at we can do it we share our stories, share our message over social media channels and throughout e-mail community as well. not all of our stories, not on the voices we need to be listening to are currently circulating on mainstream news and mainstream media channels. we do not have to just take that it pays valley, we can actually organize ourselves using social media . caller: good morning. i just wanted to let her know that she has inspired me. i am sitting on a stack of old factory streets from the 1900 -- pull tax receipts from my grandfather from the 1900s. it says you cannot vote unless

you only and. you are awesome, have a great day. guest: thank you, and thank you for judging the -- donating that piece of history to the local museum. expanding opportunities to vote, these are fights that play out over generations. they are noticed about what is going to happen this year, what is would happen in 2016. this is a long haul of people care about this country pushing to make it better, organizing together. that is the greater part of our democracy, and this memorial day weekend that is the type of value we should be standing up for. thank you for your call. host: we will conclude on that note. anna galland is the executive director of moveon.org. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. host: two former members of congress, say it is time for us

to open up the presidential debate and include third-party contenders like they did with ross perot. later, retired colonel derek harvey will talk about the isis gains in syria and iraq. you're listening to washington journal on memorial day sunny may the 24th. you're looking at the lincoln memorial. we're back in a moment. ♪ >> for he today that sheds his

light with me shall be my brother, the he never so vile. this day shall gentle his condition. and gentlemen now in about shall think themselves accursed that they were not here. >> one drop of blood drawn from by countries is an -- bosom, should grieve the more than streams of foreign gore. >> director of the shakespeare library talks about shakes here and help politicians use quotes from the heinous playwrights in their speeches. >> sometimes the poetic images, the sound of the rhymes, and also the way in which senator byrd did giving is a pause to linger over a long phrase and topping and keeping going.

he is using the rhythms of the language which is something that shakespeare did so brilliantly so that he can take english and the good put it into high gear at one moment, and then he can slow down. that is something that shakespeare lets you do if you're a politician. >> tonight, on c-span2 monday. -- q and a. >> this summer, booktv will talk about the book expos around america. next week we're at book expo america. in the beginning of june we are our live the printers row which breasts -- lit fest. near the end of june, watch for the roosevelt reading festival on the roosevelt presidential library.

in the middle of july we are alive at the harlem book fair and at the beginning of september we are alive from the nations capital for the national book festival, celebrating its 15th year. that is a few of the events from this summer on book tv. host: we want to welcome back former republican congressman vin weber of minnesota. thank you for being with us. a lot to talk about free to let's talk about this editorial that you and lee hamilton roa wrote. you are calling for third party candidates, but why are you doing it now. guest: it is not that we are republicans or democrats, but

that we are seeing record levels of this content with the two parties. over 40% of the public now identifies as independent. you cannot continue to march the democracy on without giving those people who are dissatisfied with the two parties some sense that they can be represented. the presidential debates have become institutionalized over the last 30 years, and that is a good thing. but what it has done, and the way they have been conducted is to freeze out the possibility of an independent candidate in other words, the candidate who wants to achieve status as an independent candidate today has a hurdle to overcome bicep to -- by simply that they will not be in the presidential debate. they are an essential part of the campaign, just like the nominated conventions. well in advance, we know already that it independent or third party candidate cannot be part of those debates, and they will not be treated as a serious candidate by journalist or activist or a voters.

we are asking that the system be opened up now, not because i'm dissatisfied with our article that i think the health of our political system depends of audit -- to paint depends upon it. there is a little dispute about that. let's -- again, this is not about bringing the system so that my candidate wins or the of the candidate loses, this is about the help of our political system. i did not vote for ross perot, i voted for george h w bush. but is it illegitimate to say that he could not talk about issues he cared about? i do not agreed with those americans of ross perot should've gotten loads of commitment to say that they

should not be represented is a bad thing for our democracy. host: new set we do not want a clone show. can you elaborate-- -- we do not want a clown show. can you elaborate? guest: minor candidates who have no chance, we do not want that. we want a voice to articulate the views of the large bulk of americans. so we do not want recently opened it up and let everyone come in. the republicans and democrats at that point would say we are not way to participate in this. but if you have a system that allows a candidate to earn her or his way into the dsr podium, we think that affords the system a better opportunity to hear a third voice. we think it would be good for

both parties and for the country. we have a two-party system in this country it has produced wonderful things in terms of stability for our country. but the strength of our system has always included an element of a safety valve, or and not let for people who are dissatisfied with the party. sometimes it has been very important. at the turn of the last century, the progressive movement required a third-party effort by daughters. my home state of minnesota became a front runner in this. this is important to the two-party system. i understand the republicans democrats do not like to think that, that they just think you should choose my party and not look for the third party option. but the health of our two-party system has always been greater because we have a viable third-party option that has kept people invested in our local system.

people do not express confidence in it, optimism in the future of our country, and there are a dozen of things that we ought to be doing. host: our guest spent 12 years in congress. we will get your phone calls and a moment and we are talking about politics and the debate, including next fall, let's talk about the most immediate debate in august bridge in the first in a series of republican debates will be taking place in cleveland, ohio, and two pieces this morning. first from the weekly standard editorial. the limited room for debate has fox news limiting to 10, the candidates in that debate. it is the issue of who should be included or not in the debates. guest: that is a different issue. this is about how the republicans will conduct a

debate leading up to the caucuses and primaries next year and bend it is an important issue. i understand the controversy. he's doing a great job as chairman and he is trying to grapple with the very real problem which is we're have 15 or 20 candidate and how do you have meaningful dialogue or debate involving 15 or 20 candidate see echo it is not going to be workable. there are difficulties with the solution. the solution that the networks are coming to is that we're going to cut it off on a basis of all income and only the top 10 candidates according to an average of old will be included. that makes a certain intuitive sense. think about where we could be on this. i would urge my other friends of the national committee to think about this. just in terms of resume, the most qualified executive running for president right now is rick perry, and george pataki.

they could be excluded from the debate. are we going to exclude the two people who have the most executive experience? we could conceivably see john kasich, the former chairman of the house budget committee and great governor of ohio, and excluded from the debate in his own statement i think you'll see a lot of venture to find a different system, a different way of coping with a very real problem. the republican national committee shows that he cannot have 20 candidates on the dais and watch, but they have find a different system for whittling it down. we have what kind of an idea, which is we need multiple debates and random selection on candidates to produce. over time, the holes will whittle it down. host: let it go back to kathleen

parker, limited room for debate. she says, imagine for president of the united is it, which were wires a full tank, narcissistic propulsion and knowing at the starting gate not only are you not going to be president, but you're are not only going to be playing with the big dogs. guest: that is a serious indictment of the process. i think we do not handle this in a way that all of the candidates feel is fair to them and gives them an honest shot at it, the whole process will break apart. we will find people organizing their own debates, other media outlets will be challenging, and we will find a loss of control in the process which is exactly what the republican national committee does not want. host: our life for republicans, good morning. caller: good morning. i do not know where to start.

the election process has been rigged by the mainstream media for so long. we do not have a choice. there's really one issue. this trade and the banking sector. 340 people in congress wanted to audit the fed, and it was killed by the senate. this is really the only main issue. you get into crony capitalism and we have given up on competition, and the american people that have been listening to the mainstream dialogue about things, there is a lot of americans out here that don't feel that the government helps us. host: based on your concerns, do

you think that this country would embrace a third-party, or a third-party candidate? caller: i think that the dnc and rnc are basically criminal organizations and i do not think the american public listens to or is informed enough. host: what about his concerns? guest: the dnc and rnc are full of good people not criminal organizations. i agree with the republicans more than the democrats, but they are all full of good people. he has raised serious questions about the nature of our political system. five people on the left like elizabeth thoren and rand paul raising the same questions, is the system rigged in favor of wealthy interest and policy interest? i happen to think that there are legitimate problems with the

issues that the caller talked about. we're talking about an insult on the independence of the central bank. i do not know how you conducted mattered economy without a central bank, but that is a reasonable debate to have rated the caller is legitimate to raise it. host: democrat line, good morning. caller: good morning. what is happening right now today, avoid for the independent party would be of the republican party, because as i see it, the voting is so stacked up [indiscernible] it is very clear that if you vote anything else in the you vote for the republican party. guest: most of my republican

party friends think things exact opposite. if you're viewing this proposal to include independence of the presidential debates as a way of bringing the system in favor of your article i can see other party, then you are doing the wrong thing. that is not my intention n. we find record numbers of people to satisfy the choices between republicans and democrats, and see this as a way of performing the system to instill greater confidence in our political system which is very important for us, but around the world people look to america as an example how to build a democracy. no small task. we find lots of countries looking to us for some example of how to build a political system that results issues only has the confidence of the public. lucy records -- when we see record numbers of people saying they have no confidence that is

the way of to look at this proposal. if it is not a good idea for the system, we should not be doing it. but it should not be looked at as an attempt to write a system for or against either party. host: our member was a -- guest was a member of the house appropriations party. he is also a the past president and codirector of power america an adviser to the bush campaign and romney campaign. a member of the council foreign relations, and in partner in berkeley here in washington dc. mike joins us from michigan. caller: good morning. perhaps a painful and embarrassing question for you mr. weber. during mr. bush's governorship of florida, he participated and implemented himself in a personal family member called

the terri schiavo case. he took unprecedented moves to have emergency provisions brought before the state legislature, and not only reversed himself but a lot of the republican legislature in the state of florida. i would like you to please go into detail and let the listeners know what exactly occurred during june bush's governorship and involvement with the terri schiavo case. we need to hear this. guest: i think we remember the terri schiavo case page flip it was a painful chapter for all involved. i understand people on both sides felt very passionately about it. keep in mind what governor bush was responding to was the heartfelt pleas of her immediate family that she not be allowed to die.

i fully understand people on the other side, her estranged husband wanted to disconnect life-support, but her immediate family did not, and governor bush took efforts to preserve her life at the request of her family. it was a difficult situation, i do not think that any decision would have that it easy one. i respect governor bush to listening to the family and trying to protect life. host: why are you advising jeb bush? guest: i think we have a lot of good candidates. i think governor bush is the best qualified and best able to beat hillary clinton and win the election. yes talked about the american economy in ways that i think is very origin. -- important. we have a settling in of the notion that america's best days are behind us, and it is not just a pessimism but the notion that we are in a bad economy and we cannot achieve the

growth rates we have in the past. governor bush has taken the notion head-on, and talked about restoring high rates of growth and foreign policies that address that. and that is a very important thing to internalize. it is called the right to rise pact, which is adjusting the notion that we have seen stagnation of middle-class incomes for almost 30 years now. those are important issues for us to talk about. democrats want to talk about redistributing income. they are accepting the fact that we will not be able to grow anymore as an economy. governor bush takes that idea on greater, -- very directly. he has a great record as the governor of florida, and is the best candidate. host: in atlantic magazine,

barring some ripped from space-time consortium, hillary clinton will be the democratic nominee in 2016. she should be an easy target. but the one republican least able to attacker is jeb bush who is almost every one of her older abilities. -- her vulnerabilities. host: the race will be a contest of ideas. that is not how the race unfolds to me, it is all about the question of who is best able to go into the campaign debating the interim the american economy and the future of our educational system the future of our regulatory structure and winning against hillary clinton. i think he is best able of this strong group of candidates to do that.

host: good morning. caller: good morning. i do not know if you heard several months ago, jeb bush talked about the strategy being for republicans to lose the primary, but when the general. i understand the idea of running as a centrist, trying to appeal to the broadest base of people but jeb bush running as an adventist, how could he hope to run without surviving and winning a primary contest? guest: i think you identify what his attention was a which is to say he cannot go through the caucuses and the primary simply catering to the ideological fringe of our party any more than hillary clinton cap win by doing that in the democratic party. that might become a very real possibility of the democratic side as well. but at the end of the day, you're right, you have to win privacy -- primaries and

caucuses somewhere. i think governor bush will be highly competitive, but i do not think you will allow himself to be pushed into an unelectable position on certain select issues. host: mike from wisconsin. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. very interesting this morning. i would like to hear your views if you think there has been a ny that questioning from the moderators? recently george stephanopoulos, we know is political viewpoints but do you think there should be any way to get into two major there's fairness and the questioning for the sake of the people listening? it is nice to stuff a candidate,

but it is more important to get information. the subject that i like most is common for. why does not jeb bush asked the question, what standards do you want? guest: i think that media bias that you pick up, is in the process of being somewhat corrected by the thousands -- problems that george stephanopoulos has created for himself. they're looking closely at who is going to be moderating these debates, and they will not allow people to moderate that have a clear bias. that they need to direct the conversation toward real issues. one of the greatest getters is -- criticisms about our stephanopoulos is that he spent an order amount of time with the issue of control. we have policy disasters and we're talking about for control. that is not the centerpiece

issue in a presidential campaign. i think we are going to see some of that straightened out. i think common core is an important issue to talk about. there are a lot of grassroots activist, who have legitimate concern about the of federal control over education. but save time, those people want to see higher standard in education and we have to have a discussion about how we get to those higher standards without sacrifices to federal control. his record in governor of florida was a great one on education. host: if jeb bush was asked to appear with george stephanopoulos would you advising? -- what would you advise him? guest: i do not think he is a bad person, and i do not think he ought to be written off as an

objective journalist, i think you made a mistake. my advice would be to treat him as the series journalist he hopes to be. host: i want to give direction to what senator ted cruz told party activists at the south carolina freedom summit. >> i would encourage each of you to ask every single candidate whose hands up in front of you if you believe these principles, show me. when have used it up and fought for them, what have you bled for them, what have you accomplished? if you say you oppose obamacare, when have you stood up and walked to stop it? if you say you oppose president obama o unconstitutional amnesty,

what have you stood up and fought to stop it? if you say he supports the first amendment, where were you in indiana? if you say you support the segment, where were you when harry reid was coming after our gun rights? host: he took a swing. guest: i do not think you will be the republican nominee but i think you will be a factor. he is the most articulate candidate. host: he is going after jeb bush. guest: i have a lot of respect for senator cruz, but he is asking people to vote for someone who will stand up and fight a losing five. the real question is not where did you stand, but where did you

succeed? we need real strategies for a market system. some people simply want to rally the faithful with a call to fight and lose, and they are not taking us in the right direction. i'm thinking of governor bush, governor casey, these are people who have used the dial of their state in terms of more conservative pile of more conservative pilot, and wind to ask ourselves as conservatives not just how do we take the right stand on an issue, but how do we actually six the on issues like taxation and regulation of the things that senator cruz talked about? it is not just giving a speech on the floor of the senate, but you have to have a way out. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to ask mr. weber

why the independent party and not just any party wants to come up with? any chance he gets to take a day vote away from the democrats that is what he this caller is not the first to suggest that. my concern is for the health of the system. if what i was supporting and lee hamilton, co-author of the piece that started this discussion, we were suggesting a way of rigging the system -- if what we were digesting was a way to rig the system, we would be discredited. my concern is the health of the political system and the confidence the american people have that there choice will pick the legitimate leader of the country. that is my objective. i do not know and -- how an independent candidacy would unfold or how it would affect

the candidacies. by the time we get closer to the election we may be able to say this will help the democrats or the republicans, but at this stage you cannot say. neither party should feel threatened by it. you look at the people -- it is not just lee hamilton in our. a number of us finding -- signing a letter to open this up including republicans and democrats who support their parties understand the health of the system is important. host: just to be clear this would be the end of april if there is a third-party? guest: with the certainty that the candidate would earn his way onto the stage. that is what is necessary. there is a lot of social science that has gone into this and it basically says a candidate cannot raise money and cannot recruit activist if there is not

some degree of certainty about the fact that he or she is going to be on the stage with the republicans or democrats. they will not be treated as a serious candidate. what the national commission on presidential debates has succeeded on doing is admirable. the institutionalized debates. it is almost in can -- inconceivable there would not be a presidential debate anymore. by doing it in a way that limited to republicans and democrats, we are diminishing the historic role independent voices and parties have played. host: and a reaction from the commission and its two cochairs, the rnc chair and the former press speaker of the white house? guest: it is disappointing. we are friends but they have not responded. we are frustrated we have not been able to engage in a serious dialogue with the commission on the presidential debates.

we want a serious dialogue. we want to hash out our proposal and see if there is not some way to accommodate what we think is a real need and they have not been responsive. host: have you talked to either ross perot or any of the people working with his campaign, the last time we have seen anybody on that stage? guest: no. host: we go to new york, republican line. good morning, go ahead please. caller: i have a question but first a comment. i grew with mr. weber that there should be three parties on the debate. any viable party should be allowed to be in the presidential debate. my question is, people opposed to voter registration to keep it above or, and yet they are in favor of obama care. the last time i went to the doctor, the first thing they asked me was for photo id.

if you have to have photo id to go to the doctor, how does that hinder anyone from voting? guest: i have a hard time understanding that just as the caller does. i listen to our last guest talk about voter id efforts and described it as an effort to suppress the vote. usually those discussions turn ugly and say it is an effort to suppress minority vote. i do not want to see that, but it seems that the integrity of our voting process is a legitimate question. you have to supply an id to get almost anywhere in the country. there ought to be some way of preserving the integrity of our voting process without preventing people from exercising their legitimate right to vote. host: glen is on the phone, independent line. caller: good morning. mr. weber, you remember in 2012,

who was the winner after several days of squirreling about of the -- primary -- guest: rick santorum ultimately one -- won -- caller: ron paul won the iowa caucus in 2012 and he also got other ones and they should have let him speak at the gop -- in tampa. the gop is a bunch of criminals that kept ron paul from having his voice after he passed university after university -- your party and the democrat party are connected. they are two heads in the same state. guest: your memory may be better than mine. i thought the initial results of the iowa caucus showed romney

winning an actor they counted the votes, they want -- they found santorum had edged him and ron paul at -- finished way that. host: that is correct. that is one of the things that rick santorum is saying. his point is he should not be discounted from the debates coming up, including the fox news one. -- points out that both fox and cnn should hold two or more debates and then select the candidates randomly to open up the process. guest: there is no perfect solution, but i think that is a good one. you think of it like the ncaa playoffs. you have different brackets and you narrow way as time goes on. i do not think you can exclude candidates had have the process -- and have the process viewed as legitimate. you might even help them. if someone stands and says the

system has been rate, there will be a lot of sympathy. the networks are trying to deal with a real problem, i get that. finding -- plenty of candidates on the states will not be a meaningful debate, but we have to think through how they approach it. i do not think the solution will work. host: so you will tell fox what? guest: they should say maybe this is the way we should do it, weekly debates, random selection, have a meaningful to make five or seven candidates at a time until we have given the country the chance to look at all of our candidates. after that process then you would know it down and give candidates -- then you winnow it down and give candidates a chance to a down. to exclude candidates is because they do not pull out a

particular level one and hands anybody's confidence of the process is conducted fairly or they are given the best chance to view the candidates. host: fall 2016, the dupage you're talking about to open up to independence. is there anything else that you say news to be changed? guest: probably a lot, but the main thing is to enable a system for a third-party candidate to earn their way onto that stage. host: you see anyone on the horizon who would run as a third-party? guest: i am not sure i do, by probably would not answer the question because as soon as i did, what i am proposing would be seen as a stalking horse for a candidate. this is about the health of our political system, not about helping republicans or democrats or hurting either party. it is not about advancing any of the people occasionally talked about as an independent candidate.

i am for governor bush. i think our system has a flaw and we have to fix it to restore people's confidence. host: berkeley, california, republican line. a republican in california -- [laughter] caller: a minority. hello? it seems to me that the divisions within the parties say the democratic -- the dianne feinstein part of the party. and the john mccain side of the republican party where jeb bush basically is versus the rand paul syrian side of the republican party, these divisions are becoming so much more evident and possible that

having more people on the stage i think, if i am seeing what you're saying, seems to be a desperate attempt to catch up to the political currents that are actually happening in this country. i think what you're doing is late. i think the people are far ahead of you and certainly ahead of frank who is of the old-school thinking that if we have this kind of a center-right, centerleft, two-party system that we can promote -- that there can be a promotion of the basic ideals of what i call progressive imperialism. which is that forced intervention whether abroad or at home, whereas newt gingrich

is a progressive imperialist of the right. hillary clinton is a progressive imperialist of the left. but foreign-policy positions are basically the same. host: we get a response. guest: it sounds to me like he is a rand paul person. i do not want to put words in his mouth, but that is an argument that has been put forward by that wing of republican party. american leadership around the world propels big government. i understand the argument and i respect people with a more libertarian view, but if -- i think america has to be a leader in the world. we have to be careful about how we intervene and we may have made mistakes, and i do think we can look at the pentagon's budget with a critical eye as we do anything else. conservatives need to do that. but what we see over the last

six years is a chaos that consumers -- the chaos that happens when america does not lead the world. obama's administration thinks america's role in the world should receipt and that is how they have conducted foreign-policy and the results have been chaos. host: a look at the primary debate calendar, which is separate from what vincent weber has been talking about for the fall of 2016. the first debate is in early august in cleveland sponsored by fox news. then in california in september. then october november, and december debates and colorado, wisconsin, and nevada. and then january in iowa and then the door in new hampshire south carolina, and texas. you're on the line with vin whether -- weber. caller: i wanted to offer a

proffer and then answer a question. it is about jeb bush during his administration here in florida. that he took home the rosewood property dispute near cedar key florida. what he do what does what he did was, instead of vying to return the property that was taken from most people at rosewood -- instead of bowing to return that property, he made it a state park, so to speak. a state monument. to keep the black people who had a proper claim from getting it and to make sure that they kept -- the people who wanted the black people out of their from going to their homes. i was wondering if you were familiar with that rosewood incident.

guest: i have to apologize, i am a supporter of governor bush but i am not from florida. i am not familiar with the issue and i would do not want to comment because i would, in ignorance. host: we end with the caller in minnesota. don is on the line. caller: two things. the issue seems to be a party issue. why not have a may convention and sort out who will be the nomination and then go on? the second thing is redistricting seems to be the big problem, not fair representation of across the districts and across the country. there are no open seats. everything is rigged for one party or the other. guest: redistricting is a problem. those people advocating for a more nonpartisan approach to redistricting as they do in iowa are making a good point.

that would be good. but if you look closely at the american electorate these days there are deep changes taking place. of the electorate is more polarized than it used to be. more people are either hard-line republicans or democrats. than in the past. the center has been eroding. i do not think that will solve the problem, by a nonpartisan approach to redistricting would be a good thing. host: how does the party take the big 10? the moderate votes. i mentioned that because the washington post mentions how difficult the mat is for republicans you look at where mitt romney is -- was in 2012 and compare him to george bush in 2004, your shrinking the moderate and ethnic vote to the republican party.