in afghanistan and the troop draw down. journal" is next. host: good morning. when congress returns this week, foreign policy will likely be front and center. overnight the ukrainian government was mobilizing troops in crimea. this following the actions in new york. also, a series of phone calls between president obama and putin and others in the russian government. place with taking 15,000 russian troops now in the country. it is sunday morning. the head, we will get your reaction to a weekend of

developments in that part of the world. what is next for president obama and how should the u.s. respond? you can join in on the conversation by calling the numbers on your screen. we are also on facebook or you can send us a tweet. latetement was issued yesterday by john kerry, who is making his appearance on sunday morning programs. he says that unless immediate and concrete steps are taken by russia to de-escalate tensions, the effect on our relations will be profound. i have convened a call with my counterparts from around the world to negotiate our next steps. towill work closely together coordinate.

this is a headline from the washington post. as russian troops continue to seize crimea, a region that was once part of the soviet union, kathy says that russian troops and vladimir putin are setting the stage for a high-stakes international showdown over the future of ukraine. we are in the c-span studios and this is dominating the programs that will be heard later today. nancy, good morning. >> as you mentioned, ukraine will be front and center on all of the sunday shows as well as the week ahead in congress, politics and sexual assault in the military. you can hear a rebroadcasts beginning at noon eastern with "meet the press." include john kerry, marco

rubio, and claire mccaskill of misery. also, jerry brown. secretary kerry and ben affleck. michael mccaul, a former ambassador to russia. and a special envoy for the great lakes region. news00, it is "fox sunday." mike rogers and rob portman of a california republican and chris van hollen from maryland. followsf the union" that 3:00 with a former ambassador to russia. and thendsay graham ukrainian ambassador to the u.n. with00, "face the nation,"

another appearance by john kerry. also, chuck hagel and democratic senator -- along with the american enterprise institute. these are on c-span radio and they are brought to you as a public service i the networks and c-span. three broadcast will begin at press,"h "meet the followed by "this week." 3:00, "state of the union." 4:00, "face the nation." listen to them all on c-span radio. across the country, on ask m satellite radio channel 120. you can download our free app or listen online. with yourontinue calls and comments on the situation in ukraine. what is

next for the u.s.? joining us live on the phone is with the is in crimea very latest. the wall street journal is available online, indicating that russia is extending its reach across the region. think you very much for being with us. guest: no problem. host: we have heard from ukrainian leaders that this is a declaration of war. give us your perspective? guest: what we have seen over hours is a-48 consolidation of control by russian forces in crimea, which is near the black sea. there is a lot of pro-russia sentiment because it is dominated by them. host: you or in the capital of

crimea. ofhave seen these pictures russian flags showing up outside of government buildings, also with demonstrations. who is behind that? guest: basically, what happened here is it started very early thursday morning. a group of armed men took control of parliament. session in the shadow of these demands and voted in a pro-russian prime minister. these people are supported by russia. they were working in concert with russian military. day, russian naval forces are based in crimea. heresecured the airport and television networks. now what we are seeing is that the russian marines were at

parliament yesterday. they were at the television networks. they seem to have removed from the central city because that is under control. theyuthorities here -- seem to focus their attention on militarynian army and in crimea. those are still occupied. they were appointed by the kiev government that they do not recognize. host: releasing a picture of the president and eight 90 minute conversation with president putin. what is your experience of dealing with president putin? what transpired yesterday? russian side has been saying is that they are moving to protect russian or what ukrainians,

some people would call ethnic russians. --h the kremlin is saying is, i have notat complicationsof against the russian people here. they dominate the region. there are not many ukrainian nationalists. they are under control. the word from moscow as that kiev -- they would have to step in and protect their people. from what i gather, the conversation did not do much at all. obama had already said that he is against it. at the time, obama made a speech.

crimea.e already in there has not been any change. host: for those who are watching or listening on the radio, give us a sense of what you're seeing on the street. you are really at the center of where all of this is developing. is there a sense of anxiety? morning/cal sunday what is happening right now? crimeans arermal very nervous that they will end up in a war. they are not a part of russia or ukraine. they are just a government not recognized by anyone. that would be disastrous for the region's economy. the people are very nervous. on the street right now, yesterday, there were a bunch of

russian marines with weapons. now, it is much colmar. -- c almer. the attention seems to be on a military installations, where russian troops have gathered. live from joining us ukraine is a correspondent for wall street journal. this is the headline, as russia moves to deploy troops in ukraine. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. host: coming up, we will share with you the highlights from yesterday's meeting in new york at the united nations. margaret is joining us from leavenworth, kansas. democrats line. caller: it is no surprise. watching the preparations for the olympics, you could see how bad of a player russia is. and thetment in syria beating in the public. russian soldiers meet women.

that is a big terror. this is not a good place and it looks like putin is having a crisiske -- mid life with his shirt off and ready to show his power. is too far to get involved in. we need to focus here in the western hemisphere. if someone over there in europe could get involved. they should have done a far long ago with syria. we cannot stretch our reach so far. it looks like a world war is starting to happen. countries have to take alliances. we have so many problems. we are frozen here. we cannot help, really. diplomacy will not do anything to putin. host: think you very much for the call. this is the front page of the new york times. kremlin deploys military to seize crimea.

the piece begins this way -- russian armed forces seizing control of crimea as the russian parliament granted president putin broad authority to use military force in response to the political upheaval that has launched a strong slate -- stau nchly pro-western government. russian troops stripped identifying insignia. they closed the main airports and seized main communication hubs in a covert effort to control the pro-russian region. good morning. caller: i have a legitimate question. i was involved with the protest we had in tennessee, controlling the business. we found out something --

it is completely illegal to have a protest in a federal building in tennessee. we're about to go to war with some people who had a not friendly protest, but a very violent protest in a federal building in some unforeseen country. what gives us the right to go wer there and over here, cannot do the same thing peacefully? that is just a question. i will take the answer off air. host: thank you for the call. . this is from a viewer, going back in history. a 1994 treaty with ukraine -- if they return to soviet nuclear weapons, the u.s. would protect them from russia. many of you are weighing in on facebook. we should have given them more gold.

daniel says call on nato. you can give us your comments. ned is joining us from indiana. good morning. caller: i think russia made a big mistake going and. -- in. i do not think before this occurred that the western european allies had a contingent land to deal with russian aggression. now there is likely to be. there probably was not a lot of american intelligence in ukraine. now there probably will be a lot of those people in ukraine, along with other foreign countries. ukrainewe need to arm and boost the military. i think poland -- they are very concerned. the russian leadership should be as well.

i do not know what the russian plan is. the smartest idea they could have had would have been to go into kiev instead of crimea. 150 thousand troops is nowhere near what they would need to secure ukraine. thank you. host: we appreciate your call. let's look at how this is playing out overseas. this is from russia today. thousands of pro-russian demonstrators across eastern europe train --ukraine protesting the new government. gunshots have been reported. protesters are storming local government offices and removing ukrainian flags, replacing them with the russian tricolor flag on saturday. between 7000 and 10,000 protesters have erred, --gathered. reportedly, they are storming the buildings from the central

entrance with a crowd in front. they kept chanting "russia, russia, russia." there is an analysis piece in the new york times. russia to pay for ukraine move?" they point out that the u.s. has few options. they say that finding powerful neighbors to influence mr. putin's decision-making will be a challenge for the president and european allies. has seen repeatedly that warnings do not discourage autocratic rulers. line irossed the red using chemical weapons. issian isn't even tougher -- an even tougher country to pressure. too rich in resources to squeeze

economically in short-term. it is a primary source of natural gas too much of europe and holds a trump card. that is this morning from the new york times. the first of three excerpts we want to share with you. this is the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. he says russia has a right to protect its interests. [video clip] >> i have a question. why did this need to be resulting in street manifestations? why is it that these menstruation sneed to occur from abroad and be encouraged by people from the e.u.? why do they need to appear at these meetings that were ignited by protests? to talkofficials need

about bringing the public and whipping up leaders of the opposition? why did there have to be such crude intervention in the internal sovereignty of ukraine? another question. during the crisis, reacting to yanukorotests, president vych -- i do not want to condone his actions, i just went turkey the facts -- to repeat the facts. he was offered the pm. why not accept that proposal? by continue to ratchet up the situation? he is the ambassador to the united nations to the united nations, heard through a translator. another headline -- the ukraine crisis catches the world off guard. country,nt to invade a

it is important for liberation. look at crimea. russian troops fly in to help with this. they are calling it nazis in u kraine. the statement from chuck hagel issued yesterday -- without a change on the ground, russia risks further instability in the region, isolation and the international community and an escalation that would threaten the european and international security." the press secretary to the defense security. democratic line. mark inmove on to michigan. serious things to talk about. independent line. caller: good morning.

good morning america. you know what is going on in ukraine? chris explains it very well. there is a mass extinction underway. the wealthiest of our societies around the world have taken over government, they have taken over military, and in order to slow down this, they are eradicating poverty. host: thank you for the call. some photographs yesterday -- this is from crimea. some of those russian flags appearing. crimea accounts for 10% of the total land mass of ukraine. a country over 40 million people. mitch joins us from tennessee. good morning. caller: hello? host: you are on their. -- the air. caller: putin is afraid of what is happening in crimea and what

will happen in his country. there is going to be a civil war there. he does not want this to happen in his country, because then he will be live on tv, killing protesters. it will be a big mess. that is already what is happening in crimea. he is just afraid that if they do not stop it over there, it will happen in his country. it will happen sooner or later. he is surrounded by democracy. host: thank you for the call. jose has this point. you can join in on the conversation on facebook. he says we are one step closer to a shooting war with the russians. more from yesterday's action at the united nations. the ukrainian ambassador to the united nations -- here is his assessment of what is happening on the ground in

his country. today we heard from the acting russian premier saying that the russian troops is an act of war. [video clip] action constitutes an act of aggression against ukraine. a violation of international law. to sovereigntyt and territorial integrity of our country, as well as peace and stability for the whole region. the russian federation does not fulfill its obligations as guarantor of the budapest memorandum. members should refrain from the threat of using force. challenge to the principles. russia reflected the --rejected the proposal to hold bilateral

discussions. there's a partnership between ukraine and the russian federation in 1997. the russian federation brutally violated the basic principles of charter of the united nations, of co-member states, to refrain from threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any state. facing the military intervention, the government of ukraine has requested to hold this meeting with the security council. they call upon the security council to do everything possible now to stop aggression by the russian federation against ukraine. there is still a chance. host: he is the ukrainian ambassador to the united nations. we have live coverage of the exchange yesterday on our website at c-span.org. meanwhile, this piece from the wall street journal offers their perspective.

at work wonders if this is the start of a new cold war. he says it is pleasant to be proved right up to a point. with the body count rising in kiev square, illusions about who is russia are smoldering as well. i have been decrying the regime since its inception. i was one of the handful of foreign journalists who did not welcome the new era of stability to come. i feared where it might lead. the fanfare over the olympics masked the fears that are justified. george w. bush looked into his eyes and got a sense of his soul. others could see a man steeped in the values of the kgb. he held high office in the most gangster ridden city in russia. that is online at wsj.com. from the l.a. times,

russia not backing off in the ukraine is the headline. from the pittsburgh post-gazette, russia flexing its muscle. doug from illinois, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. this is a very interesting conversation. the ambassador of russia basically is declaring that the european union initiated this conflict. snipingas followed by of innocent civilians in the street by the russians. it is a little bit -- the data are there. it is very confusing. i feel sorry for the ambassador of ukraine. i think is a language problem in terms of the united nations not allowing formal discussions with the public, without news people getting in front of the

ambassador. asked him point-blank questions about it. this could potentially involve the united states. growing up.y brat here reminds me so much of vietnam. host: butch from ohio, good morning. caller: good morning. stay out of ukraine, the whole mess. we have enough domestic problems in america. they are so quick to drag us off to war. it is easier to do that then fix the problems here. that is how i feel about it. thank you very much. host: meanwhile, this point. vladimir putin wants to put the glory days back together. it cannot be done. russians are unsure how they feel.

kevin has a piece from "mother on the 10 things he thinks will happen next. among his items, john mccain will appear on a bunch of sunday that obamato bemoan is weak and no one fears america anymore. he also says that this will continue and we will all settle to a stalemate. russia will have thrown its weight around the world like it always has. the west will not have the leverage to do much about it. the assessment is 10 things that he thinks will happen. next is jack from braden 10, florida. caller: how are you? this topic, i am very interested. it is a step forward into the cold war. i do a lot of research, especially on crimea.

i did not know it would become this republic. they do not want anything to do with ukraine. then i discovered more. ukraine tried to join nato in 2008. the talks fell through. i believe if they did join nato, none of this would have happened. i do not know if there is any information to back this up or not. this is what i read through the internet. i find it amazing. that is where the big three men after world war ii. host: 1945. caller: yes, the big three. this is a very vital evidence law -- peninsula. i do not know if there has been any information about them trying to join nato. if they did, russia would not be flexing their muscles. host: look at this map and you can see crimea and neighboring russia.

it is quite a distance from moscow, but not too far from sochi, where the winter games wrapped up last month. delay -- delight mixes with dispay. -- from "the standard" president obama will stand with the international community. oncekristol says that president putin is not concerned about affirmations, he is seen assad understands actions, not affirmations. and our ambassador from the united nations. [video clip] >> we are durably disturbed about reports about russian

intervention and crimea. commitment toe protect the sovereignty and independence of ukraine. it is time for the russian intervention and ukraine to end. the russian military must stand down. the aspirations of ukrainian people must a respected and political dialogue must be allowed to continue. we applaud the remarkable restraint and commitment to that dialogue that the new government has demonstrated in the face of hostility. we have said from the outset that we recognize and respect russia's historical ties to ukraine. instead of engaging the government of ukraine, and international institutions, russia ignored both and has instead acted unilaterally and militarily. it is ironic that the russian federation regularly goes out of its way to emphasize the sanctity of national borders and the sovereignty.

in ukraine actions are violating the sovereignty of ukraine and pose a threat to peace and security. russia alleges various actions against and threats to know minority groups. we see no evidence of these actions yet. russia's provocative actions could push a tense situation beyond the breaking point. samantha power is the u.s. representative to the united nations. that special session to lace yesterday. the entire event is on our website. from the london telegraph, photographs from crimea. no appetite for a show of force and little leverage, the west is left with a choice of uncertain sanctions. and this tweet from bill -- president putin's move is his first step in rebuilding the soviet empire. next call is from hilo, hawaii.

caller: when you have one of your experts on this subject, could you ask them hypothetically how this is mexicans drughe -- [no audio} host: we lost the call. we will go to dave. caller: i am calling in reference to what is next for the united states. we prematurely left iraq. he is cutting and running in afghanistan. syrianset thousands of die. wills appeased iran and we do nothing to prevent the russians from doing what they're doing. host: next is bill from orlando, florida. welcome to the conversation.

caller: i just graduated from the u.s. air force academy. are honor code says we do not why. all i see is back and forth between u.s. and russia. that is called propaganda, as opposed to lies. the united states is accusing russia of violating a sovereignty and stuff like that. an independent state or sovereign nation -- on the other hand, what did we do in iraq? we did not like the guy there. we went into afghanistan because we did not like the taliban and. a --we did notibyr like it off he. for some reason we like the guys in the ukraine. kiev anongers went into showed up there, as they have done in libya,, iraq, and

afghanistan. host: carol has this point. words, words, words. andan be deeply disturbed conserved, do we really think that putin cares? david kramer is a veteran of the george w. bush administration. he wrote this piece in the opinion section of the washington post called u.s. foreign policy comes home to roost. he says the president faces the greatest challenge in figuring out how to respond to russia's invasion of the ukraine. hishe response will define two terms in office as well as determine the future of ukraine, russia, and u.s. standing in the world. he says that among the things they can do is impose sanctions against russian state owned banks and financial institutions. also, terminate negotiations with russia on trade agreements or promoting businesses, and calling an emergency nato meeting.

that is from david kramer and the washington post. next is herb from kansas. caller: good morning. host: how are you? caller: good. it has been about 10 years. host: why so long? caller: have not been able to get through. this is world war two all over again. hitler said the same thing when he went into yugoslavia or czechoslovakia. that is what putin says he is doing, protecting the ethnic russians. it is world war ii all over again. thank you. host: this is one of the many photographs in the country. this is from the washington post. in-russian protesters eastern ukraine drag a wounded man during the clashes with supporters of the new government. the former president remains outside of moscow.

he held a news conference on friday saying that he was forced out for his own safety and his family safety. we will come back to this later in the program. a reminder that "newsmakers" will air at 10:00. our guest this week is tom harkin, who is stepping down at the end of this year. he is the chair of the health, education, labor, and pensions committee. the discussion on minimum wage was scuttled. here is where he thinks things stand. [video clip] the president himself endorsed a lower minimum wage increase, up to nine dollars per hour. states looked at the same thing. do you have universal support in your party to go all the way to $10.10, to actually put it on the floor? >> i do not know that anything has universal support in this town. in our party, and we have nearly

universal support for this. in our own caucus, that a lot of people said that was too much of an increase. the last increases work. we do it over three years. it is just above the poverty line. anything less than that locks in. especially if we want to index it. it locks you in forever. people think about that and say they do not want to do that. we want to keep people above the poverty line. host: tom harkin is the guest on "newsmakers" at 10:00. it also will re-air at 6:00. we will bring you up-to-date on the situation in ukraine. the new york times says the kremlin is in crimea. armed forces seize control of

thecrimean peninsula, russian parliament granting broad authority to use military force in response to the political upheaval that dislodged the allies. ofsian troops stripped identifying insignia. they swarmed the major thoroughfares, encircling government buildings and closing the main airport. solidifying what began on friday as a covert effort to control the progress in region. in moscow, mr. putin convened parliament to grant authority to use military force to protect citizens and folders. not only in crimea, but throughout ukraine. toions were a direct rebuff the president, who warned russia to respect russian integrity. he accused russia of a breach of international law.

calling it a clear violation of ukraine's sovereignty. good morning, where you phoning from? caller: illinois. host: go ahead. caller: yes, thank you. i was responding to the gentleman who just called in. pulling out of iraq and afghanistan -- we need to let these people fight it out themselves for a while. it is like a bar fight. you pick on the guy who is left standing if you want to do that. what would it be like if russia came and invaded arizona? it does not make sense. a lot of these people who make these are not in the military and are not going into the military and do not have anybody in the military.

we're sending our young and best people over there for us. it is sad that a lot of people always want to exert power. they do not participate. and they want a tax cut. that does not make sense. final point from dana, who says president obama does not get it. he scoffed at romney forcing treatedas a foe and food and as such. such.in as will beichael crowley joining us with his assessment on options ahead for the president. we will turn our attention to afghanistan. tonight is oscar night. we want to focus a little bit on politics and washington. this week, testifying before the appropriations committee, seth

rogan talking about alzheimer's. he used to status to shine a light on the problem. [video clip] >> maybe this is more appropriate for a closed hearing. the new york times article says of the cyberctor arguedraft initiative that using cyber warfare for humanitarian purposes in syria, taking steps to degrade use of air power, might be an effective tool and one that might reverse the tide of opinion. the u.s. government is using cyber capabilities for nefarious ends. do have a comment? >> i think one of the things that you and the administration depend on -- host: we apologize, that was for a different part of the program.

we are turning to another issue. the situation in syria -- an before therogr appropriations committee. we want to shine a light on celebrities as we focus on the oscars. [video clip] she and forgetting who her loved ones were, my mother-in-law, teacher for 35 years, forgot how to speak, feed herself, dressed herself, and go to the bathroom herself. all by the age of 60. lawrence father dedicates their lives to letting my mother-in-law be as comfortable as she can be. it would love to do more, but cannot. top 10y of the other causes of death, there is no way to prevent, cure, or slow the progression of alzheimer's. another thing i did not realize until i was personally affected was the shame and stigma associated. but i before i was born, am told of a time when cancer

had a stigma that people were shamed by. celebrities and other figures that were stricken with high before voicing hope. although it is turning, this is currently where we are with alzheimer's. this lack of of hope and shameful stigma that my wife, some friends, and myself decided to do something to change the situation. we started to wear it for charity. for charity to support families with alzheimer's. the situation is so dire that it caused me, lazy, self-involved, self medicated manchild to start an entire charity organization. host: the comments of seth broken as he testified last week. not uncommon to see a celebrity testifying on their issues. ted johnson is joining us on the phone from atlanta. he is the senior editor for

"friday" night between. guest: thank you for having me. host: how influential are the celebrities when they testify? they arethink influential in as much as they can get publicity for the lawmakers to attend the hearings. this actually became an issue with seth rogan. some senator showed up, posed for a picture, then must before he actually delivered his testimony. rogan sent out a tweet and for posingmark kirk for a picture and then leaving. theink that is basically problem. a lot of members of congress see this as a publicity opportunity. then, the celebrity testimony often is forgotten after that. i think there is some skepticism in washington.

as fun as it may be or as interesting or publicity generating as these appearances can be -- aimedis some skepticism toward hollywood over whether the celebrities are serious or whether they have charities or causes that will follow through. been ahere has always fascination between hollywood and politics. mr. smith goes to washington to more recently some films on the 1970's. one nominated this year, "american hustle," based on congressional scandal in the 1980's. here's the trailer. [video clip] >> i want to show you something. this rembrandt here. people come from all over the world to see this. people believe what they want to believe. -- guy who made this

it israel. >> who is the master? >> the painting or the forger? no matter how i try ♪ times, bad times ♪ >> toast to a new era.

i know what it means to be alone ♪ host: the trailer for "american hustle." ted johnson joins us from atlanta. this film has gotten a lot of attention. guest: yes, it sure has. herkywhat seems to be a jerky script. it is very unusual tone for what you're used to seeing. the performances in this movie ofe had an oscar sweep nominations for actor, actress, supporting actor, supporting actress. that is pretty unusual. what a lot of people do not know is that this is based on a true story. it took place in the early 1980's. it took down half a dozen members of congress in new jersey.

it is going way back, but it was such an unusual sting operation on the part of the fbi. in the mindsmained of some of the content creators out here in the entertainment industry. host: one of those individuals, an estimated 6000 --is former senator chris dodd. he gets to vote on best picture. he is the head of the motion picture association of america. he is paid $3.3 million a year. what is his main job? guest: he is the head of the trade association. for the motion picture business. the mpaa. in that role, he is the chief lobbyist for the entertainment business. the biggest issue facing the industry right now is piracy.

the stealing of content, online piracy. this has been hugely vexing for the industry. it essentially hits them -- pits them against silicon valley. the entertainment business is not pursuing any legislation. what they are pursuing is to try to get some agreement with the googles of the world to do more to fight piracy. and, so that is essentially a standoff for a couple of years. host: we are talking with ted johnson, senior editor for "variety." on hillary clinton, should she decide to run for president? the headline, "hollywood prepares to shower hillary clinton with support."

there are republicans that hollywood would support as well. explain the story. seems tollary clinton be laying the groundwork for something. she has been visiting los angeles quite a few times. she will be back this week and speaking at ucla. lands, ant of perp number of people in the entertainment industry are actually getting ready for this. they are working for super packs that have been set up, what is called "ready for hillary." usa".s called "priorities katzenburg is leading the fundraising for that super pac. he is reaching out to donors in the entertainment business to for theuild support potential clinton candidacy, in

the event that happens. host: ted johnson is senior editor for "variety." his work is available online at variety.com. think you for joining us. again, a look at the new york times. this photograph of russian troops in crimea. at last count, 15,000 troops and the acting ukrainian government is calling the entry into the country an act of war. more on this later in the program. another chance for you to weigh in with your comments on the situation in ukraine. up next, we want to turn our attention to politics and john fund on this anniversary of the tea party movement. later, teachers facing new federal standards. the head of the american federation of teachers will join us. "washington journal" will continue and the sunday morning. we will be back in the moment.

>> is this a technique that you hope will prove fruitful? >> i do not think that is a neighbor business. [laughter] >> i think that the glamour of reagan had less to do with his hollywood roots per se. it was not the glamour of hollywood exactly. it did have something to do with skills and grace. he acquired that as an actor. the --he had been out there and fielded those questions. he made that look effortless. that was another aspect of clever. people who were likely to support him politically could see it in him. the ideal candidate. the ideal representation of their views. he did not make them

embarrassed. they were not waiting for him to fail. as he got older, that became more of an issue. especially in the early days, he had this -- a 16th centuryom about the politician of the day. defining and using glamour. tonight at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you. and you in the room at congressional hearings, white house event, briefings and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel co coverage of the u.s. house. all is a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable industry.

watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal" continues. host: another winter storm heads to d.c. john fund is heading south. he joins us from florida. he is a columnist for "national review." we will not ask you for the weather forecast. guest: it will make you envious. host: i am sure it will. you wrote that the midterm elections are going to be a disaster for the democrats. how so? predictell, we cannot the demands of how the campaign and other issues and events will affect how people vote in november. if something dramatic does not happen, even democrats are saying it is big trouble. chris matthews of msnbc, who is a note od political

handicapper, says that the situation for the democrats would be to lose five seats. potentially, they could lose up to 10 feet. that would make it 55 republicans and 45 democrats. host: let's talk about the tea party movement as it celebrates its fifth anniversary. what influence do you think they will have this year? how is the changed over the last five years? guest: first, some context. the tea party is not a party. there is no membership. there is no dues. anybody can call themselves the tea partier. they do not run their own candidates. one on the ballot. it was sparked by obamacare and the bailout to get active in politics. many of the people involved have

dropped out of politics. they never become involved. what unites the tea party is respect for the constitution. believe in the rule of law. the leaf that we have to return to founding principles. general, does in not address foreign-policy issues. or social issues directly. he let people have their views. it is a diverse group of americans from all walks of life. all demographic groups. united because they are worried about the country. their influence -- the turnkey party has been tarnished. there are a lot of attacks. the tea party wants to defend themselves. they really do not have a coordinated effort to improve their image. their image has fallen down a little bit. that is probably about 30% of the people having an unfavorable view.

influencee tea party in the republican party is as strong as ever. different than it was in 2010. the republicans gained 63 house seats and many senate seat. i think the tea party is the training. its fifthe of anniversary, i think it is developing a better sense of how to operate a political party match try to influence the candidates that have run. also to convince people that do not agree with their positions. host: let me get your reaction to someone that we have featured from time to time. this is the co-author of the book "the tea party and the remaking of republican conservativism." is a professor at harvard university. this--s

agree or disagree? guest: i would largely agree with her. the tea party has several audiences. one is the audience of republican primary voters. members realize you can probably only influence one political party. the republican party is probably closer to their ideals. as a result, if you can influence primary voters, you can influence republicans running for office. ultimately, since we have gerrymandered districts that are predetermined for one or the other, in many cases they will decide who will represent that district in congress. the other audiences are people of like mind. ers, but not be join they are in general agreement. also, the broad mass of american public.

they worry about the crushing debt and the lowering of standards in public schools. the general sense of america in decline. the single thing that has shaken i askdiences is -- people, do you believe that your children and grandchildren will have a better future and just as many opportunities as you did? when i used to ask that question off and on, i got hands all over the room. a clear majority. it is many fewer now. a concern toe every american, left or right, up or down. host: you are a longtime columnist at "the wall street journal." now with "the national review." three cups of tea is your headline. you write that the tea party still holds the high ground this year for it third national election. this is the start of the tea party movement.

john boehner was asked about that. [video clip] that ive made it clear have great respect for the tea party and the energy they have brought to the electoral process. my gripe is not with the tea party. my gripe is with some washington organizations and feel like they have to go raise money by .eating up on me and others >> some members have pushed you to places you do not want to be. five years in -- leader. as the i do not think it has changed at all. my job is to listen to my colleagues, to work with my calling about and to fight with the common ground is so we can move forward. i don't believe things have changed at all. paste observation this week was an event that would cover here in washington. his assessment is that john boehner will likely set -- stepped down as speaker at the

end of this year. agree or disagree? >> i think we have to wait for the election results. let's say the republicans have a very good year, they take control of the senate, which handicappers from's new andenberg -- stu rothenberg others think is more likely than not. usually, the republicans pick up in the house. john boehner would have a chance to pass legislation that would reach president's desk. he might veto it, but he has been under tremendous pressure to not. rather than just being speaker of a body that constantly sees its 127 bills on job creation just die in the senate without a hearing or a vote, they would actually be, part of the national debate. i do not think we can predict john boehner's decision just

because he has bought a condo in florida. cannot count him out, he may be speaker for a wild longer. >> let's go to david, joining us from middletown, new jersey. good morning. c-span, the best channel on television. and good morning steve, and good morning john. you don't mind if i call you john, do you? i'm a world war ii veteran. >> thank you for your service. >> you're very welcome, but i want to say this. as a world war ii veteran, i federal,d in every state, and municipal elections since carrier truman -- harry truman. i'm very angry, i am angry because of the government shutdown that took place during the first 16 days of october

2013. is a perfect example of what is wrong with the congress. 90% of ouron, elected representatives do not represent the voters. when these politicians are running for office, they will tell you everything you want to hear. do the deeds speak louder than their words? once the politicians are elected, they of the following priorities. one, do everything possible to get reelected. o, do a thing possible for the party. possibleairman thing for the special interests. or, do something for the electorate, if also a. -- possible.

>> i would respond that many people share your frustrations. obviously, careerism and politics, which is at the root of many of the things that you think members of congress prime -- prioritized is a part of it. i have long championed for years term limits. we would have more citizen politicians, we would have fewer career politicians, and even though i do not think it is something that would change everything, it would redirect people from this incredible need or desire to stay in a hot office -- in office. abraham lincoln said he even felt this time to stay congress because it is a good job, but he shouldn't, but it is human nature. m -- harmo ter limits are a good idea.

remember what happened in the government shutdown, i do not think this was fully reported in the media. the house of representatives passed a budget. they said we are going to fund every part of the federal government, everything about social security, veterans that convince -- benefits, the national parks, everything. but we want changes in obamacare because we feel passionately that this is going to be a disaster that needs to be changed. it needs to be changed in the regular order, which means that the elites to be fixed, the congress passes and changes it and send it to president for his signature. president obama refused to negotiate. is that i will not even sit down with people, we will pass a budget just like i want you to couple or nothing. that is documented, that is not made up. as a result, at the same time the government shutdown was going on, and we were having that argument.

obamacare was lunching with its website, it was a bigger disaster than anyone thought possible. problem after problem with obamacare after that. there have been a few adjustments and changes, their hasoc, and the president picked up his pen or his phone and said today i feel differently, and we're going to differentlay portions. especially for businesses. it is astonishing that he excited as this is over individuals. shutdownhe government was handled badly in a practical sense, but was there a point there, that obamacare needed to be changed, needed to be fixed before we send it off and opened it up or business and it failed, and somebody people started losing interest problems these -- all of these -- policies?

i think there was a real philosophical difference there, and it wasn't just petulance that led to the government shutdown. >> let me follow up on that point, because there is a piece from the former speech writer for george w. bush on the shutdown and the tea party. with regard to the 60 day government shutdown, the goal that rose to prominence in the 2010 election got precisely what it wanted and demanded and promised wonderful things to follow in the outcome. the republicans of every i'll -- ideological drive have run and were from budget confrontations. >> it was not as well thought out as it should have been. you can only have something like that if you only have true unity of purpose and agreement in the way we are going to go. fullyg people without

consulting them or bring them onboard is not a recipe for success. what he also says in that call of is that the days of establishment republicans basically cooperative with democrats at passing legislation that takes our problems down the road there are over. we're all going to be populist now, it is just a question we're going to be effective, or just ones that like to yellow hold their breath until their face turns blue -- yell and hold their breath until their face turns blue. businesses are not going to work in a country where we have economic challenges, and that problems that we have previously addressed. >> i am not sure of your ability with the writings of joe mccutchen. he calls it every 30 days. with that, joe. >> this is the most exciting

call i've ever made. >> you say that all the time. is cut taxes and spending, he's a great guy, and he is trying to run for governor. another good friend of mine, he is a great guy committee just one is 13th straight wrestling championship of and he is going to become the speaker. exciting people here in georgia. great having his name is -avid addington - pennington. georgia, i down to will try to ask some questions and find out what is going on

down there. thank you for the update. >> some upcoming primaries getting some attention next tuesday. voters and eggs will be going to he polls, and senator stockman.ing steve what is your sense? >> it is very likely that nyn will be reelected, and without the runoff that texas requires. how is a perfect example of the tea party is misinterpreted. not a single tea party organization in the state of texas has endorsed garbagemen stockman -- congressman stockman. the reason is, his behavior is just out of the bizarro world. he has not conducted a real campaign copy is made some very he has statements, and

marginalized himself. he is not a tea party candidate. if no tea party organization supports and what were they are not a deep water cabinet -- supports someone, they are not a tea party candidate. senator cornyn has become more conservative over the past several years. he was very critical of those caught telling people to cheat and lie on their forms, and says we should end the navigators program. pro-obama -- and the -- end the pro-obama

line. for example, and send antonio, texas,- in san antonio, it is very important for local voter texans. for the senate race, that is not -- the tea party does not have a dog in that fight. -- host:week --tweet people can say they are from the tea party when they have never been to a single tea party meeting. people who espouse tea party principles, there is a better crop of candidates. some are on, causing visions that just because they are running it's very entrenched

incumbents. mitch mcconnell gevo some tea party people have complaints with him, but he is an 85% conservative voting record. i think he has been a skill for minority leader. bevan has his own problems because he attacked the wall street bailout, and he used to endorse it when he was a banker in 2009. there has been some credibility problems there. i think you will lose to mitch mcconnell. mississippi, you have a state, mr. mcdaniel who is running for senate against mr. cochran who is a long-term incumbent. he is been washington for over 40 years, i think the challenge is very incredible. 40% candidate has about support in the polls. thad cochran is 76 years old, and has not had a tough race for a long time, he is considered so

out of touch that somebody asked him about the tea party, and whether or not they will support him, and he did not know about it. incumbent united states senator, and you do not know about the d party in 2014 in washington, you are out of touch. ist: our host -- guest john fund. mary, from al gore to go good morning. caller: i always so grateful for c-span. i am a veteran also, one of the ,hings that has a real problem is the lack of any news reporting that isn't so blatantly liberal bias. there is a channel, i was little but surprised, that is authored by direct you think of that news news reports from organizations outside the united states.

the information from these news reports is so much different than anything that i hear on cnn or fox, which does a better job than other channels, but they are still different from the news reporters on the ground. i was wondering if you could comment on the news reporting bias? i am a example, registered democrat, i do not wish to vote democratic in the longer, but it is almost impossible to get any information on republican candidates were i live because this debate is so liberal. guest: what state you live in? host: california. guest: there is a great website in california that is very interesting to people who have an independent viewpoint that is called the flash report.

if you google that come in is chock-full of information. i read it every day, and i recommend that to your attention. as for the media bias, adding a bigger problem with the media is the blatant superficiality. especially television, television is not the place to get oranges. the analysis is very truncated, the snippets are very short. the great thing about the internet, and things like directv is that you can find much better sources of information. i think the bbc doesn't good job of foreign issues overseas. es a good job of foreign issues overseas. has anrussell mead excellent column on the ukraine right now. thery much care about situation that provide going to be going there and made to speak to a group of university students. intently,wing it very

at a reviewed' coverage is superficial, that is why everyone who watches c-span -- and by watching c-span you want independent more detailed news that most people get or want, you can find inexhaustible supply of analysis and different perspectives, and that is the beauty of the new media environment. the consumer is a much more in control. you just have to wait to be spoonfed when of the major networks wanted to give you. now there's this rich cornucopia, and your biggest challenge is to sit through the vast array of information available to you. it is there if you want to find it very -- it. the: we're talking about president and his 90 minute conversation with vladimir putin. i think vladimir putin views barack obama? guest: how shall i put this? i think he holds him and minimal

high regard. warning sign that he was start taking him lightly was in september 2009. it was september 17. on that fateful day, barack obama made a unilateral decision, without insulting his allies that he was going to and the program that had been developed under the previous administration to build missile defense systems in the czech republic and poland, two of our strongest allies. the czech and polish government had really gone out on a limb and sacrificed a lot of credibility and prestige. their product -- they thought tremendous little battles to get these bases approved companies and these are completely defensive missile bases. these are part of the strategic defense initiative, to prevent the launch of missiles like an

attack and hit our allies in western europe. they are not offensive in any way server for -- shape or form. on october 17, they said they're going to shut those missiles down. they do not negotiate or ask for anything in return. you the lack of historical perspective, september 17, that day he announced, without consulting the polls that he was pulling out the missile bases, the numbers have achieved is a date that is etched into polish history. in 1939 when they invaded poland from the east and the west. 10 million people died and poles. many jews and he decided date that to practice a form of

appeasement. after that point, i think if you look at barack obama and vladimir putin's relationship that have been horrible. he literally turned away from obama at a summit eating a few years ago, and dismissed him as some kind of air and nonentity. barack obama has not made a lot of mistakes, i think the signals he has sent have been awful. led vladimir putin to think he can act with impunity. the white house indicating over the last 48 hours that the plans for the g-8 summit federal for june in sochi, russia, the site of the olympic games in

are now being put on hold. does that make a difference? guest: at a minimum, you should not conduct it will not relations as if nothing has happened. $55 billion tont put on the spectacle of the sochi olympics. it was called the new face of russia, presenting a new image to the world. it has only been days now since the sochi olympics ended, and suddenly the soviet union -- my apologies, russia is invading a may --gn agent nash nation on its border. -- the ukrainian officials are calling it an act of war. ll, it destroys thet image they were trying to create, edit signals they do not want peaceful economic lesions

with their neighbors a lot they could dominate them. politics of power dom should have died away at the end of the cold war era. was also by your opening remark about -- puzzled thatur opening remark i people of the tea party do not think that there children will not do better than they do -- guest: no, for all audiences i speak to. caller: ok. but i agree with you, opportunity is less now than it was 30 or 40 years ago. the policyzzled by that the tea party poised that reduce opportunities for their children. college is getting expensive and

subsidize -- less subsidized. why are they wanting to do more of the same stuff that got us into this situation in the first place? host: thank you. confuse me amments little bit because barack obama for example has been president for over five years. can you name me the tax cuts that have happened? no, there have not been any. there has been tax increases, obamacare alone has been increasing taxes. secondly, college tuition is going up dramatically. up,cost of college is going one of the few things that people can do to educate their distancenvestigate learning or internet universities because the cost of

college is really going through the roof. student loans are dealt completely controlled by the federal government. people are going to be saddled with debt for 10, 15, 20 years. at thenot want to look cost of college heavy want to look at why so expensive? that is an answer that glenn reynolds, in his recent book about higher education points out. areas wherely two productivity continues to decline in american public life. health care, productivity is still going down, and higher education. we get less for our money than ever before in higher education. iter people are educated, takes longer, and administrators take up more of the money rather than teachers in the closser. it is appalling.

we need to reform our higher education, but it do not see whole blaming the tea party for that really addresses the problem. the real problem is that higher education is a special interest of its own. it is taking more of our money and delivering less and less, including clusters that teach seven to 10 hours a week, and that is it. teach seven tot 10 hours a week and that is that. host: this is the headline from the washington times. five-yearrty throws a earth day party here in washington. ands an event we covered, it is available on c-span.org. shared is joining us from texas city, texas. caller: good morning, c-span. i just wanted to clarify a couple of things that have been said. i do not agree with this five-year anniversary. host: what do you mean

specifically? group: the tea party started forming all over this country back during the bush administration. by adding a five-year date to it, it just feeds into the liberal idea that the tea party is just a bunch of racist that does not like a black president in office, and that is simply not true. the tea party is made up of mostly small business owners that were tired of the taxed and regulated out of business, and did not like what george bush was doing with the tax dollars with the bailing out of the big corporations and such. the d party movement -- tea party movement is more of a state of mind than anything. host: what about that point of view? guest: i will agree with the

caller that each individual can decide for themselves when the the party began. mo in general, what the is can be traced back to 2009 when rick santelli had a network movie moment in said i am mad as hell, and not going to put up with this anymore. we have too many ballots, nobody is accountable, everyone is getting bailed out of their mortgage, and that is just wrong for people playing by the rules. people doing it by being responsible, and not asking for help for their troubles. it is as good a time as any to the tea party

anniversary because after that interview he had -- there were many groups popping up over the country. host: let me put up two final points. as we look at the scenes across ukraine and in particular in rhyme you were russian flags are now appearing in various government buildings, this is from walter jackson who says please ask your guest if we should send troops ukraine, and just what would he do to hold russia accountable? go to war? guest: of course not.. all the great is not ist of nato -- the ukraine not a part of nato, they have not asked for that. we should not go to war for a country that is not directly and immediately affecting our interests. there is pressure that we can do covered for example we need to reevaluate out all of the trade routes and we have.

why is russia, which is frankly a rather marginal economy in the world seemed of a considered -- being invited to attend the g-8? it may have some geopolitical clout, but the economy which is based on oil about furs, and other natural commodities frankly is not a first world ranked economy. we might want to consider why should we keep inviting russia, which is being belligerent to its neighbors to these meetings? with a czech and polish strategic events -- defense missile bases, i do not think the polls or the checks would necessarily trust barack obama again after he pulled those out. iv indicated that he wanted to renegotiate those up with them back, it would be something to discuss, because the russians at youtime indicated that

don't have to worry about us, we have no intention of bothering are dated -- our neighbors. they just invaded ukraine preventive over crimea. -- of crimearaine is ukrainian. crimea isf of non-russian, but russia is absorbing it into his empire. that is aggression. but we have to stop well short of war. that would be appalling. want the kind of mistakes that led us into world war i. agree with the caller, the tea party got its start when they passed tarp under president

bush. i want to show you a web video that was released late last week in response to rand paul who on this network went after president bill clinton and called him a "sexual predator." let's watch. [video clip] the 90's and polities . attributewithout the laying on the clintons everyday -- is out there banging on the clintons everyday. >> we need to be concerned about ago.happened 15 years >> i was there the first time we litigated this, and americans not want to hear it then. this is just sheer insanity.

it is ancient and it is old news. >> this whole thing is ridiculous. but not aerm funds, long-term strategy. let's all give an ocarina and talk about 1998. the tagline is correct the record. what is this all about? the partisan political sniping that you see on both sides. i'm a little astonished that this group feels compelled to issue a video that seems so serious. democrats have been waging a campaign on the republican saying they are fighting a war against women. wendyect example was the

davis filibustering texas. wendy davis is now going to become the democratic governor candidate for governor. on the floor and filibustered a bill, but we never hear what the bill was. stop abortionto after 20 weeks. wendy davis was attacking the republican war on women. thatendures a couple angers many republicans, and they want to lash out. rand paul was tempted to say that if we are going to talk about the mythical war on women, what about the actual record or bill clinton? i do not think that is going to play as a political issue in the reality.

remember, in the video , they say theoned hell are you clinton should be judged on her record. she has been in public life long enough that her record is very varied. there were a lot of scandals of the clinton years. there was filegate, a lot of fbi files wandered over to the white house. beingork we did after accused unfairly of crimes at the white house. there was the health care tax force, that was recently being hidden from the public despite being available at the clinton library. there are many things that have nothing to do with the bill, nothing to do with sex, nothing

to do the controversial electoral -- subject that to delete everyone -- subject that cts tahat titliate everyone. all of this will be part of the public record. bill clinton will be a big on razor and support for hillary clinton, but not on the ballot. >> a tweet -- new jersey, you are on the republican line with john fund. caller: i think the people are right on the money here. paul, was right.

most tutorial sexy role editors, the democrats that have been on the ballot. obamaan see that the situation was a. right. keep this portion of the budget that they knew was in everyone'sup face. there's one story that comes down the line that they don't is or you just get a portion of it, people do not get the full story time and again here. >> just remarkably american media environment is completely different from what it was 38

years ago when ronald reagan was elected. back then, there are only three major networks, the only three major newspapers -- magazine, no real newspaper of scope. the media environment has completely changed. the network news programs of older cronkite used to say that the weighted, and that was the definitive word. enormousevision has rise. there are the internet channels, and c-span. you have to be a careful consumer. should sample media that does not agree with you gores in accord with all of your views because you learn something. if you want to get the story that you can properly represents the facts, you can find it. it is really up to the viewer government is up to the consumer to find the news they think is not able to then i explained the world to them. everyone is able to judge that for themselves.

so railing against media all bring things to the table. that the choices we have in the media now enable people to make up their own minds so that the stories cannot be buried anymore. you can find the stories company can also tell your friends, neighbors, and relatives through e-mail that they should read them. everyone right out watching c-span can be their own publisher, because if you take together all of your friends, neighbors, relatives on an e-mail list you will be a mini publisher. one of the interesting things about media that people pay for more attention to a story sent to them by a friend or relative than just out there in the general media. people have trust and confidence in you as a neighbor or relative.

you do not depend on the media to tell the whole story that you can tell the story that you want to tell yourself to the people you care most about. host: john fund is a columnist for the national review, his work is available online at eivew.com.i can i follow you on twitter? johnfund. i tweet once or twice a week. thank you very much for being with us. guest: a real pleasure. host: we will continue our conversation, of next new challenges for teachers as new standards are put in place. a conversation with the head of the american

federation of teachers. markey will be joining us , and more will weigh in on the situation in ukraine. we are back in a moment. >> what we are told, both as students as a nation in terms of the popular imagination is that they're all kinds of sins, marches, demonstrations that occur, but they are really done by the famous iconic people. that is rosa parks who was just so tired that she refused to get np from the bus ani montgomery, alabama, and a young preacher rome

georgia -- from georgia that lead the masses out of oppression. if rosa and martin could do this good, but they really simplify a much more complicated history. that complicated history really involves so many african-americans, women and men, who proactively dismantled racial segregation, including rosa parks. she was an activist comes you do not just refuse to give up her seat to accident. concerted, strategic effort to try to transform democratic institution. nighthor of dark days by - bright nights, -

nights will be in bookstores march 4. forwill take your questions two hours on tv. -- book tv. unionseachers, students, , thank you for being with us. what are these standards? what does it mean for teachers and students? a very tense and frustrating time in education right now. a lot of people actually believe that we have to have higher standards as long they support

standards that are basically alike to what kids need to do and know to be prepared for college and careers. of thesehat the nub standards were supposed to be beard -=- be. but the implementation has been worse than obamacare. you have a lot of districts and states that have just cut, cut, thebudgets and resources as kids and schools in our sisters have become poorer and poorer -- districts have become poorer and four. -- poorer. there are a lot of test, and then on top of that we have had and the most important thing we have ever done in this country was transitioning to standards

that we used to have before no child left behind. teachers are saying, we need some time to prepare, we need some time to work with each arer, we need -- parents saying we need to understand with the standards are and what it means in terms of our kids. instead, it has been full speed ahead instead of giving anyone preparations that they need. it is like building a lane and flying at the same time. no other business would do this. that is why i have called for a moratorium on the consequences of the testing, so that we can actually get this right. at the end of the day, what we have to do in schools and help build trusting- relationships with themselves and adults. went to teach kids how to apply knowledge, not just know things. and we have to help them when they stumble and fall, to get it

right. and let's put some joy back into teaching and learning. host: the washington post has a story on a study they did last year. testing more, teaching less, obsession,a's with testing, and money and time. convention,r last lks asked us-- fo if we could do a audit of measuring the testing and cools. we figured out how to actually measure, in the very clear way, how much official testing, you cannot even figure out how much test prep was going on, but official testing was going on.

in a moderate testing district, there were over two weeks that were dedicated to actual testing. in a test district ever there was a month and a half. this does not even include the issue of how you prepare for this. so when the stakes for one test become so great that there was so much time focused on it so that it narrows the curriculum, and does not engage in, something is wrong with this. currentarly since the generation of testing does not help you build relationships between kids and adults. it is not help them to develop persistence, grit, and character. it is not help them to engage. it is supposed to be a measure of knowledge, and what is said that there is no other country in the world that kept the way we do -- test the way we do. host: front page of the washington post in fairfax

county, which is one of the largest school district in the country. the average teachers colony -- salary is under $68,000 a year. they plan cuts of their own.

guest: let me just say that virginia does not allow collective bargaining. the teachers are not -- what you're seeing here is tremendous frustration because of what has happened in terms of the pylon pile-on.n -- they want to make a difference in the lives of kids, but people who run schools do not know how tong about kids or do work in education. what has happened is that between washington and state governments to just keep throwing more and more government mandates on teachers in terms of what they're supposed to do and when they are supposed to do it. what you hear underlying this, because i've not talked to the fairfax teachers, they're

basically saying stop, we need to actually be valued and do the things that are important because frankly about every teacher i know things that the stuff you talk about is more poor than every single day, grinding in terms of the dictation on testing. governor of virginia, and many of the people i talk to while he was running were talking about how much paperwork they are now doing in terms of virginia. instead of actually focusing on kids, and how we engage kids. let's actually get back to real teaching and learning and about what is supposed to be. it is supposed to be training her dreams and achievements. nurse is now part of your

union, when did that take place? thet: we are now second-largest nursing union in the united states of america, and they have been part of our unit for about 20 years. but what has happened is there is a big group called the federation of nurses, and they joined us about a year ago. we are a union of professionals. we are a union that believes in both being solution driven and a fighting back, and fighting forward. how to reclaim the promise of , that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will have great opportunity. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a few comments to make. -- i of all, and the newly

am genuinely supportive of teachers unions in terms of the bring tot they help to the educational process. i think we do not pay teachers enough. i think they are viewed with the is team -- they are not to be used with the is team that they should have in our society. ishink that the common core an important set of standards that we as a country have to take seriously, because when our 17th or 18th the world compared to how we are doing in other countries, that is a big problem. i think educators ought to speak out and say we as a country have to have our kids be at the top of this list.

line-in have a teachers. guest: you're absolutely right, we should transition to a set of standards that are in line with what kids need to know and be able to do in the job market. the only reason we have public education. public education should also be an active democracy. we are today kids where they are and really support them, and support the teachers in this transition. that is not happening. host: we have a line set aside if you're an educator. david from michigan. caller: good morning. education is at

democracy, but it is more like a monopoly. teachers here, after three years, have tenure. this year, they only have to teach 170 days because of the snow days. they are well overpaid, because of that little. three years, and then your pension for life and your family. >> have you ever taught? let me just say this. i was a high school teacher in brooklyn, new york. teaching is one of the hardest jobs that i know. theyteachers that i know, bring lots of papers home, they they well up into the night,

saturday night, i was pleading with teachers until 3:00 in the morning. teachers want to teach to make a difference in the lives of kids. tenure is simply about a probationary. y time. it should not be a cloak of incompetence. and if you have done a good job for three years, you should not be fired without somebody telling you whay. it is not a monopoly, it is something that our country should get to our kids paid by taxpayers. and used to be a part partisan issue -- a bipartisan issue, everything used to believe in this. i do not know why it has gone off the rails like this. ultimately, i invite you to come into a classroom with the teacher covers the what we do before you say we are either over parent, or that our jobs are not important.

host: you have been very critical of chris christie and his administration when it comes to the new work, new jersey school district. what is your complaint? christie is the boss of the new works will -- newark schools. he put in a superintendent who does not want to listen to the community. she took away a bunch of things that were put into improve our schools, because you do not agree with the. m. she has suggested a new plan that would totally rock that -- that would

the chartercalize schools, and then roll over the contract that she said is absolutely imperative for doing the work that she and the government said you needed to do in newark. sittinge the superintendent you actually have to listen to the people that you serve, not pretend that they are not important. what we have said, is listen to the people. do the things that we know work and schooling, not just give the schools to private prayers -- purveyors. that is basically why we have written a letter to chris christie zhang listen to people.

listen to the reasons why people are upset with her, do not ignore it. host: if you're listening on c-span radio, our guest is randi weingarten, the president of the american federation of teachers. this is a tweet -- guest: when you actually compare the u.s. education cost to the cost and other countries, there is one huge difference. other countries actually paid for economic security benefits, health care benefits, pension benefits. when you cap for those caught, they costs are pretty much the same as other countries. if you actually account for poverty, our schools and the united dates do better than schools all across the world.

one out of every two children in our public schools are poor. teachers have become the first responders to poverty. ultimately, we need to help all kids succeed. we need to make schools the center of communities about wrap services around them so that we are actually addressing kids social, emotional, health needs, as well as their instructional needs. when you go through that, and focus on equity, giving people who have the least the most then you get to excellence. that's what we have learned from the countries that are actually surpassing us. host: is a teaching ultimately the responsibility of the parent? isn't a poor class more reflective of the parent rather than the future? -- teacher? guest: i am never into the blame game. parents are our partners. stress innder huge

america these days. we need to partner together to help kids. it takes a village to raise kids. lin: any, on the democrat e. caller: hello. we would like to know if you're really going to talk about all these values of doing all these kidss, why is it that our are less educated it seems than before, and why are you allowing sexual predators to keep their teaching degrees? i want to understand how you can support anybody in the school that has been convicted of a sexual predatorness and not be fired? yeah unions fighting for them to get their benefits. i do not understand that. myst: i may depart from

colleagues in michigan, but i will tell you this, i abhor sexual predators, i think they have no right to be in school. we negotiated the you are out. frankly we passed a state law that said that record must i'll owe where ever. no placeedators have in school. have a rightpeople to his one people have an allegation. it can render life. they have a right to write false allegation. no way should there be social printers in school. i agree with you. at the end of the day, we're pushing for the kind of background checks and that kind of language.

>> david is a teacher from tennessee. good morning. caller: my wife is a teacher. big part of the anti-, comicore movement. there have been threats because of this. it is not her opinion. she cannot be held responsible. the fuchs and the like and bring up, my daughter goes to school. fisher they have a dress code. you had thethe test whole day we got to dress out of the stress coach. wear whatever you wanted to. cap asked. she came home crying say that everybody looks at her because she was stupid because she had to wear the dress code because she failed the test. how that goes on, i have no idea. i called the school.

guest: that is horrible. caller: the superintendent had no problem with it. the principles as we get out pizza. they did not pass a test. they would have to wear the dress code and they would know they had failed. the second one is that my wife does not teach social studies or scientist. they teach english all day more or less. those are the standardized tests. social studies have taken a backseat. i am a huge history buff. i work overseas. country many my times. history is a big part of my life. do not know history you repeat it. that is a problem. host: thank you for phoning in.

guest: you are totally right. the testing fixation must end. there's no other country in the world that tests every child every year. what has happened is that testing in any of the strategies that are using in schools are conflated because the dominant strategy in our system is testing, testing, testing. it creates these perversions that the caller just said is horrible. i am also troubled by is that tennessee, which also strips collective bargaining from teachers and retaliate against them, the senator from tennessee just threatens workers in the volkswagen plant, is lifted up as one of the states that did a little bit better in the last test scores. of have perversions

education throughout. ,e have to actually teach kids not test to kids. we had to bring back the joy of learning. we had to engage kids in terms of being able to critically think. if we do not build relationships and their self-esteem and do not actually help them become the productive citizens in the chambers of the future, what are we doing. i totally a completely agree. corker addressed the criticism that he has been receiving from organized labor, in particular the united auto workers trying to organize the plant in tennessee. he is the former mayor of chattanooga. here's what he had to say. [video clip] he made mores are than uaw workers and other ofnts for the same amount

time. it is the most environmentally safe plant. there's nothing like it. the workers there realize there's nothing the uaw could bring to them. by the way, they are the largest shareholders of one of their competitors general motors which is interesting. yes. those things came into play. my knowledge of uaw came into play. i think my involvement from their perspective, getting back to your base question, i probably and public in any number one to the uaw. host: that was from the detroit news. public enemy number one of the uaw. commentstion to his but what is organized labor? volkswagenthe personnel, the company personnel, say a week after the corkerat what senator

said about the company and about the incentives and the threats essentially it said if you vote for this the company will no longer make cars in tennessee. we are out and out wrong. at the end of the day, i have never seen public officials try to enter the are and others outside of the plant try to interfere with a union election and make those kind of threats. wantan see he does not people to have a voice at work. let the plantay " make the decisions." volkswagen was neutral. the union election lawsuit by 40 votes on something where there was more threats and intimidation from outsiders than we have ever seen.

that is a really sad day. at the end of the day, people in jobs need to have a voice at work. that is what creates opportunity. what we have seen historically is that when the labor movement was strong, we had a thriving middle class. as we have had our knocks, the middle-class class is also received it. if we want people to have a voice at work, have time with their families, have a decent paying job, have a safe work conditions, it it is not the makeor senator that will that happen. it is people on the ground in their communities that will make that happen. host: let me share this. pass the test is absolutely horrible for children who want to learn that are not good test takers.

marian is joining us from new york city. good morning. caller: i love you very much. always respected the work you do. i've been a delegate in new york city. i work really hard in the schools. i even helped to build playgrounds. but there was legislation, i am really concerned about the mental health and the social services. students really need it in the ask risk -- at risk districts of they're going to ask the test and the good. i never gave up, even when it was hard in the classroom, even when i was told if i wanted to use a bathroom i had to clean it, even when i was assaulted, and even now i have been dealing with all of that, i worry about people like brent and who just got arrested in new york. i taught him.

services heany needed. he never got the adequate help. now his life is down the tubes. i feel like even the kids who assaulted me needed help. not totally their fault that i am in the condition they him and. they were in the condition a were in. -- they were in. can you talk about the wrap around services the kids will get? host: thank you. first off, thank you so much for hanging in and for wanting to help children and for actually using your voice in that way. this is what i loved about being the local leader in new york city. use all this all the time. thank you. and the local what wet have worked on

call wrap around services. what we have seen in ohio and cincinnati and other places, which is when you understand that our kids have needs. i have social needs, emotional needs, and two thirds of the achievement gap is from factors out of school. if you really want to help children, we have to help them with all of these things. started proposing wraparound services. wrap services around schools like health services, afterschool services. parenting classes. the community college of that may be in a district or a countyhborhood or in with the public school so that parents and others can take skill building courses so that they can be prepared.

that is what the concept is. we are seeing it in syracuse. we're seeing it in ohio. we're seeing it in new york. willayor has said that we work on having about 200 schools. cincinnati, what you saw is the test scores rise, kid to stay in school, graduate from and you saw the community making the schools having confidence again. >> she is joining us from austin, texas. thank you for being with us on this sunday. our guest is mentioned along with some others this weekend with the headline "democrats

ponder how to harden big-money." you can check out the details online. coming up in just a moment, we will turn our attention to at in a stamp. what is next for the u.s. military? another look at the sunday morning programs and the latest programs in the ukraine dominating discussions and the u.s. halted any preparations for the g-8 summit scheduled to take ways in school she -- insko she -- in sochi. front and center as well as the week ahead in congress and politics. you can hear rebroadcasts beginning at noon eastern time. who isnclude john kerry making appearances on several of the shows today. also, marco rubio and claire

mccaskill of a missouri democrat. at 1:00 p.m., an appearance by secretary kerry and actor ben affleck. as low as mike mcfaul. news00 p.m., it is fox sunday. the state of the union follows that 3:00 p.m. eastern with the former u.s. ambassador to russia and dick durbin. graham and a ukrainian ambassador to the u.s. . at 4:00 p.m., it is face the nation with secretary kerry once again. also, kiersten angela brent and michael -- michael o'hanlon. shows are on c-span radio and abroad to you for the

weekend. the rebroadcast again at noon eastern time with me the press. , fox news sunday. 3:00 state of the union. listen here in the washington, d.c. area. you can download our free app for your smart phone or listen online at c-span.org. >> blown out and broke. year in, year out. they brought this. they are choked to death. night and day.

many were here. he stop machinery, brooms, credit. even hope was gone. reelis weekend on america, the documentary, the plow that rogue the plane. a history of the great plane region. >> "washington journal" continues. >> we want to welcome the senior council on foreign relations. he is the author of this book, no exit from pakistan. afghanistanocus on and some of the developments is a readout. it was ready blunt terms. the administration is saying that you need to make a decision because we need to plan whether

or not we will keep our troops that can assam. what is happening? protect themd to to keep them outside of afghanistan for as long as we stay. unless we get that agreement, we keep at be able to number of forces many people are expecting, which is around 10,000 or thereabouts. this was meant to signal that he has this one last chance. i just think anybody really karzai will take the bait. to natoded to signal leaders that they also need to plan for the possibility that the united states would draw down to zero rather than leaving behind and residual force. give them the out

they may be looking for? is possible. there are divisions right now. that wouldome actually prefer to go to zero. without a security agreement they are pushing the president in that direction. you are not hearing that from the defense or state department or many others who have been involved in this fight. you are not hearing that from the wider region. the one he wants us to go to zero our president karzai and the taliban. everyone else would rather that we taper our forces rather than go precipitously from where we are now to something over 30,000. want us toould he leave? why is this bilateral agreement so important to the u.s.? guest: it is not entirely clear what his motivations are. that is part of the problem.

what has been clear is that his relationship has been poisoned for years. that het surprising would be negotiating in a difficult way. some speculate that he wants to maintain some degree of influence. this is one way for him to do it. others say he is so fed up with the united states, does not perceive forces are doing his interests in the good. he is willing to play this game all the way to its logical conclusion. we need thepoint -- agreement as we would like to have similar agreements and other places where u.s. forces are operating. there is a concern that if an american soldier were to do something perceived as wrong that he would be tried by afghan courts. this is an impossible scenario. forces, really hurt our make them feel very vulnerable. we have real questions about the quality of afghan justice. what we want is to have a

position where we can make sure to bring our forces home. they will be tried by the u.s. court-martial or otherwise. this is a piece of the puzzle. if you are a veteran of the war in a can of san or surge in the armed forces, we specialize to hear from you. the number on the bottom of the screen. you can also send us your tweet .r join us on facebook our guess is daniel. his book is "no exit from pakistan." troop pullout. from last thursday. [video clip] >> the president has been clear that our war will be over at the end of 2014. i agree with that, by the way. it has been a very long

conflict. span will not be one where we will put our men and women jerkily into harms way. i concede and highlight the fact that afghanistan will remain a dangerous place for some time to come. will be far here more narrowly described in terms of training and advising the system at the upper echelons. not at the level where we will be on patrol with the afghans or not on the level where we will be partnered with them in small tactical formations. .ather at the core level at the to and three-star level and above. what they really need from us is not our firepower with some exceptions. what they really need from us is our expertise in logistics and communications and signal a

medical survey can build their own systems over time that can sustain that tactical fighting force. the tactical fighting force is credible and confident today. they will go out and fight. what they need to figure out is how to sustain themselves with logistics and communications, intelligence. thatll be operating at level, not without risk, but for those who are weary of war. it will be a very different mission. host: he said down with nbc news. others may say why stay there? what is the u.s. interests and thus remaining even if it is a residual forces or advisors to help train and rebuild? there is a general assessment that while we have made progress in a innocent, including with equipping afghan national security forces, they are not really ready to stay in

the field very effectively if we leave very rapidly. they have been trained. there are caps and the officer corps. they do not have the communications of war, the organization. will be anure they effective security force without us. the point would be to try to enough forces to gradually reduce that over time rather than do it all at once. forces willthat the fall apart. host: please discuss the outcome where the u.s. try soldiers for crimes committed. who accounts for the contractors? guest: it is a problem. there are an enormous amount of contracts. i am sure many see this as critical to why they would a bilateralts of security agreement. there is an important point to make. leaderin a position of

now opposes the agreement with agreed.s that have been this is over. he has been a stick in the mud on the issue. it has more to say about him than the specific terms of this agreement. let's listen to brian joining from michigan. council fellow with the on foreign relations. good morning. having spent time in the middle it wasars ago, i just hard to believe that 9/11 would come. it is audacious to believe we could actually hold some way for years and years to come, especially in a landlocked countries such as afghanistan. what perplexes me is when: werel came out and they

tied together. he said if you break it you have to fix it. i reject that notion. they're going to do what they need to do. this is how it is tied into afghanistan. knowing the expenses will be so exorbitant to try to hold sway again. if we were to look at it objectively, we would have had a force in afghanistan. gone in anddone is got hussein and gotten the heck out. >> there are good arguments to make about how difficult it is to remake a country like afghanistan. anybody who had hoped that we would be in for a long-term true commitment has been severely disappointed, not just by the fact that we have decided to move away from that i did was never as successful as they might have hoped. that is effectively over. --are debating the team

between 10,000 forces in the continuing training mission that may or may not hold together. in a relatively time-limited cents or a zero option that is isly out very rapidly, which more likely to lead to a rapid acceleration of violence and instability in afghanistan. it is something that we may be able to avoid. the larger question about the u.s. role in the middle east. this is something that has been a critical aspect of the debate in afghanistan. beis going to continue to debated by politicians and historians. what contracting firm is benefiting the most from staying in afghanistan? guest: i do not know. there are lots that have been buildingin some of the

operations in terms of infrastructure, roads. involved ineen building up bases. you have heard some of the stories about efforts to build up enormous sicilia fees that will actually not be used. perhaps with the expectation that we would be around. now they're just turning into these enormous warehouse is that will probably fall into disrepair relatively rapidly. is president karzai firmly in control? guest: he has been a contentious leader since his last election in 2009. there areon has been questions about the way he was voted in. a lot of improper uses of polls and so on. a lot of corruption. is he acting logically? given the circumstances that he

faces and the fact he has multiple audiences, afghan, regional, the united dates, nato, his own personal interest, it is hard to say that being is not a relatively sane response. try to push them out of power as early as 2009. he believes the obama administration is completely against them. president obama did talk to him the other day. the first time since june. karzai has made it clear that he says of this as something less the interest of and certainlyl serving his political interests and more serving a very narrow conception of u.s. interest fighting terrorists. is not sure that working with us is in his best interest. he is working against us.

that has been true for a while. decisionthey make a point, our guest is with the council on foreign relations. think he for joining us from tens or -- your joining us from tennessee. karzai wasknow that the president before he got his position as president of afghanistan. to serve the purposes of doing a pipeline down from into the gulf to bring that and just recently they discovered a large rare earth minerals in that area. --rica's dominance and oil in oil and rare earth is seen as part of what they're trying to accomplish over there. are aboutilization the entire region and could only end up in world war iii.

i think americans are very concerned. out of thatpull entire region and let them take care of themselves. taking care of themselves as right in a sense. i just think anybody is suggesting the united states has a long-term interest in occupying afghanistan. should we stick around in a limited capacity to help what remains of what we built in terms of an afghan national security force for a matter of several years or should we pick up our game or even tip it over and mark it out expeditiously. i would rather try to hold this together. part of it has to do not with u.s. interest in minerals or oil wealth, we do not stand to gain a whole deal here. there has been relatively less interest by u.s. corporations

than there has been from chinese corporations and others from the region. it is not a matter of enriching u.s. companies. it is a matter of trying to hold together a very dangerous, not particularly well developed country for a longer time so that the problem of international terrorism that we new from 9/11 don't find a safe haven inside of afghanistan. if we are to look at afghanistan as a series of incomplete excesses, or one of the things we would have to say is that the problem of al qaeda has been significantly reduced. the threat of international terrorism has been host: get responses to a couple other comments. let's get this straight. the u.s. wants the leader of the afghan people to sign an agreement that allows american troops to kill afghans without a risk of prosecution should

innocent afghans also end up as casualties while u.s. forces remain in that country for another decade as occupiers afthis country. is this correct? guest: i wouldn't characterize it that way. what i would say is we want a similar arrangement to what we've had over the past period of time. that is a legal arrangement with the afghan government that when u.s. forces do things considered to be wrong they will be prosecuted but that they will not be held up in courts inside of afghanistan, that we would have questions about the legitimacy of, if they were held there. we do not want u.s. forces to fear they will end up in afghan prisons or that they will be seen before an afghan justice system that is less fair and free than we would hope. host: another comment. this is from jan.

guest: so two broad points here. the writ of the afghan state has been something very much in question over the past decade plus. and it's been clear that historicically kabul and anybody who has led from kabul has been relatively weak and not capable of a centralized tight control over the rest of the country. but this isn't to say that afghanistan hasn't been a nation. it's been a nation for hundreds of years and it also isn't to say that afghanistan hasn't known better time. it has. earlier in the cold war, afghanistan was relatively in better situations certainly far better than it is now. and way way better than it was under the taliban. so there are degrees of failure and afghanistan could succeed marginally better than it has. i think just as one measure of how bad things were under the taliban life expectancy inside of afghanistan has gone up by 20 years over the past 10 years in terms of an average afghan

will live 20 years longer now. this is an enormous shift. and so anybody who suggests things couldn't get considerably worse i think is quite wrong. on the drug trade, i think this is one of the most significant problems that we will leave behind in afghanistan. in terms of the broader economy the drug trade is estimated to be something in the order of 30% of the total economy. anything that occupies such a central role in an economy is going to lead to corruption, it's going to lead to changed incentives. and whether or not president karzai himself personally benefits from it, there are many afghan members of the state and important leaders in the society who do. and so this is going to continue to be a problem. >> the next call is chris. good morning. oining us from columbus, ohio. caller: good morning. my question would be for the overall outcome of afghanistan that you think we would have achieved the same results by

doing what the brits did in the region in the 19th century which could be sum rised as finding the militia powerful enough to have control giving them guns and money and letting them run internal affairs. guest: interesting question. among other option we might have had this is one. we could have gone in, stayed very light. effectively subcontracted out afghanistan to local war lords. and some would say that we did a fair amount of that. a lot of afghan leaders, including some of the people who are going to be running for the presidency in early april of this year were former war lords. so a lot of that subcontracting out of responsibilities as a practical matter has been done. president karzai is somebody that we picked up, saw him to be useful, effectively put him into power with the rest of the international community, and many willing afghans, and so in some ways we have done that

there, too. i would point to a critical juncture in the war in afghanistan as being our decision to shift gears and open up a different front, which is the wake. up until that point, there -- war in iraq. up until then there was in pakistan, india and elsewhere, that we would in fact see through the afghan war enterprise in a much more effective way. when that happened, and we were very clearly distracted many resources shifteded over to the iraq war, then there were all kinds of new questions being raised inside of afghanistan, including among afghans about just how serious we were in this war and in this effort to rebuild this country. let me get r says your reaction to nato secretary general the former prime minister of denmark now overseeing operations in brussels. he spoke to reporters last wednesday.

>> we all know the facts. if the bilateral security agreement between the united states and afghanistan is not signed, there will be no nato status of forces agreement with afghanistan. and if there is no agreement, there will be no nato troops in afghanistan after 2014. let me stress, this is not our preferred option. but these are the facts. facts that we need to take into account in our planning. host: that goes back to the earlier point about what the military needs to do. why so much lead time? it's a complex issue in terms of moving troops around and figuring out where they're going to stay both short and long term. but what other variables are in place? guest: it is the question of logistics and planning.

i think the u.s. military, i know they would have much preferred to have this bilateral security agreement in place late last year so they could basically chart out a full year plan that they would know that by year's end 2014 they would have 10,000 or so forces in place where they would be, what their missions would be, and all of the equipment and materiel that they wouldn't need would have made its way out of the country largely by way of pakistan, the northern routes. that's the critical issue has been the planning issue. now that they haven't gotten that arrangement or they haven't gotten it in time, they will be planning on the go, they will be making some basic assessments about what they need to do, some guesswork, and this makes them very uncomfortable. and beyond that, it hurts our nato partners because they're also trying to make plans and they also need to know whether they'll be keeping forces in afghanistan or going down to zero like we may be doing. host: final question. what's the timeline for all this?

for the u.s. to make a decision. guest: well, the u.s. is probably not going to make a decision until a new afghan government is in place. the afghan elections, the first round will be in early april. then they'll probably be a subsequent round. so we're talking in the july, timeframe, there will be a new government in place, assuming things go smoothly, the u.s. government will reach out to that new leadership and attempt to get an agreement there. then they'll have the rest of the year to get the logistics in motion. host: as we talk about the situation in afghanistan and the future of u.s. troops in that region. thanks for being with us. guest: thank you. host: we want to turn back to the situation in ukraine and again we're hearing from a number of news sources that the u.s., great britain and france ow suspending any talks of the g-8 summit to take place in russia in june. we're also getting reports from

the associated press that several hundred armed troops are blocking ukrainian military troop movement in crimea, the center of the situation right now at the moment. and we're going to hear more from michael crowelly of time magazine who will weigh in on the situation. his piece, ukraine, the example of obama's limited global influence. >> we are deeply disturbed by reports this morning of russian military intervention in toa. his is without legal basis, to protect the sovereignty territory independence of ukraine. it is time for the russian intervention in ukraine to end. the russian military must stand down, the aspirations of the ukrainian people must be respected, and political dialogue must be allowed to continue. we applaud the remarkable

restraint and commitment to that dialogue that the new ukrainian government in kiev has demonstrated in the face of hostility. we have is he said from the outset that we recognize and respect russia's historical ties to ukraine. but instead of engaging the government of ukraine, and international institutions about its concerns for ethnic russians, russia ignored both and has instead acted unilaterally and militarily. it is ironic that they regularly goes out of its way in this chamber to emphasize the sanctity of national borders and of sovereignty. but russian actions in ukraine are violating the soverpty of ukraine and pose a threat to peace and security. russia ammings various actions against and threats to minority groups in ukraine. we see no evidence of these actions yet. but russia's provocative actions could easily push a tense situation beyond the breaking point. the assessment from u.s.

ambassador to the united nations samantha power yesterday during an emergency session of the security council. joining us is michael crowelly, chief foreign correspondent for time magazine. thanks for being with us. you indicated at time.com that the options for president obama are in your words painfully limited. how so? >> well, unfortunately there's just -- it's just that. there's just not a lot -- we still have a lot of leverage in this situation. russia has the proximity to ukraine, the economic tiings, and the social and ethnic ties. and the stakes are much higher for putin. this matter is much more to him i think than it does to the united states and the west. on our side, we have -- there are certain ways we can try to

punish russia, say through economic sanctions, maybe targeting individuals but there's only so much we can really do particularly when everyone knows that there's absolutely no chance that we're going to commit troops of our own or use military force in this situation. so to some degree the president and the administration is left to condemnations and rhetoric trying to shame the russians like we just heard from ambassador powers but other issues when we have used this kind of rhetoric, for instance in condemning moscows support for alassad, putin has kind of shrugged it off and doesn't care. and russia does have a veto at the u.n. security council. so really, just not a whole lot of leverage here for us. >> this morning -- i'm not sure if you've had a chance to see it, from david cramer who served as secretary of state in the bush administration, his area of expertise includes

russia and ukraine. says u.s. foreign policy comes home to roost. he list as few things he says the u.s. can do. first, sending u.s. military ships to the black sea in case of any contingency is neffsre. he's also saying we need to have an emergency session of nato. and imposing sanctions against russian state-owned banks and financial institutions. goes back to your earlier point. just how effective would any of these be? >> well, i think on the sanctions, we probably can inflict a little bit of pain. it's not like we're going to be able to -- it's not like a case like iran where we would be able to choke the russian economy, not like that i can imagine. i think we can do things to make things inconvenient and particularly we might be able to target some russian olegards. but i have not seen evidence that we can have an influence

economically that will dramatically change the situation. things like moving war ships and sort of mobilizing nato, i just think that's saber rattling. i don't think that russia will take it very seriously and i think at the point where russia did take any kind of military maneuvers or mobilization serially we will have escalated the problem to a level that we just don't want. the west, europe and the united states just does not want the potential for an actual military confrontation with russia over this. i just don't think the stakes are high enough, however terrible we may find what putin is doing to be, i just think that the number of people who think it's worth the chance of a military conflict or deciding going into a military conflict is tiny. i really think things like moving ships around and sort of symbolic nato actions just won't get us very far. >> time magazine's chief foreign affairs correspondent

joining us here in washington. let me get your reaction to this statement issued late yesterday by secretary of state john kerry who is basically reiterating it today. one of those developments this morning is the u.s. suspending any talks of the g-8 summit in soachi hearing the same from france and the u.k. >> caller: i do think this idea of essentially just talk of kicking russia out of the g-8 and turning it into the g-7 is an interesting idea. i do think that there's a kind of national pride that putin

has. i don't think he cares much about being shamed, about being lectured about being told that he is being a bad guy. i think he is determined for russia to have great power status and respect and influence. and what i don't know is how much he really cares about this g-8 designation and role but that is maybe one interesting avenue. i am skeptical that will really be decisive in this situation. and again, i think that we can talk about profound consequences. but to use rhetoric like this in regard to syria, putin has been supporting alassad for years now. we very recently just in the last few weeks administration officials including kerry have denounced putin in the strongest terms saying that he is enabling the slaughter of civilians in syria and he really just doesn't seem to care. so does he care enough about

the meaning of russia's g- role and his country's status and prestige in that regard to modify his bare? maybe. but it seems -- behavior? maybe. but i think he cares a great deal about crimea and ukraine and what happens there. and is willing to suffer a little bit of pain over it. and by the way, one other thing. when we talk about what we're willing to do to try to change his behavior, you have to remember that we need putin's help. we, the united states, we very much need his help on some other high priorities in our foreign policy, one of them would be iran. russia has been essential to establishing the international economic sanctions against tehran and maintaining them, preventing them from falling apart, preventing people from cheating and doing business with iran around the margins. and we need them on board to continue to support that sanctions regime as we try to get a deal where iran

dramatically scales back its nuclear programs. if we have hostile relations with putin, that's going to make things a lot harder, iran will try to exploit those differences. and i'm sure in the obama white house they're thinking we've got to push him on ukraine but not so hard that we lose him on iran and some other issues. so he's still an essential partner whether or not we like it. >> michael crowelly joining us on the phone here and his piece is available on line at time.com. with this headline, ukraine just the latest example of obama's limited influence from kiev to kabul to cairo, the u.s. president is a frustrated bye stander. thanks for being with us. >> my pleasure. thank you. >> we're going to move on with more of your calls and comments. you can join in on this conversation or send us a tweet. ill did.

guest: i don't think this is really an issue of the g-8 summit or the current relations between the west and russia. surely this is more about the status of the soviet politics, the soviet politics. those borders were drawn in the 1950's somewhat abtract and artificial. the ukraine itself is currently all around are a construct of the older conference. what we're probably looking at now, and you've got russia being belligerent, you've got europe and nato possibly forsed by germany to be fairly belligerent. it's beginning to look like the second world war. britain and america need to stand aside but be constructive in terms of creating some kind of third way. it strikes me that crimea should be an independent republic but sort of republic

that is part of russia rather than the ukraine or possibly both. >> thanks for the call. thanks for tuning in on the bbc parliament chamber from england. joining from the crimea section of ukraine has a section online. the "wall street journal," as russia extends its reach, also pointing out president bush and putin held a conversation yesterday after russia's parliament voted unanimously to deploy troops defying warnings not to intervene. this morning we have a new number, about 15,000 russian troops all on mark not wearing signature in a but in crimea which is a portion of ukraine and the southern part home to over 2 million residents. yesterday russia's ambassador to the united nations had this o say a little history lesson.

>> so i have a question. hy did this problem need to be result in street man if he is stations? why is it that these street demonstrations need to be eeb couraged from abroad, encouraged by people from the eu? why did the speakers of several countries of the eu, why did they need to appear at these meetings that were ignited by protests against this decision by the ukrainian leadership? why did officials need to talk about bringing the -- whipping up the public and leaders of the opposition? why is it that -- why did there have to be such crude interventions in the internal sovereignty of ukraine? and then another question to be honest. during the crisis reacting to these protests, the president jan coveish -- and i don't want to condone his actions.

many things could be said. i will just repeat the facts. that the leader -- a leader of the opposition was offered the pm. why not accept that proposal? why continue to ratchet up the situation? host: that from yesterday. and the u.n. security council meeting. the independent magazine has the headline. pointing out after the shock came the response for two days western governments clung to the illusion that putin would not ignore their concerns despite the hour by hour escalation of events in crimea and there is this from the front page. and this photograph released by

the white house. the president on the phone saturday with president putin. guest: good morning. it's terrible how this has been reported. i've been a protester ever since i came back from the vietnam war. and you don't use paving stones to throw at police officers nor did we ever try to set police officers on fire. the press describing these people as peaceful is outrageous. but more importantly we need to remember how what started u.s. involvement in afghanistan. we were told that the c.i.a. were sent into afghanistan six months after the soviet invasion. well, that was a lie. brizz inski and carter finally admitted i think years later that they had sent the c.i.a. into afghanistan six months before the russian invasion to

try to overthrow that government which precipitated the invasion by soviet troops. i think we're very much seeing a replay of this in ukraine. anyone who thinks that the united states is not involved, secretary of state was out there handing out cookies to violent protesters? that didn't mean that the u.s. was giving significant levels of aid beforehand has no recollection of our history. people should also pay attention to why the united ant is trying to ring missiles in eastern europe which have nothing to do with iran. everything to do with knocking down russian missiles just as the set of north korea was used to use a defense system that goes from australia to japan all the way to alaska. host: i'll stop you there. matt makes this point.

kevin drum has another point of view from mother jones magazine. then he has one other conclusion saying that in the end it will all settle down into a stalemate with russia having thrown its weight around the world just like it always has and the west not having the leverage to do much about it. you can read the full piece on line at mother jones.com. michael from ohio. good morning. kinchingtsdz good morning. guest: good morning. i'm very disgusted indeed with

president obama's approach to foreign policy, on iran, syria, russia. whoever tells you we have in the united states government less limited options against russia, there are ten ways to skin a cat. russia is a third world country they export only oil gas and lumber. if i'm in a place with the congress senate i will build ukraine like the way they built south korea and japan and let russia explode the problem inside. i'm arab and syrian and i'm a human being and i love this country. i'm a libertarian. there's only one thing important for me is human rights. russia is a -- you know what? we need to stop putin. we should not waiver. kick them out of the 8 and kick them out of the 12, prevent them from that.

and squeeze them. host: thanks for the call. from the post, headlines. this perspective from russia today. that from russia today. joining us from hawaii. good morning. caller: thank you. and good morning to you. i think each country needs to take care of their own population problem, don't drag us into the dirty business. host: thanks very much for the call. we'll have much more on this tomorrow morning on c-span's "washington journal" which you can listen to on c-span radio, getting under way at 7:00

eastern time. josh roguen will be here in the studio. we'll also turn our attention to health care costs with jennifer dooren who is with the "wall street journal." and later, your money. a look at administration efforts to establish manufacturing hubs both public and private partnership to improve manufacturing across the country. all tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. on c-span's "washington journal." nakesnakes is coming up -- "newsmakers" is coming up next. with tom harkin, democrat of iowa. thanks for being with us. enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great week ahead. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2014]

>> coming up this morning, "newsmakers" with democratic senator tom harkin of iowa. after that, republican senator bob corker of tennessee at a recent event hosted by the christian science monitor. and then later a senate armed services subcommittee hearing on squalts in the military. -- sexual assaults in the military. >> this week on "newsmakers" we're we are joined by tom harkin. welcome. thank you for being here. two reporters to help us with questions. covers theo who tribune newspapers and font johnson, a correspondent with "national journal." >> let's start with the minimum wage increase. for thea big deal

democrats. expected to be a big deal in the campaign. right from the beginning, you have drawn a hard-line, thank you do not want to negotiate the rate that you have proposed over three years, $10 and $.10 per hour -- $2.10 per hour. can you tell us why? >> it is not just a big deal for democrats. it is a big deal for millions of people. 80% of the people we are talking about that will get a raise our adults. 54% are parents of kids. over half of them bring at least half the family income. we are not just talking about teenagers getting new jobs, by the way. we estimate about 20 million people get a raise in america. it is a progress bill. economic -- progress a bill. the economic benefits will increase the gdp. this is a progrowth