easy to access your information as a private citizen, but when it is time to do things to obtain information, it is just so much harder. you are trying to empower yourself politically or within your community. host: marvin, thank you for the call. guest: the economic incentives are there for companies to

collect a lot of data about us. the caller brought up something really important that we have not touched on yet, which is mobile privacy. when we are on our mobile phones, a lot of identity is tied to one unique id. like your social security number, it cannot be shaken off. a lot of your activity is connected to that id. we do not know how it is being used. host: from athens, pennsylvania, good morning. welcome to the "washington journal." caller: why can the government can't the -- why cannot the government block information? host: is there reasonable control over privacy when you are on the internet? guest: there are some controls now. it is were talking about. users can block third-party cookies which are used to track us.

you can do that in your web browser. it is different in every browser. sometimes, it can be hard to find. the best thing is to search out to block cookies in whatever you use. whether it be firefox, chrome, safari, or internet explorer. privacy controls have not kept up with the ways that we are being tracked. that's part of the reason the government is stepping in. we invent one control and companies find a way to work around that. host: what is google's track record on this issue? guest: google has done a pretty good job, but they do keep making these privacy mistakes -- these so-called privacy mistakes. we saw this with safari. safari is a web browser. they do an excellent job giving users privacy controls and have really strong, default settings.

the third-party cookies, the tracking cookies will be blocked. google uses a loophole in the privacy settings in order to place tracking cookies and to really undermine users' privacy settings and to track users across the web. google has made a number of such mistakes. how careful are they being and not user privacy? if they are doing their best, i am not sure it is good enough. host: ralph is on the phone. good morning. caller: the government and all agencies are into everything. why do we not create two personas for everyone -- the private person and a public person? there is no way, in my estimation, we can have privacy

now. thank you. host: thank you. guest: it is an excellent public and one of the really hot discussions right now in this space, how much we need what we do online to be tied to our real names and if there are ways to some enormously -- pseudo nomously use the internet. if they have your name, your birth date, they know who you are. a lot of internet sites have real-name policies. facebook has a real-name policy. it says that people act with more integrity when they are identified by their real name. if we're going to tie everything we do online to our real names come again we have any privacy? will this keep us -- to a real names, can we have any privacy? will this keep us from looking up information? host: if you're looking for a

job and you want to do that -- is it gone forever? can it be pulled back? guest: it is an excellent question. facebook and google have made promises to users that disinformation, once you take it down, has been deleted from their services. we have seen that, but in some cases, there may be a backup. if i post the picture on the internet, you might copy and riposte it -- repost it. there is no way i can keep that from happening, nor should i be able to. we all need to keep some common sense. it is a brave, new world. host: good morning. caller: i want to compliment this young lady. she is so well spoken. she really knows her facts. for once, i see one of these young people that seems to really benefited from the college of education. there is no -- from a college

education. there is no privacy. " 3 claims that they regulate and self police -- wall street claims that they regulate and sell police. we have seen over and over again -- we're no longer americans. we are no longer free. we have no privacy. i have been worn out trying to do this. good luck and god bless you. i really appreciate what you are trying to do. i have given up. there is no privacy. host: thank you. how would you respond to that sentiment? guest: it is tough. a lot of people do care about privacy. "wall street journal" has done some amazing reporting. shows like this, a number of papers out there -- they are focusing on privacy. that shows me there is a desire to change things. with the europe stepping up, the white house up and up, there is some momentum to make real privacy changes -- the white

house stepping up, there is some momentum to make real privacy changes. guest: one of our guesgood mornf you. i want to demote the young lady for doing this for all of us and helping us -- i want to thank the young lady for doing this for all of us and helping us. when you put in the information for homestead of own before or homes that your own now, it is showing up with names and -- homes that you have owned before homes that you own it now, it is showing up with your name and your address. how can i raise that information? -- erase that information? caller guest: lot of these companies

offer opt out. if you go to their websites, you can find out how to contact them and believed that information. some may do it, some may not the but it is worth -- and delete that information. some of the do it, some not, but it is worth it. host: google and yahoo! have sometimes said it is an honest mistake. guest: i believe that, but i think that it shows the need for better system is by design. how many times does that happen before they change the way they do things and make sure privacy priority? caller: a year ago, i went to get my license renewed and get an enhanced licensed so i could cross the border. i happen to know the girl.

she said they are putting chips in your driver's license now. i was wondering if your guest could tell me what that is about. thank you for taking my call. host: thank you. guest: i know they are putting chips in our passports now. there are concerns about the privacy information, making sure that the information is not read by those who are not authorized to read it. it is something we are pursuing, making sure privacy protections are available. host: how does that work? guest: it is an rfid chip. it is used to digitize the nation. -- digitize the information. it is not my area of expertise, so i cannot give you too many more details. caller: good morning. i am 69 years old.

she mentioned using do not track. i do use that with firefox. i use pale moon. you do not have to use google. there are other search engines that do not track you or give out your personal information. other than that, i use a vpn, a virtual private network, which changes your ip. and i have access servers all over the world. everything is encrypted from end to iaend. i run sandbox. everything that you do online, when you close out, it is as if it never was. you can also turn off the third- party cookies. i always use a variety of software to clean out things on

my computer that i do not want. host: thank you, ginger. guest: those are all important steps. i use an ad on called no script -- an add-on called no scripts as well. it's a lot of steps to take to keep what you are doing from being tracked. it would be great if we could make it easier for the average user, who may not be as tech savvy, to protect their privacy the way that they were. host: mo is on the phone. good morning. caller: i have a question about search engines like google and bing. these are being run by very big companies. i was wondering if there is anything that would prevent them from, at some point, indexing anything that you have written on any of these social networks and having it come up when

somebody searches your name, when you are looking for a job or you meet someone. is there anything that will allow you to separate out very routine conversation that you might be having with a friend of one of the social networks from something that might be more business-oriented or professional-oriented? thank you. guest: i would split the answer to this into two parts. facebook, for example, has been pretty cagey about letting search engines index its data and make that searchable. i think it is much to facebook's credit, because that really worries people. facebook, google+, linkedin -- the access to that information

is really limited to the company where you are storing it, the social network, and the individuals you have chosen to share it with, your friends, your circle. host: one of the points is limiting her as data is collected. how do you do that -- limiting the data that is collected. how do you do that? guest: i strongly believe that companies really need to make an effort to only take the data that they need. they will build better trust with consumers by doing this. let me give an example. it appears right now that -- it is in fact the case that our smart phones allow applications to upload an extraordinary amount of sensitive data. apps can take your personal pictures and apply them to the web without our permission.

the same with contact information. they can turn on our microphones and videos without our permission. perhaps this is in the better interests of some companies, but it is hard for me to believe this is then the better interests of consumers, given how much it -- this is in the better interests of consumers, given how much it disrupts trust. host: if regulations are put in place, potentially, what does google face? guest: it depends on the types of regulations that are put in place. let me give an example. the department of commerce or to convene a stakeholder group and create a code of conduct -- -- if the department of commerce work to convene a stakeholder group and create a code of conduct, google keeps data in what is essentially personally- identifiable form for 18 months.

can see legislation that limits that. -- we could see legislation that limits that. host: tina from alabama on the republican line. caller: recently, we had an election down here. even though we are not on the do not call list, the politicians include themselves. we cannot trust the state. they will not regulate themselves. host: thank you. guest: it is true that the consumer -- the discussion about the consumer privacy legislation has been focused on companies. it is true that politicians have access to a lot of this data. the reasons these discussions have been separated -- given that the discussion is really being focused on how companies are collecting this data -- it is important for users to really care about their privacy to look at what privacy tools are out there.

when you block third-party cookies, you blocked them from everyone. host: are closed system is better than -- are closed systems like ios better than other operating systems at protecting privacy? guest: that is a complicated question to answer. they claim this helps users protect their privacy because it keeps the bad apps out. as a vetting process is not perfect -- this vetting process is not perfect. there is a lot to recommend open systems. the entrance system gives pretty good notifications about what permission's -- the android system gives pretty good notifications about what permissions are granted. host: good morning. caller: the problem with

security and cookies and all that is if you tell your web browser to block cookies or anything like that, you cannot access the web site. that is the same with all the websites. how do you access the web site without accepting cookies? host: let me take it one step further. is it a very specific to websites, or could it be mor e general? guest: there are first-party cookies. c-span placing its own c- span.org cookies. then there are the third-party cookies. scorecard. you can block third-party cookies without hurting the usability of your web browser. when you block first-party cookies, you will block some usability. i suggest people go into their settings and boxer-party

cookies, but not first-party cookies -- and block third-party cookies, but not first-party cookies. guest: this ghosted the access and accuracy of the consumer private -- this goes to the access and accuracy of the consumer privacy bill of rights. it creates more accountability for the companies and allows you to correct things or delete information. host: david, savannah, georgia, good morning. caller: good morning. i appreciate you coming onboard. i have a question in regards to hipaa. is that going to be compromised, due to google? guest: i am not an expert in that. a lot of the health information is protected from online

companies. one thing we are seeing -- it really concerns the bahau their searches for health information might be recorded or used to track them. host: caller from winston-salem, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question for the young lady. is there any way i can look at what information a company has about me that is my own, private information, that i do not agree with them having? is there any way me, not the lcc, but me as a private person, being able to sue that company for having the information that i did not give them? guest: one thing that you can do, for some companies, they do allow you insight into the data they have for the inferences --

have or the inferences they have drawn. google and microsoft will allow you to see what profiles they have built for you. if they think you're a certain age or gender, for example. the speaking, there is not a lot you can do to hold -- broadly speaking, there is not what you can do to hold companies accountable. that is up to the ftc. caller: there are not great controls for this on the phone. when the camera comes on, the light comes on. it is terrifying to think that an app we download might be able to spy on us. if you are on an infrared device, see what permission's be -- an android device, see what permissions there are.

hopefully gumbel with the next operating systems, there is -- hopefully, with a net operating systems, there will be better privacy controls -- with the new operating systems, there will be better privacy controls. caller: can you discuss privacy laws and the concept of piracy and the freedom to share information? guest: piracy in the context of privacy. certainly, one concern when we are talking about some of the different copyright laws out there is making sure that any changes that are made into those laws are made in ways that do not infringe on our privacy. for example, if a law were to encourage companies or allow companies to look at all of the data we are sending an internet, perhaps to allow our isp to look everything we send back and forth, that would definitely

raise privacy concerns. that is all of your personal data. host: tom from erie, pennsylvania. caller: one of the problems i constantly see going on with the internet is that nobody understands the terminology in your industry. the people who make this all of your life -- nobody understands the terminology in your industry except for the people who make this all of your life. everything in the world has a name like zipwire and bizwacker and nothing makes sense. what the heck are cookies? there have to be technical terms attached to these things, something done by engineers rather than these kids who have invented the internet. host: jason has a follow-up. guest: a lot of information held

in cookies is in corrected. -- is encrypted. that has a lot of benefit when messages are going back and forth between the computer and server. if someone intercepts those, they will not be able to read what is in the cookie, but, of course, it makes it harder for us to know what the cookie is up to. technology changes quickly. that is one of the challenges. some have done a great job of trying to communicate that. host: erica newland, thanks for sharing your expertise. we will continue the conversation as we always do. tomorrow morning on the "washington journal," ken blackwell from the family research council. also bill galston.

he will talk about congress and how to break the gridlock. france's mccarthy -- francis mccarthy will talk about fema. "newsmakers" is coming up next. enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great week ahead. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> i was quite a radical as a young person. i was the one that got that we shall -- singing "we shall overcome" was not a