with the columnist for the nation magazine. michael o'hanlon from the brookings institution talks about foreign-policy challenges facing the trump administration. host: "washington journal" for november 26, tax reform dominates the senate's agenda this week with president trump visiting capitol hill to rally republicans before legislation expected in the senate floor as early as wednesday. minnesota democratic senator al frank suspect expected to speak with media today about those allegations of sexual harassment. and in the alabama senate race, a slight advantage for doug jones over roy moore, this after president trump offered words of support for roy moore about those sexual harassment allegations just before he left for thanksgiving. in our first hour, we want to get your thoughts and opinion about the president's defense that he gave roy moore last

week, what it means as far as that campaign going forward in the alabama senate race, and if you think those comments from the president were appropriate. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. alabama residents and voters, if you want to give your specific perception, 202-748-8003 is the number to call. you can always post on our twitter feed, @cspanwj and on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. we'll take you back to just before the thanksgiving break at the white house. president trump addressing reporters before he took off for florida, was asked about the roy moore campaign and the allegations against roy moore. here's the president's response. president trump: i can tell you -- i can tell you one thing for sure. we don't need a liberal person in there, a democrat. jones, i've looked at his

record, it's terrible on crime. it's terrible on the border. it's terrible in the military. i can tell you for a fact, we do not need somebody that's going to be bad on crime, bad on borders, bad with the military, bad for the second amendment. well,he denies it. look, he denies it. i mean, if you look at what is really going on, and you look at all the things that have happened over the last 48 hours, he totally denies it. he says it didn't happen, and, you know, you have to listen to him also. you're talking about he said 4e years ago this did not happen. so, you know. i'll be letting you know next week, but i can tell you, you don't need somebody who's soft on crime like jones.

[reporter asking question] president trump: let me tell just you -- roy moore denies it. that's all i can say. he denies it. and by the way, he totalling denies it. go ahead. [reporter asking question] president trump: women are very special. i think it's a very special time, because a lot of things are coming out, and i think that's good for our society, and i think it's very, very good for women. i'm very happy a lot of these things are coming out, and i'm very happy -- i'm very happy it's being exposed. i don't know -- look, i don't want to speak for al franken. i don't know -- i don't know what happened. i just heard about conyers two minutes ago. as far as franken's concerned, he's going to have to speak for himself. host: so roy moore dominating that statement from the president, also speaking about

john conyers and al franken, and what do you think about those comments? let us know. 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. and independents, 202-748-8002. alabama voters, a line that you can call in specifically, 202-748-8003. off of facebook, kayla says that roy moore will vote for trump's comments and agenda. tom says that the president didn't care about the party, only cares about himself. shawn adding to what the president spoke about, watch democrats stand by franken and conyers. and then one, might as well add another crocodile to the washington swamp. those are just some of the comments, the president's specific comments is what we're interested in. rob, duchess county, new york, democrats line. rob, what did you think about the president's statement about roy moore? caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. you know, i'm starting to think that this president is actually

the biggest creator of fake news. and i started to actually consider the exact opposite of the things that he says, and i'm starting to believe that, when i think about the exact opposite of the thing that he says, that that's really closer to the truth about what's true about the news and actually what's closer to the truth, the opposite of what he says is closer to the truth about what he thinks and goes through his head. host: so apply that to roy moore then. caller: yes, if you apply it to roy moore, what roy moore did, the allegations involving children, 14-year-old, 16-year-old, i find it hard to believe that it's somehow legal to approach a 16-year-old in alabama, although, what is it,

18-year-old, even if you -- an adult man approaches an 18-year-old, that's ridiculous. host: what i meant was, apply then what you said initially about what the president says. what do you think then in light of that about those statements about roy moore, specifically what the president said? caller: this president, he's always throwing curveballs. he's always throwing out fake news. i think he originates a lot of what comes out as fake news. you consider the opposite of what he says, i think you get closer to the truth about what's happening in the particular news piece. host: ok, ok, we'll go to mavis in fort lauderdale, florida, independent line. caller: good morning. host: hi. caller: i'm just calling to say that i'm very, very disappointed in this president. for president trump to stand by this man who's accused of being around -- for the president to be accused -- for mr. moore to be accused of being around kids

at age 14 and 16, him being 32 years old, and for the president to come out in support of roy moore, it's a disgrace. and for this president, he lies and lies and lies every day, all day. host: when you say it's a disgray, what do you mean by that? expand on that. caller: his representation, for him to stand on the side of a minor who's been accused of being 30 and trying to date girls who were 14 and 16 years old, this man has no pride whatsoever. he's a disappointment to this country, and a bigger disappointment to the world. host: from coleman, alabama, again, we set aside a line for those of new alabama who want to give your thoughts on the president's statement, 202-748-8003 for you alabama residents and voters. coleman, alabama, is where pierre is. pierre, go ahead. you're next. caller: yes.

my comment is about donald trump. he on tv talking about everybody else, what about this person, what about that person, what about conyers, what about franken. what about himself? what about the women that accused him of, you know, preying on women and looking in on teenage girls during the miss america pageants and stuff? what about himself? host: so pierre, what about his statement about roy moore? caller: his statement about roy moore is saying that he believes him and he denies that, you know, you know, vaguely denies it or whatever, yeah, anybody going to deny something like that, anybody is going to deny something like that. but his job as president, i'm sure he knows that the spotlight is on him. he's the leader of the party. and for the g.o.p. to be a party of christian values and stuff like that, it's just hypocritical. host: so not appropriate then

for the president to say what he said? caller: it's not appropriate for him to come out and defend the man. it's not -- no, that's not appropriate for him to come out and defend him. ain't no way in the world barack obama would have defended no democrat, i don't care what color they are, under these circumstances. host: let's go to trish, democrats line. jonesboro, georgia. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i just wanted to comment on the roy moore situation and the difference between what al franken did and what roy moore has done or did. you know, al franken acted like a jerk. he was a jerk. he admitted what he did. but there's a difference between sexual harassment and manipulating a 14-year-old girl or 16 or however old these victims who accused roy moore of doing whatever.

you know, young girls -- they're caught up in a dream. 14-year-old girls, they want, you know, prince charming to come in and rescue them, and all they want to do is just to be in love like they're songs on the radio. host: so trish, aside from that, about the president's statements about roy moore, what do you think specifically about those? caller: oh, it's typical. i don't doubt that he said that. of course he would agree with roy moore. he's cut from the same cloth. he's exactly like that. so, of course, i'm not surprised at all. host: this is guy martin in the al.com, a website that features a lot of alabama-based news sources. he's an adjunct professor at the university of alabama school of law, taught at the birmingham school of law now, talked about, with renuts about those supporters of roy muir. he defines himself as an early critic, but goes on to say this is a defining epic in alabama politics. we are drowning in media noise.

more supporters include hard-working christians who have chosen moore as their champion to blunt what they feel is an attack on their values. these people are dear to me, and flung against them has triggered this piece intended as a message to the anti-moore slingers and to my fellow nuts in alabama, a template for how his breaks down --

host: that's a thought this morning, that is guy martin. you'll find his views at al.com. the president's statements about roy moore made before thanksgiving break, what you think about them. from washington state, independent line, sylvia, go ahead. caller: hi, thanks for taking my call. you know, this whole sexual stuff, i've been sexually abused, sexually assaulted, been trying to deal with it all my life. it has literally ruined my life, my chances for a normal and even with counseling meds and psychiatric care. you just never get over that.

and now all this stuff come up everywhere, it's like, it's triggering my ptsd so bad. and i'd like to just tell trump to go take a hike. host: so what do you think about his statements, though, specifically? when you heard them or heard about them, what was your reaction? caller: i was upset. because this is how he is. he has no class, absolutely none. and he won't look at himself in the mirror because he's such a jerk. he thinks everybody else -- he thinks is right, and they're not his way, then, you know, so, no. i mean, he was totally inappropriate, and it's just like, i think sometimes i know there's good men in this world, because i have met good men who don't do these things. but it's like, men have been doing this kind of thing since the cave days. host: ok, let's hear from gerald in texas, republican

line. gerald, go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think if there was any validity to this, that when it came out 40 years ago, i didn't see where trump said anything contrary to what's going on. all he said was that the guy denied it. everybody is taking all of this out of context, and it seems to me that the democrats brought this out, and the lady that they first brought out would not turn over the annual with the writing in there to prove, to let them disprove it. if it was true, why wouldn't she do that? so i don't think there's any validity to this. i don't think trump did anything wrong. people need to stop listening to the media on the left and on the right. host: so do you think that the president's statements consist of some type of support then for roy moore overall?

caller: well, i don't think it's for any support, but i don't think -- all he said was he just denied it. he denied it. and he did deny t. did he try to get the lady to turn over the stuff so they could prove that the handwriting was fake, and they would not do it. so how can you say that he's uilty? host: real clear politics, which keeps a collection of polls and puts them together as an aggregate to where the election stands on a lot of different elections, but this one specifically looking at the alabama senate race, it cites the fact that roy moore was up by two in a recent poll done by strategy research, and that doug jones showed advantages over roy moore, but taken together, the collection of polls, over a time between november 9 and november 20, so doug jones, with a .8 advantage

as far as those polls are concerned. if you want to follow those for yourself, go to the real clear politics page. there's a section there specifically dedicated to the alabama senate special election, where you can find those polls, how they're taken, and how they're compiled. another republican from pennsylvania, we'll hear from keith. hello. caller: hello. thanks for taking my call. what -- my comment to all of this, i don't care what -- what we are as far as politics. if we're americans, we should be held accountable for our own actions. i don't think anywhere in this world that our parents, our peers should take slack for what anybody has done. and when there's skeletons in the closet, i don't think that it should be up to the president to figure out why, who, what, when, and where.

to me, people need to take account for their own actions and start standing occupy their own two feet and stop finding excuses for themselves. host: the president injecting himself in by his statements, what do you think about that? caller: what was that? host: what do you think about the president injecting himself into the debate by the statements he made last friday? caller: for the most part, i don't think he injects himself into it. i think the media should stop asking him to answer for everybody else's mistakes. he's got his own mistakes to answer for. and if he's busy counting and telling everybody what you did wrong or what i did wrong, he ain't going to get anything done. host: the "new york times" this morning on one of the front-page stories that they have takes a look at the president's statements about roy moore and what it does for the rest of the republican party overall. this is jonathan martin and others saying in tying himself to mr. moore, even as congressional leaders have abandoned the candidate en masse, the president has

reignited hostilities with his own party, just as senate republicans are rushing to pass a politically crucial tax overhaul. mitch mcconnell and allies have infuriated, as mr. trump has reacted, to a series of ideas they have floated to try to block roy moore -- host: for those alabama voters and residents, roger in

tuscaloosa, independent lane, hi. caller: hi. i have to sort some of the issues that are at stake here. i've personally never voted for moore in the past, but i know the issues are at stake. one is this issue of the democrats are on climate change, and i know moore is going to support coal mining and the miners in alabama the same way that trump has. so a vote for moore is a vote for all those jobs, coal mining and all relate fossil fuels are big in alabama. i got to vote for moore for that, because jones and the democrats are going to be against it. ones stated this in one of his tweets. take a knee for injustice. that means jones is taking that position, which i find strange, and moore is not going to obviously -- takes the other

position. so i have to vote the issues, that i think is what trump is saying, and all the issues that come into play. jones came out and said he's against any kind of money for a border wall. he wants to be spent on something else, so that means jones supports the democrat position of basically open borders where moore, even though he hadn't articulated that much, supports -- is against illegal immigration and supports sessions and trump's view on that. host: so, roger, when you're considering your support then for roy moore, how do you weigh in, factor in these allegations that the president spoke about and others have spoken about? caller: that they all get trump by the issues that are at stake in the vote. that's what trump was saying. you have to vote, at least to some extent, based on the issues that -- and the positions they're taking on

these issues. so i think that's what trump was saying. host: let's flare susan. use -- let's hear from susan, democrats line, new york. go ahead. caller: hi, good morning. i really feel that the president is doing exactly what he would be expected to do. he can't admit to this, because he's in denial, too. he claims he denies that, you know, he harassed women, so when someone else is denying in his party, he needs to support them. i just feel, however, and i will say this, that denial means nothing, because i will remind everyone, even bill clinton denied, and then it was found out that it was true, that things were happening. so i don't believe for a minute -- you know, if one woman came out and said something in alabama, maybe you can question that. eight women? no. something's going on. this man who claims to be a

christian really is a total hypocrite. the president, i'm not surprised what he did, but it's shameful what he did. host: from louisiana, shreveport, independent line, this is john. john, thanks for calling this morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. hank you for taking my call. i believe that donald trump is crazy like a fox. he's supporting moore, which is primarily a smoke screen. he's supporting -- he primarily wants to take away from folks thinking about the tax bill that is coming up that is going to increase the taxes to just about everybody below the super rich. it's going to increase our deficit. it's going to remove -- it's

going to put impediments to ducation and healthcare. and i think that the moore situation and other situations are cases where trump is trying to make a smoke screen to avoid talking about what he really wants. host: do you think that the president's statements, in either way, sway people, particularly -- i know you can't speak for alabama voters, but do you think it sways people one way or the other? caller: i think absolutely, and i think that louisiana is quite similar to alabama. and there are a lot of people double the subtle entendres that moore makes are taken here in louisiana in the ame way.

i also wanted to comment on an earlier caller from alabama talked about the support of the coal mines in alabama and in other parts of the rest but of the united states. it's amazing to me that many folks in the rust belt and in the coal belt feel that trump is going to help them. what is really needed in the 21st century is reeducation in order to be able to -- in order to be able to get 21st century jobs. host: ok, that's john in louisiana. when it comes to celebrity endorsement, it was the former auburn basketball player, charles barkley, asked about alabama senate race. he made these statements

yesterday on the day of the iron bowl clash between auburn and the university of alabama, charles barkley telling nbc news, "if i lived here, i'd vote for doug jones." he was asked to weigh in on politics while unveiling a statue of him outside of auburn's basketball arena. this story goes on, on the jump this morning, saying that, "everybody's going crazy over these sexual allegations. roy moore to me and steve ban nonshould have been disqualified. i don't understand how you can have a guy running with white separatists running for office. you've got ablot of people that are amazing, but to run with a white nationalist, that should have disqualified roy moore way before this women's stuff came up. charles barkley, again, those are the comments he made yesterday. for the next 35 minutes or so, it was the president's comments just before the thanksgiving break that the president talked about those charges against or allegations against roy moore, giving his thoughts on it. again, if you want to give us

your thoughts, 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002. alabama voters, 202-748-8003. from connecticut, this is andy on the phone next, republican line. andy, go ahead. caller: good morning. i don't know why this is considered a smoke screen. donald trump didn't bring the subject up. the reporter asked him a question. he answered the question i thought quite honestly. he said the man denies it ever happened. we're a nation of laws. the man doesn't have a rap sheet. he was never accused of this 40 years ago. he was never indicted. he was never convicted of anything. isn't he -- is he guilty before proven innocent? i don't understand what's going on. host: so you don't see the president's statement more than just that, not any support or anything else like that? caller: he was asked a question and he said the man says he

didn't do it. that was his answer to the question. he didn't say i support this guy. last week he did make a comment he'd rather have someone with his ideas in there than the democrats. he's entitled to say that. that's a true statement also. host: pennsylvania is next. erie, pennsylvania, where jerome is, democrats line. caller: yes, my comment is that, hey, what you expect? donald trump is who he is. he's a person with no moral values. and in his one interview, when he said he grabbed women, he didn't -- privates, and he run up and kiss them, he don't say i think about doing it, he said that's what you he he did because he man a man with money and power, so he feel it's ok if you got money and power to do these things to women. and as far as the wall, building a wall in america is like nazi germany. why would we want a wall?

host: jerome, to the last caller's point, saying that the president was asked a question about roy moore, he answered it, you don't see the statement from last week as a type of endorsement from the president, or do you? caller: yes, it's an endorsement. he's a man with immoral values. as long as moore is going to support his immoral values, yes, i want him in office. the republicans have became the party of immoral values. and donald trump supporters are people who are immoral. if you going to support an immoral man, a man who don't represent the values that you represent, then you know better than him. host: ok, wyoming next, republican line. rock springs is where gary is. hi, gary. caller: hi, how you doing this morning? host: fine, go ahead. caller: so i have a comment on trump's response to the question the reporter asked was like pretty much every other he lican caller has said,

didn't have any support directly for rye moore. he supported the republican arty, and i think trump will throw his support for the opposition, if nothing else to appease everybody else, as far as roy moore goes, whether he's guilty of these allegations or not, i think he should withdraw he lf from the race until has cleared himself not to show that he's guilty necessarily, but to take time to clear his name, which if he's right and the only piece of evidence brought against him, they won't even present, that shouldn't be hard for him to do. so if he truly is innocent, it shouldn't be hard for him to prove. host: so when you hear the president and others say things along what they said when they needed roy moore's vote in the senate for things like tax

reform and other things, what goes through your mind when you hear those statements, especially when you consider the overall issues concerning roy moore? caller: i would say that you absolutely do need that republican vote. now, i don't think it has to be roy moore. i think alabama is a pretty red state, so i think it will be pretty easy for them to get another republican in office. i don't think it will be a big deal for roy moore to pull himself out of the election. host: phillip in the washington examiner's website this morning, takes a look at roy moore in another context, perhaps even that of alabama's future governor, saying this, with moore behind democrat doug jones in the polls, conventional wisdom seems to dictate that a loss in the special alabama senate election would signal an end to the cowboy candidate, but interviews with operatives close to the judge's campaign state representatives and long-time alabama politicals

suggest otherwise. moore seems set up for another run in 2018. after 5u8, the governor's mansion always seemed like plan b, from the beginning, explained a state representative -- host: that was the washington examiner, you can find that on its website at washingtonexaminer.com. dave is next. rochester, michigan, democrats line. hi. caller: hi, good morning. you know, i find it stunning,

but yet not surprising. the people in alabama take the position that they want to vote on the issues, and they want to overlook these charges by eight different women, by the women who -- the woman that seems very critical of a 14-year-old, the people that came forward and said they knew about him, it was common knowledge that he was banned from the mall. i mean, they're closing their eyes. they're selling their souls to put party before country, to put party before morals. it's stunning, but as i say, what happened with trump in the general election, not surprising, how many people just closed their eyes to, you know, to all of it, but with the allegations of sexual allegations against trump. host: do you see the president's statement of that, as sort of a party before everything else kind of situation? caller: oh, he's just walking the line, absolutely he is.

people can parse his words to, you know torque say, oh, he did not really say that. of course -- it's a dog whistle type support for, you know, for moore. but, you know, this party before country is just -- it's got to stop. in all four trickle-down economics and for lies on healthcare, it's going to be cheaper and better and all that, i mean, why people want to vote against their own self-interest is beyond me, but that's, you know. host: ok, from our line for -- we've dedicated for alabama residents this morning, chris in mobile, hi. chris in mobile, alabama, go ahead, you're on. caller: yes, sir. i just wanted to say that, regarding trump's comments, i mean, the "new york times" has already gone on the record saying that privately he's claimed that he's just doing this because he wants to retain the seat. so there's no secret there. but i want to say that from a

larger perspective, alabama will vote moore in, i'm afraid, and there's a deep distrust with, you know, outsiders regarding the "new york times," "the washington post" reporters , but i would drive around republican areas, there's no yard signs. it's sort of the same 2016 dynamic playing again. you know, where there were no yard signs for trump, but trump won overwhelmingly. i think you're going see the same thing here. host: what's been the ad coverage where you live leading up to this race on december 12? caller: there's a lot of money being spent on the doug jones side. you see a lot of doug jones ads. but again, i think my own view is that tribalism is going to win out in the end. there's a distrust of democrats . that goes back generations. i just don't see doug jones, he doesn't have the charisma to

overcome it. host: i guess what i'm hearing is your hesitancy about roy moore, specifically what is that? caller: well, i think -- well, i think the charges are true. i mean, i think he likes -- well, i think the charges are true, i'll just leaf it at that. i mean, there was a deeply sourced story. there were 30 sources. "the washington post" reporters went back and interviewed the victims and collaborate with their friends and found out that kemp ains to the accounts, that they made these accusations. this isn't something that was cooked up by the liberal heat to torpedo his bid. this is something that's been known, even amongst republicans . it's been known that he likes young women. so i mean, will it fly? yes, it will fly. i mean, i think a lot of people are uncomfortable with it, but they'll vote him in anyway for partisan reasons. i just don't think theirs way to overcome that. host: chris in alabama, who

lives in mobile, giving his thoughts this morning. he spoke about those ads, media ads, particularly on the campaign for doug jones. here's one of those ads that residents of alabama are seeing. >> on roy moore's disturbing actions, ivanka trump says there's a special place in hell for people who prey on children, and i have no reason to doubt the victims' accounts. jeff sessions says i no reason to doubt these young women. and richard shelby says he will absolutely not vote for roy moore. conservative voices putting children and women over party, oing what's right. host: the al.com story, website also has this story, this reportedly the president's reaction to ivanka trump's statements that you heard on the ad, do you believe this is the headline from that story. you can find it online at al.com. again, for the remainder of our time together, 25 minutes in

this first half, your thoughts on the president's statements. these were made just before he left for the break at thanksgiving, asked about roy moore, gave his thoughts on the campaign, the allegations, and getting your thoughts on the president's statement, particularly if you think it's appropriate or not. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002. and if you are an alabama voter, 202-748-8003. jemele, indiana, democrats line, you're next. caller: thank you. how you doing? host: i'm well, thank you. caller: all right. just wanted to say that if alabama votes in moore, that doesn't mean he's innocent. the t does mean that eople -- the christian right

will be over. the republicans' stance on morality will be over. they have options. i mean, voting a democrat in is not the end of the world. also, if the president has to work with democrats to get tax reform, that is something that's not that far-fetched. that is not something that's far in our past that we did you not used to do. we used to work with each other and compromise. he's had all three chambers since he was voted in. a lot of these issues that people were worried about, he hasn't moved on them yet. if he hasn't moved on them yet, what is roy moore going to help? make sure they're not going to get anything past. they're going to be worried about getting voted back in. but if they vote roy moore in, it will be the end of the christian right. i believe the seat is only for two years, so voting a democrat in is not the end of the world, and also, i believe that if we

could work together and compromise on tax reform, which i tell you, there are democrats that want tax reform, i think that would bring the country together. but these cultural wars have to end. i'm not telling alabama how to vote. you know, i know they have their own lives down there, just like i do up here, but the cultural wars have to end, because it doesn't get us anywhere. host: let's go to diane, virginia, independent line. caller: yes, good morning. i'm just going to comment on how i feel about the general climate of everything. i have to think back to arthur miller's "the crucible." i think we're almost at that time, that people can get up, and if they don't like something, generally accusations, and then there will be the whole force of media builds behind them, and the next thing i am expecting is a stake to be put up and

people be burned at the stake. we really are on a dangerous slope here unless we take a very close look at this and the issues, and before the media really gets the momentum and gets and moving with areas where we don't know. i've heard several people say that they were looking for something, the one accuser, he never produced the facts. so are we basically crucifying a person on hearsay? host: to the president's statement, what did you think about the statement itself and the appropriateness of it? caller: are you talking about trump? host: yes. caller: i actually think he's taking the stance he needs to take. now, i'm not a moore fan. certainly, there's a wrong there, it needs to be looked at. i think it needs to be looked at more closely, but he's sitting at some distance from

this, and i just think -- he never came out and said he's in favor or approving of the behavior. he's stepping back, really, and everybody is saying that he's taking a stand with moore. i didn't see it that way. host: midlothian, ronald, republican line. hello. caller: hi, thanks for taking my call. i'm 60 years old, and in my lifetime, what i've seen is that there are two families that have been held very high in esteem with the democrats, and that's the kennedys and the clintons. and they're probably on record for the most sex offenses of any family that's ever been elected to an office. ted kennedy left a woman to die. john had a different woman in every stop. bill clinton, i mean, come on,

fellas, give me a break here. democrats, you're a bunch of hip credits. thank you. host: so, ronald, talk about the president's statement -- ronald hung up. we'll continue on with calls for the next couple of minutes. one of the things that happened just before the thanksgiving break was richard cordray announcing that he would leave the position, which set off a question about who would eventually take his place. the president trying to -- in talking about the position and its future, said this when it comes to the cfpb, it's been a total disaster as run by the previous administration pick, financial institutions have been devastated and unable to properly serve the public. we will bring it back to life. the president, in making that atement, also said that mick mulvaney, current person who heads the budget office, would

at least temporarily look after cfpb, but of the now there are questions about that. the "new york times" said this morning --

host: that will probably play out tomorrow, as you see what's going on here in washington, d.c., but that story today in the "new york times." terra hear next from thought, indiana, independentline, hi. caller: hi. are you still there? host: yes, you're on, go ahead. caller: ok. getting to this allegations against this moore, you know, when you have multiple allegations, you got to really take it seriously, you know?

and trump's comment about it, i'm sure in his mind he's thinking about all the multiple allegations against him. i still don't believe, you know, even one guy was talking about the clintons, kennedys, you know, they were accused of being skirt chasers. but i don't think they were accused of being a pedophile. i don't believe that you should pick the party over your country. you know, if roy did this, this is really despicable. twice, hasn't he been fired from a judge job or something? host: ellen, miami beach, florida, democrats line. caller: hi, yes, i was listening to all the comments,

just because president trump said they didn't do it, so that must be true, that has no valid at all. i remember back to the early 1990's, when the case of the central park five was very hot. at that time, donald trump felt obliged for some reason to take out a full-page ad stating that those young men were guilty and should be put to death. now, they denied that they had ything to do with that case, but yet donald trump felt that they were guilty. so, of course, they've all been exonerated since then, although the lives were interrupted and destroyed. so the fact that donald trump says, well, he says he didn't do it, that's nothing.

on the other hand, it seems as if donald trump has racist tendencies, as does roy moore. and a few of the people called in and said, well, you know, doug jones, he doesn't support that wall. the money could be spent better on other things. that doesn't mean that he supports open borders. i don't support the wall, but i don't support open borders. there are other ways to ensure that immigration is legal. it's just like people who say, oh, if you support a woman's right to have a abortion, you are pro abortion. no, i'm not pro abortion. i think abortion is horrible. but i do support a woman's right to choose. host: ok, cape coral, florida, republican line. bill, you're next up. caller: thanks. i just want to say, i think it's disgusting that i hear,

liberals always talk about racism. this situation has nothing to do with race. this situation has to do with an allegation versus a fact. can i ask you a zpwhe is an allegation the same thing as someone actually committing a crime? host: i think you asked it rhetorically, but you know the answer. go ahead. caller: i do. so when i hear those situations, and to the previous caller, i will give her credit, because you're right, you can't be a hypocrite in your statement. and so i think about duke, brian banks, all these people who are falsely accused, and i'm not trying to say roy moore should be the next u.s. senator, but what i am saying is this, if the media has not given as much push on all of these allegations that are coming out against liberal candidates and they're focusing on roy moore and an accusation when there's a picture of al franken grabbing a woman, to me that's a problem. so i think that the media, not

c-span, because you guys have been fair, have a responsibility to either wait until someone actually gets convicted before they run and have the innocent process, or they need to be fair in their approach about it. donald trump is fine. there's a big difference between an allegation versus conviction, and we've got to stop doing it, because we're going to be arresting and convicted innocent people over our emotions. host: ok, that's bill in cape coral, florida. reports over the weekend that senator franken was expected to speak with media today about those allegations brought against him of sexual harassment. no specifics on who will talk or when that's expected to happen, but only reportedly today. ken is in philadelphia, pennsylvania, independent line. go ahead, ken. you're on. caller: yes, young man didn't realize what the young lady

said. now, you got a party that's wants to control a woman's body, which is ridiculous. after they assault a woman, you still have control over this party and this guy, d.t., he admitted that he was a pervert. he admitted that he groped women. this other guy is chasing kids around. i mean, wasn't he barred from the mall? host: the president's statement about roy moore, what do you think of it specifically? caller: well, roy moore should do like he did. admit that did he it. they'll elect him. he admitted that he did it, didn't he, and they elected him. i mean, how did that work for this party of lunatics? host: that's ken from philadelphia on the front page of "the washington post" this morning, taking a look at the role that jared kushner, the president's son-in-law, plays in the current days of the trump administration. ashley parker writing the story, saying --

host: it goes on from there, talking about the current role that jared kushner plays. the headline saying the shrinking profile of that.

you can read that in "the washington post" this morning. chicago, illinois, democrats line. caller: yes, good morning, hi, how are? host: i'm well, thanks. go ahead. caller: ok, so my views on president, his stance on roy moore, is to me, is sending -- is not sending a good message to the country. and, you know, the people. for me, for somebody to make allegations against another person, apparently the evidence, it probably wasn't concrete, but it was evidence. and all these women, they etty much, they explain what their experience was with roy moore, when they were teenagers, and he was a grown man. so if the people in alabama, i mean, if they really, truly want to represent a person with

characteristics such as roy moore, i mean, it's pretty much, not too much that anybody can do if they finally do get elected and become a senator, but at the same time, the senators are saying pretty much they will expel him, because i mean, what's happening now in our country, i've never, ever saw it before. and donald trump is pretty much who and what he is. i don't know, it's really truly troubling. host: ok, let's go on to john. missouri, republican line. caller: by the way, you're doing a really good job. nd i totally agree with trump. i dismiss the timing of these allegations, that the people wait 30, 40 years. in my opinion, when i wait that

long, i don't care what the excuse is, it's garbage. and the timing, wait till after change e so you can't it, that i think it is probably political. some of them may be telling the truth, but as far as i can tell, the only one, if it were true, the girl under the age of consent. host: so john, the president's statement in itself, you don't see that as an endorsement of any type? caller: no, and it's also practical. he needs the vote. he can't even get half the republicans to go along, because they're part of the swamp, as near as i can tell. but it is important to maintain the majority. if the democrats get in, it will be the end of anything that accomplishment. he's already helping the economy, and i think we're going to have a recession no

matter what. but it will be less deep if we free up the economy. host: that's john in missouri this morning. the pargese of the "new york times," america's heartland, a voice of hate next door, a picture of tony in ohio, the sub head saying, or at least the caption, books about hit scompler mussolini are on the shelf, a white nationalist said this election helped open a space for people like him. the story goes on to say --

host: that's in the "new york times" this morning, if you want to read it for yourself. in new orleans, this is madeleine, i wantline. -- independent line. caller: i think we ought to be very clear as a country that both parties, democrat and republicans, are corrupt. and that anyone who gets to national prominence has probably done hundreds, if not

thousands of things that are both immoral, probably illegal, and that this is the problem that we have as a country. people are not speaking honestly about the debt. they don't speak honestly about healthcare. they don't speak honestly about immigration. none of those things are discussed in the area of truth. it is simply opinion spouted to promote their point of view. host: so madeleine, to relate that to the president's comments about roy moore, which we're discussing this morning, go ahead. caller: that's what i'm saying, certainly the president of the united states, anybody that watched the campaign and all the things that were said and all the people that continued to back him, you are talking about corruption, corruption of morals. solder society says america is becoming a continued a to do that, and that is where we are. americans need to face that and

decide whether or not they want to continue in that vein or whether or not they want to make changes. host: ok, harold in maryland, democrats line. go ahead, you're next. caller: hi, good morning. i was sitting here listening with interest to this conversation, but people in the north don't understand the south at all. and this trump supporters and the roy moore supporters are the same, and they've all come out of the south, and they believe firmly that trump and moore have been anointed by jesus christ. they believe that neither these people can do any wrong. the truth is that these people are not christian conservatives. they're un-christian, and they're extremists. the second pointed that i wanted to make -- host: that's a pretty broad brush you painted. how do you come to that conclusion? caller: listen to what they say. listen in talk radio and other

forms. host: when they say things like what? caller: that trump is anointed by jesus christ. host: you've heard this specifically? caller: absolutely. google is. ball. cyrus the wrecking and look at the things that they're saying. that god uses evil people and bad people to do good things. they use this as an excuse to vote for these people. host: ok, we'll go to kimberly, last call on this topic, republican line, washington, pennsylvania. hi, kimberly. caller: good morning, pedro. pretty wild out there. i have two points. first point is, for the guy who said that moore would lose the christian vote, the first rule of being a christian is to forgive. doesn't say anything about forgetting. but you have to forgive to be forgiven, number one. and i don't know if he's guilty or not, you know, this stuff is

prevalent. and as far as the senators trying to block him if he does win, all those who have been proven to be perverts should resign today. kimberly, last call onocrisy.h: this topic. we will carry on our conversation. our first guest talks about scandals within the republican party. could it affect the future, especially in the 2018 election? we find out from pete wehner. later, we will examine scandals in the democratic party as well from "the nation's" katha pollitt. intervieweders," we representative raul grijalva. he talks about the sexual harassment charges you have

heard about and the case of representative john conyers, the judiciary committee's ranking member. [video clip] >> the maltreatment of women employees by leadership in the offices, i.e., members of congress, i think deserves the airing it is getting. more importantly, any harassment, sexual harassment, the use of power, to inflict unseemly requests on .omen are wrong i really think, on this issue, that as agonizing as it may be for all of us, that the ranking member needs to step down, at the minimum, as leader pelosi ethicsor, an

investigation, and the chips will fall from there. i agree that is a necessary step. we are past the tipping point. whether it is in the boardroom, whether on the floor, whether in a shop, in a business, or in the halls of congress and government, any government level power andationship of the attempt to exploit that power, sexually, and to demean, demand with a sexual connotation -- that change is not only needed, it is happening. it is happening because you have reached the tipping point. host: again, if you want to see that entire interview on our "new maiziere -- is atakers" program, it

10:00 today and 6:00 p.m. eastern. you can also hear it on c-span radio. and available on c-span.org. the formerr is director of the office of strategic initiatives for the bush administration and joins us now. guest: good morning. host: a little about the ethics and public policy center. what does it involve itself in? guest: it is a public policy think tank. one.ium-sized it involves a whole range of issues. the idea is the ethical dimensions with but policy. our founder is a judicial expert. it punches above its weight.

it is conservative in its orientation, but it is a turkey and conservatism -- berkian conservatism. it is one of the places i came soon after college. duty intours of between. i was in government and served three republican presidents. host: what is it like for a person who observes the world of ethics like you do examining that current world? guest: it is depressing. i am a conservative and a person of christian faith. i believe in the fall. it is the one empirically true christian doctrine. the fact that people fall and mess up, i understand. but i must say this is a low moment for politics.

it is a problematic motive -- moment. politics is important. if you get politics wrong, there is a huge human cost to that. and people are cynical about it. seeing these sexual harassment stories, out in politics and the it isand hollywood, striking. it is important to remove her that these things have been going on for years and years. i think it is a good moment that now it is coming out in the open, there is accountability going on. but it's extraordinary. shift topid cultural it like a light switch going on and off. it is almost as if harvey weinstein -- the harvey weinstein revelations catalyzed a whole set of stories. but to see them day after day, sometimes several times a day, it is really disturbing. it is a story about depravity,

about power. host: specifically, what do you draw when you look at the alabama race, particularly roy moore, particularly about statements made about the moral and political issues, when the president and other people say you need his vote for other issues. wrap that up for us. does not surprise me, but it is depressing. i think roy moore was a disaster. he was before these revelations came out. he is not a person interested in governing. the fact that he is unquestionably a sexual predator and was preying on underage girls is really horrible. i do not think the people of alabama should vote for him. if you were in the senate, he would be deeply problematic for that body and for republicans generally. but it seems as if a lot of republicans in alabama have --

are either not bothered by the charges or do not believe them. you have to almost willfully make a willful effort not to believe them, because the "post" story that unveiled these allegations was so comprehensive. there were contemporaneous accounts of the woman, in particular, who was then 14 years old. a lot of women have, out -- have come out since then. it was clear that he was a predator, that he would cruise for young girls. this is really bad. i wish that he would step down, but i do not imagine he will. he may win. if you does, it will bring its own problems. host: join us for the conversation. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can tweet us, @cspanwj.

and post on our facebook, comments@c-span.org. if roy moore wins, is there a larger moral issue for the republican party at large? guest: sure. the republican party will have, as one of its prominent faces, roy moore, who is a sexual predator. and donald trump, who himself has been subject to a dozen or so allegations of sexual harassment. that is not a good thing to have politically. it is not a good thing to have morally. particularly for the republican party, which, once upon a time, made character of its leaders central to the arguments it made. we do not have to go that far back -- to the 1990's, when bill clinton was president, that it was republicans and conservatives and "virtue-crats" making the case against clinton on moral grounds.

sexuality is not the only thing that matters, but there are some lines that should not be transgressed. i should say democrats have their own problems, in terms of hypocrisy. bill clinton, obviously, had his own problems with sexual predation, including what i think are plausible charges of rape. time, did notthat care. they decided they would defend bill clinton, no matter what. now, tony is after that happened, they have all of a sudden had a revelation where this kind of thing matters. there is hypocrisy on both sides. this is evidence of an acute political tribalism that affect both parties. host: in mid-november, part of your statement says there is a --ain in the political right they --

do you think that applies to the current day? guest: yes. every day and week that goes on confirms that analysis. i think donald trump is a person who is not only attacking us all, he is attacking truth. he is trying to annihilate it. he does it on a daily basis through his twitter account. there is also something else. he has no interest in governing or in any command of the issues, learning about the issues, or in governing well. that is clear, if you talk to people -- republicans on capitol hill, as i have, including high-ranking ones who have to deal with the white house. or people who work in the white house itself. there is a kind of disdain and

contempt of ideas and governing is clear.ich i think there is a movement that has been on the american right for some years now that i think has been accelerated under donald trump, in which there is this kind of content for governing and ideas. they view politics not as a way to govern but as a theater. it is an arena in which to play out a whole series of psychodramas. that has really bothered me. when i grew up and was formed as a conservative was the 1980's. that was really in the shadow of the reagan years. in thepatrick moynihan "new york times" wrote that the gop has all of a sudden become the party of ideas. there was a lot of pride in the intellectual seriousness of

conservatism. you think about some of the major books during that era. "losing ground." "the closing of the american mind." these are serious books about sociology and paul the policy -- public policy. beennk a lot of that has lost. there is a kind of world wrestling federation element to this. trump is a personification of it. there are a lot of republicans and people on the right entranced by it. bob, your first call from republican line, illinois. caller: good morning. i am a recent convert. i was a 40 year democrat, but i voted for trump. better ideas of closing the border as opposed to the democrats, with an open border.

i think our country is doing much better. i do not understand why republicans cannot stick together and push a couple of items over the finish line for trump. as a democrat, i am upset with president obama foregoing seven years and 10 months with the russians attacking our elections , not doing nothing, and the when trump was, president-elect, blaming trump for rush in collusion. i do not think trump himself thought he was going to win. i think the russians were against hillary for sure, but i do not see them pushing for trump. guest: thanks. appreciate the questions. i will try to deal with them in the order you raised them. in terms of donald trump and closing the border, he has talked a lot about this wall. this wall will not be billed. -- built.

i do not think donald trump, in his heart of hearts believes in it. he was able to tap into certain grievances and resentments that had arisen in the republican party. he would tap into those things in the campaign when he need to -- when he needed to, when it comes to banning muslims or mexicans over the border. there are plenty of other republicans who want to control the border. i think it is wise to control the border. i think you could argue that immigration rates need to slow down. we need to reform it and bring high skilled workers here. but the fact is donald trump simply throws that these words and promises and does not deliver on them, and it does not seem to matter. this is what i mean about the lack of seriousness. in terms of republicans not sticking together, most of them are, but i have to tell you, having worked in three administrations in the white

house, what is striking in this case is not only do you not have the president being an ally, he is an adversary to what republicans have been trying to do. to give you one concrete example, the repeal of the fordo care act. -- the affordable care act. anchor tomp was an the republicans. there were cases in which republican senators would have meetings, and they would have to essentially get trump out of the room, because he was so destructive to their efforts. you talk to house republicans, where he made promises to one republican and another -- these were competing promises. theould end up bollocksing negotiations. he was not a rallying point at all. there were no primetime speeches. in 60was no 60 cities days to make the case. normally, if you have a president trying to do big

reforms -- that is hard enough. in this case, to have a president who is the -- actually a detriment is difficult. in terms of russia, i am not a butof barack obama, goodness sakes -- the russians were involved in our 26 elections, trying to elect donald trump. we will see what robert mueller finds out, but what we know, just on the surface, i think there is a lot going on below the surface. all roads lead to russia when it comes to trump and his advisers. we will see whether there was active collusion or not. if your concern is russia's involvement in the 2016 election, i think most of your anger and wrath should be directed towards donald trump, not barack obama. served in thet white house for george w. bush. served as the speechwriter for ronald reagan. served under george h.w. bush.

thatreaction made against your reaction to allegations of sexual harassment against george bush?h -- george h.w. guest: what you have to do with the sexual harassment cases is look at individual facts and circumstances. looked at the record. i think that is in a category completely different than what you are dealing with roy moore. or al franken or john conyers or other people. you have to look at the totality of the person. george h.w. bush is a person, i think, on almost all accounts, is a very admirable man. i have not followed the particulars of those cases other than saying that i think they were saying he was in a

wheelchair and in his 90's -- he should not have done it. i think he apologize for doing it. but i think that is in a different allegory th -- cate gory than preying on 14-year-olds. host: another republican from florida. question i have is since you are an ethics man, how ethical is it for congress to have a slush fund to pay off people who have been sexually mistreated or, for other reasons in the work place, that the american people have to pay for? guest: it stinks. fund.a slush is this the kind of stuff -- when congress does this -- that draws people crazy. i understand why it does. they seem to be creating rules that allow them to play by one set, and the american people by another set.

they are just covering stuff up. needs to beere disinfectent. there is a study of institutions, how often the --ulse is to cover out cover-up a scandal that happens. we saw it with the catholic church, with the predation that followed there. with all institutions. when something goes wrong, the impulse always -- almost always is to hide it, keep it away, hope it never comes out. .t just has a corrupting affect this, i think, is an example of it. now that it is out and open. hopefully, that will change. this is the kind of thing, by the way, that creates a populist revolt. remember the banking scandal in the early 1990's -- i do not think that was on par with this, but people had a sense that

people were playing by two sets of rules. it really ticks them off. host: do you think we will ever see transparency when it comes to where these payments went? guest: in this particular case? i hope we do. i imagine we probably will, because you should be able to investigate this. now that it is out in the open, they try and cover it up beyond what we have had so far would be difficult. but i hope we do. if it is public money, we should know what it is being used for. host: from georgia -- caller: good morning. when you talk about ethics and politics, that is almost like an oxymoron. there is no ethics. what is going on today is what has been done in the dark coming to the light, especially with congress. like the caller from florida,

isgusting that they can have money that they can hide behind. .hey should be outed this is ridiculous. that is why people voted for donald trump, because they got tired of the hypocrisy of the democrats and the republicans. those of them are so unethical. that is what is making the american public so angry. i voted for donald trump, but not for the reason you think. catalystor him to be a to bring both the democrats and republicans down, because neither one work for the betterment of the american people. they only work for those corporations that fund them. all of it needs to implode. guest: thanks for the call and the questions. let me go through them. first one you said there is no such thing as ethics in public policy -- i disagree with that.

my view is not what i would consider that cynical and jaded. sopent part of the morning, far, going through particular scandals that are problematic. but i would say several things about it. first is that lack of morality and ethics is not confined to politics. you will find it in the banking world. you will find it among waiters and waitresses, among lawyers and doctors -- all sorts of places. in idea that politics is its own world when it comes to lack of ethical behavior is not fair. what happens is when there are scandals, it gets a lot of attention. i have worked in politics most of my adult life. most of the people i have worked with and spent time with our good and decent people, republicans and democrats. they got involved in politics because they are trying to do the right thing. that is one of the reasons why

it these high-profile scandals bother me so much, because people see it and assume this is what everybody does. and they condemn everybody with these sweeping generalizations. i just do not think that is fair . there is always a danger in politics, because politics involves power. -- because of human nature power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. there is that danger. that is why you need checks and balances. but i do not think you can give up on politics or believe politics is completely removed from ethics. politics is an important -- politics is imperfect but important. in terms of donald trump and why you voted for him, a lot of my friends were not happy because i

was a public critic of his, but i get their narrative. their view is that both parties wouldrrupt, that trump drain the swamp, that he was a wrecking ball to the so-called establishment, that he would change things. that is what we needed. i understand the impulse. he was such a radically imperfect vehicle to do that. oryour concern is corruption hypocrisy, donald trump is probably the last person you should want. there is no evidence he is draining the swamp at all or that he is reforming government in good and important ways. this guy cannot govern his way out of a paper back. there is -- a paper bag. there is a real problem, but he is not the solution. i will give him this. he was a genius at tapping into those feelings of resentment and anger and presenting himself as an agent of change.

but i think it has been shown it was a lot of hot air. host: from new jersey, democrat line. caller: good morning. guest: how are you? caller: good. democrat, but i guess i am a centerleft democrat. i guess i am a dying breed. i am a democrat but i am also a fan of people like charlie dent. these are tuesday group people. and i think about you and people like reese bartlett, who -- bruce bartlett, for moderate to people who are sensitive conservatives, who are willing to look across the aisle and look for solutions to problems. when i hear people like the last caller say there is no ethics and politics, i think the problem is she is looking at the shiny object and not looking at

those people who go to work every day and who actually tried to find solutions to problems and who are willing to work with their political counterparts across the aisle and do not think of them as the enemy. it is really frustrating to me to hear people talk about donald trump as being some sort of savior who will blow up things and train the swamp. when you listen to them talk, it is almost -- i lived in japan for a lot of years. it is almost like state-sponsored shinto. the idea that donald trump is some sort of anointed figure, some messiah who will save the day. if you are really looking for somebody who will blow things up, why would you choose a guy who has spent his entire career cheating people? host: thanks. guest: thank you. i agree with a lot of what you said, both in terms of amplifying my point about politics and people in politics,

and of course, there are a lot of people in politics. there are state legislatures, governors, members of congress. a lot of folks. i think a lot of them are good and decent people, trying to do hard and intricate work. but in terms of trump, there is a kind of, what i would say, cult of personality around him. the poor thing to bear in mind as he is extremely unpopular -- of the important thing to bear in mind is he is extremely unpopular. the lowest rating of any president in a first term that we have seen. just toxic for an awful lot of people. but there is a core group of trump supporters, and i hear from them, where it seems there is nothing he can do that is wrong. they seem to want to bend reality and truth around him. they view him as almost a kind savior.-secular

when you make the empirical case against him, sometimes, it does not penetrate. again, i do not want to pick on or the american right. it is happening on the american left and democrats as well. we live in a time in which the idea of truth is really being corroded. and this political tribalism, what social scientists and more psychologists refer to as confirmation bias -- we only look for information that confirms our pre-existing believes. that has always existed. it is part of human nature. i get that. i am not exempt from it. but the degree to which we see it today -- and the degree to which we see it with trump supporters -- is quite striking. it probably bothers me in particular because i have been a lifelong conservative and republican. to see that happen to the

movement i have been part of and the party i have been part of is painful. host: peter wehner joining us from the ethics and public policy center. he serves as a senior fellow bear. eppc.org, the website. we take a look at evangelicals and if there is a crisis -- what you think about these arguments? you heard about those who supported donald trump specifically. what does it say as a whole? ss is a friend. i agree with the title. i think there is an evangelical crisis. i am a person of christian faith. that is my community. painful forn most me. as a person of faith, seeing what has happened. i should put in a couple of

caveats. huge movement. a more than a quarter of the american population considers themselves evangelical. so it is easy to make sweeping generalizations about them. the second thing is i know a lot of evangelical christians who either oppose donald trump, roy moore, or, if they vote for him, did it with reluctance. there are a lot of people whose faith informs their politics. i think they show integrity. having said that, i think there is a real problem. i have written a lot on it, because i think that the way a lot of evangelical christians are handling themselves in this moment, as it relates to politics, as it relates to trump , to roy moore in alabama, is discrediting to the faith. it looks super critical to people. i think it is hypocritical, in a lot of cases. i think he is being subordinated

to politics. people are coming out at a particular political position and reconfiguring their faith to support it. there is a proxy because, as i said, of any group article of bill clinton back in the 1990's, who made the case consistently that what mattered in leaders was public character -- those were evangelical christians. they have completely flipped on that. now you hear the same arguments heardfrom them that you from clinton supporters in the 1990's. who king david had sins, are you to cast of the first stones. that we believe in forgiveness -- someone was making that argument to you in the previous hour. if most people take a step back and see what is going on here -- these folks decided they have a political state or investment --

political stake or investment in this person. leaders, likeent -- theyen grand, believe they have access to power, so they do not want to forfeit that power. they do not want to destroy that bridge. say, publicly,t what i would hope they would know privately. a maybe they do not even see privately. whatever the case, so much of what is going on out there in the public realm and among figures isngelical very disturbing. there are some really admirable people, like russell moore, southern baptists, runs the ethics and religious liberty congress, who i think has been strongly conservative in his believes but spoke up against trump during the campaign. but those are come unfortunately, few and far

between. again, i do not want to paint too broad a brush. a lot of evangelicals are doing wonderful work, charitable work, and making life in the nation better. andin this particular area this particular set of issues, it is troubling. host: on our republican line from maryland, mike. caller: yes. instead of convicting donald of the andcourt bearing false witness, we have to look at the facts -- guest: i agree with that. caller: let me finish, please. -- refuses to allow handwriting analysis to go over the yearbook which was supposedly signed. you will quote the "washington post," the king of fake news? a $600,000 contract from the cia? nothing has been proven so far. it was all allegations.

for womenad a bounty to come forward and make these allegations. guest: thanks. that last statement is what in poker you call the tell. the "washington post" was selling this store to -- that on roy moore was shown to be false. there was a person -- i think bobby bernstein, was going through alias names. it was a recorded call. in fact, that person does not work at the post. he is a make-believe person. this is an effort to discredit the "post." the "post" story is ironclad, as best i know. -- i will roy moore point, he made the argument the county he was in at that time, where the woman said he had bought drinks for her -- he said

it is a dry county. that was the war more argument. they went back and it was not a dry county at that time. this is what i am talking about. this try ballistic -- t ribalistic point of view. the argument from the caller is , andpost" reported it therefore it cannot be true. and roy moore is a republican and trump likes them, therefore the charges cannot be true. that is just how you can not engage in public life and public this course. you have to be open to the facts. you have to be open even to uncomfortable facts. let me give you an analogy with the washington post. the washington post is a liberal newspaper. i get that. i am republican. i am conservative. i have seen that over the years. but it is a very good newspaper. the argument that because the "post" reports on it, it therefore cannot be true -- it is absurd.

the "post" was a liberal newspaper during watergate, but does that mean what bob woodward reported about watergate was false? no. what they reported was true. richard nixon was a crook and he did resign because of the crimes he committed any of the "post" rightly won awards for it. this is the reality of politics today, where you cannot even agree on a set of facts. you have someone calling and saying the "post" offering $7,000 for dirt on roy moore. that is false. i do not necessarily blame him. it shows the capacity we have to inject these falsehoods and lies into the public bloodstream. there are an awful lot of people who want to believe them. that is all you have to do. once they hear them, they latch on. host: was not always the case? or date donald trump in the campaign change the focus on the media? elements have

always existed. if you look back in the history of journalism in america, you have yellow journalism and tremendously partisan wars going on. what is different now is, in part, social media. that we have the capacity to inject these lies and falsehoods in ways that just were not able to be done before. you can do it on twitter and the russiansugh have taken advantage of it. what we are finding out, from the way they were involved and help correct the 26th election is they really took advantage of technology and social media. this is not new to the russians. when it was the soviet union, they tried this kind of thing. but they were very ham-handed and clumsy. they are much more sophisticated now. that is probably because they have the ability to master this technology that did not exist before.

host: let's go to cincinnati, ohio. democrats line. caller: hi. how are you doing? my family and i -- we learned that the government of niger has now turned to the return thement and remains of let david johnson -- ladavid johnson, after his burial. as far as i am concerned, i will call my local coniston and give him -- congressman and give him hell. i promise you, as a community, she was a gold star widow. any -- to have anyone

returned back to their family in isgrace. a d this is fact. even fox will not be able to deny this. that is not right. host: thanks, caller. guest: thank you. i am sympathetic to your point. i do not know why donald trump -- he finds this needed to get into these arguments and public disputes with the parents of fallen soldiers. i just do not understand. the worst thing that can happen to a parent, to a person, is to lose a child. and, in the midst of that grief and horror, have the commander in chief get into a public debate with you or a twitter fight with you just does not make sense.

and this episode, you have the k the 26 teenuring election. and in a different category, you have what donald trump said about john mccain, who, by any any means -- was a the vietnamved in war. and to have donald trump, who had bone spurs in his ankle -- that he cannot quite remember -- to mock him because he was a prisoner of war is troubling. this goes to a deeper issue of donald trump. and the back and forth between republicans and conservatives. they made the argument, during an campaign -- trump is imperfect person, and imperfect vehicle, but there are certain public policies, and that is

sufficient argument for vote for him over hillary clinton. i did not agree with that. i did not vote for either one. i understand that argument. my counter to that is what really matters most in it president, in my experience -- this is more forceful now than when i was younger -- is temperament. wisdom. judgment. character, broadly defined. there are so many issues, when you are president, that you cannot anticipate and cannot figure out the cause of how they check a policy box. on that issue of temperament, i think donald trump is as far and away worse than we have ever seen in a major political candidate. this example of going after the gold star families, parents of fallen war heroes, shows there is a missing empathy gene in him. i have argued before that he has

a disordered personality. that combination of lack of judgment, lack of prudence, dilation of truth and what i think are psychological and emotional problems, combining that with power of the presidency is a very dangerous, nation. host: our guest has written several books. including "morality of democratic capitalism." any current work? guest: i am. it is arguing that politics is an imperfect but noble profession. it is at a low point. we have to get it right and understand again what politics is and what it is not. and, as i was saying earlier, why it is important. in which youne way pursue justice. it is not the only way. but it is one way. if you get politics wrong, there can be tremendous ramifications

that are negative if you get it wrong, positive if you get it right. host: let's go to cleveland, ohio, independent line. caller: good morning. guest: how are you? caller: pretty good. it sounds like you're from the establishment. i do not believe these phony polls that say everyone hates donald trump. it is the same media that said he would get destroyed in a landslide. second of all, again, bob dole, and mitt romney were very eloquent losers when they ran for president area donald trump is a fighter. that is what we need. republicans are a bunch of sissies when it comes to negotiating with the democrats in congress. as far as the so-called expert republicans, all of the people that were killed in the iraq war thanks to bush, the $2 trillion

of money that knows where that number is going to end up skyrocketing to? the trump to get with train. you must hang out with bill kristol and guys such as that. corker is going to be gone. jeff flake is going to be gone -- host: ok, we have your call. guest: that is a lot of anger so early in the morning. host: when you say "get on the trump train," how do you respond? guest: that is not a trained i am getting on. when the history of the times is written, i think that train is going to end up colliding with reality. it will not be pretty. i think we are starting to see it. some of what with the caller said. he said i am part of the establishment. i am, actually. i am part of the establishment. if you mean someone who has worked in public fixed --

politics and lived in washington. i do not make apologies or that. i think a lot of people in the establishment have been good. i think the establishment has not done well. are actually impressive people here. in terms of trump being a fighter -- i get that. but maybe you should ask yourself, fight for what? what great cause is he fighting for? for conservatism? the answer is no. for nobility? the answer is no. for the public good, the common good? the answer is no pay he is a fighter. a fighter for one person -- donald j. trump. he fights dirty. he is a person who i think is fundamentally a corrupt person. now, the fact that he is a fighter and is a fighter on b forf of himself and stands

corruption, if that is what you want, that is what we got. that is what we are seeing unfold. as i have heard it one time, i heard it a thousand times through the campaign, saying he is a writer, that he will drain the -- say he is a fighter, that he will drain the swamp -- there is no evidence he has done that. beyond all of that, what it takes to succeed in politics and help the life of a country is not a fighter. it has to be a doer. somebody who has some high principles, some high calling, some confidence. i would argue the greatest president in american history was abraham lincoln. he was a wonderful combination of a fighter. he fought on behalf of justice. he was also a healer. his second inaugural was one of the great sermons in american history, where he called us to bind up the wounds that divided us. one of the things i count

against donald trump -- there are a lot of them, but one of them -- is he takes the divisions in our society and makes them worse. radar, thishas this ability, to focus in on an issue. one example is the nfl kneeling, players kneeling. i am against that. what the donald trump do? he went to a speech in alabama and weighed in on this issue, not because the president has any say or policy implications -- he did it in order to polarize the country. in order to take this issue, which had a lot -- touched a lot of emotional cores. he pours kerosene and lights the fire. then, he starts this month-long debate. it is not an area the president should be involved in. but he goes for it, because he

thrives on it. when i observe donald trump, i think he is unsettled when things are calm. i think he has a deep need to create chaos. host: peter wehner with the ethics and public policy center. eppc.org. coming up, we will hear from "the nation's" katha pollitt. later on in the program, brookings institution's michael o'hanlon on important policy issues, including north korea issues. those discussions coming up as "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> tonight on c-span's "q&a," journalist and author robert merry on his book, open quote president mckinley -- "president

mckinley." >> he was an effective president did you cannot quite figure out how or why he was able to accomplish what he accomplished. he was indirect. he was a manager. he was not a man of force. it turns out that, without that force, he had amazing capacity to manipulate people. and manipulate them into doing the things he wanted them to do well they thought it was their idea. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "q&a" on c-span. ♪ videopan's student cam documentary competition is underway. students across the country are busy and sharing their experiences with us on twitter. it is not too late to enter. our deadline is january 18,

2018. we are asking students to choose a position on the u.s. constitution and create a video about why it is important to you. our competition is open to all middle school and high school students, grades six to 12. 100 thousand dollars in cash prizes will be awarded. the grand prize of $5,000 will go to the student or team with the best overall entry. for more information, go to our website, studentcam.org. "washington journal" continues. kathawe welcome him back pollitt, columnist for "the nation." good morning. guest: good morning. host: in the realm of politics, the media, other fronts, , sexualg entertainment harassment is at the forefront of the national discussion. what do you think about the

conversation we are currently having, and you think -- and what, if any, changes do you think will come from that? guest: it is an amazing conversation. it is something you could never have imagined would happen until it happened. the harvey weinstein extravaganza set off this incredible outpouring from women. the #metoo movement. instead of it being a one off, with some powerful creep ushered off the stage of history forever and everything goes back to normal, women after women are coming out with their own stories. some of these stories are pretty terrible. many famous men are being implicated in this scandal. but also, i think it is such a mistake -- this is where i wonder about the conversation we are having. ,hat its focused on individual powerful, famous men.

whereas sexual-harassment is such a broad phenomenon of ordinary people, especially working-class women who work in the hotel industry or the restaurant industry. i was so shocked by this -- almost half of hotel workers, female hotel workers, have been greeted at the door of the room by a man showing them his penis. any idea there boye so many entitled frat men in the world? who do not really know where this is going to go. i think there will be powerful tendencies to push it all back, close the door, not look at it anymore. but there are people pushing to have the door open. host: who do you think will be at the forefront of pushing that back? donald trumpk that

has a big interest in doing that. thes the pussy grabber in white house. 15 or 16 women have accused credibly, of harassing them, and he won. the people who voted for him have a powerful interest in setting this whole thing down. obviously, they do not care about it. host: as far as capitalizing on the current conversation and making changes in the workforce in other areas, what do you think has to happen to go from a conversation to actual change? guest: that is the big question. i think law will not be enough. the workplace has lost the project women -- supposedly --the workplace has laws that pr

otect women, supposedly. we really need to start raising boys and men of little differently. that somehow, an extraordinary number of men are growing up with the idea that this type of behavior is perfectly ok. that year, people say you should not do it, but in real life, it is fine, so why not? i think we need to have a broader social conversation -- host: do you see this as a generational thing, then? do you see changes as far as the attitudes coming from younger men than their older counterparts? guest: that is what people my age -- that is what harvey weinstein said. "i grew up in a different generation" -- he grew up in a generation where it was ok to rape people who want to work

with you -- no. the things he is accused of doing is never ok. businesses people did them and they got away with it because they were powerful and women were intimidated that they would lose work. i would say there has been a little bit of social change around this. parts of oursome culture are being raised more carefully. but i do not know it has changed all that much. if you look at the situation on college campuses, where many young men seem to be going too far, and the whole fraternity scene -- those are young people. i think that, if you were to ask a 20-year-old waitress were situation is in the diner, i do not think it is all that different than it would have been 40, 50, or 100 years ago. joining us.pollitt if you want to ask her questions, you can do so on one or two -- on one of two lines.

men, call (202) 748-8000. women, (202) 748-8001. tweet us, @cspanwj. and join our conversation on facebook. talk about the conversations you're having specifically from men on this topic. what are you hearing from them? sorry, the producer was talking to me. can you repeat that? i was looking in the wrong direction. [laughter] perfectly ok. and as specifically what you're hearing from men, i am interested in what they are telling you. were all, men, they saying i would never do this, this is so terrible, but on the other hand, is it so terrible? [laughter] i think there is this kind of movement among men to dissociate

themselves from this behavior and make clear decisions from what i did as a -- from what i did is ok and what he did is not. the point of this should not be that you are a bad person. the point of it should be that we are going to change. we are going to be different. we are going to really look at women as if they were people. would not like this done to you, you probably should not do it to another. host: as far as the world of politics, as you cover it frequently and extensively, what do you think about these allegations coming out on both sides of the political aisle? guest: that is so interesting. to me, these allegations are very different. one of the things i think is a danger of what we are going through now is that many different kinds of behavior are being conflated. there is this phrase -- "sexual

misconduct." that covers a lot of ground. for example, here we have roy moore, accused by many women, of having molested them as teenagers, in some cases underage teenagers. and we find out that the police are alerted when he goes to a football game, because he is going to mess with the cheerleaders. side.have him on one then we have al franken on the other side. al franken is accused -- and i there are sortk of funny things around some of those accusations. like that roger stone knew that was going to come out with her big reveal before it even happened. but at the worst, he is accused womenat -- groping adult are situation where they

not vulnerable at all. there are no repercussions. that this man would lose his senate seat because of that seems, to me, to really confuse a lot of things. host: and when you say that, is this -- you are treating it differently, i suppose, these two instances? guest: guest: i think there is a difference between stealing a candy bar and a diamond necklace from tiffany's or robbing someone on the street. i think we are mixing up a lot of different kinds of the, as if they were the same. the thing that worries me about that way lies, oh, my god, everyone is terrible, all these things are happening all over. mixing up these things in the way that makes it harder to think about them.

what roy moore did was against the law. and was involved with very young teenaged girls. ad this something that healthy, normal person would not do. host: we have calls. your first one is from susan in fort myers, florida. you are on what katha pollitt. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a couple questions and a suggestion, so bear with me. number one, who sets the statutes of limitations for sexual assaults, rates, pedophiles? because it seems like the people who made these laws are victims of them. the other thing is that the harassment, not only in washington with the politicians, and i am not happy with either side, by the way, but on every

main street in our country, i for myl back 65.5 years first experience with a pedophile. butourse, he is dead now, it is very bothers me and i am not sure if i misunderstood what you just said about groping adults. i do not like to be groped. it is up to the individual on what we are comfortable with very host: we will let our guest respond. you made a good comment on statute of limitations because they are made by men. there inan interest closing the books on accusations of this sort. in some states, there are arguments that there should be the statute of limitation should be much longer because it takes a while victims to come forward

and realize they have a recourse and the court. .ou make an important point one of the fascinating things about this moment is that so many women are coming out with all the terrible experiences they have had. i do not know a single woman who has not been groped, insulted, flashed, in a rape or near rape situation, on and on and on. is a revelation we and had before in society when women came out with their stories, it look like things would change and then there's thomas got a seat on the court and it did not change so much but maybe this moment will be different because people like the speaker, the caller, are

speaking out so forcefully. host: margin is next from -- martin is next on pennsylvania. caller: thank you, c-span. i find it curious when these topics come in waves. there was an issue around this the tannic worshiping at day care centers, and -- the sit worship at day care centers and people talked about how their children were abused. i think it stretches credibility to accept things at face value. i think the nation is supposed to be a publication that prince exposure -- prints exposure in reality, when in fact, it goes e-bashing, the mal that is in 200 the anti-trump movement. , what do youollitt think? guest: i do not think it is

mail-bashing for women -- male-bashing for women to come out with stories of things that happened to them. unfortunately, it is mostly men who do these. instead of having a sensitive reaction, what about taking in what women are saying? you raise an interesting point satanic ritualsn in the 1980's because i think there is or there can be a rush to judgment. notou read about it, it was individual people in their houses saying, oh, my god, my icallyhas been satan abused. it would be one person coming forward and the police and

certain kind of badly trained therapists would infiltrate and bully these tiny children until they came forward with stories that even they did not believe. yet, the rush to judgment was such that a number, several dozen or even more, people are convicted and sentenced to long periods in prison. some of them just got out and some of them died in prison. i think there is something to the idea that we have to be careful not to allow this moment to be used by people with a different agenda than simply trying to make the world a fairer, juster, and less violent and stupid place. we will hear from virginia and pennsylvania. theer: don't you think fundicians having a slush

should never be? that is like giving them room to do whatever they want and they know it will be covered. guest: i completely agree with you. i am glad you raised the point. we learned recently that over the past 20 years or so, $15 million have been paid out by the taxpayer in steeled settlements for sexual harassment on behalf of politicians. i agree completely. those politicians should pay out of their own pocket. i think the whole nondisclosure situation, the nda, where women, or whoever the victim's, is not allowed to say and gets a settlement for never telling her story. i think that is so wrong because that allows the perpetrator to do it again and again, and it ensures there is never anything

done structurally to prevent this from happening. host: there are efforts in washington for sexual harassment training to be part of formal practices, does that change the situation at all? guest: i think -- i hope those efforts are successful. [laughter] what can i say? it is a moment where you feel the fix is in. they have figured out how to do this stuff, how to buy off victims, how to make the victims be silent, and it is very disturbing. it is a moment when you feel that politicians lead a life that is different from the lives of other people. host: let me ask you about sexual harassment training, overall. the do you think is ultimate impact of the training out there? guest: well, i would like to think that it is good, that it

changes people, that it makes people more aware, and i hope it does. let's see if it works, but i think people in the workplace, you go to these sessions. someone tells you various things . how seriously do people take it? that is what i wonder. training, i wasn't there, but people were told never give a compliment without asking if you can give a compliment. everybody started making fun, make i say? i like your sweater. yes, you may say i like your sweater. oh, i like your sweater. there can be something formula stick and ritualized about these -- formula and ritualized about these, but i do not know how you make a big social change without going through these steps that

literalward and too minded and heavy footed. host: in "the new york times" , "girls today received to conflicting messages, the mighty and be good. the rhetoric says they can be how they want but it pays to be sweet and passive. true. i think that is one thing you hear again and again is i did not want to shout or make a fuss because i did not want to be embarrassed or embarrass him. i did not want to wake anybody out. yeah, it would be good if women learned to say, hey, cut that out.

but i say that aware that behind all of this and behind the demand that people behave in a completely different way is a structure of power, where it woman might have to put up with this because her job is at stake , or because she knows that if she speaks of, if she says, cut that out, it isn't going to be like, i'm sorry, i got ahead of myself. it is can it be much more severe for her. in general, yes, girls should we raised more suitably and boys -- more assertive and boys less. host: from montana, we are talking to paul. hello. caller: how are you? good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i would like to point out something. maturing tog, in my

a 67-year-old, retired radio announcer, when i was growing up in my home, my mother and father were careful, very careful to teach me to treat people, in general, as i want to be treated. a person who is of a different race, a different religion, i was taught to be tolerant and to accept a person because they are different. when it comes to women, i was taught to be respectful, to respect andwith understand that they are a person, they have feelings , and they have desires, and goals, as well. i have never, ever had any

trouble in my relationships with women throughout my life, and i think my parents for it. frankly, i believe that boys growing up today need some good home training. host: thanks, caller. guest: i agree with you. you are very lucky. your parents sound like wonderful people and you are lucky to have them. unfortunately, a lot of people do not have parents like that. i want to go back a little bit and amplify something i said, which was that in addition to the actual consequences of speaking up too much like that for women, women are blamed when these things happen. what were you wearing? why were you in the storeroom? women are encouraged to present themselves very sexually, and

then whether they want to or not, in terms of for example, uniforms in a lot of places are sexy, in a restaurant, a woman does not have a choice to wear something or not, and they are blamed, they are blamed if the customer makes advances to them. we see this again and again. when women accuse men of rape or attempted rape or sexual harassment, it has been turned around on them. so women know this is what is going to happen and this is why, one of many reasons why, they do not report. they do not speak up. and one of the great things oo movement is it is breaking through that and saying, this is on the person who does this not to whom the person it is done. host: in pennsylvania, hi. caller: i will tell you, i watch her show all the time.

as soon as i heard this lady, i'm sorry, i forget your name, actually say, i am afraid to say it because of the way things are, but she actually said the word, where donald trump grabbed the lady. i said, i have got to talk to this lady because all the media, they will not say it. to me, that makes saying that word worse than what donald trump did. thank you for being outspoken. i am a victim of sexual abuse. i lived for 10 years with spouse or rape. i am 72. back then, i grew up in a family , you do not talk about that stuff. you just do not talk about it. my father was at the set that women i guess our property, men can do whatever they want. my main comment is i think this will take generations. it makes me very sad, but

mothers, hopefully fathers, like the one that called, yes, teach boys respect. for god's sake, from early on, teach girls the value of themselves and their body and to speak up and say no. i never actually thought i could do that. i thought i was trapped. i did not know what to do. my life went to hell. now what 72, if a man ever tried to grab me now, he certainly would hear a lot for me. please, mothers out there, teach your daughter's they are worth something. thank you. wow.: what an amazing call. i did not realize when i said word that i was possibly violating -- i do not think it is one of the seven words you are not allowed to say on television, but yeah, i think

we have to call things by the right name. herenk donald trump, and we are going to get the people saying, everything trump does you hate, which is probably true, but i think we have to get the full picture. we have to use the words. he used that word, we should use that word. i think that the caller also o"derscores the whole "me to moments, which is people coming of aith a whole lifetime, form of sexual abuse or another. the thing is that even the smaller events, they do stick with you. i was talking to a friend , and we were both for recalling what people said to us in the street. i was walking down 6th avenue and a very well-dressed man turned around and said in this

reepy, dirty voice -- may i mumble] -- and i would recognize his voice anywhere. and to my credit, i turned around and said, "what was that you said?!" i was in the public street and had a quick reaction. sometimes people are so shocked at the things said and done that they freeze or it takes a while to say, did that really happen? i really give props to the caller for telling these very painful stories about her life. and there are too many people who have lived like this. too many. host: katha pollitt writes for "the nation," and you can find to work at the website. joining us from new york, jean. caller: good morning. i would like to say the end lady that called in, that was very

brave and i thank her for sharing. i have a couple of points. there, men audience out yes, sexual harassment can be for men, as well so we do not want to get on men. votef the reason i did not was because of him talking about grabbing women. i will not say it, but by the " p," i did not like that. i am a former soldier, retired from the army. i did not face any of that in the military. one of the reasons is because of letting people know what do stand for. if i saw something about to occur, even if it was not to me, i interjected. to tohalf -- so we have wait and see, take preventative measures. i know we talked about education

, and there have to be those in the workplace, even though the military still does an excellent job. they have a program called shock, the sexual harassment program they have, that we still know these things exist. there have to be people who speak up for themselves and others. host: we appreciate it. well, talk about the military, it is full of sexual harassment and rape and that scandal keeps coming out, going away, coming out and going away. i wanted to say, you asked me about what could be negative consequences of this current "me too" moment and one of them is that we are going to see or i fear we are going to see support of the mike pence position, which is never be alone with a woman. he has this rule, he will never be alone with the woman other than his wife. host: but she got ridiculed about that statement. guest: he did get ridiculed a lot and then it turned out the

other day it was tweeted, it makes a lot of sense in view of what is going on and it doesn't. what it says is either you do not trust yourself to rape a woman if you are alone with her or you think she is going to lie and say that you did. this is not the way we can move forward. women and men also need to work with each other. if a woman is barred from being a loan with a man in the workplace -- alone with the man in the workplace, she will not be able to do her job. negativehat the consequence could be that we just decide, yes, we need to moregender apartheid, separation because it cannot trust them to be together. host: this is carl, kansas city, missouri. caller: i have been listening and i'm a 73-year-old veteran and a working, educated working-class blue-collar in the trades.

i will say that if you want to and youus and insulting go into a bar full of lawyers, you can get away with murder and they will not hit you because they know the law. if you go into a redneck working-class bar and you get out of line, you will get knocked off the stool. i do not want to get off topic much because first, i have three little sisters. i am extremely sympathetic to the women's situation, and i do think something needs to be done. i have a constructive idea. they need to get with the law. they need to change things in the law, like the lawyers know they were not hit you because they will be sued. they need to strengthen the harassment and other things, and with the electronic period we live in, women who are concerned about this, they should have some sort of evidentiary airy

material, -- material, like a tape with them. when this happens, the need to crack down on these bozos and sue them for about $60,000 or $70,000. host: thanks. guest: i do not think women can go around with a tape recorder waiting for someone to sexually harass them, but it is interesting that one of the accusers of harvey weinstein dated have a tape -- did have a tape, and she was told, she worked it out with the police, pe himhe would tak saying things he said before and that happened. and then the da in manhattan refused to move forward with the case because he had problems with the tape. it is hard to use that evidence, but nonetheless, i think what if we started leaving women more? you cannot keep your entire life. -- tape your entire life.

there is a great deal of prejudice against women who come forward with their stories. brought upe idea with the law, are there changes of highly defined harassment and should be considered? guest: yes because harassment in law has to do with the workplace. it has to do with either a quick program, where if you sleep with me, i will promote you or give you a job, or with creating a hostile work environment, where -- and it could be just one incident, but where there is pervasive dissemination against against discrimination women around sexual kinds of things. that is not a careful legal definition but i got it more or less right. sexual harassment doesn't apply to things like insulting the woman in the streets, cap ling, or somet-cal

of the things that have come out. it really is a broader phenomenon than what takes place in the workplace. what i think we can call it patriarchy. it is all a form of male domination of women, feeling entitled to women's bodies, that their feelings do not matter, that you can do it every want if you are a man. i am sorry to all the men out there who do not feel that way, but there is a social structure here. when good people do not take advantage of it, but the other person does. host: this is mary in kentucky, go ahead. caller: hi. i would like to say i think the key to not being sexually harassed is being assertive, but the other thing i want to comment about is back in the day , back in the 1970's to 1990's,

a lot of these women did not mind being harassed. that is why i did not get upset when donald trump said that. in the text that he said that, he was shocked, too. youas disgusting because were either expected to get promoted, or look good or excellent with your manager whatever, and i, myself, have been assertive, and intelligent person, and never went along with it and suffered because of that. i feel that women need to be more assertive and we need to not take it. sexualhink having harassment laws having not been on the books that long -- host: we are running out of time. he will let our guest respond. guest: i do not want to leave people with the onus on women. that is the thing. women need to be more assertive. yes, of course. everybody needs to be more

assertive when wrong things are done, whatever their sex or gender. why there isson sexual harassment that women think it is fine, that there are too intimidated from coming forward, the basic reason is because these things are done to them. that is where the change has to happen. it has to stop happening because men realize that this isn't a way to act. women go through complicated calculus is of what they can say and what the consequences will be. it isn't really fair to put the burden on women. that is like saying, well, you have to be really careful about not being pickpocketed. well, you do, and i have been pickpocketed many times because i wasn't careful. but the basic thing is, it is the pickpocketed that did the

wrong thing, not you for forgetting for a moment to close your purse or sitting with your purse too far away on the subway. i do not think that putting the onus on women is the right way to go. host: from massachusetts, this is john. caller: good morning and thanks for getting up extra early today. my question to you is, network news and local boston news of the young girls that dress code that they work with, is that dress code given to them or do they pick that up themselves? guest: i do not know what is on television in boston. i am in new york, but if you mean, for example, on fox tv, everyone has to be blonde, although there are not many bonds in nature, so i'm sure many of it comes out of a bottle, and everyone has to dress in a sexy way and be thin, i think that is the

look they want and what they insist you be. i do not think someone who looks like me, no matter what her politics are, to get hired by fox. i do think these places have their dress code, they have requirements. for example, a man can age on television. there are plenty of guys on television in their 60's, but there are not that many women in their 60's. women tend to a job quickly -- age out quickly. host: what is the tell tale sign you are looking for to see a change in this topic, any long-lasting change will occur? guest: i think i look for the continuation of women telling their stories. i look for some consequences in the workplace. i look for, for example, for --

unionss is so sad, but are not such a big thing anymore, but i think unions can help and i really helping. i just read that for hotel workers, some hotels or it could be women with panic buttons so that when the guest, the hotel guest tries to molest them or undresses in front of them, which who knew that was a thing? right, the bathrobe trick? that they can get help. i think there has to be workplace structural things that speaks directly to what the actual concerns are of the women who worked there are. blogs.coma pollitt at and "the nation" is rate confined to work. guest: thank you. up, we will talk to brookings institutions michael o'hanlon about various policies,

including the declaration of north korea as a state sponsor of terror. that conversation coming up, next. ♪ ," tonight on c-span's "q&a robert married on his book -- marry on his book. >> he was a very effective president. we cannot figure out how or why he was able to accomplish what he could accomplish because he was in direct, and incrementalist, a manager, not a man of kforce. it turns out -- man of force. it turns out that without the force, he had an amazing

capacity to manipulate people into doing good things he wanted them to do when they thought it was their idea. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "q&a" on c-span. ♪ >> c-span studentcam video documentary competition is underway and students across the country are busy at work sharing their experience through twitter. it is not too late to enter. our deadline is january 18, 2018. we are asking students to choose a position on the u.s. constitution and create a video illustrating why it is important to you. our competition is open to all middle school and high school students grade six through 12. $100,000 in prizes will be awarded. the grand prize of $5,000 will

go to the student or team with the best overall entry. for more information, go to our website, studentcam.org. "washington journal" continues. host: michael o'hanlon joining us from brookings institution, a research on foreign policy. almost one year in asked the trump administration is it comes tohen foreign policy, how would you grade it? guest: surprisingly, ok, and what i mean by that is not to endorse with the president has done but to look at the team assembled, which has been one of the better ones i have seen in my lifetime, and to see on a number of issues, where it looked like he would be a revolutionary and not in a carefully, that he has been brought back to more careful positions on some major issues. on balance, things are better than expected. i am still worried about half a

dozen big issues, like many people. i would have been worried about the same issues at hillary clinton had been elected. with trump, there is the added unpredictability, maverick quality, but he has been reined in and recognized his instincts needed to be corralled in some way. when i look around the world, things are going better than predicted. host: key players that impress you most? , one: secretary jim mattis of the most experienced generals in our modern history but also knowing, even when in uniform, a guy of master strategist. he loves to talk about and romans, greek complex, and he has studied war throughout his career. some people call him mad dog, president trump apparently likes that, but he prefers the nickname of chaos or some people call him the warrior monk because he has an ascetic devotion to his marines when in

uniform, but also the study of history in all dimensions, not just conflict. i think he really is in many ways the cornerstone. h.r. mcmaster a very strong national security advisor. ambassador nikki haley, doing extraordinarily well for someone with little experience, although some governors would say they have some these days. in any event, she is doing well. i have concerns about secretary tillerson. i think he has got good instincts but i do not see how you dismantle your own department and be successful. host: could you expand on those who may not follow? guest: initially, when president trump announced his budget for 2018, he proposed a 30% cut to the state department and foreign assistance. this would have decimated the state department by almost any reckoning. i knew people who had no

financial interest and thought that was a good idea. i do not know anybody who 30%ght you could cut it by with anything but surgical position. tillerson is going with that and the congress has not cut the budget that steeply, tillerson himself seems to be trying to not point people to send the ranks. he does not seem to be in good contact with this foreign service, even though i think he has good instincts, i think he is making a huge mistake and i will not give him the same endorsement as the others. host: our guest with us until 10:00. if you want to ask him about this administration, (202)-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. as far as the portfolio is concerned, let's get your thoughts. iraq and afghanistan? guest: i think they are both at points where we need to do more than just the right adjustment

to the military strategy, which is the first thing president trump did. i think he made the right move compared to her he inherited things, not a complete mess. president obama had done some good news, especially in iraq. most had been established by the time obama left office. in afghanistan, we pulled out a little bit too fast and too far. i think president trump has correctly pushed back in the direction. no huge buildup, but a few thousand more troops and fewer restrictions on how they are employed. in iraq, we have helped in a support way but also in their power by completing the liberation of major cities. that the gun under president obama -- that the gun under president obama -- that began with president obama and president trump pushed it to the finish line in terms of the military success. since we have the fundamental dilemma, how do you make the country stable and get a political compromise among major

players that will prevent an insurgency or an extremist group from rising out of the ashes of the previous ones? in afghanistan, the taliban is still strong. they have not been defeated the way isis has been. host: general nicholson said they want to roll it back in a two-year timeframe, is it feasible? guest: put this way, it is the reichel. general john allen, -- it is right. general john allen endorsed term strategy and said, do not think of this as trying to win the war overnight or defeat the taliban category weight, that is -- categorically. but if we can reverse the momentum. government of afghanistan held probably 75% of the territory and population centers. now it is down to 60%. still all the big cities but not all the big roads and on the countryside. in thendline has been

wrong direction, which enables a lot of the bad guys and pakistani intelligence to keep supporting the taliban. we have to help convey that they will hold on cannot be defeated and once that occurs, which i think we can do by using our air power more assertively, i think a lot of actors may reassess their incentives and their own calculus about where this is headed, so there could be a virtuous cycle. that is the right goal, the better optimistic case. host: the president spent a lot of time talking about what he would do for isis or dismantling it. where are we at that stage? guest: with both iraq and afghanistan and syria, pretty good. egypt was a recent tragedy but syria is good place to drive home the point that you have to do more than just target with commando special forces and allied military operations. you need a good political strategy that will stabilize the 2.0e so isis or isis

doesn't rise up, especially of sunni populations in each place field disenfranchised -- view this it -- feel disenfranchised. it is the harder challenge. president obama had not made a huge amount of headway. most of us in the think tank debate on what would work. you have to do it country by country. -- not being over critically over critical of donald trump, but you need good strategies for syria, iraq, afghanistan, which in most cases we do not have. host: this is bob in georgia, independent. you are first for michael o'hanlon. go ahead. caller: as a cold war era veteran, after watching administration's deal with cold war and then reagan and so forth, when i see the current president conduct himself the

way he has, he shoves a prime minister of i believe montenegro physically out-of-the-way at that event. he snuggles up to butchers, like this vile human in charge of the philippines right now. he has never let us to have an inclination that he cares anything about foreign policy in any of these matters, and the only people in his administration that do are the ones he has been lucky enough to have worked for him. to the degree that they know what they are doing, that is heat, but the damage that has done, in my opinion, to just stunning is to me this guest would say surprisingly, we are doing well. guest: i am glad you made this points. i wanted to sort of get the conversation going in a way that did not sound overly partisan or

be a broken record. a lot of people would make criticisms of president trump. i thought you were eloquent.i would agree with each point you made about the mistakes he has indulged in in the philippines and elsewhere, so i have no problem with your critique. i am not a president trump supporter. compared to where he was as candidate trump one year ago when he wanted to dismantle alliances, put 45% tariffs on everything with china, utrecht the wall with mexico, which he ect a wall wither mexico, he has wound up being more thoughtful than i would have predicted. i probably should not begun, but with the criticisms you made, i am glad you added that because i think you are right. he is still a somewhat reckless president. thatif he has a great team corrects mistakes, it is not always smart to begin the way he does.

to maintain the balance, on the trip to asia he completed, you referred to his visit to the philippines, i thought in northeast asia, he did well with japan, south korea and china. some peoples have -- some people toe criticisms on his visit china, but nonetheless, he did pretty good work at crisis management in terms of how to think about north korea and work with japan and south korea on the problem. i am surprised he has done as well as he has. i do not mean that to be an endorsement. host: putting north korea back on the state-sponsored terrorism list, is that a good move? guest: it is consistent with reality. the president of north korea appears to have had his old brother assassinated in a foreign country and that was partly to get his brother off the scene and to send a message to others that you better not mess with the. i'm capable of this. that reaches a definition of terrorism, creating fear for

political reasons using violence. i would say it fits the definition. however, i do not see it as a strategy per se. we need some flexibility on how we negotiate with north korea, even as we apply the pressure. you need to have a carrot and stick approach. i think there is potential with this president. host: from massachusetts, independent line. robert. caller: good morning. i was listening to npr the other day and lo and behold, they said bolivia is selling the black africans back into slavery. what do think the president should do question mark -- libya is selling like africans back into slavery. what do think the president should do? guest: we had a national unity with parts of jubilee and that is about it -- tripoli and that is about it. there are concerns about terrorists infiltrating into

parts of africa, like niger, where you had the tragedy of four americans killed a couple weeks ago, but there needs to be a strategy to strengthen the state so you have a partner to issues,h on all these not just on the one you mentioned, although it is important. we have to help go and train police forces in libya to get traction on that. the obama administration was not interested in that, but in fairness to president obama, it younot clear who work -- you should work with or who you could work with. the different nominal governments against each other in libya should be where you try to construct a government together at large. host: is that a realistic strategy? guest: 10 point. he seems to hope -- two a point.

he seems to hope that china will simply turn the screws to the point where north korea cries uncle and gives up its nuclear weapons out of desperation. i do not think it is realistic. i do not think china will turn the screws that tightly but they are turning them some. what we need is a strategy to up the pressure but at the same time have a more realistic interim negotiation. instead of going to denuclearization in the first deal we do with them with north korea, i think that is no longer realistic. it is not president trump's fault, that happened under clinton, bush and obama. they probably have readers into four doesn't nuclear weapons and have -- three dozen to four dozen nuclear weapons. china is not going to twist their arm hard enough to change their mind. i think we need to go for some type of a freeze deal in the first instance. we do not get that many

concessions. that frees has to extend to north korea nuclear production and not just missile testing, but the production of highly enriched uranium and tony of the weapons. so re-freeze the size of the arsenal. if you combine that negotiating strategy with the pressure that the trump administration is rightly encouraging others to apply -- host: the sanctions pressure? china and other countries, and they are doing a good job on this front, trying to get russia to reduce the remittances, trying to get the general.ighter in i think if you combine that with a little more flexibility at the negotiating table, so far, the trump administration hasn't been interested in that frees construct. i think -- freeze construct. i think they should be tough but read consider their approach. host: john from washington. go ahead.

caller: i had a question about north korea. we hear about their nuclear programs, but i also heard about people they put in concentration camps. how sure are these reports? how can we make reparations for what they did to our american citizen who is treated so badly a while back? guest: you make excellent points. regime.a horrible appears nothing to be said in defense of the human rights record of north korea regime. after aing incarcerated student visit, or whether it is the hundreds of thousands of north koreans that stalin would recognize as what he had in the soviet union, north korea probably has the worst human rights record on earth today. that is part of why i think in any kind of deal, first, you have to push for improvement in human rights. you cannot let that be a second

or third order issue. that has to be up there in negotiation and diplomacy all the time. you also have to know who you are dealing with and hold off on certain kinds of assistance we could provide them until they not only denuclearize the begin to improve the treatment of their own people. you are right to raise that in t-1 for doing so. host: bob in new york. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. the bottom line is trump is not a politician. he is trying to do a businessman's way. the dilemma is are we going to be proactive and reactive? if this guy starts blogging nuclear stuff, san francisco, miami, whatever, and diaz the capability, he is in a tough spot.

this capability, he is in a tub spot. you cannot throw billions of dollars for them not to do it and they do it anyhow. that is a dilemma. how do you answer that question? should we be proactive or reactive? guest: i do not think there is a realistic strategy for preventative war in north korea that would lead -- that would not lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. a lot of scholars have been research. it is unrealistic. however, the points about protecting the united states, i think we would have a better chance. if we got into a shooting war, and kevin for bid we start to see the north koreans prepare a long-range icbm for a launch, we would not wait for it. we would try to destroy it on the launchpad. right now, they have weapons we would see being fueled before they could be launched. that isn't true for their short range missiles, so that doesn't

attacked south korea, japan or the americans who live in those countries. that is why i say it a real preventative war strategy is not necessarily holding water. protecting the american homeland i think is a more viable proposition and i do not think we need to be as worried about san francisco as we should be about south korea. i do not know if that makes you feel better or worse but i think that is the reality of the military situation. as for your point that president trump inherited a situation where previous presidents had been unsuccessful, i think you're right. that is why i do not think it is reductive to blame president trump and i have tried to avoid it. i say we are in a conundrum and i agree with you. there really isn't a good option. and north korea isn't interested in denuclearizing. it would be difficult to get them to do that in a first instance, so i think we need a more modest interim goal. we cannot give them too many incentives to negotiate that

agreement, but there's no way they will denuclearize in the short term. host: here is benny from new york. i have a comments on china. china ishtly concerned taking over the world power and in a couple of years, china will be much stronger then u.s. and that is what my concern is. look at the situation in south china sea and the general behavior of china, like grabbing the lands and other things from other countries, you know, so i do not know. ?omething being done

know hedonald trump, i is a strong president, but i do not know. taking china seriously. guest: i think you are right to raise concerns about china's rise but let me balance that with more reassuring facts. first of all, we are far in a way to largest economy on her.if you convert china's economic strength like purchasing power parity, which translates expenses into local costs, it is true the gdp's of the countries are about the same but if you look at international market buying power, which is the measure of global power, the united states is a above there. europe, easts in asia and the broader middle east. some 60 allies in total and they account for another $30 trillion , at least.dp if you combine our military budget with our allies's military budgets, we are at

about three fourths or two thirds of the world total by more conservative calculation. you look at high-tech sectors, aerospace, pharmaceuticals, silicon valley, we are still in the lead against china. there are a lot of reasons to be concerned about the underlying strength of our country and your right to keep that on the radar but i am not defeatist about china's rise. i emphasize the point we have allies and coalition partners of a type china can only dream about having. ally is north korea. host: has this been modified by the administration? guest: i think they are trying to rename it. the rebalance was a good and policies. of it did not amount to a huge shift in u.s. military strategy or foreign policy. the centerpiece was the transpacific partnership that

was on the campaign trail last year. in that sense, the most fundamental linchpin of the strategy, which was a modest adjustment, was pulled out by both parties and the course of the 2016 presidential race. we are at a crossroads. the trump administration in preparation for his recent trip to asia was thought to be unveiling in indo pacific -- indo pacific strategy to grow our ties to india and other democracies and partners in south asia, like bangladesh. president trump did not wind up parking on that during his trip. that would have been one of my criticisms. i thought he was well positioned to take the rebalance and given his own new slogan and his own new.burst of energy instead, he gave a speech in vietnam where he criticized multilateral trade deals. what iseople wondering the future of american economic diplomacy in asia? we have got some work to do on that front. host: let's go to earl in

tucson, arizona. caller: i have a question for mr. o'hanlon. i would like to know since maybe he can enlighten me on it a little bit, since isis is doing so much havoc in the middle east and it may seem to be weapons andd with it comes from who is supplying them with it. guest: it depends on which ransom isis -- branch of isis. the collapse of libya has created weapons caches that are just pilloried by many militias in groups and some have stretched. if you look at the sinai peninsula in egypt, some of this has been from north africa,

stolen directly from egyptian security forces, some of it has probably been smuggled across the arabian peninsula at of syria and iraq. part of what you have had is the collapse of the state, where isis fighters could get their hands on the arms that those, as well as the banks. that is how isis got a lot of its money. and then there is the international arms market, but it probably isn't the main source of weapon -- weaponry for isis in the middle east. and is a combination of different things. they are plugged into the national criminal network to get resources and weapons on the global black-market, but a lot of it has been ransacked closer to home. host: from maryland, rob. you are next with michael o'hanlon. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i question is, during the syrian conflict, if i recall, most of

there was intervention into syria and going after the assad regime as an answer, similar to what you say about libya, the fall and the united states taking him out -- taking it out, and i am wondering, do you still gone?we should have you save these places need a political solution suffices doesn't hop at cap, but every time we try to put our political system in the regions, it comes back to haunt us, like iraq. i just think it is negative. we need to work with states that are already there.i am curious whether now, looking back, do you think we should have gone in and took out assad? host: i did not mean to cut you off that way, sorry. guest: great points. slight factual correction on

syria, i was never an advocate of going after assad, but i have been trying to wrestle with the dilemmas you mentioned and how to protect innocent populations without having to escalate this fightonline -- an all-out , especially now that russia is about. the more realistic strategy in syria is how to create autonomous zones in the north and south rather than overthrow assa -- rather than overthrow assad. the challenge in libya is with qaddafi gone, we may have made a mistake pushing them out in the first place and we had a direct hand in that. the dilemma there was that we did not really have a strategy in place for what to replace it with. we hope that the europeans could help. president obama famously was trying to so-called lead from behind. that was a slogan people gave to his strategy. he did not use that phrase himself.

i understand why he was trying to do the minimal amount, thinking europe should take the lead on libya. unfortunately, the europeans did not come up with a viable strategy for post-gadhafi libya. maybe that should have been warning we should not have gotten involved in the first place. on the other hand, he was threatening to massacred tens and thousands of people so we were in a dilemma. i think the challenge now is to figure out some way, whoever made the mistakes in the past, we have to figure out a way to help different parts of libya develop a thomas control over their territory, not miss it -- develop baton amiss control over their territory. even though you are right to raise historical questions. at this point, what is done is done and we do need something better to replace it. host: our guest works for the brookings institution in washington, d.c. if you want to read his writings, brookings.edu is a you find that. michael o'hanlon, thanks for your time. guest: my pleasure.

host: our program tomorrow will focus on the u.s. presence in afghanistan and what should be done about that. in our first two hours, we will show you hearings with the special inspector general for afghanistan. you can comment on those two opko joins usn s to take your questions from 9:00 to 10:00 tomorrow. all that tomorrow on "washington journal." we will see you tomorrow. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] >> next, newsmakers with recall grijalva. and a discussion on healthy eating habits and the future of american