>> the supreme court has yet to did decide by the way, as part of c-span coverage of campaign 2014, live coverage of two be debates tonight. go to our web site for more information. with the death of that man in texas that contract the ebola and with the federal government putting procedures in place. for those coming in from

west africa countries, we want to ask you this morning about your opinion of the level of confidence that you have in the federal government to handle ebolaouts breaks in the u.s. if you're confident of the government ability to do so. somewhat confidence, and not too confident if you want to put on our social media pages, a poll on our facebook page, you can email us too at journal at c-span.org. polling put out a poll asking a question similar to this one and using the same categories about people's confidence in the ability of the federal government to handle ebola outbreaks in the united states. when those polls were taken, they found that 26% said

they were very confident. 35% somewhat, not too confidence, about 20% of those responding and not confident at all, 17% was participants. again, if we want to get your opinion on the same categories this are morning about your confidence in the government to do so and the numbers will be on your screen. divided it into confidence, somewhat confident and not confident at all. pick the line that best represents you and call and tell us why. the five airport that's you probably heard about as far as new inspection sites for those coming in from west africa countries and inspections for ebola, will take place about 5 cross the united states newark, washington dull less, hart field jackson in atlanta. john f. kennedy and chicago o'hare. it says in the paper this is morning that 150 travelers per day hit one of these

five airports. hence the reason why they're putting those inspections there. also in u.s.a. today, says if a traveler has a fever or a questioner reveals possible exposure, quarantine officer will assess whether the passenger will be allowed to continue or precautionary measuring to be taken. in a travel doesn't have a fever, over will ask the traveler to keep a daily temperature log an provide contact information. travelers may have fevers for other reasons. malaria is common in west africa but transmit by mosquito rather than than between people. some patients with fever will cause obvious and understandable concern. again, your confidence level in the united states government to handle ebola. lines divided on your screen. let's start with arty in louisiana, very confident. tell us why. >> caller: first of all, i think our federal government and our system of health care is the best in the world. you know, if we allow

ourselveses to get trapped into this cycle of psycho analysts of everything done around the world and drop it at the door of the federal government, i think that is a serious mistake. because we can do better but we have an element in this country that do not believe in government and i don't know why they constantly running for office but i think our government will do quite well in handling this situation but we have to be on the same page. we can't be undermining everything that our government is doing and say we don't want government. i mean, why don't they just pack up and leaf this country? that would help if they just get out of the way and go somewhere where they'll be comfortable. >> this is bob, florida. somewhat confident. good morning. >> how are you doing there? thanks for c-span. after september 11 if i recall correctly for a number of hours or days, they shut down the airline.

from flying. and you know, if i was a flight attendant on any airline that flew into one. these countries where this ebola is present, i think that i would probably send some sort of hired employment attorney and send a letter to my employer that given the risk involved of getting this disease, that i wouldn't fly those routes, and if more flight attendants were somehow able to sign on to not wanting to fly into those routes, i think that there should be limited airline travel to the countries that are involved and i think that hope someone hears this, i think that our government should get behind some kind of a plan to really either cut down or shut down the

routes to those countries and i think the flight attendants ought to on some workers comp or some kind of a risk level back out of their employment. >> host: that is bob from florida. if you go do our facebook page, we have put up a poll you can participate in. same categories we're asking this morning. 52 people responding saying they don't express any confidents in the government ability at all. 15 saying somewhat. 10 saying very. 5 saying not too confident. we'll hear from someone that has no confidence. janet from salem. hi. >> caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i really doo believe the previous caller had it right. however, i believe it's much, much more serious than our government is telling us. i think this is highl contagious. and if they bring the

patients from africa into our country they should be located probably in nebraska and not taken all over different areas of the state. and so, i think this is a pandemic. >> host: why nebraska? >> caller: i believe nebraska has the best isolation areas and so, that's why i say nebraska. >> host: that is janet from illinois, the centers for disease control held a press conference taking a look at this issue h the cdc director updated reporters on the second person with possible symptoms at texas hospital. here's what he had to say. >> my understanding and this is kind of a recently information but we will get definitive information in the next few hours, is that there is someone that does not have either definite contact with ebola or

definite symptoms of ebola, who is being assessed and you know what we expect is that as people are more concerned, as there's a higher index of suspicion, people will be assessed. there will be rumors and concerns. as it should be. we should just keep it in perspective. right now, only one patient diagnosed with ebola in the u.s. and that individual tragically died today. we are tracing the other -- the 48 people, 10 with definite and 38 with possible contact. none of them as of today has had fever or symptoms suggestive of ebola. but we recognize we're not out of that 21 day waiting period and we're actually at the peak incident period of 8-10 days. certainly a time when year anxious and carefully assessing. >> the man who died yesterday, thomas eric duncan, featured on the

front page. "washington post" and others, his death was yesterday. that was the cdc director talking about a possible other case they're looking at. new inspections at airports this morning and we want to get your thoughts on the level of confidence that you have in the government's ability to take care of outbreaks of ebola in the u.s. if you're very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident and not confident at all. let's hear from marlin. this is toria. what is your level of conversations? >> negative in the government in general. i donees understand why they can't just separate or make these areas no-fly zones. to insure it does not get into this country. maybe come up with detectors at the airports.

to detect it? or you know, something. because this shouldn't get out of hand like this and the government i don't trust it will handle the situation correctly. >> we'll hear next from alex in raleigh, north carolina, also who says that there is no level of confidence. good morning. >> caller: i'm between the last two. seems to me way back when, my grandparents came over and went through ellis island and if you had tuberculosis, this would quarantine you or send you back. why aren't they doing the same thing here? seems to me anybody coming over could be quarantined for 21 days, period. seems like the government is trying to not interfere with the business of the airplane companies or the airlines and they want to quarantine americans if you get an outbreak here like in dallas. they've got people that are keeping an eye on police

escorts and quarantining them. it will become a police state rather than cutting the danger off where it is. that's my thought. >> host: from new york, this is charlie. good morning, charlie. >> caller: yes. good morning. last night i was watching hawaii 5-0 and there was 'tisment for a new web site smash ebola.com. this is own's america. deadly third world diseases are now in the united states and yes, obama is the greatest president we've ever had. >> host: but charlie, before you go, the line you called in saying you didn't register any confidence at all, why is that? probably gone. so, as far as cases are concerned of ebola, a number of total cases discovered. over 8,000.

with those being confirmed by a lab. 4400 and bringing total death to 3800 cases plus. again, your level of confidence when it comes to ebola outbreaks here in the united states. numbers will be on your screen. divided the lines differently depending on your level of confidence. please pick the one that applies to you. "wall street journal" takes a look at government estimates of how this should be handled when it comes to the west african countries saying the governmentes mace as many as 10,000 health care workers needed in liberia alone and shortage. safety training courses to help them month protect themselves. government workers and volunteers currently undergoing. says the cdc court instructing medical staff and plans to train 35 to 40 a week. weekly training course doctors without borders reg. >> ly full and the world health organization and others such as international

medical core setting up training centers in west africa as well. program sierra leone has only four people to conduct training. getting requested all the time says technical officer with the u.n. health agency and hospital. meanwhile training own staff to handle any patients they may receive. and course based on one run by doctors without borders. again, that is in the "wall street journal" this morning. your level of confidence in the government ability to handle outbreaks. here's jack from oklahoma. good morning. >> good morning, sir. i have zero confidence. it is reason i have zeroed of confidence is because the

cdc attitude toward this is cavalier. while doctors without borders has been very up front in saying that the way we're handling this is horrible and am curish. who accused of being amateur by msf as well. recommendations on personal protective equipment is absurd. i've spend more than a decade in emergency medical services and i can assure you the way this is being handled is amateur and childish. >> when you say cavalier, how do you mean by that? >> caller: the air travel issue for one. well, it's paradox i call. a new word. just a new downistic buzzword. par i docks call if we don't allow air travel. that is the most absurd and stupid thing i ever heard. if they're worried about getting personnel to and

from west africa to help, then lease private aircraft or use military aircraft but having commercial flights coming to and from is -- that is suicide. >> host: chris in texas, hello. >> caller: good morning. thanks very much for c-span. enjoy thoroughly every morning. now, i made a check and the total number of people that are in the affect the region is something approaching 200 million. >> you're on. go ahead. >> caller: 200 million and thus far, i think we have had infections of just about 8,000 people. now, according to the world health organization the major reason the infection rate has been this high noting that it is just,

because of a lack of poor conditions. now, the u.s. health care system continues to be noted as being world leading and i'm surprised that people continue to say that they are not satisfied with the response of the government where they're continuing to give so much information and they are not confident. there's no way that one can possibly go back to policies that were used 100 years ago. and you know, it's remarkable that in this day and age, that people are saying that they are smart. they are -- you know, it is mind boggling and it goes do a bigger issue. there has been a systemic process of undermining confidence in government in

the past 15 to 20 years that will be totally destructive to the s. >> here's russell from new jersey. somewhat confident. hello. >> yes, good morning. i've been watching a lot of this on tv and it seems what we're counting on the government to do, this all started in texas. i mean, here we got governor rick perry running around wants to be president of the united states. he can't even take care of his own state. i mean, if they had taken care of this right in the beginning, put the person in the hospital immediately and mr. perry got his ass off the couch and we want in there and handled it, things would be better. the same thing with arizona. mr. mccain running around wants to be president of the united states. he kean take care of his own state with the viewpoints appears. >> you express that you had a somewhat level of confidence. what is that? what do you put your

confidence in? >> hoping to get their act together and have the cdc go into texas and take over. let the cdc go into texas. take it out of the hands of the local government and let them take charge because texas is not doing anything about this. >> it was the cdc yesterday that held the press conference talking to reporters. one of the participants was the homeland security deputy secretary who spoke to members of the cdc and reporters by phone. he talked about briefing on ebola and advance screenings going to take place at airports. he's what he had to say on phone. >> we are announcing we have announced today enhanced measures. specifically the enhanced screening will consist of targeted questions temperature checks and collection of contact information of travelers from the three affected countries entering the united states at five

airports. j.f.k. newark. dull less, chicago o'hare and atlanta. customs and border protection officers, by way of background. the officers observe all passengers for overt signs of illnesses. through visual observation and questioning as appropriate. for those entering the university at all ports of entry. in addition, mooching forward, all travelers arriving to the five airports i identified in the united states from liberia, sierra leone and guinea will undergo the enhanced scening measures. they will answer targeted questions about whether they have had contact with ebola patients. we will collect additional u.s. based contact information should cdc need to contact them. and finally, we will take

their temperature with a noncontact thermometer which can be a key indicator of potential infections. >> host: again, for the remainder of our time for the first segment, your level of confidence in the government ability to handle ebolaout bra break. again, very, somewhat, not too confident those are the numbers on the screen. also a line for those that are not confident at all. on to other news. raleigh news and observer out of north coast talking about sex change when it comes to election law because of a decision by the supreme court. u.s. supreme court ruling blocks same day registration. reporting that the court issued a ruling wednesday meaning voters in north coast will not be able to vote out of precincts on november 4 nor register to vote andcast ballots on the same day. blocking circuit court of appeals diss that reinstated same day voter registration and out of precinct voting. justices offered no insight into ruling to uphold

district court ruling to let november election proceed under the rite of the laws. ruth bader ginsburg and sotomayor dissented. washington, d.c. is next t gloria. what is your level of confidence? >> caller: not very confident at all. >> host: why is that? >> caller: i can they should shut the borders down and start taking care of the united states for a change and if they handle it like they handling the immigration, then we in trouble. i think they should do you know, look out for us sometimes. they never look out for the people in the united states at all. >> host: joe from maryland. somewhat confidence. tell us why. >> caller: hi is it me? joe? >> host: yes. you're on. >> caller: somewhat confident but i think the problem here is incentives f

you're in western africa and you have ebola, i think there is a strong incentive for you to fly to america to get the best care in the world and i'm not sure how you fix that problem. i'm not sure how you prevent somebody from coming here. i can tell you if i had ebola and i was in west africa, that's the first thing i would do, i would gather any resources and fly to america to get the best medical service. i guess why i'm maybe a little less confident is i'm not sure if we understand that is a strong incentive for people. all we're going to do is ask questions and rely on that? i don't think the medical training is going to be strong enough in these countries and i don't know how we fix that. i understand the effects of commerce and common people but trying to get around it. >> host: you mean the screenings at the airports that we were talking about, these five airports across it is united states? >> caller: i mean once they get here, sure the screening been better and

ing been better and that would be helpful but again, they're here already. they may have infected other people on the plane and i understand how it is spread, by pretty close bodily contact but with commission this deadly, you know, you want to take as little risk as possible and i feel bad. i want to do as much for the global community as we can. >> h lou, you are up next. tell us what you think. >> caller: i'm very upset about this situation. first of all, ebola was discovered almost 40 years ago. where have the health organizations of the world, the cdc and the pharmaceutical companies been? other than hiding their head in the sand for almost 40 years? this is not influenza. this is a major fatal disease. i have very little

confidence in any government handling this. another reason in the early stages of ebola, you look normal. how are they going to screen other than ask questions to protect us? i think this is an emergency. and i think the first thing they should do is quarantine every person coming from known ebola countries for a minimum of three weeks whether they're sick or not. and test them repeatedly for three weeks and then release them once they passed this time. >> host: the gallup organization asked people about views on ebola striking in the united states. 4% was the time poll said that ebola would not strike.

65% saying it would be a minor outbreak. for those saying it would be a major outbreak, 9%, for those that would call it a crisis, also at 9%. the "washington post" has a story this morning taking a look at president obama and threats against him made on social media sites. from the "washington post" saying that more than 60% of threats against the president are made online. according to the secret service. period of timing a new set of challenges for agency under fire for a series of critical security lapses. also goes on to say in the story that it was during the president's first run for the presidency that the issue of clearance concern was race which made him a magnet for people that thought it disqualified him for office. the number of overtly racist threats have subsided but threats in general continue. grievances against the president has been government overreach

according to officials suggesting that mr. obama is abusing power around tramp ling the constitution. on the pages of the "washington post" this morning. asking about your level of confidence in the government to ham ebola outbreak. from mark, florida. go ahead. >> caller: yes. i have very little or zero confidence in the way this is being handled. if you let a person on an airplane with 200 other people who has ebola, it is a very serious situation. airplane is very close contact situation. so, you come in, you screen that fella, he's not showing any symptoms. he's got another 20 days or so to show the symptoms and what about the other 200 beam on the airplane? it seems ridiculous, this extra screening they're trying to make us feel confident. number two, i think that the

southern border needs to be sealed up as well as the northern border because you got people sneaking over, all types, not only people who potentially have serious diseases such as ebola but other infectious diseases that are entering the country and i think we should ban all people coming from these stricken nations, flying over to the united states period. >> host: angela from ohio, tell us what you think. >> caller: well, i'm happy to hear that a lot of these people calling in feel exactly the same way i do. i do not have a lot of confidence in our government right now, especially our main leadership. i feel the border should be closed also. and god bless everybody. i hope we can do better the next time around. >> host: speaking of the secret service story, the

front lead pages of the "washington post" has a story taking a look back at incident in 2012 including members of the secret service and prostitutes saying new details show information at the time suggested prostitute was overnight guest yet the information was never thoroughly investigated or publicly acknowledged. information shared with the white house including hotel records and firsthand accounts. same type of evidence the agency and military relied on determined who in their ranks was involved. that is in the "washington post" this morning. tom, up next. washington. good morning. >> caller: good morning. yeah. i think the border subject is has pretty much been covered. we got a huge third world population and the president refuses to close the border so that's the main problem but one thing from your

experts or somebody in the medical industry, this, our hospital toward controlling a highly contagious staph diseases in the hospital. you can go in for minor elective surgery and get staph infections. it's scary if you look at the statistics, i don't know what they are right now, but -- i'd like to have somebody talk about controlling staffage if he can shuns. >> on our facebook page, you can participate in a poll. 30 people saying very confident. 24 somewhat confident and 7 not too confident. you can participate in this after this segment is done and also add your comments to the library as well. one more comment on the phones. trudy, california. good morning. go ahead. >> caller: hi.

i'd like to talk about black reparation, why aren't black people getting reparations like the indians and the japanese. that's what i'd like to talk about. >> host: that will end this segment. we'll take a turn and talk about foreign policy. particularly the government campaign along with other allies to fight isis in the middle east. border town of kobani has discussions on what others should be doing in this situation. "wall street journal" reporter will discuss that. and you may remember when gary hearth ran for president and the scandal that ended his campaign. later, author says that event made major changes to the nature of political reporting. we'll get his thoughts later in the program. turning to our campaign 2014 coverage in their third and final debate last night,

pennsylvania governor tom corbin and challenger tomwoman differed on voter id laws. struck down law requiring voters to present state approved photo id. that was the topic during the debate. here's a little bit of the portion produced by wtaetv in pittsburgh. >> these elections are about getting things done, making promises, looking at preferred public policies but also about democracy. we're running -- democratic tradition. we should be doing everything in our power to make pennsylvania better and stronger and making democracy stronger and better and voter id, one more way of limiting the franchise, one more way of keeping people from voting is absolutely wrong. antidemocratic. >> governor corbin? >> i disagree. it is not antidemocratic. to make sure that one person has one vote. makes sure there is accuracy in that vote and when the

lugger passed that, i signed that bill and we fought to defend it in the courts. the courts overturned it based on the procedures that were put into place. if that bill were to come back before me would the procedures change according to the what the court saw and you see in other states i believe, then i would say yes, we need to sign it. i want to make sure particularly in areas where there is just primaries where the primary winner will be the winner, that's where we particularly need to make sure that one person is voting only one time. >> i have a follow up question for both of you. some states feel that we are past the point historically where certain groups are in danger of losing their voting rights. do you feel that this country is in that position? mr. wolf? >> i'm not sure which groups you're talking about. >> any groups that have been disenfranchisedded in the pasted. >> we still have a long way to go before people feel they're disenfranchised. look at the turnout. than it wan

india which voted the samewe vo. we need to work on ways to make our democracy more relevant to the people. and disenfranchising people doesn't work. the reason i think governor, to be honest, the reason the republican party was trying to push this was because it would disenfranchise democratic voters. that is amount democratic. not only with a cap stall but with a small d. with should not engage in that kind of behavior. >> governor? >> mr. wolf, you can try to determine the intention of the republican party. ill i can tell you my intention is to make sure that the individualses in the city of pittsburgh, in erie, in the suburbs, whatever are doing what they're supposed to do, one vote for one person. and the disenfranchisement interesting question the way you put it. i think what we see is a lack of i want. i did see that in the democratic primary, 18%

tonout for 4 candidates. obviously the electorate wasn't too interested in the number of candidates. what i see is we need to educate more, do a better education of participation particularly in grade school and who would a in the work place, encouraging people to go vote. whether people are discouraging them, i don't think that is taking place as it did 30, 40, 50 years ago. >> "washington journal" continuesroom are first guess of the morning with the "wall street journal" and reports on the pentagon. good morning. >> guest: good morning. >> host: your story takes a look at the u.s. sends mixed signals. can you set this up for our viewers about what is going on in syria? >> guest: yes, everyone looking at kobani situation turkish border in syria. it islamic state moved in despite days of u.s. air strikes. three week siege now. u.s. is doing air strikes

but doesn't want to do more on the syrian side of the border and it's putting more pressure on turkey which has tanks and troops on the border poised and looking at the situation. kind of a cat and mouse game between turkey and the u.s. over how to deal with kobani. u.s. saying we can't do more. we'd he can like turkey to do more but not saying what they want turkey to do. turkey saying they're not willing to do more unless the u.s. does by creating buffer zone, no-fly zone in the area and taking the cam bane in syria toward president assad and the government forces. so we're in this standoff now over how to save kobani or whether to save kobani. some people in the military say kobani not strategically important to us. we're focused on iraq so we're not going to save the day because that is not our mission in the middle east. turkey is saying this is

important. other people are saying it is important. if islamic state keeps taking towns, it boosts their momentum. it's a difficult game. u.s. officials are in turkey today talking this through and seeing how to work through this problem, but at the moment, there's no compromise that. piercest. >> the suggestion of a buffer zone, how that is received by the u.s.? >> guest: the u.s. saying a buffer zone not on the table. military officials are not planning for it. yesterday, secretary of state john kerry said it is an idea to consider. he was a bit out of step with the white house saying it's not on the table. nato saying it is not on the table. maybe a diplomatic thing by the second of state to try to cajole turkey into doing more but it do is not appear that the u.s. is going to stake that step any time soon. >> what did the president

learn yesterday and say? >> president was meeting with all military advisors. talking about ebola, getting a briefing on the broad situation there. he's looking for the next face of this campaign. trying to train ground forces to fight in syria. trying to train and advice forces in iraq to get them back on the offensive and basically trying to put the pieces together. >> host: when it comes to syria itself, is the concern for the u.s. about its civil war and what would be perceived about it if they went any further taking sides in it? >> guest: i think that is part of it. the white house would like people to look at the situation in part like would they look at pat collins, where in this scenario, iraqis afghanistan. we have more of intense operation and we'ringing to ground forces we can work with to fight islamic state

forces where bass syria, looking at basically a sanctuary for islamic state fighters. looking at it through that rubik. this scenario where u.s. would do selective air strikes to disrupt sanctuaries but not so much to affect operations in syria and because the u.s. doesn't feel like they have ground forces in syria they can work with, they don't want to get too deeply involved in the war in syria. that's what they keep saying. look, we're really not trying to affect the situation in syria and it is a mess. everything time we take an action there, it throws off a balance in afflation that is completely fractured. different rebel groups control different forces. we have moderates and extremist rebels fighting the government. the government is taking advantage of u.s. air strikes to push advantage and it is a difficult situation on the syria side. >> host: we talked about the specifics but the

strategy of isis overall is the topic for our first guest this morning. if you want to ask him questions, 202-585-3881 for republicans. 880 for democrats. 3882 for independents. period of time to our twitter page to add comments in. also on on our facebook page. how would you assess the last nine weeks or so of air strikes? >> guest: well, it's difficult to assess. i think that they succeeded early on in blunting the momentum of islamic state in iraq. stopped them from advances in kurdish stan where they were trying to take over in northern iraq. it stopped them, pushed them back in some key places like mosul, small places where they've been pushed back but what we've seen them do is adapt. so they pushed offensives in

kobani most significantly. also pushing offensives in province outside of baghdad. air strikes dib but it doesn't seem like it's especially slowed them in their overall campaign. and you're seeing i think the u.s. being fairly reactive in air strike. reacting to where islamic state is going. reacting to them in kobani, in other parts of iraq, but we're not yet seeing them part of a coordinate campaign with iraqi forces on the ground. now, the u.s. says well we're in the midst of training the forces on the ground so they can launch the counter offensive here and they keep talking about strategic patience here, this is not something that will be resolved in days or weeks even or months. >> that was the topic yesterday with the pentagon spokesperson asked about the air strikes.

talked about kobani. here's his reaction. we'll get your reaction to it. >> we know this will be a long struggle. we know that isil will continue too grab ground and continue to be villages and under to and cities that they take. we all have to recognize that reality. so when we get up here and we say it's going to be a long struggle and difficult, and we say air power, military power alone to take air power off the table isn't going to be able to fix it, we really mean it so we need to prepare ourselves for the reality that other towns and villages and perhaps kobani will be taken by isil. >> host: are you surprised at that statement? >> guest: they've been hinting at that for days that it was not strategically important around they were focusing on the situation in iraq. not surprising he was so candid to say that openly. that is part of the tug of

war with turkey here and the u.s. i think is growing increasingly frustrated with turkey's lack of more significant role in dealing with the situation over there and that's has the potential to put serious restaurants on the coalition. if turkey is not willing to play a more active role as the country right on the border with syria watching this happen across the border, i think there will be more frustration from other allies about what we're doing, why isn't turkey doing more. >> robert is up first from petersburg, virginia. robert, go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i really don't think we should be back in there at all. we spent billions of dollars and people are dead over there and those people don't

want to fight for themselves. by being there again, we're going to open up the door for us to go and takes everybody's tax money again. if you let the people fall into place, it will be peace eventually f they just don't want to fight for themselves, we shouldn't spend our money and lose our lives. that's how i feel v a good morning. >> guest: there are certainly a lot of people worried about the u.s. playing a deeper role in the middle east. we got out of there a couple of years ago. the president got into office pledging do end the war in iraq and now we have advisers something back in. president keeps saying we're not going to have combat forces on the ground but there is a lot of concern about where this is going and the battle over kobani, you're seeing quick pressure, increasing pressure on the u.s. to do more, to expand the military came pan into syria, to have

a broad two country war going on here. and i think there is legitimate concern in this country and from allies about where this is going and how deep the u.s. military role will be. >> there's a line in your story saying kobani poses a dilemma. >> yes, u.s. wants to basically argue that the only thing we're going to do in syria is disrupt islam politic state sanctuaries and ability to operate in iraq. look at it through the iraq prism, what military officials keep saying but turkey and other allies are saying you can't do that. if you're just doing air strikes in kobani, it is affecting the dynamics in syria. it is affecting what happens. whether islam politic state takes over, it will have ripple effects across the country. turkey wants its to go further and targeted bashar al assad and his forces. there are lots of rebel force that's say the regime

is really the heart of the problem here, not the islamic state. there is increasing pressure on it is u.s. to get more involved and they don't want to do that but if they want to keep the coalition together, maybe they will have to get more involved. it's a difficult did dilemma and this is the first test of the u.s. strategy on the syria side. >> this is clarence. good morning, go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i think the emphasis on the coalition ought to be focused squarely on the iraqis. we have spent blood and treasure on getting that government to have a standing army. how they get a pass, i don't know. the focus on turkey is secondary. the iraqiss have to stand up for the iraq country. i don't understand why we haven't put more pressure on thish rack government. we spent all the money training them, give them all the equipment.

no reason. talk about training the iraqis, they've been trained. they have all the equipment we've given them. they have a standing army. they should be able to stands up for themselves. >> guest: and i think the u.s. government would agree in large part. the problem is when they were put to the test against the islamic state, they folded and ran. so, you know, whether, there are lots of arguments over why that was. people say they didn't believe in the government in power at the time. the u.s. puts pressure to change the government. there is a new government in baghdad. they're in the midst too basically get the iraq military back in the position to go back on counter offensive. that is the military focus, getting the iraqi military and the peshmerga forces in northern irrag, weapons, training and intelligence they need to get back in the game and launch counter offenses. that is in fact where the military is hoping they'll

be able to reverse the momentum and get things back on track in iraq. >> host: is the iraq government letting the u.s. do the pushing? >> guest: it's a lot of the u.s. military doing the pushing. the kurds are happy to fights. they want more help inside iraq you've got into the complication here where you've got divisions between kurdishstan ab baghdad. baghdad government has a shia-led coalition is reluctant to have the u.s. providing arms to the kurds because they're afraid that will bolster the kurdish independence movement but you've got fractures within the country and a concern that too much support for the kurds could fracture the country. another complication inside iraq itself. >> mitchell from chattanooga, tennessee. good morning.

>> good morning. >> caller: all right. i want to compment like everybody was commenting about the president saying that he was not going to put any bottle on the ground. -- boots on the ground. he did send help over there, not fighting forces but he's absolutely right about that. you need to tell everybody, tell everybody that you're not going to fight over there for you, i'm not going to put no boots on the ground. that way they know what is going to happen. don't lead them astray. tell them exactly what you're going to do, how far they're going to go so they'll know what they have to do. that is my comment. thank you very much. >> host: is it as simple as that? >> guest: it is not but that is the u.s. message. a mantra now. no boots on the ground but as we see playing out in kobani now, a lot of allies that are part of this

coalition, want a more intensive u.s. role. i think one of the interesting things that happened in the last few days is the u.s. started to use apatchy helicopters to provide hair support. that puts u.s. forces at much great eric of being shot down and being killed and you know, the longer this campaign goes on, the greater the risk is that there is going to be american fatalities and once that happens, that ups the game again and there's going to be more concern and more efforts to protect american troops and then you ends up on this slippery slope that the president wants to avoid of putting more people to protect americans and take part in this campaign and then you end up with more people in there actively fighting perhaps than you intended. >> talking about strategy against isis by the united states. stephen from ohio. you're up. go ahead. >> caller: did you say steve? >> host: yes. >> caller: yes.

i'd like to pose a question and make a comment. how many people have to die? people we realize that isis and worldwide terrorism needs to be tsunamid out. i'm jewish and when i saw those open graves in iraq. i didn't see iraqis. i saw jews and millions of people that died in world war ii, not just jewish, russians, gypsies and others. you have -- we know that the united nations issuing effective. what comes to mind which is interesting because i'm jewish, not my area but for me, luke 124:48. to who much is given, much is required. you know, we're very fortunate. our forefathers gave us the constitution upon which this country is built. and those same forefathers warned us of foreign wars. the only problem with that

is with isis and worldwide terrorism, they think this is their home land. so, you know, we have to approach it as not a foreign war. >> host: steve from ohio, thanks. >> guest: i think that is what prompted the u.s. to get involved initially. the reason president gave, prevent genocide for the minority in iraq. i think the word genocide i think resonated for this administration and that was the original reason we got in. i think the administration that is why they're there, they do see the islamic forces as a threat to the united states and the west. we've seen them behead several westerners at this point and threatening to do kill more. one of the underlying concerns here is about the westerners that have joined forced with the islamic state that could come back and take part in attacks in the u.s. or europe.

we don't think those kinds of plans are that the well evolved yet but i think this isen an administration that wants to make sure it is aware of that and trying to address the problem before we see any problems here in the u.s. or europe. >> host: let's hear from virginia. republican. you're on. >> caller: good morning. how are you? >> host: go ahead. >> caller: i just came back from iraq. i am kurdish woman. like 10 days ago i came. i want to say thank you to americans bombing the terrorists and all kurds are very happy for that. if not u.s., it is going to be like genocide for occurred irk and christians, everyone. and but this is not enough. they have to help kobani

because kobani, many kind of people there. kurdish, muslim. christian. i don't know why until now they not bomb, not then kind of people. i don't know why. if the terrorist isis war to turkey and iraq and you know what going to happen? i was there. it was terrible. killing people raping girls, killing kids. and people, they are very, very, very, scary. scared. and i don't know until now why they don't help that people. i think because turkey asks they don't want that. they say inside kobani, pkk, of course turkey, they don't like pkk. pkk if they are terrorists, they all could have killed innocent people but i am not

pkk. i just support who fight for their land. occurred stan is land that belongs to pkk. it is kurdish. >> host: thank you for the perspective. go ahead. >> guest: this is another complication and the problem there are many. the tushes are worried about the kurdish minority and there has been a longstanding feud and open warfare with the kurdish minority in turkey and recent years it simmered down and peace talks andest to get things back on track but certainly turkey is worried that helping the occurreds could empower the kurds in turkey to pursue independence movement there. counter argument is if they don't help the kurds in this area, they will return to open warfare because they're upset that turkey is not doing more to help kobani. so turkey is definitely in

between a rock and a hard place here. >> host: when it comes to training syrians, what is the time line, what is established as how long it will take and when they'll be ready to fight? >> guest: they haven't even begun the training. a major issue for this effort. the u.s. is saying it will take months to a year to get 5,000 syrian rebels trained and equipped and ready to fight but we're in the midst of air strikes now. the air strikes are changing the dynamics now. people say if you really want to help, you've got to protect the people that are fighting now if you wait a year, the battlefield will change and it might not change for the better so this is definitely a big frustration. people feel like this campaign to train the syrian rebels is slow to get you have the ground. as we know, the president reluck tanned to embrace

its. leon panetta who has a new book out saying that you know, they were arguing for training years ago and the president was reluctant to do so and now he's finally embrassed it. congress giving money for it but it is just beginning and they haven't started to vet people to take part in the training so it will be a long time. >> how does the pan net that book resonate in the pentagon. >> i think there is a lot going on. plenty of people in the pentagon that have mixed feelings about this idea of training the rebels has been hotly debated between the pentagon. plenty of people within the pentagon were reluctant though secretary panetta was in favor of it. it has fallen in the midst of this debate and it is understandable. wasn't new. we knew that secretary panetta was supporting the

training. i think it resonates more at the white house. >> because it targets leadership. >> yeah, and it resonates more politically than militarily, to be honest. >> host: michael, go ahead. >> caller: yes, i'd like to found out maybe do some research or you know, you have access to things like that. but it is interesting to me that russia has a underground nuclear submarine base in the crimea and the only way that they have access to the mediterranean is through the straits and where their nuclear submarines to get out of the black sea. and so, for example, say isis did start the, to interfere with turkey, put pressure on the straits, you know, or they could really start a war there and russia

could have an awful lot of influence overture key and maybe that is what is causing some of the problems with turkey being reluctant to you know, get into a fight and cause more problems. i just would like your opinion on that, what you think might be any connection there. >> guest: certainly russia is a big player. russia has been backing the syrian government here and they do have a portion in syria that they need to have access to. they want to have access to. so, russia is a big player here. no question about it. in the recent weeks, they've been somewhat quiet about the is lack mick state night but they continue to provide arms to syrian regime. and until they're on board with a broader strategy, i think you know, it's going to be hard to come up with a global solution for the problem inside syria.

>> host: silver spring, maryland, you're next. independent line. go ahead. >> caller: yes. good morning. i have a comment. u.s. make big mistake when they went to iraq and take out saddam. they should leave the force there. which is but right now, in dealing with the isis, i don't see the u.s., i don't see the go ahead to put the troop in there. i like to see them training the syrian, working with the syrian troops, making a deal with that isis people. because you can take later on do anything because trying to say, if you train people, you don't know who you're training. give them arms, just deal with the syrian army and

later deal with them. >> guest: i'm not sure i understand his point. saying we should train the syrian regime or the syrian rebels? [please stand by]

guest: that's what they are in the process of trying to do. they are in the vetting process. they have a number of groups that they have been working with. over the years. there is a small group of rian rebels that have been provided covert aid via the c.i.a. program and a small group via a test program in some ways. so that will probably become the foundation for the broader program. but they are still looking at who they can take off the battlefield and who they can train and if you're taking people off the battlefield then they are off the battlefield and what happens to that part of the front? host: warren from utah, thanks for waiting. go ahead. caller: yes. i would just like to comment that we just got through with the longest war in history. and we don't need to send more ground troupes over there. would be in another close

to, if not better, than the longest war in history. and i notice that mr. pennetta and mr. clinton, they are not sending their kids over there to fight this war. it's always the low-income and middle-class kids that's going to be fighting this war. this is a religious and cultural war that cannot be done with bombs and small arms. and if we do give them small arms, two years later they will be just be used on us. >> guest: yes. there's a big strain about i think the american public about how far we are going to go and where we are headed in this war, and the white house share this is concern. you hear no boots on the ground as a mantra and at almost every

briefing, nobody wants to go down that road. the questions are, is the strategy going to keep us out of that? host: turkey aside, how has the performance of our arab allies in this effort been so far? >> it's been largely symbolic. we have had the arab allies take part in the air strikes. they provided air support, refueling and that. so far they have played a symbolic role and the importance of the arab ally sincere to show this is not just the western infidels fighting in the middle east as the islamic state would like to portray it. these are the major arab nations, jordan and the united arab emirates taking part in this and they are showing concern they have an interest and that it's not just the west. host: receiving calls from the

vice president regarding statements he made about some of the allies. what did he say? and why does it matter? >> so one of the big concerns has been that the finances that has been provided to islamic fighters, that money has gone through some of the key allies. uae and the fighters have gone through turkey so the vice president was basically saying, look, this has been the problem. we basically let this problem fester. we allowed other nations to provide financing and support for these rebels as they tried to fight assad and that led to the emergence of the islamic state as the most potent fighting force of all these groups competing around the battlefield so these nations that have joined the alliance are upset that the vice president is blaming them for allowing this problem to emerge, so he basically had to

apologize and say that's not what i meant to say. host: any long-term damage? guest: i think these kinds of things create strains on the coalition. i don't think it's going to break the coalition but it creates small fist yures and if they continue to expand then you will have larger problems. host: mississippi. dustin? good morning. caller: i'm not going to beat around the bush. do y'all think that obama will eventually try to do away with the u.s. constitution and make it a -- government. guest: i can't imagine that. host: gina in arizona? caller: hi. this is gema from arkansas. i'm just so flabbergasted. i cannot understand why the whole world is not standing up to these monsters. did we not learn from history about the nazis? do we not -- i mean, they don't

want to just destroy the jewish people. they want to destroy any person that is not of their religion. i'm just flabbergasted. what do you say about that? i mean, what are your thoughts on that? guest: well, we do have an emerging coalition that is trying to take on the islamic states. reluctantly and tentatively. but i think there's a growing recognition islamic state is a problem for the world and not just the region. and i think now we're into the point of debate about what you do about that. and there are people like the caller who think we should be doing more. other people who are concerned that if we do get too involved there it could make things worse. i think that's where we are in the debate at this point. >> our next caller is from todd, independent line.

good morning. caller: good morning. yeah. i think we should back up. if we help them then the kurds or -- the kurds are going to love us, and then we have our soldiers we need. and let's supply the kurds. help them out. don't let them get slaughtered. bye. guest: certainly i just came back from kyrgyzstan and the kurds love america and are happy to have as much support as they can get. they would love to get more help in kobani and across the region and the u.s. is certainly counting on them toe be one of the major forces in the ground war. host: and what's the reaction? that they have not had a chance to participant more fully as of yet? >> well, they say over there we love the air strikes. we'd like to see more. we're ready to get out there. but they are getting more

training. france, germany, u.k. are all in kurd stan right now providing advanced training right now for i.e.d. counterefforts. so at this point it gets back to that argument about strategic patience and want to make sure they are ready for serious fight when they go out on the battlefield and take more serious battles. with the islamic state. general john alan who is the new special envoy for the president in this fight has said that it could be up to a year before iraq is ready to take on islamic state forces in mows zull which is one of the major towns in iraq that they hold. so a long way to go in this war. host: what about the area around baghdad? who is in control of that? guest: outside of baghdad the islamic state forces are on the offense taking over a city

named heath and contesting other parts of anbar province which was a very significant part of the u.s. war starting in 2003. it's a sunni-dominated area and where fallujah is, and right now the islamic state controls that and the closer they get to baghdad, the more pressure it puts on the iraqi military to think that's in fact more of a concern for the u.s. military than what's happening in kobani. host: go ahead. caller: now? ok. i was going to -- i've been watching this this morning and mr. niesen balm has used the word complicated to describe the situations in the middle east. and i think that's absolutely on target. i totally am grateful to the

president who is clear-headed and very insistent on keeping us, you know, no troops on the ground thing. nd using strategy. and also helping over there. host: you're breaking up, but thank you. guest: i think there's, it is a complicated situation and the president is known as being the law professor that he is and not overreacting to things. and this strategy is slow. it's evolving. and it's not going fast enough for a lot of people, including forces on the ground there. and this is a president that who takes the long view. and i think we're just going to have wait and see whether it's the right approach. it's going to take years for us

to see how it plays out. host: hello? caller: i called about a year ago. the president launched strikes against those people and the americans got killed over there as a result and the congress and republicans are all up in arms about the president. overexerting his powers. now we've got this. because they forced him to stop doing what he was doing and he had a handle on things at that time. now this is complicated and out f control. and i don't think we should go there either. it's not our responsibility. they don't want to take up arms and fight for themselves then they will have to successful the consequences. guest: well, i think there is a question about whether air strikes can do enough in parts of the worlds we have used drone strikes to try and

contain insurgent threats around the world. whether that's going to work here, i think the military is saying there needs to be ground forces on the ground but the u.s. says it's going to use iraqi fighters as our ground force. host: if we're depending on the iraqi security forces and correspondenting air strikes is still amic group gaining ground, is there success? >> well, when i was in kyrgyzstan there was a sense that we were at a stalemate. the western advisors there were basically saying, we're in the process of doing the training so that we can get back and get the kurdish forces back out on the field to and start counteroffenses. so it's changing every day, and the concern here is the islamic state is adaptive and they are changing their tactics and finding new places where they can push their offensive and now the u.s. and its allies

have to figure out how to respond. and it is a war. and the military likes to say that the enemy has a vote in owe this goes and they are definitely voting and changing how things are playing out. so it's changing every day. kobane is sort of the focus today. next week could be anbar province and who knows where islamic state is heading next. >> what about the islamic state's resources? money, weapons, has the u.s. targeted that or managed to make a dent in that? >> it's not appearing that they have made a significant comment that part of the operation. one of the targets for the u.s. air strikes was some oil refineries. but it was a small number of them and they are still able to use the oil revenues to finance their operations. they also use local taxes on the population on the area where they control to take money. we don't really have a way toe affect that.

there are some efforts to crack down on international financing of them but that's also very difficult and a slow trout go. so i don't think we'll see the effects of that for some time. host: you're on. from virginia. caller: what concerns me is you're going to take a year to train these people to fight these people. i don't think they are going to last a year the way they are advancing in iraq. and another thing is i think hat -- i'm worried about the 350 or 350 advisors they sent over there to train these military soldiers? i'm afraid that they take the cuven over the way they are advancing, they are going to wind up murdering those 350 soldiers and putting their heads on a stick. that's what concerns me. host: thanks, caller. guest: there's probably about

1,000 to 1400 american officials now in iraq. they did send over a new crop of advisors that are pushing out deeper into the battlefield eventually or going down to advise iraqi forces out in the battlefield essentially not on the front lines in staging areas. until now they have essentially een in baghdad and the capital, which are relatively safe by iraq standards. but the foote you get americans out into the battlefield the more you've got apache helicopters flying over, providing air support there's a greater risk americans are going to die and we have to see how this administration and country reacts when americans start dying as a result of this war in iraq. host: are there any more numbers slated to go over

there? guest: well there are still more people they can send over. the president has slowly been sending more groups over as the need arises. i think we should expect that umber to rise. host: democrats line, hi. caller: for years i have been -- the syrian war that has claimed 200,000 the lives with millions of refugees. now president obama wants to intervene for humanitarian reasons to fight isis. let's not forget obama was claiming what is going on in iraq is because of the garment policies and called it -- but now that the iciss is threatening. to use air force. and no matter if syrians are

massacred and half of iraq torn to shreds. see the terrorist group only opposes obama's interests. guest: i think there's a lot of people that feel the president should have done more sooner, and that's a district attorney bite i think that will drag on into the next presidential election. but here we are now and i think the president is trying to figure out how to deal with the reality as we have it now. and you know, i don't know where it's going to head. it's certainly complicated. and there's a long way to go. host: so for those following the story, what would you advise them to pay attention to in the coming days guest: turkey's reaction. whether or not they are going to get more actively involved in at least allowing kurdish forces go in to help. certainly if turkish troops go in, that's a majoresquelation

in this effort. i would keep an eye of what's happening in kobane and the turkish reaction. >> talking about the u.s. strategy, thanks for your time. guest: thank you. host: coming up, plenty of political scandals that get reported on but our next guest candidate esidential eporting of another. later we will ask about national security issues. do they play a part on how you will vote in november? all this after "washington journal" continues after this. >> this weekend on the c-span networks. friday night at 9:00 p.m.

eastern on c-span, a memorial service for president regan's press secretary, james brady. at 9:00 p.m. eastern former secretary of state colin powell talks about world affairs and sunday at 8:00 on "q&a" author robert timber talks about how in vietnam a landmine explosion nearly killed him and changed his life then author and activist ralph nater asks to take on the issues that plague america. atul gawande on why there should be more done for the aging and dying. and then clism and its impact on climate change. friday at 8:00 on american history tv on c-span 3, the curator of the american art facts c.i.a. museum.

and saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern the king george eswar of the 1740's, how it helped the american columnists come up with strategies and sunday night on the presidency at 8:00 p.m., president ford's congressional testimony on the nixon pardon. find our television schedule on c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. you can also call us. email us or send us tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. "washington journal" continues. host: our next guest is matt with yahoo news a national political columnist but also wrote a book "all the truth is out" the week politics went tabloid. welcome. guest: thank you. it's nice to be here.

we're talking about 19787, the first week of may in 1987 when tough presumed frontrunner, gary hart who is the hillary clinton of his day. well ahead in the polls. come off as 1984 and roaring into 1987. what ends up happening is "the miami herald" puts him under surveillance because they have a tip that he is going to be with a woman in his townhouse. he then becomes embroiled in what is the first modern political scandals of the satellite age and marks a real turning point in the way we cover poll sticks. host: the woman was donna rice. part of it is the infamous picture of her sitting on his lap and the monkey business. guest: everything that's remember asked basically misremembered. one of the main thingses is that the photograph wasn't takin' on a boat.

it was on a dock. and b, it doesn't come out for weeks after he is out of the race. people remember that he challenged the media following him around. not exactly true. he made a comment but it was not public or known. but you come to this remarkable moment and if you think about it. because we can think back to franklin roosevelt or lyndon johnson. you can taub about how much morality was given then this in this moment in 1987. that's why this story is kind of gripping and remarkable. you have this man, this presumed nominee of the democratic party and most important democratic politician at the time pinned literally against the brick wall in the back of his townhouse surrounded by four "miami herald" reporters, who is that woman in your house? did you have sex with her? are you liing? are you a moral person?

and in that moment, in that alley, if you're going to pinpoint a moment the ground in politics shifts in a way that i think was inevitable and they think was happening anyway happened and hart was there. host: then we have this incident that changed everything. guest: again, little remembered, he had been separated from his wife twice. in fact during one of those separations he stays on bob woodward's couch, and it's been known he has been dating various people because he hasn't been in a marital situation during this time. so he, of course, comes to the situation having been in political life for 15 years. having this well known in washington and having no one ever written about it and people are going to want to know habit this. hart is almost entirely concerned with governing and ideas. he was really a visionary

politician of his time and had a lot to do with looking ahead around the corner, and hex see around every corner, foreign policy, domestic policy. but in this particular area he is blinded saying maybe it can be a story but not believe for a minute that anybody will go searching for evidence of what he is doing. >> ultimate thirty results lead to him withdrawing from the cam pain. 1987. >> and thanks to smean actually for keeping us, because it's a fabulous speech and completely forgotten in the public record and thanks to c-span people are able to see it. host: here's a little bit from gary part in 1987. [video clip] > we're all going to have to -- presidential candidates to being hunted. that has reporters in bushes, false and inaccurate stories

printed, photographers peeking in our windows and swarms of helicopters hovering over our roof and my very strong wife close to tears because she can't even get into her own house at night without being harassed and then pundits want to mock seriousness and why some of the best people in this country controversy run for high office. guest: what he goes on the say at the end of that speech is he paraphrases tomas jefferson. he says i tremble for my untry when i think -- he was going to give a different speech but tore it up. he is mocked because he is not contrite and he is deriding the press and not taking responsibility, and he is roundly criticized. i think 27 years later do we get the leaders we deserve? and is there something wrong with the way we cover politics,

i don't think we would get a lot of laughter. think i that speech stands up getter than remembered. host: it talks about political reporting of scabbedals and if you want to ask questions of our guests, for republicans -- host: from that point forward, how did it change as far as political candidates, what changed specifically? guest: i'm going to try that at home. get a line for republicans, democrats and independents. might help me search through my messages. but searching for world views and agendas to the hunt. we know you're hiding something. there's a lie, a fraud, a hypocrisy and we need to know what it is. we spend a lot of time forward trying to assess your character and very little trying to understand your ideas. i think it drives a lot of

people out of politics and keeps a lot of people out of politics who will not subject themselves and who are not narcissistic enough. and i think it allows a lot of people who probably have no business in public the office get into politics, because when there isn't attention paid to those ideas, -- >> host: people who experienced this had already experienced watergate. was there any difference in how they were covered? of ll, the residual watergate is the press feels burned not having seen who nixon was in their view and at the same time you have a group of younger reporters saying i want to be that. there's no higher calling in watergate than to expose it and take someone down and no more important directive than

finding the lie and making sure someone is telling the truth and really there's a direct line from 1974 to this moment you come to in 1987 where we didn't talk about the second part of it where paul taylor, a star excellent reporter stands in front of a crowded ballroom in this sweat-soaked news conference where gary hart is trying to put all this behind him and move on with his campaign and moved up well in the polls and taylor walks him through a series of questions, are you moral? yes. have you ever committed adultery? the people in the room remember it still. they were gapsing. the people at home couldn't believe it. hart himself is looking and doesn't know how the answer the question. all he can think about is the reporter is looking at him and he knows those reporters had

adulterous affairs on his campaign bus years earlier. that grows directly from the legacy of watergate to where we are. i'm not suggesting everything is fine minus gary hart and that that is what ruined politics but i'm saying there was going to be a moment where this thing tipt and i think this was that moment. host: even in the speefment did hart ever admit to an affair? guest: no. hart dismissed all of these questions as irrelevant. he really wouldn't answer them. he admitted to putting himself in a difficult position. it's not really clear what happened. we know he saw donna rice twice. i go through this in the book and i won't tell readers what it all came down to because they have to read the book to find out but for all the years after he and donna rice refused to talk about it, both for their own reasons and hart's feeling has been for 20r years that this is nobody's business

and irrelevant and people can roll their eyes and say we live in the mot erin era but the question is how are we defining character exactly? are we defining character by the person who will emote and subject their family to every level of scrutiny and office gate and lie outright to get around these issues and evade the traps we've asset seth or is it the person who refuses to talk about details i think that is a very important question. petersburg, virginia, you're up first. caller: good morning. i am reading your book. i have an advanced reading copy. i will be reviewing it. guest: i'd rather see you get one, but ok.

caller: well i highly recommend it. -- the geniethe g will ever be put back in the bottle? do you think we will ever be back in a country where we are working as hard, are you ever going to talk to me about our ideas or are we going to continue to dwell on personal aspects? life that is a good question. i do not think there is a switch you will flip and that is the point. that do think strongly younger journalists change the egos of the business. by of the arguments made reporters who covered this story job. is not our

-- this story. it is not our job. makes thesomeone front page, everyone who designs a website, someone sits down and makes decisions. what matters, what doesn't? i wrote a column today. i have to decide, what is important this week and what is not, what should be at the top, what should be at the bottom? all of a sudden, we advocate the responsibility and say, it is up .o the voters sometimes it does matter. absolutely relevant. i could go into some of them. away the judgment for so long because we know these stories are fascinating to people.

there is a new generation of journalists who can and may deploy the kind of cover -- the kind of judgment. host: next from iowa, independent line. caller: i have a question. -- how can bill clinton get by what he did? it was very scandalous what he did in our white house in the oval office. john edwards did not sit there at that panel when bill clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that stuck his finger out there and said i did not have sexual relations with that woman. you know he did before and after and he lied right to the grand jury.

>> i am not going to make that comparison because edwards has lied as well. behavior --e are examples of when behavior was relevant. measure being to in the 1990's and you go through a very tepid scandal. you are the innovator of the party. first to talk about manufactured on amies, terrorism natural -- national scale. you are watching him drive by and get through his scandals while in office. meanwhile, he cannot get a job in office because everyone joke and is a national he is the punchline.

do is to tried to imagine sort of being that person and what he goes through and how that affects not just the country but that man. the heart of your question, what we did in that moment was begin to redefine political leadership. before 1987, going back for a long time, lyrical leadership was really about your ideas and your plan. after that, it becomes, can you even gave the trap and survive? bill clinton becomes the survivor. in that sense, he is known as the best politician of the generation. he is an intellectual giant and a brilliant man who i think did a lot of good things that resident. but the political genius is really in his ability to and say around scandal

what he has to say and get by. i do not know if that is standard. from alexandria, virginia. your next. caller: i have a comment. this is not religious. it is the war between justice, injustice, and corruption area -- corruption. ont: i think we have moved to another topic. that was our previous topic. let's move onto travis, hello. you in i wanted to ask regards to scandals, do you believe it is the lie itself or the actual scandal that hurts ?eople in the public eye >> excellent question and it depends on the case. one of the questions is, is

every lie the same and is every like consequential? argument made by reporters. a lie is a lie and if you catch a politician in a lie, that is the story, and it justifies any manner of investigation. i'm not sure. i think more people engage in immoral acts and honest people sometime tell untruths. question, i think, about someone's character has to be viewed in context. we are talking about pollock titian's who have had a long have theublic life, duct of votes and taken money from lobbyists, have they lied to their constituents? we can judge character by a whole wide amount of things. surely, if he is a liar, there are other lies he has told.

no one ever did. the lie is what gets you into trouble and justifies a lot of the journalism. will i have to be a pattern in some context. we lost our focus on providing that context for people, particularly in this. >> what you think about the miami herald's approach to asking questions which resulted in the story? i have have up --guest: a piece about this and there was a very thoughtful response to the book and i answered it. i do not find it easy to put myself in position. they are excellent reporters. i probably could have made the same decision in the moment. it is hard to look back and judge. he would ask, what should

we have done that -- at that moment? -- alley if you are in the asking those questions and you thought you are being lied to, if that were me, i would probably write the story as well. the question is, should we ever have gone down a darkened alley to begin with? where i differ with my reporters at the herald, with all due respect, which are longer than mine, is that in all the years , first and foremost being this following around quote. boundaries and if you're going to lame somebody -- that is not actually what happened. why do we change the rules and is it right to change the rules?

responsibility as truth seekers. part of what i do in this book is wrestled with the repercussions of my own book. it is part memoir. in 11 about how i wrote or 12 years ago and how i felt i had not gotten the story right. host: when you report now, what questions do you ask yourself? guest: i thought about this for many years. a true story missing a larger point. i have been thinking about this in terms of my clinical coverage. -- political coverage. for me, context and substance

are very important. it was all about substance. media --he rest of the the only part of the antipoverty platform that really don't with new thinking on personal was a call for responsible fatherhood. deadbeat dads had to take responsibility for their children. john edwards was lying about taking responsibility for his own. to me, that is hypocrisy. it is relevant to government. if you do not practice the things you think other people are practicing, we have to doubt your conviction. mind to keep an open what is relevant. more often in my own work, i have begun to put personal behavior to the side and not think about it and not question people about it and i find if

you concentrate on ideas and plans and you're talking to is smart and thoughtful politicians, you can learn more about what they will actually do for the country than you can sunni across and thinking, will this person kill me? matt bai, author of "all the truth is out: the week politics went tabloid." joe, go ahead. caller: instead of taking the , you might talk about kennedy in the war. kennedy and news reporters back upn, they were covering kennedy's sexual escapades that were going on. if you look forward, possibly gary hart may not have been on because, other87

scandals, kennedy, johnson, if they were exposed first, a lot of things forward from there would never have happened. is a pretty good timeline, but i think you really could go back to the kennedy and theration non-reporting that went on during that time. i think you're right. you poll on this thread and go in a lot of directions. but that time is very important. john kennedy's affairs were not known at that time, but they do start to come out as a result of the church commission in the 1970's. wrestling with these issues. the feeling of dishonesty and cynicism that begins in vietnam and rises through watergate have a lot to do with 1987 as well.

there are a couple real ironies about the events in 1987 that have to do what you are talking about. one, the youngest member of the church commission, he had very detailed knowledge of what was going on at the kennedy administration and what was overlooked. and i think drew the conclusion knew,judging from what he the press simply did not report these things, unless they rose to an egregious level. he probably learned the wrong lesson from that. also, the hero of watergate, the editor of washington post, because herge role goes out and perfect -- personally confirms evidence of what they believe could be another affair. that is how they end up hurling this question of adultery. part of the interesting thing about this week and the recounting of it and the drama of it is some of the characters who are deeply involved go back

to seminal events in the 1960's and 1970's. host: from north carolina, go ahead. caller: you could go back further than the kennedys. there have been brothels in washington dc since the 60's. clinton should not get credit for anything but redefining the word is. newt gingrich made clinton moved to the middle and then when we lost the senate, he was made to move back to the left. you ought to really put your eyes on hillary. all those women before they could get any dirt on her. she is the real bad one. that is just my comment. i appreciate that and i will seize on the first thing you said, which is the talk about what was going on in

washington in 1800's. you hear this a lot from people who will say, nothing new here, grover cleveland and alexander hamilton, we had sex scandals and people's personal lives from the beginning. i think that is a little bit of a red herring. 1800's, talk about you're not talking about the media as we think of the media. you're talking about partisan media. in 1800's during that time, we still had a congressman getting tamed on the house floor within an inch of his life. that is not something i think we want to go back to. for the purposes of my reporting on this, the 20th century is more relevant. no political candidate was subjected to that level in his private life and no one until him experienced the full force of the modern scandal. coincideappened to

with the invention of the modern satellite dish and the rise of punditry and a lot of other friends and culture that this kind ofted modern scandal that we know so well, with minute by minute buttes and a camera crews that in 1987 was unheard of. do you think people are jaded when it comes to character issues? ?ww.c-span.orgww.c-span.org guest: yes. he knew three presidential candidates yet covered in all those decades.

jimmy carter was one. one of the questions i have with tom at the herald who responded to this, he said in his piece in politico last week, i think the ask question is not why we these questions, but why didn't we ask them of franklin roosevelt and john kennedy and lyndon johnson. that is we could have been they would have done exactly what part did. had off hehave skate -- off the obfuscated. all of those things would have been the fruit of the poison tree. i think that is a dangerous road to go down. you talked by what was going on in 1987, the rise of feminism, and how it changed coverage overall. guest: yes.

and this is a larger point. it is already turning in the culture. the rise of feminism, different attitudes of adultery on the left, on the right, the rise of moral majority, which cares very much about personal morality. before, andar, just it is important to think about, you have the big baker scandal, which you may remember. the wife with the mascara running down her face, and then you have the whole iran-contra scandal, which, interesting, the facts of which are obscure. the secretary who stuffed the papers in her skirt, but we already have this kind of entertainment culture taking hold in our politics. critic writescial an astounding book which

everyone should read and he says , two years before the heart scandal, he says, we have now become a television culture. there are story arcs and if your news is not entertaining and they are not following a certain story arc, we are tuning them out. andink when you go back look at postman work now come in the context of the heart scandal and the next three decades, it is shocking. california, joseph next. caller: i have a comment. comment is every relationship is fundamentally based on trust. when that trust is file a did, so is the relationship you're is reason this is important, because, what most people fail to articulate is it is not so much a big deal that an

adulterous affair occurred. from the perspective of the voter, we are saying this guy is willing to do this to his partner in life. what is he willing to do to the rest of us? that is my comment. guest: that is an often heard and important point and a fair interpretation. if someone is going to lie to their wife and lied to the country. valid viewpoint and i do not reject it. the only thing i would say is, as i said before, moral people do immoral things and truthful people while the time. the question is, is it a pattern ? is it a compulsion? are there human reasons we can understand why somebody tells an untruth? to me, this is not about sex and the book is not about sex. my discussion of local journalism scandals is not about sex. the larger scandal is what we

decide years after the art scandal and what we are deciding is, it is hypocrisy and that lie that you need to find. about something. maybe it is a land deal and a friendship closer than what you said it was and it is embarrassing. maybe you got tired one night and said something stupid you did not mean to say. whatever the gas or the lie or the hypocrisy is, we are seizing on that and defining you buy it. if you can do it once, you could do it again. it was said to me when i was noting on a story, "we are the worst thing we have ever done in our lives and there is a tendency to think we are. i think that is important. in my industry, in an industry where we decided, you can and probably should be the worst thing we can figure out you have ever done. context andt compassion and you cannot possibly attract the kinds of leaders you need to attract.

host: arlington, virginia. good morning. caller: matt, for the first time in a long time, i have enjoyed this morning's show. guest: [laughter] i feel good about that. i am a colleague. i covered the white house for 2.5 administrations. i tell people i was in the east room the day journalism died. it was a day the health-care bill is being signed. the media has an obligation to -- in place and come back host: are you there? i apologize, she got dropped. if you call back, that is fine. but thank you. i gather you appreciate the book and the discussion.

if you have not, i hope you will. host: pam, arizona, independent line. caller: yes, the question. -- i have a question. it seems like they keep talking about the same people. it appears they never seem to be in the people who are example, that congressman who talks about family values all the time to he is a republican and because he is a republican, it does not get covered. he is seen kissing her after he says family values are the most important thing, and he is running for election again and there is no problem and we are not bring it up. -- bringing it up.

the congressman who was the andrnor of north carolina goes off to a foreign country instead of doing his job and he comes back and his now elected. we only talk about the same people over and over and we never talk about all the current ones. newt gingrich was teaching , and what happened with newt gingrich? was he convicted of anything? we just pick democrats and we never talk about republicans. guest: i get it. actually, no, we do not all do that. about in mytalked book and i recall him about him about three weeks ago, which you could go look at. anatomic -- an entire column talking about him.

we do and there is a reason we know about these things. it is because you read it in the media. all of these things actually do get covered. but look, i am not a compendium of sex scandals. i am not interested in eight compendium of sex scandals. i wrote about a guy who was extraordinary in a moment when extraordinary things happened. and how we can understand our time better by understanding that. others tove it to stay -- start the effect the. . it is a huge job. host: pennsylvania, republican line, good morning. i want to tell you something. your book might be good, and all comes to, but when it

personal like bill clinton's sex life, that is personal. that should never have gone out to the public. anybody or anything. all crap. people, forple of 50 years. it is a great point. too much attention is put on personal lives. i do not think it is a link at role. who isler before, pam, quite exercised over there, she has got a point. you are out there telling other people they have to live a moral and upright life while you are having affairs and lying about it, your constituent probably

has the right to know that. i think it is judgment and we seize to show judgment and after 1987, we shape for the culture is going instead of trying to have an answer effective process and discussion about what we owe ir readers and that is where met out. i pretty much left the private discussions to him. i think he appreciates the fact that i have tried to see it more deeply than before. he has been through a lot. he carries around a lot of guilt and feels he would have been a

president and would've been a great president and feels like he put a lot of people down. he feels like he has a lot of anger. he feels like there is a lot of unfairness. perspective. he watched all these people rehabilitate their image as an come back and serve again and he has not been able to do some of the things he would a flight to do in public life. there are complicated emotions. that humanity is what i tried to get at in the book. texas, next. caller: i want to know why we have to point the finger at everybody because we all lie and we all fall short. so, i mean, we need to learn how and look ateople their thoughts and what they could do for our country. not one person on this earth that does not lie even today.

it is not up to us to point the finger about them who are lying -- about lying and cheating. that is something they will have to deal with god with. that is all i have to say. does it change your perspective of the politician? caller: not really. i kind of feel like it depends on what it is about. me, auld not matter to personal life. if he was lying about something that would cause death to my children in the military or something that would cause catastrophic events to our country, i would be upset. but that is his job. but when it comes to who he is sleeping with or who he is kissing and all of that, that is none of my business. guest: you raise a great point. i mean, what i write about in this book, the days in 1987 as

senator hart is explaining himself and tried to navigate this new kind of scandal, the hearings on the iran contra scandal are opening in washington. there is a moment in the book give aart is about to speech about the media and he sees his friend tom brokaw standing in the balcony, and he is shocked because it is the first day of the iran contra hearing. he says, what is tom brokaw doing here to cover me to see if i am going to say something about an affair that may or may not have occurred when the iran contra hearings was happening? the iran contra hearing was not a lie. it was about selling arms to iranians in the middle east so that you could take the money and give it to south american rebels. prohibitedey were

from doing that by congress at that time. that was a major scandal that very few people remember the details of. i have a hard time recalling the details. yet, at the same moment, the world, the late-night shows, the comedians, everybody was riveted scandal.rt i think it has set returned for what we have seen over and over again for many years. on withn from alabama matt bai. scandals, the medical everybody does on the political scandals, everybody can write books on the president or whoever it might be, but it is all about man. ladies play a big part in that, too. so why don't we bring up some of the scandals on the women's behalf? host: do you have a specific one

in mind? caller: take a look. it is wide open. guest: are you talking about the women involved in these scandals we are talking about or about women politicians? theer: we are talking about politicians and also the men's wives. we talk about the men. i do talk quite a bit in the book about senator hart's marriage. by the way, he has been married to his wife for over 50 years. people assume wrongly that this destroyed their marriage and they could not get through it. they did get through it. donna rice, the woman who got caught up in the scandal, she really becomes the first woman caught up, the other woman. there is no label for her. they do not know what to do with herb to do with her. when it happened, she wants to protect hart.

hisdoes not want to cause campaign any trouble. she does not know much about politics or she wants to go home. she is looked at as a steamy model, a sorority girl, and she was a sales representative for a pharmaceutical company. she wants to go home. people try to explain to her that she cannot really go home, and in fact, she can never really go home again to her to goes back to her condo in florida, and photographers are shooting through the window and neighbors are renting out her apartment so people can find turkey or the pizza delivery guy cannot get upstairs. thatealizes very quickly she is never going to be who she was again. this is a whole new thing. she ended up on a plane, a private plane, divided by campaign lawyer, and she was chased by tv trucks to the airport. where she isea

going next. she is going wherever they take her. because there is nothing she can go back to. i think it is a poignant story. she ended up having actually a really important career in public service. she has been a pioneer against internet pornography. she reinvented herself and got married and had a really good life. i go through all of that in the book, but it was an experience that really no one had gone through at that point. host: did she tell you about her role and what took place back then looking at it now? guest: she is reticent about ap urging never wanted to further the impression that she was someone of loose morals and substance per she did not want to cause any more damage. she did not want it to define her life. she wanted her like to have more meaning than that to her to talk about it now that she was under pressure and she did what she thought was expected of her.

what i say in the book, and part of what i wrestle with his, how much do i need to know, and how hard do i push? what is my responsibility to people and will people want to know the details? host: farrah from florida, go ahead. caller: i am a republican, but no one ever gives our president credit for being a loyal husband and father to his children and behaving like a gentleman in the white house. no one on my site ever says anything about that. it is always everything bad that he did. you know,ted to say, women throw themselves at me and in power. in the manner not necessarily going out and grabbing after these women. they are coming to them and seducing them many, many times. their heads are filled with that. i suggest you write a book about

the power in washington that keeps the pharmaceutical companies from lowering their prices on, like, that cancer drug on "60 minutes," $11,000 a year when they give it to the doctor for $5,000. more is paid here than anybody in the world. host: thank you. guest: it is a story like us, quite a bit and shook it covered more -- it is a story that gets covered quite a bit and should get covered even more. you talk about the president not getting credit for being a good person and good husband. something i deal with in the book is where president obama does fit into all of this. it is an interesting thing. have a lot of

similarities in their personalities, and they are both a little standoffish and intellectual. obama seemed in a way to be a turn away from what we have had in the last 25 or 30 years in politics because there is no scandal attached to him. he is a good father and good person. i have always felt that way in his presence. i do not think anybody has that concern with them. what we need to recognize, too, there was the result of the entertainment culture. i am not saying obama should not have been president or do not have the ability, but i do think it would have been unthinkable in an earlier era of our politics for somebody to win the presidency in that way, based on the narrative of what he embodied, rather than on a clear vision of the country. "hope and change" was not an agenda for the country. president obama was a political

narrative. we have seen him painfully, at times, try to work through what he actually believes and what he wants to do in office because he has not had a chance to work that out in a very brief political career. when compared to someone like gary hart who had so much experience on the national stage, i think that, too, is a reflection of the entertainment culture that seeped into our politics and our political journalism over the years. host: mission viejo, california, hello. caller: good morning. i am a democrat. i appreciate that republican saying what an upstanding person president obama is. life and his integrity i am 54 years-

old and when i was younger there there wasn --ther nixon. the worst president i have seen was george w. bush and when he lied to us, getting us into 9/11 and people dying on and it had nothing to do with 9/11. that died andnts were misplaced. as far as i am concerned until the day i die, he will go down as a stain on this country. guest: ok, i guess your point would be sort of a variation on not i have been saying, that lies are all equal.

there is a moment in the book where hart said, and we were talking about the guilt, he talks about the guilt he had with his wife kind of prodding him to talk about it because he does not like to. and he said things would be different if i were president. we would not have had george w. bush as president and we would not have gone to iraq and a lot of people would be alive instead of debt. a first thought was, was that delusion of grandeur? you could prevent an entire arc of history here 20 think about it, that is crazy. oft is double digits ahead george bush, but if he goes on to win the election -- i do not know if he would have, but almost surly george w. bush would not have been governor of texas and almost certainly than would not have been president. is, our actions have

consequences. these decisions have consequences. they are not in a vacuum and they are not just for entertainment, not just creating ratings. there are consequences that reverberate and tip like dominoes that we cannot see and lose sight of, but they follow us through the years. it goes back to the point hart made in the speech, you get the leaders you deserve. you get wheneaders those dominoes fall in the way that they do. host: bill, pittsburgh, go ahead. , i am calling to emphasize a point, i suppose. there is only so much time that people have to listen to current affairs. and when we have a situation where the whole world becomes a we end upepisode, losing any knowledge of what the

government is actually doing. the only important thing is what is in the bill that is going to and why are the positions on that bill being disputed? we hear nothing about that. theear everything about horse race and the personalities and the scandals about people involved. going blinde end up into the real business of government, which is what is in the law. know, i think you raise a great point. one of the things you hear often is we have such great variance of journalism now. we have the way of and so much political journalism. that her now because we

have all this great journalism and so many more outlets that people do not have to follow the entertainment feeds of politics at the do not want to. i think your point, if i can paraphrase it, is very wise. yes, people do not have endless time and they do not have endless bandwidth. there is more great journalism out there today in politics than probably ever. but people can only read though much. if the focus in so many of the places they do go for information is on the entertainment value and the in the personal coverage, as opposed to the substance, that is mostly what they will have the opportunity to consume you it is not that we do not have more substance of ,ournalism -- we absolutely do but it is that i think we drown in the less important pieces, often, of our political coverage. host: a book about the campaign

of gary hart --"all the truth is out: the week politics went tabloid." joining us. thank you. on the topicoughts of national security and if it is an issue for you in campaign 2014. you might have concerns about ebola or the policy in isis. if you want to weigh in and give us your thoughts, here is how you do so -- callswe will take those shortly after this news update from c-span radio. >> 9:15 p.m. eastern. jobless numbers show slightly fewer americans sought the benefits leslie, pushing the average number of applications in the past month to an 800 your

local weekly applications fell by 1000 to a seasonally adjusted 287,000 in the week ending october 4 to that is the fourth straight week applications have been below 300,000, a sign the job market is improving. and a bit on the secret service today. republican representative of utah and a democratic congressman, both members of the house oversight and government reform committee which oversees the secret service, are considering changes to the service am including moving it out of the homeland security department and back into the treasury department, and also breaking up its mission to separate its presidential protection mission from its financial private investigation divisions per this comes as lawmakers us has had to approve the agency after a series of scandals, including a white house break-in by a man with a knife last month. julia pearson resigned amidst the controversy, but lawmakers are promising they will continue their focus once congress

reconvenes after the november 4 midterm elections. in international news, the u.s. military is wrapping up its aid to liberia in the fight against the ebola virus. two more military flights are set to arrive today in monrovia. the u.s. military is helping build medical centers and may send up to 4000 soldiers to help pyramid workers -- medical workers are lacking, especially in liberia and sierra leone. the sierra leone president is calling on the world to send millions of dollars, hundreds of doctors, and thousands of nurses to his nation to help fight what he calls "a tragedy unforeseen in modern times." those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> our campaign 2014 coverage continues with a week full of debates to her tonight at 7:30 p.m. on c-span, live coverage of the illinois u.s. house debate the 17th district.

later at 9:00, live coverage of the illinois governor's debate with pat quinn and bruce rauner. friday night at 8:00, the wisconsin governor's debate. c-span at 8:00on eastern, live coverage of the iowa senate debate. sunday, live at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the mission and government -- michigan governor's debate. 2014, more than 100 debates for the control of congress. >> c-span's 2015 student cam competition is underway. it is for middle and high school 150ents and will reward prizes totaling $100,000. create a five to seven have a

minute documentary on the topic -- the three branches and you. videos need to have these been programming, shall varying points of view, and must be some at a by january 20, 2015. go to the website for more information. grab a camera and get started today. journal"ngton continues. host: thursday in october, and we are going to ask about issues he might find important in campaign 2014, especially as you head to the polls to vote in november. we want your thoughts on national security and if it is an issue for you as you vote. here are the numbers again -- for iraq and afghanistan .eterans, 202-585-3883 there is a story in the "washington times" this morning looking at the topic of terror.

it talks about how this issue plays out in other races across the united states. in iowa, a democrat running raised eyebrows this week when he claimed he recently voted to authorize strikes against the islamic state in syria -- during this 45 minutes, we will also show you video from some of the various debates we have taken in as part of our campaign coverage. this is all on our campaign and 14 website. we will look at video that talk about campaign issues and national security issues.

there is the website you can find it on. to highlight one, it was the north carolina debate this week in the senate. it was about the topic of ebola and the u.s. response to it. it was the north carolina senate debate. both candidates were asked about imposing a travel ban on west africa. [video clip] one travel ban could be part of a broad range of issues on how we can work through this. you know, just -- i am open to , if youthe problem is isolate those countries, you are not going to solve the problem. the problem is, how are we going to stop this virus, contain it, and ultimately kill it question might i think that in congress, we recently passed close to $100 million of which will help go towards the research and development of ebola therapies and to global health programs. i personally have talked to in -- infectious disease

physicians in north carolina and the hospital association, and they have it shortly that our hospitals have the tools they need and are prepared. i also think that every health care official should be on high alert and take every precaution necessary in case a patient comes before the hospital. >> i want to be very clear. until the cdc can convince me that we are able to intervene with anyone who represents a threat to the safety and security of the country, we have got to prevent them from traveling here. we need to make sure we get doctors and specialists to liberia, sierra leone, guinea, and the other nations afflicted by this disease, but we have to protect visit the insecurity of this country. host: again, national security and if it will affect your vote in 2014. we have a call from maryland, democrat. caller: the whole ebola situation is a man-made,

manufactured catastrophe. the military industrial complex wants a footprint in east africa because it will benefit the pharmaceutical companies. what they should be talking about, the media, is the reporter gary webb who broke the story about the cia drug smuggling. jacksonville,m florida, on our line for veterans. hello. caller: how are you doing today? host: fine, thank you. caller: an important issue for me is the governor's race in florida. crist wasime charlie in, i think he did a pretty good job. on the national security issue, we can actually get rid of a lot of issues just by really checking ourselves as americans

and how we deal with other people globally to it we have a very short memory. sunnit in and removed a leader about 13 years ago when i was in the navy. host: is national security of voting issue for you? caller: not in this election. in the next presidential election, yes. in this election, it is all about getting rid of governor rick scott. host: ok. greg from north carolina, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was pleased to watch the debate. i think that hagan failed to get a point across. she has really done much better. but the opponent is a true conservative. what do you think about

the national security issues? caller: i really am very disappointed that the democrats and butchered our military have done so for several years. i think it will come back and affect us on a world scale. there is a lot of unrest in the world, and i think it will come back. our military is stretched. when you vote, does national security cross your mind as far as who you vote for? caller: absolutely. what concerns me is when on a nationalens scale, we will hear a little bit of it to the next day, a little bit more. a little bit more. come to find out, that was just the tip of the iceberg. host: new hampshire, this is

ted. yes, national security is a big concern of mine. we have a lot of focus on the mexican border. but i am hearing also, you know, people are sneaking in down from do not meani regular canadians. they are trying to come in from the top-down. to me, that is another area that should be tightened up and really watched well. the border line between the united states and canada is so vast that would be very hard to it, that in the mexican area and california, that can be infiltrated a lot easier. i want to bring that up. when looking at candidates

and national security, what to do you want to see from a candidate? caller: i would like to see canada and the united states -- you cannot put a fence there because the terrain is too rough, but maybe some kind of way, you know, because all of these politicians have said they want to create jobs. but if you cannot control the amount of people coming in and you have got more people always looking for jobs and a lot of them illegal, there is no way you are going to bring the economy to a balanced because there is always somebody with a want. is a u.s. policy and isis current theme in several debates, including the one with scott peters and his challengers , discussing the role of government and launching airstrikes against isis. [video clip]

malecki -- the maliki was only concerned with one sect. we have seen a change in the government. we have seen some promising signs that the next government will be more inclusive. we cannot be the government of iraq. we cannot do it at we have to use diplomacy, and we have to ally with other countries in the region to create a political system that is more sustainable. >> look, i think this is a situation where politicians from both sides of the aisle are trying to sugarcoat it. i think that we have to have a more focused view on our national security interests and a more limited use of force that reflects our national interests. defined missions are important. my concern is that the mission is not clearly defined. i think the concerned that many americans have is that we wake

up one day and find that what was sold to us by the politicians is not actually the case be resolved that in afghanistan and iraq. members of congress need to be willing to take on their own administration, to make sure there are limitations. host: west chesterfield, new hampshire, democrat line. is national security an issue in 2014? when barack obama wanted to bring back the troops from everywhere, i agreed with that and kind of understood that. i wanted to see this war on terror end. on this war an end on terror. there is just too much terror out there and terror groups. my only suggestion -- i kind of changed my point here. my suggestion is to get rid of some of the most destabilizing

forces in the region. that would be russia. russia is propping up bush rl aside -- bashar al-assad. if you can get assad out of their, then worked on isis and some of these other terrorist groups. i see this as an ongoing, decades, centuries-long war on an ideal, on terror. it is a worthwhile cause, but there has to be some kind of an end game. this a voting issue for you in midterm elections? much the midterm. presidential elections, definitely. i think midterm elections are mostly domestic. i think it will be jobs and things of that nature. but for the presidential definitelyt is national security that is one of my big things for the presidential elections. host: new mexico, david, hello.

go ahead. i am a disabled veteran. [inaudible] -- mexicans could be naturalized, and could they exist as in finding terrorists crossing the border? when something like that be possible? host: i do not know, but as far as national security, do you who youues as far as vote for? is national security an issue for you? caller: that would be like offering them something that would actually motivate them to want to turn people and. if you have got the people working behind you, things can happen. if you do not have the people interested in something, they are not going to look for you. so i think it would be a motivator to offer them some kind of good deal at the end. host: michigan, jeannie, hello. you know, america is

like a piece of high that ever does a piece of -- america is like a piece of pie that of.ybody wants a bite i feel that we have elected officials, democrats, republicans, independents, and i am not sure what i am up there in washington. they have access to the power to send forces wherever. i said,ink, like america is like a piece of pie that all of these other places want a bit of. they have been fighting ever since this world began. they will be fighting until it ends. host: this is a republican congressional candidate against

a current congress one. something wasas deleted of a controversial tv yet, footage of a captured american journalist, and a spokesman told the arizona republic that the ad would continue to be aired despite criticism. and ads began on wednesday. that is the story. here is the ad from arizona. republican challenger wendi rogers. it was redone and focuses on her challenger, the current democratic congresswoman out of arizona. [video clip] terrorist threats are growing. unsecured. are we protected? keeping us safe and secure is congress' job. done her not

doctor it she voted to allow guantánamo terrorists to return to their countries. it is true. it is wrong. she allowed her liberal agenda to get in the way of our safety. s, and iwendy roger approve this message. host: north carolina, this is howard. hello. caller: hello, national security an issue i think we should all be concerned of, although i do not really consider it a big issue here in the 2014 elections. you do not really have to look forward to realize how these cares -- terrorists came along. one dictator and another one comes in. we basically brought it upon ourselves. host: california, independent

line, dan, hello. caller: hello. to say aboutthings the issues you are speaking about. host: is national security an issue for you? caller: well, yeah. i mean, america is the great experiment. every country in the world looks to us. all they are doing is arguing with their own people. as for the borders, it says it on the statue of liberty -- give me your homeless, your poor. we do our best for the world. of theings up the issue

problems in syria. it is not our fault, but we get blamed for everything. eric from new mexico, independent line. caller: i just wanted to say i think the biggest national security threat we face is the congress and the gridlock in it. i am going tof vote, i am going to vote for somebody that is looking to -- well, you know, cross party lines, cooperate, try to get something done for the american people. dod toike, i want the invent a smart bomb that will wise people up and drop it on tc -- drop it on d.c. host: lisbon, maine, this is ian. caller: thank you. i come from a state where 9/11 terrorists came through here to absolutely attack us.

and if we cannot find some people that are willing to do the job that they are hired and elected by us to do, then i think we need to replace them. host: when it comes to national security, ads have been part of the campaign. here is one to show you from the race for arkansas senate. representative mark pryor, and add against his challenger. the topic is ebola. [video clip] worse.ebola outbreak is >> vastly underestimated. voted against preparing america for pandemics like ebola. >> cutting millions from emergency programs. >> the only arkansas congressman to vote his way. >> and voting against children's hospitals. >> instead, he voted for tax cuts for billionaires.

>> rather than protecting our families. host: we are asking you about national security interests and if it affects your vote in campaign 2014. here are the numbers -- host: if the you are an iraq and afghanistan veteran, 202-585-3883. you may consider ebola a national security effort, policy about isis, what have you. kathy is up next from michigan, democrat. caller: good morning. i am not worried about our security. the president is doing a good job. just because it is not every single little thing that happens, like mccain saying get

the troops there, i think he will get the job done. i believe in the president. host: the "wall street journal" had this -- the return of the campaign hawk. republicans are starting to remember that national security was once a topic they enjoyed debating and they did it well -- can read the rest of that from the pages of the "wall street journal." we have a call from washington, d.c., democrat. go ahead. at my country and

the congress. they are divided. a house divided will not stand. and for all these citizens that say we need roots on the ground, i have got a pair of boots that will fit them. we go overseas and abroad to , and we comears home and are dishonored. we cannot even get adequate health care. money, and they told me i have to wait nine months to get it. host: mary from california, democrat. caller: it sounds like a lot of americans do not want boots on the ground without a congressional vote. they are not going to get -- i will get a they congressional majority in the

senate and things will really be different. peait is very -- i think ce is worth pursuing. another thing is that general that criticized the president yesterday, i think in charge of the troops in the middle east, he says he needs boots on the ground. he should make that request to the president. think everyday they should be talking to anybody about a terrorist threat. that includes the president would i do not think we can prevent all acts of terrorism. we are, i hope, a land of laws. do philosophies about terrorism affect who you vote for? caller: uh, yeah. i would like to see everything we can do to close guantánamo

done. i think it should be a cost issue, but it is very dicey. there are a lot of things we could change. and since we have these new communication tools where people can, you know, speak from different parts of the world very easily or more easily than in the past, well, this is a time of change. bobby from lancaster, california, republican line. go ahead. caller: [inaudible] host: we will try bobby and a little bit. byron, new orleans, democrat. caller: i feel as though our biggest national security problem is the lack of funding for the poor and for education, especially in the louisiana and we have been under a republican governor, bobby jindal, and education has been choked.

they can put isis and ebola on the tv, but the biggest fear for me is the fact that our kids are not growing up with the tools they need to compete in the world where germany and the have free education. to me, that is the biggest national security -- no one seems to want to talk about it. host: the race for the montana seat. talked abouts issues of national security or the question was asked about the concept of boots on the ground. here are their reactions. [video clip] >> we need to be thoughtful about our approach. number one, congress needs to debate this issue and authorize their fulfill constitutional response ability. how much is it going to cost? what is the budget? what is the end game? i do not think the correct response is to instantly say we need to put troops on the ground

in iraq. >> my opponent called for economic sanctions against isis. tell me how you put economic sanctions against a non-nationstate? maybe we should perhaps write a curtly worded letter. the issue is, isis is a danger we need a three-pronged approach. we have to shut down our southern border. it is no longer an immigration issue. it is a security and immigration threat. a nation that can build a panama canal in the 19th century certainly can build a name for the 21st. secondly, and fortunately, it is going to call america to lead, and you cannot control isis by air alone. in the words of a four-star general in the marine corps, there's not a snowball chance in air operation will work. i agree. and we have to limit ground forces to special forces. wemake sure coalitions

choose are watched and efficient lee-trained. we have to limit our involvement but make sure that isis is destroyed. host: bonnie, hello. caller: i was calling about the ebola. thatw there are people caught ebola over in africa or wherever. we should have let them ride it out over there instead of endangering our whole country. i mean, that is a very, very, very bad disease. ofy need to look to get rid that. i want to know why the president keeps letting more in. host: victoria is next from florida, republican line. caller: yes, good morning to good morning, america. stay positive. be optimistic, even though we have an administration with

their head in the sand. beside the point, our three branches of government have been terrorizing this nation for several decades with the kind of policies they implement. and now it is stretching out with us, not only financially but morally and the whole nine yards. it is a mess. host: when it comes to national security, what do you think about the topic as a concern for you and campaign 2014? caller: it is a major concern for all of our citizens. they have their head in the sand just like washington does. this is ridiculous. a nation as great as we are and yeah, and we,l," the people, are exceptional. but what is running our country is not. to be even seen as

an american, and i am sure i am not alone in this. host: elizabeth from maryland, democrat's line. caller: good morning. i of very proud to be an american. i just think we need to get a little bit smarter in the fight in dealing with ebola. what we do have is a history of great forensic accounting. i think what we need to do is start going more toward the origins of terrorism funding here in and in the case of cdc and the national institutes of health and the world health they needon, i think to be supported, and i think we need to educate the american public more. ushink that will be up to and our politicians to be more informative.

it will affect my vote, and i am very lucky to have representatives and politicians who do take that attitude. thank you. host: margie from san antonio, texas. hello? caller: yes, hello. ok, i am here. host: just talk on the phone and ignore the television. caller: oh, ok. , yes, i am a republican from texas. my biggest fear is isis, simply because it is such an earring hear thehen i democratic saying he is doing a testing job. it is so disheartening whenever we feel so secure, like we did

just before 9/11. after that, we had the nerve to act surprised when the signs were clearly there that something was going on and nobody, nobody decided, well, maybe we should seal the borders or maybe we should check and see who is coming into our country. we do not care about that. and san antonio is where these 9/11 people got training as pilots at the air force base. you know, that is something that we have to live with. and that is why i feel that the isis issue is a very, very detrimental issue for this country. host: one of the topics that came up during the debates, especially the nebraska senate debate, was the role of the american military in foreign countries. we got two responses, one from the democrat and one from the republican. [video clip] >> the purpose of the military

--to i defy and eliminate identify and eliminate conflict as early as possible. when the military is successful at that mission, we do not even hear about it. when something breaks out and goes be on that level, the objective is to contain it before it reaches our shores, and heaven for bid if it were to happen within our boundaries if it reaches the united states, so that is what our military is for and how it should be used. it should be used when the principles of work permit it to be deployed intelligently and we can identify an objective that is achievable and when we can do it when the most economy, both of human resources and financial resources. >> the first duty of the federal government is to protect us, foreign and a mystic. as you travel the state and talk to people, they know that we need to be clearly resistant to go into war whenever possible.

but at this times were the use of military forces is required, they want much more clarity about why the u.s. engages. so the part of your question but the criteria, there has to be a definable u.s. national security interests at play. a good example of a place where we did not need to take military action would be bosnia. a more current one, we have made the right choice that is far to not be engaged in the ukraine. host: a call from california, independent line. good morning. america has got to wake up. sent groundt has forces, the 101st airborne, to fight ebola which they do not have a clear cure for. he has put our troops on the ground and in harm's way in a foreign country. we have no shows about that and we do not talk about that. we have got no jobs for american

citizens, but we're going to give people from foreign countries citizenship because of fiat. we have got to wake up, america. host: let's hear from joe from south carolina, republican line. caller: i am an iraqi war veteran on the veteran line. i am calling on the veteran line. host: go ahead. caller: i want to talk about the ebola disease. i think we should stop the flights leaving that country. if they want to fly people out of their, leave them there for 25 days and then fly them out on a military flight after they know they have no fever, disease, or anything. so i just want to voice my opinion on that. host: a couple debates to tell you about as part of our 2014

campaign coverage. he can see them on our campaign 2014 website. there is a debate over illinois's 17th district today. it is between the democrat and her challenger, and that is live at 7:30 this evening on c-span. and illinois's governor debate will be tonight, as well, at 9:00. if you want more information about these events, ads, debates, and other coverage, it is part of our campaign 2014 coverage. there is the website where you can see all of that on c-span.org. ronald, maryland, democrat. caller: good morning, and thanks for c-span. i want to talk about isis, but i want to also say that all the 9/11 terrorists came through canada, our northern border.

you do not hear anyone saying that maybe we should, you know, have some protection of their on the northern border. as far as isis is concerned, i do not understand why the iraqi people cannot protect their own country. isis, they keep talking about we need to train these people -- well, who trained the isis fighters? they just picked up guns and started fighting. i think the iraqi people should do the same thing. i do not think we should send american -- i am a veteran, but i do not think we should send an american soldiers over there to fight and die for these people. they are not worthy to fight for their own country. host: what about your representatives -- do you think they share your views and would you vote for them if they did not? caller: no. the area i live in, i feel we have a lot of republicans in this area.

but i think a lot of people feel the same way i feel. i do not think we should send our forces over there to die for people not willing to die for their own country. host: this is deborah, florida, democrat's line. want to say to the american people that national security is an issue. the reason why we are in the position we are in is that we have shown the world how we treat our leader who is in charge. [inaudible] i think there is no fear of coming in and doing anything to a nation who does not stand up for its president. we do not have to worry about because isisrity

and ebola. we need to stand up as christian americans and stand up with our president and worked with him and not against him. host: a call from georgia. hello. hello. ok, i served in iraq and afghanistan. i have a couple of comments about the commander-in-chief. and democrats do not know what they are doing. and i want to know about the 28 or 38 bush documents that are pretty much about 9/11. from saudiout agents arabia having something to do with 9/11. those have been struck from the record by the bush administration because of national security concerns. host: this is from the kansas senate, one of the most closely -watched races in the country. pat roberts and his challenger

greg orman. they discussed the impact on sequester that's on military and troop readiness. [video clip] penaltyster was the revision that was never supposed to happen. there is no greater example of our inability to get things done in washington. we have sequester. i agree that it is a real problem when it comes to military. and thebout fort riley general gave me a very detailed briefing on what sequester is going to do to troop levels and readiness and preparedness. it is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. [applause] >> senator roberts, rebuttal. >> the sequester was thought up and president obama, the man you contributed to and supported and the man you voted

for. we would not have this kind of a problem with this administration making such drastic cuts to the defense budget. with regards to the sequester, they exempted, they meaning the democrat majority, they exempted the entitlement programs and food stamp programs and targeted the military, thinking republicans would never go along with it. republicans surprised them. host: if you want to see that and others, go to our campaign 2014 website. on nationale calls security and if it is a voting issue for you in campaign 2014 at from new york, democrat. go ahead. i just watched the clip on senator roberts. i think his words would have came across to the american people much better if he were to say -- [indiscernible] dover, new hampshire,

independent line. toler: yes, i just wanted say that i watched a lot of news on a lot of channels, and i think in terms of security, it is important that people can afford and have c-span. otherwise, they would not know what a lot of these different groups and foundations were up to. the other thing i want to do is a happy birthday. we have a lot to be thankful for that he started c-span. that is the last call on this topic. again, go to our campaign 2014 website for videos. we have another program coming your way tomorrow at 7:00. think you for watching today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> part of our live coverage later on c-span. jeh johnson talks about immigration and border security at the center for strategic and international studies. life coverage at 3 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> our campaign 2014 coverage continues with a week full of debates. tonight at 7:30 p.m. on c-span, the illinois u.s. house debate. live coverage of the illinois governor's debate. friday night, the wisconsin governors debate between scott walker and mary burke.