successes and challenges, and where the party stands heading into the 2060 presidential election. and on the role and influence of first lady spouses with anita mcbride and karen tumulty. ♪ host: good morning. here in washington dc, the cherry blossoms are out at their petite this weekend. yesterday, police locked down the capital for about three hours following a suicide on the west front of the capital. the president backup the white house this morning, following the summit of the americas, which include a one on one meeting with ronald castro.

history was made. what is next for relations? conger is back -- congress is back. will they hear the loretta lynch nomination this week? and, hillary clinton will make it official, becoming the first democrat to enter the 2016 presidential race. that is our focus on the sunday morning. as she announces her bid for the white house. (202) 748-8001, our line for republicans. (202) 748-8000, democrats. for independents, (202) 748-8002 . join in on the conversation on social media. send us a tweet at @cspanwj. join us on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. we are also taking your e-mails, journal@c-span.org.

that photograph of president obama and cuban president rowaul castro. next of that, "clinton ways how to recast tied to obama." we will get your opinion on all of this. first, david freelancer who is following all of this from "the daily be." thanks for being with us. let's talk about this rollout which is beeing called slow and loki. no events scheduled for today. what can we expect? guest: i think we will see an announcement on social media.

it's funny, i think most candidates have a big flashy announcement and want to get a lot of attention, press attention, blasted out to as many voters as they can. clinton seems to want to minimize the attention that she will get. part of that is because there is so much interest already in her campaign. there is kind of a logistical problem of figuring out what to do with all the present want to follow her. as reports show, as best we know, she is actually going to jet out quietly to iowa, and probably new hampshire, and maybe some other primary states to meet with voters one-on-one in small groups. host: in a way, this is reminiscent of how she announced her senate bid in 1999 as first lady, when she had what she called a listening tour. is there a downside to not having that major speech?

why she wants to be president outlining what she would achieve is she were elected to the white house. guest: i think -- i'm sure they will do that. i think they will get at that in the video. that is a good question. that is sort of one major unknown about hillary clinton at this point, the question as to why she wants to be president what's her agenda, what's the narrative. i think you will get to that. for now, they want to show her as they showed her in 1999 someone who is not the face on the television that you are used to, but a real person, a warm person. host: let me ask you about two stories are available on your website, "the daily beast," hillary clinton could not wait any longer, why now? guest: one reason is that she

was getting blurred into the political process by the republicans. after years as secretary of state, sort of above the fray they were starting to take loads, and many were self-inflicted, the story about her e-mails but some of them are just because she was being attacked in the p press every day. a pol came out showing hillary beating republicans and republican leading states. i had ahead in texas, in louisiana. that, a poll came out showing her losing in swing states. i think they needed to change that story. host: 3.6 million supporters on the "ready for hillary" website.

another story that you wrote a few days ago, her candidacy will launch what is called a quote insane fundraising push. explain. guest: obviously, the first thing you have to do is raise money. now, they are trying to downplay their fundraising expectations. most democrats, most fundraisers think this will be at a campaign to dwarf all previous efforts. i think the times had it, it will be something like $2.5 billion, which the clinton camp will disavow, but that number is at least floating out there. host: bottom line, which we will come out at noon, followed by a web video, then what is next in terms of when we will see her? guest: she will go off to iowa and new hampshire. i'm sure there will be feeble they're trying to capture clips of her.

it's hard to know. you're right, she will have to do a rally, but as far as i know, no plans for that yet. host: his work is available online at thedailybeast.com. thanks so much for being with us this morning. we will get your call to comments on hillary clinton. the long-awaited announcement, happening today. on our twitter page, there is this from bill, if hillary wins the nomination, i will support her, but might choice is warned or barry sanders. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. we also have a line for independence. later in the program, we will introduce you to the chair of the libertarian party. on her facebook page, a lot of you already commenting as well.

jane says, remember benghazi. laura says, oh, hell no. george says, she is the only candidate worth voting for, i hope some people get added to the field of candidates that create an actual race. you can share your thoughts as well at facebook.com/cspan. this is the first pag fronte page of "new york host post." let's go to our line for independence. caller: good morning. i'm calling from florida. i'm happy that she is going to announce. as a independent, i will deftly be voting for her. i see nobody on the republican

side that i can support. i think hillary will be perfect when it comes to the small man. i think she will work hard, as she always has done, and especially for women. she will do well. republicans keep talking about the clinton foundation accepting money. we don't, here in america, have enough money to pay for all of the war is going around the world. with the help that they are doing down in haiti, i'm very supportive of what the foundation does. i'm glad that countries are donating to help them to help small people. go hillary. host: melissa is next. republican line, cincinnati. caller: i have a question for you. has hillary clinton ever been on c-span? she has never been out in public

. she is so prepackaged, it is ridiculous. she thinks she is better than everyone else. also, she is a grandma. i thought she would be a great grandma by now. how's two stupid does she think we are? she is going to help middle class. we are america, we do not have a middle-class, we are all americans. democrats like to divide us into little groups. host: we mr. last point. caller: my last point is how she ever been on c-span? she has been in politics for 100 years. host: she has been on the network certainly in events that we have covered. we'llwe have conducted interviews with her. she has not been on taking

calls. her husband was when he was governor of arkansas. of course, she is always welcome. thank you for your call. we will go to carol next from ohio on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i will be glad to vote for hillary clinton. i voted for her in the primaries, and i will vote for her in the election if she wins the primary. this last republican said that we were crazy for doing this. she doesn't know what is going on in th this world at all. i think that is the problem with republicans. they are so set in their ways and so against everyone, they don't know what is going on in the united states of america. thank you. host: on her twitter page another viewer with this comment saying, hillary clinton cannot run away from her own record.

"politico" with this headline -- no drama this time. just a head of her entry into the race today, during an hour long meeting, the person who serves as the campaign manager released a statement on which the campaign goals will be based on. the memo can be seen as an attempt to set the campaign off on the right note. last time, her operation was crippled by infighting and disagreement between the top aides. weird being joined by -- we are being joined by a caller from the u.s. virgin islands. caller: i'm not excited about this announcement. i think the caller got it right when she talked about benghazi.

for me, it is also about her inability to be straightforward on the issue of the mouse. she is not someone that i would vote for or support if i could vote for someone running for top office. i'm not excited about the enough there. host: thank you for the call. david has this point on her facebook page, facebook.com/cspan. i support her 100%, all in, she is the only one who can destroy us. dori says, don't care, benghazi. marco says, then to herventura 2016. welcome to the program. caller: good morning.

i think hillary clinton will probably wind because the american people apparently are not interested in the truth and the standards of the people who vote democrat are so low that i don't know why there is an election. all we have to do is wait for the democrats been and it overruns the truth that the republicans are trying to put out. my advice to the republicans would be to lie and spain as do the democrats. hillary clinton told the families of the benghazi victims that their loved ones were killed because of a video, when she knew that it was on a video. she has erased her e-mails. americans don't care about that. the american standard is so low now. it's a joke.

it's a complete joke. republicans need to know that americans are interested in the truth, and go out there and lines then as good as the democrats. host: john in north carolina says that hillary's the cli's will make for a bloody primate massacre. this is the other major story of the weekend, on the front page of "washington post" -- historic meeting of castro and obama.

inside "washington post" is the story "in havana, old habits are hard to die." the summit will be remembered as the -- and points out that the region's leaders cheered, but a look different, in advance leaving out, there were reminders that reconciliation between cubans will take much longer. castro spoke warmly of obama and showed a willingness, but cubans went to lengths

to stifle opposition to the cuba. olivia is joining us. democrats line. caller: good morning, steve. i would like to make a few points. as far as benghazi -- bring out the violins, we are sick and tired of it. look, doesn't rick perry have an investigation going on in texas about him. yes, to the lady who called from tennessee, when you made a statement about hillary's jenna ta gentileity, or whatever, we are ready for a woman president. we are sick of it. republicans lied to the gentleman that call then talking

about democrats spin to analyze. we have lies and spends going on all the time in politics. we will not allow hillary, as it female, to be demonized. host: on the front page of "new york times," the relationship between clinton and obama. calculating the risk. the piece points out that for months, clinton and her aides have been pouring over obama's ratings. how can she run for president as her own person without criticizing the sitting president she served? aligning herself to closely with mr. obama is fraught with risk for this clinton.

republicans are betting that the attacks based on the incumbents record will be affe effective against mrs. clinton. stuart stevens who was a top strategist for mitt romney in 2012 saying that that's the inker shall be dragging for the next couple of years. donna is next in new york city. independent line. donna, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm not from new york city. hello? yes, i'm not from new york city. this is kentucky. host: ok. go ahead. caller: i'm a democrat, but i

will not be voting for hillary. because i live in kentucky, my vote will not count in electing the president. i will vote for rand paul. i see henry clinton as a very dishonest person. furthermore, she does not care about black women. she sees black women as subservient. host: by the way, rand paul will be appearing on three of the sunday programs, including "meet the press." you can listen to all of the sunday programs on c-span radio. this is rick from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. i love c-span. i just wanted to make a comment about hillary. eating a republican, i looked out her and said, boy, is it bill clinton all over again? will we have hearings and trials

? will it be the same thing all over again? i think she is a very smart woman. she is a little conniving. my dad, he was a staunch democrat. he would say, where is the opposition? why can't we vote for someone else? why can't we have john kerry or elizabeth warnedren? it is almost like cuba or voting for the dom. i don't see what the choices are. it is her and no one else is allowed to run. host: there could be other candidates including martin o'malley and former senators jim webb likely potential candidates, were in iowa over the weekend. coverage is available on her website, c-span.org. meanwhile, from "bloomberg politics," another reference to president obama departing from

cuba on the eve of hillary clinton's announcement president obama saying that she would be an excellent successor. she was a formidable candidate in 2008, at an outstanding secretary of state and my friend, i think she would be an excellent president. next is mark from philadelphia. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. i just want to say, as a democrat, i'm all for hillary. i want to say to the republicans, if you're going to bring up the stuff about hillary being deceitful and lying, hey, how about george w. bush? we can stop the republicans in their tracks on this line. it will not work. how many people have died in iraq because of george w. bush's

lies, and throw dick cheney in there too. that is all we have to counter for these republicans. host: james has this point -- steve, are you going to entertain the ridiculous idea of a hillary presidency on this esteemed program? next, being joined from sacramento, california. caller: i am a supporter of hillary clinton. as a matter fact, i wish that bernie sanders and elizabeth warnedren when joined the race. as far as these people -- [indiscernible]

they forget about george bush and going into iraq. as a result, we are still hanging around, look at the mess created by him and dick cheney and all of their cohort. host: thanks for the call. hillary can be be, that is the story from nationaljournal.com. i would democrats want to feel that they have a choice, in nearly three dozen interviews, writes the journal. caucus-goers begin almost unanimously for a contested ten-month campaign. spirited debate on how to move the country forward on wage stagnation and other issues. they don't want clinton to forget the mistakes of 2008.

bill is joining us next from bloomington, indiana. democrat line. caller: personally, i don't want to see any more clinton's or bushes. what i think would make energy stingrays, although i don't think we will ever see it, i would like to see carly fiorina on the one side and elizabeth warren on the other side. that's all i have to say. host: donna is up next year good morning. from st. louis. caller: good morning. a couple of comments. first, hillary is a democrat that has the best chance to win against any republican. the reason she needs to win is because whatever republican gets in there will try to repeal obama care. millions of hard-working middle-class people couldn't afford health care otherwise now

have some peace of mind. i know a few. secondly since high wage jobs were sent over to china in 2006 when republicans controlled everything, millions of americans now can afford to buy health insurance. i really do think she is the best bet this time. i didn't last time, but i do this time. host: thank you for the call. one of our most frequent tweeters says, we will finally learn which makes the gop crazier, obama or hillary? (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000, democrats. from "cq weekly," a cash injection. from "time magazine" out last

thursday, lack lives matter. funeral services took place yesterday for walter scott. and, "the weekly standard," april 1860 5, 1 of the most important months in history. by the way on tuesday evening we will have live coverage of a reenactment that will be taking place outside of ford's theater to remember what happened 150 years ago following the assassination of our 16 president. hillary clinton was keynote speaker, here is what she had to say about women, politics and a woman in the white house. [video clip] mrs. clinton: when i look around the room icy leaders. my hope is that whatever you have done, if you were in the basement, or you just discovered

emily's list and are a first time member, that you will redouble your efforts in the next months. don't you want to see more women running for school boards who will fight for better schools for our kids? don't you want to see more women running for mayors and governors who will put our families first? don't you want to see more women running for congress who will follow in the footsteps of two champion he will pay anyone opportunity? [applause] i suppose it is only fair to say, don't you someday want to see a woman president of the united states of america? [applause] well, in many ways, all of these

questions can only be answered by you. please be recommitted recommitted to emily's list. do everything you can to help us organize, take up stephanie's challenge, spread the word, talk to each other. let's make this and movement. let's be sure we do all we can to fulfill the vision of emily's list. the women who have gotten out there in the arena, those who have one and those who have lost. i have done both. you actually learn more from losing. but, stand with them. stand for them. be sure it's not just an evening

like tonight, but a commitment every day because there is so much at stake. host: hillary clinton at a an effort to bring more women into politics. her comments at that event are available on her website or in --. hillary clinton served as first lady and this week, we want to tell you about a new book that is coming together by c-span's co-ceo. it will be available in bookstores this week erie it is called "first ladies. we will have more at 9:15 a.m.

eastern time. back to your calls erie --. harold is in new jersey. caller: when hillary clinton did to herself, i believe in forgiveness for it i've will even repentance. i never recall her saying i'm sorry. she is the bully on the block. she is the female scrooge. she has no integrity. she is a gigantic liar. she always has somebody else do the dirty work. when 900 files from the f ei disappears, nobody took responsibility. nobody takes responsibility for anything. why not come out and say the truth. we may even forgive you for what you have done in benghazi.

taking money from the saudi's. telling people all over the world don't have children. we love children. children are the future. children deserve a chance. our country was based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. we went happiness for everybody. we should forgive and pray for all of those who believe in islam. host: mother jones writes about hillary clinton and gore long legacy. and is in iowa.

caller: if people don't like hillary, with the 12th amendment , her chances would be 0%. jeb bush's chance would be 0%. if people don't like it, they can learn how to read the constitution. that's all i want to say. host: alan is in ohio. caller: good morning. i won't vote for her. she has been in that business a long enough time to know what should be s doing with her e-mail. for the lady in alabama, the people i talk to care about the people that died in benghazi.

we need a woman president, but not her. we don't need another lawyer as president. she is entrusted. i appreciate you letting me talk. host: hillary wants more women running. in the new york times, there is this story.

next is patricia in oklahoma. good morning. caller: good morning. speaking as a native american, i don't trust the democratic party. i know there are a lot of native americans that are democrats. they've got a mindset. the government gives them something. they vote for the ones that give them something. when i was growing up i had a democratic mother and a republican father. i researched the two parties. when i found out that the democratic party half of the

sitting congress senators and representatives in north carolina were -- they were forced out by the kkk. when i found out they were done up by the southern democrats, i went republican. i am so tired of people bringing up bush. that's like obama bringing up the crusades. they have an agenda. they want to get us in a mindset

of whatever they say goes. here is some free food or free medical. here is some free money. here is some gas in your gas tank. host: thanks very much for the call. we're going to party like it's 1986. 30 years since the last overhaul of the tax code, the time is right for another one. ashley is in houston, texas. hillary clinton is announcing today. caller: i'm a democrat. of course i will support hillary on whatever person runs for president. i think what the republicans have realized, i have young

adults and the ideal republican is like being shot. it's not think -- something they would think about. if you don't have the young or the minorities or the women who's going to vote for you? i will support hillary if she is the democratic nominee. i think the republicans are missing it. if they don't get out here and appeal to minorities, if they can't appeal to the young people or the ladies and their early 30's, if you can't appeal to women, who's going to vote for you? this is what's out there. they are going to have to come up with something different. host: michael says do we really

want old ideas? where are the young democrats with new ideas? lincoln chafee says her iraq war vote disqualifies her for running for president. he is forming a residential committee. next is chris in new jersey. caller: good morning. there are so many things to say about hillary and i would not vote or any woman. host: why would you say you would not vote or any woman? caller: there have been women in the primaries before. they did not interest me. i think at some estate for her to run as a woman. i think some men may believe that all she cares about our

women issues. i followed her and other politicians. i remember reading that she flew in one engine planes when she was first lady of arkansas to help underprivileged children in the school system. when they left she did not get paid a penny. she is on objective. she is the most admired woman in the world. i know i can't say everything about her, i did look into benghazi. the ambassador was a good friend of hers. he requested less security. he wanted to be down there in

the trenches with the people. she felt terribly about this area she has been demonized as ambitious and a lot of different things. i just believe that she cares. she could've gone out and been a lawyer and made lots and lots of money. people say she is rich. they worked in public service most of their lives. host: this is from kiki. the front page of the arkansas democrat. president obama meets with the president of cuba. that took lace in panama.

the front page of the l.a. times , you are being watched with cameras everywhere. who is protecting privacy and accountability? the atlanta journal-constitution, a look at what's next for chicago and st. louis. where atlanta fits in all this. from the indianapolis star, a test for the gop. that is also available online. next is rick in atlantic city. caller: good morning. people should stop watching these reality shows.

hillary clinton was a very goldwater supporter. she defended the watergate guys as an attorney. she is a warmonger. her son-in-law is a wall street banker. he has ties to goldman sachs area these people who have ties to goldman sachs, i don't know if they are in our best interest area --. host: thanks for the call. from the new york post.

the time has marched on and the world has changed. this makes her look stuck in the past or it new --. caller: i want to make to quit points. i wanted to make too quick points. the first is about hillary clinton and benghazi. three or four people died there. we're very sorry for that. it seems like they want to forget about the thousands of people who died in iraq.

you want to drag hillary across the coals for that, what about george bush? can he be dragged across the coals for the iraq war? the lady who called and said she did research about how the democrats were involved in keeping slaves out of congress in south carolina. she needs to continue to do her research. jim crow democrats jumped parties and went to the republican party when african-americans got free access to voting. she jumped right into the fire. host: two essays you might want to read it from the new york times and maureen dowd. also from the washington post is

a piece by dan. she begins her campaign and a politically dominant but diminished position. she has no serious challengers. one of the points from maureen dowd, she makes a reference to her granddaughter. she has always tried to be more like the democratic president she lived with in the white house.

in case you missed it, this is the opening of saturday night live. >> tomorrow is the big day, mrs. clinton. you're finally going to announce the running for president. >> i don't know if i have it in me. i'm scared. i'm kidding. let's do this. >> you put the hill in hilarious. since we are announcing your

candidacy via social media, we thought it would be fun if you filmed a video yourself on your own phone. it will be more personal and intimate. >> i'd better take off this jacket. >> that's mother -- much better. >> the you want to do some vocal exercises? >> that's great. hold up your phone and you can look natural. you might want to soften a little? a little more? maybe a lot more? great. action. >> citizens, you will elect me.

i will be your leader. host: and so it begins on snl. that tweet will come out at noon. there will be a chance to open our phone lines are from all of you. tomorrow, another republican enters the race. we will have live coverage of marco rubio's announcement from miami. all the republican likely candidates are expected to be in new hampshire next ride in saturday. on our schedule information is available online. we will continue. in a couple of minutes we will introduce you to randi weingarten. we are talking about the no child left behind legislation and some new bills through the house and senate. later, we will talk to the chair

of the libertarian national committee. the president of the american medical association talks about the debate in the senate. the house has already passed the legislation. this follows us at 10:00. >> we are talking about a sustainable growth rate of a program that has been in place for a long time. it was thought to be an effort to control the cost of the medicare program. it resulted in 17 patches over the past 12 years. each one of those patches just paid for that one year. it did not pay for accumulated interest. by kicking the can down the road each year, congress accumulated

a lot of this interest. april 15, there will be a 21% cut in physician payments. this is the interest of all of these years kicking the can down the road. i do want to talk about the term doc fix. i am biased against that he does it's my belief that it's not doctors that needs to be fixed. it's medicare that needs to be fixed. we want to stabilize the program or the future for our patients. the term doc fix has been picked up by a lot of journalists. i try to correct that. it's really medicare that needs to be fixed. >> one of the implications is if the payment program is not adjusted fewer doctors will take medicare patients? >> if doctors are faced with a cut in payments from the

program, it will be more challenging for them to get in to see medicare patients. the medicare patients will have a harder time finding doctors that can take care of them so they may have to drive further or call more doctors offices and it would be a more challenging environment for patients to find the care they need. host: the affordable care act and the doc fix our issues. he joins us on newsmakers. you can listen to it on c-span radio or watch it here on c-span television at 10:00. joining us from your city is randi weingarten the president of the american federation of teachers. thank you for joining us on this sunday morning. guest: i love the calls from listeners. it's fantastic that you do this. host: we have many that will be lining up to talk to.

we do have a line set aside for educators or administrators. let's talk about the no child left behind legislation. didn't meet your expectations? guest: the short answer is no, it did not meet. the reason that you have a bipartisan bill to try and replace it is because it didn't meet anybody's expectations. let me take a step back. that law replaced something called dsca. its 50th anniversary is this weekend. that law was passed lbj, there was a focus on the federal intervention in education lovely the playing field for poor kids.

most public schools in this country are funded through a property tax system. 90% of aid comes from state and local dollars. when you have concentrations of poverty and kids who need the most getting the least, that's where johnson stepped in and said let's try to level the playing field. let's give those kids extra help in the early grades. extra teachers, art and music we can help them climb up the ladder of opportunity. what happened in 2000 was people said when a second, this law is not doing enough to help identify whether kids are being left behind. you heard president bush steel that phrase from the children's defense fund. that law became about testing. some testing is important to

read we need to inform instruction. the balance is completely off. it's focused and fixated on testing, which is taken the oxygen out of schools as a those on teaching. virtually everybody is saying we need to change the emphasis again in terms of teaching and keep the resources for the kids who need the most. host: the dilemma is how do you measure success? where do you find the balance? guest: the real key, you are exactly right. the real key is making sure that if there are tests that they are informing instruction. they are out there for data so everybody sees what's going on. what happened between race to the top and the obama initiative as well as no child left behind

is the test became the sanctioning device. instead of trying to fix urban public schools or wrapping services around to make sure that kids have early childhood how do you align these resources and retain the best teachers instead, they became unitive sanctions. schools got close. teachers get fired. instead of creating a joy of learning, everybody was so fixated on the test results that they became the dominant pieces education. host: what should the role of the federal government the? how do you make sure that schools are responsible to the community and what should washington say when it comes to what students are learning? guest: i think that's a question

that more and more democrats and independents are asking as well. with what happened in the last few years, the government became the human resource department for every school. even though the federal government has been providing resources and i think that's an important role. the role is to make sure that we do fight for equity and we do fight to make sure that everybody can climb up that ladder of opportunity. you need to have those supports. the government has so over reached or people use the fact that the government can be involved in teacher evaluation can be involved through common core or race to the top in

curriculum, it's been used as an excuse. the balance needs to be changed again. the government should be about pushing an opportunity, just like voting rights. the government should make sure that people have voting rights. it can't be in every nut and cranny. we need to have local control of schools. parents and teachers need to have the latitude to create a joy of learning in schools. host: what do you want to see in this new bill that is being put forth by senator alexander and senator murray of washington state? guest: what they have done is they've said that the most important piece of the johnson war on poverty bill to make sure that funding actually goes to kids in concentrated poverty

that peace should remain intact. that was number one. they went back to the original intent. the second thing they have done is said even though they are keeping the annual test, they have to deemphasize their use. they are throwing out all the sanctions insane the states should come up with their own accountability systems. those can't be based only on testing. they have to be based on other things that actually will help kids succeed and help teachers help kids. is it perfect? we would like to see interventions that are needed to help kids succeed. can we get early childhood in their? we know that's one of the best interventions in terms of helping double the playing field for kids.

can we wrap services around schools? economists are telling us that as important as a teacher is, 90% of the achievement difference he between high poverty kids and low poverty kids is due to other factors. we have to have those other factors addressed like poverty social services, things like that. let's wrap services around schools. it's a good start to deemphasize testing and get back to teaching and learning. there should be some things done. i think this week, it's a very important week for educators parents, kids throughout the country. host: this is the headline from the york times.

some of your profession have said eliminate the test completely. guest: the tests have been misused. let me step back. as a high school teacher, i used tests to see were my kids were. every teacher in america does some assessment. we always do that to figure out what kids have learned. what happened is these tests have been misused and they've been used as the only thing in education. it's been a one-size-fits-all. you have parents and teachers that distrust them and you have kids. at the same time, the civil rights groups of said we can't -- we have to make sure the kids

are not invisible. we have to have some measure. the bottom line is the balance is off. you can't have high-stakes testing be the be-all in education. we have to use them as diagnosis, ways to measure and ways to see where kids are but not be the sanctioning device that they have become. host: randi weingarten is a former history teacher. she is the former president of the united federation of teachers. she joins us from new york city. we do have one line set aside for educators. we will go to liz in new jersey. you are a teacher? what do you teach? caller: i am a special ed inclusion teacher in a fifth through -- grade classroom.

i am retiring this year. i have seen all forms of these tests. i'm not opposed to testing. i think if it could generate information to inform instruction, that would be wonderful. all of these high-stakes tests have done very limited amounts of information for the classroom teacher or for a school district to work from. it's a political test. where do you stand in relation to other communities in your state and your county, it does not help inform instruction. i was raised in this state. a district has a good reputation, we use the california achievement test.

each parent got a readout exactly where their student was. they knew how they compared. host: thanks for the call. guest: she is absolutely right. god bless you for all that teaching that you've done. i hope you have a good retirement. that's what you hear in teachers rooms are out the country. we have all used tests. that's part of how we assess. what you see now with these kinds of one-size-fits-all task you get the results several months later. you can't talk about the test at the moment after they are given. what does that say?

it says they are used for different purposes than for informing instructions and diagnosis. part of what this bill does is throw out all of those sanctions and say states, start again in terms of thinking through how you use this. we need to have some oxygen in the system for us to come up with different kinds of assessment devised. -- devices and how do we inform instruction? how we inform parents of how their kids are doing? host: harold is joining us in minneapolis. caller: i was a teacher. i taught kindergarten for one year and fourth grade for three years. i am concerned about the demonization of teacher tenure.

when i taught, i love those. teachers. i also saw a school board that was squeezed with money. they would do everything they could to get rid of tenured teachers. they had lots of newtons. -- students. the school boards that are squeezed with money, they would rather see a warm body and balance the budget then look at the quality of the teacher. host: thank you. guest: carol is also right. what has happened in this country, as soon as the recession hit in 2008, you saw this huge escalation of the demonization of teachers as a

way to justify austerity. it was just wrong. at the end of the day, teachers our first responders for everything happens to kids. the two people the most important and child's life are teachers and parents. the parent is the first teacher. a teacher is to a child connects with. it's who opens up a joy of learning. when our school systems become testing factories instead of opening kids up to all sorts of different rings -- things and then teachers get demonized and told all they have to do is get test scores up, it creates a terrible environment for kids. host: jim is next to --.

caller: good morning. i can't quite recall everything that happened historically, after the george bush election, there was a lot of cry for partisanship. george bush went to senator kennedy. guest: kennedy miller, and bush all worked together on this bill. there were things about this bill where they promised there would be a lot more money for early grade education and for other kinds of things and that the test would be about assessing where kids were. by 2014, every single child would get to yearly progress. not only did it not work, the test became the deal -- be all

and end all. they did all work together. you are seen a bipartisan attempt to address it. i'm not opposed to trying new things. i think we have to try new things. we have to see what will work. in education, even though the most important in action can be between teacher and student, we know so many other things affect schooling. we have to address those things. we are talking about bringing back the joy to teaching and learning. let's have teachers -- take a few minutes for kids to actually look at the snow and start using their imagination about what that means, right at home about it, think of a science experiment about it. we need to trust teachers to be able to do that and have kids

want to go to school. host: we welcome our listeners on c-span radio. our guest is randi weingarten the president of the american federation of teachers. a bill is trying to fix the no child left behind legislation. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a retired teacher and long-term substitute. i have been a special need teacher. i have seen this taking -- testing take its toll. the problem that i see is it a addressed is social promotion.

we have so many kids in high school that are functioning at a or six grade level and are being produced -- presented with a curriculum. remediation has to be a key point. i would love to see kids remediated for a year in language arts and math so they have a chance at the high school level. guest: one of the things we propose as the ast when this process started was to have three different points where you really look at child. not through a sanction based on an intervention. one was at grade three. one was early childhood grew we

know early childhood is really in grade that's when kids minds are so noble. if we created high-quality programs for all children like mayor dubois's io is doing in new york city. like republicans have done in oklahoma. the second time it's important is if kids are reading at grade level at grade three. the third time is after a grade. if a child is over age and under credited at that time, there is a real chance they will drop out of school. let's make sure the child is not doing what we hope they would do, let's have a real intervention. let's not threaten the child with you will not pass this

grade. find ways to intervene and meet the child's need at that moment in time. that is the kind of thing we propose. what's happening is the republicans have said that they want less federal intervention. the democrats have said we want to do more of this kind of positive intervention. the balance is been in the bill that omar alexander and patty murray did was to move that intervention to the states and use it for poor kids. they went to move those interventions to the state level. host: we will be covering the debate on c-span2. this is a tweet from one of our viewers. is common for the right answer?

guest: now you're going to get a lot of tweets on this. i've been a believer in the thomas but not what has happened in the last few years. as a high school social studies teacher, it feels to me what was important for kids is that they understand how to work in teams and how to trust and build relationships with each other. they have to become critical thinkers and problem solvers. they have to be resilient at this. if you fail, you can pick yourself up and try again. when i first saw in common or core , kids to develop those skills.

i think what has happened is because of race to the top saying if you want to have a waiver of all of these other laws, you have to have common core, that stuck in the craw of a lot of people. common core became the test as opposed to the learning. the test became more important than the learning. you are shifting the curriculum. you haven't given the teachers the time to learn and you have given the kids the time to his right. it's become a big mess. host: from your perspective, are we doing enough to teach our children the basics of the constitution and our history?

guest: i would say absolutely not. this is part of why i am so fixated on getting the balance right between teaching and testing. when the focus is on an annual test in english,, and introduction of tests in science, what happens to social studies? if the accountability systems are fixated on them the sense of how kids are going what happens in terms of teaching kids about pluralism and democracy and respect and dignity in treating every child like the precious soul he or she should be. we need to focus that there is not only an and respect. we need to teach about --

injured kids learn how to be citizens -- ensure that kids learn how to be citizens of this country. pluralism and finding a way to fight against hatred and using democracy to do as martin luther king said, to move the ark of the country towards justice is really important. host: our guest is randi weingarten. caller: thank you for taking my call. i watched you on waiting for superman. can you explain why the kids academy in harlem is doing so well? guest: let me just say there are

a lot of charters that are doing well and some that don't do very well. in that movie, they portrayed a charter that was right in the same city. you would be saying why is that school doing so well? why is that school doing so well? why is a charter that respects its teachers and pays them well doing so well? waiting for superman wanted to show a slanted you. it wanted to say charters were good and the rest were not. the story is quite different. you have a lot of public schools that are doing well.

when you look at the through line, a lot of it is based on poverty. economists say to us that 90% of what happens in a student's life is based on things other than the individual teacher. we still have to improve everything. public schools are supposed to help all kids succeed. that means look at the whole child. focus on well-being. focus on instruction. that's a we have to do instead of divide. in terms of the other issue that waiting for superman raised, due process and tenure, the real issue is how we attract and retain great teachers. the one thing we can't do is take away their ability to take risks. we have to give them autonomy and voice. some of these can't teach and they should not be there.

there needs to be a fair evaluation system as well. host: thank you for waiting. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to call in. i appreciate your comments. i'm a 30 year veteran of texas schools. we have been going through this high-stakes test game since the early 90's. i think we need to search some other avenues. maybe go back to norm-based testing. i just appreciate you coming on. i appreciate your comments.

thank you. guest: thank you. whether you do norm-based or criterion based, the real problem here is that the stakes have gotten too high for the punitive stakes. one test can be a determining factor about whether a neighborhood school closes or whether a teacher gets fired. how are we going to get teachers to go and work with our most challenged kids? we want them to take that risk. we want them to help. if they know that one test, these tests have shown that teachers who work with the highest need students are typically the ones who get the lowest grades on these tests what are we saying?

we have to get the balance right area --. that means the emphasizing the consequences. use tests to figure out where kids are and use them to inform instruction and use them diagnostically to make sure parents have information. deemphasize the consequences and find other ways to create the interventions we need to help all kids succeed. host: will you endorse a candidate in 2016? guest: i expect that we will. if you're asking the question like you've talked about all day? host: will you endorse hillary clinton? guest: we have a process. we are a democratic institution. we have 1.6 million members. we have people who work to make

a difference in other people's lives. we have a process. we are inviting all the candidates in the talk to our board and talk to our members. we have something on her website called you decide. on a personal basis, i've known hillary clinton for long time. she was my senator in new york state. she's a remarkable person with tremendous experience. she has a real love for making a difference in the lives of others. she would be a great president and i'm very excited that she is announcing her candidacy today. host: have you ever endorsed the republican? guest: yes. we have endorsed republicans

throughout our history. it would be like what's just happened in terms of lamarr alexander and patty murray and this bill. public education is a public good. it should not be a province. it should be the province of all people. we need to make sure that all kids get a shot at success and working families should have a path to the middle class. that's what we believe. we would love to see candidates from both parties really focus on those core values of how you create the american dream for everyone or how people are able to create the american dream for themselves.

host: we have just a few minutes left. good morning. caller: hello. i've been waiting and waiting to explain to the public what happened before no child left behind. no child left behind has gotten bad. school a would be scored two years above grade level and school be would score below grade level. all the cools -- parents want to send their parents to school a. they would take low performing kids and high-performing kids. next year, they are both on grade level. the only problem is those 200 low performing children did not get what they needed in school be and they did not in school a.

no child left behind will out those demographics and said you cannot hide those children. i would like to have her explain that situation. guest: that's why our union has said we know that the one aspect of no child left behind that has to continue is that demographic information. we have been supporting that and supporting that alan's. -- balance. civil rights leaders have said the same thing. we have to to have a balance. the information is vital. we have to make sure that kids are not invisible. it can't be the high-stakes consequences where everything goes to what the test results look like and to schools being

focused on only doing one or two or three periods of math or english and squeezing out my subject area and squeezing out art and music because of what it looks like as opposed to how we teach the whole child. we need the information. we need to teach the whole child. host: that was the same sentiment of the education secretary. this is what he had to say about the legislation in put forth. >> no child left behind is long overdue for repair. it is broken and out of date. we need a new law that does a lot more to work innovation and creativity. under law must stay true to the vision that opportunity is not

optional, it's a right for every child. we cannot afford to leave any of our talent on the sidelines. opportunity is a right and teachers dedicate their lives to empowering our children. opportunity is a right that encourages parents to expect their kids will succeed in life and graduate from college especially if they never had that happen -- chance themselves. our work is not done to live lived up to that promise. we need a strong law that fulfills the rights of all children. we need new law and must be bipartisan. quality education is in our best interest. a must ensure that our resources go to the students for whom they

are intended. we must not shift funds to wealthier neighborhoods. that makes no sense or it we to make sure that parents have the information they need to understand how all students at all schools are doing every year. educators needed information and families have a right to it as well. we to make sure that the assessments measure learning in a meaningful way. anything else wastes viable learning time. host: those are the comments of the education secretary. it's time to make sure there is no federal education control. guest: look, i would hope that the secretary as he talks about

how we need to have parents given information, we would fight to make sure that parents have a right to opt out if out. a lot of times this gets -- parents should have the right to have both. the need for information. if they think of these tests are overreaching and they are not serving the purpose, they should also have the right to opt out. having said that, unfortunately, some of what has happened is because of the choices that arne and the department have made in terms of teacher evaluations being focused on testing as opposed to have i taught something in my classroom and have kids learned it through

different, meaningful learning. that neighborhood public schools have been closed in chicago. 50 never public schools closed. it hurts and he stabilizes the neighborhood -- and destabilizes the neighborhood. he is right. there needs to be a deemphasis on test account ability and more emphasis on doing what we need we believe kids to do real-time. where the cato institute is wrong is that they do not want money going directly to poor kids. that is what johnson wanted. they want block grants to states, which states could use for any purpose, it including create more testing. this money was intended to level the playing field for poor kids in needs to do that. host: you can read the piece at cato.org.

their point of view is no federal education control. patty is joining us from washington, republican line. good morning. caller: i would like to make it, that -- i could not do it. this is sixth grade. all our basics are being taken away. they are using computers to do everything. stores are closing down because they cannot count money. write it down, get the change back. everything is so computerized. they cannot do the basics anymore. they are not being taught them. how come there is no more homework coming home? it has all been in school. i have not seen history books. i do not know what they are being taught in history. there needs more parent involvement. when i went to school, my

parents would go into the classroom. it was mandatory. you had certain volunteer in the classroom. it should be that way now. host: parental involvement and getting back to the basics. guest: i totally agree. i also worry that so much is done on computers that kids do not have the critical thinking skills to do mathematical tables. to add and subtract, multiply and divide. in some ways, part of what is going on in terms of common core mathematics is that it is trying to have kids learn how to explain their answers. it is really hard, because we have started relying on these devices as opposed to relying on our minds. you're right about parental

involvement. what we have tried to do is say if we can make schools the hub of the community, wrap services around -- health and social services -- things parents may need in terms of workforce development skills from the community college, make the schools a place where parents want to go, not just want to send their kids. make it the help of the community. you will start getting more parental involvement as well. parents are kids' first teachers. we need parents to help us help our kids. host: randi weingarten, president of the american federation of teachers, joining us from new york city. this is as congress takes up their reauthorization of the no child left behind legislation this week. guest: thank you. host: we continue the

conversation. we introduce you to the chairman of the libertarian party from raleigh, north carolina. nicholas sarwark is with us. later we examined the influence of first ladies and talk about spouses and american politics. the role they play in presidential politics. we are on fm channel 120. we are back in a moment. ♪ >> monday night on the communicators, spectrum policy director on the importance of spectrum for the government and the public. >> the last two administrations have written presidential memorandums on spectrum. when i started in spectrum management in 1979, i came out of the marine corps after being an artillery officer, i did not

know anything about spectrum. most people i met and even those i worked with did not understand much about spectrum. now everybody realizes the heart of our daily lives, our devices completely rely on our ability to communicate and do our jobs are stay in touch with our family. >> monday night on 8:00 eastern on c-span. -- c-span 2. tonight on q&a the standard's weekly editor on his writing career, gop candidates for 2016, and what voters are looking for. >> they want someone who looks like he is -- has stood up for them. i am amazed to the degree of which primary voters on both sides are motivated by resentment. the sense of being put upon. those people really do not understand us.

here is a guy who does understand and will stick it to them. that happens on both sides. hillary clinton will get her own version of that kind of thing. i do not think that was true 30 years ago. resentment has always been part of politics, obviously, but the degree to which it is almost exclusively the motivating factor in truly committed republicans and democrats. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from raleigh north carolina, is nicholas sarwark. he is the chair of the libertarian national community -- national committee. thank you for joining us. we are dividing phone lines differently for this segment. we want to hear from libertarians on our first phone number. all others, you can join in

(202) 748-8002. libertarians, the number is (202) 748-8000. let's talk about your party and your ideology. what does it stand for? guest: the libertarian party stands for the idea that every human being has the right to pursue happiness as long as they do not take other people's stuff for her anyone. host: ron paul, back in 1988 also a former presidential candidate, his son now seeking the gop nomination. what is the ron paul or rand paul fit into the libertarian ideology? guest: ron paul was our presidential candidate in 1988. he then went back to the republican party. his son, rand paul, has some similar views to libertarians, but as opposed to ron he has

been a solidly republican candidate. the way i see that fate is he is probably the best the republican party has to offer for a libertarian. but the best republican is still not a libertarian. he talks reducing the penalties for adderall drug crimes. we talk about ending the war on drugs. it is a good gateway drug into libertarianism but it is not the real thing. host: this is a study conducted by p research -- pew research. one in 10 americans identify as libertarians. does that surprise you? is it about as expected? guest: it is not a surprising number, that one in 10 what self identify as libertarians. a lot more people are libertarians than know they are libertarians. that is one of our challenges as a party. to show people what the battalions me and asked to show people -- to show people what

libertarian means. human freedom and government control are essentially opposites. the opposite of limited government is unlimited individuals. libertarianism actually benefits people. take any issue. now one of legalization. marijuana legalization stops criminalizing and locking up a generation of african-american men, removing them from society so they are unable to get economic opportunity. it allows law enforcement to focus on protecting families from violent crime rather than locking up from -- for what people choose to do in the privacy of their home. that is a sensible solution. the radical idea is the idea that somehow locking people up for what they do in their own lives can in any way and if anyone. host: former new mexico governor

gary johnson was the libertarian nominee in 2012. some background on the party, it is the third largest party in the country formed in 1971 in colorado springs. one of its former nominees was congressman ron paul. about399,300 registered libertarians nationwide. why's it so hard for a third party to break out of the democrats and republicans? guest: the old parties controlled ballot access rules election rules. they cheat with both hands. they do anything they can to stop us from getting our message out to the american people because they cannot answer simple questions like why do you want to support violent mexican drug cartels rather than legalizing something that is safer than alcohol. host: what is the biggest

difference between your party and democrats and republicans? guest: we support all freedoms all the time. democrats say you have to choose. if you support marriage equality you cannot have a gun to protect you and your same-sex partner. republicans make you choose, if you want to have a gun to protect you and your same-sex partner, you cannot get married. only libertarians combine the best ideas. we just support freedom. live your life however you like as long as you do not hurt anyone else or take their stuff. host: from new hampshire, john is joining in. good morning. what party do you identify with? caller: i am more of an independent. my question is, based on new hampshire, i live up. and there are quite a few libertarians.

the question i it -- the question i have is how is it defined? there are different variations of what libertarians stand for. i have not seen -- i have heard different things from ron paul or rand paul. but nothing -- no clear definition of what the libertarian party stands for. i understand what they mean by freedom, but freedom is freedom. we all have freedom in the united states. this is more of a clarification into what they are trying to accomplish and what they stand for other than the democrats and republicans. host: thank you. guest: we stand for reducing government involvement in your life. that is what we stand for. republicans can talk a good game about reducing government involvement, but they have never actually closed a federal agency , cut back a program and they have raised spending too

ridiculous levels, in getting my children and eventually my grandchildren and their children. democrats are the same way. when it comes to series marriage -- serious freedom issues, like marriage equality, it took them decades after normal people were ok with people of the world they wanted and being treated with dignity. it took them waiting for the political winds to change before coming around. the libertarians are the only party that stands for cutting government. the less government involvement, the more freedom you have to live your life the way you choose. host: we have covered all third-party major conventions. you can check it out on c-span.org. we got this tweet saying how does the guest feel about libertarianism being associated with the teachings of ayn rand? guest: ayn rand had some things

in her writing that was libertarianism, but the author did not like he libertarian party. she felt that as a political party, we were not ideologically as closely aligned to object and -- objectivism as she wanted. it is unfortunate but shows the diversity of opinion within libertarianism. we are a party of individuals. there are some who, from objectivism, from social justice and working to fight war or and mass incarceration -- or end mass incarceration. everyone comes together to work on the issues they want to work on and they feel comfortable each other. the rand philosophy of induction is and is -- much like the candidacy of senator paul or his father when he ran to the republican nomination and was crushed by

the party machine, twice, there are many paths up the mountain and there are many ways people find libertarianism. however it is you get here, we are ready to work you -- welcome you home as soon as you are tired with fighting with your party about how you want to live your life. host: nicholas sarwark is the chair of the libertarian national committee. (202) 748-8000 is our line for libertarianism -- four libertarians. for other third parties, (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002. paul from bloomington, indiana, libertarian. good morning. caller: no, i am not a member of the libertarian party. i voted a straight libertarian ticket in the last two elections, but that does not meet me a card-carrying

libertarian. as a matter of fact, i do not even know if you can be one. it was a pleasant surprise, when i went up to vote against -- i voted for barack obama when he ran the first time. the second time it was horrible. it was a pleasant surprise in bloomington to find out that when mitt romney was running against obama that for the first time in my life, i saw you could vote a straight libertarian ticket. i guess that gave me up my right to vote for the president, what i voted for two libertarian candidates that were on the ballot. [laughter] where i think the libertarian party has gone misguided -- it is such a breath of fresh air to say the government cannot solve all your problems. but they have gone misguided on the safety net.

the government should in my opinion, make sure that no american citizen is ever hungry. host: thank you. guest: first, thank you for voting a straight libertarian ticket. we appreciate your support. you can become a card carrying member if you join us on lp.org. 20 -- it is only $25 per year. we would be happy to have you. as far as i said the net issue we follow a philosophy similar to the traditional teachings of christianity. as individuals, we are responsible for helping others. that is the best way to help fellow citizens. whenever you filter something through the lens of government, whenever the safety net involves taking money from you, giving it to a bureaucracy, and creating

rules and hoops and hurdles to give the money back to an impoverished or poor person in your community, that is much less effective than libertarian solutions. like the pastor in florida who just goes to the park and feeds the homeless. he got arrested for doing that. libertarians stood with him and solidarity. or when libertarian party members' barns burned down and the local party came together and had a barn raising. that is the american way to help and love your neighbor, not to say that someone either in indianapolis or washington they will take care of the poor people. we have to take care of poor people. people are fundamentally good. human beings are fundamentally good. they want good things for others and themselves. those problems are much better solved by people who care them

people who it is just a job for them. host: phil is calling on the libertarian line from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span and mr. sarwark. it is a great pleasure to speak with you. a couple quick questions. is there any early emerging libertarian candidate. where will be the lp convention? guest: as far as the presidential nomination, the emerging candidates, there are three or four who have put their hat in. an anesthesiologist from cleveland, dr. feldman. in by the last name of -- relatively unknowns, but they're going to stay conventions and getting their message out there. gary johnson has talked about

since the end of the last election, that he hoped -- hopes or plans to run as libertarian and seek our nomination, but he is not officially announced. the nominating convention where we choose our presidential nominee by having delegates come together in a room and talk to them and hear them and choose someone who really represents the libertarian principles. that is in orlando in may of 2016, memorial day weekend. i encourage you and anyone who wants to come save be a part of making history. host: we will be there live next year. john from massachusetts, libertarian. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you doing? guest: fine, thank you. caller: nick, you have the hardest job in the country. you are trying to hurt individuals. it is like trying to herd cats.

the reason i called is that in massachusetts, the voting system is a half democrat, republican you declare of the votes -- you declare at the polls and they can flop over to independents and such. most of massachusetts is independent so they flop over one way or the other. voting rights is dominated and in my opinion, gives us a hobson choice between two parties that basically represent the same thing. our libertarians being strongly individualistic, are they making headway into getting a ballot access out? a couple things i would like to see is them outlaw any major party advertising on fcc

controlled channels. it is like the government promoting big government. i will leave it as a simple question. is there anything you guys can do or any headway going into getting these very bad rules -- host: i'm going to jump in because we are running short on time. thank you. guest: you hit two points. the first is there is a hobson choice between choosing one of the old parties. in states like massachusetts or maryland where it is strongly democratic or states like texas or arizona where it is strongly republican, the libertarian party has the opportunity to read the second party. the choice you have if you are

not happy with the majority party. it sends a clear signal. when you pull a libertarian leader, put a libertarian vote on the ballot, that you do not want government to get any bigger. you do not want them involved in your life in any way anymore. you want to control your own life. staying home or not voting does not send that message. no one can tell the difference between -- between someone who does not vote because they are fed up and one who does not because they are just staying on their couch. sending a real message is voting libertarian. as far as the old parties controlling the media and our process, gary johnson's organization is preparing a lawsuit to challenge the commission on residential debates. -- presidential debates. this is not a free speech issue.

you have old parties without tax-deductible contribution to create a nationally televised debate with a lockout competing voices. it is a bipartisan organization, not a governmental organization. it is not free or fair and we think not legal. check out our america initiative and look into the lawsuit. the libertarian party is a plaintiff to that when a gets filed, which should be later this year. host: we are getting a lot of tweets. let me summarize the essence of these comments. mix are locked. we want clean water. we want safe roads and bridges. we want to make our food is safe to eat. airline travel is safe. all roles and responsibilities of the federal government. where is the line between individual liberty and what the government is doing to make sure those items are safe and secure? guest: we all want clean water good roads, safe airline travel.

we as libertarians believe that is better accomplished through people. through individuals, private organizations, there are responsive to the needs of their consumers. when i fly and i opt out of going through the radiation scanner and get patted down by a tsa agent, i do not feel fear. i do not feel that is an important government service i need. to have someone run his hands up and down my legs and pat me down in a ridiculous security theater that does not make us safer with an agency that has never caught a terrorist. some people say that is an old libertarian joke. who will build the roads? the same people who build them now. they are built by hard-working construction workers under a contract. the fact that the contract comes

from the government does not make a difference in how roads are built. if you want to look at the difference between government and private provision of a surface, look at health care. americans are hurting because health care costs too much money. if you look at something like laser eye surgery where it is not generally covered by health insurance where there is a market, the cost has gone down. this is a delicate procedure with lasers shooting into your eyes. that is what letting people work together to find solutions can do that letting the government do something cannot. host: california, member of a third party. good morning felton. caller: i would like to say that , first of all, you guys have captured my attention. after analyzing everything over the last 20 to 30 years you

guys are basically a wolf in sheep's clothing. you basically end up siding with -- you know how to speak a good game. in the long run, you are basically republicans. host: we will get a response, thank you. guest: i appreciate your comments and i am sorry you feel that way. if we are basically republicans why do we support marriage equality? ending the war on drugs? why did i release an official press statement calling for an end to criminalizing so much that our people are literally being gunned down in the streets at her the brutal murder of scott & carolina? those are libertarian positions.

i sorry that may be those who are republicans have been confusing you or others by saying i am a libertarian but i support wars overseas. or saying i am a libertarian but support states rights on freedom issues like marriage equality. i apologize on the half of the libertarian party for the fact that other people think it is cold to use our name. all i can do is stand and talk to you and the american people and tell you what a real libertarian party believes. the next time someone says i am a libertarian, asking them, do you support government controlling my life or me controlling my life? host: our guest is nicholas sarwark, the chair of the libertarian national committee. he held positions in colorado and maryland. he has a law degree from american university. dave is joining us from delaware. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my

call. this is a very good subject to talk about, especially in a watercooler discussions at work and such. people that call themselves others trying to have a very constructive debate on solutions, a lot of times it gets into this whole concept of collectivism versus the individual liberty. and as much as they guest has mentioned, on some of these issues particularly the law enforcement issues that have been playing out here recently to call that out, which is fine, but there has to be very, very specific solutions to those sorts of things. and i just don't know how the theme of individually this will be taking care of versus some type of societal structure.

a societal structure organization that takes care of it. host: let me stop you there. guest: so, the way that these things play out, we do treat everyone as individuals. but the problems we have with the over criminalization of america and the overuse of force by law enforcement, that is a problem, honestly, for all americans. but like i told somebody the other day, it is worse if you are black. those are problems that are structural problems. one of the things that you have to remember is whenever you make something criminal, whenever you say this is important enough to have a criminal law that prohibits doing this, you are authorizing law enforcement to arrest, potentially hurt, and often kill people over that law. and we need to take a long, hard look at what we think is important enough in america to

make criminals -- criminal and thus essentially put a death penalty on. it is not a death penalty that is always implied, although our traditional death penalty is not fairly implied, either. it is a randomly applied death penalty that shouldn't be there. one of the things we can do is say, look, if what you are doing doesn't hurt anyone else, it doesn't take their stuff, then that is no business of the criminal law. and the first step in that is ending the racist war on drugs. if you enter the racist war on drugs, the new law longer have these marijuana stops. you no longer have people afraid to be pulled over for a broken tail light because they have some arrest warned for bills they didn't pay, or not turn upon tender court. you don't have as many of these tragedies. there will always be tragedies but that is the structural problem that has to change. and that is what libertarian

party politicians and candidates across the country are running for. to fix those problems. host: and -- rand paul's challenge, libertarians are still a small minority. the likeliest explanation is that libertarianism has become a catchall phrase for all political strife. they seem to become an adjective for the liberal millennials who are more skeptic of regulations. the same holds true for the deeply conservative college students who may want to, for example, signal -- you can read the piece online. eugene joining us from locust grove, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. as i understand it from the libertarian perspective, you want to eliminate regulations.

and that allows companies to do things like dumping or all sorts of illegal things. and the cure for that is supposed to be lawsuits. by the individuals that are harmed. that is -- that seems to be after the fact cure versus a before the fact cure. host: your response? guest: well, do you think that having a government agency regulate those agencies as a former ceo is really working? because that is -- that sure as hell didn't work with bp. the idea that somehow we have to protect ourselves from bad people, but we are going to find not bad people and they're going to be good people and therefore to go into government is not how it works.

if you can't trust the company who has a profit motive, we doesn't want to anger their customers, who wants to get more business to do things that will get them more business long-term, how can you trust a former ceo of that company heading up a division of bureaucrats to actually regulate his friends from when he was in business. i understand the caller's point and concerned, but our concern is that that solution just doesn't work. it doesn't work in practice. so let's try something else. host: bonnie is joining us. martinsburg, west virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i am really excited to have this kind of program on. the more education people get to what in the world is a democrat and republican and what ever else is all to the good. what i want to say about this is -- if you have -- it is sounds

like my neighborhood when i was a kid, where everybody did what they wanted to do as long as they didn't offend every -- anybody else. my interest would be, where does the vote go? if we vote for you because of the kinds of principles that you are standing on their, what happens when you don't make it? then where does that vote go? guest: you know, that is a good question. and i really do hope you will support libertarian candidates in your next election. this job, being national chair is a volunteer position. i have three children who are for, three, and just under two months. and i travel away from a family because i'm committed that the libertarian party is here to stay. we are the only other political party other than the two old would you are probably more familiar with. we are not going anywhere. what i'm committed to doing is

that we are going to keep showing up in election after election, and we are going to keep telling people that if you want to control your own life and you don't what the government to control your life, if you want to have a better life because limited government leads to unlimited individual, then libertarian candidates will stand up and represent you. election after election after election until we went. if you have ever been a fan of the sports team that hasn't been a good season, you know that it is hard to watch, but you are a fan and you are committed to the cause. those players go onto the field every single game, whether they lost the last 10 games or not. that is with the libertarian party is committed to. and we believe that the arc of history bends towards human freedom. and that more and more people are waking up to that. the host mentioned the millennials. you have an entire generation

that is met up with the solutions that haven't worked in the past. so we are in it for the long game. i am doing this for my children's of a girl up in a better country than i grew up in. host: we are talking to nicholas sarwark. do you have any personal's desire -- personal desire to seek office? guest: i might. i have no personal desire right now as the chair. but i may. if i feel that that is what is necessary to make my community better, and if that is what necessary to really spread the message, that is definitely a possibility in the future. host: and your family is from phoenix. if you did run, is that we would likely see her name on the ballot? guest: that is true. if i were to run, it would be in phoenix or arizona. host: we will go to john and west chester, pennsylvania. thanks for waiting. welcome to the conversation. caller: hi.

i would like to point out for people who struggle with how libertarianism would relate to things like pollution and property damage and fda issues and the like that we believe that government is reactionary. and it's job is not to be interventionist. when you have reform and functional reports and lawsuits, you can have a mechanism to ensure or two for the notion -- to further the notion that the companies have a vested interest in not hurting others. i believe a sales tax -- having a sales tax and getting rid of all other taxes gets rid of a lot of the social issues and other things that we fight about and argue about. because when you have a sales tax, you essentially don't have things like asset transfer taxes

and things of that nature. host: thank you, john. guest: you know, it is -- a thing the government is reactionary and they are slow to react. whereas the people are much faster to react. if you look at the reaction to things like the rfra law in indiana, or the one that was vetoed in arizona last year, that reaction didn't come from government. government or the ones introducing these terrible bills in the first place. that reaction came from people and businesses boycotting and using the power of their dollar to say, that is just not something we support. any dates change it if you want to get our commerce. it is completely peaceful to affect social change. it works. and it works fast. as to, you know, a sales tax, it is something that people within the party think would be a

solution. honestly, the libertarian party stands for the idea that you just keep more of your money. hopefully, all of it. but any tax where there is less actual intervention in our life, there is less tracking, there is less surveillance, would probably be better than one where there -- they so value all the time or do things like asset forfeiture. you have to go to court to fight to say why don't you give me my money back and prove that your money is somehow innocent? the people at the institute of justice have been doing great work on fighting civil asset for church or -- forfeiture.

the old parties generally don't support because government runs of that revenue that they take from you. host: one of the most recent surveys on the role of third parties in america came from the gallup organization. this was released last september. 35% said that they are satisfied with the two political parties. 58%, a majority, saying there is room and a need for a third u.s. political party because the democrats and republicans do such a poor job. you can get the survey online at gallup.com. let's go to tailor in rex georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for having me on the show. i have been a libertarian for the past four years. before that, i was a republican. i sort of self identified as a liberal conservative, but i have

always been split on the issue of abortion because on the one hand you have the mother's right to have an abortion to get rid of the baby inside her. on the other hand, you have the rights of the baby to not be aborted. and i feel like libertarianism and the party of you are all in or you are not in that all. host: thank you. guest: yet, that issue is an issue that has been a controversy within the party for a long time. there are good libertarians of good faith and goodwill who hold opposing views on it. based on their understanding of the philosophy, the principles. what our platform definitely says is that no one should have to pay through the government for something that they morally don't support. so while the platform supports not having the government involved in a woman's health care decision, it also supports removing any sort of wars

taxpayer funding so that if your conscience says that is not something you should pay for, no one is going to come and say you're going to be locked in prison if you don't give us money that we are going to go use for something immoral. it is the same reason we oppose foreign wars of adventure. like the last two iraq wars in the third one that may be starting soon. it is because, you know, we believe in self-defense. we don't believe in going overseas to look for enemies to destroy and bringing back all of these wounded and severely traumatized veterans. having our sons and daughters that i for the adventurism of a budget of people who are never served, when there is no threat to our country. host: about one minute left. our last call is from josh. caller: what a great day it is to be a libertarian. i am telling you. let me discuss something with you.

the old guard democrats and republicans are analog people in a digital world. they are phonebooks and 411's, and everybody else is laptops. this is why you're going to be having rand paul as the president of the united states. he has his father's army from back in the day. he has the one he is building with the young ends -- younguns. they are going to use a computer network to webinar and do everything else they can. all the other candidates will run commercials. host: we are short on time. we will get a quick response from our guest. guest: i sincerely hope that he does well in seeking his party's nomination. but no matter how good one, or two, or three republicans are, they are not a party committed to freedom. there are a couple bright lights

that are close to libertarian ideals, but if you want an entire party committed to freedom, if you believe people should pursue happiness in the way that they want as long as they don't hurt anybody else, then the libertarian party is the party for you. we will be around for my lifetime, for the lifetime of my children, and the lifetime of my grandchildren. host: nicholas sarwark, the chair of the libertarian party. he is joining us from raleigh, north carolina. they give her a much for being with us on this sunday. guest: thank you so much for having me. host: the book is coming out this week, based on our series, the "first ladies." presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women. coming up in just a moment, we will look at "first ladies." anita mcbride served as the chief of staff to former first

lady laura bush. and karen tumulty of the washington post." we are vacuum at. -- back in a moment. >> tonight on "q&a," on his writing career, the gop president candidate, and what

voters looking for any candidate could -- candidate. >> they want somebody who looks like he has to it up for them. i am amazed now to the degree to which primary voters on both sides are motivated by resentment. and the sense of being put upon. those people really don't understand us. and here is a guy who does understand us and he is going to stay get to them. and that happens on both sides. hillary clinton would give her own version. and don't think that was actually true 30 years ago. i mean, resentment has always been a part of politics, obviously. but the degree to which it is almost exclusively the motivating factor in truly committed republicans and democrats. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific. were you a fan of c-span's

"first ladies those quote series? looking inside the personal life of every first lady in american history. based on first-hand interviews, learn details of all 45 first ladies that made these women who they were. their lives, ambitions, and unique partnerships with their presidential spouses. the book, "first ladies." provides lively stories of these fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house. and even changed history. c-span's "first ladies" is an entertaining and inspiring read.

>> ""washington journal" continues. host: and we want to welcome karen tumulty of the washington post -- "washington post." and anita mcbride. this is the book. it is available this week. also available as an e-book. presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women. anita mcbride, let me be -- begin with you, though, on the role of spouses. what is america looking for? guest: we are looking for someone who can help humanize the candidate that is running to be our leader. it shows them as a human being as a family person. i think that is really important and i think that the candidate spouse generally tends to be a lot more popular.

they are not the one out there in every single position, but they are reaching out to the american people. they are also excellent surrogates as fundraisers, which is important to make a campaign. host: as you have covered this campaign, we are just beginning to get to know the spouses of these candidates. guest: except for one spouse. one spouse we know very, very well. [laughter] it was kind of interesting to watch bill clinton the last time his wife ran for president. here is a guy who is so brilliant as being -- at being his own candidate. and he is not so great as being espouse. -- a spouse. the spouse is the validator. the spouse can go into places often with a candidate, himself or herself, cannot. again, what they are is a testament to the candidate's values to their priorities. host: where should the line be

drawn between the public and private lives of these public officials or a president and first lady? guest: i think it is very first to have -- hard to have anything private anymore. and we are already seeing that. the coverage has always been pretty wide and deep. as much as their public positions. guest: i think there is still a bit of a zone of privacy around the children. but i think that if there ever was one around the spouse, it is long gone. guest: agreed. host: let me read to you -- he told "town & country," --

anita mcbride? guest: i think there is no doubt she will depend on him for advice. how could you not? someone who has read so many campaigns himself, there is value to the experience of campaigning. but the last time, the campaign around her tried to keep him out of the race. this time, i don't think that is going to be the case. i think that he will have a great influence. host: we are talking about spouses, including the wife of senator rand paul. the second of three candidates announcing. here is what she had to say about her husband. [video clip] >> rand is the middletown of five.

from what i have heard from his siblings, he is a lot like he is today. he is opinionated, has a lot of energy, played a lot of sports. he also loved to collect coins which is something that he used to do with his grandmother. he was very close to her. and through the years, as her eyesight began to fail, he became her eyes to spy the faint mint marks on the coins as they would go through them together. but rant never forgot how sad it was for him to watch his grandmother lose revision. and i think that really cemented in him the desire to be an ophthalmologist. host: all part of the rollout of the rand campaign humanizing rand paul as a person? guest: and introducing him as a family man. as a man whose first career was as a doctor. again, the spouse is in a

position to sort of talk about this in a way that no one else really can hear -- again, these candidates are human beings. host: his not so secret weapon, and yet her involvement with goldman sachs becomes a line of questioning. guest: well, she has been in the ministry that has somehow become demonized in our culture. we saw that in the last campaign. in 2012. ms. clinton will face that question, too, because she stayed very close to wall street heard so i think it would be may be fairly distributed, this kind of criticism. host: and one of the spouses

will either become first gentleman or first lady in 2017. we will get to your phone calls at just a moment. you can also join us online at facebook.com/c-span. or send us a tweet @cspanwj. [video clip] >> i knew it. i mean i do that, of course, the kazaa had seen my mother in law and what she had to talk about literacy, her particular industry -- interest. and how she had influenced me, even, here at home in texas because of her interest in plants. but i didn't really know it until i made the presidential radio address. the fall of 2001 after the terrorist attacks. to talk about the way women and children were treated by the telegram and afghanistan. good morning. i am laura bush and i'm

delivering this week's radio address to kick off a worldwide effort to focus on the brutality against women and children by the al qaeda terrorist network and the regime it supports in afghanistan, the telegram. that regime is now in retreat across much of the country. and the people of afghanistan, especially women, are rejoicing. afghan women know through hard experience what the rest of the world is discovering. the brutal oppression of women is a central goal of the terrace. host: and that moment is recounted in "first ladies." the book that is out this week. the forward by one of the individuals who gave us the idea for the series. but finding a platform. guest: that was a time of great consequence in our country after 9/11. laura bush rose to the occasion. she says in her book, after nine months of being in the

administration, she had just held the first national book festival, choose getting ready to go up that the hill to give testimony on early childhood education and she felt like her voice found her. then this happened. and that became a comforter to our country. she realized she had this platform. guest: and i'm not just saying it because of a need a sitting care next to me, but she is really one of the best -- wrote one of the best political memoirs i have ever read. particularly overseas, she was doing some very brave and very controversial things, but she never really think it is country at the kind of credit that she deserved. host: third most traveled first lady in the country. guest: correct, after pat nixon and hillary clinton. host: which is interesting because pat nixon only had five and half years in the white

house. guest: she had done an enormous a lot of travel with her husband, but also on solo trips. host: of course, our new book out this week, "first ladies." david is joining us for middletown, new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. the best channel on television. host: we didn't pay him to say that. [laughter] caller: good morning, ladies. i am a 91 year young american patriot. and i have voted in every federal, state, and most municipal elections since president harry truman. in my lifetime, the best president i feel was president truman. he was the president of the people. president kennedy and jacqueline kennedy brought legality to the

white house. they were the closest to having a king and queen in the american history of our politics. and i remember the young people under president kennedy and jacqueline, how they worked at a peace corps and was proud at that time to be american for what they tried to do for the american people. but i would like to ask you ladies what do you think about elizabeth ward -- warren? guest: i think of elizabeth ward -- warren -- she is not likely to run, but what you will continue to do, and people around her are very upset about it, is keep pressure on hillary clinton. she believes that hillary clinton is way too close to wall street. she wants her to surround

herself with a different set of economic advisers. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. anita mcbride and karen tumulty. let's go back to another first lady and in interview we did with nancy reagan. [video clip] >> they just had little antennas that went up when somebody had to own agenda. [indiscernible] he didn't always agree with me but i would tell him. >> what was one of the first things you would notice when somebody had the own agenda? >> you just know. you can't say. you just know if you have those

antennas. host: that was from our interview back in 1999 with nancy reagan, who is now, i believe, 93 years old. she clearly had a big role behind the scenes in the reagan administration. guest: and most famously, she tangled with the chief of staff. in that battle, he lost. he was -- he was out of his job primarily because she believed he was not serving her husband's interests. a young staffer in the reagan administration, of course. her presence was definitely felt. she was devoted to the president. they just want their husbands to succeed, and choose absolutely devoted to that. the question about it. host: if you look back at american history, how important is it to have your spouse support you maybe push you, or

prod you into elective office? guest: i think it makes a huge difference for how you are able to conduct yourself, how you are able to be happy with your home life, till that your spouse support you in this because it is hard. and it should be. you are the leader of the free world. every single problems -- problem comes to your desk. host: play is next. clay is next, the republican line. are you with us? we will try one more time for clay in louisiana. what do you think will be different in this 24/7 social media age with political spouses? guest: well, i think that the narratives are out there. for instance, jeb bush. his wife has the possibility of

becoming this country's first hispanic first lady, and only the second do have born and a foreign country. the first being john quincy adam's wife. i think that is a story there campaign will want to tell. and i think the only person to tell that story is she herself. we are going to see a number of spouses, as we saw with michelle obama, having to juggle raising small children. michelle obama had an almost unbreakable rule during the 2008 campaign that she had to be there for her children either when they woke up in the morning or when they went to bed tonight. and that really respected -- restricted her travel. ted cruz's wife -- these are very very modern roles that we are seeing these women play. host: mrs. bush was not a visible first lady in florida.

was she visible on the campaign trail? guest: she was involved in issues that were important to people in the state of florida. substance abuse and drug a deck's in, violence. and she did make a difference there. she was very involved in cultural activities and art activities in florida. so, she may have been quiet, and a lot like her sister in law people underestimated the value and the role that they can play. so, i think that given the opportunity, the family is coming around and supporting jeb for this. host: i am curious, we did an interview with barbara bush and she said i love bill clinton. george herbert walker bush and bill clinton have a close relationship did jeb bush and

hillary clinton, what is that relationship going to be like next year? guest: george h.w. bush -- this relationship was developing. i said, what is it? he said, bill likes to talk and i like to listen. but i think i'm the father he never had. it is a very interesting dynamic. i think they all understand politics. they will handle it just fine. host: from savannah, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. how we doing this morning? host: fine, thank you. caller: i am a c-span is my species. the ladies, talking about the first ladies. i just think they all did a remarkable job. it was just hard to get to know mrs. reagan, but all the other

first ladies, they were wonderful. and i love the first bush wife. i really loved and admired her. host: thank you for the call. observations? guest: first ladies do tend to be very beloved, but it is not necessarily a role, like laura bush was saying, but they understand when they were taking it on. michelle obama had some real problems when she was first in the public eye. and worked very hard on sort of finding the right role. people don't want to see the spouse as a copresident. as hillary clinton found in 1992. but they also want to hear from the spouse, they want to understand the spouse, and they want to believe that the spouse has at least a few issues to which he or she is deeply committed. (202) 748-8000 for host: how accessible host: -- host: how accessible are the spouse is right now? guest: not very at this point. in part because so many of these

candidates are not yet officially declared candidates. and part because someone a of the spouses are often going jobs and small children. but we will be, again, seeing a lot of them. hillary clinton was the first lady -- and i was a white house reporter. i took several overseas trips with her, and she would become very accessible once you were in this kind of foreign setting with just a small number of reporters around her. host: former governor margaret malley's wife is a judge. does her decision become politically game? guest: absolutely. as karen says, it is not the elected official. known wants them to be a copresident, but they have an expectation to have a mind of their own and being gauged in issues. and they will be judged on the kind of work that they do. i think it will be hard

certainly to do it again. it will -- is the modern world we live in. people are going to want to know how they acted. host: the only single present we have had during the four years james buchanan, our 15th president. i am wondering, could we elect a single individual, man or woman, without a spouse? guest: i think we can. i don't know, karen? guest: it is hard because i think we like to see family life around them. but i think we can. i think we are trying to elect the candidate, not the spouse. host: christian is joining us from oklahoma. the democrats line. good morning. caller: yes, i hope that you guys will talk about nancy reagan and that she was into astrology. she had astrology is.

this woman would bring that lady to the white house and they would have discussions together. i care to this lady will not call me a liar because she knows it. nancy reagan was into astrology. i don't know why you guys as republicans always put ronald reagan on a pedestal. look it up on your computer. nancy reagan is into astrology. astrology is from the devil. they give very much. republicans, really, you guys need to understand the history of people. don't just go by what somebody says. once again, i guarantee they will not say that reagan -- nancy reagan was not into astrology. host: ok, we get the point. it has been well documented. guest: it has been very well documented, absolutely. and we look at another first lady who did the same thing mrs. lincoln.

i think it is hard to judge anyone whose person they love most in the world, if someone tried to take their life. and what they do to help support them and to get through that and try get through the public life where they feel they are fearing for their husbands' lives. none of us that -- would say that didn't happen. host: by the way the "first lady -- ladies" series, that will begin to re-air next sunday at 8:00 eastern on c-span three. it will continue through december. the full schedule online. and the book, published by public affairs, "first ladies." available as a hardcover this week. also available as an e-book. (202) 748-8000 for democrats.

(202) 748-8001 for republicans. if you look at this field and you look at the role that bill clinton will be playing on the democratic side, what stands out? guest: i think that -- what the obama campaign people told me after the 2008 campaign was that -- bill clinton did have the authority to go places and chin up enthusiasm where his wife could not go forth. small towns in east texas. he could go and campaign there. it was a huge event when an ex-president would arrive. the obama people were really kind of surprised come primary day. some of the places where bill clinton was actually able to turn out votes by going under the radar. host: one of the earliest interviews we conducted with the first lady, michelle obama, back in 2009, she talked about how she was tied to get her sea legs.

here is a portion. [video clip] >> i think every first lady brings their unique perspective to this job. if you didn't, you couldn't live through it. i think to the extent that this feels natural to me at any level and i would never have thought that living in the white house and make first lady would be natural, it is because i try to make it me. i try to bring a little bit of michelle obama into this but at the same time, respecting and valuing the traditions that is america a -- america's. host: what has she brought to the position? guest: she has been very focused on issues that she cares about. she did take her time to roll out two or three signature initiatives that she will be forever remembered for. the let's move campaign, that did have an impact on how people think.

i think that was actually an excellent interview. i think every single first lady they bring their own authenticity and credibility to the job. people can resonate with that. host: and she has made a lot of appearances on shows like "ellen." guest: i think she is the first lady i have ever seen dance. [laughter] the other thing, though, is just by being in the office, michelle obama plays a unique role. for the first time, african children growing up in this country can look in the white house and see an african-american family in there. i think, in many ways, that is as much a part of her legacy as first lady as any of her policy initiatives. host: back to hillary clinton and the issue of health care because it was a public policy issue that she surrounded herself with.

she testified before congress, initially talking about universal health care. [video clip] >> as the president said and as he believes, this is not a partisan issue. it is not an ideological battle. it is a problem to be solved that affects all of us. and i'm looking forward over the next week and month to not only working with you, but to watching you craft the most important social policy that a nation will have presented in many decades. when i worked on health care, a lot of people thought i shouldn't be making recommendations on legislation or that i shouldn't be involved on working on behalf of what my husband asked me to work on, which is one of his primary objectives, because he felt that that was somehow inappropriate.

that if you exercise influence do behind-the-scenes when no one can see you. i find that curious. to me, i would like to know what goes on in front of the scenes because i am very, very much the kind of person who believes that you should say what you mean and mean what you say. then take the consequences. just like anybody else who is all in public life. host: early and late in the clinton administration. guest: there is a lot of history, especially in that second interview. she is the spyker's office just an advisor on health care. in fact, it was a disaster. she put together a 500 person task or that work together in secret. they completely cut out the congressional committees in the early going. and i think that the way it was handled -- remember, the clintons were new to washington. there were a lot of people at capitol hill who had worked on

this issue for decades. the way it was handled turned it into a partisan, in ideological issue. and i think hillary clinton now acknowledges that she made some really big mistake there. rookie mistakes that essentially doomed her husband's initiatives and owls cost of his presidency. guest: karen said it all. there was a lack of transparency there. host: was for -- her role any different? then say, eleanor roosevelt? guest: eleanor roosevelt was the eyes and ears for president roosevelt. she was the one who could get out there and travel. in a lot of ways, she opened up the white house to the american people and created that pond and the connection between the president and the people. and she was very vocal. it wasn't a cakewalk for her, as well.

but i think, you know increasingly now in our modern age, it is 24/7 coverage of everything that anybody in the white house is saying, in living family members. so it is hard to walk way from it. host: christine is joining us from kingston, illinois. good morning. caller: hi, there. i just want to say michelle obama is great. i think she is definitely the best first lady the country has ever had. but i don't know, the spouses -- i don't think hillary should really let, you know, spouses should not get involved too much. bill has already been president. i think that should be hillary's cloud -- crowd in iowa. but i wouldn't let him take the hillary show. but if she does go to waterloo she should definitely say, i know this is the town where --

is from, right? but i don't think those are gaudin talk to michelle is the wife of a president that is different. but in bill's case, he is too political. i wouldn't take him with me. also, hillary can do good on her own. thank you. host: christine, thank you very much for the call. anita mcbride if you could go back in history and envision another first lady running for president, who would you put on that list? guest: i think definitely lady bird johnson. she was politically various dudes. she was a great communicator on her own. she would to rate her husband's speeches and give them a b plus at best. she knew what connected to the people. she was also very gutsy. she went to campaign for him for lyndon johnson, when he was running for reelection in the

heat of the civil rights debate. i think she had what it took to be president of the united states. guest: -- she was basically running the country because of her husband's incapacity from a stroke was virtually unknown. guest: she had a lot of -- did not have a lot of the knowledge base to do it, though, unfortunately. host: how big of a factor will the foundation be in 2016? guest: i think of the a few tractor because already the media, including some terrific reporting from my own newspaper is looking at sort of the source and the funds and the fact that it was taking for contributions at a time when hillary clinton was secretary of state. and some contradiction of what they said was their own

policies. i think these are definitely worthwhile areas of reporting. they are going to continue to be. host: you have researched the subject and also have seen it firsthand. but at what point does the president listened to his wife? if he doesn't, order some of the consequences? guest: i think the president can also -- always trust the spouse is going to be a person who will give him the straight and honest truth. no matter what. and, arguably, the only advisor can be fired. so they know that this person is most invested in their success. of course they are going to listen to them. they may not always follow, but we her nancy reagan say that they do clip, that doesn't diminish the value of that confidential relationship that nobody else has. host: (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats.

what are the damaging effects of that, if any? guest: wasn't mainly eisenhower who said basically i cleanse the country? [laughter] attorney linda porkchops. there is an expectation now that there wasn't back then. if she doesn't, she has this enormous platform. and if she doesn't use it to do good, it is really squandering. host: it does go back to what hillary clinton said she wants that zone of privacy. guest: sure, of course they want personal privacy. you need that sanctuary to make all the rest of it very bearable. but that doesn't change the fact that there is an expectation when you have this proof opportunity that you do something with it did and you

just -- this is the ultimate work-life balance in the white house. host: karen, you have spent a lot of time reporting on mitt romney. but what about his wife's role? guest: she used to repeat the family took which was that she was the stabilizer. that her presence on the campaign trail relaxed him. he was in many ways a better candidate. interestingly, you got the sense publicly she was talking about how reluctant she was to see him run, to see him run yet again. but as he was torn with the possibility of a third campaign, we were hearing that it was in fact she who is egging him on and telling him nobody else out there is as qualified as you are to be the president of united states. host: this is a book put together by c-span's ceo and the

staff here based on the "first ladies" series. john from vancouver, washington. good morning. caller: morning. i had a comment on ronald and nancy reagan. they were the classiest couple in washington dc. the caller from oklahoma is absolutely wrong. ronald reagan defended liberty and freedom and spoke out against communism. obama and michelle obama are communist. thank you. host: ok. do you want to respond? guest: no. host: let's go on to bill joining us in langley, kentucky. the republican line. caller: good morning. since listening to the ladies and they are very articulated in their point, but what i don't understand is there is more women in the united states than there are men. and there was a time when women

couldn't vote, couldn't own property here in the united states. so -- and vote as a blocking get rid of the men? host: anita mcbride, or you want to respond to that? guest: i think women and men have to work together. i am definitely not of the mindset that mentioning continues be president. i thoroughly hope a woman will be president at some point. but i think we all have to work together. host: let's go back to 1984. elected as walter mondale's running mate. and her backup became part of the bear to. looking back, is that fair or unfair? guest: i think it is fair. your family income is, you know, it is a great potential source of conflicts of interest. it says something about your value system.

and again, the spouse is -- we now have a situation now where we are seeing candidates like ted cruz, where the wife is the family breadwinner. i think it is actually something that can and should be explored. guest: are ethics reporting requires it. any vest that worked in the white house sort of know that. we have to disclose our spouses income -- our spouse's income. it is what it is. it is fair game. guest: and look how much time hillary clinton -- time to untangle whitewater and their financial dealings. host: are less color is from north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. my comment -- about michelle obama being the first lady to dance in the white house.

if she will look back in her history, you will see that eddie ford -- betty ford danced on the table on -- in the cabinet room. and that was published. guest: the last thing she wanted to do before she left the white house with stan on at table and dance. host: let me ask you about a new book that came out this past week -- does this, and anyway, affect future income until the white house knowing that butler's and staff may talk? guest: it does and i know a lot of those people through three administrations. they are terrific people. they make life bearable inside the white house. and i think anybody coming in and the current occupants certainly have to think twice. guest: i question the number the

things that were in that book, including an episode where hillary clinton supposedly threw a book at bill. that rumor went around washington with so much regularity. the idea that the president of the united states could have been walking around with stitches in his head and nobody knew it, quite frankly, i think that what is being repeated in that book as fact is actually gossip. host: let me conclude where we began, we look at political spouses, we are looking for what? guest: we are looking for someone that is -- humanizes the candidate. absolutely. we are looking for someone that we know is a stabilizing force behind what is arguably the most intense and most important position in the world. and we are looking for someone to take the platform and use it in a way that is good. host: the last word. guest: i absolutely agree with

all of that. the spouse is a window into the values of the candidate. host: anita mcbride and karen tumulty. to both of you, thank you very much for being with us. the book, "first ladies," is out this week. he was on american idol and ran for congress, now part of a series for the esquire network. clay aiken will be joining us tomorrow morning at 7:45 eastern time. and i'll pomerleau of the tax foundation report. tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. instant time. 4:00 for those of you on the west coast. thanks for joining us on this sunday.

"newsmakers" is next. have a great week ahead. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> next, "newsmakers" with dr. robert wall, president of the american medical association. then we show you profiles of some of the newest members of the house of representatives beginning with representative steve russell of oklahoma and ruben gallego. >> dr. robert watt our guest on newsmakers. he is the resident of the american medical association joining us from chicago. me introduce the reporters asking questions. gnome leavy hovers -- covers health care policy for the los