talks about the future of the democratic party. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter as well. "washington journal" journal is. host: our role is -- >> our role is very clear. we are to interpret the constitution and laws of the united states and ensure that the political branches act within them. the chief justice of the united states, john roberts, and his remarks to students at the university of minnesota law school last week. your reaction to what he said, insisting that the high court does not serve one party or one interest, but instead one nation. congress remains in recess. 60 days until the election. you can join in on the

conversation right now. our phone lines are open to -- are open. you can join us on twitter at c-span wj or facebook. do you feel that the supreme court is the independent branch of government? this is the cover story of the weekly standard. c-spany the event on the networks. it is on our website. more with the chief justice last tuesday. [video clip] >> i thought i would spend a moment or two touching on the convention that touching on the contentious events in washington. i will not criticize the political branches. we do that often enough in our opinions. [laughter] what i would like to do is

emphasize how the judicial branch is and how it must be very different. i have great respect for our public officials. they speak for the people. that commands a certain degree of humility from those of us in the judicial branch who do not. we do not speak for the people. we speak for the constitution. our role is very clear. we are to interpret the constitution and laws of the united states and in short that e act within the -- and ensure that the political branches act within them. the story of the supreme court would be different without that independence. without independence, there is no brown v. board of education. without independence, there is no west virginia versus barnett where the court held that the

government could not compel schoolchildren to salute the flag. without independence, there is no steel seizure case where the court held that president truman was subject to the constitution even in a time of war. the court has from time to time erred greatly. tos was before it yielded political pressure. as in the cora martinez case, shamefully upholding the internment of japanese american citizens. host: chief justice john roberts and the full speech along with the q&a session that took place at the university of minnesota is on our website. david has this tweet. justice roberts knows the importance of the swing vote. a role that we should look for him to assume. , says i do not

believe kavanaugh will swing the supreme court far right. he is a job bush -- he is a jeb bush meant. -- jeb bush man. this is a headline. over kavanaugh's replacement over kennedy is likely to solidify a conservative majority on the supreme court for a generation. it has five consistent conservatives and four liberals. roberts said the court must try not to become identified with partisan is just -- partisan interests. the chief justice gives only a few speeches each year. he is known for choosing his words carefully. he acknowledge that after 13 years of chief justice, it

remained harder than he helped. that from robert barnes. it is available online at washington post.com. we will go to market in schenectady, new york. caller: i believe the court is independent because the individuals are nominated and confirmed by a senate. if you did not think the senate was doing their job, you vote out the senators and get more fair-minded senators to put on more fair-minded justices. host: keep in mind it is the president who nominates the justices and not the senators. the justices a lifetime appointment. caller: that is correct. nominate andll elect the president. maybe we can change the lifetime

appointment role. off ayou can knock justice through impeachment. believee ways, but i that with the constitution -- what it is saying is that by a senate confirmation, we do have consent. it is not automatic. host: mark from schenectady, new york. thanks. we go to the lake from alabama -- we go to blake from alabama. you disagree. caller: it is supposed to be independent. that is the only way society can exist. all of us are trying to organize our life in the united states. thinking about the certain documents that we believe in. i have a fews,

observations that tells me it is not independent. i saw some statistics somewhere. thereabouts, there has been a steady increase in 5-4 decisions. happeneding, what has since world war ii that these 5-4 decisions are routine? there is not one protestant white on the supreme court. there used to be almost all of them when they had 9-0 decisions. garlinwhen he appointed

-- mary garlick -- merrick him, he when he chose was appointing the fourth liberal jewish judge on the supreme court just for the balance. think about it. host: thanks for the call. michael has this tweet. the decision has to be clear and concise. carol says supreme court justice john roberts is right and i do believe the supreme court is doing their job well. send us a tweet. this is from inside the weekly standard. the madness returns. americans have witnessed ferocious instability from the left and for good reason. in the center is robert bork's nomination was scuttled in 1987. nominated by president reagan. followed by doug ginsburg because he admitted using marijuana.

finally, anthony kennedy who was confirmed and went on to serve three decades. isaac is joining us. up early and holy -- up early in hawaii. caller: aloha. i just have to say [indiscernible] the supreme court is an independent branch. deals.ruck anthony is next from new york city. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i went to -- i think

[indiscernible] congressthey enter the or other parts, -- as soon as they enter the congress, they forget about other people. they just care about themselves and their families. call.thanks for the this is from steve who tweets saying, i agree that the supreme court should be independent. i am more con -- i am more confident with roberts as chief justice. the cover story of time magazine, the wave makers. how the outrage got organized. a look at what impact it may have on the midterm elections. we are 16 days away. we will have live coverage of the results beginning 8:00 p.m. eastern time on november 6. we hope you turn into the speeches and the results.

we still have well over two dozent debates -- two debates. it will continue this week including a debate tonight and massachusetts. -- tonight in massachusetts. elizabeth warren and her republican challenger. from houston, texas, and he is next -- annie is next. caller: thank you so much. nation believe that this is built upon the constitution and its laws. we need a court that is impartial to parties. and special interests. exist exist as a coherent nation without having

the branch independent. clearlybe to see things and to interpret clearly. host: thanks for the call. roy has this tweet. roberts can say anything he wants, but when the republican party is handed a list of preselected candidates, all of the top becomes a bunch of hooey. the courts are untrustworthy. the courts are being packed with right wing justices. finally, from dd, judicial is one of the three branches non-independent from the other. that is the thinking of children who want to change the rules to get their way. a longtime observer of the supreme court now writing for cnn has this available at cnn.com. the supreme court's record

suggests otherwise. irrespective of what is happening in political branches, america's highest court is deeply split. the chief justice wrote for the narrow majority in the case t rump vs. hawaii. alsoame five conservatives voted against protests. trump immediately applauded the decision saying, a big -- free the full essay at cnn.com. -- read the full essay at cnn.com we go to ryan in el dorado, kansas. caller: my take is, that the supreme court is not impartial.

read case law. i am not an attorney. thething i am seeing is concept that in a lot of reviews and cases, the appellate courts have a standard in which they in a lightevidence most favorable to the government. my point is that if the appellate courts are going to give the legislative branch that level of deference, that renders the appellate courts and the asreme court in particular an impartial branch of government and my opinion. host: paul has this tweet.

the supreme court should have an even number of justices to require more than a single vote able to decide a case. roberts should worry about how his court will be judged in history. decisions will be a historical low. this network first went on the air back in 1978. one of the things we ask for is to have cameras inside the court. the issue came up at the university of minnesota law school. here is the chief justice of the united states. [video clip] do you think that allowing cameras in the court would be helpful in getting more people familiar? >> do you think thathelpful in e familiar with how the court operates. our job is to carry out our role to interpret the constitution and laws according to the rule

of law. i think that having cameras in the courtroom would indeed that process -- would impede that process. i think if there were cameras, the lawyers would act differently. i think frankly, some of my colleagues would act differently. that would affect what we think is a very important and well functioning part of the decision making process. i do not think there are a lot of public institutions that have been improved in how they do business by cameras. baker told me at one point that he thought the televising of the senate proceedings, i think he used a strong word, whether ruined or hurt the proceedings in the senate. people have the right to know

what we are doing. that is true in courts around the country. to and it's -- i think it is unfortunate we are not televised because most people would be pleased with what they saw in terms of how seriously we take our work and the high level with which exchange is conducted. i do think it would have an adverse effect on our job. host: the chief justice this past tuesday at the university of minnesota. this network continues to advocate cameras in the courtroom as a way to show transparency and how your government works. as a comments of the chief justice of the united states -- those are the comments of the chief justice of the united states. we provide coverage of the house on c-span. the senate on c-span two. lucy with this tweet. did the democrats think president trump would nominate a

supreme court justice who would not be a conservative? saying, why did the justices have ideological lines? why are they right wing or left-wing? if the court is independent, then we have been duped by congress into believing the choice matters. jim, you are next from florida. you agree that the court is independent. caller: i do. i think that what is apparent is the notion that the individual person -- individual character of the justices is at stake. they then voted on -- they have been voted on. their backgrounds have been picked apart. everyone in the senate has a chance to raise their hand and vote for them. we have to trust the process and allow it to work. there will always be

left-leaning and right-leaning interpretations of the constitution. there is nothing wrong with that. when we start interrupting that process, we are going to a place we do not want to go. host: we will go to lloyd in brooklyn, new york. good morning. are you with us? good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i disagree. i do not think this is impartial. the system is set up very badly. you have the democrats and the republicans as selected people. this is already set up for failure. it should be that an independent body sets up votes. that would be the best chance of something being impartial. instead we have the democrats and the republicans.

you set it up for failure right away. it should be an independent body. not democrats or republicans. outside of the party setting up the select judges who they think will be fair. have the democrats and republicans and whoever question them, but then have this committee to select judges who they think will be right for the country. then it will be a better chance of having a fair and good judiciary. host: you are calling for a change in the constitution? caller: if that is in the constitution that the democrats and republicans should do this election, yes. it should be an independent party. --t: you research looking at pew research looking at how americans view the supreme court.

more details at pewresearch.org. monica from your city. ♪ good morning -- caller: good morning. the court is not right because look at the president. he chose kavanaugh. does he think he is going to help in a situation that comes across? it should be independent. the president don't take. ck.on't pi leave it alone to an independent party or group. that is all i have to say today. host: thank you for the call. from salinas, california. judicial,e legislative, and the executive branches are not independent of each other.

other indeep upon each order to make our country run the way that it should run. that check and balances are on each other to keep each other honest. to say that they are all independent of each other is silly. this whole thing, you should not be asking this question. there is no independent of anything branch of the government. we are a government interdependent upon each other. thatook at the justices everybody is whining about. in two liberals that were just as liberal as the two that trump put in our conservative. there were conservative republican senators who voted for them. we did not see republicans clawing on the doors of the

courthouse crying about how we have too many conservatives being put in there. this is getting ridiculous. host: thanks for the call. this is from james. yes, the judicial branch as a whole operate independently of the executive and legislature. the ledges -- the supreme court confirmation process has become toxic. another tweet from jodey. on november 4, we set our clocks back. on november 6, -- stone, i would imagine that every president consults with outside groups for the selection of a supreme court judge. i want to turn briefly to politics. in addition to the massachusetts senate debate, which you can see is also carrying a debate in the florida governor's race. the network has allowed us to re-air it on a tape delay basis.

the full schedule of the debates is available on our website. tomorrow, president trump will be in houston, texas for a campaign rally getting underway at 7:30 eastern time. earlier today, president barack obama will be in las vegas. for east coast time president obama. axes.com says why it matters. newspaper endorsements are not symbolic of what is to come on election day. the houston chronicle endorsing overlord is a -- endorsing beto o'rourke -- the debates are on our website at c-span.org. let's go back to the phone calls. lawrence in illinois.

on the issue of the supreme court, is it the independent branch of government? caller: it is supposed to act independently. no one is independent from one another. just a suggestion, all the people that call in and complain about how our government works, a quick question you should ask them is name another government of another country that works better. even a government from the past. with all of our flaws, we are still the best. say,ad people call in and we have to have an independent group of judges. where these independent people going to come from? don't they have biases and agendas like everyone else or we going to bring down aliens from another planet? it is like the same people who call in and say, throughout everyone in congress. are we replacing them with people with other biases?

we have the best government in the world. host: we will go to cj in richfield, minnesota. caller: good morning to you. thank you for letting me get an honest conversation. god bless america. peopleeed the voices of if you agree or do not agree. that is just their opinion. that started it was when the republican party denied barack obama his choice. that is when you start compromising the integrity of the system. why are so many people locked up that are not satisfied with the terms of being locked up? to ministrations come and go. rocco -- administrations come and go.

onlyk obama is the president who went into a federal penitentiary. host: thank you for the call. this is from parkway. winning the presidency does not always give you the power. calia's set for over 400 days. bush versus gore, scotus lost all sense of independence and impartiality when installed george w. bush as president. this is from the hill newspaper. ford will besey honored in her new hometown of palo alto. she is a university college professor who accused brett kavanaugh of sexual assault. she will be publicly honored by the city council later this month. the daily post reporting that

the mayor's plan to honor the college professor is for honoring -- is for testifying. bill is joining us from new mexico. caller: good morning, steve. may the lord present you with good health. our lord jesus christ. our socialist jew. steve, the constitution was written during the 13 colonies. imply that itcan is all of us or -- the constitution was written when the black man was considered one quarter human. were considered

savages. considered no more valuable than a barnyard animal. host: thanks for the call. this is from they saying -- this is from vic -- from stephen, barack obama was denied his appointee. how can anyone say the court is independent of the senate? another viewer saying mitch mcconnell stopping the appointment of obama's judgment nomination including for the supreme court. there was a debate schedule this evening with senator kirsten gillibrand. she has said she will not cross a picket line over a labor dispute with charter communications. that debate has been canceled. stephen is joining us from charlottesville, virginia. caller: good morning. i want to comment that, how can

we possibly not have a nonpartisan supreme court when we have a president that was elected by less than a majority of the people and we have the approval by less than the majority of the senate possible when you have the possibility that -- all the likelihood is that we are going to under the new rules not requiring a supermajority to allow for the nomination to be approved be successful? host: thank you for the call. let's go to james from georgia. good morning. caller: in reference to the last a supermajority, originally, just a simple majority in the way that our system was set up, is all you needed. i believe it was back in the early part of the last century where they changed that to a supermajority.

wanted to, what i talk about is that i believe all the justices are highly qualified. some of them whether it be nominated by a republican or democrat. they are all highly qualified. i think they have very mature discussions based on law given the best that they can do. i do not think any of them go in there with democrat or republican leaning agendas. to rulethey are there strictly by the rule of law and our constitution. host: thanks for the call. is the headline from the washington examiner. john roberts emphasizing judiciary independence after the capital confirmation fight. this from one of our viewers saying scotus is not independent.

too much influence from the heritage foundation and the federalist society. this from kiki, lifetime appointments, time to vote for judges and have term limits. calvin, your next from wisconsin. caller: i wanted to say that i have been listening for some time. what your agree with or disagree on. everyone has been negative against republicans. you have not had one single support for him since i have been listening. host: we have had a number of them on over the last now 30 minutes. caller: i am just listening and the last 10 minutes. -- in the last 10 minutes. look at how many republican senators vote for democrat supreme court justices even though they totally disagree with everything they believe in.

they will still support them. completely partial to getting what they want. --egardless of for 200 years, the country would not a supported abortion. they wanted to go by precedents. i guess that is about all i wanted to say. host: thanks for listening. i hope you continue to tune in. the chief justice also talked about the collegiality among justices appointed by both democrats and republicans. [video clip] >> those of us on the court no that the best way to do our job is to work together in a collegial way. i am not talking about mere

civility, although that helps. sharedlking about a commitment to a genuine exchange of ideas and views through each step of the decision process. steped to know at each that we are in this together. there is a concrete expression of that collegiality in a tradition at the court that has prevailed for over a century. but -- before we go on to the bench to hear an argument, and before we go to the conference room to discuss a case, we pause for a moment and shake each other's hand. perhaps, but thing it is a repeated reminder that as our newest colleague put it, we do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle, we do not caucus in separate rooms, we do not serve one party or one interest, we

serve one nation. you that assure all of we will continue to do all of that to the best of our abilities whether times are call more contentious. calm orer times are contentious. host: the gallup organization with a poll asking the question of confidence in institutions. asking how people view congress, the white house, and the supreme court. our fun lines are open. if you agree the supreme court is independent, (202) 748-8000. derek in naples, florida. caller: i just had a few comments. one of your last colors was complaining -- one of your last callers complaining about not enough prorepublican viewpoints. irregardless is not a worse.

we are talking -- irregardless is not a word. democrat, i find that a lot of republicans, especially on the supreme court went to take away -- once to take away the rights of people whether it be gay marriage, abortion, whereas i do not feel that the liberals or open-minded justices are trying to take away inherent rights from people. that is my only comment for this morning. host:. thank you for the call. . the supreme court on a break last week and again this week. they will return in late october. misty is joining us. courtree that the supreme is an independent just. caller: i sure do.

i believe that we are supposed to work together to make a better country. that is what i believe. host: we will go to david next in ohio. caller: good morning. out thatnted to point if you are in any way a victim of the drug war, your opinion of anyone on the bench is not good at all. host: thank you, david. this is from victor saying that with the addition of brett kavanaugh, i am dubious of any decisions moving forward for the first time. i realize early decisions, they had an agenda also. i do not know if the scotus is independent though they claim they are. another tweet from chris saying the supreme court likes to pretend they are independent, but they are subject to political biases as any other organization.

we carried live the ohio senate debate last night. it was a debate that for a while looked like it might he canceled -- looked like it might be canceled because of some last-minute charges. this runs about four minutes. want to share with you the full exchange. [video clip] the marriott times had a -- >> the editorial said one time was too many. you asked senator franken to step down when it was learned -- you was substantiated asked him to step down. parnell is a candidate for congress in south carolina. congressman tim ryan said because of domestic abuse that happened over 40 years ago that he needs to step down. he said that is not a standard of conduct that can become -- that can be tolerated in the house and senate.

you believe any instance of domestic violence or sexual assault disqualifies anyone for not only serving in the house or senate but serving in a public office? >> i answer that question numerous times with you. my former wife has asked that you stop attacking our family. have askednewspapers you to stop making these allegations. you should be ashamed of yourself. tomy question now goes congressman rene z. happens to be in the same area. your campaign and you have made quite an issue out of the decades-old allegations involving senator brown and his former wife. you justify that by pointing to court documents and public records. you said that was the reason that this should be part of the public discourse. trump records show ivana

assaultegations of during their divorce in the 1990's. in sworn testimony and pleadings filed with the court, those allegations were made. there is demonstrable evidence of infidelity by mr. trump. by your own reasoning, should that have disqualified him from serving in public office? >> i do not believe that any man that touches and harms a woman -- that is unacceptable. absolutely unacceptable. forgiveness does not mean it did not happen. the cases i am discussing with senator brown, these are documents. abuse.ow evidence of you cannot get a judge to get a restraining order if something cannot happen. 2016, he asked senator

franken to step down because of allegations of sexual assault. gettor brown does not grandfathered in on this issue when it comes to the president, if the senator wants to run against the president, he can use that information against him. jim race here is about renee c and senator brown. whether he is qualified to be united states senator. he is saying the judge's life. when there is a restraining order, that means there was enough evidence to prove it. i think republicans, democrats, independents, if they violate and they put their hand on a woman, none of them should be serving in the united states senate or the house. >>. a brief follow-up you did not answer my question.

should have disqualified president trump -- shouldn't have disqualified president trump -- should it have disqualified president trump from public service? >> i do like what he is doing in the economy. if that is what is to be used in the 2020 campaign, it can be used. we are talking about a senate race. i am not running for president. president,unning for anyone, republican, democrat, independent who is their hand on a woman disqualifies them from being in the house or senate. host: last night exchange. we want to thank our local partners who have allowed us to carry well over 100 debates during this campaign cycle to have you have a better understanding of what is happening. the schedule on our website at c-span.org.

back to your calls and the issue of the supreme court and whether or not you think it is the independent branch of government. charity has this tweet. i think it has -- it is very important for her to remain an independent branch. brett kavanaugh showed clear partisanship. a big no-no. saying the only way the left can advance their agenda is through the court. five justices will stop that for a generation or so. i cannot wait for trump to nominate two more conservatives. finally from gary saying bush v gore was correctly decided. the democrats decided -- the democrats tried to rig the election. pensacola, florida, you're next. court shouldupreme be an independent branch of the government. that is why they have lifetime appointments.

whether that was a mistake from our founders are not as highly debated. having said that, it is amazing how the press and democrats keep saying it is all about trump. look at that thing last night. they interjected trump into a debate between two governorships in ohio. they cannot it him off his mind. he has infected these people. he is the great president. host: it is a u.s. senate debate that we carried last night. there is the governor's race in florida. we go to marcia in florida. caller: thanks to c-span. just areme court is now leg of the right side of the congress. it when he voted

-- when he overturned congress's extend the voting do saying that the negros not have a problem anymore. he should have been impeached for that. thomas usedia and to visit regularly with the koch brothers. host: the cover story of cq weekly, intelligence companies are growing answer to questions about them. i read this at the top of the program. the reporting of robert barnes who is a veteran supreme court reporter for the washington post and was in minnesota for this event. he writes, the nasty fight over the kavanaugh confirmation is likely to solidify a

conservative majority in the supreme court for a veneration -- for a generation. it is five -- says the court must not try to become identified with partisan interest. the supreme court justice is known for choosing his word carefully. needed to address how the partisan fights have turned the judiciary into something of a political spoils system. acknowledge that it remained -- he acknowledge that it remained harder than he held -- brad from springfield, virginia. caller: good morning. i do think that it is an independent branch of government. about, a lotading of the decisions the court makes our 9-0.

they do not get the publicity that the five-for once do. ones do.4 host: thing spreading a voice to the conversation. we will go to north carolina. caller: thank you for c-span. i absolutely disagree that the court is independent. i want to encourage your listeners to go online and check the new yorker profile of john roberts, which they did a few years ago. i'm telling you that when i read about the history of his opinions and before he joined the court, it absolutely sent chills down my spine. specificrefer to information because i passed it on to a friend. him -- you played his comments about the court

being independent. hishe same time, he quoted newest colleague who absolutely demonstrated in his statements about accusing the left and the asking senator klobuchar who is one of the most rs if she hadato ever blacked out from drinking. this is a betrayal of trust to have kavanaugh. i want to tell you one last thing. as a young woman, i was invited to join a group of catholic young adults. s daughterice byrd' was a member. she invited us to tour the supreme court. i had a chance to sit in the chair that the chief justice

since in. .t the time, i felt very proud i no longer have confidence in the court. one very last comment is that to me, roberts comes across as an automaton. host: we want to share with you three headlines. we'll be talking about these later in the program. jamal khashoggi has been confirmed dead. his calls for reform grew into a shout. the saudi's rally around their friends. we will hear from the president who spoke about it yesterday. a political story from sean sullivan. republicans rebound as the ground continues to shift ahead of the midterm elections. these stories also available on washington post.org -- weston pushed.com. bridget is joining us from washington, d.c. caller: i want to say that in

terms of the case law and the handling of president obama's nominee, the court has shown that it is not nonpartisan warfare. if you look at bush v gore, citizens united, shelby county, and the hawaii decision, and many more, the partisan bias is clear. the court should have spoken out against a nominee to the court not getting any hearing or consideration. we are now in a post-constitutional society. host: thank you for the call. this is from carolina. the way the supreme court justices get along is they respect one another. it is easy to be independent because once there, they do not have to worry about the next election. this from rebecca saying good for roberts taking a stand against partisanship, but he cannot un-bake the cake.

there are three women on the u.s. supreme court appointed by either president obama or president clinton. member, ruthor bader ginsburg. that issue also came up at the university of minnesota. [video clip] >> i guess i do not really know. argument thathe it brings a different perspective and changes it. sayhe other hand, i would it is subconscious in the sense that i cannot hear anything and think, that is a peculiarly female perspective on the law in terms of the legal work and presentation. i do not see a difference. maybe i am not attuned to it. i think my female colleagues perform pretty much the same way my male colleagues do. i think that is pretty much it.

i do not see any difference in their legal analysis or anything like that. calls.ack to your phone our question, is the supreme court the independent branch of the government? george, an independent from maine. you disagree. caller: i disagree because i saw clarence thomas and his wife sitting on the bench with the pharmaceutical lobbyist and they were all holding hands. having a good time. that is what i felt. host: where did you see that, george? caller: it could have been on c-span. i am not sure exactly where it was. it was several years ago probably. the speechou watch by john roberts? caller: no, i did not.

host: how did he come across from your standpoint? caller: he seems like a good man. impartial. host: thank you for the call. our phone lines are open. (202) 748-8000 if you agree that the supreme court is the impartial branch of government. (202) 748-8001 if you disagree. we will take a look at the death of jamal khashoggi later. confirmed of the last couple of days and the saudi response. good morning. where you phoning from? --or, you are on the air caller, you are on the air. caller: the supreme court is supposed to be independent. host: are you with us? we will go to john in ohio.

caller: good morning. it is called out here. people seem to have forgotten for years that the court leaned left. congress was dominated by democrats for so long. they were not so bad as they are now. they were not super liberal back then. -- it was still dominated by democrats. host: thanks for the call. our phone lines are open. from new york, good morning. i just have a problem with this whole legislative branch or the government growing out of control. legislation by definition is a fraud because it is not god

laws. -- to maintainr the utmost power, which are god laws. even in deuteronomy, it says he shall not add unto the word which i command you. neither shall you diminish from it. says think nott that i come to destroy the lord and the prophets. i do not come to destroy but to fulfill. i say unto you, until have -- until heaven and earth pass, one title shall pass to all be fulfilled. this view are saying yes, scotus is independent. predictables now a shame.

says the record suggests otherwise from collegiality. america's highest court is deeply spent --is deeply split. the chief justice wrote for the narrow majority in the case trump v hawaii. conservatives also voted together over protests from the four liberals to reverse a president involving nonmember fees for labor union collective bargaining. president trump saying, big loss for the coppers of the democrats. back to your phone calls. from new haven, connecticut. you're next. woman: i agree with the from north carolina.

-- but i agree with what she said. the lady that came after her. i agree with what they had to say. on supreme to date court decisions and lessig gets a lot of publicity. the 1 -- supreme court decisions and less it gets a lot of publicity. someone -- we need a moderate. even if that person was chosen by a democrat president or a republican. we need some sanity in that court. kavanaugh, coming on the way he did, i am going to make a comment about kavanaugh being chosen and voted for and then people turning on that victim

shame. she did not know who sexually assaulted her. the people like senator collins who a lot of times is supposed to be working bipartisan with my former senator, she is going to pay for her decision. when she comes up for reelection in 2020. i'm sure a lot of women in her state did not like that decision. host: thanks for the call. andy from new york city. your take on all of this. caller: i do not have any faith in the court. gore was the bush v decision. and citizens united. and america, and the merrick gad treatment. aside from that, kavanaugh, when he spoke to the senate, spoke as partisan as one possibly could. congress brought articles of impeachment against

justice samuel chase. accused him ofle continuing to promote his political agenda on the bench, thereby tending to prostitute t he high judicial character to the low purpose of partisan rate. the court was damaged, and he was not impeached. this court, i think, when alito time to change the .onservative court we had the right to appoint merrick garland. the way these justices are appointed now is so partisan, there's no hope for the court. host: justice alito is very much alive, you must have meant justice scalia. -- wrote that president trump requires an oath of personal loyalty or you don't get the job.

gorsuch and kavanaugh obviously took that of. -- wrote that the reason we lost obamacare -- --tern gets the last word independent civil libertarian, i am appalled by all of the republicans and democrats calling in and never mentioning the constitution and bill of rights once, but that is to be expected. they don't care about that. the court is independent. they've proven it time and time again through history. the fear tactics aren't going to work. for all of you, and you who have weighed in with your calls, comments, and postings. the conversation continues on facebook. up next, in just a moment, james joining us,ng to be the editor of the new

conservative magazine. later from foreign policy on thee, michael hirsh death of journalist jamal khashoggi. ,irst, our guest is guy cecil talking about the money being spent in the midterm election. -- going to end up raising and spending, and how is that compared to the goals at the end of the cycle? i think we'll end up somewhere in the course of the cycle raising $100 million, including work we do in both partisan politics, focused on elections, but also some of our nonpartisan activity. one of the things we've been last two yearshe has been litigation, focused on voting rights. in the last nine months, we've had the conclusion of five court

cases in five states, all victories on behalf of priorities usa, nonpartisan work to help,o designed one, lower barriers to voting, and to get underrepresented engaged in the process. we are on track to hit our goal for this cycle, but are certainly still raising and are engaged in about seven races, -- seven senate races, four house races -- we see a number of democratic candidates across the country disavowing pac money, saying they won't take corporate pac money and even super pac's coming in on their behalf. do you think that your involvement in a race could be viewed as a detriment to a candidate who is sort of running away from big money, and to take that one step further, in 2020,

if a democratic nominee disavows super pac's, will you stand down? >> none of these candidates in these races have said they don't playing in the race. there are certainly democrats who have said they won't take corporate pac money, and i've advised them to take that position. i do not believe in unilateral disarmament. cecil, guest on c-span newsmakers program, airing every sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. , the new editor of the american conservative. congratulations. let me begin with this headline from the washington post. to some, november 6 is all about trump. is this midterm election any different from previous presidents and previous midterms? is different, but the

overall pattern of the president being so important has tended to be true historically in midterm elections. about the first midterm election of someone's presidency, it is usually to the detriment of the party. in 18 of the last -- the president's party has lost congress, typically the point getsthe out party energized and decides they want to make a statement against the president and his party. thatwo recent exceptions prove the rule are the reaction to the attempted impeachment of bill clinton and in 2002, the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. in those cases, the president's party gained seats. in general, it is pushed back. in this case, i think it is a situation where president trump dominates all of our news coverage, dominates the political landscape.

and how suburban, republican leaning voters feel about trump, which tends to be more hostile, and conservative voters in some states that decide which party controls the senate, which is more favorable, those are driving the election cycle. wake up onyou november 7, what will the house look like? guest: i suspect it will look a lot more democratic, probably majority democratic. have a big numeric advantage in that they are playing offense in about 60 congressional districts. republicans are really only legitimately on offense and five. another number that really favors the democrats is fundraising. the democratic challengers are frequently out raising republican incumbents, in a number of races that have been looked at.

double what the republicans have been raising. there's a lot of energy, a lot of enthusiasm, and a lot of money. when you look at the house seats that are really in play, a 23 seat majority, there are as many gop help districts that went for clinton, then -- that went narrowly for president trump. the republicans bartending to do well in the trump districts, but there are enough swing districts and clinton districts held by havelicans that democrats a real opportunity to make some serious gains. host: what will the senate look like? tost: it has the potential be a very different story from the house. some think it is potential that if the blue wave is intense enough, you will see these close senate races, at least the majority of them breaking one way, for the democrats.

right now, the polling does not necessarily show that. tother you attribute it brett kavanaugh and renewed thatrvative enthusiasm, his fight has elicited, or whether it is simply republicans coming home as the election comes closer, taking work more seriously, the idea that democrats could get gains. you are starting to see these red state senate races move back in the directions of republicans. all not only have to hold of their vulnerable seats, there are 10 democrats up for reelection in states that president trump carried in 2016, and they have to knock off some republicans. they could try to pick up jeff flake's seat in arizona, a seat in nevada, and the soon to be open senate seat in tennessee, and compete with ted cruz in texas.

some of these seats they are hoping would be big tick up opportunities, starting to move back to republican columns. still a lot of close races in places like indiana and montana. goodlicans have a pretty shot at retaining the majority in the senate and even expanding a little bit. host: we are speaking with james let's talk about texas. in politics, there have often been politicians who bury the hatchet and move on. but in 2016, president trump ted",d ted cruz "lyin mocked his wife's looks, implied attempted to assassinate -- is there any hypocrisy in that? i think president trump

has been more transparent about how transactional his relationships with various politicians and political figures really is, to a degree that other politicians would sort of pretend. i think it is pretty clear cut that when you are nice to trump or supportive of trump, or you are aligned with trump, he is generally going to speak well of you. there is really no limit to what he's going to do to speak against you if the opposite is the case. i think you've really seen that in the relationship between president trump and senator cruz. i think that early in the campaign, one of the things that made the race look competitive for a while was that senator reallyhandling of trump hurt him on all sides. obviously, he's had periods of being very supportive of president trump, and periods during the 2016 campaign where

their relationship was contentious. he was the runner-up for the nomination. i think that initially, cruz's refusal to unambiguously support trump at the republican convention left hostility behind with some of the hard-core trump supporters and conservative republicans, and even the more moderate conservative republicans who thought cruz was too close to trump. so, having both ends of that, cruz having a challenge and how he would handle trump, i think the fact that he's appearing so closely to the election with president trump, shows that the president is a benefit to him in texas, even if there are some suburban districts where you prefer not to see the president. we saw -- said not showing up for the rally. the trump dynamic in some of these districts is still

complicated. i think statewide, for cruz, -- you can watch coverage of the rally at 7:30 eastern time tomorrow on c-span. barack obama is in las vegas and we will have live coverage of his remarks at 4:00 eastern. the president yesterday in nevada had this to say. >> the democrats don't care their extremist immigration agenda will do to your communities, your hospitals. what about your hospitals? and your schools. ae democrats don't care that flood of illegal immigration will bankrupt our country. did anyone see that bridge over the weekend? yesterday, today? is that an incredible situation? it's sad, and honestly, it is said from their side also.

we are going to figure it out. i'll be honest with you. i've already figured it out. be happy.ng to we are going to make a lot of people happy. make a lot ofo people happy. i'm going to keep it a little bit low-key before the election. i think that blue wave is being rapidly shattered. [cheers and applause] the democratsll want is power and they've got this blue wave deal going. not looking like a blue wave. i think dean heller is going to win here. sally, --rtha make martha mcsally did great last night, she's going to win. sky, and i just left. i tell you, they're going to win in montana. inthink we're going to win

indiana. i think we're going to win, josh, in missouri. i think rick scott is going to win in the great state of florida. you have a great governor in florida. you know who our governor is going to be. he's going to be fantastic in florida. big ron. we call him big ron. harvard, year, smart. going to be a great governor of florida. just like adam. the president yesterday on the campaign trail in las vegas. former vice president biden also campaigning. joe biden is obviously considered the front runner for the 2020 democratic presidential nomination, with the asterisk that it's not entirely clear that he will actually run. but he's big, keeping his

options open. i think he and president obama are two big drivers of democratic turnout, reminding voters of what is at stake in this election. president trump is now, obviously, almost every night going out and campaigning in battleground states, at variance with the idea that he's a liability. sort of the complicated factor of having the house where you have all these suburban districts in play where trump may not be to the benefit of republicans candidates, but in battleground states in the senate and other places, he is. so maybe a bit of a proxy war with trump and biden in 2020, boosting their respective candidates. host: your work is available on the american conservative's website. newt: i'm going to be the

editor of the american conservative magazine, founded to start a debate on the right issues,eign-policy civil debate. things that we thought were consistent with the traditional conservative viewpoint that were being shoved out of the republican party and the mainstream conservative movement debate, particularly at the time the magazine was founded, on the eve of the u.s invasion of iraq. we did not think it was a wise idea. and i think we've been borne out thinkt question, and i you see a lot of people, jeb quite aough it took while, did concede that we should not have run into iraq. marco rubio said, knowing what we know now, we probably wouldn't. john mccain, before he passed away, conceded that the iraq war was a mistake. to see us expand

that logic to potentially other foreign wars in the middle east, where they tend to have a destabilizing effect that has detracted from our national security. host: is donald trump a conservative? conservative tendencies. i remember when william buckley, jr. was asked that question about george w. bush, who said he is conservative, but not a conservative. i think that president trump's impulses are very different from andident bush's instincts impulses. i think he does revive the nationstate, the that the united states is a specific country with its own interests. i think that president trump conservative some impulses on issues like immigration, but also other areas. he's not a philosophical man in but not philosophically conservative on issues of women

in government, the constitution. backe certainly bringing trillions of dollars in -- fairly rapid economic growth, very conservative practice. dick cheney said deficits don't matter, but in the long-term, they do. there are some conservative things and some not so conservative things about him. which i think can be said about republican presidents. editorames antle is the of the american conservative. he is a graduate of ohio wesleyan university. up on our line for republicans, north carolina. respect, ih all due have to disagree with your guests here. i don't understand how the polls makethat the democrats progress in the house, but lose

in the senate. that doesn't make any sense at all. host: would you like to explain the polling? the national environment is tens to matter more in the house because you have all 435 seats up. you only have one third of the senate seats up this year, and those seats are disproportionately up in republican in states -- republican-leaning states. you have more democrats protecting seats at risk than republicans. that creates a situation where factors are little different from the national climate. you also have the fact that the house seats that are really in where there are competitive races happening, those are tending to happen in areas where president trump is less popular. a lot of the senate races that will determine which way the

fairly closely divided senate that we have now, those senate races are happening in states where president trump is still a relatively popular. i understand that from a surface to be ahere would seem disconnect, but if you look at where these races are specifically happening, it is understandable why people's different views of trump would provide -- 's next from new york, independent line. i would like to say that praying for've been president trump and i pray that at this time.ieve what i mean by that is that he , that armageddon doesn't start during his presidency, because that is where we are headed. because we've turned our backs

on the lord, our god. we need to go back to god's laws and he needs to go back to listen to what god has to say and get in touch with jah, .net, and jahtruth that wehe lord's words may possibly have a reprieve and that armageddon may not start on his watch. her point andake ask you about the evangelical vote. guest: president trump has done well with evangelicals, both in 2016, and seems to have maintained that connection all the way through the midterm .lections he has delivered on a number of his campaign promises to social conservatives, which include evangelicals. obviously on judges, he has been fairly reliable. the kavanaugh nomination and confirmation being a high-profile example.

if kavanaugh ends up being a more reliable conservative vote than anthony kennedy, then he will have delivered in an area that even ronald reagan failed, with regard to that particular seat. could be a conservative majority that indoors and the court for a time. obviously his personal life has been a source of controversy and possibly embarrassment to evangelicals, even though they are seen to rally toward him. it is seen as a reversal from the 1990's where they were much more likely to argue that the character of the president mattered a great deal, perhaps more than the public policy positions. you could argue that some liberals and feminists have reversed themselves from that time as well, arguing that bill clinton's personal behavior was irrelevant, and his support for things like abortion rights was what matters. -- of the is what

washington post has said about presidentsm and trump. he taps into the kind of blood and soil, chauvinistic conservatism that has a long history not only in new york but this country, whose champions include john c calhoun, charles father charles coughlin, george wallace, and pat buchanan. conservatives try to move the right in a less bigoted direction,gh-minded but -- has proved they have failed for at least the time being. >> i think some of the sentiments that he is attributing to president trump were just as useful in rallying people behind the iraq war, some of the supposedly high-minded goals he had for conservatives. guest: i think when you talk about nationalism and patriotism and things like that, as things where it's not even just

conservatives, but american identity can be routed, there are ways in which that can be applied that her love of country, love of place, love of family, comes as the same place of love of familiar. but it can also be applied in ways that are ugly and more narrowminded, and we've certainly seen that happen in our history as well. in the history of the western world. that don't think you necessarily have to repudiate concepts of patriotism and dismissed them as simply blood and soil. they do speak to real things and can have noble applications as well as, with most things in human nature and experience, less noble applications. joining'll go to sue, us from michigan on the independent line. caller: we are having an election this fall and we will vote on governor and senator.

i'm really not impressed with either one. but since i'm going to be retiring next year and my main , and by on health care retirement and stuff, and i have to lean democrat even though i don't care for them, because i think they are going to protect my interest more than the republicans are. and also, i'm one of these suburban women who thinks that donald needs to be checked once in a while. republicans let him get free reign as long as he passes their policies, but he is so offensive sometimes that, you know, i think we need a checking system for him. host: what would you tell the voter? guest: the caller is representative of what many republicans are worried about, that there is a number of suburban women who find the president personally offensive, even though they might otherwise

be inclined to vote republican. they are less inclined because of president trump. but also, the health care issue has been thorny for republicans in this election cycle. until now, obamacare has been unpopular and running on repeal has been a clear-cut electoral advantage for republicans. in this cycle, that has been less true. it seems to be the case that whichever party is campaigning on disrupting your existing health care arrangements tends to pay a price for that. before, it was largely the supporters of obamacare seen in that light. now, republicans are struggling with the fact that day and some of their past repeal efforts are seen in that way. trumpk you see president and other republicans trying to pivot and frame the issue as democrats moving in the single-payer direction, medicare for all, and that is going to be of people's existing

health care arrangements and republicans are trying to get ahead of that. so far, it is not clear that message is resonating as much as republicans would want. issues of pre-existing conditions, medicaid expansion, those things are still very much in some swing voters' minds. host: our guest is the editor of the american conservative. we have a caller from plattsburgh, republican line. with the disagree comment you just mentioned, sir. i think republicans are going to take the election this year, and the democrats are so desperate for power, i don't know anybody who wants to vote for a democrat, with all of the chaos of the mobs and all that that they are creating. it is really disgusting and sick. and i'm disabled, and i think that since president trump has insurance isy

actually better than obama's. i got her 10 years ago on the job and i'm paralyzed -- i got the job ands ago on i'm paralyzed. under obama, i had to pay for everything, and now i don't. i get that for free under my medicare and medicaid. the only thing i have to spend is $75 for my dental and my eyes , which i think is more than fair. i think all of this negative vibe that the democrats are saying about the republicans is totally wrong. just take a look at how the democrats are acting on the television, and in public. they are a bunch of crazy people. anybody in the united states want them to run the country like that? host: good luck, i'm going to jump in. thank you for sharing your story. guest: a big campaign theme that

i think is emerging for trumpet and the republicans is that republicans create jobs and democrats create mobs. but some of the reaction to kavanaugh and some of the yelling that we've seen at republican politicians and restaurants, and there have obviously been worse things that have happened to republican politicians like rand paul and steve scalise, i think there is an effort to sort of look at the climate and say, do you want to put these people in charge of the country question mark whether that resonates in the swing districts, i'm not sure of , but i think it will motivate republican voters to turn out and make sure their voices are heard. host: you cannot with the book, devouring freedom. we look at the debt clock approaching $22 trillion. federal spending is up 132%.

so the republicans have formed a tax cut plan that they claim will form jobs and grow the economy. democrats claim it will add $1 trillion to the debt. i have to ask you about the national debt. anyone trillion dollars, the 779 billion dollars, some predicting it could reach $1 trillion in 2019. what's going on with the debt? >> it's disturbing and is being driven by entitlement programs that are very popular, medicare, social security, and medicaid. the subject we were just , the funding of the government, is about 30% of what we spend. there's been a bipartisan reluctance to tackle entitlement changes because of the popularity of those programs. hopefully, at some point, we'll get serious about this. we haven't been yet. >> it would appear that if you look at the tea leaves, a

divided government might yield to entitlement reform or at least make it easier. >> we had that opportunity during the obama years. think about reagan and tip o'neill coming together in the early 80's to raise the age or social security there it took us out of the political arena and made it possible to be successful. that is what we had the chance to do during the obama years. we had a divided government for six of his eight years. from bloomberg news and the comments of the senate republican leader, you hear that, republicans put forth the tax cut that means less -- he likes spending has not decreased. up cutsing up -- teeing to medicare, medicaid, and social security in 2019 russian ? guest: i don't think so, because -- host: how do you bring down the

debt? guest: that's the problem, our political consensus has been if we are going to have republican tax rates for democratic spending programs, and war is favored by both parties, that politically works well. the american voter would like social security and medicare, and would like their tax cuts. they may not be as enthusiastic about the war aspect, but mathematically, that just doesn't add up. that's the problem. the time horizons of politicians are shorter and only reach the next election cycle. the implications of not reforming our entitlement programs, of the growing national debt, those are things that are longer-term, and we haven't really seen the full economic consequences of that yet. it may play out much further out than the midterm elections, and

politicians are really making their decisions in terms of the next election -- mitch mcconnell mentioned the obama years as an opportunity for bipartisan entitlement reform. i think the missed opportunity was no clinton, who had a fairly fiscally conservative republican congress, clinton was a fairly centrist republican democrat. the baby boomers were at their peak earning years, and now they are already in retirement. there is not a political constituency, the kinds of spending cuts necessary to keep the debt from going out of control while maintaining the types of tax rates that republicans prefer and that i think that our voters prefer. our guest will be talking about this bottom line without oversimplifying it, you need to .aise -- and cut spending would republicans agreed to a

tax hike if democrats agreed to spending cuts or rolling out phases of the entitlement programs over the years that would reduce spending? guest: i doubt it at this point. i think both parties are moving in opposite directions on this issue. used aer know, you just little bit of that, not with regard to entitlement, but debt reduction. era, theybush 41's agreed to some reductions of the rate of growth, but democrats are moving in a direction where they want to make entitlement medicarebigger, expand beyond the universe of retired and i think republicans are moving in the direction of wanting tax rates to be even .ower than they are they want more people to get tax cuts and potentially for fewer people to pay taxes. so i think that if you have

cortez on oneasio-capo' side and paul ryan on the other, it's not likely to meet in the middle. mike in fairfax, virginia, good morning. our line for democrats. called ise reason i because i have the opposite question of one of your earlier colors. i don't see how you can have a red waves in the senate and have a blue wave in the house. all of those conservatives and republicans that are voting straight ticket in those states are voting pulling incket and all the representatives? i don't understand how you can have, you know, the senate be one way and the house be another. caller: well, if heidi heitkamp

loses in north dakota, that do anythingssarily for the political fortunes of barbara comstock in northern virginia. a our two different races in different areas. republicans do well enough in montana to upset jon tester, that will help down ballot republicans. the races where republicans are in danger. what is putting the house in danger for republicans. the same is true of missouri, in texasesentatives are helped by a strong performance by ted cruz, some by ted abbott help in florida with rick scott against bill nelson in a close race for senate. you have democrats leading

narrowly in both races, but if republicans turned out, that could help some vulnerable republicans in the house. happening inis is different universes. what happens in north dakota doesn't help what happens in northern virginia, and northern virginia is representative of the type of representatives that are in danger in the south -- could have completely opposite outcomes in each chamber. host: you mention florida, virginia, minnesota, california. in terms of house races, those are the ones the keep an eye on. with so many open seats or redistricting, orange county, california, becoming much more of a purple or democratic county will impact the results. onwill have the results tuesday, november 6, 8:00 p.m. eastern time. oliver joins from new jersey. statenate race in your

between bob you can and bob menendez. caller: good morning. whyould set -- i don't know , in this country that claims is one of the biggest and most powerful countries in the world, -- have jobs and those who are in charge shouldn't pay attention to those who can't wait anymore. thing, in 2017, we had 14 million -- that is a disaster. it nobody goes to vote and everyone stays home, at home the rest they had at is more useful than -- until the vote

government stops -- that is a right that you have. the complaint has been that voter turnout has not been necessarily high. in midterm elections, voter turnout tends to be a lot lower than in presidential years. , i think, are hoping there will be relatively high turnouts compared to other elections this year. the big problem democrats had under president obama was that a number of voters turning out to elect barack obama were not turning out in the midterm elections. so he got elected twice, but both midterm elections were fairly disastrous for democrats and you saw a republicans take the house in 2010 and senate in 2014. caller: john from west palm beach, florida. republican line. caller: i'm really saddened over the years and how more and more

misinformation gets spread on c-span. steve, you said something untrue. know,x cuts, as far as i and i've looked, has increased revenues, not decreased them. the same thing happened under reagan. our revenues doubled, but are spending tripled. and we keep talking, 30 years ago about how reagan ran up the debt. obama doubled the debt. but as a former democrat for 35 years, now a republican, i'll be fair to obama. 65% to 70% is entitlements. ,nd obamacare is not this new wonderful insurance program. it's called medicaid. got onlook at those who obamacare, it's because they expanded medicaid. i'm disappointed that this conservatives is not challenging that we havesay

increased the deficit because of the tax cut. all duehn, with respect, it has increased fiscal year to fiscal year, as i said in setting up the question. republicans say that in the long term, it will create more jobs and means more revenue. in the short term, the fiscal ended, spending has gone up in revenue is down, so we have a $780 billion debt for the fiscal year 2018. those are the facts. caller: i don't know where you are getting your statistics. host: on getting these statistics from the federal government. this is not an opinion, these are the facts. caller: i just went on the website and the revenue is up. host: what is your source? caller: the deficit is going up because of entitlements. you can't -- the deficit -- host: spending is going up because of medicare, medicaid, and social security. year,e last fiscal revenue was down.

this fiscal year, the president and republicans say it will increase, but it was down this year according to the statistics from the government accountability office. caller: we're going to have to agree to disagree. host: what is your source? caller: i'm looking at the government website, the white house dot gov website. you can say that trump is going to lie through his teeth, but he gets these numbers -- he can't produce these numbers out of thin air. he gets these numbers from the accounting agency. host: you even heard from the senate republican leader that the debt is going up and he called it very disturbing. but thank you for the call. i think absolutely, the long-term drivers are the spending programs. i support the tax cut, good for economic growth. that i think there's a tension between having tax rates be where i would prefer they be at republicans would prefer they

be, and continue to have the spending that we have. we don't seem to be in a good position to get from point a to .oint b we don't have a political constituency big enough to reduce those spending commitments. i think it was somewhat easier, even though we didn't initially see increases in the deficit after reagan, but eventually, over time, the caller was right, tax revenues did double. but there's a lot that goes into that figure and it's also the case that the reagan tax cuts occurred at a time when the top was 70%.tax rate we are talking about marginal tax rates that are lower than even under the terms of supply side economics and the leper curve, where you are in the range of maximizing revenue and when you begin to lose revenue, in a fundamentally different place than under ronald reagan. me share this headline from the new york times, these

numbers from the new york times. the budget deficit jumps nearly 70% in 2018. swelling $779 billion in fiscal year 2018. according to the treasury department, driven in large part by a sharp decline in corporate the truck taxnd cuts. good morning. i would suggest approaching this caused problem from a different direction. .he cost of our health care what we need, and i don't think we'll ever see it in my lifetime, is destructive innovation, not disruptive. destructive innovation. for instance, united states spends over $10,000 per person on health care. the next western state in europe charges about 6000, it's almost half. we have to figure out why that is.

in this money system country, which is involved in our health care system. host: we'll get a response. guest: that is what i think the debate on health care is going to be in the coming years, especially as democrats increasingly embrace single-payer, making the argument that european countries that have single-payer, canada autonomiesomparable to the united states, have -- single-payer would be a way to achieve that outcome in the united states. i think that even though that is the case, there isn't any precedent for other countries reducing health care costs by the amount it would take to get the united states to be at the level of these other countries. it would still be a very destructive policy is adopted here. single-payer programs like medicare have not produced those

types of cost reductions in the united states. host: i want to share with you, one advertisement from the d triple c -- from the dccc. it runs 30 seconds. averagehappens when the joe realizes that we have the entire republican tax cut? like we got all of it. >> come on, they got a tax cut. >> how much was your tax cut? >> not a lot, sir. but for someone like sidetable, not a lot is quite a bit. i bet he saved enough each week to buy, i don't know, a latte at starbucks? >> well -- >> quiet, we are job creators. remember that. coat rack, what's taking the lobster tail so long? i'm hungry. that's from the democratic congressional campaign

committee. your reaction? don't think that belittling the size of various peoples tax cuts isn't the best way to go about it. it certainly didn't work when nancy pelosi called it crumbs. it can be quite consequential to some people. i do think that if they want to try to argue that what would be lost if republicans got to cut spending, even though there's not a lot of evidence that they will cut much in the way of spending, i think they are trying to argue that more will be lost for certain people than they would gain from the tax cut. i think that's going to be the challenge for republicans, making the tax cuts be perceived as something more than a corporate tax cut. that it was a tax cut for working families as well. host: our guest, the new editor of the american conservative. james antle, thanks for joining us. we turn our attention to the guest of jamal khashoggi. joining us in a moment is

michael hirsh, who's been following the story. to later, norman solomon talk about liberals, the democratic party, and 2020. it is the 21st day of october, we are back in a moment. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, on american artifacts, a baseball americana exhibit at the library of congress, which includes the baseball magna carta. and at 8:00, on the presidency. ,ormer president george w. bush

cokie roberts and friends, reflect on the life of former first lady barbara bush. about,had this motto you're going to be judged by the life, by yourr relationships with friends, family, coworkers. and people you meet along the way. tv,atch on american history this weekend on c-span 3. >> university of pennsylvania annenberg school of communication professor on web privacy issues. policies are not designed to protect your privacy, they are designed to give you an idea, or at least the lawyers an idea, of the kind of information the company can use about you, often share. sayou go to a retailer, kroger or target or walmart,

they will tell you that they use just about everything you do in relation to them. , theyake your information use your information. they share parts of it. and they even by information about you that will sort of complement the information they already have. >> watch the communicators, monday, at 8:15 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. c-span, where history unfolds daily. 1970 nine, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies, and we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. washington journal continues. host: we welcome michael hirsh,

senior correspondent for foreign policy. khashoggi,f jamal the front page of the washington post. his calls for reform grew into a shout. this statement shared by fred ryan, publisher and ceo of the washington post. quote, the government of saudi arabia has shamefully and repeatedly offered one lie after another in the nearly three weeks since jamal khashoggi disappeared in their istanbul no proof, offering and contrary to all available evidence, they expect the world to believe he died in a fight. -- should demand to see verifiable evidence, the saudi's cannot be allowed to fabricate a face-saving solution to an atrocity that appears to have been directed by the highest

levels of their government. over: listen, this is not by any means. statements they made late friday, saturday morning their examined,oing to be undercut by further evidence, particularly by turkish theorities, who either have saudi consulate extensively ofged or had other means surveillance, because they have audio and possible video of what happened, which has not been released. it has been seen by some officials. host: but it has been seen? guest: according to various news accounts. secretary of state mike pompeo denied that he had been mad givn access to it during his trip to turkey recently, along with saudi arabia. it hasn't come out yet, but president erdogan of turkey seems to be conducting this massive leak campaign at his

leisure, and i fully expect more to come out. ae idea that this was merely fist fight or a brawl inside the , with 15 mente sent from saudi arabia for reasons the saudi government has not adequately explained, that is not going to hold water for very long. the waye president, on back from nevada yesterday, was asked about these developments. >> i'll be speaking to them soon. could be today. a lot of progress is being made. we will have an answer by probably tuesday or so. -- it may, and i will also work with the senate and house. we will be working with congress because they are very involved and i wanted to keep them involved, much as i did with justice kavanagh. i wanted to keep them involved, i think it is important. >> [indistinct]

to know. seems somebody knows, but nobody in the various investigation groups seems to know. the conversation he was referring to was that the president would be in touch with the crown prince, likely today. but also defending hundreds of billions of dollars in contracts to thesaudis u.s.. it makes you wonder if there's a -- component he was a resident of virginia despite being a saudi national. guest: -- seems to have been severely diminished during this administration. one theme of his response to the disappearance, almost since it happened, is that we don't want these arms deals. clearly this is a strategy of mohammad bin salman, the saudi crown prince, de facto ruler of

the country. he came here one year ago and basically pledged $100 billion in arms sales as sort of an overall $400 billion spending package. nothingourse, there is president trump likes better than a big deal or series of deals. so i think that has been a successful strategy on the part of the saudi's as a way of keeping president trump on their side. going tothink there is be action, the bipartisan response in congress. given where we are in politics these days, it is quite remarkable. you have 11 senators from both parties who have asked president trump to invoke the night nitschke act, a way of -- the ky act, a way of sanctioning human rights anyators, a way to target senior saudi officials involved in mr. khashoggi's debt, up to

and including the crown prince himself. two factors. the relationship between turkey and saudi arabia is important to understand. guest: that relationship has always been fraught. they are regional rivals. the saudis have always considered the turkish government to be suspiciously .lose to iran and of course the great power rivalry in the region is between iran and saudi arabia, along with some of the gulf countries in israel. -- gulf countries and israel. there is some tension. i don't think that erdogan is eager to get into an outright conflict, which is probably one reason he himself has stayed out of this, even though his own officials have been leaking to western media about what happened to khashoggi. are going to see the turks do as they said in the last couple of days.

they will not allow a cover-up to persist. they will -- i believe the saudi government will have to adjust quickly. i think you will see their story continues to change. host: jared kushner and his relationship with the crown prince. up until the disappearance of mr. khashoggi, this was seen as a success story for jared kushner, who hasn't always been taken seriously in this town, but who developed a close relationship with mohammad bin salman on. it's not just the trump administration that was saddling up to the crown prince. he had charmed the american media. you had major media figures calling him than you hope of the arab spring -- the new hope of the arab spring. there was a sense that perhaps saudi arabia would not just the a close partner in allying against iran and forging middle

eastern peace, mohammad bin salman had said things you have saudiard from previous rulers about accepting and recognizing israel. umpthere was a big tr offensive that went on, and jared kushner was involved in it. i think he finds himself embarrassed because the other side of mohammad bin salman on has been revealed, cracking down savagely on dissidents. even alternative voices, the irony is that jamal khashoggi didn't consider himself a dissident. he considered himself loyal to the crown at a patriot, that didn't like what he saw in the hamed bin salman's increasingly tyrannical tendencies, mostly-- it had mostly been a consensus-based operation, that mohammad bin salman, since he

rule, as de facto cracked down on his own extended family members. , imprisoninggo some of them for a time inside the ritz-carlton in riadh, saudi arabia, quite the spectacle. host: he referred to that as a modern-day version of the iron curtain. postingashoggi's fiance some video. ais is what it looks like, touching video tribute. took your, they bodily presence from my world, but your beautiful laugh will remain in my soul forever. my darling. the last words he said to her were "see you later, my darling." we realize this is in arabic, but please watch, it is short. a cat jumps on the screen.

[speaking arabic] [laughter] host: and of course, she posted that to remind people of the gh, the humor of jamal khashoggi. guest: we need to remind ourselves that this is not just -- it is a was a warmhearted greatly intelligent person. friends of his told me when i asked why did he walk into the saudi consulate, knowing that the saudi government was watching him closely and he said -- and indeed had tried to induce him to come back to saudi arabia, why did he walk into the consulate and this person said

he was in love. he had been divorced from his first wife. he wanted to get married. he was obtaining documents so he thought in order to get married, he missed being in saudi arabia, he was living in virginia but he was in self-imposed exile because of his fears of the political crackdown. this is a human tragedy of someone who was looking forward , whoings in his life answered -- who entered the consulate and was never seen again. the details of what happened are going to come out. host: our guest is a foreign -- a former foreign editor for newsweek and a national editor for politico. he is now a national correspondent for foreign policy. al is joining us from indiana, independent line. caller: tennessee.

know henrique kemery no? guest: i don't. caller: let me tell you who he was. citizen,united states a federal agent and with the approval of the highest levels , hehe mexican government was kidnapped, tortured and murdered and his murdered -- and his murder was taped so the officials inking kingpins could listen to it and see what he knew. that was in the 1980's and the reason the united states government that absolutely nothing after one of its citizens was tortured and murdered and knew it was because political pressure from the banks in chicago and new york who held a mexican debt that could not with any sort of pressure on the mexicans or billions would be lost. i think we should saudi's word the

to their minds perhaps pursuing a program of so-called rendition. i don't want to get the case that was a long time ago, but the whole idea of objecting suspected criminals or terrorists and removing them to other governments jurisdiction is not one that the united states has been entirely innocent of, during the whole period since 9/11, there have been numerous renditions of this kind. i think it is relevant to the khashoggi case because ultimately the saudi government will have to admit that the 15 men who were sent to istanbul to confront khashoggi were there at the least to object him -- to of him,him -- to abduct

kidnapped him in an .xtrajudicial way host: a changing story because they said he left the consulate, denied it and then said it was a fight gone wrong. guest: after discussions with united states, u.s. officials like pompeo, they came up with this story because they were totally isolated. obviously they had to say something about it. what they did was they trotted out the story that makes them look the least guilty but that story is hardly complete. it is really impossible to believe that jamal khashoggi confronting 15 men was going to try to fight his way out of it.

this was a 60-year-old journalist, not a martial arts expert. the whole idea that he somehow brought this on himself by struggling or fighting with his captors does not stand up to scrutiny. host: the washington post saying that saudi arabia should be treated as an outlaw, calling it in its editorial, a saudi fable, the kingdom's explanation for mr. khashoggi's death is absurd yet mr. trump plays along. trump andhink that his senior officials including the secretary of state have made very plain that they are not going to jeopardize the relationship with the crown prince who almost certainly was behind this effort to confront, detain and possibly murder jamal in istanbul, that he is going to probably survive in power, the united states will have to deal with him. i think that trump is likely as

he hinted at in his most recent comments to do something to appease the anger and outrage on capitol hill. i would not be surprised if he sanctions against senior officials. it would be convenient for him perhaps if he did that against the officials that had already been arrested in saudi arabia, including two former top aides to the prince who are being cast as scapegoats in this. i do think we will see kind -- some kind of action however cosmetic. host: fox news research on this twitter page, saudi arabia is important to the u.s. the second largest source of u.s. imports in terms of crude oil. exported 12 billion barrels of oil to the u.s. in the past 25 years. the biggest buyer of u.s. arms

and weapons. our democrat line from virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call. an islamic perspective when somebody gets killed, they need to give the body back to the family. even though they admit this guy is dead, where is the body? i think the washington post wants to know, to give condolence to the family, bury them with dignity. where is the body? number two, now they are blaming the highest general in saudi arabia. they are saying he is the one that is responsible. all of these 15 people, they must look like they are dark so they can discriminate them. now they will blame them the problem. saudi arabia is the one who killed 3000 americans in 9/11.

if they were iranian, we would not have this discussion today. these people get off when they get -- when they kill our own people. they destroy our country and we still treat them as close family. you need to understand that. one more thing to the american people. slavery today exists in saudi arabia. they treat their own people like slaves. they own people. you cannot go work somewhere else without someone letting you go. host: thank you for the call. guest: there is a lot there to engage with. as far as mr. khashoggi's remains, that is another thing that is up in the air. the saudi story is that his remains were disposed of by so-called turkish collaborators. overwhelming evidence indicates that after he was killed or perhaps before he died, his body was dismembered.

it is likely, i think that at some point, his remains will be recovered somewhere in turkey, wherever they were disposed of. the saudi u.s. relationship is one i described as too faustian to fail. there is no question that these countries are in bed together over arms contracts, oil, a strategic alignment against iran. i don't see that ending. i think the relationship will endure, however morally unpleasant it is to a lot of people. it is simply in the interest of both countries. i don't think that this crisis is going to go away until president trump takes some action. host: the saudi explanation of -- joined useath,

last week and he is based in istanbul for the washington post. i want to show you a portion of what he is reporting this morning. the saudi explanation that an argument in the consulate led to a fatal brawl is at odds with the conclusion of turkish investigators who believe khashoggi was the liberally killed by saudi agents dispatched to istanbul for the purpose of killing him. strategic and reaction is being closely watched because turkish ovaries are said to -- possess evidence that could reveal exactly how khashoggi died. in a possible attempt to derail the ongoing criminal investigation, saudi arabia dictate justice minister saying had jurisdiction over the case because it had -- it happened in a saudi consulate which -- president trump telling reporters that he would be speaking with the crown prince very spoon -- very soon and is considering placing sanctions on saudi arabia the preferably not on the u.s. sales of arms and

military equipment. was suggesting earlier, i think you are not going to see those arms contracts touched. they may actually be a lifeline to survival for the front -- for .he prince wherell see two areas possible sanctions are in focus. one is in cutting off arms. the war in yemen which has been horrific over the last three years. movedenators have already to cut off any u.s. military or intelligence aid and i think you will see sanctions under the magnitsky act which allows a president to freeze the assets -- basically delay the travel of any senior official of a foreign governor -- government

who is seen as involved in human rights violations. host: we are talking with michael hirsh, senior correspondent for foreign policy magazine. ann, you are next. caller: i am wondering why mr. khashoggi went to the saudi arabian embassy in turkey to get permission to marry his fiancee when he could've gone to the saudi arabian consulate in washington, d.c.? he lives in virginia. would it not have been more safe for him to go there? why did he go to turkey for this? guest: the simplest answer is that his fiancee was turkish. he was there with her. host: we will go to albert in delaware. caller: i have two questions. saudi'sare the responsible for the influence that causes terrorism throughout

-- did that cause the crown prince to go after the enemy? guest: they are important questions. one question is to what extent did the trumpet administration including jared kushner give carte blanche to the crown dissento crack down on in the way he did? when he detained those royals on charges of corruption a year ago, president trump actually said that he was in favor of it and he said quote, he knows what he is doing. there is a sense in their various meetings, jared kushner and the crown prince saw eye to eye on what was said to be the crackdown on corruption but in reality, it was a crackdown on dissent.

there are many complicated strands in this relationship and that has proved a serious embarrassment for trump and his family. host: this is the headline of your piece at foreign policy -- fourpolicy.com. many in washington are not swayed on the saudi's admission on khashoggi's death. [video clip] >> we will all get to see the war crime, the response that the kingdom of saudi arabia takes with us. we will get a chance to determine, make a determination with respect to the credibility and the work that went into that. whether it is truly accurate in the way they made a personal commitment to me and the crown prince also made a personal commitment to the president when he spoke to him the night before last. host: how can you trust them? that is like having a robber rob the bank and say i am going to investigate myself. guest: of course. it is absurd in the extreme.

one thing we know based on news accounts and a lot of turkish the 15 saudiat of agents who were deployed in a very overt faction -- fashion. they flew in one night and flew out the next afternoon. among them were several associates of the crown prince, people known to travel with him. it stretches credulity to think that somehow the crown prince did not know this operation, particularly since this was part of his overall campaign to smash any dissent against him. i think that this is going to be the most difficult thing for the trumpet ministration to do. moment as ifat the the crown prince is going to survive in power. his father appointed him to an intelligence commission designed to overhaul intelligence in the wake of this tragedy.

i think you are going to see a diplomatic dance where senior officials around the crown perhapsre fired, prosecuted, sanctioned by the united states but that the crown prince himself who is probably the ultimate culprit in this, escapes free. host: this is from your reporting and research. off the saudi's get hook by saying they were only trying to abduct the journalist? you can read that at foreignpolicy.com. lisa in louisville, kentucky. caller: the plot thickens. i have a different take on this. i believe that trump and mbs got trump's friend of the media is not on the up to -- up and up. he cannot stand the washington post and jeff reseau's and this

guy happened to work for the washington post. i think they got together and trump okayed this and said it was fine. i would like to know where the fbi and cia are in all this. don't they have a right to speak out if they know anything? latter point, the fbi only goes into foreign countries to investigate when it is requested to do so by the local government, in this case the turkish government. at least in the early weeks did it -- they did not make that request. trump's cabinet city, there is no evidence to suggest that trump on any level or people in his a administration knew about the effort to go after khashoggi. i do think it is fair to say trump's attacks on the media, calling them the enemy of the people, his general cavalier attitude toward human rights of theons, his approval

crown prince's year-long campaign against dissent or the fact that he stepped back and did not say anything about it, it is fair to say that that encouraged the crown prince into thinking he probably could do pretty much anything he wanted. the u.s. voice in this part of the world has mattered. you will recall what happened, i recall what happened when it was perceived by saddam hussein in the late 1980's up to the 1990's that the u.s. would not react if he invaded kuwait. a mistaken signal it turned out because the u.s. responded but there is a sense that these governments are looking to washington for signals of how it will react and in this case, the crown prince who once reportedly declared he had jared kushner in his pocket probably felt he could do whatever he wanted.

host: which leads to one final editorial from the new york times. a saudi prince's fairytale, calling the story quote but that it and that president trump must insist that the body of jamal khashoggi be returned to his family and fiancee. what is next? guest: i think somehow, mr. khashoggi jakey remains will turn up with help from a lot of these turkish sources. there will be sanctions. they will be mostly cosmetic. they may apply to the saudi officials who have already been arrested by the crown prince and are being used as scapegoats. that will allow president trump to say he has done something. d inill probably as he ha the past, with the republicans in congress on his side, will not have torilla about it. that is the greatest tragedy of all. host: michael hirsh of foreign

policy magazine, thank you for being with us. we turn our attention back to politics, the democrats and the progressive movement. joining us next is norman solomon, cofounder of rootsaction.org. the washington journal is heard on sirius xm. we welcome our listeners on c-span radio. we are back in just a moment. ♪ >> tonight on afterwards, a journalist and author with her book, dealers, doctors and the drug company that addicted america. she is interviewed by democratic congressman gerald conley from virginia. >> i started to hear from police and other sources that so much of the drug crime, so much of

the crime and the community was drug fueled, mostly methamphetamines and heroin. i thought heroin in rural areas? how is that happening and sure enough, it was. i do not understand at the time how heroin and oxycontin and other opioid pills were connected. i do not understand that they were chemical cousins and that if people were initially addicted to prescribed opioids whether it be oxycontin or percocet or whatever, once they were addicted and they get cut and that get dopesick fuels them to get more and when the pills got expensive, around the time oxycontin was 2010, drugd in cartels started bringing heroin in, knowing that the fear of portended oneick

hell of a business model. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from san francisco, norman solomon, cofounder of rootsaction.org. thank you for being with us on c-span. let me begin by asking you about the democratic party. is it moving to the left? guest: i think it is moving more to the grassroots around the country. some people might calibrate it that way but i would say it is knee-jerky from the deference to the power structure , a kind of deference that many people did not like incarnated in the hillary clinton campaign in 2016. i think the party is moving more in a progressive direction, not from the top but pulled from the grassroots. host: this is the cover story of

time magazine called the wave makers, how the outrage got organized. what has happened among progressives since the election of donald trump and how do you think that will impact the midterm election results? like medicarees for all, $15 an hour minimum publicree tuition for higher education, those sorts of compelling messages have really come from communities around the country and those at the pinnacle of power in the democratic party like the democratic national committee realized a year or so ago that they could not just bluster on past that grassroots perspective as they have in the past. the progressives have been willing and able to organize precinct by precinct and show

the muscle of those who don't want big money to dominate politics. the end result has been that in contrast to eight, 12 years ago when that of the perspective -- prospective nominees of the party were talking medicare for all, almost all of them are now for 2020. i see that as positive. for those of us and there are so many, who are appalled by the trump presidency and see a demagogue who is extremely dangerous for our country and the world ruling the roost in alu ington, it is a imperative now to defeat republicans in this midterm election and also develop a democraticcase d party with the authenticity to go up against the powers that be and win.

host: what impact do you think that will be on the bottom line in terms of overall turnout among democrats and progressives? guest: that is the most important word of all the millions of words that have been printed, posted and broadcast about the midterms, and that is turnout. there has been this sort of old-fashioned technocratic attention coming from a lot of the democratic party hierarchy at thatdes now, aimed only their words but their money, their millions and millions of dollars in each towards advertising quote, persuadable republicans. there are not too many of those around. rather than focus on trying to jigger loose from their grip on the so-called persuadable

republicans, the pathway i think for this midterm election and 2020 and beyond is really to galvanize turnout. in the research i have done with colleagues and we just issued this report, the democratic autopsy report, one year later, we found that there are two simultaneous imperatives for defeating republicans, replacing them with people who actually care about facts which would be a big change from the majority in congress and the white house, that on the one track, we've got to be willing and able to get the mechanics down, to get the forout and put in the money voter participation, to almost through the mechanical channels to get it done. the other is content.

you can't inspire people if your message is not inspiring. ,f you sound like a technocrat -- which has been the formulaic in the past democratic party approach, when you substitute a compelling message that says hey you have a right to a free high school, you have a right to free public college, and then you are aligning with working-class people, making clear that you are not aligned with wall street. that is a pathway to turnout and to defeating these very dangerous republicans now in control. host: we're talking with norman solomon in san francisco. you mentioned your democratic autopsy which is available at democraticautopsy.org. you focus on corporate power in the party. quote, more than one third of senate democrats joined -- many of whom were recipients of

significant banker donations. race in the of party, you write well spending priorities remain misguided, the party is making some progress toward aligning policy positions with the needs of communities of color. such alignment remain -- through forcefully -- policy like medicare for all and progressive tax reform will also addressing specific forms of state violence that target communities of color. the full autopsy is available at democraticautopsy.org. i want to get your reaction to what former vice president joe biden said yesterday at an event we covered in las vegas. [video clip] >> i travel the world a lot because of my role in foreign policy. they look at me and wonder what the hell is going on in america? ripping infants from their mothers at the border, what are we doing? what have we become?

the world is watching. the president stands up for the whole world to see, standing next to vladimir putin who i know well. he is a thug. he is a dictator and a thug. he stands there and he takes putin's word before the word of our intelligence committee -- community. then you see what is -- what happens. it is not just him, but the folks around him. he talks about quote, exchanging love letters with kim jong-un like that is funny. the rest of the world is watching the united states of america. we have led the world and they are wondering where in the hell are we? what has become of us? mbs of saudi arabia who i know. he is making excuses.

by the way, you know that old expression some people bring a gun to a knife fight? what you don't bring bone saws to fight -- well you don't bring bone sauce to fight. it is embarrassing. but it is also dangerous. host: the full speech is available on our website. what are you hearing from joe biden? guest: i am hearing the best and the worst of what comes from democratic party elites. theirelites are seeing grip on the party beginning to because oftunately the upsurge we are seeing across the country of progressive and open-minded folks. we first heard a very moving account and i think a great one from joe biden, ripping literally and figure early, children from the arms of their parents. it is disgraceful what this trump administration is doing in moral terms. it is outrageous.

a minute or two later, joe biden retrieving an old scapegoat message which does not do much for the party if at all, and that is to blame russia for the defeat of hillary clinton. lup poll thatal showed that less than 1% of the pulled americans scientifically putined ranked russia or as a concern. people across this country do not wake up and worry about putin. they worry about health care, education, housing. forare they going to pay catastrophic illness? how are they going to sustain their children living at home? there was a report just yesterday that parents are spending more on their children now than they are for their own retirement. even their children who in past

generations would be out living on their own at this point. i think that what we are seeing is that the old reflexes of diverting attention from ways to improve the democratic party still exist. instead of seeing we were too close to wall street, joe biden is not going to say that. it is much easier to blame put blameoint proven -- putin. the way to defeat these very dangerous republicans and also advance a truly humanistic agenda akin to the new deal of the 1930's of frankland eleanor --sevelt is to speak with is toin delano roosevelt speak about environmental protection, climate, and seeing that the next generation has a

goode that is at least as as the future that their parents have been able to realize. host: to that point, we will do this quickly and then get to calls. in a sentence, it's go to some of the potential candidates for 2020. senator kamala harris is in idaho -- idaho tomorrow. 2020?do you see her in guest: in transition. she has to decide whether her sojourn into the big corporate funders a year ago will be an lamonica for her campaign -- will be emblematic for her campaign or will she fight for measures like medicare for all? host: cory booker of new jersey. guest: he needs to resolve an identity crisis of his history and record of being very tight with wall street. he denounced president obama and criticized him a few years ago for being too critical of wall street which was preposterous. is that old cory booker going to

resurface or is the new incarnation of a sensible progressive going to come to the four -- come to the fore? host: senator elizabeth warren. guest: she has a terrific passion for social justice. she seems to be almost clueless about realities of foreign policy. she has been repeating the talking points that we've gotten from obama and clinton which is inadequate. host: senator bernie sanders. guest: he is remaining a leader, symbolically and actually of the aspirations of people across the board to see that populism when it challenges wall street and challenges economic inequity can bring us together. his leadership continues to be extremely important. host: senator amy klobuchar. guest: it is unclear to me

whether she is going to challenge the economic powers that be or make nice with them. that remains to be seen. , former new york city mayor michael bloomberg. guest: he seems to be wanting to bankroll a lot of efforts to and comparedicans to the congress and -- to the coke brothers -- to the koch brothers, not really matching them, but at least he is trying to create a less than unequal playing field. host: fred on the republican line. good morning. caller: unfortunately with your guest, i really am an independent but there is a great delusion with the democrat party. for example, down here in florida, cnn ran an ad about bernie sanders helping out the

guy running for governor on the democratic ticket. bernie sanders said something to the degree of billionaires paying for campaigns and the same ad cnn ran, it was this billionaire had just given campaign money to andrew gillam. the problem with the democratic base, and the black men especially, you guys are so off base with your extremism. i would love to see the democratics come out and say what happened to mitch mcconnell was unacceptable at that restaurant. you guys are the extreme party where everything is opposite. everything is angry. everything is outrage. nothing's leadership. i have struggled to find leadership with the democratic party since the bill clinton years. host: we'll get a response. guest: thank you for that call. andrew dillon is a terrific candidate -- andrew gillam is a terrific candidate.

floridar exclusion in has been very bad and the neighboring state, stacey abrams, the democratic candidate for governor, withstanding enormous voter suppression efforts by the current government of this state of georgia. with respect to the caller, if you are concerned about extremism, the extremism in this country is involved with institutionalized racism that is keeping hundreds of thousands or even into the millions of people of color and low income from casting their ballots. that is extremism. not whether somebody who serves wall street and the power structure has a dinner that is not so pleasant. let's get our priorities straight. that is what dr. martin luther king was talking about.

he was talking about inequality based on economic, based on racism in this country. that still has to be challenged and has to be changed. host: on the democrat line from chicago, albert is next. caller: good morning. at the beginning of his comments, you made a statement the russian interference in the election, people are not really concerned with that according to polling. i would like to know what does he think about the indictment last week of this russian operative for trying to interfere in this election and if that should be a concern. intrusionsink all into our elections should be a concern. the gallup poll that i referred to was done nationwide in july of this year. when you go down the list of the

concerns, there are dozens of different categories. you see russia at the bottom. whatever your particular ranking of concerns happens to be, that is where the american people are at. given thetable tremendous media coverage that has been given to russian interference in our election. a freshman congressman from silicon valley has introduced a for theon in congress united states to join with other countries in the world to pledge to not interfere in other people's elections. it does not work very well to say do as we say and not as we do. to heaven more than 80 instances in the last few decades where the united states has directly substantivelybut interfere in other people's elections and that is wrong just as it is wrong when it is done to us. host: our guest is joining us

from san francisco. he is the coordinator and cofounder of rootsaction.org. norman solomon is the author of a number of books including war made easy. any chance that you will be on the ballot as a candidate? guest: i think probably not. host: let's go to cleveland, ohio. kathy, good morning. independent line. caller: good morning. , i am a white college-educated woman in my late 40's. when i speak with friends and family, people's a knee-jerk reaction is they don't want to talk about politics. politics is so divisive. i have been watching c-span for a long time and other political information on tv. is it possible or is there any a freeto establish

political advertising to candidates who are going to be on the ballot so that people can get the information and not just have a knee-jerk reaction that is all divisive and it all should just be -- has more of hopefulnformational and tone to the advertising and the fax a get out there so that people have a real motivation that is driven by themselves to go out and place a vote? guest: in some jurisdictions, there are some voluntary with inducement governmental proposals and programs implemented in some cases to have campaign spending limits which then reduces the amount of andincluding attack ads also in combination, providing public forums including broadcasting and cable for

candidates on an equal footing to be in dialogue and forums. that lends itself to the kind of discourse that you are talking about. i think it also helps or would help if we have more outrage to keep -- outreach to people. that is what is most important to young people. we had a big upsurge of young person participation during bernie sanders' primary campaign a couple years ago but usually young people do not vote too much. it looks like those in the 18-29 age bracket will be voting according to projections a bit more in these midterm elections then usually, but that is not enough. devoteging and people and engaging with their concerns such as college education being prohibitively expensive.

this is where the democratic party has begun but needs to do more to address what really affects people's lives on a daily basis. host: if the democrats regain the majority in the house and if leader pelosi returns as the speaker of the house, she has said that she views herself as a transitional figure in the party, meaning she may stay for time -- for a period of time to be replaced by somebody else. your thoughts? guest: i hope the transition is faster rather than slower. it is not about personalities but as we document in our report , democratic autopsy one year later which is on the web at democraticautopsy.org, nancy pelosi as minority leader in the house puts forward a position -- put forward a position earlier this year for what is called pay go. all of the cuts that would be

done in a future budget would have to be balanced by future spending or more the other way around. any new program would need to be balanced by cuts. that is a way to straitjacket social chains -- social change. we would never have a new deal with the idea that nancy pelosi put forward. it is made worse because she and chuck schumer applauded this year when donald trump put forward a huge increase, 11% increase in military spending. schumer and pelosi both put out public statements praising trump for squandering this destructive extra money while health care, education, housing, our cities are crumbling, a lack of infrastructure spending. this is leadership at its worst.

we've got specifics in our democratic autopsy report where we itemize where the party has gotten better in the last couple democracy inernal the power -- in the party, getting rid of superdelegates. that is progress. outreach for voter participation, voter outreach in 31 states, that is terrific. a negative is this fealty, this deference from the top of the democratic party, not all democrats but most of the termrship and i use that -- on the war train and we are sick of war. 17 years of squandering money and sending missiles and other countries, totally counterproductive. i am also going to quote martin luther king jr. who denounced what he called the madness of militarism. he said that that has to be challenged and has to be stopped. it is as true as it is in 2018

as it was in 1967. host: i want to go back to what you were saying about the democratic leadership. nancy pelosi and chuck schumer. you made reference to senator cory booker. in regards to the new jersey democrat, were you saying he was for wall street before he was against it? guest: when president obama took small, to, fairly challenge wall street, cory booker with public to say that president obama was being too tough on wall street. that is a counterproductive position that more belongs with the republican party. host: i want to go back to this so-called democratic autopsy. you wrote about voter participation becoming a big issue in states like georgia where many feel their vote is being suppressed. quote, in 2018, 8 states and the

district of columbia began implement thing automatic voter registration. these laws were virtually nonexistent in the u.s. three years ago but now 13 states and d.c. have enacted them. on --rogram has carried alan is joining us in d.c., good morning. caller: i am a lifelong democrat but i am calling on the independent line because of the student loan issue. your guest mentioned college affordability. in 2006, the democrats swore when he had a super majority that they would return constitutional bankruptcy rights to student loans and they cannot do it. the democrats that got paid off by the banks to not do it. $1e we are 12 years later, trillion in debt later and hillary clinton and the other leading democrats are further away now than they were before. host: we will get a response.

guest: i agree. this is a real failing that has to be corrected and you have folks like elizabeth warren and bernie sanders. they are not in total leadership of the party, and they are raising these issues, fundamentally. , as some leaders have said, the banks tend to run this place, preferring to capitol hill. that has to change, and that means aligning with students, aligning with those who are up against the wall financially, and yes wall street, the wall street turnover instance, some media are going to clobber democrats for doing that, but it is the right thing to do. it is a good path for turnout and for social justice and a good path for democracy. , joining uss lynn from california. caller: good morning. the term free is just so

disgusting because there is nothing free. about free health care, free college. it is taxpayer provided. where do you get this money? he is sitting there in a very well-made suit in one of the most expensive places in america to live, talking to regular americans about injustice and how we have to provide all this free stuff. please use the term taxpayer provided. there is no such thing as free money. for you to sit there and talk about silicon valley like that is the rest of the country, it is ridiculous. they are the ones in control, that are influencing people decisions, blocking what is seen on the internet and everybody knows it. guest: thank you for those comments.

i am just about old enough to remember. i can remember as a young teenager, the debate over medicare in 1964. the comments that the caller just made were very similar to the comments made announcing this proposal from lyndon johnson called medicare. people said there is no such thing as free money. that is taxpayer money. we don't want to put that into this thing called medicare which would socialize our country. of course that turned out to be wrong. try to take medicare away from people now. 100 years ago, similar to the caller's point, people said there is no such thing as free money, why should you guarantee free high schools to anybody? garage thatopaganda

goes on and i identify with the caller as somebody who lived below the poverty line for much of my adult life. i understand what you are talking about. in a way, you are making my point. we need to align our politics with those who are not economically elites. we need to align our politics with working-class people, not only working people but want-t o-be working people who cannot get good jobs. when you look at the poverty line lower but the quality of jobs, most of these jobs are going nowhere. they are close to minimum wage and they don't have a possibility of advancement. meanwhile, health care which went up 5% last year, health-care costs are going through the roof and seems unaffordable. we should get our priorities straight. -- --norm solomon, the the nation magazine is writing

an article about your democratic autopsy. this program is also carried on the bbc parliament channel. we welcome our international audience. we welcome john from scotland. very interested to hear the discussion regarding the democratic party. i was lucky enough to be in the states last week and candidly, one of the biggest things going on is focusing on polarizing issues but the biggest thing for democrats is are they going to go and feed trump in 2020 and all the candidates i have heard the mention, there are only one or two i have seen that could successfully challenge trump. elizabeth warren and bernie sanders are great politicians but they will not the feed trump. the only two people i can see from an international perspective that could challenge trump, one would be michelle obama and the other would be bloomberg.

i think you have to fight fire with fire. if the democrats are furious in 2020, they have to get someone very strong and credible. host: thanks for the call. insight intok your u.s. politics are no doubt better than my insight into scottish politics but that is not saying much. we don't need a lead candidates for president -- delete -- elite candidates for president. we don't need michael bloomberg or michelle obama. we need non-elite candidates who align with working-class people who are struggling to bring up children, who are worried about their elderly parents, how are they going to make it. this refrain there is no sixth thing as free money is often used as an excuse to not have a

step forward and take care of the elderly. there were arguments against social security because we can't afford it. of course we can afford it, if we want to and we need political leaders who will step forward and make that case strongly. host: one name that has been mentioned on the drudge report, a photograph from the political gabbardabout why tulsi is a 2020 connoted. guest: she has been willing to speak out against the war machinery of this country, including of her own party and one of the ways i would give her credit is that when the democratic party establishment in 2015 and early 2016 was flexing and using its muscles to put its thumbs on the scale for hillary clinton, tulsi gabbard resigned from her office with

the dnc because she was going to openly campaign for bernie sanders in the primary and i think that speaks well of her. and i think that speaks well of her. host: let's go to dalton joining us from alaska, republican line. caller: good morning. we need to talk about venezuela eating the zoo animals. this is really happening down there. when you have democrat socialist communist views, this is what ends up happening. the only reason this guy consider up there and say this stuff is because conservatives are being -- you know what i am saying, they are being blocked completely and we all know it. what are you going to do -- guest: it is interesting to hear how conservative the use are being blocked when you got outlets like fox news with tremendous power. i have heard over the years for amongce, as a young man

millions opposing the vietnam war, i heard all sorts of rationales for supporting existing u.s. policy. i had not heard that the commies are eating zoo animals before and that is not to make light of zoo animals, i think they should be protected. host: we will now go to georgia. you have been patient, thanks for calling. caller: good morning. good morning to your guest. --y encouraging to hear you to hear what you have to say and i am hearing some of the things , especiallying out regarding ms. pelosi but at any rate, i am not sure i agree with everything you say. i think former vice president joe biden had a point with putin.

is really quite frightening -- it is really quite frightening what our president is doing, believing putin over our own security folks. by theyou are calling -- way, certainly the integrity of elections needs to be absolutely protected. i think a lot of money should be going into the digital protection. i would fault republicans for not being willing to appropriate out of congress what is needed to safeguard our elections from registration all the way through voting counts. that you are calling from georgia gives me a chance to emphasize that the attack on democracy going on in your state from the power structure, the top of the state government to suppress voting rights, taking 53,000 people and setting them aside and that her -- and there appears to be other efforts as well, to prevent them from

voting with the knowledge that most of them would vote for stacey abrams. -- problems with lack of democracy are overwhelmingly homegrown and we have to solve them here at home. host: before we let you go, i want to ask you about the current chair of the dnc, tom perez. if you could give him a grade, what would it be? guest: when we did our original autopsy a year ago, it would have been a d-, and i would say looking at what has happened in the last 12 months, i would give him a b. he has really improved. i have got to say that when i thee with him at the end of pivotal most recent national the nc meeting in chicago in late august, i told him personally that i had written and spoken very critically of him but i think that he had been willing

to hear people's concerns from the grassroots and to be part of the change process. that is what we need to excel a rate. host: will that -- to accelerate. host: will that put the democrats in the majority in the house or senate? guest: my crystal ball is in the shop but i am certainly hopeful that enough people will turn out that at least the house will be taken away from the control of the republican party. host: norm solomon, cofounder of rootsaction.org. people can follow him on twitter and on the web. thank you very much for spending part of your sunday with us. guest: thank you. host: we are back tomorrow morning with washington journal. about a week and a half before the midterm elections. a lot to talk about including al weaver of the national examiner to talk about congressional leadership and the 2018 campaign. we will also turn our attention

to the debt and the deficit. the president of the committee for irresponsible budget and a member of the committee for the fix the debt campaign as the deficit rises to 17% for 2018. newsmakers is up next. thank you for joining us on the sunday. we hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. check out all of our campaign coverage at c-span.org. ♪ "newsmakers" with guy cecil. then supreme court chief justice

john roberts talks about the importance of an independent judiciary. after that, virginia senator mark warner discusses elections in theory -- elections security. with the midterm elections days away, watch the competition for the control of congress on c-span. see for yourself the candidates and debate for tea house and senate races. make c-span your primary source for campaign 2018. debate in the race for the u.s. senate seat in massachusetts but incumbent democratic senator elizabeth warren and republican challenger jeff peel, a member of the passages house of representatives. live coverage starts at seven: p.m. eastern. with 16 days until the election, make c-span your primary source for campaign 2018.

as the midterm elections draw ever near, our guests is guy cecil, the chair of super pac for the priorities usa. he bring seven plus years as the democratic senate campaign committee. and hillary clinton's political director during her 2008 campaign. thanks for being our guest. let me and reduce the political reporters asking questions. shepard's chief polling analyst at political part -- at politico. , on your started twitter feed you made this , thent in the past month key to the 2018 election is the gap between what is being talked about on cable news and what is being discussed in the campaigns. what you saying there? benign thing of tweeted so i'm glad to start there. i do think there is a big schism