in "the washington times." later, a roundtable discussion with trevor burrus and wendy r. se >> good morning and welcome to washington journal. we spend the first 45 minutes or so going through the morning news. there's an article in the paper this morning about healthcare.gov. later this morning, the administration will release an up date on the november 30 deadline for fixes to the website.

the phone conference with reporters is scheduled for this morning. saw some articles this morning and opinion pieces looking ahead to 2016, elections in 2016, and some potential candidates for the presidential race, including governors. we will ask you whether you think governors make better presidents. here is how to join the conversation. we have also posted the question, to governors make better presidents? on our facebook age. we would like to hear from you on twitter as well. @cswj

>> the next president should be an outsider -- just for sums perspective -- just for some perspective, this

is from the center for the american governor at rutgers university. particularly the last five governors to serve as president. go back to franklin roosevelt, jimmy carter, ronald reagan, though clinton and finally george w. bush. the question for you this morning, do governors make better presidents? caller: good morning. , governor bushay of texas? really? do we really think you made a good president? host: what do you think? caller: absolutely not. he was our host: worst and reagan was our host: second. second-worst or second-

best? caller: second-worst. collaborated with governor scott walker of wisconsin on a recent book. in other prerequisite for a campaign. he describes scott walker this way. our question for you this morning, to governors make better presidents? weighing in on this issue in

this weeks cq weekly is grover norquist. let's hear from brian in schaumburg, illinois. to governors make better presidents? caller: i would say no.

i think that is a false qualification. look at lincoln, eisenhower. i like the first bush, but i think it is a bad idea. i always had a lot of bad parties.ns on ♪ in both the other lady called president bush a bad president. i would also nominate governor clinton who became president. he did a lot of bad things that hurt the average working man. go back to that list of the last five governors to serve as president. bush, bill clinton, ronald reagan, jimmy carter and franklin roosevelt. all except jimmy carter served

in two terms. case three t's terms. does it mean anything that they were elected to more than one term? caller: george w. bush won by a hair. i stand by my point. i do think you have to be governor to be president area and abraham lincoln was one of our best ever paged white eisenhower was fantastic terry and he negotiated the world after world war ii. the cold war was starting. i think a person really has to be well schooled in the international realm. that is all i have to say. i'm still waking up, i'm sorry. brian still waking up from illinois. -- chicago tribune headline let's hear from paul who is in

columbia, south carolina. caller: good morning. i'll follow-up up with what the other guy said. dwight eisenhower is the best president in my lifetime. the worst is jimmy carter and george w. bush. and president obama. host: all right, paul, thanks for that. biden to try damage control in visit with chinese leader.

the vice president heading to asia. we will have more on that story of the b-52s and the flyover of chinese territory with our guest coming up at 7:45 this morning. .en is in dryden, him michigan

we think would make a better president? caller: i think it is debatable. i really like what clinton did. go to school with zero college credits at 38 years old and complete my college education with the initiatives he had and the tax credits. i thank president clinton personally. he helped a lot of people. now i work for a contractor who works at general motors. college't respect our education. the only. $14 an hour. it really hurts. no benefits, no sick day. it is what it is. i do wish for is discovered or we have, rick snyder, he later saw from the unemployment office. he is a bad man. he gives about $2 billion to big business for corporate tax cuts

and he has kept unemployment rate high in michigan. i do not like rick snyder. i'm going to do everything i can to get published and make sure that he is not it. host: ken from michigan not a fan of rick snyder. of "thethe front page new york times" this morning.

back to our phones and our question for you this morning. do governors make better presidents? in washington,y pennsylvania. our governor had our cable to boston.

i wouldn't have my governor running the country doing things like this right here at home. host: some of the governors mentioned in the reporting this walker ofcott wisconsin and chris christie of new jersey. christie i would support if i was in new jersey. he is an honest, decent man, who is not afraid of government. that is what we need. to what we need and not with the government wants. host: thank you. we go to diane in monticello, minnesota. and, what do you think? the gal whoink called in on the republican line is not a republican. chris christie would make a good president but not scott walker. scott walker would make a great resident. what is wrong with having someone with rains.

let's get someone in there who is intelligent, who has morals and as far as the clintons? you want slick willie back in their? i don't think so. honestly, let's get someone in there that knows how to govern, knows how to run the country. let's get some of our bills paid and some work done. we need someone that we can respect again. here's the update on our poll online at facebook.com/c- span. voting, but so far 28 say no and 14 cs. sammy is in austin, texas. good morning.

i'm sorry, taylor in austin, texas. caller: hi, can you hear me? i was calling to say that i think it is difficult to make a distinction between governors and senators, especially depending on the state where they come from. if you are a senator from texas, the population you represent might be bigger than some states that governors are in charge of. whereas governors i think have executive management experience, there is a unique skill set that some senators have the opportunity to hone depending on how long they serve in the senate. including policymaking, the ability to make deals, reach compromises with their beinggues in addition to able to build relationships across the aisle. while governors may increasingly come from a polarized and partisan state and may not have to reach across the aisle to continue to win an election. so i think if we look active history, we had good residents

from both sides. i think each one just comes with unique skill sets. host: thanks for the call. sammy's next. he is in perry, georgia. caller: how are you doing, bill? thanks for taking my call. i think governors make better presidents. compare george w. bush and obama. look at the unemployment under bush as compared to now. look at gas rices under bush compared to now. look at misery now. carter's high gas prices. gas lines and high inflation and

interest rates and the misery index. if it is democrat is worse. what host: do you think? this is a reporting on a pole about presidential candidates for 2016 running out more than just governors.

to pittsburgh we go and frank is on our democrats line. my assessment, i've been keeping up with politics for a long time. think none of those republicans could ever make a good president in this day and time. host: why not? not wellhey are rounded to handle the complexities of the days events there it domestically and foreign. i don't think christie, walker, no. they are too heavily invested with grover norquist and the big money people.

they will never make good presidents at all in my opinion. i have been observing and i am trying to give an objective point of view. this is a piece by jennifer rubin in "the washington post." why any governor over any senator? this is from about a month ago.

that is the opinion of jennifer rubin in "washington post." bill is on our republican line. caller: good morning. one of the things i'm upset about is that governors are politicians also. we have been given information on what we are supposed to vote on and who we are supposed to pick and what they say they're going to do and this and that. i am a retired carpenter. since governors have been elected they raise my taxes by five percent. when the

republican sign the alleged not to raise taxes, he raised my taxes. our union supported him, which is the first republican we have supported since i got into the trades. running on an agenda that he was supposed to be a uniter not a divider. we had protests in our state capital, the agenda for voting rights, it seems as if governor walker and the governor of ohio and i don't want to pick on gop's because i am independent, but it seems as if they all had a hidden agenda and they promised the world before they got there and once they get there they're acting totally different. aup, thenting across whole u p has a for sale sign up there. i was politicians would not talk out of both sides of their

mouth. theo you attach a lot of current economic condition to your current governor? >> no. michigan was a big free state. automotive manufacturing -- michigan was a big three state. slammed byanholm got opposite party for jobs. economic conditions created the situation and then the lowering of taxes and the lowering of so there's not as much money for the government. it is a vicious circle. from what he said when he said he was going to get elected, it made sense to give this guy a try. once he got elected he has gone off the rail of what he said he was going to do. and i said, i am frustrated

i appreciate the time that you give me just to express myself. i hope if he runs again and he does get elected i hope he looks out for all of the citizens of michigan. host: that is bill from michigan. will be answered. here is the deputy white house editor for "political." rebecca, good morning. we're going to hear from the administration on the status of healthcare.gov. what do we know this early in the morning? guest: at 9 a.m. we will be hearing from healthcare.gov, getting an update. what happened this weekend was essentially a second launch for the site very good went down for long stretches of time including a couple of hours just over this morning.

it is great for the administration that this happened over a holiday weekend. the fact that this happened at a time when americans are not at work and there is a busy holiday weekend, they got some breathing room ahead of this crucial deadline. we're going to get an update from the administration at roughly 9 a.m. talking about where things are. the sense is they're going to say on this call that they now have that capacity to handle 50,000 euro users. the website will be ready to handle the capacity. they are certain they have reached their goal. will political have reporters listening in and reporting? guest: of course. congress, the

senate continues now but the houses back on tuesday. another deadline approaches. the deadline of the 13th of december for the conference committee to reach an agreement on the 2014 budget. what are we expecting in the halls of congress over the next two weeks? with getting some interesting reporting from our hill team. looking ahead to the all- important budget deadlines, a bipartisan group of senators has been meeting separate from the more high-profile budget conference committee that could serve as a last-minute lifeline if the government faces another shutdown at the beginning of next year.

host: leslie, back to your beach. --talked about president about vice president biden heading to asia. what is ahead for the president this week? i read over the weekend that he has supposed to give an update on national security. what is the update on that? >> that is right. hostingo going to be the president of colombia this week and we're going to hear more from him on the economy, something we have been hearing a lot from the white house lately on the economy. two very critical issues. the president will be talking

about the economy on wednesday in front of our american congress. you can read the reporting on politico.com. thanks for the update this morning, rebecca. we will get back to our questioning this morning about governors and do they make the presidents. we hear from severe veil, tennessee. s -- fromeveereville, tennessee. theyr: i do not think i think they should be elected according to their own merit, how they served. you know what? somebody mentioned that jimmy carter was the worst president we ever had. matter of fact, jimmy carter was the one and only president that i have ever known

--t tried to get everybody to get social security so could not be touched. they all knew that this day was coming when so many people would be going on social security. but nobody did anything about it until now. the republicans have tried their best to fix it so they could stop it. i was anymore lest i say something that i shouldn't. thank you. host: don is next to is in el sobrante, california. governor could do just fine. first they need to know how to add and subtract and know how to cut these entitlements and pensions. america used to be a country where people were happy to go to

work and everything and not everybody wants to figure out how to get a big pension and they don't care about anything else very tensions are going to be there very we need somebody is going to give the real story and try to make it so that the middle class can somehow rebuild. is not going to last much longer at the rate we are going. it is like a frog getting burned in the water, slowly. it is really going to be sad. i just hope the people in this country wake up and figure it out that they can't get all this stuff for free. the standard of living needs to drop. about 15 more minutes for your calls. as for the question, do governors make better presidents? also taking your comments on facebook and on twitter.

we are at c-span wj. in forthenry, he's gresh show, michigan. caller: democrats make the best presidents. we have the best president. history is going to show we have the best president who has ever been in that office in office right now. i will tell you why. this man has gotten us health care for all the people. this man is going to make peace in the middle east and iran. libya.the dictator in his foreign-policy is untouchable. the only reason why we don't have solid numbers on the domestic front as far as our

economy and the recovery are concerned is because we have a confederate congress, and obama hating confederate congress in the republican tea party who are blocking everything this man is trying to do as far as getting us jobs. the republicans should never ever be allowed anywhere near the white house. if we could get rid of all the republicans that we have, especially the old ones that we have in this country, this country would be much further ,long as far as progress infrastructure, jobs. we have the best president we could ask for and history will show that. he is not rushmore material. host: that is henry from michigan. this is from jim on twitter.

we look at the "washington post turcotte democratic party a revivedat from left. let's go to columbus, ohio. our independent line. elkald? let's go to

grove, illinois and lawrence on our republican line. question about governors making better presidents is a generalization. it is 50-50. a good governor would probably make a better president because they are akin to being a seat eo -- to being a ceo of a company. having to do to things that make certain people in the company disappointed. you're looking to the future for the overall health of the company. a good governor does the same thing for the state. one other comment i would like to make, if i'm looking at two candidates whether democrat or

republican and their relatively equal in leadership skills, if one of them happens to be a lawyer, i will probably vote the other way. i'm not saying that because i thek lawyers are not people, i think the legal mind, if you think about lawyers and what they're trained to do, whether they are in criminal law, whateverte law you can think of, they are , whether they are representing an individual or a corporation. they are trained to win. a good leader is looking to do what is best for the future for the overall good of most of the people. maybe that would make a good future question on "washington journal." would lawyers make better presidents of candidates?

good morning, david. caller: thank you very much for affording me the opportunity to speak with you. ,he gentleman from michigan i didn't exactly what he said. christie,ck to chris he might be a brash guy, but i think he will do what's fair for the country. for some reason i think he is a genuine person. i am a person that looks at politics day in and day out and i have noticed these guys. walker in my scott opinion are a joke.

the junior senator from florida, he is in my opinion just like a kid. -- i think like the gentleman said earlier that barack obama is a super guy. he will do what is right for the people. he is a proponent of health care . we have a good, healthy nation you have people to fight wars. that is what republicans like. do you want healthy people to fight your wars? they should inc. that way instead of thinking politics and try to do what is fair for the masses. sir.is my question, i thank you very much for giving me the opportunity. facebook for the answers to our poll question. overwhelmingly people say no. that's go to ray who is in clinton, pennsylvania on the independent line. definitely believe

governors make better presidents because they are executives in their state. they have to reside over budgets. the spending as far as walker and kasich from ohio, those are the best they could possibly run. henry and the other guy from alabama, you better get your glasses checked. don't know where you think that obama has the background to the president, but the community organizer? give me a break. walker has brought his budget back into tow and so has casey. ?uess what it was a 63% majority democrat electorate in wisconsin that elected walker even with a recall. they must like what he's doing over there because they are all republican. so is ohio, so's pennsylvania. look at every state run by democrats, everyone is in trouble with their budgets, pension funds.

illinois, california, you name it. whenever they get democrats in charge of government they run it into the ground with taxes by giving things away. food for me and look what i would do for you. i will give you something. >> scott walker is the focus of george wills opinion piece in the sunday washington post. he writes that scott walker is politely scathing. orneat trick of govern romney's case.

jonathan is in memphis, tennessee on the independent line. hi jonathan you're on the air. caller: i want to answer your question. do governors make better presidents? none of them make better presidents. it is all a scam. that's the real and quit sugarcoating things. it is not nothing going to get any better until the most high comes back. we need to stop this and be real because we cannot play with this. this is real. tv, weime we get on the

sugarcoat things that are not real. this is not going to do nothing for nobody. they are all the same. host: jonathan in memphis. five more minutes of your calls on whether governors make better is december 1. the 25th world aid state. "aidstime to stop saying in africa." to plainview, new york we go to sy on the republican line. aller: although i am republican i would never vote for scott walker. he eliminated collective bargaining.

although he says collective bargaining is not good, why did he not good for everyone? also the safety net to it i don't think he would eliminate his own safety net which is his pension for those of his colleagues. also, he is a college dropout. carsso sold warranties for . don't think the man is qualified. i have very little respect for him. thank you. int: to mark next to his middletown, ohio. mark, good morning. , iner: i would like to say my lifetime the best president we ever had was a former governor, i thought, bill clinton. the man we have an office right now is doing as well he can with what is given to him. he was given an awful lot of problems. as far as gas prices and all

that, under bush they skyrocketed also. if people remember the beginning of his terms. until we get this fixed with people being able to make a living wage, nothing is going to get better. our tax base keeps dropping and dropping based on income tax. nobody's making enough money to pay the taxes. thank you. host: in about an hour and 15 minutes, the president's point man on the healthcare.gov website will brief reporters by progress ofthe solving the technical issues with healthcare.gov. this is the washington wire of "the wall street journal." that the trusted obama advisor quickly reached three conclusions about this task.

you can read more at the wall street journal's website. : default, montana. >> a better president? to the governor make a better president? caller: i don't think so. i think it depends on the actual person. if you look at all the republican governors that are trying to put in law these crazy --ngs about women's health vaginal probes and all kinds of stuff. they need to stay out of women's health care. i know what they're trying to do , they're tried to get rid of abortion. what business is it of theirs? let people choose what they want.

look at their record on what their state is doing. the governor of new jersey, his in jobs.like 43rd walker is a joke. people want because the didn't want to impeach him or recall him or whatever they wanted to call it. he has done so many slimy things that the people should be outraged. and ohio, same thing. casey is a joke. .hey are all with no jobs they're not try to balance their budgets or do anything. on stuffjust dragging that they have done, but they haven't done. host: all right brenda, thanks

for your call. scott walker, one of those governors on the sunday talk shows is on "face the nation" this morning. scott walker will be a guest. one more quick check of facebook.com/c-span at our poll this morning. so far 22 saying yes they do and 54 saying no they don't. coming up next, we are to hear from a guest who in a recent washington times piece says that president obama has used a sequestration process to make a remake the military in his image. -- to make or remake the military in his image. more coming up on "washington journal."

>> many young girls are taught that they live in a patriarchal society. cheatedthe workplace or out of 25% of their salary, they face invisible barriers and all sorts of forces that hold them down and keep them back come and keep them out of the high echelons of our. this picture doesn't fit reality. it is distorted. default claims that supported have been repeated so many times they've taken on an aura of truth. >> or critiques of late 20th century feminism and feminism in contemporary american culture have led critics to label her as antifeminist. depth, your-

questions for christina hoff sommers. looking ahead to the new year on in-depth, join radio talkshow .ost mark levin the first sunday of every month on c-span2. if you are a middle or high school student, we want to know what the most important issue that congress should address in 2014. there is a grand prize of five thousand dollars with $100,000 in total prizes. get more info at student cam.org. "washington journal co continues. >> he served as a spokesman from 2005-2009. he's here to talk about some of commentst articles and

about the obama administration and their military strategy. we will start off with the piece you wrote in the wa "washington times." the piece implies that administration is using sequestration process to transform the u.s. military. what do you mean by that? thehanks for having me on show this morning. right now we are seeing a massive drawdown in military. we have $1 trillion in defense cuts coming down the pike and that is going to hollow out the military like during the 1970s. it will be terrible for this country. we will have a hard time defending america. if you look at the way the president is making changes to the military, if you look back to previous ministrations, how does it compare to the bush administration? particularly in the changeover of top brass and the leaving of top brass from the ranks.

how does that compare. ? under the obama administration we have seen a record number of senior officers fired. since he was inaugurated in january 2009, we have had 200 senior military officers fired. that is unprecedented. during the bush administration there were admirals and generals fired but it was more the dozens. we'll see under the obama administration is partly political because we have had such a great drawdown. there's any problem or hint of a problem with an admiral or a general or captain, commander or colonel, the obama administration would just get rid of them, just fire them. ofre is a whole variety reasons why these guys have been fired, but 200 is a lot.

host: you can always reach us by facebook, e-mail and twitter. back to this issue, in terms of the amount of money that is proposed to be cut for the defense department. what is that? aren't republicans part of the process, to? sequestration is something that both republicans and democrats agreed to in congress. talk about theto half trillion dollars in defense cuts that obama has orchestrated. with got to remember that it was president obama's idea. some of the republicans had signed onto sequestration because they felt that that was the only way that this administration is going to stop spending money. we're getting to the second

year of sequestration and we don't really have any relief in sight. is a 10 year program. that wewith budget cuts have under president obama, we're looking at a cut of 100,000 ground troops. i got a brief from the house armed services committee recently and if sequestration goes a whole 10 years, we can expect to lose about 20% of our navy ships and 20% of our air force aircraft. we have 280 navy ships. in 10 years we would be down to only 230. host: how much were some of the recommended cuts that were made by then secretary gates as he was leaving the bush administration? >> senator gates had a bunch of cuts as well. the number was 487 billion. that is about half a trillion. those cuts were significant as they were.

sequestration just double that. so those were already in the pipeline and they don't count towards the obama administration. 480 $7 billion in defense cups over a decade. about the 2014 budget, the new york times said in an opinion piece that they took their weapons like aircraft carriers and f 35 fighter have to be part of any conversation about cutting pentagon spending. compensation for military personnel has to be on the two.

what do you think? it is inevitable that we will have cost savings across the board. my health care has artie gone up as a military retiree. it is just a matter, and benefits are cut, from a people and what the time. is. you need to take a chisel to military defense spending and not a sledgehammer. it the security of the united states, do think the security in the united states is threatened? guest: i do.

we have seen an orchestrated campaign to get rid of some senior military officers. sunevery reason under the you can imagine why they get released. it is really easy to get fired these days, too. there are so many things we didn't have in the past with social media, the twitter, the hotline calls everywhere. the troops used to have a healthy respect for the chain of command. officers gunfire during world war ii. officers, had mistresses as well. not that that is right, but it was their own business. today it is everybody's business. there's a cultural change today where it is easy to get fired. if you really want to go after people, you can find them. obamae administration has gone out of their way to find them. he is not gone after his political folks who were in charge of the state department.

he hasn't gone after those people. he has not gone after those people like he is gone after senior military officers. that bothers me. how long did you serve in the u.s. navy? caller: 20 years. a caller from the democrats line. caller: first of all, i want to say that anybody that used to be a part of the bush , i don't know how you got the nerve to say anything as deadly as the wars ran when bush was here. and it's on tv and find out what obama has done after the .ollapse of our whole community

obama had to take over the mess that bush contributed. it is mind-boggling to me that you have anything to say about any president who was ever elected after such a calamity. host: jeffrey? your thoughts on what jeff had to say. i think president bush would be the first person to tell you there are some things he could've done differently. vice president cheney would say the same thing. it doesn't give president obama it has to run the government the way it is done. it does give him a pass to have $1 trillion in defense cuts that is going to hollow out the military. it doesn't give him a pass to fired 200 senior military officers for every reason under the sun. evidence of the obama administration of putting officers in places that are more friendly to the administration? no, i wouldn't say that.

i would say we have a 10% cut in officers because of this massive drawdown. if he have those cuts coming down the pipeline and you have any hints of any propriety, even anything that makes a political upset, they would just get rid of an officer. that is dangerous. we have had people serve for 30 years or more and then when there is a controversy they're -- i concur with your caller. this guy is a yellow journalist from "the washington times" that they can't even give away. dare comehat you even on his airways as a retired servicemember. i don't care about your rank, but you are a fraud. this mass, the collapse of the what president obama

was facing behind a joke. they have not admitted to any mistakes, the bush administration. they continue to cover up what they're clowns in the conservative congress to date. they will be on the airwaves saying, i think it was goldman who has seen that bush lied about going to iraq when the world knows it is a lie. host: how do you think history will look at the military strategy of the bush administration? military competence of that administration? going into iraq, everybody believed that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction. everybody believe that was the case around the world. the other thing to recognize is the rationale for going into iraq. we had 9/11.

the dots weren't connected. so president bush's fault was, how can i possibly let something like that happen again? -- andake any action saddam hussein was very aggressive. he was giving money to the families of suicide bombers for -- he was playing games at u.n. weapons inspectors. bush that i cannot let this go. what the united states had another 9/11? is easy to look back and say president bush should've done it that her job, but that doesn't give president obama any kind of excuse for cutting $1 trillion from the defense budget. mini go back to defense cuts for second.

-- let me go back to defense cuts for a second. guest: i had a column earlier were account about how the pentagon must reform the acquisition process. they are two generations ahead, possibly, and they take 10 years . and they go nowhere. it is basically a better

strategy to make incremental improvements. i have read about that too. i think the defense department user ofbeen the best taxpayer dollars. they should not have $1 trillion. let's hear from gary, a republican. everybody keeps praising that man between what he stripped out of the military and with the break he got bubble, the technology that came along that really helped him. finally, please somebody look into the clinton chronicles. looking back to the clinton administration, comparing the military during the two terms guest: area guest: i was it -- two terms. guest: when president clinton came in, it was 1.8 million

active duty. when he left it was 1.3 million. the military was a leader and more efficient organization and. president clinton did preside over a massive drawdown. urge to useat an off the high-ranking officers? what is happening under the obama administration is really prepped -- really unprecedented. caller: we will now go to jamie. --host: we can now go to jamie. spends the united states $182 billion per year in defense . if you add the next 13 countries , they come up to $683 billion per year. next 13 as much as the

countries combined. i don't think we have been any defense with bush or obama. i think we can respond to any conflict with the world. i think we are protecting so many other -- so many other countries out there that when kuwait got overrun by hussein, they impeded us to go in and reclaim their country. in a way we should be charging some of these other countries for protecting them because they have such a minor budget and their defense. against the military. i am a former vietnam veteran. i still believe we need a strong defense. we can't afford to pay the

amount of money -- and i saw a lot of waste. host: guest: we appreciate your call. guest: dennis was right. in libya the u.s. spent $1 million to get them out of power. they spent a fraction of that cost. europe would get the tens of thousands of refugees from -- from libya. the u.s. did the heavy lifting in the first three weeks. we fired 98% of the tomahawks. we did 80% of the physician. we turned overks to our nato allies after the air defenses were polarized in libya. parliamenth european this summer. toldayed a message, i european members of parliaments that they better do more to help

with united states. states is shouldering a lot of the burden. nato relies specifically on u.s. power. dennis's point is very well taken. about $628e talked billion was more than the next 13 combined. has that historically remained about the same? re: just that forehead of other countries in terms of defense spending? guest: we are now but china is growing. while we are doing that now, the is the reason we have challenge as significantly as the germans in world war i and world war ii. we learned our lesson. if you are weak you are going to get attacked. headline ins the yesterday's "wall street journal.

they say that u.s. officials are concerned that if they curtail the flights that have flown over , into the airk defense identification zone, that could lead to a far greater threat of instability. what do you think is going on in terms of the administration, what they are trying to do by showing u.s. force. >> i think they're doing the right thing with china. they want to make sure that china is not aggressive with neighbors. for 12 years.d the pacific command is doing a great job. china cannot bully its neighbors

like that. tona is not only trying bully japan over disputed territories but they are doing the same with several other countries, malaysia, vietnam, the philippines. the spratly islands has resources. petroleum asuch the country of kuwait. it could be a flashpoint as well. as china grows in their economy, they grow in their military, and they become more aggressive. they want those resources, the fast resources and petroleum that are in the spratly item that spratly islands. the u.s. is doing a good job of pushing back on china. >> i want to ask more broadly about the obama administration national security strategy. we heard the president will be speaking this week, sending out his national security gold.

to set new national security goals, they say. a new strategy is being drafted at a time when obama faces questions over his counterterrorism policy -- what you think the biggest challenges are for the administration in terms of a broader national security policy? is counterterrorism policies are bit disjointed. has killed 3000 people in hundreds of drone strikes. the bush administration has had dozens of drone strikes. aggressive, hey is very soft on terrorists in detention. he is trying to",. what president obama is not telling people is that due to a lack of evidence -- if you put

them in the united states a lot of judges will say i am going to relief you. i don't believe there is a lot -- enough evidence to hold you. we are asking for it. president obama is not leveling with the american people over guantanamo detainees. why is president obama spending ,o much time, effort, resources when at the same time he is fighting for more rights in al qaeda. do you think it is likely that he will ever be able to bring any of those detainees to justice here in the continental u.s.? guest: that all depends on what happens at the elections in 2014. if they win a house, sure president obama is going to be able to do something like that. the only reason he is able to quote -- he is not able to close speakermo is because

boehner is leader in the house of representatives and he will never let that happen. president obama will not be able to close guantanamo. jd gordon had this piece in "washington times" last wednesday -- let's go to north carolina. independent line. caller: thank you for taking me on. i respect commander gordon for his service. i too am a retired officer. by the things he says by the commander-in-chief. it is double-sided. president ofe

china. the president was doing everything to focus in that arena. yet still, with all the political whiting, he was able to go to a very important meeting. cutbacks, how the president is gutting the military. i retired back in 2000. the military started looking and holding commanders, senior commanders, accountable. holde president does not his senior leadership accountable than it shows lack of leadership. unfortunately i have seen too often junior folks take the blood of all the mistakes the senior officers did. i believe it is about time we do hold the senior military. let's take up the sequestration. that was not the president's intent.

we can't even come together as a unit. and you, commander, knowing as a ofder, you cannot be a team one. host: thank you for weighing in. sequestration and the point about officers. guest: i appreciate his call. if he wants president obama to keep people accountable, why keep the treasury department and irs accountable for what they did to conservative groups i'm making it so hard to register. i think they are only looking at half of the coin there. i want to go to the case of the to navy officials, this

is the headline in the new york times about the admirals dealing with the firm in the pacific. axiswere stripped of their to classified information on friday. take this case as an example in

terms of disciplining officers. from what you're hearing on this case, is this being approached in the proper way? i'm glad you brought up that story. that was the final straw about why i wrote that column. vice admiral branch and i served together in hawaii. i worked with him for about a year. --on't think you can buy it you can find a better officer than ted branch. he is a vice admiral now. getcould admiral branch involved in something like this? i found that it was something going back to the early 2000's, -- ithe commanding officer found out the navy did not want to talk about him except for saying he was engaged in

inappropriate conduct. i felt he got unfairly fired because of this. very few or no questions asked. i don't think he did anything wrong. i have known him for years. it is too easy to get fired today. >> that means he's done, he is out of the navy? guest: they took his clearance away. host: why isn't there a judicial process to losing command in these cases? guest: there should be. the way the military works, you serve in the -- you serve in the pleasure of the commander-in- chief. you can be fired with the snap of a finger. that has always been how it's been -- that's always how it's been. in the civil war it happened a lot. if you are not effective on the battlefield you were going to get fired. today we do not have the same metrics. we cannot measure in the same places like iraq or afghanistan.

by and large they get involved for you -- they get involved with rumored innuendo. host: they got fired for poker chips. was he -- a got fired for poker chips. host: was he found guilty for that or was it still being adjudicated? guest: it doesn't take much to get fired. -- ibama administration have a strategy of making the military smaller and weaker. guest: at what rank dozen officer serve --[indiscernible] at what rank dozen officer serve the president? guest: a four-star admiral for

sure. three-star admiral, depending on what command they get. all officers, every single officer serves at the pleasure of the commander in chief. any officer could be fired instantaneously. position,ou lose that do you lose your pension? guest: sometimes. i don't think vice admiral branch would lose any pensions. beot of times you have to approved if you retired as a four-star. he may retire at a lower rank. from arkansasear on the republican line. readr: i have a question

in 2011 there was a national defense authorization act which called for the indefinite the tension of american citizens without being charged for a crime. branch was executive the one that pushed for that to be in there. i also had heard that one of the reasons why they were being purged to be asked the question -- will they fire on american citizens? would they or would they not fire on american citizens? if they said no, they were getting rid of them. i was wondering if you heard anything about that. host: i heard rumors to that effect but i do not have any concrete evidence it is happening anywhere. a lot of people think president -- he has had for u.s.

killeds overseas withdrawn strikes did he was born in new mexico, spiritual leader of al qaeda. he did not have a trial, he just got killed with a drone strike. is not outis good he there anymore, but it is hard to say i want to give a teeny's constitutional rights when , their comrades are key leaders in the fight against the u.s.. the two policies did not make any sense. people at the white house a running these programs. a headline here in "the washington post" --

let's go to hawley in wilmington, north carolina. the full -- the wars under the bush administration is the first time we cut taxes. i am unbelievably irresponsible. anything would have offset the costs. sequestration is

-- the defense department needs -- we are going have a serious crisis. if the defense department starts -- stop spending money, we may put party put 40 -- first. serious budgetave concerns ahead. in 2025 we may not be able to even afford the congressional office. budget goes to mandatory spending, which is things like social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment. it was back in world war ii that it was a fraction of the budget. if we don't get a hold of the spending, we are not even going to be able to afford a military at all. her point is a good one. way to haveigure a

our revenues at such a level that we can sustain ourselves. it is very hard to do because any member of congress or of the senate, if they try to cut a lot of the programs they will be voted out of office. here is broken arrow, oklahoma. good morning, you are on the air. caller: i am going to make a short comment. i want to describe what an independent is. it is a democrat who is against abortion. obamas probably the best president we have ever had. i have seen a bunch of them. that is all i have to say.

let's hear from eugene in jackson mississippi. welcome. i want to talk to mr. gordon about the military here. the reduction force occurs under eisenhower in 1955. at that time it was overloaded --h field grade officers did field grade officers. they are overloaded with you tenant colonels, colonels, and brigadier generals. they get rid of the least qualified ones they have. what this man and republicans are doing, just like the soviet union did in the 1970's. --rything the sun unit

everything the soviet union did they blamed america for it. branch of the one military that is overloaded with personnel? i would say the army in particular, because of the need to have so many crown trips in that many ground troops in iraq and afghanistan. can sequestration you double it. host: did you go through annapolis c e -- through annapolis? caller: i would through the rotc at penn state. they see as wars and and budgets shrink, i want to read a comment on the jump page --

guest: i agree. i served with him at the pentagon. we are going to have the ability to have boots on the ground all around the world. we have more drones and they are going to continue. you have to have ground troops. you have to have the ability to going to places and get rid of guys like osama bin laden. we have got to keep ground forces. the: do they need to be at

levels we have for iraq and afghanistan? not right now. i think the military could have some but that could have some cutbacks, not the massive level resident obama is trying to do. on trillion dollars is too much. 20% of air force aircraft, way too much. the military could be chiseled, could be trimmed. but not hit with a sledgehammer. that is what i think president obama is doing. host: let's hear from linda. caller: good morning. i do agree the pentagon can be cut militarily. so far down in the toilets you cannot flush it anymore. that all of our military guys and gals out there will defend the american people

when it comes time -- saying how republicans are bad. we will be the first one screaming for protection when the time comes. i thank every military person out there. new jersey, republican line, mike. i want to thank you for your service. i was wondering what his president obama possibly reducing the officers because of she wants to give more control to the u.n. over our troops. i think president obama looks to the u.n. as something he wants to work with -- he wants the united states to be a country out of 190 something.

he talked about u.s. power as something. i think the united states have acted in the interest of a freedom agenda around the world. he gives you that throughout our history. those wars would have been lost. i think the united states has been a force for good. everybody is equally the same. -- ink part of his strategy ont: back to the headlines afghanistan, front page of "the washington post" -- this is the agreement being signed, or supposed to be signed with afghanistan. a right -- -- they write --

what should the administration do here you go -- to hear? think the administration should press president karzai to sign the agreement. he have to be able to stay in afghanistan because if we don't have some troops there the taliban may not cap the karzai government. inqaeda would be right back the mountains and we would be right back to the area before 9/11.

i think these administrations are pushing as hard as they can. he is not doing it because he does not want to be a lame duck president. agreement,ns that not only will he incur the wrath of people against it but people will not listen to him anymore. i think he is trying to avoid a lame duck type scenario. i think the administration needs to keep pushing that paul. we have to get that agreement signed. not the number we have now but we have to have something. host: this is florida, independent line. good morning, commander gordon. i want to thank you for your service to our country. i am a former air force veteran. children in public schools and they're very confused in what is going on in our government.

they want to go in and serve our country. on the other hand they are confused. givekind of advice can you a young person in middle school or high school? i think you should encourage them to join the military. the military is still a great force. we are making a difference around the world today. there is hope for political leadership in washington. i think people should still consider the military as a career. people that are joining up to serve around the country and serve around the globe, we are not going to have a military. i think political leadership is going to come around one day.

shouldn't dissuade people from joining the military. more than 200 years of history, the military has been there, they have answered the call, and they need patriots to keep joining up. host: you run your own communications firm. thank you for being here. guest: thank you, i appreciate it. host: we are back in just a moment with more of sunday's "washington journal closed quote -- of sunday's "washington journal." ♪

>> c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house -- all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now you can watch us in hd. look that he had on his face, i could close my eyes and i could see him on the stretcher. i could see him putting his hand up, i could see his eyes. i will never forget that first , bringing me to reality of what was going on here. triage.s this initial

the team starts to work. we got pulled in, myself and my colleagues that wrote the forward. we both got pulled in. the other team wanted us to begin right away. they did not want us to be by standards. we said you have to get involved right away. once they did that and they pulled us in, it was like a jolt. now you have to act, now you have to be a doctor, now you have to be a surgeon, you have to be a care provider. you have to talk your emotional way and just worked out. you have one objective. you have to get him back home to his family.

>> in his first book, dr. hassan about working in afghanistan, tonight on c-span's "q&a." burress,h us is trevor a research fellow at the cato institute. we are here to talk about the status of voting rights across the country. we were expecting to be joined york.dy from new we are having some satellite issues. thank you for being here this morning. we are having this discussion as voting rights begin to change across the country in the wake of the supreme court case this morning, the shelby case. take us back to june of this year at the decision the court made. it was a very groundbreaking decision. i support the decision of the court.

in order to get a handle of what the case is actually about, you have to get a handle on the voting rights act. was an unprecedented piece of legislation that congress passed at lbj signed in order to fix the incredible disenfranchisement of african- american voters. one of the provisions of that put in nine states, the entire confederacy, under the supervision of the federal government where in the federal government presumes they are racist. after that they have to go to either the department of justice or the district court in d.c., and they would not even go to the federal judges in the south. they were concerned about those judges not being complicit and the racism. they have to prove that anything they changed in licensing laws or anything like that with the federal government. typewas an unprecedented

of infringement, but i feel was necessary. it was the last straw. your government is being implicit in its disenfranchisement of african americans. all the stories we have heard about literacy tests or publishing people's names in the , people could go in and intimidate them. when the supreme court heard this, they were looking at the provision list describing which states would be covered. they said that every state that did not have 50% voter turnout and use a literacy test was covered. that covered every confederacy state. host: was that among african- americans? guest: total.

it was 60% african-american voting. that is thisout of is a form by which we put all the states under federal supervision. in 1975 -- more states were brought in. you get this hodgepodge of states. parts of south dakota, new hampshire, alaska, texas. the question was to we need to update this formula after 40 years of using the exact same formula and pretending that the south are just as racist as they were in 1968 or 1964 or 1972? it seems clear that we should have to update that formula because of how extreme what congress did. this is why we are treating our state differently.

formula,'t update the they just reauthorized it. actinally the voting rights was so extreme that it only offers five years. host: you mentioned parts of south dakota, california. what did the supreme court rule specifically? they described the different formulas for which the different states and counties were included. they needed to be updated. congress can update it. needs to acknowledge that racism is not what it was in this countries. it was obviously really bad and

it still exists. we need to ask congress to do a little bit more to show they are going to treat some of the states as if they are presumptively racist. all of them are presuming racism in a very strange tactic of the federal government. we are talking about changes in voting laws since the supreme court decision in june. you can join us by phone -- the supreme court makes this decision in june but changes in voting rights and voting laws have been underway for the last couple of years. guest: most are voter id laws. they have been coming mostly out of republican states.

rhode island did pass one with a democratic governor. under those laws, under the formula the supreme court struck down, that is the kind of law a pre-t state would have to clear with the department of justice or with the district court of d.c.. now that is not true anymore because there are no cover states essentially. so south carolina, the doj object did to south carolina law. that is another part of the voting rights act that we can discuss, how it was later applied. all of that is open for voter id laws to go across the country. courtdid the supreme decision say anything and particular about voter id echo

guest: -- voter id? guest: it is the type of lot that affects an election and it would be under the preclearance provision of section five of the voting rights act. now the formula that determines whether or not you are cleared, no states are under that supervision anymore or municipality. voter id would have disproportional racial effects. the obamader administration has been stopping a bunch of those provisions. have some of them been cleared? guest: south carolina is allowed to stand, more or less. indiana went to the supreme court in 2008 and indiana was not a covert state at that point. it is a different question on whether or not it meets the voting rights act qualification. host: we just had election in

virginia. any circumstantial evidence in terms of how it went? guest: we are looking for evidence going forward. of lawyersot a lot on the case. there are two lawyers in the voting rights division of the doj. in the attorney's office they are looking for voting fraud. because my guest is not here i will give an idea on what she would say. 11% of americans would have difficulty getting an id. those would be disproportionately poor and minority voters. the disenfranchisement would be -- and that is something they oppose.

i think that is extremely high. it is the highest number we have seen with any studies. voter turned out -- voter turnout increased. 6.7% for 2008, that is the obama affect. even in 2010 am increased seven percent. it is very hard to see how much this disenfranchises minorities. admit that some burden on voting will cause someone to not vote. someone may say we are not going to walk that far. we need to balance these with trying to protect the integrity of our elections and making sure people are not being disenfranchised by fraud. host: walter on the line,

talking about voting rights. i think it is in the interests of the gop to have a low turnout. this is something i have had debates with some people before. of tying thisvor to politics as much as some people are. disenfranchised people who are minorities and lower income status because they're going to vote democrat. and on the right you have the gop saying the democrats want to and lose -- people to disenfranchise people and loosen up restrictions. most of the effects are going to marginal. both sides have principles animating what they're saying, rather than pure politics. i will not deny that some people will say that in addition to having justifiable and predictable and law and order

elections, as the gop will say, we'll disenfranchised some democrats. the democrats will say that having broader people voting, we will cut more rotors. i think there's more principle on both sides. clark is on the democrats line. good morning. caller: it is obvious to are closing they the polls early, teenagers are registering early. in some places there was a reduction of -- it is too obvious. if you are an african american, you are going to see this. host: this is some of your experience in wisconsin? caller: yes.

i am paying attention to the whole thing. you can go online and read it in the newspaper. voter id they are doing other things. i would commend to you my center has a- the study of voter modernization. very goodat is a study. i do not agree with all of it. i do agree that generally we can marginalize our voting system to a greater degree to have the levels of not stand -- to not have low levels of standing in line and things you discussed. there are countries that do voting better that we do -- then we do. i would have to look at the specific provisions to figure out if they are not taxable. able.t hack- there are parts on both sides. if we have no. as to voting, we would have more

voter fraud. barriers, we would have some disenfranchisement. part of this is saying people will vote less in elections that they think are rigged. that is another problem. this is from the organization think progress --

guest: i don't like the idea of suppressing the african american voters, that sounds like there is no good reasons to do any of those provisions except for trying to suppress the vote. i think those provisions need to be weighed against a burden. this would disproportionately fall against minorities. i think voter fraud also disproportionately falls on minorities. of voter id requirements, the laws that have all have free ids available for anyone who can -- given the things you have to have an id for in modern life, whether it is buying liquor or going into the pharmacies to get certain types isdrugs, given that it increasingly becoming the case

that americans have to have id all the time and they are not 82%edibly persuaded, with in support of voter id. it is a burden when you have provisional ballots and other types of -- other ways of voting for people who cannot afford types of papers. new york, republican line. caller: i would like to know if i am correct. at the end of the clinton , he took away the rights of our military voters to vote where they are stationed. a navy person on the ship was able to vote from the ship and that was stopped. four percent of our military's votes have been counted.

within a year after a vote is taken, they're supposed to be a schedule for finding out what percentage of the military, how mena -- how much their vote got counted. can you tell me why the military's vote, which supposedly votes mostly republican, how that happened? there have been some changes to military voting to some degree. most military voters -- most military voters vote by absentee ballot, which are counted later than the election day results. they also create a ton of their own sort. most of the fraud is through absentee ballot fraud. in terms of military voting rates, i have seen different numbers on this.

i have got sued much in terms of disenfranchisement of them. core amahhoosh of the nothing -- bush versus gore, nothing came out of the case. pat is on the independent line. question firsta and then based on your response i would like to clarify something. formula you were talking about that was struck down, when was that? this is why it is worth pointing out. 1965, they used the 1964 election to bring in the united states and confederacy. results, they did not exactly galvanize a lot of excitement from the voters.

voter turnout was generally low. but these the same provisions. this was for sample when three boroughs will rot and in 1968. in 1968.rought in different counties to california, that had to bring in the hispanic vote measures and language discrimination for english only ballots in a place for minorities away five percent. that is where we get all of the states. it hadn't been updated since. when was the formula struck down the echo it becomes relative because when you talk about modernizing this voting right -- and this is very important because nationally there is a misunderstanding .bout the 13th amendment

and becomes very important how you go through the states. you talk about immigration rights and when we say we are post-civil rights, all of that becomes relative. it is almost going back and saying you did not do that mandate your supports to do -- you were supposed to do. you have to go back and make that correction to those mistakes before you put lipstick you have to give it right. some of us know that even after martin luther king and the leaders who support it what his that some of us

continued on after 1968, so we understand what the problems are. unfortunately we do not have this kind of -- and thank you very much for bringing this issue. it gives me an opportunity to , can we get some clarification here. the voter rights act of 1965 was an incredible remedy for an incredible problem. the federal government had abandoned the south in the post- civil war era by not properly enforcing the 14th amendment and 15th amendment and then making a to end the reconstruction era and leave everything to jim crow. then they had come back in the 60s and fixed -- and fix what they should have fixed earlier

on. i do want to make the points that because they did not up to the formula, it started to make the relevance of the act to modern times it it's tenuous -- modern times a little bit tenuous. what happened with the voting rights act and the subsequent supreme court decisions, it hurt african-american prospects and a number of ways. the voting rights act became a -minority of majority districting. and is an interesting question because you have this idea that only african-americans can possibly represent african- americans or possibly only democrats can represent african- americans. you actually got was you increasingly got drawing of voting districts with african- americans and then the congressional black caucus members being voted in those districts and then being more extreme in general than the rest

of the democrats in congress. and then at the same time, as part of a compromise, drawing leach districts on the outside. you have african-american districts that voted for extreme black caucus members and then white districts in georgia that voted for more conservative members. there was no longer integration that was part of this. separate butf equal. i am glad you brought up around. we cannot have separate his tricks to say we are in equal in that way. african-americans have a separate district and that is representation. it had this idea of who represent african-americans. they had an incredible privilege that minorities don't have to they were given the ability to elect candidates of their choice

-- didn't have to. they were given the ability to elect candidates of their choice. i think that has hurt african- american prospects because they are marginalized in the congress . it has also hurt them because they have failed to give at -- effectively at large candidates. to have been only for african- american senators that have been elected by general elections in the united states history. senators have to have more moderate viewpoints. if you wanted to go for the house and then want to become a senator, they generally cannot be elected. barack obama, being the big example. host: he is the graduate that rrus.r -- trevor bu

what got you involved in state voting rights laws? i deeply care about voting and voting rights being effective. i deeply care about that in the places where we should be voting on things. i think it is very important. i think we would agree on that, -- i thinkimportant voter fraud is starting to hurt the poorest among us. is why i think voter id is important. i don't think it should be too restrictive but it is important to maintain the rate -- maintain the integrity of our elections. we did get a chart from the brennan center of justice, and one of those was to look at expanding access to voting in 2013. a number of states are listed here. we talked about voting laws restricting voting.

what would be an example of a state voting -- a state expanding voting access. guest: this is an issue that has come up a lot. prohibiting felons from voting. host: it allows states to do that. guest: it has a disproportionately racial effect. on the be with wendy issue that i think felons, extremender extremely circumstances, should be allowed to vote. disenfranchising them is not a very good idea. have an interest in criminal law and they have experience with that.

i am not sure i would open it up to all felons. lowering the requirements and increasing modernization is an --mple of expanding voting voter registration. i am curious about montana and north dakota. states with small african- american populations, small minority populations. restrictive laws are passed in those states. last i knew, you can vote an illegal alien. it is pretty loose in north dakota, generally speaking. would agree with this in principle. when you up the requirements, whether you say it is photo id, proof of residency, that is restricting the vote for some

degree for people who cannot get that. rank the strictness of voter id law in different ways. whether you get original balloting or all of these different issues. that is how they rank them on those charts. host: what about the cato institute. do you poll on that? not poll on that. we do not have positions. most people say voter id would be a good idea, but not too restrictive. it would have cost that we would not want, especially for disenfranchising minorities and poor people. democrats' on the line. --ler: just saying there are there is voter fraud does not make it so. i live in pennsylvania and we

have had one documented fraud case in the past, i don't know how many years. suddenly, we need these voter -- voter changes in order to prevent voter fraud. republican -- i think it is our senate majority this id- who said change would deliver the presidency to romney. fortunately, our state supreme court delayed any decision on that matter until after the election. review onave some some of these new laws. thing is, if we change the law like this, which i eachily disagree with,

state should be responsible to make sure those citizens -- i do not mean that citizens should have to be running all over the place to find out where their birth certificates are. it is very difficult sometimes. overve relatives that came from canada in the 1920s. finding their birth certificates has been difficult. our government should be responsible. there should deep laces where you can phone and get help to find the id -- there should be where you cans phone and get help to find the id's. in texas, you can have a gun registration card, but a student cannot use a student id. host: we will get a response.

guest: there are differences all over the place about how much of voter fraud there is. in any crime, prosecutions are a small percentage of how much there is. how much you enforce it would lower how much there is voter fraud. not --ould save it does would say it does not make a lot of sense to impersonate someone at the polls to add one vote for a federal candidate, which is a five-year prison sentence if you were caught doing that. you have to combine how long the prison sentence is with how likely the person is going to be caught. you have to think about how it works. often, you have to get the election official to a test to the fact that they remember that to the fact that

they remember the person's face. we have examples, richard cavalcade of voter fraud of different types. there are examples of different people being caught, paying homeless people to vote. just go in there and say you are anyone and vote. those are true. it is an overstatement to say impersonation and voter fraud does not exist. there are impersonations -- prosecutions every year. it is hyperbole to say it does not exist. you have to remember what you said about easing the wait for people to get the documents they need. the voter id laws have -- idions to get free ids

's. in these laws. how you accommodate the difficulty people have is important. it could likely be ruled unconstitutional. there are people who will not be able to vote with voter id. it is important to maintain the integrity of our elections so people believe in the results. throughout the rest of the world, if the losers think it is a -- is not a fair election, you could have gunfire. that is what happened in mexico. 30 years of oppressive rule without the opposition party getting any say until they policyted the voter id come a which is a thumbprints. there is a case in greene county, georgia where the whole county was so corrupt. the whole county was so corrupt

that after the fed came in and fixed the problem, people suddenly felt they had representation in the county. they actually thanked prosecutors for cleaning up these elections. voter turnout went up because they felt that their rights were not taken away by a fraudulent vote on the other side. host: we hear from montana next. bob, hello. republican line. caller: i am concerned about the nuclear options that loading the courts with democrats could circumvent the decision by the secreting court. can i get your opinion on that please? have an increasing partisan divide amongst republicans and democrats. will alsor option

allow the republicans to appoint , assuming it stays in place, more extreme republican , which probably could not have passed the filibuster before. on thesea big schism voter rights laws. i think there is a rational conversation. it is astounding how partisan it is. partisan,hing is this i imagine that virus -- that bias is controlling it. all of of these cases, the judges that voted to overturn the voter id law were appointed by democrats. the only real crossover we had was rhode island. there is a concerned about how many of these judges would be polarized on this. the supreme court will not be able to review a lot of these. the supreme court is still

filibusterable, if that is a word, for some time. is doingvor burrus yeoman's were talking about voter id laws. supreme court cuts key part of landmark voter rights act with the conservatives in the majority. the court ruled in favor of officials in shelby county, alabama, i declaring unconstitutional parts of the law. the formula that starts -- the formula needs federal approval. you can join the conversation by phone. , for republicans.

, for democrats and 202-585-3882 four all others. for all others. caller: voters down here in the south, you have to show those things. what i wanted to ask is this. you made your vote. when you made your vote, that counted. now we have elect oral colleges of their -- elect oral -- el ector colleges up there. they have taken it out of the hands of the people. you cannot have a good independent party because everybody wants to say, if you

are independent, you are taking a vote away from a republican or a democrat. toral college is in the constitution. they could not figure out how to elect the president. it was possible to have congress pass certain votes about the president. that would make the president too dependent on congress. they had not produced good results because someone ruled south carolina and would not have an idea about a candidate in another state. al terms of the elector college, that is an issue. you might be talking about the .irect election of senators it used to be that state legislators appointed senators

to the congress and made them like ambassadors to the states. ectoral college changes the way they'll map works. it changes the influence of theler states -- the way map works. host: we go to las vegas, nevada. this is david for trevor burrus. caller: there is voter fraud. by voter fraud conducted somebody pretending to be someone else in the voting booth is so minute it is not worth talking about. i was born and raised in chicago. dead people voting. that wasn't done by dead people voting or somebody pretending to

be dead. these people were registered as democrats and they were stuck in as having voted. gangeen harris and her went to updating the voter rolls by eliminating the felons. they eliminated houses of legitimate non-felon people with the right to vote. voter fraud is being conducted by the people counting the votes. it is important. that is a good point. absentee ballots in the machine type of voting. it does not mean we should not have voter id to some extent to try to make sure. the pew research center had 1.8 million deceased voters nationwide on the roles. we had another 2.7 5 million who -- 2.75te -- two point

million people who could vote in two states. there are a lot of examples. i agree with you in general. host: david, are you still there? caller: yes. voting for dead people, they are still in the -- when theyes -- rolls die. second of all, unless you personally know that person was registered and died, you would not know who they were. how would some stranger go and impersonate that person? host: thanks for your call. we could have a discussion about how legitimate james o'keefe is. you can go to the obituary and

the names ofh people who recently died in obituaries. there was prosecution on that and james o'keefe was able to do that in numerous states. host: susan on our republican line. hello, go ahead. my main concern -- i was discussing this. we are all republicans. i do not see how we can get another republican president when we have two thirds of hispanics voting democrat and over 90% of -- of african- americans voting democrat. how can we get another republican president in office? great question. coming from the libertarian cato institute, we have our own answer. it is important that the

republican party become more libertarian. lostnk republicans have hispanics in a shameful fashion. if you look at ronald reagan and his views on immigration in the 1980s, you would be amazed at how open he is. the hispanic population is a would-be republican voting population if they would become good on immigration. they can understand how bad government can be because they are often coming from bad government. they are often very religious. hispanic vote the is to become better on immigration. host: hispanics are not happy with the justice department. a piece in the minneapolis star tribune over the weekend. "lack ofine is, justice department action in los angeles. "lack of justice

department action in los angeles." the justice department has not moved on evidence. nearly half of the 10 million people in the nation's largest county are latino. lyrical boundaries redrawn in 2011 make it possible for latino voters to elect just one of the five supervisors. the administration has resisted calls to sue the county despite the county's distort history of discrimination. guest: there are a few things to realize. you see the thing about reducing the influence of hispanic voters . that is still in effect because section two was rewritten in 1982. reducing the influence is a ethical or legal standards. a municipalityen expands, that can reduce the influence. it takes a more white suburb of

hispanic voting. the second point is that the justice department has been shameful on a lot of these issues in terms of being evenhanded on how they apply these standards. there are a lot of stories that came out of this and how politicized the civil rights division of the justice is.rtment generally they refuse to prosecute a new black panther voting intimidation case. there are people in the holder justice department who believe notvoting rights act should be applied against minorities. had two guys standing at the polling place. those are other issues about the discretionary prosecution under holder that are cause of great concern. for hispanic voting nla, you can have a conversation about in l.a.,t is -- voting

you can have a conversation. we haven't african-american president elected terry at 39% was his white voter total. elected with 39%, which was his white voter total. it brings for the separate but equal voting thing, which we should have forgotten in brown. host: kelly is on the independents line. theer: i am wondering why conversation about the new voting law is just focusing on the id. there are a lot of cities and ortes that have passed laws are working on passing laws that are restricting the number of days you can vote him of the

are, some of the states cutting back on the times as far as 7:00 for voting. you have all of these people who cannot get off of work. vote.s restricting the i am not understanding why that is not part of the conversation as well. guest: i am for voter modernization if it is done effectively to reserve the integrity of our elections. there is a general truth that -- thectively to preserve integrity of our elections. some of the states have been rolling these back. in some cases, there are budgetary concerns. are generally left to the states. many of these could have been attached to the voting rights act the four please -- before preclearance was put down by the supreme court.

voters should try to influence their politicians. courts.tion is for the can you create a standards by which they should say, you have to keep the polls open five days . they would simply be legislating voting practices. we should always be concerned about the ability of courts to draw these kind of lines. host: trevor burrus is a fellow at the cato research institute. at can read more about him cato.org. , thank you for manning the show and being with us. coming up next, we will hear about an update on the health care.gov website. a white house reporter tweeting about some of the comments so far saying that the website is

"night and day from where it was." " continues.journal >> after the success at bunker hill, they said, you can go up to canada to regroup.

they come back to new york city and he knows he cannot face them. he cannot beat them head to head. he has got to use espionage and guerrilla warfare. he has got to be able to anticipate them. needs a spy force. he needs his own cia. then you find out he has this huge espionage background. he is a noted dive from the french-indian war. he went out of his way -- he is from the french- indian war. he says, you have to find these people to help me out. >> a little-known spy ring may have saved the revolution. tonight at 9:00 on "after words ," part of booktv on c-span 2. on august 9, 1974, vice

president ford was sworn in. this is the dress mrs. ford was wearing at the swearing-in ceremony in the east wing of the white house. she was excited about becoming first lady. president ford encouraged her saying, we can do this. do this, if i have to i am going to have fun doing it. within 10 days, she had a state dinner to entertain king hussein of jordan. it is something she had to do to prepare for her role as first lady. lady betty ford monday night at 9:00 eastern live on c- span and c-span 3. also on c-span radio and c- span.org. >> it was shocking. i saw it, that look he had on his face. i could close my eyes and i could see him on the stretcher. i could see him putting his hand up. i could close my eyes and i could see it. i will never forget that first case, that's bringing me to reality of what was going on

here -- that bringing me to reality of what was going on here. after he got into the tent, there was that initial triage. the team starts to work. we got pulled in, myself and my colleague who wrote the forward. we both got pulled in because the other team wanted us to begin right away. they did not want us to be bystanders. they said, you guys have to get involved right away. once they did that and they pulled us in, it was like, wake up. now you have to act. you have to be a doctor. you have to be a surgeon. you have to be a care provider. you have to dismiss your

emotions and talk that away, what you are feeling, and just work. you have one of objective. you have to save this guy's life. >> he uses his own experience as a physician working with soldiers in afghanistan. more tonight at 8:00 on c-span's "q & a." >> "washington journal" continues. the: for the remainder of program, we will look at the latest results from the center for medicare. we are focusing on the fixes made to healthcare.gov. we are going to get your thoughts on the latest news care.gove health website. , for republicans.

202-585-3880 four democrats. for democrats -- for democrats. we are looking at the stats released on the system stability and capacity. they say the uptime has been .ersistently surpassing 90% this was just released this morning. system capacity, software and hardware upgrades to support its intended volume. based on usage trends, the site will support more than 800,000 consumer visits per day. this is the latest news we are healthcare.gov website. this is the reporting of the

associated press on the news coming out about healthcare.gov. they write to that the government claims that more than 50,000 people can log onto its troubled website. ,000 people will be allowed to shop for insurance each day. the first weeks were plagued by technical errors. officials say the website is improved, but acknowledge it is far from perfect. there is no way to independently verify the administration's figures. even with the repairs in place, the site will not be able to do everything the administration wants. companion sites for small business and spanish speakers have been delayed. westerners remain about the stability of the sites. the top line though -- questions remain about the stability of the site.

thoughts on that news and your experience in general with the healthcare.gov website or your state exchange website. for republicans. and585-3880 for democrats , 202-585-3882.s usingay that healthcare.gov is a more pleasant experience than it used to be. it is still not where it should have been october 1. the early success of the policy still hangs in the balance. leading up to its weekend deadline to get the site working, obama administration officials assure the public that

the vast majority of users would-be able to use it. 80% oft majority means users. the site is able to handle 50,000 simultaneous users. that was the goal for october 1, the day when five times that many try to access the site at once. there were less visible issues. officials are having trouble with files that transfer enrollment information to insurers. right but not encouraging that the obama ministration extended the date by which people have to apply to get coverage. that is risky. insurers will only have 8 days to work out the logistics of a rolling those signing up late this month. the opinion of the washington post as we go to our first caller. pat is in texas on the independents line. pat, go ahead. say, i i would like to

retired last year and i worked for years. we had computer programs. we had the old system in place make0 days in order to sure it worked correctly. i am not surprised with all of on the website and that they are having problems. i wish people would understand that and not hold it against the president. of the people who is actually doing the work. these are programmers. i really do not understand what people are thinking. host: maryland next up. -- i am sorry. erry in massachusetts. romneycarehave had for some time in massachusetts. wasing it up and running

not the problem. we did that with our own technical glitches. it is taking 72-90 days to get recertified every year. people are losing health coverage in the meantime because it runs out before the state can of date you. that is my concern going forward and health care -- before it can update you. that is my concern with health care for the entire country. host: now we have maryland. caller: i do not see the problems everybody is complaining about. the pages update easily. the system seems to be working fine. every article and every comment continues to be negative. aboutuld be talking more the positive aspects of moving the country in the direction of more health care coverage and stop every other word being somewhat pejorative.

like the ap article. that person could literally wanted to complain again without getting anything positive about what things -- how things are going. thank you for letting me make a comment. host: this is mark noller, the white house correspondent kporting on the news -- mark noller, the white house correspondent. the site is responding well. mary is on the democrats' line. obamacare isthough well into its ability to work, the problem is the government working to provide medical assistance. they are so far behind.

it takes them six months to update them. the programs that have been working all these years still take six months to get somebody enrolled. that obamacare thinks it is going to make it any easier for anybody else. --t: that has been your next this has been your experience well before the onset of obamacare. caller: well before. i worked for the county for 10 years. the backlog is so bad. my daughter has gone without insurance for her children. she went through the regular programs. it took them six months to get on. mainly due to filing paperwork or working from a website like healthcare.gov? caller: it is both. people are not trained to do the website. they do not know how to do it.

they have taken away individual caseworkers and say, whoever answers the phone today, you try to fix the problem. nextext day comes and the day comes and nobody fixes it. host: the news on healthcare.gov this morning. the government claims more than 50,000 people can log onto the site at any one time. more than ,000 will be able to shop for insurance each day. let's hear from josh who is in south carolina, republican line. caller: good morning. i am 30 years old. i was unemployed. now i have a job through the holidays. i am working 2 jobs. why do we have to choose obama's health care?

that it is thed law of the land that you have to have health care. why do we have to go for something that does not seem like it is working from the start? i do not have any problem with the website. i just do not agree with that. my question with a website and all of these complications, why do we have to go through that? host: go ahead. personally, i think we should have options. his country is built on opinions and people's beliefs and freedoms. we should have more than one , this is what is going to happen january 1. me and my wife just got married. we have been married six months. my whole thing is, we cannot offering.t they are

i am working 2 jobs. it is complicated. why can't it be simpler? host: do you have health insurance? caller: i am trying to go through my job. i just got hired. there is sure it is a little different. we are trying to figure out what would be a better option for us. right now, it is like the hundred $33 a month for obama care. like $330 a-- it is month for obamacare. $500 per week. host: a chart from the washington post. the percentage of people who get it from their employer. 49%. through medicaid, 16%.

through medicare, 13%. uninsured, according to the kaiser family foundation, 16%. other public assistance, 1%. that is from the kaiser family foundation reprinted in the ashington post. to virginia -- reprinted in the washington post. ber in virginia. the system prior to the institution of the affordable was broken.act they came together to create a viable solution. to say that it is supposed to be flawless is a bit resumption was. presumptu -- was -

presumptuous. there will be opposition from those who say they cannot afford it. enteral sectora of the population. if we start to look at -- we try sector of theral population. that start to look at instead of trying to elicit a partisan reaction by calling it obamacare, we can help the country. right now, we are focusing on the wrong rings. -- the wrong things. anything that is going to hurt their bottom line is something they are going to contest. host: the miami herald writes that the health-care law will be

part of the 2014 elections. the front page of the miami herald. to be all about obama care. the botched rollout of health listing healthcare.gov gop chances of taking the senate and retaining control of the house. from the miami herald. remember in october 2013 when the government shutdown was going to be disastrous for republicans? now health care is dominant, flipping the tables on democrats, who have the added burden of president barack obama 's declining popularity. tom is in maryland on our democrats' line. go ahead. the gentleman who was calling about the affordable health care act and he does not think he should be forced to buy

it. i do not like to pay federal income tax. but it is the law. the affordable health care act is the law. we have to abide by the law unless we want to pay the consequences. evengentleman does not know how much it is going to cost him compared to what he is paying. he has not made a comparison with the affordable health care act with what he is paying now. he is going by soundbites and was somebody has told him. host: let's go to our republican line, cleveland, tennessee. wanted to comment about is a couple of things. the system has been broken. it is not being fixed. the government has not been able to manage anything correctly. i have security concerns with the system.

any information going in, the security of it. company has always provided good insurance to us. informed us that he will pay no more in insurance that he has been paying in the past and that scares me. host: when did he say this? caller: the insurance he is paying, he would not put any more into the company that he is currently putting into it. in other words, he is watching his bottom line and our company has to watch its bottom line. we have had to cut back to keep an eye on the bottom-line. host: what kind of company is it? -- i wouldould not rather not get into that. ok.:

we have a caller on the independent line. caller: hello. if health care is so good, why doesn't he have it? ?hy doesn't congress have it why have so many exemptions. over 1500 groups are exempt from it. this is a tax. the supreme court ruled this as a tax. this is an obamacare tax. people are going to be taxed. the people exempt from this are never going to be paying this tax. the president said, we are all in this together. we are all in this together except for the tax. he doesn't want to have to pay the tax. if it is so good, why doesn't obama have it? why doesn't the congress have it? this together,n we should all be in it together. that is my comments. -- my comment.

the: cynthia is on democrats' line. i have been an i.t. professional for years. we had more into tiered -- engineers per capita than any state in the united states. why was this procurement outside of our country? i am not hearing more comments about that versus the performance of the website. a lot of people here are unemployed. host: let's hear from texas on the republican line. a registered nurse. intensive care nursing, heart and lung transplants. 41 years.

this is not health care. it has nothing to do in regards to, do no harm. this represents nothing but harm to any facility. the southwestern medical center is where i did a lot of my nursing. i have a license and it says do not harm. a law can be repealed. i hope that he gets that way. this represents nothing but harm to every citizen in the united states. the whole thing has nothing to do with health care at all. i hope to god it is repealed at one time. harmful to anyone, regardless of your age, your

party affiliation. got toarmful and it has go one way or another. that is all i have to say about it. they cube. you. -- thank host: asking you for your comments about healthcare.gov. the government now claiming 50,000 people can log onto its troubled website rate according to the associated press, more 00 people will be able to shop for insurance coverage each day. one of the contractors will oversee the site once he joins the nec. project leaders have been in the seat and they will stay in the seat.

hello. on our independent line. is anyone surprised about this fiasco? the government cannot do anything competently. an increasing percentage of americans look first and foremost to some form of government for food, clothing, shelter, education. now they have relinquished the most personal aspect of their lives to a faceless bureaucrat. we are in trouble. nationbecoming a mandated in dependency. people look at you with a blank faraway stare when you mention hard work and responsibility. one last thing before i leave. we should remember what a beloved leader told us in the not-too-distant past.

ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. thank uyou. talked about the reliance on government. there is a piece in the newspaper about the federal operation. the headline on the piece, the fed's, barely managing. authors say the health care rollout is just one symptom. they write that over the past three decades, global competition has forced corporate to modernize how it manages projects so they can be delivered as efficiently as possible. as chiefl jobs such financial officers, technology officers and procurement executives are considered the least glamorous, a poor second to policymaking and politics. gary on the democrats' line.

would like to point out that not a single reporter in the past year has mentioned anything about the mccarron- ferguson act. the act that exempts all insurance companies from antitrust laws. 1944 after then insurance industry rank rolled the political campaigns --b rolled the political campaigns of everyone in the house and senate. will basically defeat any kind of free-market aspect to the affordable care act. shield, cigna,e humana, all of our -- blue

shield, cigna, humana. senator patrick leahy has been trying to kill the mccarron- ferguson act. he has not and getting coverage for it. -- senatorin he patrick leahy is trying to make this a little more visible. care the fixes to health --healthcare.gov. inside the race to rescue a health site, and obama. slow to grasp insurance pote -- problems,portal's white house had to play catch- up. they shuffled into the oval office on the evening of october 15. president obama's chief domestic

accomplishment was falling apart. the 630 million dollar insurance marketplace was a disaster after it went over 630 millionlion -- $630 online insurance marketplace was a disaster after we went live october 1. for 90 minutes, a frustrated president peppered his team with questions, drilling into the design asutia of web he struggled to understand the crisis that suddenly threatened his presidency. let's go to new hampshire.

re on the republican line. caller: good morning. it is beyond my comprehension. the government had three years to set this program up. it is just a fiasco at this time. i have heard many people refer awfuls aca as the catastrophic affair. that is apparently what it looks like. if it is going to be the law of the land, everybody should be involved. get rid of these exemptions that are politically motivated. thank you. host: a couple more minutes of your phone calls. john, hello there. i just wanted to give a quick shout out to everybody who

put obama and not an in office. i bet you look pretty stupid now. nothing toward the promises he claimed he was going to do. no one is looking at the bigger picture. host: john, are you there? let's go to him, who is in columbus, ohio. 2:00 i last night at signed up for obama care. i was paying 279 dollars for my insurance. my insurance went down to -- $279 for my insurance. my insurance went down to $150. how are people who are making to mentione -- not my supervisor. i do not know how much she makes

, but she was saying her insurance went down. i am trying to figure out how people do not make close to that much money are saying that their insurance went up. i have one last point. this bill cannot be stopped. i am sure everybody knows at this point. i am trying to figure out what is our purpose for acting like this bill is getting ready to kill people. it is a health-care bill for americans. love my american people enough of to make sure they get health care, that is the part i am tired of. saying they want people to pay for their own health care. host: after the initial problems with the healthcare.gov, the tote house named someone oversee the repairs. a picture of him in the new york about what isce

behind the repairs. he is set to take over as white house economic adviser. he is managing the effort to fix the website. he is conducting this phone conference with reporters within the hour. we are talking about that. robert is next. he is in taylor, michigan on the republican line. caller: i wanted to comment. they talk about the 30 million people who do not have insurance. the majority of them, because they cannot afford it. arer this bill, they supposed to get it. who is paying for it? it is going to be the taxpayer. back, aa few callers nurse in texas. she said it is not about health care. i agree with her. it is more about control. it is the government intrusion

in your life. i can honestly say my family always voted democrat. what is going on now, i will never vote or a democrat again as long as i live. i am done with the democratic party. no matter what the uaw preaches, i am done. i know a lot of uaw members who are staying away. it is a power grab out of washington. host: some political reaction about the healthcare.gov website. john cornyn tweets, the website is the least of obamacare's problems. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been a long fewer of "washington journal." i enjoyed it very much. over the years, i have heard such ignorance and such disrespect that i find myself

totally disgusted. the people doing the most complaining are coming from the states that have the worst health care, the worst records on education. maybe they should start educating themselves. i am just tired. has tried to do right and they cannot stand it. thesetarted all of problems? 35 years ago, the god, president reagan, always said the government is the problem. everybody joint that kool-aid. look where we are. thank you -- everybody drank that kool-aid. postbank we are looking at responses from members of congress -- host: we are looking at responses from members of congress. is aboutf the gospel helping the poor. it's great to hear religious leaders talking about values

that impact our policy. keith ellison, a democratic member of the house. ."ashington journal if that will wrap up this program. on tomorrow morning's program, we will hear from scott wilson on the health care website. he writes for the washington post. roll calleporter for will also join us. we will hear about the 155th -- 150th anniversary of the whistleblowers law. thank you for joining us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] .

>> today on c-span, "newsmakers" with ben nelson, the ceo of the national association of commissioners. then a hearing on transportation challenges facing seniors. >> joining us from "newsmakers" omaha this week for "newsmakers" is ben nelson. the ceo of the national association of insurance commissioners. this is the deciding vote for the affordable care act. welcome. >> thank you. >> welcome. >> thank you.