our guest is david shapira, an attorney for the aclu prison project. later, our spotlight on magazines features the author on the impediments that remain for black politicians. >> i don't want to transform america. i want to restore to america the economic values of freedom and opportunity and limited government. [cheers and applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> mitt romney, the former massachusetts governor sweeps in all three primary contests yesterday in maryland, romney scores with 49% of the votes to 29% for the former pennsylvania senator rick santorum. and in wisconsin, a key battleground state in the fall. romney wins with 43%. rick santorum brings in 38%. and a big win in the d.c.

primary for romney with 70% of the votes, but rick santorum was not on the ballot in that contest. good morning, everyone, we will begin with the g.o.p. primary race and hear from supporters from the four candidates. host: or you can send us an e-mail at c-span.org or tweet us or facebook us. good morning. let me show you the front page of think wisconsin journal. romney tightens his grip on the g.o.p. nomination.

the frontrunner and two other primaries. and the "baltimore sun" with their headlines, "romney sweep" is how they play it in the "baltimore sun." and april 24, the big one for rick santorum. he says is pennsylvania. so here's the "pittsburgh post gazette." candidates set sights on p.a. romney sweeps three primaries there. rick santorum attended a rally in marshall tuesday night while mitt romney was strengthening his status as frontrunner. that is the "pittsburgh post gazette." and then also in the "pittsburgh tribune" review this morning, they have the latest polls out for that pennsylvania contest and it says a poll released that showed likely republican voters in pennsylvania favored the former senator 41% to 35% over former massachusetts governor mitt romney. santorum told supporters that the four point shared that he's

not ready to quit the presidential race. here is the "wall street journal" that says santorum prepares for a last stand. in pennsylvania, it said that rick santorum has all strategy focused on his home state that could provide a win or go home moment for the can date. now mr. santorum's campaign is counting out of victory for pennsylvania to catapult it into may and into the friendlier confines of north carolina and nebraska and texas. we will read more from the papers this morning but want to get your thoughts on yesterday's primaries. richard in michigan in minneapolis, minnesota. richard, who are you supporting? caller: good morning. mitt romney. host: there you go. not michigan, mitt. go ahead.

caller: the main reason is i think that he would make the chinese trade fair because -- because the chinese are treating a lot on their trade policies, they're stealing our software, they're undercutting the dollar by, you know, not devaluing their currency and things like that. so i think mitt romney will really bring back industry to the united states. host: so richard, let me ask you about the other candidates in this race. would you like to see rick santorum and newt gingrich drop out for the sake of the party in your candidate or do you think this primary contest is a good one and he should continue on? caller: i think rick santorum is damaging the party. he's so far right that it really

turns people off in his social issues, i believe, he's so far right that it's damaging the party. and what's the other candidate? host: newt gingrich, ron paul? caller: newt gingrich. newt gingrich, haven't heard much from him. and ron paul has a couple of good ideas, but some of them are too far out like get rid of the federal reserve and things like that. host: all right. monica, rick santorum supporter in miami. monica, you just heard from richard there in minneapolis and he thinks your candidate is too conservative and should get out of the race. caller: well, i think right now, this is not the time for him and i think that they're looking for a moderate and they found it in romney. now i'm an independent and i don't think he would be the

president. i don't think romney would be the president but right now, that's what people are looking for, a moderate. but i think 2016 will be his time and he can go up against maybe hillary clinton or something but romney couldn't come back in 2016 and beat hillary. host: so you think rick santorum should run again? caller: yes, i think he should run again in 2016. i think the conservatives will be back in 2016. host: so should he get out of the race? caller: yeah, he should get out of the race. the republicans are not going to win anyway. so he should just, you know, keep campaigning as he prepare for 2016. host: all right so who are you -- all right. so who are you going to support in the general election? caller: it would have to be -- i think i would support santorum but even though i'm independent, it would have to be the current

president. host: so you're for obama? caller: yes, i think that -- i think that because the consistency of santorum. he's somebody you can trust more than romney. i think that romney has been all over the place. even his speeches now, you really don't know where he stand. host: so it's a trust issue with you. some may wonder how you go from rick santorum to president obama. caller: if santorum was to get the nomination, which he's not, i would vote for santorum. and i think that the reason why is the consistency. usually moderates and democrats are really not consistent. host: all right. all right. a little bit of bar about rick santorum's campaign. this from the washington times this morning. they note mr. santorum's campaign sent an e-mail fundraising plea tuesday asking for money to help cover the costs of airing commercials in pennsylvania where it's an all-in strategy in that state

for the former pennsylvania senator. thomas, you're a mitt romney supporter in albany, new york. go ahead. caller: my feeling is that i think both of them, gingrich, ron paul and santorum should just drop out. it's too little too late. host: so too little too late. well then how would that help your candidate, do you think? caller: well, if you look at romney's credentials, put something -- turn that around. host: all right. terrence, supporting newt gingrich in virginia beach, virginia. go ahead. caller: yeah, how are you doing? yeah, i am a supporter of newt gingrich until he made those statements about obama being a food stamp president. and then after that, i look at it as a whole process and we've been on this campaign for two

years now and it seem like no issues have really been discussed and -- how about discussing things like capitalism? you know, it's calism of the -- capitalism of the rights because you have people losing their jobs, student loan. and the american people are really not represented by the two party system. host: terrence, let me show you and our viewers what the former speaker had to say last night after the primary results came in. he said we cannot win on an etch-a-sketch platform that shows no principle or backbone --

host: what do you think of that? should your candidate get out? caller: well, my response is with -- what backbone does newt gingrich have? his candidate si has been supported by billionaires, somebody from israel who got -- from gab bling and gambling destroys people's lives. host: you were a newt gingrich supporter. so now who are you supporting? caller: probably an independent candidate, somebody who has a backbone to run. anybody. because -- well, what i really

support is to get money out of policy and we should support the wall street movement. host: let's move on ralph, a rick santorum support for the detroit. go ahead, ralph. caller: yes, i like rick -- i just, you know, i've ban republican all my life and it's just -- i thought rick should have won in michigan and at illinois and ohio. but he just came up at the last minute and he said so many stupid things and he took so many things on that he shouldn't brought up at that time. he was sailing along, you know? but i couldn't vote for romney. unless he shows his income tax returns and you know, just because you're a mormon doesn't mean that money falls out of the sky. you know, that money came from somewhere and money that came in ireland, he should pay taxes on

that money. he should clear his own record up before he starts criticizing the president. i would feel much better. but right now, if santorum doesn't make it, i have to consider -- i probably would have to consider president obama because he has a record and i have to compare that against romney's record in boston and i think -- host: how did you vote in 2008? caller: i voted for mccain. i felt mccain because of his standings as a war hero and me being a veteran myself. i kind of lean that to him and i voted for him but i don't think there's anybody out there right now that probably could match up to obama's record. once he got bin laden i thought he's a strong guy, you know.

and so i think -- host: well, let me ask you this. if mitt romney is the nominee and he were to pick somebody with a military record and let me bounce this off of you, politico reports that sayer sarah pay lip's v.p. pick is allen west, republican congressman, because of his military service, would that make you -- would that make mitt romney more apeeing to you? -- appealing to you? caller: no. i keep looking at the bible and i'm a christian and i just -- i just can't feel it, you know. he looks like a vampire coming in he doesn't strike me as being a guy who's sincere so and honest. if he shows his -- i will look at it again. host: all right. let me show you and the viewers,

a "u.s.a. today" headline. wisconsin voters picked romney. romney's win here suggests that republicans don't want to take this to the convention and duel it out says a political consultant. the message from wisconsin voters to santorum, he said is throw it in. ralph? caller: no, i don't think that has much to do with it. i think it's gotten to the point now where romney -- i'm trying my best to find something positive. every time he speaks, he criticize and attacking someone but he's never said what he would do in his record in massachusetts as governor is just, you know, 47th out of 50 states, my goodness. i mean, you've got to come with

something more positive than that. host: all right, ralph. well, you and other santorum support lesser be happy because rick santorum last night had this to say about the primary contest. >> ladies and gentlemen, pennsylvania and half the other people in this country have yet to be heard. and we're going to go out and campaign here and across this nation to make sure that their voices are heard in the next two months. [applause] host: let me show you the "new york times" this morning. in wisconsin, exit polls hint at the leaning of november voters. it says a fairly moderate electorate provides a window into two swing state that is are the being intensively studied by both parties as they eye the generation cycle next year. in the primary convention, the ability to defeat president obama as the top qualification in a candidate.

and that the republican nominating process begin to wind its way into the election race about eight in 10 voters said they thought mr. romney would be the party's standard bearer. even rick santorum supporters do not see a bright future for their candidates. a little more than a fourth expected their candidate to win. it also says mr. romney won support among tea supporters in wisconsin, a group he has often lost to or split with mr. santorum. a little less than half of wisconsin voters said mr. romney's positions were not conservative enough but more than a third were comfortable with his views. about three in 10 voters said that mr. santorum's positions were too conservative while about four in 10 said they were about right. the republican primary has largely been equipped by more local matters in in wisconsin with mr. walker, the governor there, becoming the state's first to face a recall election set for june.

a recent poll found the majority of likely republican voters said they were watching the recall election more closely than the presidential primary. tuesday's poll shows that republican voters overwhelmingly approve of mr. walker's job as governor. we move on to jay who is supporting ron paul in beaumont, texas. jay, what do you think? what's next for your candidate? caller: he go, go on to the convention. host: and if the dell -- delegate count right now, not looking good for your candidate. he is about 51 delegate so far. so if he takes it all the way to the convention, then what? what does he get? caller: he's just trying to convey his message. host: with a do you think he should hold out from whoever becomes the nominee?

caller: i don't really think they'll give him anything. the republican party's treated him pretty shabbily throughout the primary. host: ok. carol, mitt romney supporter in ft. pierce, florida. caller: hello. and good morning. i am from pennsylvania but i spent five months down here. host: ok. caller: and i am a mitt romney supporter. the main thing is anybody but obama. and to me, the other people staying in is not necessarily bad because like ron paul, you know, his big thing is the fed. and of course santorum, i'm from pennsylvania and i think of the last time i called a while ago,

i said i'd like to see romney-santorum. but because i think santorum is proudly too conservative to get elected. but anybody but obama. it scares me because, you know, when you have all these people on the duel -- i just hope that he doesn't get in like i read romney's book and then i read tony blair's book a couple of years ago and, you know, so now what's happening is they're having to cut 25%. well that makes sense because we can't keep spending $1.42 for every dollar we bring in. and i appreciate it. thank you. host: hey, carol, before you go? caller: yeah. host: this is the headline in the "wall street journal." g.o.p. leaders calls obama out of touch. and it says here that it plays

into the romney campaign belief that mr. obama appears to lack empathy for american struggle. that approach could backfire fit ends up highlighting romney's vulnerability as a multi-millionaire. are you concerned about that? caller: well, let's face it, right now, i'm reading steve jobs' book and, you know, the people that really work really hard make a lot of money. host: you don't see that as issue, carol? caller: do i see it as what? host: you don't see it as an issue in the general election? zoil caller: well it is an issue. it depends on if we want 47% of the people not paying any taxes and i admittedly, the country's in bad shape right now. host: yeah. caller: but hopefully, it'll get better when we get -- my mother was a democrat from minnesota,

but i have lived in areas that just happen to be republican and have voted republican most of my life and i appreciate c-span. thank you. host: all right, carol. here's what mitt romney had to say last night pivoting a bit in his speeches and going after president barack obama. >> it's enough to make you think that years around flying in affair force one telling you that you're great and you're doing a great job is enough to make you think you might become out of touch with that and that's what happened. host: an out-of-strategy coming from mitt romney and also one put forth by the president's campaign as well. and this is the headline in the "new york times" from a speech yesterday given by president obama. obama and house g.o.p. budget the work of rightist rat cals. here's the president from

yesterday. >> and yet, this isn't a budget supported by some small rump group in the republican party. this is now the party's governing platform. this is what they're running on. mitt romney hopes a similar version of this plan from last year would be introduced on day one of his presidency he said that he's very supportive of his new budget. and he even called it marvelous, which is a word you don't often hear when it comes to describing a budget. [laughter] it's a word you don't often hear generally. [laughter] host: more on the general election from the "new york times" this morning. the caucus log had this headline. support for obama remains high.

overwhelmingly support barack -- barack obama for president the results cast out on the claim that mr. obama alienated a portion of jewish supporters because of his rocky relationship with the prime minister. and on the "washington times," here's this graphic for you. it says the money race, they still trail the democrat, but the major republican party campaign organizations are digging out of a financial hole that has grown in recent years. you can take a look at the numbers there as we hear from deborah who is supporting newt gingrich in mobile, alabama. go ahead, deborah. caller: yes. i find myself in a predicament. i will probably have to vote for mitt romney. if he's the candidate. we have no choice. the representation that barack obama has given us is just not helping the american people at

all. millions of decisions that he's made have hurt us and we just can't go on like this anymore. we can't take another four years of him. i support newt gingrich mainly because of his passion for the constitution of the united states. he fits what america is all about. i cannot hold a person, you know, in judgment of their personal life. they took that away from us. the democrats took that away from us when they allowed clinton to continue in office like he did with his behavior. so i don't look at people's personal lives like some people done. and i look at what they're able to accomplish. and the ideas that they have for this country and i do not see anything that barack obama is doing that would help america. he is the worst president i've ever seen in my life. choices that he's making.

he spoke terribly about the supreme court the other day. i don't understand how he thinks he's going to put a feather in his cap to -- just about slandered the representatives to the supreme court. i just don't see that his ideas as if he's a dictator. i wish there was some way that someone other than romney could run because i believe the democrats have pushed romney as the main candidate because they don't believe it can beat barack obama and i quit too. i question whether he could beat him. host: so deborah, should newt gingrich get out? caller: also obama's ideas. romney care has been defended -- romney care when obama's plan is the same thing as he is. host: ok. caller: and i do believe without a doubt a lot of romney support

is democratic so that the democrats can say oh, he's no different from barack. might as well leave barack in the office. host: here's the washington times. urges restraint in judicial review of health care law. he narrowed the attack. giving him more nuance take on judicial reviews and constitutional scholars said he had done the previous day but hours later, -- host: and a quote there from the leader of the senate for republicans. mitch mcconnell saying this president attempts to intimidate

. and then senator quoted today in "the new york post" says that what president obama is doing here isn't right. it is threatening and it is intimidating. and then "the washington post" with their editorial saying a more judicious view from the president yesterday than on monday. mr. obama was wise to tone it down. his assessment of the high court, saying that the president's remarks on tuesday were more nuanced and more appropriate for a president. they also go on to say as could have been predicted, his less than careful comments were matched by less than careful criticism. mitch mcconnell accusing the president of trying to bully the court. this bit of presidential mind reading, how does he know that the president's trying to -- the court overstates the problem. now that the case has been submitted would be for both sides to settle down and let the

justices do their serious work. so that's the editorial on the "washington post." and the "wall street journal" editorial weighs in on this saying the last two days have revealed mr. obama's at his least appealing. first warning in supreme court not to dare overturn his health care law and demonizing the motives of his political opposition. it is a long, long way. there is no red america. there is no blue america. much less the inspiration of 2008. so that's the "wall street journal" editorial this morning on that. back to your phone calls. shirley, you're supporting rick santorum in pennsylvania. he vows to continue on to his home state. what do you think? caller: oh, listen, thank you first for taking my call. and i am for rick santorum probably 110%. but, you know, i listen to that last lady and she's right on as far as obama and mitt romney.

i hope that the people start thinking before they go to vote. now as i travel around pennsylvania, i'm going to tell you that eight out of at the point people here are supporting santorum. and i just -- i just hope and pray that they continue that and make sure that he wins pennsylvania. but rick santorum is -- he's very conservative and most people think of that as a real plus. we need somebody this conservative. we can't keep going in obama's footsteps. it's just taken our country down the wrong road and we cannot do this. we have to start living within our means. host: shirley, what do you say to people that says romney's tipping point. the republican nominating contest is all but over. now it's time for america to focus on the choice it will face in november's elections. and then the "wall street journal" this morning saying that rick santorum and newt gingrich need to make a better

case for continuing on in this fight and they said mr. santorum hopes to fight on until his home state of pennsylvania three weeks from now and then into may but his prospects look improbable that rallies more republicans to its side. how do you react to that? caller: well, rick santorum is first of all, he's conservative. and that's a big thing. but this health care issue, that's -- health care and economy is the two big things for this election. and everybody knows that obama pushed that down our throats behind closed doors and most people are upset about it. so we do not want obama care and we shouldn't want romney care. because it's two in one. i mean, it's the same thing, you know. and they said that's how the obama care came to pass is that they used romney care as a guideline to put obama care

together. so i don't see how mitt romney can beat mr. obama in the fall. i really don't see it. host: if it is that hypothetical matchup, then who do you vote for? or do you stay home? caller: no, i won't stay home. i would have to go with mitt romney, but i do not want to do that. host: all right. here's some facebook comments for you on our -- in your reaction to yesterday's primary. host: if you want to post your comments on facebook, go to our website facebook/c-span. 10 days after cheney's heart transplant and a follow-up to yesterday's show.

we had on a reporter fed holds fire on stimulus. the fed is in no hurry to boost economic growths. and also another follow-up on yesterday, we ask you to -- we asked to get your reaction yesterday morning to the situation in syria and here is the latest from "the washington post." troops began pullout. move will be part of cease-fire deal but activists dispute this report saying it is not happening. in other foreign affairs news. next to that is a piece by william juan. visit aims to boost image in the united states. members of egypt began a week-long charm offensive meeting with policy experts to counterfears about the emergence . they are putting up a candidate

for egypt's presidential race coming up. such fears about this group were only exasperated by the brotherhood's recent -- despite plenls it would not do so. c-span is covering an event with this delegation at georgetown today. go our website today if you're interested in that, c-span.org. out of afghanistan this morning, afghanistan war death totals, 1,913. . to number of u.s. military deaths in 2001 and names of the troops killed in the afghanistan war. also in national security news. "financial times" reports u.s. puts $10 million bounty on terror suspects. a reward for information leading to the arrest of the founder of pakistani militant group blamed for the 2008 mumbai attack that

killed 166 people. so a $10 million bounty on that. back to phone calls. scott. you're supporting ron paul in bloomington, north carolina. what's next for your candidate? caller: i saw those 1700-people in maryland supporting ron paul and everywhere he goes, there's thousands of people out to see him, and they're lined up around the buildings to get in to hear him speak. i can't help but to believe there's something going on with this situation. and we need to pay attention. everyone's talking about the economy, but i'm worried about young people. i'm 40 years old. i'm worried a.p. the kids growing up having to -- about

the kids growing up. if we go into war, we can have some financial stability in our country. and the gold standard, we need to go back to it and we need to go back to the institution and be strict to it. none of these other guys are doing anything about it. as far as mitt romney, he doesn't even understand when the question was thrown out there over the issue of war. he said i have to get my lawyers to give you an answer on that and ron paul says i can do that. host: yeah. john, mitt romney supporter in napolis. you're next. -- annapolis. you're next. caller: good morning. the vetting process of our nation's primary system has shown that the vast majority of republicans that vote in favor of mitt romney, it's time that we stop, you know, supporting

these other candidate who is are not going to get the nomination. let's support mitt romney so we can fight the campaign that's a hollywood elite president that obama has going on right now. somewhat vexing that people can't see this. like i said, with the exception of a few comments, it's disappointing to hear some of the commentator this morning. host: what do you think us the problem? can you look at your own candidate and see some weaknesses there? or something -- weakness in his campaign strategy that has not convinced voters, more voters to come to him or convince the other candidates that they need to drop out? caller: each person's candidate has a strength. somebody mentioned the passion and intelligence of newt gingrich this morning which i definitely appreciate. ron paul has some great ideas. some of which are a little outlandish but nonetheless, people support them. and i think the biggest thing with romney is his passion. last night's speech, he ended it

with a slew of god bless america, god bless this, god bless that. it wasn't convincing. that's the biggest thing that's against him. he needs to convince people that he can grab hold of his ideas and promote them and really sell people on the. host: yeah. i don't know if you were listening at the beginning but there was a female caller who said she's a rick santorum supporter and she is an independent. she would go from rick santorum supporting him right now to barack obama if the matchup is mitt romney vs. barack obama because of a truck issue. she thinks -- trust issue. she thinks she can trust santorum or obama but doesn't fell that way about romney. caller: i'm scratching my head about that. if you're a republican and you don't like what obama's doing, then you vote for the candidate regardless of who it is. that does not make any sense to me. host: why is that the

conventional thinking though? she was an independent, i think. but why would that be the conventional thinking? you know, you just -- you have to vote for the party no matter what? caller: i think the point she had made and maybe some other people have made was that they're disappointed with president obama. if you're disappointed with him, then pick the alternative. host: gotcha. in other political news, "baltimore sun" with this headline. delaney to face bartlett in the sixth district this fall. it says the competition in the sixth district was a direct result of the redistricting which democratic lawmakers turn the former republican stronghold into a swing district by redrawing its bounty. overnight, it became a district in which 57% of voters backed president obama in 2008 compared with 41% in the old district. bartlett weighs to voters outside the poll. that's the picture in the "baltimore sun." he was able to win the

republican primary contest and he will face delaney, the democrat there this fall in a hotly-contested race. on the senate side, other incumbent members of congress were expected to win nominations to run for re-election. that's the latest of congressional races out of the state of maryland. bill, you're supporting gingrich. do you want him to keep going or should he get out for the sake of the party? caller: he should keep going, absolutely. i'm a single issue kind of guy. i've 16 trillion reasons to support the speaker and because when i hear mitt romney speak, i hear the voice of george w. bush. it's platitude. it's true im. i don't hear any substance. and, you know, the speaker has

demonstrated a willingness to lead in the face expressing opinions and talking about things that might make people uncomfortable, but the problem we have with this debt is an existential crisis. unless you have the leadership like the speaker, it's going to destroy it. host: let's look at the a.p. delegate count. mitt romney, 655 delegates. rick santorum, 278. newt gingrich, your candidate, 135. how does he get to the nomination? caller: well, you know, to be honest with you, he doesn't. but, you know, with all due deference and with respect to your caller, 43% is not even a majority. hardly a vast majority. and you know, the thing is if you listen to what the speaker said, what he said was that he's

going to keep going because he wants -- it's an ideological issue. somebody's got to stand up and say the things that he's saying. host: all right. kansas, david, supporting mitt romney. you just heard from a newt supporter who says somebody has to stand up for these conservative principles so that they continue to be part of the conversation. >> i don't understand -- caller: i don't understand america. i don't understand what's going on with people. you know, i'm a highly decorated military officer, retired military officer. i have spent a lot of time -- i spent a lot of time around mor months. -- mormons. and i don't know whether he has the eighty to make money. he's been very prosperous and so forth, but i cannot see what people are -- the rhetoric that obama has and he hasn't done a

darn thing, he has done some really bad things and also about trying to -- shipping court and stuff like that. i can't see it. romney, i think could be -- i think he will turn this country around and i think he's got this country at heart. you know, he's a multi-millionaire. what does he need to run for? he's doing it because he feels this country needs to be turned around. and i don't know why people can't understand that. i mean, he's doing this because he's turned other companies around and he's turned the olympics around. why can't we see that this is a gentleman that would really lead our country the way it should be led? bring us back into prosperity. host: so david, you think it's the voters for not seeing it or is it your candidate who's not

delivering an effective message? caller: i think the voters are hearing the rhetoric. and the mouthing off of the other candidates. i don't trust santorum. i don't think he should be -- he's been in washington. what did he do? he voted for the bridge to nowhere. and newt, he's made a lot of comments that he follows the reagan administration and the reagan rhetoric and so forth. but what has he really done? i just don't see it. host: all right. caller: i need an outsider, somebody that can actually turn our business around. you know, united states is a business. regardless of what anybody thinks, it is a business. and you've got to turn it around for the people. and the people are suffering. the high gas prices, the unemployment and so forth. and i think romney could be the gentleman that could do it. host: program note for all of you. president obama to sign the stock act into law today.

the stock act makes it illegal for members of congress and members of staff to profit from trading securities using non-public information. live at around noon today. close to noon on c-span 2. if you're interested in watching that. and then mitt romney will be in washington today. he speaks at the american society of news editors and newspaper association of america luncheon and we will have live coverage at noon today on c-span. if you're interested in tuning in to that. also, some other quick headlines for you. our correspondent was on our show yesterday and he said one thing to watch in our economy is this student loans. and how much students have in debt. and here's the headline the money section of "politico." student debt rises. a democratic senator raised he has led a bit in the senate to set interest rates on federal

stafford loans at the current 3.4%. and many of you remember the headlines a while ago. student loans have ballooned over a trillion dollars. past $1 trillion. the consumer financial protection bureau announced last month. so economists saying this is an issue to watch as we go forward. and then also here is a follow-up to yesterday's news about that g.s.a. chief. congressman john micah says the g.s.a.'s las vegas fiasco is just the tip of the iceberg out of that agency and has called for an investigation of that. and then the "financial times" front page this morning, murdoch resigns as chairman and moves to news corp scandal fallout. james murdoch is stepping down from there. and then there's some good auto news this morning in the economy section of "the washington post." big three small bet is paying off auto industries rising sales including a very strong mark for

fuel-efficient vehicle. getting your reaction to yesterday's primaries. if you missed the speeches by the candidates, mitt romney and rick santorum, go to our website, c-span.org and continue to follow our campaign coverage, the road to the white house. you can find it all there. our cam troose continue to watch the candidates as they are all saying as of yesterday they will continue on. next, we're going to be talking about president obama's speech yesterday, about the g.o.p. house budget calling it radical. we'll be right back. >> this saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv. join our live call-in program

with distinguish former navy seal and author chris kyle as he talks about his life from professional rodeo rider to becoming the most lethal sniper in u.s.a. history. at 10:00 p.m. on afterwards -- >> if you think of yourself as a family and if you think of yourself as a team and she said when i get a raise at work, he's so proud of me and it's like we've got a raise. our family got a raise. but i really felt as though she has redefined providing to include what her husband does and he has a lot of respect for what her husband was doing. >> the changing role of women and how that impacts their lives. also this weekend, america the beautiful. director of pediatric neurosurgery at johns hopkins ben carson compares to declines with empires past of america and what should be done to avoid a similar faith sunday at 3:30 p.m. book tv, every weekend on c-span2.

c-span's 2012 local content vehicle cities tour takes our book tv and american history tv programming on the road. first weekend of each month. this past weekend featured little rock, arkansas, with book tv, at the high school collection at the university of arkansas. >> he was particularly interested in the 19 century civil war in particular. these are two friends, union and confederate who knew each other prior to the civil war, who fought against each other in 1862, survived the war, came out alive and remained friends after the war and here they are at 100 sitting on the porch talking about the old days. >> a look at life in the world war ii japanese internment camp. >> a lady wrote a wonderful book called "the art of gaman." and it meant surviving the unsurvivable, sort of, and she

talks a lot about how the art asks the crafts were sort of how they kept their sanity and it gave them something to do and about how depression was so bad in a lot of the camps and that people -- there was a high accidents -- incidence of ands people would make these things, these beauty to give to each other just to say we support you and we care about you. >> our cities tour continues. the weekend of may 5 and 6 from oklahoma city on c-span2 and 3. "washington journal" continues. host: we're back with phil kurbin here to react to president obama's speech yesterday. calls the house g.o.p. budget radical. want to show you a little bit of that speech and get your reaction. >> this congressional republican budget is something different altogether.

it is a trojan horse, disguised as depths of reduction plans is an attempt to impose radical vision on our country. it is thinly bailed social darwinism. it is -- upward mobility for everybody who is willing to work for it. a place where prosperity doesn't trickle down from the top but grows outward from the heart of the middle class and by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that's built to last. education and training, research and development. our infrastructure -- it is a prescription for decline. host: so phil, your reaction to what the president said there. guest: think ryan budget after 10 years, contemplates federal spending dropping to about

19.5%. it would be higher than it was under most years in the clinton administration. so obama i guess is saying that clinton was outright unveiled social -- winism. i think it is out of touch and the cuts are quite modest. spending still grows under the ryan budget. so we're talking about modest spending restraint, not some deep cuts or whatever the president wants to characterize this as. this is a president whose budget got zero votes. not a single democrat was willing to sign it. and if you can't get a single member of your own party to support your budget, you should not get a budget that -- host: in a column yesterday put out some numbers on paul ryan's budget. and this is the headline. it concentrates almost 2/3 of itself cuts on programs that primarily serve low income americans even as its tax cuts

disproportionnally benefits millionaires. when he breaks down tax cuts, he says those that make more than $1 million gets 12.5% in tax cuts those that make less than 40,000 to $50,000, less than 1%. and he proposed $5.3 trillion in tax cuts. $2.4 trillion in medicaid and health care -- guest: well, let's be clear. when he says cuts, he's using it in the washington sense of a smaller increase in spending and in this case, he's comparing it to the president's budget which i think is a completely meaningless metrics since the president's budget can't get a

single vote. that's very deceptive. relative to a more realistic measure, these are not cuts. there continues to be spending growth under this budget. and on the tax side, you can't cut taxes for people who do not pay taxes. so any tax reductions, the initial incidents is going to be on people in the top half. but the point of the tax in the ryan budget is to get the economy moving again, to get g.d.p. booming which of course will benefit everyone. now those cuts in health care spending and particularly in medicaid and medicare, those are not cuts in the sense of just draconian slice and taking money out the way obama did in obama care. these are fundamental reforms to the structure of the program. in the case of medicaid, block granting it to the state. the same thing with families with dependant children in the 1990's. but that program has been

extraordinarily successful. that's the model at the ryan budget follows for medicaid. get rid of the federal bureaucracy led state. and for medicare, he's got a bipartisan proposal that brings choice and competition into the medicare system and lets people control their share the limited resources. these are very positive reforms that lead the populations better off and not worse off. host: "the washington post" had a fact ticker column on the president's speech from yesterday. and they quote him, part of the speech where he says the proposed tax breaks will come more than $1 trillion for people making for than $250,000 a year. host: but this figure comes just from the fact of making the

george w. bush tax cuts permanent. host: so saying that the numbers are accurate there, that the president throws out there, $150,000 for every millionaire. guest: well, i think that the alternative to that, raising the top marginal income tax rate would be extraordinarily damaging for the economy. the problem we have is not on the revenue side. the revenues have fall an little bit because the economy has been so weak but if you look at the government's own projection, revenues are going to be back at new orleans even if we keep the current tax rate. the enormous deficits are spending is completely out of

control and out of line with historical new orleans. i think you can solve the deficit problem on the tax side. even if we went back to the 70% rate of the 95% top rate before john f. kennedy cut taxes. the federal government never got back to 19% of g.d.p. even when the rate was 95%. the income tax won't bare more than that. we're going to have huge, huge deficit. the trillion dollar deficit. we've got to get spending down. and the economy just won't bear higher deficit. host: let's get to phone calls. deion in raleigh, new jersey. caller: i've got a question for this guy. imagine for prosperity? come on, pal. guest: i've never taken a position in my life nor would i

accuse people on the left. let's have an honest discussion -- caller: just knock it off and listen to the question. guest: don't start with -- an irrelevant attack because if you want to ask me a question, ask me a question. caller: i am. obama hit it out of the park about the speech. he's 100% right about the tax breaks for the rich. if it wasn't for george w. bush's poor policy which you seem to want to go back to, we have a balanced budget under clinton and we wouldn't have these problems if we didn't go to war. i will take my answer off the air. guest: federal spending was under 18.5% of g.d.p. ryan wants to go to a level that is higher than that and the president is condemning as social darwinism. if we can go tackback to the level of regulations under bill clinton, the pursuit of free trade agreement, well, i would be very happy with that but i think that democrats are concerned only with what the top marginal tax rate it.

they don't want to do what we did on the spending side in the regulatory side under bill clinton and that's much more important if we're going to get the economy moving again. host: you say it's the combination of the two like what happened during the clinton years? less spending and then you do increase revenue? guest: well, i think the tax increase is relatively early in bill clinton's term had very little do with the increased revenue. the tax deal in 1997 when clinton cut the capital gains rate was the most important because that led to the bull market in stocks and the economic boom that created so much wealth that loud us to be in a favorable fiscal position. it's not just about raising taxes. george h.w. bush and clinton raised taxes. that was an infeblingtle policy but it probably did less damage than folks on the right predict it did. it did less in terms of benefits. the important things in the 1990's were the balanced budget

agreement, welfare reform where the relative regulatory restraint with the free trade agreements and spending limitations. host: democratic line. jim in massachusetts. go ahead, jim. what's the name of your town up there? caller: oraka. what about the drug companies and the oil companies? i don't hear anything about the cuts about them. the oil company has got $2 billion. and -- hello? host: we're listening, jim. go ahead. caller: and what about -- all you talk about is what you're going to do about the middle dallas and host: and that was the recent vote in the senate. what to do about oil and gas tax credits for those companies. guest: there has been several votes. a couple of weeks ago, the senator from south carolina putting an amendment to end all energy subsidies across the board for oil and gas and wind and solar and bio mass and what

have you. saying we're not going to decide which energy technologies ought to sandked fail with stiffer taxes and which ought to be rewarded based on political influence and whatthat amendmen6 votes, about half of the republicans in the senate. more recently, a senator put in an amendment he claimed was about reducing subsidies but actually repealed some widely available and import and cost recovery mechanisms of legitimate business expenses and got rid of them only for oil companies. of course, that is the kind of problem we are trying to get rid of. we do not want the tax code and politicians to decide where companies succeed and fail. i thought it was a very poor idea that would raise prices at the gas pump. host: on twitter --

guest: well, under the 1974 budget act, congress is required under law to pass a budget. the house has passed a budget last year and just passed paul ryan budget this year the united state. this is a deliberate political strategy of chuck schumer and harry reid where basically what they are doing is putting nothing on the table, not defending anything, letting the president's budget be dead on arrival. so the democrats can say the president's budget was a joke and no one was serious about

that. we are not going to propose a budget and just attack the house republican budget. i think it is very destructive. we can have a much better budget discussion if the senate democrats put something on the table. host: bill king on twitter -- let me show our viewers from "the new york times." $487 billion in cuts over 10 years. guest: this is one of the areas of the budget i find disappointing. those are basically undone by the ryan budget. they replace those cuts with cuts elsewhere across the federal budget and recover them over the next couple of years.

committees and the house are instructed to find those cuts. there is no program that could not benefit from being reduced. there is waste everywhere in the federal budget. i would of capped those cuts in place. i am not a defense expert by any means, but from a budgetary standpoint, we have to be finding savings everywhere. host: we will go to pennsylvania. caller: the whole m.o. is to privatize everything. there is a finance, health care, pharmaceuticals, prisons, what ever. it will give the same people with all of the money now the ability to make more money while booting people out of jobs. host: let's get a reaction. guest: there is something to that big bang the thrust of the

obama administration is to have a government program for everything. that is the fundamental contrast between the two major political parties. the republicans believe in the private sector. subject to the discipline of competition and market forces. democrats believe we should have big government programs for everything. the scandal we just had were a number of people just resigned over a big party that was thrown shows the contrast because nothing the gop does can be contacted out to the public sector. i would suggest that government not being subject to market discipline is inherently more likely to have scandals and a waste because it is not subject to competition. i think it is a good thing that competition is injected into these programs. the only thing costing less of

the initial projections is medicare part d. that is the basic reform model that the plan would extend to the rest of medicare. host: little rock, ark., bill is a republican. caller: medicare costs $3 to administer every $100. you cannot get that kind of deal with john hancock. i tell you what. i listened to you and the taxes collected relative to gdp right now are at an all-time low at just 14%. why are you wanting more and more money for the rich? you are just a spoiled kid. host: are you a republican? caller: yes, ma'am.

i am one of those rockefeller republicans. we always thought it was great. the corporations paid 28% of taxes collected. now they are paying 9%. host: let's stick to the policy debate. guest: only human beings pay taxes. the taxes on corporations are paid by their shareholders, customers, and employees. they come out the profit which seems to be what the left -- those are the shareholders. this idea that you could get blood from iraq is to tax corporations not coming from human beings is a false one. as i said, revenues are down a little bit right now but if you look at the projections they are going to come back up to historical norms. the system will simply not bear that revenue unless you want a

new broad based tax base. they can move their money out of the country and it changed the character of their income. like fdr used in the 1930's. unless we want to do something like that which i think would be a big mistake, we are going to have to get spending under control and that is what this budget does. host: a democratic caller from california. caller: good morning. i think a lot of people have memory loss about what it was like when president obama first came into office. he was faced with -- he stopped us from going into -- all of us from going into soup lines. two wars when democrats took control.

what i think the difference is with the ryan plan and the obama budget plan is that president obama wants to do it at a slower rate. now, there is one word that does not get talked about enough in the tax code. it is loopholes. my father made a lot of money in his life, and he was trying to teach me how to do tax returns and all this. the deductions that he could claim -- he hardly had to pay a thing. guest: obama did come in during a pretty deep recession and came in with a couple of foreign wars which he continued until he started his own in libya and elsewhere. i think the anti-war left should be disappointed in the president for that reason. he has continued with a lot of

bush policies. on the economic side, the president came in it during a weak economy but he has since been presided over a weak recovery. we should have had a robust recovery. we have had such tremendous interference in the market by the government, not just the stimulus program which missile out -- which misallocated a huge number of resources. the president's budget does not move in the same direction as the paul ryan budget. it does not ever get there. the present budget which got zero votes in the house which one democrat will not put their name on it never achieved balance. it contemplates deficits

literally forever. it will not be a single year ever under president obama's budget in which the budget balances. i think that is unacceptable. democrats in congress agree it is unacceptable. we have not seen a serious proposal yet. host: on twitter -- guest: well, a budget could very easily pass both houses without raising taxes. the problem is not on the revenue side. the problem is on the spending side. the democrats agreed to extend all of these bush tax cuts that they now all demonize. obama signed off on the deal. they have their fingerprints on this just as much as anyone else. they agreed this would be a terrible time to raise taxes. they are going to agree to extend them again after the election in the lame duck

session. i wish the democrats would get serious about cutting spending. if they did that, they could pass a budget in the senate. they could get their easily with just democratic votes if they wanted to. host: "usa today" editorial page -- it points to a compromise bill between -- put together with a congressman from ohio and

tennessee and they said going into the vote that they had about 100 co-sponsors but after policy groups on both the left and the right got to their co- sponsors, about 38 people voted in the end for it. paul ryan and congressman dan holland, the ranking democrat, both write opposing views on this budget proposal. what do you think? guest: i think it was a bad budget with enormous tax hikes and it. tax increases on charitable contributions and energy. i do not think you can balance the budget by hurting the economy further with taxes. that will not get it done. we have to bring spending back to historical norms. this budget did not do that. a try to catch up with all of these tax hikes which will keep

us running these trillion dollar deficit. i think it was the wrong approach. host: what about the spending side on this compromise bill? guest: they had some good ideas that came from the simpson- bowles commission. many of those ideas are in the paul ryan budget. we have to reform spending. i would like to see the democrats put something on the table they are willing to vote for. i think the senate democrats need to put politics aside and put forward the best most serious budget that they can and pass it. than we can have a discussion about the differences between the two. all we have seen is positioning for this election. host: did americans for prosperity lobby against this compromise? did you talk to specific members? guest: we did not. we did send a letter up to the

hell with the reasons we were opposed to it. -- we did send a letter up to the hilt with the reasons we were opposed to it. caller: i get speechless every time i hear someone make a comment on this show saying that bill clinton had a balanced budget. the balance the budget by taking money out of social security. it was not what anybody with a brain in their head would call a balanced budget if you are borrowing from trust funds. that adds to the debt. every single year, the national debt went up when bill clinton was in office. i want somebody to start addressing that. guest: that is a very important point. we get caught up in these discussions in washington. the tax revenue that is supposed to be dedicated to social security is added on the revenue side and expenditures are added

on the spending side and we pretend it is not a separate program. you are absolutely correct. congress has been raiding the surpluses since they started materializing after the 1983 commission deal and spending it on other programs. all of that money, all of those trillions supposed to be in social security have already been spent by congress. when social security redeems those bonds, the general fund has to pay them back. it really does not have any good choice is to come up with that money. it can cut other unrelated spending, it can raise other taxes to try to pay for it, or it can issue new foreign held debt or debt held by the public to make up for the social security trust fund. the only options that we have on the same three options we would have if the trust fund never existed in the first place.

the trust fund is really a fiction that has allowed congress to have a much higher level of spending than they otherwise would of been able to have. now we are in the same position if the trust fund never had existed. you raise a very important point when we talk about the surpluses in the clinton years. they did rely on raiding the social security trust fund dollars. now we wish they were in there. your point is well taken. i think that is one of the reasons why we need to reform social security so politicians can not touch that funding and cannot spend it on something else. i would much prefer to see individual accounts so the decisions cannot get politicized. either would be preferable to the system that we have now where politicians can just then

the money. host: president obama yesterday brought up ronald reagan. this is what he had to say. [video clip] >> would you accept a budget package, a deficit reduction plan, that involves $10 of cuts for every $1 in revenue increases? 10 to 1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue. not one of them raise their hand. think about that. ronald reagan who as i recall is not accused of being a socialist understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control, for him to

make a deal he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. he did it multiple times. he could not get through the republican primary today. host: your reaction? guest: reagan did do a deal for $3 in spending cuts for each dollar in tax increases. he passed it. the tax increases were probably enacted by congress. the spending cuts never materialized. he said his biggest regret was when he did that deal. he would frequently joke where is my $3. there was a similar but trailed to george h. w. bush when he cut a deal that was supposed to be $2 in spending cuts. we got all the tax increases but never the spending cuts. when you cut a deal with the

democrats, you get the tax increases but you never get the spending cuts. that is why i think there is so much skepticism about bargaining. the problem really is on the spending side. if we could get it back down to historical norms, we will get manageable deficit because the economy will be growing again. host: phil kerpen is our guest, vice president for policy at americans for prosperity. also an author of a new book. what is it about? guest: this book is about how president obama and the various bureaucrats in the administration are disregarding congress and the constitution to keep pushing aggressive big government policies without the approval of congress and the implications. host: an e-mail for you. start there.

then, how have these tax cuts helped the economy? guest: in 2003 when the capital gains and dividends taxes were cut, we saw a tremendous increase in capital formation and a tremendous reaction in the stock market that had an impact on real incomes. we had a genuine economic growth as a consequence of that. the tax cuts were not on the margin. there were many things that did not affect supply-side incentives. the structure of tax cuts does matter. you want to affect the marginal rate. increasing the marginal rate on the so-called rich or whoever you are trying to increase the rate on does have major economic impact because you lower the after-tax return on savings

investment effort. you get less of those things. those are the things that we want to see more of. we want more work effort. when you put that increased effort and you are going to receive less of a reward for that, more of it going to texas, you get less of those. i think even democrats understand this basic principle when they come out for higher taxes on cigarettes or the things they consider undesirable. the tax penalties on the uninsured for example. when you tax something, you get less of its. when you tax something less, you get more of it. we ought to tax capital at a lower rate so we encourage more of us to be creative. host: jeff on the republican line, you are next. caller: good morning. i have a couple of comments so

please bear with me. basically, going back to the point that the lady stated a minute ago, there was a balanced budget during the clinton years but as she said the baseline spending continued to escalate during the entire time so there was a deficit during that entire time. i would suggest not reading newspapers and not watching fox or nbc and going on the government website and looking at these numbers. i dropped out of high school and i can understand it. my main point is this. this is not about anything but left and right politics at the end of the day. because president obama has no interest in ever seeing a reduction in our deficit. he conveniently switches from a liberal conservative depending on which crowd he is talking to,

talking about capitalism one day and then shredding it the next. host: can i jump in and ask you about the comments made by the former vice-president dick cheney when the bush administration was in saying that deficits do not matter? caller: i will definitely comment on that. dick cheney does not know anything about the economy. he is not an economist. he is a lifetime politician. he is a lifetime government employee. for everyone out there, dick cheney dedicated his entire life to this country. because of that, he now has to have his heart removed and another one put in. just so we can be clear, dick cheney served this country very well during the course of his life. back to the economy and the taxes we are talking about and the budget, i find it so

amazing that this administration that came in and said they were going to be the most open and honest administration in the history of this country, they cannot even put a budget out. you cannot even put a budget out? we know it is going to be rejected. host: we got your comments. we will move onto a democrat in tennessee. go ahead. caller: thank you. i would like to say if president obama could have been assassinated by lies, he would have died 1000 deaths. i am 71 but i have never heard the amount of lies that the fox network and the tea party have put out against one black man.

in my opinion, he is for the whole country and not just for special interest it. i do not know why people cannot understand that. host: your comments stand as well. let's go to indianapolis. caller: good morning. i am an old federal auditor. i have been looking at the federal budget since 1980. i think bill clinton's surplus was based almost entirely on capital gains from the dot com bubble. the most expensive thing george w. bush did was cut taxes for people below $250,000. if you remove those taxes, bush had deficit only in two years. i think that you will also find

that if you did what obama wants to do and increase the taxes to 100% for all income levels over $250,000, he would still not end the deficit. host: let's get a response. guest: that is exactly right and i think that shows the democrats when they talk about the bush tax cuts. the vast majority of the costs had nothing to do with the rich. the popular lower and middle income provisions were the ones that were really expensive in terms of static revenue loss. the democrats all want to extend the 10% bracket. they want to extend the child credit. they just need political opportunity to talk about the income tax rates for upper earners which have enormous

impact because those are the most subject to changes. i also think most of the american people do not believe that if they give washington politicians more money in taxes it will be used to pay down the deficit. they believe politicians will spend every dollar that they get their hands on in texas. i think if you look historically there is a lot of evidence that higher taxes will be spent. i think that is one of the reasons why people are so skeptical of a deficit reduction package that centers on tax increases. host: here is a chart put together based on cbo data. bush administration policies when you are looking at the deficit. $7 trillion coming in deficit through 2011. $3 trillion from the tax cuts. $1.40 trillion from the wars in

iraq and afghanistan. other spending, about $2.30 trillion. are those numbers wrong? guest: i do not know the exact assumptions. they are clearly using a static scoring model. they pretend there is no effect on economic growth with the level of taxes. there is some effect. for that reason, we do not know how much they overstate the case. the vast majority, something like 90% of the revenue loss from the bush tax cuts are policies that democrats now support extending. the tax cuts for the rich is what they want to focus on which has little to do with revenue impact. host: matt smith on twitter says

-- guest: i would not choose sides between those two options. i would like to cut deficits and the deficit by get the economy booming again bank -- i would like to cut taxes and deficit by getting the economy booming again. i think if we did that, if we have regulatory restraint, we could have another economic boom in this country which would solve the deficit problem in a productive way. host: one last phone call for you, a republican from michigan. you are on the air. caller: my question has to do with the spending on the budget. there seems to be a large amount of money that has been spent at large companies and organizations that removed the

money from the united states economy to international market and things like that. how were we going to bring that money back into the country from where it has been spent outside the country? everybody here knows that the cash, the dollar is the oil of the american economy. guest: if we want to bring u.s. dollars back home to be invested, we have to stop penalizing money from bringing that money home. we are the only country in the world that imposes a tax on foreign-based income. we want you to bring it home. we are not going to punish you or penalize you for that. we did that on a temporary basis a few years ago. there is about $1.40 trillion sitting on the books in profits. we got rid of the penalty tax

on. that is one way to do it. we have to be much more competitive on the corporate tax in general. april 1 was the date when the jajapan rate was cut. i think there is a real deal to be done there. obama has come not saying he wants to bring it down to 28%. i think there is a deal that can be made there to bring down our corporate income tax rate to broaden the base on a revenue- neutral basis. that is one of the areas where i have some hope we can get something done on a bipartisan basis. host: phil kerpen, thank you very much for being with us. coming up next, the supreme court's decision to allow strip searches for new prisoners. first a news update. >> one of pakistan's most notorious extremists is mocking

the united states. during a news conference, one day after the united states put a 10 million-dollar bounty on him, he announced that "item here, i am visible. america should give that reward money to me." analysts say pakistan is unlikely to arrest him because of his links with the country's intelligent. he has been accused of orchestrating the 2008 mumbai attacks. back here in the state, jim crawford says "a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff come up ordering the justice department to answer by tomorrow whether the administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law. it appears to be in direct response to the president comments about the supreme court's review of the health

care law. senator john mccain speaking earlier says rick santorum should recognize "it is time for a graceful exit from the republican presidential campaign." this in the wake of mitt romney's sweep yesterday. when asked to suggest possible vice presidential candidate, the senator said "i think it should be sarah palin." he went on to say he thinks we have some qualified candidates as well, citing senator mark rubio, chris christie, and bobby gentle of louisiana. sarah palin was the john mccain put running mate in his unsuccessful bid for the presidency four years ago. those are some of the latest headlines. >> c-span2 day 2012 local content be a cold city tour takes a more programming on the road.

the first weekend of each month. this past weekend featured little rock, ark., at the university of arkansas. >> he collected photographs and was interested in the 19th century, the civil war in particular. these are two friends who knew each other prior to the civil war who fought against each other in 1862. they survive the war, came out alive, and remained friends. . they are at 8100 talking about the old days. >> life in a world war ii japanese internment camp. >> a wonderful book. it meant surviving the on survivable. she talks a lot about how the arts and crafts or how they kept their sanity.

it given something to do. depression was so bad, there was a height incident rate of suicide so people would make these little things of beauty to give to each other as a way to say we support you and we care about you. our t ourour --- can-- pi tour continues on these dates. >> "washington journal" continues. host: david shapiro is staff attorney at the aclu national prison project, here to talk about the supreme court decision on monday that prisoners can be strip searched before joining a prison's general population. let's begin with how this case came about. what happened? guest: in 2005, the main plank

of was in a car in new jersey. the car was pulled over and he was arrested for no reason at all. there had been a warrant out for him but it was based on a fine that he had already paid. he is pulled over for no reason and is first taken to one jail in new jersey where he is subjected to a strip search. in less than a week, he is taken to another jail in new jersey where he is subjected to yet another step churstrip search. he is then released and not charge for anything when the error is corrected. host: this headline says justices approved strip search use for any arrest. what is the scope of the decision? guest: there were two meetings. the majority opinion is quite broad and would seem to authorize strip searches even of individuals who are charged with

extremely minor offenses, misdemeanors, traffic violations, jaywalking, almost anything that could result in a strip search which can occur not only to these individuals charged with minor crimes but without any basis for suspecting that an individual is in possession of contraband. the policies that were upheld in this case were blanket, indiscriminate strip search policies in which anyone who came into the jail was stripped searched. what is interesting is justices are robert and alito wrote concurring opinions. what they suggested is that in cases where an individual is placed in a holding cell but is not introduced into the main prison population, it may be unreasonable to strip searched

that individual. when an individual is first brought into a jail, they are held in a holding cell and they see a judge to review the basis of their detention before being transported to the general population. host: justice thomas apparently did not want to leave that option open. that is why this was written. guest: i believe the option is left open for a future challenge that if an individual is placed in a holding cell and not introduced into the jail? the general population, is to upsurge may not be permissible. i think it is a question that is left open and one that will be exported through future cases. host: there are 10 states that already ban strip searches. what happens to those laws on

the books? guest: those state laws say that strip searches can be conducted only on the basis of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. the supreme court was interpreting the constitution. its ruling means there is not a constitutional right. however those state laws continue to remain in effect. one law requires strip searches to be performed only on the basis of reasonable suspicion. individuals will continue to be protected. host: this was also written by justice anthony kennedy. guest: i think the security risks that are at issue are easily overstated.

we are dealing with people who are charged with the most minor offenses possible, things like traffic violations. and we are talking about individuals where there is no basis for an officer to suspect and no indication that the person has contraband. strip searches are incredibly in evasive. they are one of the most humiliating form of search that the government can subject an individual to. typically you are alone in a jail with one or two correctional officers and you are forced to remove all of your clothes. in the case of a man, typically you have to lift up your scrotum and you may be required to roll back your foreskin if uncircumcised. women are required to hold open their labia so officers can peer in for inspection.

this often happens at close range. it is an extremely humiliating form of search. 13 million people are arrested every year and there is the potential under one reading of the decision that all 13 million could be subject to strip searches in these very cases where there is the least reason to suspect that a strip search is going to uncover anything. host: the "new jersey harold" had this to say -- -- herald" had this to sasy -- a brief for the national sheriffs' association of pennsylvania -- a lot of security-type groups in

support of this ruling. guest: i think it would be a mistake to assume that all law enforcement officers think that strip search policies are a good idea. the brief that we submitted was on behalf of five former attorneys general of new jersey who all said it was not necessary from a security standpoint to strip search each and every individual charged with a minor offense where reasonable suspicion does not exist. in some jails and prisons as we speak, policies are being written in response to this decision on monday to allow blanket strip search policies. host: give us some examples of when people are arrested when they cannot be strip searched. guest: i think that is an open question. pretty much anyone who is arrested, all 13 million people,

could be stripped searched. under the view adopted by chief justice roberts and chief it remains analito, open question. before you are transferred into the jail's general population, you can be strip searched. going forward, that view of the law is upheld by courts individuals charged with very minor crimes who are not introduced into the jail's general population may still find protection. host: "the washington post" reports likthat -- let's hear from cynthia, a democrat from connecticut. go ahead. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span.

also, i have to say that i am a card-carrying aclu member. my comment is about the decision because i think it is extremely scary. again, we are seeing the radical right, the republicans on the supreme court, putting forward an ideological agenda which takes away freedom. i think back to the 1970's when i was a teenager, and i remember the freedoms that i had. i look at our society today, and it is not the same country anymore. i am really so happy that the aclu is talking about it, but is there any way that this can be turned around? is the only way going to be

legislatively? can another case be taken to the courts to overturn this decision? guest: thank you very much for your kind words about our work. i think it is important to realize one of the reasons why this case presents the dangers the sheer number of people are arrested is increasing. 30 million people are arrested every year. 2 million people in the u.s. are incarcerated. that is more than russia, china, and iran. it is not only the government's power to humiliate people is increasing, but the net of who is brought in is significantly widened.

make sure that people who are charged with trivial offenses are not subjected to long sentences or not even subjected to the criminal justice system at all. host: goal came on twitter -- -- bill came on twitter -- guest: generally speaking, we are talking about male on male searches and female on female. in some cases, they have suggested it is a constitutional requirement. there is nothing in the ruling that would disturb that. host: it republican from brooklyn, you are on the air with david shapiro. caller: thank you very much for c-span. except for last night when they had political -- which i do not

understand at all which i do not think c-span represents, with respect to the gentlemen, there was a mistake made by the justice department. if there was no mistake, would it the been ok for the strip search? i blame the whole process of what is going on in this country on the eskimos. guest: i believe what the caller is asking about is the plaintiff was arrested on the basis of a warrant that was erroneous based on a fine that he had already paid. whether a strip search would be trivialed for a tripol offense such as jaywalking, i do not think a strip search would be justified unless there was reasonable suspicion. the reason to think that a given individual charged with an

extremely minor crime has contraband. strip searches are enormously humiliating. individuals who are in prison or jail have been exposed in the past to sexual abuse at a much higher rate than individuals in the general population. there is an enormous cost or risk of exacerbating psychological trauma or harm with strip searches. that is why someone charged with a minor offense the justification for this strip search is not there. host: on twitter -- guest: the fourth amendment is a provision of the constitution that says that individuals are free from unreasonable searches and seizures. there are conflicting interests that the supreme court has to balance. on the one hand, the supreme

court has been clear that one's constitutional rights do not exist when the prison gate slams shut. at the same time, courts deferred to the judgment of jail administrators given their expertise and the courts are unlikely to meddle in the day- to-day affairs of prisons and jails. in this case, i believe the court went too far in differing to correctional administrators and saying there was a justification to perform this search when the evidence this was a threat was quite thin. host: a caller from new york, welcome to the conversation. caller: sometimes i feel like a down the rabbit hole.

i watch a right-leaning supreme court make rulings that allow the government to take away our homes through eminent domain which allows campaigns to be drenched in money, governments in virginia or west virginia that wanted to insist that a woman have a vaginal probe before she have an abortion. it just amazes me the doublespeak, the placards of the campaign say get government out of my life, but the gop is insisting on these heinous regulations. i do have a questionthough. in my local paper, it says the gentle man, that this had happened to him before. he had a letter with him that said the fine had been paid and the police officer ignored it. could you comment on that? guest: i believe you are correct. i think it underscores the point

that many people are arrested in this country every day for somewhat trivial reasons and frankly arbitrary reasons. that was certainly the case with mr. florence who had already paid the fine for which he was supposedly arrested for. as i was saying earlier, the prison system or the incarceration system is sweeping in more and more expansion of the power of government which becomes worrisome when the protections for basic human liberties like being free of a strip search of individuals who are incarcerated are being rolled back. host: republican from cleveland, ohio. caller: i grew up with one of the first persons released from prison because of dna on a rape that he did not do.

do you think that native americans -- should they be stripped searched if they are waiting for dna evidence to prove that they did not commit a rape? guest: well, my position is that no one should be stripped searched if they are charged with a minor crime and when there is no reason to think that individual is in possession of contraband. that is a view that would apply across the board. it does not matter about the race of a given individual. when an individual is arrested on a very minor charge and there is no reason to think that individual is concealing any contraband, there is no basis for a strip search. host: you are on the air with david shapiro, staff attorney with the aclu. caller: i have a question. when i came back from deployment and iraq, one of the big stories

going on was photos of the mistreated. one of the big voters that people had a problem with is the fact that they would make them -- one of the big photos that people had a problem with was the fact that they would make them strip. when we look internally at ourselves and our own judicial system, we find a way to justify we can do this to ourselves. i definitely see a security issue for the other workers and inmates there. if we can be treating prisoners of war with a certain amount of respect, why can we not respect to treat our prisoners especially for misdemeanors? guest: i agree with you wholeheartedly. since you raised the issue, one of the issues that is raised is the potential war abuse when

people are in custody. when someone is strip search, it is a time when people are at their most vulnerable, at their least and howard. they are forced to remove all of their clothes and an officer will inspect their nude bodies often at close range. they may be required to spread but cheeks and lift scrotums, etc. it is an extremely vulnerable position. that is why constitutional protection from the courts are so important. this is an area where there is extreme potential for abuse if there is inadequate oversight and supervision. i think that was an example of how far problems can go. host: jim on twitter says -- guest: well, i hope you are

right. unfortunately, the supreme court has said that it is ok to arrest someone just because they were not wearing their seat belts in their car and to bring them to jail. under this case decided on monday, according to a majority opinion, anyone who is arrested and brought into jail on that basis would be subject to a strip search. i hope and believe that many prison officials will say just because the supreme court says i can strip search anyone does not mean i should or item going to not only because it is a pointless humiliation but because prison administrators are busy people and they may say strip searching everyone with minor offenses is not a useful thing to do with my time. i hope that will be the case.

i believe that will be the case in many jurisdictions. host: go now to florida on our line for republicans. caller: i am a retired police officer. i agree with the supreme court decision to strip search prisoners. because it is a safety issue. not only for the staff -- host: are you still there? we heard you. not only for the staff -- caller: but also for the person incarcerated. we have had a number of incidents where people who were arrested commit suicide by the contraband they may have. another big thing that the reason they do the strip searches -- many people do not have identification on them. we do not know who they are. until the reports come back, we

are not able to determine whether or not they have an arrest warrant in another jurisdiction. i made an arrest on a very trivial traffic incident and it turned out the guy had a murder warrant on him from detroit. we did not find this out until 24 hours later. when people are arrested, they do not say i am wanted for murder. that is basically my comment on this. host: are you still there? this tweet says -- caller: it doesn't. many cases develop after people are arrested. if they are arrested on a

trivial charge, many cases develop after they are taken into custody. host: you give the example that you just did, are arresting somebody on a trivial charged that turned up to be wanted for murder in another state. what happened to the prisoner? caller: many times, we do not release the prisoner. it is up to the judge to arraign the prisoner. host: your response to the caller? guest: 13 million people are arrested every year. there is no question that some small fraction of them are going to be in possession of some contraband. if you took 30 million people at random anywhere, a small fraction of them would be in possession of contraband. the question is whether there is

no basis to think that a person is in possession of contraband, whether everyone should be stripped searched indiscriminately when there is no reason to think that individual has any sort of contraband or threatening material. it is important to recognize what we are talking about. the issue was whether a strip search could occur without reasonable suspicion. reasonable suspicion is a standard based largely on the experience and training of correctional officers which allows them to perform strip searches where there is a reason to think that contraband is present. all that the plaintiffs were saying when there is a trivial charge and a reasonable suspicion, there should not be a strip search. we are going to trust correctional officers like

joseph who have training and experience to know when it is reasonable to suspect someone as contraband and when it is not reasonable to suspect they have contraband. when it is not reasonable, you should not perform a strip search. host: is there a breakdown among race guest: it is absolutely the case said there is an enormous racial disparity with respect to who was stabbed by the police and who is arrested. it is this -- of the supreme court decision is authorizing anyone to a strip search, that will fall proportionally on minorities. host: here is a treat teweet-- > guest: this was based on the

fourth amendment that searches be reasonable. given the difficult environment of a gel and the potential for the introduction of contraband, a strip searches a reasonable search to perform even without suspicion on the the fourth amendment. unfortunately, the evidence suggests that this risk in fact may be overblown. there were very few cases where an individual was found to be in possession of contraband, where that individual was charged with a minor crime, and where there was no reasonable suspicion. host: what president did the court looked at? guest: they relied on a decision in 1979. after an individual has a contact visit, a visit where he or she sits across in the same room as the visitors that that individual may be stripped searched without probable cause

for the basis for that decision was that when there is a contact visit, you know the visitors will be and when they will come and there's an opportunity presented by the visit to exchange contraband and that justifies the strip search for it what is different and the decision monday is that when people are arrested, they don't generally think is going to happen. he usually comes as a surprise so there is not an opportunity for planning to conceal or exchange contraband in the same way that there is a potentially after a contact visit our the justification for the search is greatly diminished in the case of an unsuspected arrest as compared to after contact. host: susan in michigan, independent caller -- caller: i think our nation at large has gone into a major spasm. it we toured look at this statistically, we have so many standard deviations on either side.

the republicans and the democrats are becoming reactive, not responding. no one is responding. no one is having reasonable conversations. by the way, the environment of the jail is determined very much on how much money we want to invest in actually rehabilitating people instead of just processing of them and disturbing their rights. reeducating them to their rights in a positive modality in the manner of the new book out " don't shoot"all loppers are should be required to read it. it is about people in communities and a lot coming together in hard communities in l.a. and chicago, the worst areas, and saying that the cops can make your life miserable. you won't be able to have any

rights. guest: on glad you raised the issue of rehabilitation because it is important. it is one that our criminal justice system unfortunately has not given sufficient emphasis to in recent years. with regard to the strip searches in the florence case, there is a problem with respect to rehabilitation posed by strip searches. that is because it is extremely difficult to rehabilitate some oneone and help them up on released to become a constructive member of society and not make future crimes when you are treating them in a humiliating fashion while they are in prison or jail a disproportionate number of people in prison or jail have been six -- subjected to sexual abuse and trauma in the past. a strip search is 8 q mulvaney

experience that is likely to exacerbate re-trigger those feelings and difficulties. it is not something that will encourage rehabilitation. host: our eyes on the, on a republican line -- caller: good morning, an interesting conversation. mr. shapiro, i have an issue -- i don't see any real need to bring up the constitution when you have a semi-innocent person and a jail cell being booked. the police officer wants to say if they have probable cause. to can't we just leave it the policeman or the people in jail to ask if there is a reason to search this guy? you can rely on what they did and they can make a search

without a warrant. if they make a search without a warrant and they find something like a gun or drugs, then that is a search without a warrant. you cannot use that to prosecute him. did the search on this innocent arrest [inaudible] why's he injured because of the search? -- was the injured because of the search? it was everything the other side did. it can operate as a buffer against these police officers. guest: i think one of the issues

raised by your question is -- how do you know when a search occurs whether it is a reasonable search? in some ways, you may not know whether there will be contraband and you may not know whether there will be excess of injury inflicted by the search because of an individual's past and what they may have gone through. the supreme court needs to craft the role that allows law enforcement officers to know what the rule is at that time that they perform the search. my view is because in the case of strip searches of there is such a high likelihood of a month of inflicting harm, certainly, humiliation will be inflicted on the individual and quite possibly psychological trauma in the past will be exacerbated by the search because there is a high-risk of extreme feelings of degradation

and harm. it is necessary that some bases exist for the search. reasonable suspicion is a logical requirement and is less than probable cause and is less than proved beyond a reasonable doubt. it ensures that when people are strip searched, it occurs for a reason. host: a caller asked this earlier but is there other legal recourse on this issue? guest: i think there is legal recourse remained. we discussed earlier what the court left open which is -- is a strip search or reasonable one person is kept in a holding cell and not transferred into the general population. i think the case is going forward will explore that. it is also the case when an individual is exposed to clear an unwarranted excess of abuses during a strip search, being touched inappropriately, things

of that nature, legal recourse may continue to be possible. what is unfortunate about the court's decision is it may be read to authorize blanket strip searches where abuses of that nature are more likely to occur. host: is it an issue where more laws will be needed? how would the court rule on something like another challenge that will come before them on this issue? guest: i think that is an issue that the court may have to decide in the future. lower courts will probably have to struggle with whether this is a constitutional violation to strip search someone who is not placed in the general population. my view is that it is a constitutional violation because of the concern is contraband and that individual is not a place in the general population, the risk of transmitting contraband to others in the jail is a very low.

host: howl with a court rule on that without legislation on the books? guest: is it a -- it is an open question on the fourth amendment of the constitution. a lawsuit could still be brought if an individual was stripped searched in a holding cell and not in the general population. i think the court's ruling leaves open the possibility that that would be a violation of the fourth amendment. host: gladstone, new jersey, on airline for republicans -- caller: i wanted to share a story. i was 16 years old in rochester, new york and a music concert -- at a music concert and i was drinking a beer and i was under age and a police officer came over and did not care about the beer but he asked

me for my identification which i did not have because i am 16 years old. he proceeds to tell me he will have to arrest me because he does not know whether i am an escaped convict. i am 16-years old, wearing flip flops and i don't look like a criminal. two officers proceed to make fun of me and strip search may. they tell me to bend over and cough. that experience has traumatized me for the rest of my life. i'm extremely careful all law and law enforcement. i was 16 years old and my constitutional rights were violated. where is the line drawn? host: did you take legal action against the officers? caller: i did not. perhaps i should have but i have

moved on. if one person's rights are violated and everybody going through the tsa, anybody who is searched from a minor offense going in, if one person's rights are violated that is a faulty policy. we should not be judging these situations only on the basis of if anyone's rights are being violated guest: thank you for sharing your story. it illustrates that the sort of offenses that strip searches may now be authorized for are the kind of offenses that 16-year- old kids commit, things like driving offenses, j. walking, in your case having a beer at a concert, and do we really want a country that commits blanket policies when our 16-418-year-

old kids are detained by of the kids -- by the police or rests on minor charges when there is no reason they pose a threat. do we want each and everyone of them to be strip searched? the decision leaves individuals more vulnerable on monday night and on monday morning before the decision was decided. host: what is next on this issue? guest: i think there will be litigation going forward on whether it is a fourth amendment violation. i also think states will have to consider whether to enact additional protections in their own legislatures to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures, specifically strip searches. at least 10 states have laws of that measure on the books and i think the supreme court decision could provide impetus for more state laws of that nature and i think the jails and prisons will have a difficult issue to confront.

just because the supreme court has indicated it may be okay to indiscriminately strip search everyone, does that mean that jails should decide to do that as a matter of policy? many jails and prisons will view this as an invasion of privacy but also as a waste of time. sensible jail administrators will determine that will strip search people only when there is reasonable suspicion host:. those 10 states that already have these laws on the books, what happens to their loss? guest: those laws remained under the books and they are independent protections and laws will continue to protect people and guard against unreasonable strip searches in those 10 states. host: do they have to pass more laws? guest: not necessarily. they generally say that reasonable suspicion or probable cause is required before a strip search can be performed is precisely what the supreme court has said is not required by the

federal constitution. these are still meaningful state law protections. host: any states to watch in particular on this issue? guest: i don't think necessarily. i think that will have to be a decision made on a state-by- state in jail by jail basis. certainly, prior to the supreme court decision, a number of federal appeals courts in areas like texas had held is a violation of constitution to strip searched without reasonable suspicion. in those states where the law has clearly changed, the federal law, i think we will have to watch for changes in policy. host: thank you for joining us on this issue. our spotlight on magazines, we will talk about what one writer describes as the other glass ceiling for african-american politicians in this country. we will be right back them up this year's studentcam video

competition asked students to pray video asking which part of the constitution is supported them and why and we will take you to colorado where the third prize winner is a senior in high school. >> hi. >> why did you choose to make a video about religious freedom? >> it plays a huge role in people's lives. it demonstrates how people act in everyday society. it plays a role in government whether we'd try to have it in government or not. i wanted to see all the different aspects because i find it a fascinating subject to. >> in your documentary, you spend time with various religious groups. how would you describe those experiences? >> i found them really enlightening. i go to the church lunch every week on wednesday. i have even contacted the pastor i interviewed and they are nice people.

they get up at least three hours of their time in the middle of the day on wednesday. i try to stay the whole time and i found it really interesting to talk to them and pick his brain about his views on religion. but also interviewed the eight the group. -- i also interviewed the atheist group. there were some of the nicest people i have met. >> why did you think it was important to spend time with both groups? >> it is important that people really look at both sides of an issue before taking a side. i really tried to look at both sides of any issue, political, economic, or personal issue. if you just look at one side of an issue, you'll just be getting have the information you could be getting. i feel that cut ignorance could be a problem in society that i don't want to contribute to. >> what do you think about the

involvement of religion and government? >> i have no problem with that. in america, there is a majority rule and minority rights. 75% of us are christian and i don't have any problem of in god we trust as a national model. it is not hurting anybody and does not have a negative connotation. it is not like that have to say the pledge of allegiance. it is not like i'm being forced. i find it insulting when politicians use it as their sole calling card to call other people who are not religious and moral. i find that wrong because you don't need to be religious to have a moral background. i consider as an effective campaign strategy so there is not much i can do about that.

>> what would you what a viewer to take away by watching a video? >> there is no true 100% guarantee that any side is right. we should not fight about an issue where it is only a matter of personal faith. it is a more personal issue than it is a society issue. i feel people me to see that more. >> thank you very much. congratulations on a win. >> thank you about my fear is a brief portion from his documentary. >> our founders did have a religious background. it seems we are going to far trying to keep got out of government. >> you do not have a right and i don't the was intended to be protected from exposure to religion whether it be a christmas tree or some kind of this leg -- some kind of display

of someone who did believes in god for it wants to get that sense of, we're missing the point of what our freedoms are. >> the constitution protect our rights whether we're christian, jewish, moslem, atheist or whenever. i don't see any reason why we should eradicate got from the government founded by christians. congress shall make no law in establishing the religions or prohibiting religions. we need a neutral in the standing but we're a country was founded by christians. nobody is wrong and nobody is right under law. you can practice what you wish. >> you can see this entire video as well as all the winning documentary's @ studentcam.org and continue the conversation on facebook and twitter pages. >> "washington journal" continues -- host: r. wednesday spotlight a magazine series continues with this piece written in, the

american prospect "the american class ceiling. with the title of your peace, "the other glass ceiling." what is the history of african- americans in congress? guest: this refers to the fact that you are of an african- american house member or a matter of a medium-sized city, your trajectory pretty much stops there. it is hard for you to get to a statewide office. if you look at the senate, for instance, in its history since reconstruction, there have only been four african-american senators and two of them have been within the last 20 years. host: let's look at the statistics put together -- this piece was based on a report by vanderbilt university. from that report came several statistics --

since 1992, african-americans have held 40 seats in the house of representatives. what do these statistics tell us? guest: to go back a little bit, the house as one of the most common ways for a politician to make it to the senate. in the current congress, at sitting senators have served in the house. long serving house members, it seemed like it would make sense that they would go from there to the senate but they have not. there are a bunch of reasons why that is the case. it comes down to the fact that african-american house members tend to represent a majority of african-american districts and those districts make it harder to win a statewide election. for example, since african-

americans are more likely to be liberal than the median of americans, an african-american house members representing a district that is quite liberal and of your thinking of making a statewide run, can you moderate yourself to appeal to the median of voter? host: which is difficult when you have a liberal voting record. guest: exactly, it is tricky because if you can or are ambitious to think you can and you run the risk of alienating your own constituents by going too far to the center. you need a balancing act to do this. african-americans because they tend to be lower income than the americans, house members represent districts which have a lower fund-raising base. it is hard for them to raise the kind of money you need to run a statewide race. that makes it harder to gain attention from your party leaders to make yourself a credible candidate.

that is the metric for how much support you might have. host: in your piece you write to that -- oppenheimer worked on the study for vendor build. -- for vendor build. vanderbilt -- guest: it is a quirk of history of african-americans tend to reside in this population to less dense states like new york. new york, virginia, florida, georgia -- if you are representing a smaller district in may population-dense state, this is true for any politician, it is more acute for african american politicians -- and larger states are a bigger

media markets the get back to the -- money issue. host: on that you're right -- -- you write -- guest: that is a limitation that it is possible -- it is not impossible to overcome but it makes it more difficult when you add these barriers together. the wall becomes very hard to climb. host: who did the study and wife? why? why do we know these figures to be factual?

guest: the study was done by bruce oppenheimer at vanderbilt university. he wrote the piece in part because he noticed this discrepancy that i mentioned earlier that you have all these young members of the house that you would think would be running for state office. he wanted to figure out why that was the case and this is what they found. if you ask most people why they are not many african-americans in the senate, their thoughts turn to racism. they think black politicians cannot attract white votes. it is not that simple. it is not so much racism that is the problem as it is a bunch of qualities that are somewhat the

result of past racial barriers. some are the result of measures to alleviate those like the voting rights act which creates a majority/minority district. all those things together get -- make it very difficult for politicians to climb up the ladder in a way most people expect. host: can you give our viewers an idea of what type of district's african americans are representing in the house and how liberal they are? the other members represent some of the most democratic districts in the country. in the 2008 election, obama won those districts by 26 percentage points more than the national average. guest: there is a huge disparity. from the average. it is important to know that these confluence of factors [inaudible]

you would never see certain people running for office. african-american house members tend to to host: they are not too conservative to run statewide as well? guest: right, you can be a white conservative or white liberal to run statewide but it happens to be far more likely for a black house member that you are both too liberal and cannot raise enough money and are in a tough media market. host: let me show our viewers what the former congressman archer davis had to say at an event recovered recently last week on harvard on race and the presidential campaign and he brought this issue of future african-american leaders. [video clip] >> there are only two african- americans members of congress

who represent predominantly white districts. i used to be the recruitment part of the democratic party. an african-american democrat in the democratic party, if they surfaced, it was always in a black district. if an african-american candidate in the democratic party served in a white district, the staff essentially took a look at it and said he is good but he is not electable. 20 and 25-year-old african- americans will figure that out at some point. barack obama will always be on the ballot. 20-25-year-old african-americans will figure out that there are more of them advancing and the republican party today and predominantly white -- in predominately white environments than black democrats. that's just the facts.

host: you write about that last point that the former congressman makes. what about black republicans? guest: the irony is that you if you are a black republican, the obstacles for black democrats do not exist it is precisely because african-americans tend to be liberal. they are not likely to elect a black republicans of their probably representing a white district. that white district is probably closer to the median voter in the state and is probably more affluent. there are two black republicans serving right now, tim scott in south carolina, and allen west in florida. if the team -- if you see more tim scotts which is probably something you will see in the deep south, if they are good at their jobs, they're more likely

to advance to statewide positions. i think archer davis made a good point. he is right that the democratic recruitment efforts could be better. all african-americans did not reside in places where there are zero african-americans. i grew up in a community that was 15% african-americans. it is a little weird that the party is only recruiting black republicans to run. republicans recognize they have a problem with problems -- public perception. people of color want to represent us and if they are good, they want to see them get a chance. host: here is a tweet -- guest: that was the point i was trying to make earlier.

this problem is is ideology. congressman of west was a bit more moderate, a bit less inflammatory and someone who would be a prime statewide candidate. host: sarah palin season as a pick for vice president. -- sees him as a pick for vice president. let's get to phone calls -- a republican in kentucky, go ahead -- caller: i would like to make a comment and then questioned. i have no disrespect toward any color or creed or whatever. i'm not a bigot.

i grew up with a friend, you would not even called in an african-american. how do you call president obama and african american when he is half white? i am green, i'm a country girl, how do you call him an african- american when he is half white? i have never understood that. i don't have any disrespect towards anybody. if they are a person and a tree nice, i would treat them nice pretty world has evolved. we are not discriminatory as what it used to be. i grew up in a country setting where i did not even know they were called black, white, or whatever. that was my friend and we were close friends and got along great host: anything there you can respond to? guest: a reason why we

identified barack obama as african-american has more to do with himself. he said it made a conscious decision to join the black community. if you look in the past that prominent african-americans, they have always been biracial to identify with the black communities. some of the people we must associate with the african- american communities historically have been by racial like malcolm x, frederick douglass,w.e.b. dubois. it is not unusual for barack obama to be considered african- american even when he has a white parents. it is something that has been quite common today and in the past and i imagine it will continue to be quite common in the future. host: barack obama originally ran for the house when he started his political career. what happened and had he won the

house seats, what do you think would happen to his trajectory? guest: i had a bit of a moment when i realized this and that is that barack obama ran for the house which was his first major race and he lost in the primary. i think what would happen if he had one is he may have gotten trapped that by virtue of representing a liberal, lower income black district in chicago, his trajectory would have been cut off at a certain point, maybe mayor of chicago but no further than that. barack obama had a unique political talent but even unique political talents can i get past the institutions and accumulated disparities that make high political advancement a hard thing for african- american politicians. host: this was included in your

piece -- a democratic call, little rock, arkansas, go ahead. caller: you made the basic premise earlier that the blacks are under-represented and it is harder for a white congressman or white senator to represent the needs of the black community. can the same argument be made in reverse? an african american cannot represent efficiently the needs of the white community. it is the same argument in reverse. host: let's take that point.

that i madeot sure the point that it is necessarily more difficult for a wide american in an african american community. i think representing people's interests is the most important things you can have a way congressperson ably represent a black constituency. i think you have a representative from tennessee who is doing exactly that. he represents a district that has a majority of african- americans and does a good job. vice versa, a black representative as long as they can capture the interest of their community can do a fine job representing a white community. is beloved in his district for his conservative values. i am not sure that there is anything intrinsic to being a

black or white person that makes it more difficult to represent the opposite race. it is simply a product of accumulated disadvantages from either side. host: you right in the piece about tim scott. if people are interested, you can go to our website and sequence of tim scott. wisconsin, go ahead -- caller: i have a question regarding congressman davis'' comments. why doesn't the democratic party put forth black candidates in a white liberal districts? what is the holdup if it is not

color? second question has to do with barack obama's parentage. he had a parent with white skin and apparel with dark skin. if he had come out with white skin, would we still call him an african-american? is not really all about skin color? guest: as to your first question -- i don't have a good answer as to why democratic leaders did not try to find african-american candidates for white liberal districts. it could be that they're not that many african-americans running for those districts. african-americans live in areas of the south in urban centers throughout the midwest and the north east. it might be that the way the districts are caught - cut that they are put into minority or majority districts where the

politicians are likely to come out of the committees or they are not, they are likely to strategically place themselves in the communities for an election african-americans might have a hard time fund raising. a little bit might be by as born from greece to conceived notions about who is not accessible -- might be born from bias as to conceived notions about who was not accessible. democratic leaders tend to work more to find african-americans to run in white districts who would have more african-american state politicians or people aiming for that level of politics. as to your second question, i think of barack obama had come up with wider skin, this depends on how he sees himself. i think there's a fair chance he would i tried to identify is black. going back to an earlier

question on the same topic, there are many african-americans who are light skinned that part of being in the african-american community to a certain extent itself identification. -- is self identification. people looking on the outside in, it may look like it is all about color, but inside out, it is not that way and all. host: democrat from long island, new york, go ahead. caller: i want to give a comment about skin and race. i don't think that barack obama -- he has put a line between union, non-union, black, white. pavin his skin color -- having his skin color much lead in

yours, i don't think he was born in alberta but most african-americans were not born in africa and they put this stigma of being african in their heritage. i don't think they have the money or the time to go to africa. they don't invest in africa. i see people like angelina jolie going to africa adopting children to help people in poverty, not necessarily black people, but people in poverty in general. host: care respond? guest: i would just say that it is true that most african- americans have not visited africa but the designator is such a signal -- single piece of dissent like the way most irish- americans have not been to ireland. speaking for myself and the people i know, i think african-

americans would say that we are american first and foremost for our families have been here for a long time and we helped build this country. i see what you are saying but i am not sure -- african- americans use african-americans in the way they use it. host: you write in the peace what happened in 1990 -- he had access to money, this one candidate, and went after the senate seat held by jesse helms and he looked like a good candidate. what happens? guest: race did play a role in that race. jesse helms ran an ad called tyhe hand ad when a white man is

crumbling a piece of paper -- host: we will show it. guest: harvey gant was running fairly close. he was running against an established incumbent until this ad hit which made it difficult for him to pick up again. host: let's show our viewers that at from 20 years ago. [video clip] >> you needed that job and you're the best qualified but they had to give it to a racial minority because of a quota. is that fair? harvey gant says it is. he supports the racial quota of law that says the color of your skin is more important than their qualifications. your vote on this issue next tuesday, for racial quotas, a harvey gant, against racial quotas, jesse helms.

host: could that work today? guest: there was a similar problem. there was an official several points behind an official and he could have won but they put up an ad run by the rnc that talked about harold ford. it had a white woman say call mme. that harks back to primal fears of interracial relationships. i think it is widely agreed that ad really hurt him. i could easily imagine the hands ad as effective today as a was 20 years ago. host: democratic line, bel pre, michigan. caller: i would like to make a couple of comments.

people in the world would be better off if they never mentions the color of a person's skin. my mom always taught me that. our president barack obama, i understand he has a black father. when a call it -- when a kid as a black father, he is considered black. host: dayton ohio -- caller: when people ask about president obama and why does he consider himself black, if you saw him on the street and he was not the president, that is how you would identify him. that is one way. i always wonder why we don't have anybody representing people in the senate. it is not being fair. who is representing the other people. there are ladies in there now.

barry gerrymander and do all these things. -- they gerrymander and to all these things. then they pushed them out of the way to put somebody else in their place. we need to see the senate change and america will change. host: let's hear from a republican in detroit. caller: hello? i think we have a problem with identifying african americans including the host. what makes barack obama an african-american is that his father is from africa and his mother is from america. if you want to look at it through archaeology or whatever, whoever is born -- everybody was born in africa basically according to scientists. we're all really african-

americans. if you live in america. host: all right, democratic caller, ga. -- caller: i need to make a comment regarding the skin color in our president. mr. boiuie made a comment that it was his choice is the reason that he identifies himself as black-american. i want to make a comment that it is no one's choice. it has been studied and it is a scientific reason. the reason why we are categorized as racist is recessive and dominant genes. that is what distinguishes us and determines what race we are. it is not anyone's choice. it is because of the scientific

study that categorizes us and determines what host: our race: i want to bring up another area related to this story that you wrote -- it goes back to the party that we covered with the former congressmen. the former congressman from alabama, a democrat became an independent and talks a little bit about when the democrats were in the majority and held the power of committee chairmanship. here is what he had to [video clip] say] >> i was in congress and it was a pretty good eight years. at one point, when democrats had the majority, think there were seven african-american members who were chairman of committees. there was another seven who were chairman of subcommittees. about 15 or 16 walked around and you want to be mr. chairman if

you're on the hill. what was always interesting is that whenever there were subject of jurisdiction or a topic of controversy, it was amazing that the mainstream press never seemed to call on them. host: your reaction? guest: i think that is absolutely right. if there is a controversial issue today involving congress, it is not hard to find a republican committee chairmen be asked to talk about but that was not the case with the democratic committee chairman who are african-american. i have no particular insight as to why that is the case but it is definitely a problem. i would also add that you can go back to my previous comments about what keeps african members -- african-american house members from making to hire statewide office and when you are a committee chairman, is a nice position. you are respected and you have a

fair amount of power. if you are a longer serving african-american house member who gets to that point, why would they jeopardize that for a statewide run? the white congressman tend not to have senior positions because at a certain point, you might be a committee chairman. host: less take a look at this chart that you put together. in california with new york and florida, there is the most african americans serving in the house, four, but the size of the state the lies african-americans not seeking higher office. three of them came from illinois and held office within the last 20 years. guest: rights, average brooks came from massachusetts and served in the '70s. since reconstruction, that is a

nice break when talking about public office. during reconstruction, because of former confederates were banned from serving in state government, you had black senators, black senators, black congressmen. at the end of reconstruction, was the backlash of the late 19th century kicked in, it vanishes until the 1970's and 1980's. host: present obama on the ticket in 2012, what does that mean for african american politicians? guest: because there are not many african-americans running for higher office, i am not sure it means much. african-american house members tend to represent state seats. they will do pretty well of les. hopefully, the ins -- the

presence of present obama will inspire other ambitious african- americans to run for higher office. i think the african-american community is still very enthusiastic about president obama. the economy has not been great but there is a deep symbolism and having an african-american as president that still fascinates many african- americans. host: what about redistricting and that impact on who represents each district? guest: that has a big impact. in the short term, over a 10- year horizon. that will help get african- americans into higher office. the majority of districts make it easier for african-americans or any minority to let someone who looks like them.

they usually share the ideology as well but they make states less competitive. if you have an area where it is 50% african-american, you can either keep those people in a single district or break those people up into three or four districts. each district has a large percentage of african-americans but because they are pre reliable democratic voters, you just made the district more competitive for all sorts of candidates. that is the direction you want to go in. that would mean fewer black house members but a greater possibility for advancement. host: some might point to the maryland primary yesterday. roscoe bartlett one day democratic primary there. this was after redistricting.

host: independent in surprise, ariz., go ahead caller: the republican party embraced african-americans early on. if barack obama is reelected, would he visit the site of reparations? guest: what happened with african-americans and republicans is interesting. abraham lincoln was a republican, the party that opposed abolition in the 1860's and pushed reconstruction. in a contested election, they decided to give up a reconstruction but they still remain stronger than the other side on civil-rights issues.

over the course of the late 19th century and early 20th century, the american public stopped caring about what happened to african-americans and the south and the interest of trying to get past the old wounds of the civil war. you see republicans gradually stepping away from civil rights issues and you see democrats take the lead on further disenfranchising african- americans in their state. up until the 1930's and 1940's when the new deal measures began to bring african americans to the democratic side, 50% were still voting for republicans. the democrat adoption of the sobor rights issues hastens the move of african-americans to the democratic party. in the 1960's, this becomes basically a deluge where civil rights measures bring the

democratic party huge numbers and former segregationists who are still congressional chairman still out power and begin to leave politics are moved to the republican party. host: this is from twitter -- guest: as a former black kid myself, i do not think there is a large number of people telling white kids that they cannot get ahead because of white racism. that is basically nonexistent. if he talked to african-american parents, they will say what the best for their children and they think children should achieve the best they can. in the white race, it is just a recognition that things might be different for you because of the way you look but it is not a limitation.

they don't say only to achieve so much. host: democratic caller in richmond, va. -- caller: i want to talk about representation. a caller from kentucky earlier said she did not understand why the president did not call himself white. there was a rule that said if you have one drop of black or african blood that you were black. that perpetuated through our culture and throughout the years. i have three sons and my husband is white. they cannot call themselves quite. they have to call themselves next or they can call themselves black because the black community embraces them. host: a republican in fayetteville, n.c. -- caller: good morning.

i want to let you know that i have been -- i grew up in harlem. i was born on 125th street. i spent 30 years and the military serving my country going all around the world meeting different people when we come back here and the discussions i hear about african american or mixed, i have heard so many. all people in this country have gone through many types of name changes. i remember in 1984 when i was stationed in germany when jesse jackson said wish to call ourselves african americans to have this historical context with rest of the world. we are americans. we don't know anybody over there. there.