caller and talk with tucker carlson about the changing media landscape. and then a conversation with patrick cowley -- howley. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. ♪ host: good morning. it's thursday, april 9, 2015. we begin our program discussing the boston marathon bomber trial and a 30 guilt or -- guilty verdicts ended by the -- handed down by the jury yesterday. the jury is now set to decide whether so car tsarnaev should be put to death. and we put those questions to you in the first hour of our

program. should the boston marathon bomber steve the death penalty? the numbers are on the screen. massachusetts residents have your own line and we especially want to hear from you. a very good thursday morning to you. we want to start with some of the headlines, starting with the boston herald this morning. "marathon bomber tsarnaev guilty : evil did not win that day." the boston globe headline "guilty on all counts."

now the real question, should he die? the jury found him guilty of all 30 federal counts against him and there is a rundown of the charges, including the 17 death penalty count including conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction resulting in death. using a weapon of mass distraction resulting in death. aiding and abetting, and use of the firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and so on down the line. from the boston globe this morning, kevin: has -- kevin: has this to say.

that is kevincul;l culen;'s piece in the boston globe. we want to hear from you. the numbers are on the screen. if you are a massachusetts resident, you have your own line. we will be talking about this for the first hour of the program this morning. yesterday, after the 30 guilty verdicts were handed down, boston marathon victim karen versar spoke to the public. here's a bit of what she had to say. [video clip] >> karin: i don't know what justices. i'm grateful to have him off the street.

i'm grateful to show everyone in the world this is not tolerated, this is not how we behave, and we are grateful everyone has worked so hard to make it known we will not allow this. >> is there a sense of closure here? karin: know, and i cannot personally because it is not something you will ever be over. you will feel it forever. there'll always be something that brings it back to the front -- the forefront. but we will all get on with our lives and get on with some sense of normalcy, hopefully, when all of this is said and done. host: several editorial pieces yesterday.

that is the editorial board of the "wall street journal" this morning. we want to hear from you. our phone lines are open. should the boston marathon bomber received the death penalty? we will start with joe calling in from oceanside, california line for independents. good morning, joe. joe, are you with us this morning? we lost joe. we will look for your phone calls. one piece i want to point out by a professor of criminology and law at northeastern university.

the headline of his piece, "wise tsarnaev shouldn't be executed." 's piece on why should go to jail for the rest of his life, he writes -- two different takes on that already this morning. susan is in revere massachusetts, line four democrats. thanks for calling in from massachusetts. caller: i guess i don't believe

in the death penalty in this case or any case. but it is a complicated trial. i work next door to the courthouse all these months. i do think this boy, or young man, came from just a family in freefall. and again, i'm not apologizing for his actions, but caught in cultural limbo. a dysfunctional family at an extreme level. it's just such a tragic case on so many levels, but ultimately i don't believe in the death penalty in this case or any case. host: susan, let me ask you what do you think the sentiment is there among massachusetts residents? there is a poll from the npr news station taken during the trial in massachusetts wbur in

massachusetts, the found that most massachusetts residents felt that the boston marathon bomber should receive life in prison. in a survey of boston voters, 62 -- 62% said he should be sent to life while 27% said he should receive the death penalty. in the broader sample size that was taken, 504 registered boston area voters found that 49% thought he should get life in prison and 38% felt he should be put to death. is that about right with the sentiment you are hearing around massachusetts? caller: in my personal sphere, i guess. though i think cardinal o'malley's letter said it best. massachusetts is a majority christian, predominantly catholic, and certainly eastern massachusetts state.

i think those values influence their beliefs. host: susan, thanks for the call. rick up next in britain to an, florida. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. how are you? host: i'm good rick. caller: i'm calling because i don't support the death penalty for him. unfortunately, if he is put to death, he will be considered a martyr in this world that he ventured into. they will just use his death for a recruiting tool for other misguided gentlemen and ladies like him. host: are you saying you don't believe in the death penalty in this case or in any cases? caller: i do believe in the death penalty in the most extreme cases, where you have a definite disregard for human life whatsoever.

but in this case, we are dealing with the mentality where they almost welcome to death because of their misguided views. on other cases can i do believe the death penalty is appropriate in some. host: do you think the jury should take that into account the reaction to a death penalty verdicts, as they are making these considerations? caller: absolutely, they should. because the radical islam world death is not a deterrent to them whatsoever. host: rick in break into an. -- bradenton. up next is roger. your thoughts? caller: i sit and look at -- let them sit in the

cell and look at pictures. host: that is roger in lexington, north carolina this morning also caller: also speaking -- in lexington north carolina this morning. also speaking governor charlie baker. [video clip] governor baker: to this day, i'm amazed that he could stand in front of martin richard and place the device. i remove going to the freight in dorchester which was the cedar grove cemetery, and visiting richard martin's grave and thinking, i cannot believe somebody would actually do this.

>> do you believe in the death penalty? governor baker: i said for a crime like this i would support the death penalty, but this is a decision made by the jury. host: the governor they're talking about martin richard, the eight-year-old boy that was killed. other victims killed in the bombing that it was krystle campbell, 29 years old and maisie lu, 23-year-old. sean collier, also killed, 25-year-old, in the ensuing hunt for dzhokar tsarnaev and his brother tamerlan. we want to hear from our viewers this morning, should the boston marathon bomber received the death penalty? columbus, georgia, lie for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i'm good, angela. how are you? caller: i'm good.

i do believe in the death penalty in this case. whether they think he is a martyr or not. he took lives the way he didn't have the right to. they were just to take. -- they were not his to take. host: angela, do you think that is justice in this case? do you think that will bring closure to the victims? caller: i don't know if it will bring closure to them, but i do believe it is justice. host: let's go up to new york, the line for republicans where no well is waiting. -- noel is waiting. caller: good morning. i support the death penalty in this case because i would be worried that somebody would try to take hostages elsewhere and try to swap them. we see the current president

able to swap out very bad people for other people. i think the death penalty is appropriate in this case. host: he becomes a liability if he is in jail for the rest of his life? caller: that is correct. it depends also if he was put in a federal pen for life. that would be a different case. right now, i'm not sure where they are going to put him. are they going to put them in a jail in massachusetts or a federal pen? host: after the guilty verdict he is awaiting the sentencing version of the trial that is going on. the "boston globe" has some stats on what happens next here.

sums that and some data on the procedure ahead. -- some stats and data on the procedure ahead. let's go to jean in wyoming. caller: good morning. i think, clearly is the death penalty. especially where he stood there behind that young boy for the timeframe that he did.

his big brother didn't make him do that. that was his personal choice. trying to second-guess terrorists as to how they react we know they will lie manipulate, do whatever they can to recruit. this should send the message around the world that we don't tolerate it. host: one of the earlier caller's said she did not believe in the death penalty at all. is the death penalty moral? caller: well, i believe it is. i believe it's moral. when you get into religious views, that's something else. when someone deliberately takes the lives, as many lives as he

did, i don't see any other option. host: and do you think this brings closure to the families of not just the victims who died, but the many victims who were injured and lost limbs? caller: i think that is a personal choice for them. but i think it would bring closure for quite a few. definitely a conviction of life or death will bring their closure. depending on how they feel about it, you know. that depends on whether they believe in the death penalty. host: thank you for the call from wyoming. cornell is calling from new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, sir. caller: i don't believe the death penalty, because i'm a

democrat, but i'm truly pro-life. host: ok, cornell. explain that a little more. caller: well, the death penalty is not going to bring closure to anyone. but the bottom line is, the death penalty historically has never been a deterrent. with statistics and crime referring to murder. we don't give life and we have no right to take it. host: and cornell, did you always feel as live up the death penalty? caller: yes. so many people have been exonerated through dna historically.

if you were poor and did not have proper representation, you had a greater chance of getting death than people with a lot of money that had been given a pass. host: cornell, what is justice here in this case in your mind? caller: what is justice? i would give him life without parole to let him think. even though it is costly feeding him, but even to give them the death penalty -- give him the death penalty, he would not be executed for years to come. as far as i'm concerned, we don't give life -- because i'm truly pro-life. most republicans say they are pro-life, but they are pro-life until they get here and then they are fair game. or they promote war, which takes

life on both sides. they are very hypocritical. me, myself, we don't give life and we have no right to take it. that's between him and his god to deal with that for the rest of his life. host: cornell in waterford works, new jersey this morning. a few stats on the history of the death penalty in the united states. capital punishment resumed in the united states in 1976 after a supreme court ordered hiatus. while many have been exited since that time, the federal government has tried and executed only three, oklahoma bomber timothy mcveigh, drug smuggler juan raul garcia, and kidnapper luis jones -- lewis jones. some have been on death row for more than 15 years as various

appeals make their way through the courts. the massachusetts death penalty -- in massachusetts, the death penalty is not allowed, but of course tsarnaev is being tried in federal court. here is tweet, a christian nation should not allow the death penalty. you can join the conversation. and one other from tony. we will be looking for your tweets and e-mails and comments on our facebook page, as well. but of course, our phone lines are open. sandra is up next in massachusetts. caller: don't look over your

back when you send somebody to prison for life. that is what should happen. i know somebody who had a problem and he went and did something wrong, and he said, i'd be back in two weeks. and he was, in a box in the church. you think people will stand for what happened? the prisoners will take care of the situation. thank you and goodbye. host: keith is up next danville, illinois, line for republicans. keith, you're on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: i'm sorry, boss. they said to just -- host: turn down your tv and go ahead with your question or comment. caller: you know what it should really be? host: what is that?

caller: make him suffer. don't kill him. host: you've got to turn down your tv if you want to call in with your comment. we will put you on hold and go to maxine in new baltimore, michigan. line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. as far as the death penalty, i could go either way. whether he gets life or death it doesn't matter to me. but i would prefer he be given the death penalty. there's no reason why this person should have any consideration for life. we are talking life. he took life. now we going to give him life? what about people he will come in contact with in his prison? what is their safety? he cares nothing for anyone else's life. as far as closure goes, the

victims will never have closure. when you've lost a loved one it's with you for life. this person has lost his right to remain alive. and as far as arabs using this as a recruiting tool, they don't need this. they've already got it. they hate us already. they are not going to love us. so just get that out of your head. if the death penalty for him. thank you very much. host: maxine, before you go, how closely have you been following the trial? have you been reading about it every day? caller: yes, i have. host: do you think he wants to be a martyr? do you think dzhokar tsarnaev prefers to be a martyr? caller: really, i don't care what he wants. he has no right to left. when he placed a bomb and kill those people, he had lost his right to have whatever.

host: maxine in new baltimore michigan this morning. senator ed markey, one of the members of congress who released a statement yesterday following the release of those 30 guilty verdicts, his statement reads in part -- that is senator ed markey in his statement that came out yesterday. one other member of congress who tweeted out a reaction to the guilty verdict was ann kuster, democrat from new hampshire.

we want to you from you, our viewers, this morning. we have about 35 minutes left of our phone segment here. harry is up next in pittsburgh pennsylvania, like for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. if this guy wanted to be a martyr, why is he for his life, number one? andover two, -- and number two the skies in for the worse of crimes. he killed four people, one a little boy and 20 people lost limbs. what is worse than that? should put him on a concrete bench and handcuffed him and put a bunch of dynamite underneath him and a clock in his face and tell him in five minutes this is going to go off and see his reaction. these people are cowards. they will not fight like military. they blow people up. people calling in and defending these guys -- this guy he wants

to be a martyr? that is ridiculous. wise he pleading for his life? host: in the boston globe, they write, spare dzhokar tsarnaev the death penalty. your thoughts? caller: if that's the case, let's have a pity party for him and let him out of jail. maybe can kill some more people

and they can feel sorry for him. look at rolling stone. they try to make them look like a martyr. that paper there, at do how they stay in business. the 419-year-old, he didn't know any better. let a matter -- the poor 19-year-old, he didn't know any better. let him out of jail. this is the dumbest article i've ever heard of. host: talking about the "rolling stone" cover that depicted dzhokar tsarnaev, many were critical of how he was depicted in the wake of the bombing. let's go to thomas on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to disagree with most people who say the death penalty is not a deterrent to stop crime. our problem is we don't use it enough. people look at the death penalty and think it is a joke because they can appeal it and spent many years in prison and never have to be executed.

if we started carrying out the death penalty on a regular basis and doing it like it was meant to be done, then yes, it would be a deterrent. i think it should be carried out as soon as possible. host: thomas, is that the long appeals process that concerns you, or that not enough crimes make one eligible for the death penalty? caller: i think it is the long appeals process, because you end up just sitting in present -- in prison and us, the taxpayers and a pain for you. we feed you, close view, and house you, and we are basically paying you to kill people. that's the way i look at it. give them one week to settle their affairs and put them to death. other criminals will say, they are not correct -- they are not playing anymore. host: any concern that innocent people might be put to death in a process as quick as a week afterward that you describe

their? that evidence might come down the road or something else might happen? caller: not with the way we do our court systems today with dna . yes, years ago when we did not have dna, yeah, i would say some innocent people might have been put to death, yes. but the way crimes are investigated today, no, i don't think innocent people could be put away. host: thomas from montana this morning. "usa today" has an article about the death penalty in the united states and the recent story and controversy surrounding it. they talk about the developments with the fading death penalty.

if you want to read more on that story, it's in "usa today." let's go to joyce in massachusetts, and independent. joyce, good morning to you. caller: thanks for taking my call. host: thanks for calling in. caller: thank you. i'm calling regarding the death penalty for the boston marathon palmer. host: yes, ma'am. caller: i'm a strong component

of the death penalty, but i have to say in this situation i have feelings neither way. if they determine it is his fate to be put to death, i don't think i can oppose this one. host: you say you have strong feelings on the death penalty how did you come to those feelings on it? caller: i'm very pro-life and i just don't feel that we have the ability to judge thoroughly. there have been people just last week, some released from death row after 30 years. my fear is well, we may put one person to death, but that is one person we have murdered if they are not guilty. i feel very strongly about being against the death penalty and abortion. but for some reason i'm not feeling much pity for this gentleman here. host: why is that, joyce? why is it different for this

gentleman? caller: it's because of the atrocity of his acts come and the fact that he has shown absolutely no remorse for it. he has admitted he did it. there is no doubt of his guilt. and he showed absolutely no remorse. i feel if he got out, he would try again. host: joyce, if you did show remorse, do you think people would read it as he's just looking to avoid the death penalty? caller: yes a good point. he would have had to show remorse from the beginning of the trial, which he hasn't. host: joyces is in length -- joyce is in lindberg massachusetts. we have been showing some of the front pages of the massachusetts neighbors. this is the "telegram and gazette" headline there must simply "guilty." another paper there, the milford daily news, the headline "beyond

doubt." and one more massachusetts neighbor for you, the sun chronicle, "life or death?" nancy is up next on our line from maine, republicans. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm good, nancy. caller: i have a bit different view on this. for one thing, i cannot figure out how we can let more prisoners go free and join i and do this -- joint isis and do this after what they did, which is much more horrible than the marathon bombing. they blew up and destroyed our world trade center and then killed over 3000 people. they didn't even have a trial for those people. they are walking out of gitmo freemen -- free men going back

to isis and the terrorist groups they came from. and we are taking this young guy at 19, was believed by -- believed by his brother, and forced, i believe, into doing what he did. i don't think this young guy really knew what his brother was up to either. i think he was following him around doing his little things that the brother wanted him to do. and i think he was on this led young boy -- misled young boy. i don't believe he was in it like his brother was. he didn't even have a weapon. he is charged for 30 counts? he will take all the blame that his brother -- for crimes that his brother committed. he will have to suffer all the consequences of all that, that his brother did. i don't think that is fair.

and i don't think it's fair to let these other prisoners go with no trial, and go free, while this young boy -- and he's only 21 right now. if it was my son, i would feel just terrible about it. because i don't believe he was in on the whole thing like his brother was. host: nancy, what would you say to the individuals who say that dzhokar tsarnaev's entire defense was to pin everything on his brother in order to save his own life? what would you say to those people? host: -- caller: i cannot sadly his brother for every single thing. i mean, the boy has a mind of his own, and maybe he was afraid of his brother. his brother was also a boxer. and you have to remember that he was bullied probably for many years by his brother. his older brother was seven years older. and if you watch always how they are growing up, and you know

they fight with each other and believe each other and the oldest one usually tells the younger one what to do. -- bully each other and the oldest one usually tells the younger one what to do. the one who was in prison right now was immature. i think he followed his brother around and did what he was told. if you look at all the things that happened, his brother was the only one who had a gun. it was his brother who was shooting back and forth with the police. he didn't even have a gun. the chinese guy, who they jumped in the car, he said the young guy didn't have a gun. host: that tells us who killed the police officer here, but -- caller: i don't know who killed the police officer. host: one of the earlier collars said keeping dzhokar tsarnaev in

prison for the rest of his life makes him a liability. you talked already about the prisoner exchange with the taliban prisoners. the concern with the earlier coaller is that someone will take an american hostage somewhere in order to get dzhokar tsarnaev out of jail. what do you think of that? caller: i really don't think that will happen. i really don't think they will ask for him, to be released. i don't think that would happen. i think it's gitmo they want released and they will release all of them. do you think that is fair, in your opinion you go maybe you can give me your opinion. but people, think for a minute. is it fair to let all of the ghetto guys go free after what they did on 9/11? -- the gitmo guys go free after

what they did on 9/11? all these people convicted of terrorist krasner country, they will be executed -- terrorist crimes in our country, they will be executed or spend life in prison will. host: you are concerned about those released from gitmo. these were not pilots or anyone who crashed any planes. caller: no, i relies they're are all gone, but there are still people in gitmo that they are going to be releasing. they want to close gitmo. if they release them, all those people had something to do with 9/11. are they going to let them all go? host: that was nancy in maine. gary is up next, line for democrats. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, sir. caller: state sanctioned murder is still murder. and if you set up a mindset in

society that there are certain good reasons supposedly for murdering someone, then other people will say crime in their own hands as well. i just don't believe in murder that murder is a proper resolution of how to end a murderous life. the fact is, there is a statistic -- i heard an earlier caller. in the state with the higher rate of the death penalty, there is a higher rate of victims. where there is the death penalty, criminals are more likely to kill, because the punishment they know will be the death penalty against them. where in states where there is no death penalty, criminals are

less likely to kill the witness. it's the opposite of what most people think. host: gary, what do you think the future is of the death penalty in the united states? do you think sentiment is changing? caller: i don't know that it is changing. i think it's primarily a pro-death penalty country. i would like to see it be against murder of all types. i think it's a greater punishment to have one of these criminals rot in jail than it is to kill them all. it is merciful to kill them off than it is to sit there for six years and think about his crime. host: i want to keep taking your calls on this topic, but also let you know some of the news going on. here on capitol hill, a retirement announcement yesterday. congressman lois capps announced she will not run for reelection.

here is a tweet she put out announcing this will be her last term in congress. capps, 77 years old, has represented the california district since 1997. she ran to replace her husband walter cap's, who died of a heart attack a year into his first term in congress. roll call is reporting on this. multiple operatives say that the congresswoman's daughter, laura cap's daughter, laura cap, is likely to run for that seat. she's a a longtime democratic operative that worked as a speechwriter for bill clinton. and worked for the john kerry presidential campaign and the late senator edward kennedy. chris mitchum, son of the

legendary actor robert mitchell is considered -- considering a run. and several others tweeting out their good wishes to lois capps after her announcement yesterday. back to your calls. beverly is in frisco, cap, the line for -- frisco texas, the line for independents. caller: a lot of people said things that i agree with, and some that i don't. i believe the death penalty, but i believe it should be an eye for an eye, a tooth for a two. -- a tooth for a tooth. if you do something, that should be done to you. that exact same thing. i feel like long before -- if

people are put in prison, they don't sit there and rot. not an american prison. they are fed close, house, they get to mingle, communicate. they get computers. they can communicate all over the world and spread their evil everywhere. they are like a virus. they need to be snuffed out p eriod. we don't need them to stay on death row for 20 years. people don't die in a week. but if they could, that would be a great thing. we should change that to me gets the death penalty, and yeah, they die in a week and they die in the way that they take life. and he did not just take life. he injured, maimed, and disrupted so many lives. these people are talking about

they are not. those people are to be blown up -- the people they are talking about, these people involved in 9/11, these people ought to be blown up as well. host: beverly in frisco, texas. listen from boston -- the listing from boston.com of all of victims there. but go to david, line for

republicans. caller: good morning. i think he definitely should be executed. jeb bush and w bush, they let terry salvo die and she's american and did not do any harm. someone who kills people like that they should be executed if they are found guilty. host: i'm here he this bombing relates to the terri schiavo case. caller: well, they put her -- they stunned her to death. i was up there at that time, and

i seen people trying to give her water and food and they were arrested immediately. host: ok, we will go to francine, atlanta, georgia, lie for democrats. caller: good morning. my view with just the death penalty in general in the red states of america, it doesn't make any sense. we should not -- in the united states of america, it doesn't make any sense. we should not be putting people to death. a lot of people are calling in and i making an assumption, but i'm thinking they are probably christian. even i'm a big separation of church and state person, but they are not speaking of compassion. just show compassion when you feel like it or when you really think it is needed. that is not your job. i think he should be put away, but i think we should be compassionate people. just like one of the callers said earlier. if we try to treat people the

way we think we should be treated, it is never going to be well. you can go back to before the united states was even around and see how well it works when you start executing people in any way. there are still going to be a cost to executing people. but i think the cost to executing people will not just be a financial cost for us as americans, or just human beings. host: have you always been against the death penalty? caller: no, as i got older and looked at evidence, and just became a more thoughtful person, i thought, oh, this doesn't even really work. host: what was the evidence you looked at that most changed your mind on this? caller: like when other caller said, if you look at the statistics just here in the u.s. as opposed -- the states that have it as opposed to those that

don't, the state that don't have it are less likely to even have people who need to be put on death row for these kinds of crimes. just look at history in general. we are people, so we lacked judgment a lot of the time. but i don't think we should put our judgment over someone else's life. we can see what they have done and if it is really evident about there being no question about them doing it, put them away for life if that is what we decide to do. i don't think we have the right to take someone else's life. host: francine in atlanta, georgia this morning. i want to keep taking your calls for about 10 more minutes. i also want to update you on a major story this week, the shooting death of walter scott in north charleston, south carolina, an unarmed black man shot by a police officer as he was running away from that police officer. the new york times in the lead editorial note the case underscores two problems that

have become increasingly clear since the civic discourse that erupted last year after that please kill black citizens in new york, cleveland, and ferguson. the editorial board of the new york times is not the only one to write about this issue. the editorial board of the washington post also has a piece today on it, and abuse -- a piece of open -- "an abuse on video" is the title lead of their editorial. senator rand paul on wednesday urged americans not to mistrust -- distrust law enforcement

after the shooting of an unarmed black man in north charleston. the gop presidential candidate argued that most police are honorable. rand paul, of course, a presidential contender announcing his it for the u.s. presidency this week. another potential contender is ben carson, expected to announce in the coming weeks or perhaps months. ben carson noted on wednesday that he condemned the police shooting of the unarmed black man in north charleston, calling it a public execution. it's horrible to see an execution take place in the street like that, ben carson

told buzz feed news. one tweet on the same subject coming from another potential presidential contender, who repented. -- hillary clinton. the lead editorial in usa today talks about this in relation to the ferguson protest and the shooting there last summer. "from ferguson to north charleston" is the headline. they have two editorials today.

you can read their editorials on their opinion page on usatoday.com. and one piece related to ferguson on the same topic "three black elected to ferguson city council" is the headline. you can read more on that in "the washington times." time for a few more calls. talking about the boston

marathon bomber, should he received the death penalty? that is the question. donny in kansas, when for independents. go ahead, donny. caller: i think this shows how wise we are, really. shouldn't even be a question? i'm not saying what he did was right. and of course he knew some of what he was doing. death only brings more death. war brings about more war. we need to learn to stop focusing on all of this. i mean, yes, i know, like i said, it wasn't right what he did. he knows that. he knows that, hopefully. welcome anyway, people meet to learn to take a breath and calm down. host: donny, what is justice after the death of three victims

in the bombing itself, and a police officer in the ensuing manhunt, and all of those who remained in the attack? what is justice? caller: i mean, what makes sense in killing him? does that really bring about justice? host: what does bring about justice, donny? caller: maybe showing him what he did wrong. some people who do this, they probably want to die. make themselves feel better. they can live with the guilt. i don't know what he's feeling -- make him live with the guilt. i don't know what he's feeling right now. michael sorry for the man. i feel sorry for all the people -- i feel sorry for the man. i feel sorry for all the people who had to go through this. just not let much negativity get

to them and not let information come to them that they should not be giving any credit to. i don't know. what is the right answer for something like that? who can say? host: donny and kansas this morning. beverly is next in north carolina. line for democrats, good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i'm for it. we are a nation of rules. everyone has to have rules and we must learn to obey the rules. when we have mass murders yes. when we kill officials, yes, the death penalty. mediocre stuff, ok, we can deal with that. but when it comes to mass murder and killing officials i say automatically, the death

penalty. and i don't know. people think the death penalty is cruel. it teaches others not to do it. in america, we are up against isis, up against a lot of things that might be happening to us in the future. you have to have rules. set the rules and those who disobey the rules, yes, yes. but again, only for mass murders and killing officials. yes, i agree you should get the death penalty automatically. no trial no nothing. because we have to have rules here. this is just getting ridiculous. you have a good day. host: one other headline, family of slain m.i.t. officer sean collier, "we are thankful that

dzhokar tsarnaev will be held accountable." we have been asking the question of should the boston marathon bomber receive the death penalty after the guilty verdict on 30 counts, 17 of them eligible for the death penalty. james is in smiley, texas. good morning. caller: i 100% believe in the death penalty. and in this case especially. but there are a lot more things we should be giving the death penalty for. in the case of this boston bomber, i believe that he should be force-fed a last meal of pork and then publicly hanged. if we went back to public hanging, there would be a lot

less reasons for giving the death penalty because people would see it and then it would act as a deterrent. but i also think the death penalty should be applied for child molesters, rapists, for treasons. it's just like this bergdahl fella that we traded all a lot less reasons for giving the death penalty because people would see it and those deals for. he should be convicted and publicly hanged in texas. we believe in the death penalty here. we definitely should give them to child molesters and rapists. host: we have had some callers who say they don't believe the death penalty works, that it is not a proper deterrent. what would you say to those folks? caller: i would say, they don't know what they're talking about. number one, if you do it in the case of the islamic extremists and terrorists, first of all, i would not only give it to the

extremists and iteris, but i would also give it to anybody aiding and abetting -- extremists and terrorists, but i would also give it to anybody aiding and abetting the if you did what i suggested, for spread them a last meal of pork, that is against their religion. they will not go to heaven. that would act as a deterrent. publicly hanging them so that people can see it, then they see -- death is final. if our christian faith we have a resurrection but on earth, death is final. host: there are laws in this country against cruel and unusual punishment. where you draw the line? caller: well, unusual punishment

would be something like cutting a vain and letting them bleed to death or something like that. stoning them to death. things of that nature. public hanging is swift and sure. the trap falls, they fall down the snap of the rope -- that is not cruel and unusual. host: judy is in townsville north carolina. for republicans. caller: good morning. my question is, are we setting a

bad precedent by letting a boston bomber do all that killing live in jail? you do all that killing, you need to be punished. the death penalty says we are not going to put up with all this murder. he needs to be punished. that is making a martyr out of him, a hero. i can punish people and blame it on my brother. a next person comes along, all he has to do is plead, i did it because my brother told me and then he gets life in prison too. what i want to know is, what do you think -- doesn't it set a bad precedent? host: that is judy in townsville, north carolina.

up next, last week on the washington journal we featured writers from the daily beast. today we had to the daily caller in washington and talk to tucker carlson about the changing media landscape and how his online publication covers the news and later patrick howley will join us to talk about the 2016 presidential race. in case you missed it, the national council on u.s. arab relations held a discussion, analyzing the iran nuclear agreement. a former negotiator gave reasons why he thought the deal was a mutual win for the u.s. and iran. [video clip] >> to my understanding, this is a mutual win. i would like to give you reasons why this is a win for both of them.

first, through diplomatic solution were able to stave a war in the middle east. this is one of the rare occasions that crisis in the middle east has been resolved or is going to be completely resolved through diplomacy. they have been able to set a new mechanism for verification non-diversion toward weaponization. many nuclear experts believe it is not enough. many believe even additional protocol which is the maximum level of transparency is not enough. the sets of measures is tactically a new mechanism of

verification and transparency assuring non-diversion toward rep -- toward weaponization for the first time. therefore, if they are wise enough to embed agreements with iran on broader scope regionally and internationally this would be a big gain for proliferation globally. perhaps this is the first evidence the engagement policy of president obama announced in 2009 has worked. the u.s. has been trying for 35 years to improve relations. a lot of efforts. all have failed and this is the

first time the success is stamped at the highest level of negotiation between iran and the u.s., which definitely would have implication on relation between iran and the west. it opens the door to a regional dialogue between iran and the world powers. host: tucker carlson is a familiar face for many of our viewers on the washington journal. he joins us this morning as part of an ongoing effort to go inside newsrooms of various publications around washington d.c. tucker carlson is editor in chief of the daily caller. the crowded media landscape in washington dc, how does the daily caller stand out? guest: pretty boldly i would say. we have been around for five

years and the purpose from the site -- the purpose of the site was not to carry water for any political movement or politician but to fill in the gaps left by an irresponsible press. we felt, having watched the two dozen eight elections -- the 2008 elections, that there was a lot uncovered. a lot of stories that readers might like to read about. as long as we jumped on those stories, we would do pretty well. we turned out to be right. host: what were some of the stories you jumped on? guest: there are a ton of them. halloween the first big story was a story about something called journal list, a private e-mail chain between reporters at mainstream publications and we got access through a member of journal list to those e-mails. you had reporters from places like the washington post and the

huffington post and a bunch of publications around washington, all sort of identified as nonpartisan. in fact, plotting on behalf of barack obama on behalf of his campaign in 2008, how to improve the nature of the press coverage he received. basically committing journalistic fraud. we broke that story, took a lot of heat for it, lost some friends as a result. it was a story that i think put us on the map. host: he talk about mainstream publications in that story. who was the mainstream media and who is not? where's the line in your mind? guest: we are the mainstream media. i would say the people that work here in contrast to employees of other news organizations are present a spectrum of american life. we have actual diversity here. not everyone went to princeton.

we really try to get people from different parts of the country with different points of view and life experiences. it is quite literally a purer cross-section of public opinion in this office than you would find in say the washington post newsroom. there's this fetish about diversity meaning matching the color of the rainbow, the spectrum. you can grind up -- you could wind up with a multihued newsroom. it is a cultivation of people who share most of the same assumptions. i'm not attacking them. i friends who work there. -- i have friends who work there. it becomes hard to notice your own assumptions when everyone around you shares them.

there is aware known phenomenon -- there is a well-known phenomenon. we are subconsciously out of step with that so we are highly aware of the preconceptions we bring to coverage. it is better to be self aware. most of the bad blunders come when people are not cognizant of their biases. host: what are those preconceptions you bring to coverage? guest: we are aware of the fact that we are ideologically out of step. i hire people here on the new side -- i never asked the single person, who do you vote for. i am looking not for research -- i'm looking for people who descend from the conventional view of things. who do not regard the same nine subject is the only things worth covering.

listen to people who are looking at things differently from your average washington post or new york times reporter. we do not need more of that coverage the kind of coverage that assumes it is rich relations that have -- race relations have not progressed since 1955. i want people with the press -- with a fresh perspective. those people tend to be in the minority ideologically. they may not have voted for obama possibly election. -- for obama's reelection. they are aware of that and they haven't intellectual outsider status. i think it makes them sharper -- i think they had an intellectual

outsider status. i think it makes them sharper. anybody who is eager to join a movement and be one of the group whose dream is to sit in the audience at the jon stewart show , that is not the person i want to hire. host: we are talking about the media landscape in washington, d.c. we are talking with editor in chief tucker carlson. our phones are open. he will be with us for about the next 45 minutes or so. republicans can call in at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. what is the business model? guest: that is very much like the recipe for coca-cola. it is a total secret. we sell ads against the content just like any other newspaper would. like magazines would before they

collapsed. the key is traffic. we are not a nonprofit, in contrast to most organizations in washington. we have a nonprofit organization which does deeper investigation. the daily caller it self is just a company. it is one of the rare private sector for-profit companies in the district of columbia. we have to turn a profit or we disappear. we do not have someone secretly funding us. we have six or seven investors and then my business partner and i. they put in their investments. that was years ago so we have to turn a profit. and we have for the past three years maybe. we are proud of that. i have not bought a plane yet that we are not losing money. host: who are your biggest

competitors? guest: like all zen masters, in the end we're competing only against ourselves. our own understanding of excellence. that and everybody else. to be honest with you, i do not feel like we have competitors per se. online only news is still relatively new. it is not more than 20 years old. as a practical matter it is not more than eight or nine years old. there is a lot of space online. i read all my news all online. every morning after reading the usual suspects, the new york times, the washington post, the wall street journal, i run out of places to read original stories. i do think there is a lot of bandwidth left for new entrants

into the news business. i do not think of it like that, who do we compete against. i'm not very competitive actually. i have an idea of what we ought to be. i want to be huge and successful but i do not think of it in terms of crushing someone else. host: the sense of the size of the staff. what are your plans for growth? guest: about 50. they are very effervescent characters. i'm sure some of them will stagger through the shop at some point, unaware that there is a crew in here trying to find their desks. they are entertaining. i love them. one of our resolutions when we started was to create an office

we would actually want to go to. whenever i am in washington, i am here completely by choice. the reason is, we have great people in the office. we want to be big. i do not want to be the size of ge, probably not a risk of that but i do not want to be a massive company with an hr department. at this point, i am the hr department. pretty lenient to be honest. i think we are ramping up. in the next month, i can say for certain we are hiring about 10 people. that is a brisk pace of growth. ramping up more for the elections. host: we are featuring the daily caller this morning. we will be in their newsroom for about the next hour and a half or so. we're talking with tucker carlson. we will go to jimmy, athens, georgia. line for independents.

caller: good morning. i respect you mr. carlson. you're a journalist with integrity and i hope you have -- i hope you do not pull of bill o'reilly or brian williams anytime soon. my question is about ronald reagan. generally considered to be against a government but when you look at his record, it did not always turn out that way. there are no real programs that i think that he cut. when he left office, the budget deficit -- the national debt was three times higher than it was when he came into office which is about similar to obama's record. what you think about this on the myth of reagan trying to downsize the government? guest: i think there's a lot of truth in what you said. i have seen all kinds of numbers on this question.

numbers are famously fungible. gdeable. i am not giving them a pass on this. it is pretty hard to cut anything. if you attempt even to rein in the growth of spending -- the dramatic, over the top language of any attempt to rein in spending are almost unbelievable. this may be the core problem of democracy. once you have -- once the majority figures out it can take from the minority legally, it is

hard to keep things under control once they figure that out. i am not hopeful that government can ever be scaled back. maybe you could slow it down. maybe it is a matter of readjusting expectations. host: louis on the line for republicans calling in from colorado. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you tucker carlson for all you do. you get the true message out to us american people. we appreciate that. i want to see you do in a job on fox and friends. it looks like you have fun. god bless you for what you are doing. have a good day. guest: you have such nice callers on c-span. i'll give you my cell later if you can ask my man -- if you ask that man to call me every morning. host: talk about your other job.

your work with fox news. guest: i host fox and friends on the weekends. i do that every weekend. it is from 6:00 to 10:00. more like a telethon than a show. it is totally fun. really fun. a physical challenge. yet to get up at 3:00 and exercise and read everything -- you have to get up at 3:00 and exercise and read everything. a lot of things feel less intimidating. it is not shocking to go on tv. to do a four our show, it is a mountain to climb every time. if i get older, i am 45 now, i appreciate that. i like a task that i worry i will not be able to complete.

every time i host i think, will i be able to do this. when it is 10:00 and your pull off a decent show, if you like you have done something. host: talk to this headline, daily caller not allowed to criticize fox. explain this. guest: fascism. we have, i would say, the most open newsroom. you can interview any of the lunatics who work here. we allow total latitude and freedom to our writers. i can prove this because probably every other day i get a call from a former friend or someone i knew or like saying, why are you attacking me. i let them write what they want. you cannot attack the family members of other people who work here and the second is you cannot attack fox. it is not because fox's

conservative or we want to help the movement. i do not think that way. we cannot attack fox because i work at fox. you do not attack your employer. what my employees says, isn't that a conflict? it is a conflict. i'm an owner here and an employee there. it is what it is. i'm not apologizing for it. they are my employer. plus, i like fox but we attack a lot of people i like. host: have you ever asked the folks at fox if there is a article if you can recuse yourself from that? guest: i have never had a conversation with fox about this at any level.

they did not ask me not to attack them. preemptively, only first started , i went to work at fox almost at the same time. i said, this will present conflicts. the rule is solely for my benefit. you could say, that is unfair. it is. i'm the editor. my only defense is, i'm transparent about it and almost everything else. that is the rule. i do not know what to say. if i had inherited millions of dollars and did not have to work, i would not bother. i work. i have two jobs. anyone who does not like it the not have to work year. we had someone who work here for a number of years who i really liked and he worked apiece attacking fox for not being tough enough on immigration. i said, sorry we cannot run this.

he said, i'm going to have to quit. i said, please don't. he said, i have to, which i understand. what i disagree with is the idea that this is a symptom of something larger here. we are working on behalf of the conservative movement. that is ridiculous. we are not afraid to criticize anybody. we do not do it because i demand we do not do it because i take a paycheck from fox. people may think i have got my head on backwards but i am not lying about it, unlike everybody else. i've worked at more than a dozen news publications and again and again i at stories held or spite or rewritten and you find out later it was because they contain something about the publisher's friend. no one is direct with me about it. they stealthily change the piece

or killed in. t. i resolved that i would be direct with people. host: mark is on our line for democrats, calling from roswell new mexico. caller: another outlet that -- fox and friends is propaganda that is manipulating false reporting. you have done so much to install fear into your politics and into the people of the united states. it is all a self-serving interest for yourselves. i find you are corrupt. i think you are dishonest, low integrity. your telethon that is so fun has

torn down race relations. host: i want to give tucker carlson a chance to respond. guest: i would say -- i was unbothered until the last line which i think is unfair. that it is setting back race relations. i have a clear sense of who is doing that and it is not us, i would say. i like our show. i'm happy to defend any specific art of it. -- specific part of it. in general, his point about sowing fear, i do not think we do that. i think the news business in general, i've certainly been around this when it happened, tends to with people into a frenzy for things that are not that scary. i think the press has an interest in scaring people sometimes. you want to know the real source from a lot of that stuff?

local news. what is you in your refrigerator that could kill your children? tonight at 11:00. i think in general that is a fair criticism. the race relations stuff -- you have a president who most people i know voted for as atonement for past sins. this guy has taken al sharpton on as a close advisor constantly held up the specter of white racism working in the background to get voters to the polls. i think it is contemptible. i do not think is held to account for it. the press is flat-out dishonest most of the time. they will not make the obvious point, that this guy has set race relations back. i am not going to cop to that. that is not our fault, it is his.

host: west point, massachusetts. steve, you're on with tucker carlson. caller: i noticed you through jabs against jon stewart. some years ago you debated him. if you go back on and debate him face-to-face see how it turns out the second time around. guest: i do not think he is a show anymore, does he? i did not debate him the first time. he came on her show and made a bunch of noises that i did not understand. i think he is a talented guy more talented than i am and more successful. i do not understand what point he was trying to make. if you go back and look at the tape i do not think he said anything intelligible or worth hearing. your bad for america ok.

you suck up to politicians, that is one of the only since i have not committed. i find that repulsive. i have never done it, he has. he would have politicians on his show. if you agree with them, john kerry for example, he would ask them, why are you so wonderful. he had an obligation to ask tougher questions. i may have asked questions that were too nasty but i have certainly never sucked up to anybody. i did not understand his criticism than. i get that he was more popular than i was and probably still is so he was reported as the winner. on merits, what he had to say was dumb. host: marianne is waiting on the

line for republicans. caller: mr. carlson, is this daily caller a newspaper or what? guest: that is a great question. i would put it in the "or what" category. in effect, it is a newspaper but it is online. you will not hear it thump against your back door. you have to go online to get it. it is structured like a newspaper. it has all kinds of sections. our entertainment section turns out to be one of our most popular sections. i was not something we had in mind when we started. i'm not a movie watcher or a tv watcher and mother is my business partner. -- and neither is my business partner. we had a talented editor who knocked it out of the park.

like any business, you have preconceptions about what it will be like and they also have dissolved in the face of reality . some of our sections have been successful. technology. education has been huge. our energy reporter is really successful. like a newspaper, we have all kinds of different sections. we have a sports section. our sports reporter is sitting behind me, jerking his coffee. -- drinking his coffee. i would say we are a newspaper but it will not get your fingers dirty. host: why do you have a chaplain on staff? what you have a bar in the office? guest: we do not have a chaplain on staff. we probably could use a chaplain on staff. host: there is one listed on the

masthead. guest: yes. he is an adjunct chaplain. his name is billy and he is the pastor of a presbyterian church in nashville, tennessee. he is a college roommate. we believe in lording up the roster with a lot of former college roommates because why would you if you had your business? we have one who was a judge in maryland who comes to all of our parties. if a rigorous party schedule. -- we have a rigorous party schedule. we do have a bar in the back. we have a daily caller bar built by brian danza, one of our employees and a brilliant carpenter. we do host parties. in general, it is a rigorous work environment. we ask a lot of the people who work here. in return, we provide free beer

and we also spent several hundred dollars a week on pop tarts and you can sleep. you want and some people do. we do not pay well but i think it is an interesting job. it is intense. there are great people. if want beer and pop tarts, we can cover that. host: tim is waiting on our line for independents. caller: good morning. i think one of the things that keeps me from learning the most about the issues is what i call pep fast reporting. i saw your thing, changing the media landscape. i thought, what a novel idea. i am tired of pep fast reporting. msnbc, cnn fox. they resemble their pep fest rallies when they get together

when it is voting time, that is what they look like to me. guest: i have worked at all three of those channels. i will say this, this is a distressing fact i would say about human nature, that people prefer to hear their own views repeated back to them, maybe in more clever fashion. there is not a huge appetite for old-fashioned debate where you have two peers, evenly matched each with a different point of view, debating one another. i do not think there are any shows that feature that regularly anymore. viewers do not want it. what do you do about that? i do not know the answer.

for myself and the people i work with at fox and here, the thing we tried to keep in mind all the time is, be honest. if you see something, tell the truth about it. if you stick to that, that is probably the best you can do. to answer your question more crisply, i am probably too close to a lot of this stuff to be a very effective analyst about media. it is right in front of my face. host: karen is in -- erin is in houston, texas. caller: i'm in high school. what we see is in social media news comes to us. we cannot go to the news. you see this on facebook, twitter, so on. for a younger generation, you could say you want more interaction. we have been seeing

standardization with all news, newspaper, news companies, they all have websites with videos and things for interaction which increases revenue. the youth generation not being as interactive with news, can you say instead of his being propaganda is being pumped down. how has media -- how will the news be a half century from now? guest: what will the news look like a half century from now, i have no idea. jeff zucker will find a way to hardwire it into your brain from facebook and you will not have a choice about what is on that feed. i can only imagine.

i think you make a smart point about news coming to you appearing on whatever social media site you are going to and not having to seek it out. that's probably good and bad like everything. i would say, it increases the power of social media sites to such an extent, facebook being the most obvious but there are others, to such an extent that we should pause and think through how they are handling that power. facebook is the largest disseminator of news in the united states, probably the world. that raises the question, who was deciding what news makes it onto facebook? who specifically is making that decision? one of the criteria? as far as i know, i think a lot of the workings are opaque.

it is unclear exactly how decisions are made. there has always been this air of fog around newsrooms. how do you decide what is on page one? if you really wanted to find out -- i personally know some of the people who make that decision. just call them up. why did you run the north crossed and that was run the north trust in shooting in the north -- in the left hand column? you can know the thinking behind it. at facebook, it is not at all clear. is that done by an algorithm? what exactly is an algorithm? what is excluded from it? the internet, which promised us 15 years ago a vast diversity of news sources, it was going to

flatten the world where everyone be a purveyor of news. it seems to have concentrated more power and a smaller number of hands. you do not have to be some kind of wacko to think that is scary. i wish people would wake up to that. host: let's go to karen oklahoma. caller: good morning. good to see you. al sharpton is the worst one on msnbc. that channel makes you think being white is the worst thing in the world. the democrats are always talking about the war on women and how we do not pay them and democrats do not like women, obviously i am one. could you tell me how much hillary clinton's campaign, how much of a paying their workers?

are those "volunteers." not even paying the minimum wage. also, the press let it slip under the rug about solyndra. what happened to our money? he gave millions and millions of dollars and then they went under. what happened to our money? did we get our money back? i'm a 61-year-old waitress and i tend to myself. there is nothing wrong with the low-end job so give up on that. thank you. guest: amen. i would start at the end and say about the solyndra question, the

short answer is i'm not sure how that story wound up. it was superseded by 109 other stories in my life of equal appalling importance. i do know that washington, d.c. where i live and work is suspiciously rich all of a sudden. i came here 30 years ago in 1985. we lived in georgetown and it was nice. no one seemed ridged me. -- no one seemed rich to me. up until 15 years ago, this was a city of government workers. middle-class city. not everybody on my street had a mercedes. what happened exactly? part of it is the growth of the defense and security industries out of northern virginia. the wars gave ride to that.

there's a lot of corruption. that is one of the reasons our economy is booming. by corruption, i do not mean the old-fashioned pay you for a road contract kind of graft but a more subtle and lucrative kind of corruption where i lobby you for government money. people are making tons off of that. it is distressing and almost nobody ever mentions it. i'm so worked up about it i cannot room the first question of the meant to say norman, oklahoma is a great place. no one has ever doubted the dignity of low-wage jobs. host: she was talking about the volunteers and women staffers whether it be hillary clinton -- guest: it is so early i put that out of my mind. the war on women. it is so ludicrous. unmarried women are the backbone of the democratic electorate.

talk to anybody who runs a democratic campaign and they will tell you that unmarried women -- there are now more unmarried women than men in the united states. the reasons are many and partly unclear. one very clear consequence is, more unmarried female voters means more democratic voters. question is how to get them out to vote. it is so stupid it is almost not worth responding to other than to say it is political. you often hear democratic candidates say, we know there is bias against women because a woman only makes $.73 on a man's dollar. to which you could say, that is a pretty in precise way to measure. let's take that measure and apply it to the west wing of the white house right now. do women make as much as

men? they do not. you throw that at them and they say, that's because women take off for maternity leave. that was the excuse that republicans gave when you attack them and said that was an invalid excuse. it is so dumb, you do not want to engage in this. i believe, on hillary clinton's staff at the state department the same was true. on average men made more than women. does that mean hillary clinton hates women? of course not. once you head down the road of demigod every -- you get stupid when you start to use demigod language -- host: it relates to this

headline from the washington post. do you want to talk about the e-mail issue and why it was addressed in the worst week in washington column? guest: i think it was written -- i never read anything about myself. someone in my office said the washington post did four stories on it. a guy called eric wemple, kind of a creepy character. he has written about it all of these times because it is bigger than the fall of baghdad. a couple of weeks ago spokeswoman for bill de blasio got into it with one of my editors. he said your e-mails are really annoying and he copied me -- and she copied me in. i wrote back and said, you make a fair point calling into question one of our stories and we will check it.

we were wrong and we did corrected. honestly, you're kind of annoying. i do not know what to say. maybe it is because you live in new york and people in new york have a different way of relating to each other. for some reason, i copied my brother. he wrote back a nasty response. he accidentally hit reply all and sent it back to her. she, recognizing a publicity opportunity, sent it to these websites that printed it. all of a sudden i was a misogynist because my brother wrote a mean e-mail to this chick accidentally. no one was asked to explain why this was a significant story. the bottom line for me was -- it was a mistake. he wishes he had not done it.

it affected his job and had all kinds of problems. they want me to denounce my only brother? disown him call him a bad person? i'm not going to criticize a member of my family in public because some washington post or something want me to do that. i would doie first. for some reason it became this big thing because i guess they do not like my politics. it was an accident and he apologized. i cannot see white was a big new story. maybe i am on -- i cannot see why it was a big new story. maybe i am on another planet. host: robert is in windsor mill, maryland. caller: good morning. what i wanted to say was i

noticed that within the first few minutes of mr. carlson's comments on your show, he talked about how certain people were not beyond reproach, opera was not beyond criticism and barack obama is not beyond criticism. when i picked up from him, they all had a thinly veiled underlying racial context to them. he went in order, talking about how certain things should not be beyond criticism. i agree as an american. the first american -- the first amendment is strong. mr. carlson -- i remember him from back in the early 2000 on different tv shows. he is a conservative person. much respect because he speaking

from his perspective. what i do take issue with, the fact that a lot of times republicans have a tendency to throw out a false sense of race relations are even worse because of president obama. that is not the case. if you look deeper, i think because of this man's election and reelection, it has stirred the undercurrents of racism more to the forefront and that is why it appears that race relations are worse. guest: it is so stupid it is hard to know -- i am a racist because i said oprah is not beyond reproach? i don't know what to say. how is the last thing on my mind. talk about devaluing a term.

i'm old enough to remember when being a racist meant something. you would not sling it around. like the worst thing you could be in american life. no one would defend it. now, it has been so bleached by overuse it is like meaningless. i think a legislator in georgia accused a fellow legislator of having a racist son who is 18 months old. people make a mistake -- there's really racism on both sides. it is more difficult for asian applicants to get into public universities. they have to score higher on the sat and a ct to get admitted than any other group. is that racism? of course. they are being penalized because of the color of their skin.

there are many examples of racism and many victims of it. throwing it around like that does not help anyone. i wish race relations were better. i sincerely do. if i felt barack obama was actually bringing people closer together and healing the wounds of the past rather than digging them up and picking the scab off for political gain -- even if i disagree with him on the other stuff, his election would expiate america's greatest sin and bring us past that, there is nothing more important than that. he is done just the opposite. what a missed opportunity. what an irresponsible thing to do. i've been to a lot of countries and covered politics and all of them. the one thing you notice is, ethnic politics does not go away. if you and i are mad at each other because of views on x that is resolvable.

issues come and go. they can be resolved. ethnicity cannot be resolved. it never changes. if we are divided over ethnicity, race, we will always be divided. i can spill into violence and real hatred. it is dangerous stuff. any politician on either side who seeks to galvanize people with reference to their race ought to be ashamed of themselves and really careful. it is nitroglycerin. host: i want to get to one or two more callers who than waiting to chat. margaret is one of those. line for independents. caller: good morning. i am feeling your pain. i have called c-span in the past. i'm going to address. you have a couple callers come in, i feel like my iq gets lower

sometimes listening. what i find interesting is the number of people -- i am in social services and work with persons with disabilities. the number of people who congratulate themselves for not listening or washing -- or watching fox news. i think it is unfortunate the line of questioning. i'm disappointed in c-span between bringing up the article about your brother and talking about fox news as if you had to explain it or justify it. you do not need me to defend you. the last caller put me over the top. i have three children. if i could tell you on a daily basis the amount of pounding my kids took. we are catholic and conservative . i taught my children to use critical thinking. debate is gone. in one of my daughter's classes

at the beginning of this year, 10th grade human geography and then there was another course -- the teacher managed to fit in that mother teresa was a freak. she managed to get that statement in. my phone call is, i read the daily caller and am thankful for intelligent people. i am fearful for the youth because the area of arguing and having real debate and opinions is gone. thank you. host: i will give you the last minute or two we have in the segment. guest: i would hope along with the caller that children are confronted with views that are different from their own in a sincere way and also allowed to

keep their views. that they are not ostracized for having different views. there is a kind of conformity that settles on a country that is both boring and dangerous in the long run where people who disagree are cast out of their jobs, beyond the pale for having different views. i have four children were think are pretty heterodox in their thinking. my experience with a lot of young people is, they all seem to think the same way. that is stifling. it is the enemy of original thinking, artistic thinking. the enemy of everything that is interesting and life-affirming. bring on intellectual diversity.

host: tucker carlson. always a precede you coming on our show and letting us -- always appreciate you coming onto our show and letting us in. we will be talking with patrick howley. we will be talking about the 2016 presidential race. we will be right back eerie >> here are some of our painted programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span2's "book to be," president of americans for tax reform says that americans are tired of the irs and our tax system. sunday night at 8:00, author of

president franklin roosevelt and so the leader joseph stalin. allies during world war ii and the unexpected partnership beyond the war. saturday night at 8:00 eastern on "american history tv was going on c-span3 university of virginia jennifer marie professor on how civil war veterans reunions have changed from the reconstruction era to present. sunday afternoon at 1:00 "american history tv" is alive from the courthouse historical -- historical park commemorating the 150th university of the confederate surrender and end of the civil war. >> each night this weekend nine: -- at an :00 eastern conversation with new members of congress. >> as a result, i try to stay disciplined in my message. in a football sense, i try to stay between the hashmarks. i represent everyone in montana and i represent not only the

republican side, i recommend -- i represent the tea party side union side, democrat side. i represent everyone in montana. i think if we take that step forward, congress represents america and to two articulated values and the needs and desires in the district, but the purpose is to make america better. >> five newest members of congress talk about their careers and personal lives and share insight about how things work on capitol hill. join us for all conversations each night at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: as we continue to feature "the daily caller" as occasional visits to newsrooms around washington dc, we are joined by patrick howley, a political reporter with the publication.

we will talk about 2016 and the growing gop field. patrick howley, we appreciate you joining us. we have seen to major presidential announcement and rollouts in the past two weeks. did one of those two rollouts go better than the other and where do the candidates go for here -- from here? guest: first of all, thank you for having me. it is a thorough to be on c-span and i want to see to my old vice president -- present -- vice principal that i am on "washington journal was quick and you are not. i'm glad i got that in. there were two presidential announcements this week. we had rand paul and ted cruz. i think these guys will be big forces during the primary season. you have seen it ted cruz already raised $31 million through apex in two weeks alone. you saw grandpa making a lot of ways and headlines the other day by taking a shot at scholz and managing to refocus the entire abortion debate by going after her abortion position and essentially saying to the press

where does the dnc stand on partial birth abortion. he got a lot of acclaim from pro-life groups which is good for him coming into the race as a libertarian contender. these guys are gearing up for a long campaign. i have close contacts in the cruise camp and paul camp. i used -- i can tell you they are gearing up for the long haul and they are not believing this meeting narrative that jeb bush hasn't locked up. host: there seems to be messages from other candidate on how these two candidates rolled out their presidential campaigns. is there a right and a wrong way to make a presidential announcement? guest: you know, ironically enough, i think that it is instructive to look at barack obama's 2008 campaign. this was a guy who challenged hillary clinton who was inevitable. he managed to do it through the help of move on.org and there is progress organizations.

he was able to build his own infrastructure. he was able to build his own messaging infrastructure, fundraising infrastructure based on small donors, and he was able to rally college kids on the ground in iowa city, iowa, where he was running third and came out of nowhere and want the iowa caucus. he managed to go outside of the democratic establishment and get new votes and reach out to new people. i think that is what rand paul and ted cruz are gearing up to do. you saw ted cruz at a christian college at a bible college, how many presidential candidates in this day and age can do that? he is appealing to the base. rand paul is appealing to people who don't normally vote in republican primaries, so he is trying to turn them out just like his father did in new hampshire, i will come and be able to compete in early states. i think that the challenge that jeb bush and marco rubio and some other more established candidates are facing right now is, they look at ted cruz and

rand paul, these guys are exciting on the stump and able to raise a lot of money from small donors. they are in it for the long haul and they will try to take their delegates all the way to the convention. they will not work out some deal with jeb after the pennsylvania primary and try to call the hoping off. these guys are going to fight through the spring and into the summer. host: i want to get your take on the first campaign ad released by the cruise camp. we will play it for our viewers and come back and chat with you. [video clip] >> where it not for the transformative love of jesus christ, i would've been raised a single mom about my father in the house. god's blessing has been on america from the -- from the very beginning of this nation. over and over again when we faced impossible odds, the american people rose to the challenge. this is our fight and that is why i am running for president of the united states.

i am ted cruz and i approve this message. [and of the do clip]. host: a good ad? guest: i think so. the media talks about christianity been a different way in recent years but four years ago in rick santorum man and when he -- and keep in mind, he won the iowa caucus over a couple of votes over mitt romney and a number of primaries in the midwest during the spring after the race had been decided. he was still winning primaries out there and people responded to his message and a lot of that has to do with his christian faith and his willingness to talk about his mission faith. george w. bush was one of the most powerful republican politician in modern times. the guy who created essentially a new voter coalition in 2000 and 2004 based around christian values, so-called compassionate conservatism and national security conservatism and was able to get the working class book, the hispanic vote, and

other voter demographics more effectively than other republican. that is forgotten it now because of second mistakes he made in his second term, but christianity part did not heard of. it did not hurt them in 2000 against alcorn or against -- against al gore or 2004 against kerry. early on in the primary process where candidates are not talking about that, the more money he will be able to get from alternative kinds of sources and the more he will be able to brandish his credentials with faith based flowers in iraq and south carolina and elsewhere. host: if you want to join the conversation with patrick howley of "daily caller close code -- daily caller, the phone numbers are on the screen and you can call in. we'll get to calls in the second but one more question for you. now that cruz and rand paul are in the face officially, are there any strategies to holding out longer or waiting to announce or are you expecting a

flood in the next weeks and months? guest: definitely in the next several weeks. as i reported the other day, chris christie was the last candidate to rsvp for the new hampshire republican party dinner, which is this event every time they have a presidential election. the state party has a dinner, right question mark well, chris christie was the only one who did not rsvp and actually lost his keynote speaking spot to marco rubio because he had not rsvp get. that means essentially that the field is defined. these guys can wait or announce it this way or that way. that they all have packs at this point. scott walker has a pack, they all have packs. the race is on. we are very much into the primary season right now. i think what we need to look at is -- and you saw this one mitt romney decided not to run, this establishment candidates, jeb bush, chris christie, the romney -- mitt romney sort of got

together because there's a finite number of donors and they does -- and they said, well, which one of us will be the guy who will represent this wing of the party? summit wrongly decided not to go and jeb bush has emerged as the front runner in that way. chris christie's future is very uncertain based on things i am hearing. i think jeb bush is looking very good because on the conservative side of the aisle, you have a very split vote right now. you have ted cruz who will galvanize a lot of people in the primary, but you also have an carson who will steal votes scott walker looking very strong, rand paul who appeals to the tea party base, marco rubio who comes from the tea party movement. i think you have on the conservative side a split vote. you are going to see these guys get 89% in these early states that being competitive because there is no clear conservative challenger. if it was jeb bush versus ted cruz, jeb bush versus rand paul, a different story but right

now, the boat is being split a lot of different ways. host: 2016 gop contenders is our topic with patrick howley of "the daily caller." george is up first, align for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i love this show. i ran into someone at a local mall, gentleman a gary sparks and he was taking down names like a petition. said he was running for president and he could do it by right in. i'm not sure about that if that is true or not. one question i would ask you also, have you heard of this guy? he calls himself a republicrat i don't know what that is, but he was fascinating and answered all my questions about domestic policy and national defense then i have heard any of these fancy guys do. do you know this guy and can you write-in to get on the ballot? that is all. host: patrick howley. guest: i have not heard of him

but it is possible to write -- run for president as a write -in. he actually got some votes when this guy used to do it. i am all in favor of having a third party in this country. i am sympathetic to a lot of the things that ross perot was talking about in his campaign in terms of economic protectionism and that kind of thing. i think you really changed the landscape. he was not able to parlay that into having a third-party in this country, and ralph nader did not have any success. all he did was inflame the left by helping out gore lose, but i think when you have a two-party system and you have the choice between jeb bush and hillary clinton, which is what it looks like it will be based on donors arranging ahead of time that those are going to be the candidates, i think you have a lot of people feeling shut out of the process and a lot of

people looking around saying well, who other people making this decision? it seems like there are a few rich guys in japanese cars sitting around in some kind of hotel ballroom in anaheim picking the candidates and they don't want that. they want people who are out there in the field come out there in the street talking to them. i think this will be a very interesting primary, especially for the republican party. i think this is similar to 1964 with a party sort of has to be reborn and this primary process is going to be very historic in terms of the republican party to direction in the future. host: let's go to any death in san antonio, texas, line for democrats. -- let's go to anita san antonio, texas, line for democrats. good morning. caller: yes, barack obama was very likable, first of all and ted cruz, especially, is so polarizing. as far as rand paul goes i

don't really know where he stands anymore. he does not seem to stand for anything or have any kind of strong stand on anything. although i do think jeb bush has a problem and maybe even scott walker because i don't know who their base is. who is their base? chamber of commerce? host: patrick howley if you want to take up some of those topics. guest: exactly. you made the point that i make in this newsroom all the time and jeb bush has a very small constituency. it was a great line that you said, who was their base? ? chamber of commerce it is true. it is a situation -- chamber of commerce? it is true, if they can position themselves as a strong contender early on, that people will have to vote for them. it happened with mitt romney, how many people are enthusiastic about going to?the polls and voting for mitt romney i certainly wasn't and i didn't. a lot of republicans did because

they said it was our only chance to beat barack obama when it gets to this level. in terms of ted cruz been polarizing, i met him in person and he is a likable guy. i think to a certain kind of personality type if you sort of -- he is very smart, funny kind of guy. he has an alternative way of looking at things. is he going to be able to go on oprah? the view? and position himself as a more likable commodity than hillary clinton? that remains to be seen. i think in the age of barack obama, and here's one of the reason why barack obama helps ted cruz and rand paul, barack obama has established a presence or you can be a complete ideologue and get money only from this ideological base and push this agenda that you want to push in the primary and the party can embrace that. the party can come to you. and so, i think that is what ted cruz and rand paul are hoping to do. when they see that ted cruz is divisive and a cynical politician, i would say that in the age of obama when

politicians are really icons right now of different competing ideologies in our country, i think it is completely appropriate for ted cruz and rand paul to behave the way they are behaving. i think it will be up to voters to hold them accountable to what they actually stand for. is rand paul really a libertarian or is he going to cave on foreign policy and intervene in iraq and do other things that would offend libertarians? is ted cruz really a strong conservative or is he going to cave on things? i think that is up to the voters in primary states, but i am glad the republican party at least has a primary process where there are a couple of different choices and these guys represent different plans different outlooks, different ideologies and the voters get to decide. as where on the democratic side, you just have hillary clinton and the progressive movement is trying to move around to various interest without putting up anyone to challenge her or offer a different point of view. host: speaking of rand paul, a headline speaking to some of the issues you bring up here rand paul faces foreign-policy

challenges from the headline in "the wall street journal." the senator looks to preserve his antiwar base and strike a more hawkish tone. speaking of senator paul, he is on a four-day swing through new hampshire, nevada, iowa, and south carolina. c-span will catch up with him on that south carolina lake of this trip outside of charleston. that is happening today at noon. you can watch that speech on c-span2. back to the phones. keeno is waiting on the line for republicans. you are on for -- you are on with patrick howley. caller: praise be to c-span. i would like to invite "the daily caller" and i challenge all the presidential candidates to give us the books we should read, one or two to start with but maybe more later, and would you join me in opening that invitation so we can see into their mind? so we can be informed voters.

books about issues that need to be addressed in this 2016 election. teddy roosevelt once spoken our local park in lakeland, he invited all the candidates to come to lakeland and tell us about the books and to react to them. this rate -- this changes everything about how we are addicted to oil, so will you join me in sending this invitation and publish my editor -- publish my letter to the editor? host: patrick howley? guest: i think it is important for presidential candidates to reveal what books they are reading. i think with barack obama what we solv was, he was reading "nexen land" by reprocessing, a left-wing account of modern history. since we know he did not really study history, it is sort of constructive that that was the book he was reading about to learn about the 1960's. and then he was reading of the book "the post-american world"

when he was coming up air force one. he read a lot of left-wing literature in the white house and i think that is an instructive thing to look at when you look at his career. paul ryan, when he ran for vice president, was great to the polls and press because of his up session with iran. allegedly. i think it is it is important -- because of his obsession with ayn rand. i think it is important to see what they are reading. why would i vote for someone who reads "battlefield earth?" host: line for independents, sadie, you are on. caller: hi, i just wanted to stick more about ted cruz -- to speak more about ted cruz. i don't know if he is a united states citizen or not, i don't

think he quite knows. something about how he is just going to renounce his canadian citizenship and he did not know he was a canadian citizen, what is up with that? host: patrick howley, do you want to pick that up? guest: my understanding based on the reporting we have done on this and the sources we have called on, it will not be a problem from the whole candidate issue. i am not an expert on the issue, but he is, as far as i understand, eligible to run for president. i don't think he is canadian officially he has been able to work that out. i actually talk to someone on the staff about this. they say they have it all figured out, handled, don't quote me on that, but everything is copacetic with the thing according to them, and we will see if anybody launches a challenge to it. i think he is an american. i would've liked to see arnold schwarzenegger able to run for president back in the day when i

kind of liked arnold schwarzenegger before he failed miserably as governor, so i am not married to this idea of you have to be a natural born citizen. i was never in the birth rate movement or anything like that, but it is ironic that you say -- that you see left-wing press attacking ted cruz but still going crazy every time somebody on the internet ask for president obama birth certificate. it is an interesting issue, but i think the ted cruz people have it worked out. host: didn't ted cruz renounces canadian social class to? task his canadian citizenship last year? guest: jack, i don't know if you have to go to court to renounce it, but i can look into that. i don't think it will be an issue from him -- for him. host: ray from sarasota, for to come for democrats. good morning. caller: hi, how are you doing? i would like to say personal, we have been on this slope before with george bush with the christian avenue, and i am a christian.

we saw where it led us in his actions in regard to leading us to war. i am kind of skeptical with ted cruz and the direction he is trying to take. i am a democrat. i did not vote for barack obama the second time around. listen, he had some similarities where people were not sure about his foreign-policy and he brought someone in, the vice president, in order to stir that. i believe rand paul can do the same thing. i don't have no faith in hillary clinton. she has this message that it takes a village to raise a child , i believe it takes a family to raise a child. in that concept to help sure up

the concept of the things she is trying to use as a village raising a child, i'm totally against that and i believe it takes a family to raise a child. i think that rand paul is the best viable candidate because he will respect the constitution and try to do the best he can. i applaud him for his effort for the minority community and trying to make a difference. unlike all the other republican candidates, so i believe this man has a very good start and i believe he will make a great president. thank you. host: patrick howley, do you want to pick up on that? guest: yeah, i think it is very hard. history has shown it has been very hard for republican candidates to gain any traction if they are seen as too ideological on foreign policy. can go through history. even ronald reagan as history remembers as an ideological anti-soviet right-wing warrior campaigned in 1976 against gerald ford and again in 1980 as

a foreign-policy realist. he was very practical about things. richard nixon campaigned as someone who was practical. george w. bush in 2000 campaigned on the idea that we are not going to go around the world and they won't be a nationbuilding corps from america and it is not america's top to go around the world and remove sovereign governments. all these people have managed to have success by portraying themselves as moderates, but for trained themselves as somebody who just looks at each situation and responds differently. not as somebody who is ideological, so i think it is difficult for somebody like rand paul or to a lesser extent, ron paul if they are perceived as an ideologue on foreign policy. hillary clinton is effectively avoiding this piper train herself as somebody who just looks at different issues and responds accordingly. so i think people fear ideology when it comes to foreign-policy because it is just so important.

if you are an ideologue and uncompromising, then you are not necessarily, according to be able to respond in the most effective way. i think that is the feeling comes to rand paul. host: a few tweets as we've had the conversation this morning from those following along. at c-span wj, my take is ted cruz, scott walker, and ben carson. all great candidates. no time for old hacks, clinton and bush. wild and wonderful rights, you cannot say that nader had no success and also that he prevented a win by court. undoubtedly, something that as a success. let's go to sandra waiting in virginia, line for independents. you are on with patrick howley "daily caller." caller: as far as i understand of the constitution, you have to be a natural born citizen to run for president or to be president , so i don't understand how anybody can give ted cruz any news coverage. he was born in canada, and how

can you not know if you are a natural born citizen or not? thank you. host: patrick howley on that topic, wasn't john mccain born in the panama canal sewn -- zone and where these issues resolved during his run for the presidency? guest: yeah, i mean iq somebody born in ireland and their parents -- i mean i know somebody born in ireland and their parents were on vacation but they count as an american citizen because of some technicality. i am not an expert on this, but my understanding is that ted cruz is legally eligible to run for president. i can look into this more, but i am fairly certain that he is able to do it. you don't want somebody who is not constitutionally eligible to be running, but it is my understanding that he has worked it out and he is all good to go. i will get more information on that. host: his -- this information coming from his mother's side

who was a u.s. citizen and his father was canadian, correct? guest: right, yes. host: let's go to tony and 40 line for democrats. tony, good morning. caller: the thought that i am saying is, we always talk about how smart these candidates are. we need somebody to run for president that is wise. the way that they tried to be smart is dodged questions and try to say the right things all the time. like ben carson. i went to church with this guy. he knows he does not believe in homosexual marriage. he knows the bible says god is an abomination, but every time someone tries to talk to him about it he steers the whole thing to try and be elected. i need somebody to be wise because education and being so smart is not the right thing a

leader should be. thank you. host: patrick howley, who was the wisest candidate at this point in your estimation? guest: you know, i don't think with politicians as being too wise. i try to treat them in terms of what i do as politicians and analyze their motives that way. you made an interesting point, the caller, about ben carson. he is one of these guys who enters the primary much like herman cain, much like people want michael bloomberg to do, like ross perot, somebody who is outside of politics, hasn't been in elected office before, a businessman, mitt romney, if you are not the governor, would have been running this way as well. i think people like that idea, the press likes that idea, but it does not work at the polls. from what i am seeing, ben carson just is not picking up the kind of traction he needs to be a viable candidate, but i guarantee you he is going to get a couple percentage points and i

will and probably new hampshire and south carolina, and he will be a real vote squealer for an eligible candidate like scott walker or ted cruz. host: has go to hanz, line for independent. caller: good morning. i have a comment on ted cruz's candidacy. i pretty much agree with what he is saying, but i was made to find out that his wife is an employee of goldman sachs and my concern is that these financial institutions seem to be working both sides of the street and i think it is a concern as far as is remaining a free nation. host: patrick howley. guest: that is an interesting point. you won't see any articles about that. we were having a conversation in the newsroom the other day and we are going to cover that for everybody who says we have some kind of conservative bias. we are covering the issue.

you are right, that is a concerning thing. i do think with ted cruz he is less attached to that kind of revolving door, washington think than a lot of other candidates certainly hillary clinton. when you look at the number of corporate clients that hillary clinton was lobbying on behalf of over time as secretary of state while not disclosing e-mails, she was going to foreign countries and lobbying on the half of boeing, chevron she really has a lot of corporate baggage. ted cruz, the fact that his wife for set goldman sachs i think it is a legitimate question to ask him. if i get the chance, i will ask him about it. i don't think that that is as much of the conflict as some others have, certainly jeb bush for instance or hillary clinton. i think it doesn't necessarily undercut ted cruz's antiestablishment position, but it is an interesting thing to look at and i think it should be asked. host: for viewers interested in the topic of political spouses

we will be having a segment on "the washington journal" this coming sunday, 9:15 to 10:00 a.m., we will be looking at political spouses past and present, specifically at presidential candidates and passed first ladies of the united states. if you want to join us, sunday, 9:15. a few minutes left with patrick howley of "the daily caller." herald is on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't mean any harm and i am a nice guy and i like to treat people like i like to be treated, but i realize i grew up and watch television and movies and i did not see people like me. when they did have a black guy in the movie, he would be the first one killed. i look in the background, behind you, and i see all the white guys and women. i don't see nobody of any color. that is the same thing with the republican party. i don't see me, i see maybe one or two tokens here or there, but

just like the republicans really don't have any. i will ask you this, the supreme court is republican, the house of representatives is right wing , the senate is right wing come and when you get to the presidency, what kind of country do you want this country to be? host: patrick howley, do you want to pick up some of the viewer's concerns about the racial makeup of the republican party? guest: i'm not running for office, i'm a journalist, but if you are asking your kind of country i wanted to be, i wanted to be a fair and decent country that is completely racially tolerant. what you just did just now sir is you engaged in a whole lot of identity politics. you said there are no lack people behind me, well, i don't know what you were looking at. it is a pretty small shot here. you said there are no black people on the republican party

which is not to. we just talked about ben carson and herman cain. and then you talked about the republican party having no use for me. you just came to all these conclusions and you did not offer any facts or evidence to back it up. and you engage in identity politics, you just course in the debate and i'm not interested in talking about that right now. if a black person feels that the republican platform is right for them, then they will vote republican. if they don't you about it, then they won't vote republican. these are two major parties competing interest, and they put out their platform and people can choose one way or another. when you start talking identity politics and republicans have no use for black people and they have no use for immigrants etc., you are really just putting out propaganda and that is not interesting to me. identity politics is the most boring thing to me as a journalist. it is like a thing i most avoiding conversation and have to walk way, and that is what i have to say to, sir. host: caller might want to stick

around for the next segment where we will talk about a new research center report talking about the party affiliation of groups around the united states. they put out a report this past week on various groups that identify with the republican or democratic party. some groups, white evangelical protestants, white southerners a silent generation, ages 69 to 86, among some groups identified in that report as tilt democratic, blacks identify or lean democratic 8211, asian, 65 to 23. religiously unaffiliated, 61 to 25, and so on down the line in that report. you can see it on your screen. we will talk about it a little bit more for our last half hour of "the washington journal" as we ask our viewers how they pick their own medical identification. one more call for patrick howley . marcus has been waiting in california, line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning.

my question i, how do you think america would suffer if it endorsed the philosophy king structure? two. host: did you get that patrick howley? guest: if we endorsed wes? host: i'm not sure what structured was talking about but before we let you go, i want to ask you about yourself and how you can to work at "the daily caller." your background in writing. guest: i was a college dropout. i did not have that many prospects and did not look too bright for me on the horizon. i chose journalism because it was something i could do. i took to it pretty quickly and over the last couple of years i have had the great privilege to work for "the american spectator was quote magazine which is one of the all-time greats and right-wing magazines in history. i have worked at other

publications. i have been at "the daily caller" working on daily politics and it is great. essentially the way i try to think about it is, i am someone who came out of nowhere, i did not go to harvard, i did not go to these other places that these of the purported kids went to, so i don't have that perspective and i'm not coming into it with that viewpoint. i am just thinking about what is important to me as a person, as a working person, as somebody who has to go and pay with change and mcdonald's to eat off the dollar menu. what is important to me? if it's important to me, i think it is important to other people and that's why i always try to keep the people i am writing for in mind when i ask politicians questions. i think that is something the press has lost in recent years as it has become less of the working class profession and more of a right -- white-collar upper-class affection. i think that is a dangerous and in journalism, so we try to look for people who are going to ask tough questions on the half of the average person, and i think

that is important in the media today. host: i want to ask about the tagline on your twitter page. it is at patrick howley d.c. taking on the establishment is easy with establishment is kind of stupid. guest: there are always -- they are always leaving documents around and people come up to me and give me credit for breaking a story or investigating something, and i say, really, it was their mistake i picked up on. people that work for the government, bureaucrats, people that work in governments, -- in politics, they are usually sloppy and a conscientious about where they leave things, so a lot of things end up on my desk and so it has been relatively easy to get information if you run around and look for it. we are having a blast doing that and we will continue to do that and we'll keep kicking out the jams and reporting the news. we are just having a great time doing it and it is a real pleasure to be here. again, that parsons, my old

team, i am on washington journal and you are not. just want to reiterate that, so thank you for having me. host: patrick howley, a lot from the newsroom at "the daily caller." part of our effort to highlight various newsrooms around washington dc. we appreciate the time this way. up next on "washington journal," we will talk about the near -- a new research poll talking about party identification in the united states. we will be asking viewers to call in during our last half hour of "to answer the question of how did you choose your political party? phone lines are on the screen and you can start diving in right now and we will be right back. ♪ >> this sunday on "q&a," senior editor for "the weekly standard" and refer this and on his

writing career, the gop presidential candidates for 2016 and what voters look for in a candidate. >> they want somebody who looks like he has stood up for them. i am amazed now to the degree to which primary voters on both sides are motivated by resentment. this sense of being put upon those people really don't understand us. here is a guy who does understand this and he is going to stick it to them. hillary clinton gives her own version of that kind of thing. i don't think that was actually true 30 years ago resentment has always been part of politics, obviously, but the degree to which it is almost exclusively the motivating factor into the committed republicans and democrats. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a.

>> "washington journal" continues. host:? how did you choose your political affiliation that is a question for up -- how did you choose your political affiliation? phone lines are open. republicans, democrats, and independence, all lines for you will be up on the screen. we will get to your calls in a second. we are asking the question in which the pew research center issued a new report titled a deep dive into party affiliation where differences in race, gender education and age to help break down the report. we are joined by the political director, good morning. carroll doherty, good morning. guest: good morning. host: let's begin with the strong as groups for the parties. strong as groups for republicans? -- for democrats? guest: i want to back up a

little, most people lean democrat or identify as democrat by 40% as opposed to republican. so when you look at these groups who lean republican in a big way or democratic in a big way remember that baseline. you look at mormon and say there are republican groups and that is even magnified when you consider the democrats of an overall advantage. white southerners, white men who have not graduated from college. older people in a sign them at -- silent generation in their 70's and 80's. the millennials, the youngest generation 18 to 33 hispanics jews, postgraduate women. these are women with postgraduate degrees. religiously unaffiliated people,

african americans of course, that is not new. these are the strongest groups for each party. host: talk about independence in this country and the rise of independents over the years and what you found in your research work. guest: yes, this is another point worth making. it is a little complicated. the combined here the straight identification with their leaning overall only ask party identification, we asked him if there are republican, democrat or independent. a percent say independent declaring themselves as independent at a 75 year high. it is up 39% now and we have a great graphic on her website tracing the pack all the way to 1939. you see this rise particularly in recent years as quote unquote parties have become less favorable. the percentage saying they are independent skewing party labels has risen. host: is this something that

goes up and down over the years? have we ever seen numbers come up and go back down again? are you expecting this to keep rising? guest: it is difficult to say. this is certainly at a high point. i think we are at a particular moment in politics where being independent is preferable option for many americans. they don't want to identify with either party, even with -- even if they agree with the political views of one of the major parties. they choose to be independence. i suspect this trend will be around for a while. if you look after the 50's -- the 1950's and 1960's, they were fewer independentx. it is interesting to look back at the 1960's and 1970's. a had -- the democratics -- the

democrats had a huge advantage through fdr to the carter administration. it was the ronald reagan administration when the republican identification went up. host: this is one of several reports that the pew research center has done a party identification. can you talk about how you are doing this and other efforts on this party identification? guest: this is something we do periodically and we take a check of where the public's attitudes are and party affiliations lineup. we did a particularly with 2014 data because we had a lot of big surveys that year. we had a bigger sample of people to work with. this is based on more than 25,000 interviews. we can look at smaller subgroups . we are typically not able to look at. deep digging into things like generation of educational differences, income differences, etc. host: if viewers want to check out the pew research center the

deep dive into party affiliation. we appreciate your time, carroll doherty, on "the washington journal." guest: thank you. host: we are asking viewers in light of the report and numbers see, how did you pick your political affiliation? what was a turning point for you in your life? we want to hear your stories on the last 20 minutes or so. diane is up first in tennessee and she is a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a 64-year-old black woman. i grew up in the south when i was not allowed to vote until 1965. the republicans did help us along time ago. now, the democrats seem like they are acting like the republicans. they are turning their backs on us. not standing up behind the president and doing what is right for everybody.

republicans, democrats, an independents. this country needs to wake up and we need to stick together and work together. people overseas are looking at this. that is all i can say. thank you. host: diane, before you go, your concerns about the democratic party now. have you ever thought of becoming an independent or what keeps you with the democratic party? guest: in the last election when they did not get out the vote circumstances can help improve that situation. they did not listen to what some democrats were saying and the republicans put their issues out there. they really did, but independents is it that is like, i am leaning on independents now because they look like they are standing up for us more than the republicans or the democrats. they are interested in the working people, elderly, young students, and even they think about getting us into wars.

they think before they do anything. that is the reason i might turn independent. host: that is diane on the line for democrats. let's go to our line of independents where mary is waiting in michigan. caller: good morning. nice to stick with everybody again. -- two speak with everybody again. i became a democrat and power was my whole life -- and i was my whole life when the law in michigan changed where 18-year-olds could vote instead of 21 because i was in my senior year of high school at the time. i grew up during the time that jfk made that wonderful wonderful good speech that one line always got to me because i love my country and i am proud of my country. he said ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.

i left the democratic party because i feel like they don't love their country. they don't love our country. are we perfect? god, no. we are human beings. but they never have nice things to say about other people. it clarifies me. -- it clarifies me. host: mary, you said you were inspired by john f. kennedy, is there a politician of any party that inspires you today? you said you were inspired by his speeches. caller: well, i always felt like he was a man of his convictions and it did not matter, like -- he was rich. i am sure it is nice to have a rich life, but he thought in the war.

he believed in defending his country because he loved his country and the man died for this country. i don't know. i am leaning toward, i love ben carson. after 9/11, i went more republican because as everybody knows, they do want to defend the country and that is something -- it does not matter what your party is, what your station in life is, if you don't defend yourself against people who are literally 60 miles or so off the shore in the state where you live or country, it won't matter what your party is because they will impose their will upon you and i am sorry, but i'm not willing to do that. host: oh, go ahead, mary. caller: and that is everything

republicans had -- host: we lost mary. she was on the line for independents. i want to note at a meeting for the national conference of independents last month, independentvotin.org, the president talked about the rise of independent voters in the united states and how the two parties have reacted to them. we have showed a little bit on c-span this week. he was a clip from her speech at that event. [video clip] >> what we have seen over the last 20 years has been a very, very steady growth in the size of the number of independents in this country. doug and david referenced this in the year 2000 come i think the percentage of americans who considered themselves independents was about 35%. as of today, it is about 42%. that number is, in my view and i think in the view of a lot of

people, is a very meaningful number. it is a very meaningful phenomenon and we have seen of course as the size of independent voter block has grown, one of the things that happens in response to that initially is an attempt by a lot of the powers to minimize that were to paint a picture that suggest that it's really not meaningful or that significant. the fact that 42% of the country has this aligned in terms of how they identify themselves and how they put forward what they take to be their own political principles. a lot of the political establishment has try to belittle the and interpret that away, if you will. that has taken the form of everything from 42% of the country might say they are independents, but they really are not independents, because when it comes to the election kind -- election time, they vote

for democrats or republicans. they don't manage to point out that that is the only chose most people have. [and of video clip] host: you can watch the whole thing by going to a website at www.c-span.org. we are asking how did you choose your political affiliation? our phone lines are open. david is in maryland, line for republicans. david, good morning. caller: umm i used to be a democrat. i was a democrat since i registered to vote. i thought bush was the worst president i had seen until obama came in and promised to stop domestic spying, transparency in the government, and he promised all those things and i look back

at a lot of the things i really cared about individual rights and things like that. property rights, the fourth amendment, but i am not really loyal to the republicans. i would like a third party. host: david, who should make up that third-party? where do you think a third party can find its base? caller: well, you know, i think third parties have a way of dividing people and you know, they use issues to keep people in both parties when people in both parties really agree on a lot of things like jobs, the economy and things like that. these people are not rich. host: that is david in hyattsville, maryland. paul in florida, line for democrats.

-- lee in florida, line for democrats. good morning. caller: i have been a democrat since i was a kid. i grew up in the south. i watched my grandmother worked to the bone and my mom, and what they went through. just because they were democrats, i became a democrat and i am a proud democrat. i served in the military for many years, retired, disabled veteran. i believe the democratic party is more inclusive and this president -- [indiscernible] iwatch a segment on fox, biased news, every week who got caught in lies and continues to tell many more lies and people follow that. once you get into the psychosis

of a person, you can truly mess them up and i think with the republican party and the different racial issues with the cops and the gentleman running away from him. was he the all-american prototype person to signify and dignify? no but he got shot in the back. and fox news has been reporting in this country like know if there news program has or will since. he has called this president some unbelievable names and for him to think there is -- there are no racial issues in this country defies political reality. host: sorry, i thought you were done. nate is up next in tennessee, by for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. one request, when you are ready

to cut me off, please, let me know. host: ok, nate, go ahead. caller: i pick the party based on my vision of what a society should be in terms of growth, continual growth. not on what politicians are saying. based on that growth and also the constitution i base it on. which defines who we are as americans. i believe -- i look at the agenda and right now, if you look at our society, it is on the brink of collapse and it will not be destroyed from without, but from within based on the people themselves and the other thing is that institutions are basically running the country.

the supreme court, i can't believe decisions they are making. for example, on our money -- although we are many, we are one. and then what they do, they have a school system that says separate but equal and the school i went to was terrible. as a matter fact, they did not have a high school forest but for european ethnicity. go ahead. host: can i ask you, were you surprised when you were show the report only from the pew research center and the growing number of independents, those who don't identify as democrat or republican. it is now at the highest it has been in 75 years of polling on this issue. does that surprise you? caller: no, if you look at the situation that we are in as a

country, we don't even address the needs of the country. i really considered myself independent based on the factors i had told you. but i have been voting democrat ever since i started to vote. there was a time when african americans would vote republican and my father actually voted republican for eisenhower. after eisenhower, he changed to democrat. it is the agenda. does the agenda addressed the issues of what we really need in this country? host: nate, i appreciate the call from tennessee this morning. ray is up next in memphis tennessee, line for republicans. ray, good morning. caller: good morning. well, basically i am a republican because the democrats seem to trample our constitution

and consistently want the wrong things for the country. independents don't seem to know what they want. actually, the group i think that most favors our constitution and limited government is the tea party. we don't have a primary for those groups of people and the one rand paul is in, we don't have time eras for those so that basically makes them a republican. host: ray, do you consider yourself tea party or libertarian? caller: libertarian is the one i try to think of. i favor those more than republicans because the republicans seem to be squishy and often times democrat, like. host: do you think there is enough room for a party out of the republican party? do you think that would ever happen, ray? caller: i wish they would be but i don't think it is practical because it would simply divide the conservative

vote and ensure democrat victories. host: that is right in memphis, tennessee. colin. we are asking how you chose your political affiliation in our last five or 10 minutes on "washington journal." thomas is an florida, line for democrats. how did you become a democrat? caller: i had an uncle that was board of elections representative, and he was democrat. he always told me republicans are for the rich men and big business. and the democrats are more for the working man and i kind of never forgot that. also, i look at it like a lot of problems we are having right now are because it is stressed. the republicans in 2000 still

the 2000 election. they stole that election. more people voted democrat and if the shoe is on the other foot and the republicans ended up getting who they pick for president, then you will have missed trust. i think that is what is going on right now and is still going on. it is why we have gridlock in the senate and in congress. it is simply because of this trust -- of mistrust. when you show someone you can steal a presidential election, how can you trust them? they went to any route they could to make sure they want that election via jeb bush. i guess cap m harris, i think was her name, -- katherine

harris, i think that was in it, when all was said and done, they lost. you never hear republicans come up on there and talk about that. you never hear that. host: thomas in daytona beach florida. keelo is up next. how did you become a republican? caller: i was born and raised in chicago. i left chicago when i was 32 years old and i lived in bridgeport. i watched what was going on. we had a lot of politicians in that neighborhood. my mother was not only a property owner, but she owned a little business. everybody was afraid not to vote for democrat because they got harassed. when i left chicago, i became a republican.

the guy before me talking about trusting by gosh, i never saw so many [indiscernible] that is all i would like to say, to our. host: north carolina, line for independents, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: of course, go ahead. caller: i started out as a child my father was active in the democratic party and i was a democratic, yellow dog democrat that did not question anything. as a got old and got out of school and had to take responsibility and manage a household and finances, i began to be more conservative especially fiscal conservative. i switched to republican. their outlooks can go a little

more with mine at the time, but as i became even older and more comfortable with managing my situation, i began to question more what everyone was insane. i believe the onset of the cable news and the internet where information was easily available from many viewpoints i became an independent because i cannot commit to anybody's agenda at this point. host: our last caller on today's show. that is go to do it. we will take our viewers live to the national trust club hous's newsmakers program. hillary clinton's e-mail records episode. they will raise implications raised by the media coverage