republicans are reshaping the federal judiciary. -- weays, you will take will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter as well. washington journal is next. >> the president is systematically tearing down the guardrails of our democracy, going after the institutions our founders put into the constitution to serve as a check on presidential power. press,pass -- independent judiciary, coequal legislative branch. ♪ biden last night, taking aim at president trump last night in a speech, energizing a homestay crowd and potentially moving closer to a 2020 for the white house. it's march 17, happy st. patrick's day. state of look at the american politics with a focus on independence.

if you are a former democrat or republican, why now are you an independent? what does this say about the state of our leading parties and what impact will it have on your vote in 2020? that is our starting point this sunday morning. our phone lines are divided regionally for independents only to give us a call, (202) 748-8000, that's the line for eastern time zones. mountain time zones, (202) 748-8001. on social media, send us a tweet, we will read it @cspanwj. good sunday morning, want to begin with the headline from or," theyork times death toll up to 50 in new flag,d, you can see the the tears, the hugs, and the outrage, that's the headline from "the new york times." , theozen also injured

suspect remains in custody. studyt to focus on a new from pew research. this is the headline, "independents, who are they and what do they think." pew research is on the phone with us. thanks for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. survey, areon this they truly swing voters? what did you learn? this is been true, most independent voters say that they lean towards a party. only 7% say that they don't mean to either party, meaning that they are's essentially true independents. if you look at the demographics, does it change?

guest: most are younger on average and are more likely to be male than either republicans or democrats. host: in this piece they wrote the following, "the most interesting part is the data mirror how much they what they mean. most identify as conservative. democrats increasingly conservative -- identifying as liberal. more identifying as moderate , not true among democrats. can you elaborate? we have seen the same trends among partisans, republicans, a tendency for more republicans to become more

conservative overtime, you see the same trend among these partisan leaders. trends that we see among partisans, the separation of parties, you see among leaders as well. host: so why did they vote in 2018? guest: or did they not? they are less politically engaged. they just don't have an interest in politics. some of them may not be eligible. with independence leaning towards a party, this is a group that while they are up for grabs politically, they don't have much clout because they don't participate in high numbers. host: we are talking with the

director of political research for pew. let's take a look at the role of third-party independent presidential candidates. you can see the high level mark came in 1992 with ross perot. then you have to go back to 1968, where george wallace of thed 13.5 percent vote. recently in 2000 and 1996 you had ross perot getting 8.4% in 1986 and ralph nader did in 2.7% in 2000, many people attribute that the total to the swing in the election to george w. bush over al gore. especially in the state of florida. these and you will see third parties pop up occasionally, even on 2016 in the margins you might have seen gary johnson or jill stein with a slight or significant impact in some cases. in a closely divided electorate, obviously, even if they don't take a great share of the vote.

is a statement from michael bloomberg, when he was considering running, he was a former republican who became an independent, a potential candidate for 2020 taking aim at howard schultz, taking aim at an independent bid. given the strong pull of partisanship and the realities of the electoral college system, there is no way that an independent can win. that is true or today than ever before, the great likelihood is that an independent would just split the anti-trump vote and reelect the president and that's a risk i refuse to run in 2016, we can't -- can't afford to run it now. -- now." guest: we are a long way from the 2020 election to know what an independent candidate's effect would have, but our research shows that this whole partisanship is real and you can see it among independents and

partisans. bottom line, looking at what independent voters, is your major take away? the sense that even though there is more partisanship, it's possible that some of them don't like either party that much and they line up more with one that the other, but there are more independence in the early 2000's -- independents from the early 2000 and 80% or more lean towards a party and often lineup on key issues, whether it be support for the president, small or bigger government, key issues like that, they tend to line up with artisans. host: carroll doherty is the director of independent research much forthank you very being with us on this sunday, we appreciate it.

breaking news at this hour, we covered her in new hampshire, kiersten gillibrand making it official this morning, issuing a she is alsoat running for president, formally announcing her bid after forming an exploratory committee. we will cover that later today on the c-span networks, available online at c-span.org. let's get your phone calls, we want to hear from independents only, we want to hear from you why you are an independent and where you lean in terms of a political party and your sense of the state between those political parties. our first caller is from texas. good morning. caller: yes, i identify as independent because i feel disenfranchised by most of the major political parties. truly i'm pretty conservative and socially i'm very liberal. i feel that i should look at the

candidate character and where they have voted on certain issues around the border to make decisions on election day. trenton, kentucky, good morning to you. good morning, caller. caller: hi, this is yvonne. republican, which it's more like what the democratic party is really like now. i switched to the democratic party as i got into my late 20's. that i switched to independent later in life. really feel i can't an allegiance to either party. i almost feel like there can't be any real thinking human being in this country who can align themselves solidly with either

party. cult scenario with both parties. it's become a mortal enemy situation. to do is say the wrong word in a grocery store or anything else and you have got people leering at you, judging you in some way. gone. the logic has statementndependent, to me and myself, and my fellow independents, we really don't have much clout in the american situation right now. host: will you vote in 2020 leaning in any direction? caller: anyone who follows trump will never get my vote.

having said that, i'm all over the place. -- i see good qualities can find something good in almost every candidate. host: thank you for the call. "hoping for a fresh start, kiersten gillibrand hope -- will be hosting a reality -- a rally at one of the trump hotels. on ouren's speech is website, but first let's hear from bob and tyler, texas. we are hearing from independent voters only at this hour and why you are an independent and not a democrat or a republican. good morning, bob. i really appreciate what you all are doing. neither party is following the rules. it's a simple as that.

we have a constitution. it's 4400 and 53 words and it seems like none of them know what's in there. formed totution was protect us from invasion. it's in the first sentence of the constitution and they are just ignoring that. along with everything else. as well as religious liberty. we have got to get back to the constitution and following the rules. lawrence is next, joining us from st. paul, minnesota. good morning. caller: this is a great question to ask. i notice this in high school and beyond, there's a certain ebb and flow in the world, issues, and issues go. i enjoy the flexibility of staying away from groupthink and

analyzing different people, different issues, and making a decision not purely based upon this is the way that i'm going to move forward. just because of a political party. that's my response, thank you, this will be an interesting discussion. host: think you for joining the the session, we appreciate it. trisha is next. hi, good morning. i really like that you are taking on this question. because i think that there are many, many people who don't really identify with either party at this point. on the same hand, though, i feel like there are people who are so rabidly loyal to either the republican or the democratic party that they cannot even , youive of considering

know, another candidate from another party. need to lookat we at the candidates as individuals. look at what they stand for, look at what they have done in the past, serving their communities. the you for the call. this from yahoo! news, joe biden almost announces he's running for president. on saturdayech night in his home state of delaware, he seemingly described himself as one of the people running, while noting that he gets criticized by some aggressive's. we carry the speech in its entirety, here's an search. [video clip] criticized that i'm by the new left. i have the most progressive record of anybody who would run for this nomination.

applause]d anybody who would run. because, folks, we have to, we have to bring this country back together again. and look, i believe that we are at an inflection point. i really mean it. i believe that we are at an inflection point. the election of 20, without hyperbole, is going to be the important election this country has undergone in over 100 years. not a joke. there is so much at stake. our core values are being shredded. our standing on the world stage is at risk. i still travel the world and meet with heads of states all over the world.

they are confused. they are concerned. they wonder where we are. our democracy, our democracy is under threat. the danger posed by this administration to this nation is not hypothetical or exaggerated. it's real, it's existential. of our republican and independent friends know it as well as we do. joe biden in dover, delaware. this is from liz -- .ost: send us a tweet, @cspanwj host: we thank you for that. brian, illinois, good morning. an organizede from

labor background. i'm in a labor union. both of my parents were. i have big problems with the current democratic party, is why i'm an independent. taken overave been by globalists, like bill clinton, for example, which sold out the american working class to nafta, allowing china and the wto. sold theirrats have souls for the latino vote. they are blinded to the effects of mass migration. they just want to let everybody in. they will always say that we are not for open borders, but if you add up all of their policy decisions it spells open borders , which will destroy america's working-class. it's that simple. this is another tweet --

host: this is the headline from the metro section of "the washington post" but also indicative of where democrats are nationwide, and here's served of what they are reporting -- over four decades, the dean of the democrats in richmond has embodied what they would call the virginia way, forging bipartisan deals and casting a mostly friendly eye towards business and the old-school approach is under asack by the left wing energized liberals look to deepen their stand against president trump --

host: you can read the full story online at washingtonpost .com. next, washington, why are you an independent? caller: hi, sir. strictly put, i'm an independent due to this corporate enterprise that refuses to just say anything. let me just -- gimme a minute, here, sir, if i say to you color , ideas sleep furiously and i'm quoting and i don't even know what i'm quoting? and i have 200 college credits? how could that be?

that is a simple thing and i appreciate your time. thank you for c-span. host: thank you. another tweet -- dan in "the washington post," "what will 2020 hold for stacey abrams? she considers whether she will join a crowded democratic field or as chuck schumer is hoping, she would run for the senate. the challenge, david perdue." charles, you are next. caller: good morning, sir, i guess i'm independent, but i'm more was called the blue dog constitutional conservative because all political parties have left me in the cold. host: why do you say that? don't: they just

represent the people anymore. they represent themselves, mainly, if you look at what they do and how they act, the internal conflicts and fighting. in george washington's farewell address, he gave us warnings long ago about political parties , being in debt, alliances and more. i would like to encourage everyone to read that address. host: reading that speech in the senate is a tradition, thank you for bringing that up. magazine, how an american city falls apart. a look at baltimore, maryland. and in "the washington post," "trump insulted these countries, ." built a travel log for them

and in "time magazine," "do they dare, democrats will likely impeach." kansas city, kansas, good morning. caller: hi. i'm an independent because it doesn't -- i mean, trump is and they criminal democrats and republicans cannot get their heads together to figure it out. takes a 29 euros congressman to go in front of a panel to play a lightning round to prove that there are no laws governing him. he is lining his own pockets, taking care of his own family and his associates. it's hurting the rest of the country. so that's why i'm an

independent. thank you. this is from our friend, jan -- host: andy, good morning, welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you for taking my call. no democrat or republican in these years or this century care about us, unfortunately. they only think about their money. why we have to choose a democrat or a republican? no one cares about us in this way. unfortunately, president trump has shown us that our country has faced the most problems.

our country in these years is unfortunately facing serious problems. if we love everything, love our property. i think we have to choose another person for our next government from independent. host: who is that person, before we hang up? caller: this is something we have to think about. we have to make a good situation , not democrat or republican. host: andy, thank you for the call. this is from paul -- host: you can send us a tweet @cspanwj.

past we have talked to stuart eisenstadt, who served as a senior advisor to jimmy carter . he has a lengthy piece available online where he talks about the current state of the democratic party, writing that he has seen civil war destroyed democrats before, here's a photograph of alexandria ocasio-cortez, he writes that he has lived through a democratic party civil war before, he has in fact been through two of them and the first was in 1968 when he was the research director for hubert thehrey's campaign and second was 1980 as jimmy carter's policy director --

host: you can read the whole story at politico.com. next is frank, out west in las vegas. good sunday morning, you are an independent. why? caller: two reasons, really. when i evaluate the positions on they both have good policies and bad policies. neither are the best, you can find holes and merits and both of them, so it's very, very difficult. the second reason i guess is because the news media is so bad. trulyes it really hard to understand i guess the consequences of those policies as they were put into effect.

without c-span i feel like i would be completely lost. it's hard to be so hard up for one party or the other because you really, really don't know, as much as we try to learn and understand what would happen if this policy took affect or not, you really don't know, so if you are going to be fair and honest, you have to give both parties a fair shake and try to understand and learn. there's so much propaganda and manipulation in the news media, it's just very hard to know if you are getting the real deal, so that makes it very difficult. host: casey you want to read it, karen tumulty inside of "the washington post," "we need c-span more than ever to go there is an accompanying video with brian lamb.

our birthday, tuesday we turn 40 years old. when we first went on the air with the house of representatives on march the 19th in 1979. we thank karen for her piece and her birth wishes. to her phone calls -- your phone calls now, tommy is next from tennessee. why am ane reason independent, frankly i don't trust either side. both sides are basically talking the same thing. one of them wants control of the money to input -- inflict their morals on everyone else in the other side wants control of the money so that they can keep it for themselves and not help anybody. thank you for the call. this is from -- nighthoward schultz, last

-- last month speaking on the campus of purdue university on the issue of his own bid for the white house as an independent and whether or not he would ensure the reelection of donald trump came up. [video clip] >> there are critics who condemn me for even thinking of running outside the two-party system for fear that it would lead to trump's reelection. respectfully, here's my response to that. trump must not serve a second term. [applause] >> as i explore whether or not to run for office, i will consider my conviction. i can assure you, no one wants donald trump fired more than i do. i also believe that there are millions of republicans who do not want to reelect donald

trump. but given the choice between him and a far left a democrat, i believe that trump would win reelection. he is intellectual -- it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that either candidate could lose because of a third choice. i am considering a run because members of both parties are not yet doing the job they were elected to do. host: that from howard schultz. this is from liz, who says she considers herself to be very lucky -- next from san is antonio, texas. welcome to the conversation. we down here in texas a but theit different,

real facts seem like they don't matter anymore. trump is in debt from $1.25 million. that's as of february 17, 2009. ,ou have people at the border these are real. the media don't want to know or talk about this. this man owes russia a billion , these are facts, real facts. they took the tax cut money and put it on our backs to enough, with republicans coming through corporations. the fbi asked like they can't understand what's going on. act like they

don't know their member of congress, that we can block up politicians today. host: thank you for the call from san antonio, texas. headline, "fearing daylight from donald trump, senate republicans." "senate republicans sticking as close as possible especially on his signature issue of illegal immigration and border security even as some republicans broke with trump over his emergency declaration to build a wall on the border, most backed trump, a sign of their fear of the trump fueled primary opponents, most notably tom tillis in north carolina, who flipped his vote, one of only 12 who voted to next year, like susan collins from maine, who has a well-established reputation as an independent and the president emerged as a

dominant force in the republican primary in the 2018 midterm elections. 49 of the 50 republicans that he endorsed one their elections. back to your calls and comments on whether or not there is room for independents. this from one of our viewers, who said that we know for sure that republicans and democrats are purchased my big money, time to give an independent a chance. this story is available online, "most independents are just moderate partisans." john, minnesota, good morning. caller: hi. i just wanted to say that i don't understand why anyone would be a democrat or republican, life isn't a black-and-white. there is a great area and almost everything. you can't tell me that republicans and democrats don't

go to lunch together and laugh at the american people. all they do is play each side against the middle to gain power for themselves. that's the way that i feel. thank you for the call. political -- "political independents, most avoid politics." steve is next from illinois. good morning. i wanted to say that basically we don't have a national debt. we have 200 billion dollars in and in the federal reserve if we went to the gold standard and back to the gold standard at 13 -- $1300 per ounce, we would spend.39 trillion to we could take care of all of our problems, all of our

infrastructure and everything else. host: thank you for the call, steve. michael has this tweet -- many politicians mouths these mantras within the party structure at the national level, it's the only way to get ahead. another headline from "the wall street journal," the president takes aim at general motors and google based on tweets that he issued yesterday, that's available online. "president trump taking a swipe against corporate giants on saturday as part of his continuing push to have u.s. companies boost their employment and production activities domestically. the president called on general motors to "act quickly to reopen the now defunct ohio plant outside youngstown as a means of boosting domestic profits.

galveston, texas, good morning. just want to say the donald trump has done pretty good as far as i can see. far as it goes with the democrats and those policies, that's more of a repeat. host: why do you say that? caller: well, it's because they .ike to recycle people in rehab

and the way that it is, it's basically the way it's been in the past 30 years that i know of. for the callou from galveston, texas. more with howard schultz on his plan for 2020 and the speech that we covered last month at purdue university in indiana. [video clip] >> this past year i have traveled the country, heard and learned so many new things. among them is that the american people are longing for more honesty. leadership inreal washington, d.c. that is finally working for them. is notitical class solving the problems that we need to solve in order to make the future of america brighter and better for your generation. our politicians seem mired every single day in revenge politics. the american people are

exhausted by it. they want and deserve something new and something better. thirds of american voters agree that a two-party system, our two-party system is it's time for a centrist candidate not affiliated with either party to be president. , where do weion is go from here? running for president is one path i am seriously considering. doing so as an independent centrist would completely free me from being the hold to special interest groups and extreme party ideologies. leaning as an independent but allow me to represent all of the american people and focus on the best solutions through a new nonpartisan lens. host: will that approach work, that's one of the questions.

.unning as an independent what does it say about the state of american politics question from ann,is a tweet who says that when someone -- host: thank you for that tweet. here we have someone joining us from baltimore, maryland. caller: thank you, this is my first time calling. host: we are glad to hear from you. , iler: talking about trump willve that donald trump have guilty as a criminal from what he did in russia, they will and i thinkport

what it is is that he's afraid and he keeps denying. they haven't pitched him yet. -- impeached him yet. host: another tweet from harper, on a separate note -- presumably,weet "fox news bumping her show because of anti-muslim remarks, off for one night last night with fox news removing the program with judge jeanine from its usual 9 p.m. timeslot. fox news was asked about this and they said they would not comment on internal scheduling matters. the former prosecutor known for her fiery monologues and a

fierce defender of donald trump, you can read the full story at nytimes.com. jen, louisiana, good morning. caller: sorry, i have a cold and maybe a bit congested. host: hope you feel better. caller: there are numerous reasons i'm an independent. i consider it to -- pragmatic. i look at the biggest issues facing the country and i don't getting my topy five, at least. i do think the southern border is a problem. when people falsely argue that people getting caught coming in is going down and we don't have a problem, they are framing

notgs politically and are viewing things as they are in the real world. the 400,000 caught and released, that's just one issue. on the social side of think the government is responsible for helping way too many people today. people working at slightly above minimum wage jobs are being subsidized by the government through many programs. that being said, i would much rather see a minimum wage that would provide a living for the american workers than having ,hem rely on the government which is also like being an indentured servant.

eliminating the people not being paid enough is not practical a reasonable, but i think a minimum wage is. i would say that neither party seems to be stepping up to face these problems. host: thank you for the call from louisiana. hope you feel better. nothing worse than a spring cold. rebecca saying -- host: from "the new york times" diverseection, "the field of 2020." "from koch brothers to cold warriors," that view from "the new york times." james, california, good morning. yes, thank you for

having me on. this question about democrat or republican, i registered as a libertarian years ago and for this very reason. ok, first of all the line between democrats and republicans inside of the beltway is -- it disappears. when politicians get into tohington, they struggle keep their job. now, as a voter, do i want to be a democrat or a republican? a lot of people in america designate a party and don't even know what the platform is, ok? they don't know the platform. they go my dad was a republican -- a democrat so i will be a democrat. republican, i will be a republican. that's just nonsense, ok? when you designate yourself under a particular party, it allows politicians to speak directly to you on your issues. and pretty much disregard the other party bus feelings on

issues and i don't agree with that. host: thanks for adding your voice to the conversation. in her piece, maureen dowd, talking about that o'rourke -- beto o'rourke. "he is in northeastern ohio tomorrow, and we have learned that he will formally enter the race in el paso on march the 30th of how we will cover that speech live as part of our road to the white house coverage. jeff, you are next year. washington, d.c., why are you an independent? hello, thank you, good morning, thank you for taking my call. after 200 years, democrats and republicans are in power, what we have now? let's check the national debt or our deepening war. no one trust our government anymore after all we have done and of, from waging wars

the international deals -- like iran -- or helping the saudi's. the class gap in the country? the richest one person now owns more of the country's wealth than at any time in the past 60 years. we trust the third-party. this is our last option. forcrats in republicans centuries, they can't make america great again. thank you for the call. you are familiar with the from americanng -- of american gothic? 2:00g up later today at eastern time on c-span3, booktv, history tv and the grant was studio where the famous artist painted his most

celebrated work. here is a preview. [video clip] >> this is where american gothic was painted. people often don't know the artist or the title, but it is an iconic piece, probably one of of americannic uses art today. as models he used his dentist and his younger sister. she is alternatively described as being the farmer's wife, and spinster daughter. she thought she was too young to be the wife, so she prefer the daughter. people had a lot of thoughts about it, these tower. , or goodt westerners frontier foundational values that would keep america together during trying times. poor toothing bring people that don't look emotional themselves, the piece engenders a lot of emotion in people. host: his dentist?

who knew. we hope that you tune in. you can watch all of our programming at c-span.org/citiestour. gabriel is next, ohio, good morning. we are focusing on independents only, asking why you are not a democrat or a republican and what impact that will have an 2020. good morning. first, i would like to say that what made america great the name, the united states of america. the moment that we stopped being united, we fell apart. not unitedd that a nation will fall. right now it's crumbling, it's terrible. i feel that it is a mistake right now to be an independent, though i think independently. the independents will dilute the vote from the democrats and therefore trump will win.

if we really want to get trump out of the way, we have to weed down the amount of people running on the democratic side and have no independents. that still only way to get trump out of the house. clear and present danger and anyone who says that global warming is not real is endangering not only americans but the whole planet. thank you. host: thank you for the call. from inside of "the washington "mar-a-lago, for sale and worse." "a spot host: bonnie is joining us from

lafayette, louisiana. good morning, welcome to the conversation. i have been watching and listening to everybody's views, but as an independent -- i have been republican and democrat, but i really think we need to start putting our country more .n the moral path if you study history -- i graduated in social studies education and i have taken world history, british history, all of these histories, you know, and american, of course, but in studying that, that gives you power and it gives you knowledge. when we begin to look at the whole system as it is today, it's almost like a pyramid. you see the very top that are the wealthiest. you see the next section that are semi-well-heeled and then you see the middle-class and the broader part of the last

fortunate, poor struggling workers. when you look at it that way and you say -- what are the resumes of the people that run? and are the qualifications their character? if we are not looking at things, we are not studying history. look at the republicans i voted for. i voted for reagan. , he had a very corporate bent. he also turned around and he gave amnesty to 80,000 workers that were here. what was the purpose of that? was it just because he cared about people? or was it because the corporations needed these workers? you for the call.

this is from victor, who says "there they go again," the new talking point that democrats and republicans are the same? this is a propaganda lie. -- lie." cokie roberts is the subject of the story inside of "the washington post" sunday magazine . saying "i'm not comfortable saying what i think, i'm more comfortable saying here are the .acts and here's why cokie roberts, married to steve roberts in her piece inside of " the washington post" sunday magazine. >> thank you for taking my call. i appreciate you giving the last hour to the voice of .ndependents i'm a little concerned that there hasn't been any talk of independent candidates.

you spent an hour taking calls from us, which is appreciated, but you have talked a lot about democratic and republican candidates, which is something that two thirds of the country are really not on board with either one of them. host: who should we focus on? focused on ross perot the last time i voted. andrepublican party left me to say that there is much difference in the parties, i don't know if it's they spend the same amount of money, the government grows at the same rate no matter who's in charge, but the stalemate is there no matter who is in charge. we are right for a third-party, the system is set up to foster i'm -- i'mh, and

curious as to whether washington is able to give up the power. they think that we traded one king across the atlantic for nine on the supreme court. that's where i think the country is headed, towards a monarchy. it up because we, the people, like bonnie said, we don't care enough to know our own history. host: where the one network that carries the independent and libertarian party convention campaigns. if you wanted to hear what these candidates were saying, we hope that you will continue to watch us over the course of the next year and a half. it will be an interesting campaign and we will be there to cover all of it. caller: god bless you. host: the you for the call. looking at his first two years in office, president trump us job rating as low among democratic leaning independents as democrats in general, based

on the research from pew research. also, oklahoma, ruby, good morning to you. welcome to the program. caller: thank you. i'm an independent, and the reason -- my daddy would have voted for warthogs if they said he was a democrat. and i thought this is ridiculous . you should vote for the best person. so i've always tried to listen and read and, but you know how hard that is. because you don't know what to believe or not to believe a lot of times. but i do my best and sometimes i make a horrible mistake and sometimes i think i do pretty good. but i don't particularly want an independent to run. being independent to me is voting for whichever one you think is going to do the job the best. ruby, we thank you.

you sound like you have cast a few ballots over the years. caller: i'm 91 a week ago. i have voted lot. host: well, happy birthday. caller: have to say, i've made a lot of mistakes. [laughter] key to turninge 91 and staying sharp and healthy? caller: well, i don't know. exercise.et and a lot of reading and thinking. i don't really know. just trying to stay healthy. i really don't think much about it. maybe have just been lucky or blessed or whatever. host: well, ruby, thank you for happy birthday one week late. we appreciate it. this is the story from cbs news. in an interesting development of

the state of washington, passing a bill mandating that political candidates with these tax returns in order to appear on the ballot, a proposal inspired by president trump bosque refusal to release his tax returns in washington state. tos forcing candidates release tax returns before they could appear on the general election or primary ballot. allen is next. new york. good morning, happy st. patrick's day to you and all of your listeners. since been an independent i came back from vietnam. the first candidate i voted for in 1968 was dick gregory. and i think one of the reasons there are so many independents is because both political representing,t

the spokesman are not representing the best interests of most americans. in the 1990's there was an attempt to form a labour party led by tony masson cheap. i wish you would cover that a little bit. they didn't have much of a foreign policy, but g, there policies were just like the democrats now. thanks for your program and i hope that the candidates speak out on the issues that are happening now, whether it's nuclear disarmament or the situation in venezuela or whatever. we thank you for the call. this from new mexico, a bill opening the primaries, with voters only affiliated with a major party thing able to vote in the primary election, hb 93 would change that, letting independents cast a ballot as

well. john gets the last word from chicago, good morning. >> this is john from head which. the independents got to jump in the lifeboat anyway with republicans and democrats in this is how i explained it to my children. a democrat and a republican are in a lifeboat and the democrats suggest we eat the food and have the rations so that we can last six days. the republican will look at the democrat and say you get out of the boat as i want to last six days and that kind of sums up oath parties. one parties for the many, one parties for the one. schomburgguy from that called, i'm a union guy from the south side. i was a 99 or. i lost my job collectively for 99 weeks and my glass is always half full. take a look around, everyone

listening right now, take a look around, take a look around and tell me that your host: you got the last word for this block. thank you for your calls and comments. we will continue the conversation and focus on the road it to the white house with a new entry today. if kristin gillibrand it makes it official. a republican strategist will be joining us in the next hour. later, alliance for justice and heritage as we look at how senate republicans and the president are reshaping the judiciary. happy st. patrick's day. we are back in a minute.

>> tonight on q&a. >> i had no expectation we would be sitting here in 2019, talking about this war in afghanistan. escalated, theen way it's escalated every year, the lives that have been wasted. veteran on his article, time for peace in afghanistan. init was the same i had seen 2004 and 2005.

there was no difference in the administration. the desire was to win politically or to win for political reasons. everything else was secondary. >> tonight on afterwards, professor examines russia's foreign policy and international goals. by the houseiewed foreign affairs committee. >> are you optimistic if we find common ground like you mentioned , arms control, we can be a good partner with russia? popularity has fallen by 40 points since he was elected

last year. public opinion data shows the majority of russians want change. they want a better economic situation. many of those people understand having this antagonistic relationship to the west is not the way to go if they want greater economic growth. at 10:00 eastern on c-span two. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, cspan was created as a public service of the american cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. c-span is brought to buyer cable or satellite provider. >> washington journal continues.

>> this is our sunday roundtable. we've got a light -- a lot to talk about. good morning to both of you. let's begin with news on this sunday. kiersten gillibrand is the latest entry. we are beyond cheaper by the dozen in this field. guest: and even more to jump in. i think a lot of people assume that she had been in the race because she announced, but she made it official today. she has been a fighter for women it, a fighter against sexual assault in the military. she is somebody who is going to probably do well in this race. she is in the low single digits. i think you will see her climb. host: as you look at this, every

candidate seems to have his or her own lane. what is her path? where does she build a coalition? guest: you are exactly right. primary, you're not going to gain traction unless you find your own constituency. women.facing on younger she's been talking about being a working mother a lot in her videos so far. who saw the strong stance she took during the me to movement, she will be trying to keep them in her coalition going forward and trying to bring in different coalitions. ,ounger women in particular that is her path. host: this is a reversal of what your party had in 2016 when there were 16 candidates. guest: you will see a similar

trend where these candidates look at the low favorability and think this is one of the best opportunities to run. we will see candidates come in thinking this is my best chance to win the presidency. there are some ambitious democrats who feel this is their chance. we were with senator gillibrand new hampshire on friday evening. she talked about how she intends to get the democratic nomination. what president trump has created is very destructive. i think the hate, the division, ,he rise in bigotry, homophobia anti-immigrant is crushing our country. it's tearing at the moral fabric of our nation.

each one of us has to fight against it. called to doe all whatever it takes to defeat when he is created. moments, we believed in the golden rule. we used to care about one another. i should treat you the way you would want to be treated. that's how we were designed. we used to care about our neighbor. nation,est moments as a we welcomed refugees. asked with the statue of liberty stands for. send me your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. she stands there for a reason. moments,rongest immigrants helped build this country. our country was built by immigrants. our diverse city has always been a strength. each one of us is called at this

moment to fight for what we believe. [applause] the day after president trump was inaugurated, the world responded. i marched. that march was the largest global protest in the history of the world. millions of people marched. it didn't matter what your sign said. it didn't matter. it just mattered that you cared enough to be heard. that's the revival of our democracy. completed by defeating trump. [applause] the full event is on her website. it's airing later today. host: what is your reaction? guest: she is making the case.

i am not much of a democratic strategist. i am frustrated with the direction of the country, when jenna gives very appealing to democratic voters. when you look at low unemployment, people are enjoying good economic times. she going to have to make a different case about a stronger contrast and just being frustrated with the president. most voters are not on twitter. the economy is turning around. i think she is going to have to make a different case. host: the senator was very critical of her former colleague from minnesota who was forced out because of sexual assault. headline from politico.

what kind of issue is this going to be for her? guest: it didn't get a lot of traction because there were so many other competing stories going on. this is something she has to address more forcefully going forward. the hallmark of her campaign and her tenure in the senate has been taking on sexual assault cases, sexual harassment. she has really made a name for herself, forcing al franken out of the senate. they dide maintains the process. they conducted an investigation. thoroughly investigated this and the outcome was he should stay on the staff. theyare maintaining followed the process. there are a lot of questions she will have to address. host: we learned the governor of

maryland is traveling to new hampshire next month. i think the governor has done a fantastic job. he has seen a lot of success. not a lot of republicans have experienced that in maryland. i don't know how serious he is. the changes we've seen, the strength it trump has with primary voters, i don't know he would mount a serious challenge. host: what about john kasich, the former governor of ohio? of, to the sort right like pat buchanan in 1996. i don't know there is a lane to protect president trump from his right. like to get you to

react to a piece from politico. let me just read a next served.

guest: this is what makes me chuckle about the situation where people are trying to say we have a civil war in our party. when hillary clinton decided to run for president, everybody said she's the establishment, we need more people to challenge her. she had to deal with the fact that she was the front runner. it was a very small primary. she got criticized for it. 2019, we have a plethora of candidates seeking the presidency. people are saying were going to create a civil war. ultimately, democrats are having a debate about policy. what a refreshing change from the way our president has governed, by tearing people

down. i am looking forward to watching this policy debate play out. there is no shame in having a policy debate. there is a fair point, there is for nationalized health care or progressive income tax. could be a real challenge for a candidate that has to face the larger electorate. host: let's get to your phone calls. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. host: i should point out you are on the republican line. caller: i have a comment about gillibrand's statement. i feel like that was started when obama was in office.

that presidentg trump is trying to keep immigrants out. he is not. is if you feel like you can't get in legally and you have to climb over the wall, is that the kind of people we really want here to be our neighbors? that makes me wonder. working,ve been pulling on immigration since 2005. anybody, theo immigration system is broken. hard part is to find a solution. once an appropriate way to secure the border? a real frustration you will see is this issue. it's just really hard to find

middle ground. guest: i understand what the collar is saying. the bigger picture and i agree that the immigration status some is broken and democrats republicans both acknowledge that. it's the rhetoric the president uses, calling them thugs, criminals. seeking a better life for their families and trying to escape some very difficult situations, especially in guatemala and some of the central american countries. i wish our president would take it down a couple of notches and come to the table and say i'd get that we won't get the wall built, let's have border security. let's increase border security and work together. i don't think he is going to do that based on the last 16 months. loyalwe have a number of viewers.

your senator announced that she is running for president. what do you think? caller: good morning. for all the people behind the guests,hat put us on, hosts, a debt of gratitude and thanks. happy st. patrick's day. my mother was born in occupied ireland. catholics could vote. like this country was started, you can only vote unless you owned property. it was against the law for catholics to own property. yesterday would've been my italian fathers birthday. he would have been 97. he worked in london with troop movement. rockefeller republicans. i am an independent.

there was a time when the republican party could have progressive thinking people. senator, maybe i am making news, i am going to subpoena her for my trial. guest and anyyour one the news that wants to know when she came one year to cornell university, she left me on the street to where i had gotten blood clots. she left me on the street and did nothing. so did the new president of cornell. for the call.u

i want to go back to the earlier point. are there progressives in the republican party? is there room for liberals? guest: with the vote on the emergency resolution, we are a big tent party. part of being in congress is you often have to come together to pass legislative agendas. you become much more unified. we still remain a big tent party. there is room for broad views in the party. host: this is the headline from the hill. they fear daylight with trump. tom tillis who wrote an op-ed in the washington post was critical of the president use of executive authority. it, hewhen you look at

was a vibrant debate in the senate. he may be changed his mind and was compelled to look at different arguments. i don't hold it against anybody. did he listen to ideas or republicans in his home state threatening a primary challenge? debate, there is a political policy angle. was there an opportunity where he thought i'm not representing my state accurately because people are the other way? serious, he is a thoughtful person. republicansee these who have these plans to take on them or they criticize try to show daylight between themselves. then he tweeted them and gives

them a nickname and they back off and get nervous. guts whenee a lot of it comes to the republican party taking on donald trump. they are scared he will criticize them. they are scared the republican party base is going to alienate them. we see this right now in the presidential race. somebody like larry hogan or john kasich wants to take him on, fine. he enjoys 80% support among republicans. i don't see that declining very much in the primary. they don't have a lot of guts to take him on because they are fearful they will lose their base in the process. host: this is the hill newspaper. they fear daylight with trump.

guest: we worked the special election this year. one of the most compelling messages she had was her fidelity to the president. the president came to mississippi.

it's not a terrible thing to have a president that is politically popular and can rally support for you. that makes things challenging when you vote. maybe it does. i don't think it's a bad think who is popular with the base of the party. host: let's go to can from kentucky. caller: i just have a quick question. socialist?emocratic even the people that consider themselves democratic socialists have no idea what that is. that's a great question. i think there are different interpretations of what it is. bernie sanders still labels himself a democratic socialist, even though he made clear he is a democrat in this primary.

it would be somebody who believes them more of a -- people who support the green new deal, not everybody supports it and calls themselves a democratic socialist. all, the extreme version of been a killer for all would be under that agenda. i'm not really sure. i myself am a democrat. i'm not sure what the platform stands for. host: she worked on the hillary clinton campaign in 20 16. they are our guests on this sunday roundtable. our next call is from maryland. good morning. i watched this show all

the time. i've got something to say. the president has done the best job he can do. bethe democrats would democrats -- human beings. if you take a look at what trump has done and what obama has done. moved so manyhas papers across his desk. he is done what nobody else can do. trumpople that voted for are going to vote for him again. the republicans are going to stand behind trump. it's good these democrats are running. they don't know how stupid they are. the president has said this publicly and privately that he is proud to run a strong economy, lower taxes.

how they run against that. tweeting ande his statements that he makes that andt always satisfy people are divisive, he does have the core issues that republicans care about. philosophy,ith his but they've done a good job of putting conservatives on the court. the circuit courts. said, that is something we will see if swing voters and independents still support him based on those positions or if they are turned off by his divisive rhetoric. speeches, some of

the divisive policies. he is doing what he wants. he is placating the republican base. will that be enough to secure reelection? guest: the caller makes a good point. he will run a base centric campaign. they were upside down in the phone rebuild the ratings. they had majority unfavorable ratings. -- the realg to be strategy will be to but there base and to turn the democratic nominee into an undesirable. we welcome our was -- listeners on c-span radio heard coast-to-coast. on channel 124 every

sunday. we welcome our viewers from england. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to suggest something, voting for president trump was not the lesser of two evils. the people appreciated him. to the female, i am trying to figure out how you look at the republicans, that they are afraid of donald trump. did you hear that? that thet's respect sitting president is one that runs. absurd that you look at the republicans as though they are not quite all there. you are the ones in support abortion after a child is born.

there are so many things that you stand for. i would like for you to tell me which person running for president has any kind of ethics at all. guest: that's a loaded question. i think -- i think every single democrat running right now for the democratic nomination has strong ethics. certainly much stronger than our current president. we are a large tent party. we've got five women running so far. bidengot potentially joe getting in. going back to what the caller said about republicans not having the guts to take on president trump when they disagree with him, we see this time and time again. lindsey graham used to be one of his biggest opponents in the senate, 70 was going to speak

out against president trump. he is now in trump's corner. he is up for reelection. his base would alienate him if he criticized the president. i am speaking as an american here. -- if theke to see president was a democrat and invoking these divisive policies, i would hope more democrats would speak out against that president. i would like to see more republicans speak out against president trump when they disagree with them. guest: i want to comment on the call. i'm sorry did not make this point. think senator clinton and president trump had voters that voted for them enthusiastically. swing that was

unfavorable of both candidates. ofhink he had a number supporters that voted for him enthusiastically as did senator clinton. host: will the winner be the candidate that has solid support among his or her base and is able to peel away the swing or disaffected voters? guest: i think that's true. this point. tell at aat seems to be shaping up is base of support and it will be such a hard-fought divisive campaign that they will be frustrated with both choices. host: does that leave a path for howard schultz? strategistpolitical part of me, the logistics of

getting your self as a third-party candidate on every ballot in the country is an enormous burden, even for someone who is rich and successful. it's a huge issue. people had aerot hard time getting on the ballots in -- ballots. i don't know that there is a big enough swath for somebody like schulz to come in and win enough votes. host: let's turn to joe biden. this is the headline from abc news. we will hear from him in just a moment. axelrod tolddavid the guardian newspaper.

is that a problem? not enough in this day and age and current environment to be able to go out to 30 or 40 big people in the parties and counter them to raise the majority of your money. he would enter the race at a deficit when it comes to fundraising. there are plenty of people he can hire out there. they can build a strong grassroots program for you. right now,horse race focusing on how much money from how many different states can they raise in the first 24 hours. we saw this with bernie sanders who raised $6 million in the first 24 hours. his grassrootsp fundraising numbers.

joe biden is going to have to figure that out. host: this is the headline from the new york post. he was back in his home state for a fundraiser. he paid tribute to his son who passed away. he talked about his own credentials as he decides about entering the race. i get criticized by the new left. progressiveost record for anybody who would run. of anybody who would run. [applause] we have to bring this country

back together. a reflectionare in point. in 2020 without hyperbole is going to be the most important election this country has undergone in over 100 years. there is so much at stake. our core values are being shredded. at the world stage is at risk. i still meet with heads of state all over the world. they are concerned. they are wondering at where we are. is under threat. the threat is not exaggerated. it's real. it's existential. many of our republican friends know it as well as we do.

host: is he a candidate? guest: it's looking that way. i know a lot of people on his team. putting a structure in place to make it such that should he run, he can ask you it -- execute a strategy very quickly. one of his biggest challenges going back to his progressive record, he's got a voting record dating back to when he was 29 years old. he is now 76 years old. that's a lot of opposition research. reform, back in the early 90's when he helped in criminal justice reform, that's what was needed is a time. it's very controversial in the modern era. issues he'sot of

going to take on. how much of this distraction what he is currently trying to promote? host: the full speeches on our website. let's go back to the phones. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm still trying to find out what happening with the money. democrats need to speak up. personu have an insane shooting an elementary school, killing kids in church, putting them in cages, taking them from nursing mothers. the republican party became a party of treason or's. they love dictators. they love russia. they don't love our country. host: we will let you take care

of the dog. thank you. i think in general the republican party is for lower taxes and less government. i don't think anyone would think those are near treason or not having respect for your fellow man. i will do my best to improve. host: let's go to mike in ohio. caller: good morning. say i'manted to appalled and angered at the same time. didn't know a definition of democratic socialists. it's not communism. fear and is using people won't go look up the definition. democratic socialism is the

economy and society should be run democratically. to meet the public needs. to achieve a more just society. it must be transformed to greater economic and social democracy. host: let me take his point. i want to share with you what we talked about. socialism came up. newsmakers airs after the washington journal. this is what larry kudlow said. entrepreneurial private sector investment always wins. government control and socialism and health care for all and pain people if they work or not and , i am -- new deal

maybe we can talk about that. i am putting socialism on trial. i am going to convict socialism. this is a teaching moment. the millennials were going to work will come around to our point of view. your never what winston churchill said. when you are in your 20's you are not a socialist. if you are not a capitalist you have no brain. i don't mean this to be condescending. freedom andith its its prosperity is the greatest system in the history of history. i do not want to change it. i don't want to punish people.

host: that was lovely -- larry kudlow. what are you hearing? guest: i think the caller makes a very good point. the republicans are trying to label the democratic party that is filled with socialists and is moving toward a socialist agenda. they use that as a scare tactic. the point i was trying to make earlier, i'm not sure how much daylight is between those two. many people who label themselves democratic socialists are democrats. that's the point i was trying to make. i think we will continue to see this happen throughout the primary process. to republicans are trying label democrats communists and socialists. it is simply not true. host: let's go to pennsylvania. good morning.

caller: good morning. i had to call in because we hear it every morning. we watch c-span every day. the trump supporters consistently say he is the best president. i don't get where they are coming from. which democrat has ethics will be sitting president is a known criminal. , just wanted to point that out every day we see the criminality of this administration. publiceverybody who's in life is going to face a lot of scrutiny. he is not a convicted criminal. who knows what these investigations will hold. frustrated by his

personal behavior. when you look at the improved reform, a lot of republicans think we had a good first three years. host: let's go to virginia. good morning. i'd like to ask both of iur panelists a question if may regarding immigration. illegalnows how many immigrants are in the country. the claim his always been we need them to pay into social security. if they are paying social security and they are illegal immigrants, they are committing identity fraud. am i right or wrong? with: i'm not familiar

immigration law. i think he raises a fair point, we have a terrible problem tracking people who are here. common practice for illegal immigrants is if they get a the money goes into the fund of social security. it's frustrating to see people come in and commit crimes. the bigger picture is we need a broader solution on immigration. that's a problem we will have to face over the long term in the next couple of years. host: this is our line for independent voters. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air. caller: i have a question.

i've been a democrat. i always go back to the independent party. i consider myself a moderate. suppressingrump is the republicans. aoc?did she think about out ins a moderate come the democratic party? withiden could have issues the far end of the democratic party. i share the sentence. i myself am a moderate. i am from the south. when i moved to washington, the moderate voice really was representative of the party. i work for a blue dog member of congress.

her point. this is something we will see play out. that it is refreshing to see a debate about the issues instead of turning on the television and watching cable news with the president is tearing people down. we see a little bit more parity in terms of the coverage. they are running on a platform that is all about the issues. the debates will be key to this. there will be 12 primary debates. i think you will see these policy differences play out. i do think it's a challenge going forward, how does the moderate wing of the party ensure that somebody reflects their views that becomes the nominee. host: this is a headline from nbc news.

the president last out at john mccain, seven months after his death. guest: i believe and not speaking bill of the dead. this is a frustrating way for something to happen. does seem to have some unusual sources. having at least publicly was a

real embarrassment. presidentsciate the frustration level about it. guest: this is the point i've been talking about. president trump using divisive rhetoric in a negative way. this was out of the blue. where did this come from? john mccain is a patriot. he left us seven months ago. to bring this up and criticize a war hero now and repeatedly. he's been doing this for the past few years. it baffles me. i cannot imagine he is doing anything by doing this. there are a lot of people who support trump who are big fans of john mccain. host: this was from the president.

back to your phone calls. jeremy is joining us here in washington dc. caller: thanks for taking my call. i just wanted to comment on the criticism of her. money plays a role. evident. other factors are in play. there is tribal loyalty. the real frustration i

had was bringing it to loyalty. kennedyer when john f. ran for president as a catholic. they said he had loyalty to the vatican. in theirat someone heart isn't loyal to the united states when they serve the public is beyond the pale. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. it's disingenuous that she will deny understanding democratic socialism. it is another brand of marxism. host: let's give her a chance to respond. think you may have missed understood what i was saying.

are a number of different ways to label what a democratic socialist is. you can ask a lot of people who label themselves as democratic socialists, they would give you different answers. my point is the democratic party and those who stand under the label democratic socialist, i don't think there is much of the difference in many respects. the 1930's,e marxists of been trying to infiltrate our government. they call themselves communists. then they were liberals. now they call themselves progressives. guest: we are a big tent party. i don't think this is supportive of marxism. there are many different labels. ultimately, we are having a debate about the issues. that's what we see play out.

host: good morning. caller: thanks for taking the call. we need to watch at what we listen to. a lot of people are robots or russians. stupid is as stupid does. the previous caller was talking about democrats being stupid. usually, it takes one to no one. i want to say something about the democratic republican party that existed in the 1900s. we have reverted back to that. they tried to go against the federalist ideas of large , that's what they believe in. guest: perhaps. democrat, i do

have issues with that. that's what some democratic socialists, when you look at free college, medicare for all, the green new deal. governmente the taking a stronger role in terms of people's lives. that's where some people have issues. you can be a democrat and a capitalist. theill see this play out in debate process. aboutate makes a big deal the aoc wing of the party, the liberal wing of the party. host: you have known the clintons since you were a child. do you think she will endorse anyone in the primary? would that make any difference? guest: i will speak out on what

she plans to do. she may. that would be way down the road. they may just watch this process play out and keep their powder dry. it has the potential of going to the convention and we need to solidify our support around one candidate. you may see some of these bigger surrogates come out. that's a long long way down the road. headline,other herker losey surprised by impeachment comments. said this week that impeaching the present isn't worth it. report suggests

criminal activity in the white house, would you change your mind? people cannot ,ithstand a surprise expense their water heater, their carburetor, whatever happens. my focus is on what we said we would do, health care, gun safety, issues like that. to find somebody in the public who is feeling that financial pain, not on my financial interests. that is not a source of hope for people. i do think we should impeach a president for political reasons. you have to be ironclad in terms of your facts and see where that takes us. host: is that the right

approach? guest: i think in terms of this you want to be able to move , itgs through the house could suck up all the oxygen in the room. if she wants the past things and forced the president and the senate, this is a better place for her to be. politically, it's challenging. she has some of these members who said they can't wait to impeach the president. that presents a challenge for her. host: good morning to you. he mocked jeff sessions with his southern accent. he's telling the southerners that back him that the city slicker from new york thinks nothing of you. that was at the cpac

conference. we carried every moment of it. guest: on that point, that's what we are dealing with. he knows how to manipulate the media. he spoke for a long time. many outlets covered the entire speech. sure democrats who are running our giving the space to get the message across. host: good morning. caller: i've been listening to. our president is a corporate person. he's trying to run the world like a corporation. he wants to get rich. he doesn't care about the people.

look at our nation. i'm a democrat. everybody is middle-class and the rich became the poor. this is a common criticism from democrats, they feel the president doesn't care like -- without somebody like me and the rhetoric feels divisive. a safety abroad. we've got isis on the run. we are experiencing more piece. people might be frustrated with the back and forth in washington, i think you would be more pleased with that

situation. host: let me continue -- conclude with two points. 2016,on what you saw in what will the challenge be for the democrats? gain thew do you attention of the electorate, have you build a coalition that wins? donald trump could always get the attention of the electorate. that was a huge advantage for him when he ran against candidates with a more polished resume. it has to do with mobilization and into the as him. those are hard things to impact organically. the: when you look at calendar, do you think that model will hold true?

carolina. do you think that will hold true with california in march? guest: i think it is still important for candidates to do well in iowa, nevada, south carolina, new hampshire. with california on super tuesday, candidates will have a chance to be able to frame their message with maybe i will not do well in iowa. that is ok. i will focus more on some of these delegate rich states. has 55nia basically markets in the state that are delegate rich. candidates can go into those super tuesday states, california and texas, and pick up a lot of delegates. it is going to be fascinating to watch. host: thank you for being with us. we hope you will come back again. we are going to turn our attention to the federal do just eerie and woods is -- federal

judiciary and was happening in the senate. nan aron is here with the alliance for justice and johm malcolm with the heritage foundation. of march.ay, the 17th we are back in a moment. ♪ >> tonight on q&a. no idea that had we would be sitting here in 2019

talking about this war in has beenan the way it escalated, the way it has escalated every year, the countless lives that have been wasted. hopeaq war veteran matthew on his article, time for peace in afghanistan. the same thing i had seen in and in 2004 and 2005, 2006 2007, when i worked at the pentagon and state department, there was no difference between the administrations. their desire was to win for political reasons. everything else was secondary. hope on c-span's q&a. >> the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

>> ask not what your country can do for you. ask what you can do for your country. these people who knocked -- dings down [cheers and applause] >> historians rank america's executives.st chief stories gathered by interviews with noted presidential historians. explore the events that shaped our leaders, the legacies they had left behind. published by public affairs, the presidents will be on shelves april 23. you can preorder your copy today at c-span.org or wherever books are sold.

>> monday night on the communicators, democratic constant mike doyle, chair of the house subcommittee on technology and communications talks about net neutrality. the priority right now is to get this net neutrality issue in statute and finalized once and for all after 15 years of watching this issue ping-pong back and forth. i think the public overwhelmingly supports net neutrality rules and wants to see some certainty to this issue. >> watch the communicators monday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. host: our sunday roundtable looking at how the president and senate republicans are reshaping the federal judiciary. aron, with the

alliance for justice, and john malcolm of the heritage foundation. happy st. patrick's day. our apologies to our radio audience, but the green tie in the green blouse. the new chair of the senate judiciary committee, senator lindsey graham at the cpac conference last month. [video clip] tried to destroy him, and it blew up in their face. i hope they understand america is not where they are. if they don't understand it now, they will in 2020. elections matter. i am chairman of the judiciary committee. that matters. judges, then some more judges. mitch mcconnell has been great on this issue.

we are going to process as many conservative judges as we can. we are in charge of that committee, and we are going to use it wisely. every day, somebody in the house stands up and asks nancy pelosi to bring the pain capable bill, which would ban abortion. she is not listening in the house. i am going to bring that bill in the senate. elections matter. host: your reaction? guest: elections do matter. the president has done a pretty good job with respect to judges. he has done an excellent job with respect to federal appellate court judges. there is a lot more work to do. there are other past presidents who have confirmed more judges at this point then donald trump. there are currently 141 vacancies on the federal judiciary.

80 have been glared judicial emergencies. senator graham has his work cut out for him. certainly pushing against a lot of delaying tactics by democrats, getting 36 appellate judges through. host: is there any sense of democracy with republicans blocking a number of nominees for ford by barack obama? guest: i would contend they did not block very many judges of barack obama's. as a result of what they viewed to be obstructionist tactics, tory reid made the decision exercise the nuclear option in november 2013. i am quite sure a number of democratic senators sincerely regret that at this point. guest: a few answers. hasis this administration

degraded the advice and consent process. the senate has run roughshod over the rights of the american people, and also we have to take a look at who they have put on the federal bench. one out of five judges in the appellate court and nearly 100 s.dges on the district court that is a lot of judges. the challenge is that so many of the judges put on the bench, confirmed by republicans, nominated by the president are individuals who are opposed to the progress america has made for decades. individuals who would set the clock back on abortion, health -- lgbtq, overturn

important regulations that protect our air, water, the quality of our drugs. we have substantial numbers of judges on these federal courts whose decisions will be harmful to the american people. reid you took aim at harry , but there's also the issue of the blue slip, which seems to be another precedent that is breaking down in the senate. we will hear from diane feinstein in a moment. explain what the blue slip is. since it has been around 1917. it is not a rule of the senate. it is a courtesy. the blue slip is to let a home state senator determine whether isindicate that he or she going to vote against the nominee. they literally returned a piece of paper that is colored blue.

in the entire history of the senate judiciary committee since the blue slip courtesy took effect, there have only been to the bluewho have used slip as an absolute single senator veto. ande were james eastman patrick leahy. used the blue slip in the exact same way that chuck grassley and lindsey graham have used it. it is entitled to consideration, but it is not a single senator veto. some let me put numbers on the screen to give you an idea what we're talking about. far, there have been 35 confirmed judges on the court. judges, 129trict

nominated, 53 confirmed. dianne feinstein, the ranking member of the senate judiciary committee. [video clip] >> as you know, both senator harris and i have not returned our blue slips on mr. lee or mr. collins. the result of this action is to effectively kill the blue slip for the circuit court, at least as long as the control is on your side. i have spoken at length on the importance of the blue slip. i am not going to restate everything i said. around here, what goes around comes around. , in the 25 years i have been on this committee, has been an effective way of

ensuring that home state senators, regardless of party, have a say on the nominees whose decisions will directly impact their constituents. host: that was from the senate judiciary committee this past week as the senate considers to nominees for the ninth circuit court of appeals. guest: i think dianne feinstein accurately explains the blue slip. it is giving home state senators a say on who will go in the district and appellate courts. two fax must be taken into account. during the obama years, republicans way of obstructing the nominations process was to withhold blue slips so that we saw in a state like texas, both republican senators simply failing to turn in blue slips on more than 10 nominees put

forward by obama. we saw this in dozens of other circumstances. when republicans are in the majority, and there is a democrat president, their means of obstruction is simply to fail to turn them in. at the moment, republicans have taken the position that blue slips will no longer apply to .ourt of appeals nominees as senator feinstein has just said, republicans will come away regretting that decision because when democrats are in control, i think they are going to have to do exactly what republicans have done now, regrettably, and do away with blue slips, which means home state senators will have no say at all and who becomes a judge. host: just a reminder, we are looking at the federal courts.

our guests include nan aron, of alliance for justice and john malcolm at the heritage foundation. guest: the blue slip is not a hard and fast rule. it is a courtesy. it is being done now in the same way that joe biden and ted kennedy did. it is done to require consultation with the home state senator. it was not envisioned to be a single senator veto. senator harris made it clear she is not going to return a blue slip with respect to any nominees. the ninth circuit covers six or seven states. what senator feinstein and senator harris want is the ability to have a single senator veto over a judge that is going to have two issue opinions that cover a lot more than california. ,hen barack obama was president the new york times editorial

page referred to the blue slip as an anti-democratic power, never considered in the constitution. patronage old process. the blue slip is a courtesy to encourage consultation and no more. host: brett kavanaugh now serves on the supreme court. the senate this past week confirming a replacement, the 36th selection to the powerful appeals court for this president. good morning. caller: good morning. happy st. patrick's day. i am calling because i believe what happened during the obama administration with them blocking all the judges should be tit for tat. -- i'm noterstand

sure how to put this politely, but why men are making all the decisions for women. they want to roll back women's rights. they want to roll back abortion-rights. the thing with forcing people to puts thees even if it woman's life in jeopardy is that if you are going to do that, then the person left behind, the dad is left to raise the baby. host: we will get a response. let me just say this, our confirmation process at the run by a now being group of republican senators who are bent on confirming as quickly as possible, without accountability, without transparency, as many judges as

possible who will turn the clock back on our cherished rights and freedoms. steve, you mentioned a nominee was just confirmed to the d.c. circuit this week. let's look at her record. in her 20's wrote incredibly controversial articles on lgbtq writes, saying they undermine american democracy, wrote about sexual assault saying that women who drink to excess have only themselves to blame if they are sexually assaulted, referred to civil rights groups as unimportant, environmental statutes as bogeyman. her 20's, writings in so some of the republicans said let's excuse her writings. they were done years ago. the fact of the matter is for extremism has followed her

career, where she has been, up until her confirmation, running the office of information and regulatory affairs, where she failed to put forward regulations, housing regulations discrimination, where she failed to put forth regulations advising employers how to deal with sexual assault and harassment in the workplace. she failed to put forward a regulation implementation the environmental power act. , she carried time out her beliefs and basically undermined the administrative process and the role of administrative agencies. this is the person who donald trump has put on the d.c.

circuit court of appeals. fill brettng to kavanaugh's seat with a nominee who essentially blames women for being sexually assaulted. host: this is the headline on usa today, the presidents takeover of the federal appeals court. you can read that online. mike, you are next. the morning. caller: how are you this morning? host: we are fine. thank you. caller: i am a republican. i am hearing these two on your television network right now. they are saying that because one party did it, we are going to do a good you are not -- do it. you are not telling me what is right and what is wrong. the young lady that was disappointed yesterday, apparently she is going by what is constitutional.

apparently they chose her because she is following the constitution. this tit for tat, we did not send them to d.c. to do this. that is what both these people are telling us. because one party did it, we are going to do it. guest: i will certainly respond to what mike had to say, although i have to respond to what nan said. that was a very hyperbolic presentation of naomi's writings. she clerked on the supreme court for justice thomas. she served at the school he a lot school at george mason university. her writings are respected by judges and academics across the country. i would note that when president clinton was in office, it was nan aron who said president clinton has a duty to fill

judicial vacancies and appoint hold his views. that is what donald trump is doing. they have a philosophy, a judicial philosophy to approaching cases that the president admires, and so do i. rights that to the nan says these judges are hell bent on turning back, they have not done any of that. i have to respond. first of all, to our caller, it is not tit for tat. two trunk and justices, gorsuch and kavanaugh, we know already are eroding our constitutional rights and legal protections.

it is looking at who donald trump is putting on these , and frankly why they are so dangerous. heardast week the senate sherrod brown criticized a circuitto the sixth ourt of appeals, chad raylor. he was chosen because he led an effort at the justice department in refusing to defend pre-existing conditions for 50 million americans. that is why he was nominated. host: let me stop you there. guest: i know chad. he was the acting head of the civil division of the department of justice. he was not running off people with pre-existing conditions. he was talking about a constitutional argument about

the individual mandate. suffice it to say that her view is very different from mine on the constitution. i would note that the american bar association has rated trump judges as well qualified at almost exactly the same rate as obama judges and even more highly rated then clinton judges. judges confirmed at this point in his administration. questioningine of from republican senator john kennedy of louisiana. [video clip] come beforeominees us all the time, and they are beat up for their past written opinions. i don't want a nominee that has never thought about the world. i would prefer to have a nominee that has an intellect above a single cell organism.

the issue is not have you thought about the world. the issue is, are you willing to set aside your personal beliefs and follow the law? are you willing to set aside your personal believes and follow the law even if you disagree? >> absolutely. that is the job of a judge. to follow theling law when it comes to an abortion case? >> absolutely. guest: of course we want judges who have thought about the issues of the day but look at naomi rou. she spoke about sexual assault, environment, the interviews are antithetical, bythema to those enjoyed

most americans in this country. do we want somebody on the federal bench who has spoken out and when she had an opportunity in the trump administration to implement some of these views, she went ahead and did that? , even donaldcans trump's constituencies, don't want a judge on the federal bench who will undermine protections by agencies that apply to clean water, clean air, safe drugs. what about the faa? when we have plane crashes in the world, we look to our federal agencies to ensure that our planes are safe. partas selected in large because her views are antithetical to agency regulation.

she would overturn agency regulation. don mcgann, the former white house counsel, spoke about the need to pick judges that are opposed to the administrative state. steve bannon has said the same thing. neil gorsuch has written about the dangers of administrative state, and yet all americans look to agencies to protect their well-being. host: i know you were a fierce critic of john roberts when he was nominated. he sen said he wanted to be an umpire that followed the law, not an ideologue. host: let's look at his record. that is the best evidence of the kind of justice he has been. certainly on case after case where there are voting rights, abortion, the death penalty, gun rights, environment, access to

justice, binding arbitration, he has been a consistent vote against upholding and safeguarding the progress that has been made in those areas. host: john malcolm. guest: i would say chief justice roberts is a minimalist. he is afraid of the court getting too far ahead in terms of bold cases. he tends to see the law in baby steps rather than big steps. conservatives were certainly disappointed and justice roberts being the deciding vote in the obamacare cases. gun rights, she does not believe in the second amendment. she prefers the constitutional fashions are in the constitution. on first amendment cases, chief justice roberts has tended to

side with the conservatives, but he is distinctly the swing vote, now even siding with the so-called liberal wing of the court in the last term. i think he will continue to occupy that space. he is more of a minimalist than an ideologue. malcolm with the heritage foundation. nan aron with the alliance for justice. john, you have been very patient. thank you for waiting. you are next. caller: good morning. first i want to say thank you. i appreciate c-span. morning,ur guests this especially your lady from the alliance for justice. she is right in saying that what goes around comes around. i will have to remind her also went obama was in office and harry reid was over there

minor,g boats to 51% they came around and were complaining about that. lied about mitt romney and then said it worked, didn't it? you boys and girls on the playground better learn how to play. don't worry about coming around. work together for the people of the united states. not for illegal immigrants. for the people the united states. thank you. guest: many people blame harry reid with doing away for the filibuster for lower court judges. we should put an end to that discussion. the only reason harry reid went about doing away with the filibuster was because the republicans would not fill any seats in the d.c. court of appeals, the ninth circuit, and many other circuits around the

country. he had no option other than to do away with the filibuster, which was being used to block dozens of appellate court nominees. guest: with all due respect, that is arrant nonsense. host: even republicans would agree they did block the obama nominees. guest: here is what they blocked. they blocked three judges, nominees who president obama wanted to put on the d.c. circuit. the d.c. circuit is a very important part. considered the second-most important court in the land. the d.c. circuit was evenly split, exactly evenly split. lowappens to have a very caseload. there was no pressing need to fill judges on the d.c. circuit.

the fifth circuit in ninth circuit far busier. harry reid wanted to tip the scale in terms of democratically appointed judges who would be highly likely to uphold the democrats agenda. the nuclear option to blow up the filibuster in order to put three new judges on the d.c. circuit and to have that court become a decidedly democratic court. one thing i agree with, we may disagree about what past history meant in terms of how people treated each other. i would disagree with how obama was treated in terms of filibusters versus george bush. clear, they were vacancies. they were not new positions. guest: that is correct. there was not a need to fill those vacancies because the court load was comparatively light. guest: you are saying essentially they blocked the nominees for political purposes. the best illustration of

republican obstructionism is america garland. dies.n scalia worn hatch calls a president obama and says put america garland on the supreme court. republicans voted for him when he was being considered for the seat to the d.c. circuit, eminently qualified, stellar reputation. what do republicans do? they announced on the floor he will not get a hearing, he will not get a vote. republican senators refused to meet with him, the first time in american history, unprecedented that a sitting president does not get to name a supreme court justice. if that is not obstructionism, i don't know what is. host: was that fair? guest: you are not going to hear me say anything negative about merrick garland.

it is not true that the senate judiciary has always taken up nominees from presidents. when george h.w. bush was president going into a reelection year, joe biden said to the president if there is a vacancy on the sprinkler, turned out there was not, -- supreme court, turned out there was not, don't send a nominee. the nine people sitting on those benches matter. this was justice scalia who died. it was a very important position. republicans felt correctly as if the supreme court was on the ballot. they took a real chance by saying we will leave this up to the american people. at the time, everybody expected that hillary clinton was going to be the president.

had she been, odds are she would have appointed somebody much younger and more ideological than merrick garland. guest: baloney. they kept that seat open for one reason, even knowing how was,fied merrick garland they kept the seat open hoping a republican would be elected to president. that is exactly what happened. i am saying never before in history -- look at the last year of ronald reagan's term. robert bork went down. they immediately, democrats in the majority, confirmed a very conservative judge to be justice, anthony kennedy in 1988. democrats have always carried to confirm.ligation

this was a matter of complete and total obstructionism. host: if there is a vacancy in 2020, republicans have control of the senate. do you expect the republican leader will hold off until 2021? guest: i have no idea. it is mitch mcconnell. from what i have seen of mitch mcconnell in the senate, he has degraded the advice and consent responsibilities. i would not put anything past. host: let's go to james in georgia. feelr: as a minority, i the constitution from the flawedng was a fatally document. that is we have

justified by this constitution, jim crow, everything. the only thing that matters is the ideology of the judge making the decision. importanty it is so to put certain judges of the supreme court because no matter what the legislative rich does, you can have the supreme court that.y if it's a white manifesto, it does not matter to democrats in so-called liberals because they benefit from these right-wing conservatives. you have the ku klux klan. all of this was done under the constitution. it was legal. it does not matter. just like with donald trump in office, we don't know if he can

pardon himself. we don't know anything about it. it is left up to the interpretation of the ideology of the judge. it has nothing to do with the constitution. it is a white manifesto privileged document. host: let me get a response from india. kevin, good morning. caller: i agree with what he said. republican of course. wonder what your opinion is on the supreme court decided corporations are people and that they get to influence elections and if that is why amazon, google, facebook, all these corporations, monopolies? host: thank you.

a lot to unpack. guest: i think these ca llers would be surprised to learn that several nominees to this report have come before the senate judiciary committee and have refused to answer the basic question as to whether or not they believe brown v. board of education was correctly decided. i am amazed the numbers of nominees will come before the senate and reviews to answer a -- refusethat refused to answer question about one of important decisions handed down. believes brown the decided. d

she wants a nominee to say i think this precedent was correctly decided for this was not so she can go ahead and ask about roe v. wade. comments,f james' slavery was the state on our nation that was allowed to survive the original constitution. in supreme court certainly plessy versus ferguson, the slaughterhouse cases, allowed jim crow laws to be upheld and did away with the privileges or immunities clause in the 14th amendment. stain on our society that we are continuing to struggle to overcome. the constitution is a document.

requires some form of interpretation. in terms of corporate rights, corporate rights have been interpreted into the constitution back to our founding. chief justice marshall found in favor of dartmouth college as an organization in order to control its curriculum and faculty hirings when the state wanted to take that over. the people on the left when we talk about the new york times planned parenthood, they have no problem with corporate rights. favorings someone conservative opinions, they have a problem. i went to columbia undergraduate and law school. guest: oberlin college. host: tammy, democrats line. caller: hello?

you are on. caller: i am calling from new mexico. good morning. i love your program. i am listening to this gentleman defend citizens united. to me that was probably one of the worst mistakes ever to go through. the gentleman that called earlier, obviously a man of th in ourlost fai judicial system when i was 17 acres i could see how biased it was. i am 66 now. i could see how biased it was against people even in our community. we thought it had gotten better, but it has gotten so much worse. host: we will get a response.

guest: she is entitled to her opinion about citizens united. i would disagree. i don't think we were invited on the show to talk about the state of racial relations in the country. there are arguments the concert we may, charlottesville and other things that have happened. i would note black unemployment is the lowest it has ever been in the history of this nation. i would say it is a mixed record. we are not here to talk about race. we are here to talk about the courts. i'm sorry to hear that tammy's faith has wavered in the judicial system. this line of questioning from senator blumenthal of connecticut. [video clip] >> you wrote in a separate article that charges of sexism often amount to nothing but irrelevant pouting.

likable weng, and have seen with the me too movement, the conviction of larry nassar, charges against harry weinstein, conviction of bill cosby and others, does sexism amount to irrelevant pouting? >> i understand your concerns. i can tell you issues of sexism are very concerning and important to me, especially as a father of two young daughters and someone who has three older sisters i admire very much. >> why did you write that? article, irote that was 19 years old, and i was trying to defend it professor i knew and admired at the time. at the time, i did not have the life experiences of how the workplace works.

my only job was as a newspaper boy delivering papers in our local neighborhood. i did not understand the dynamics of the workplace. frankly, also very naive. engageught was i don't in that kind of behavior. my friends don't engage in that kind of behavior. at that time, we did not hear much about these kinds of stories. now we know why. spotnk i had a major blind on that. host: that is from the senate judiciary committee. how far is too far to go back? he was a teenager. he is now an adult and judicial nominee. guest: words have meaning. written when someone is 19 or 20 years old. those words were hostile, brutal.

he is not alone. not unique. he is one of several nominees who were selected for the federal bench because they hold a certain set of beliefs throughout their lives. i think what is so disheartening is that once individuals like kenneth lee go on the bench, they have an opportunity to rule in cases that never their irror theirm earlier beliefs. joined threeawson in sayingp judges ohio could defund planned parenthood. you see time and time again judges going on the bench and ruling against women, people of

color. what is most alarming about kenneth lee is not only are these writings unacceptable, but he failed to turn over to the committee, the california judicial nomination commission 75 articles. that cannot be accidental. hemically should not be -- kenneth lee should not be placed on the judicial bench. respond tove to that. very outstanding lawyer. there is another portion of the senate judiciary committee in which he talked about his father taking him and his siblings to disney world and the discrimination they faced and how they had to process that information. this is a sensitive man. when nan aron talks about a case parenthood,anned

she says he voted to uphold what the state wants to. lady justice is supposed to carry scales that are evenly balanced and not tipped the scales in favor of women work corporations were minorities. you are just supposed to apply the law. sometimes the people on the left when it sometimes they lose. same thing for people on the right. host: good morning. caller: good morning. basically, i am calling to discuss the basic issue here, which is judicial temperament. what does the political left want versus what does the law say? i will talk about what is constitutional. the citizens of the united states make the political decisions in our country. those decisions, our freedom is

to make those decisions through the citizens and their elected representatives. activist judges essentially steal our individual sovereignty. guest: i essentially agree with that other than the fact that the federal judiciary are life reason.for we have a bill of rights that is by design counter majoritarian. justices are supposed to apply the law. they are not supposed to read their personal predilections into the law. there are activist judges that do that. the constitution does decide many issues, but there are many more that our founding fathers left these issues up to the people to decide. host: we will go to atlantic city.

conrad, good morning. caller: good morning. i think a month ago, the president was in the rose garden. judges, about how many how could he have so many judges to appoint, that has to be appointed? the reason was because of mitch mcconnell. guest: i think he is absolutely right. he owes his judges to mitch mcconnell. will we have to make sure of is to see this issue through a political lens. trump came donald into office pledging to appoint judges who would turn the clock back on our rights and our freedoms. he talked about judges at every campaign stop. he announced he would outsource the selection of judges to the right-wing federal society and

the heritage foundation. guest: to me. host: are you picking the judges? guest: no. announced -- guest: he announced the judges he would select would be opposed to abortion rights. that is a critical point. i want to jump in with reaction from the state attorney general eric holder. he was asked about the election in 2020 and said if the democrats recapture the presidency and majority in the senate, they should seriously consider adding two seats to the supreme court to make up for the mitchgrabbing by mcconnell. said he wasresident going to appoint conservative judges. he put out a list of people he would consider appointing.

if you want to talk about 2016, herback in organization said there were 83 vacancies on the supreme court at that time, and that was a crisis. i'm not sure what you call hundred 41 vacancies, which -- 141 vacancies, which exist now. the number of supreme court justices is set by statute. you would go on a dangerous path when you start doing that. even assuming democrats win the presidency, keep control the house, and when the senate. it is unlikely they will get 60 votes in the senate. in order to do something like that, they would have to exercise the nuclear option with regards to legislative filibusters. .hat sets a dangerous precedent it is quite a bit different from exercising the nuclear option on nominations.

court packing is a dangerous thing to embark on. they may try to do it. host: let's go to robert in new york. good morning. caller: i have two questions. the first one is about freedom of speech and the first amendment. in 26 states in america, there is a lobbying group that lobbied the states to change the law. people like to know, 20 died. those people allowed to fly into the united states. when people tried to block them from coming, people said that if let --it is against the

constitution. host: would you like to respond? guest: i would say this court has recognized the first amendment to let corporations run roughshod over people's rights. there are so many instances of that in our case law. over the next year and a half, we are going to see this administration encountered , andculty, challenges probably failures on so many fronts. what we are going to see from donald trump, aided by mitch mcconnell and republicans in the effort to pack the courts, the likes of which we have never seen before. host: a quick question or comment. are you with us? caller: yes. host: we have one minute left.

quick question or comment. caller: they are talking about the courts, the ninth district court, the obama judges. people on the ninth district court, they disobey our laws. they go against jump every time. circuit is theh most revered in our land for good reason. let me make a comment about packing the court. when barack obama took the office, there was only one court that had a majority of democratic appointed judges. at the time he left, there were nine. the fourth circuit became quite -- i don't recall her packingtion discussing the courts at that time. guest: he certainly did not.

if you look at president obama's judges, who did he put on the federal bench? corporate lawyers, prosecutors, over 90%. americans today look at those good, and say these were stellar judges. today, who are we seeing going on the federal bench? individuals with such clear ideological views that i really worry for the future of the courts and the future of the country. aron,to both of you, nan president of alliance for justice, and john malcolm at the heritage foundation, we appreciate you being with us. guest: thank you. host: one final note, there is a birthday celebration going on this week at c-span. we turned 40 on tuesday, march 19. isould share with you what in the washington post. we need c-span more than ever.

c-span is now such a ubiquitous presence in the capital, it is easy to forget how radical an idea it was. the network not only gave citizens thousands of miles away their first real-time unfiltered look at how government works, but it also upset the balance of power in the marvel corridors. offer more public affairs programming. when he discovered in 1977 that the house was seriously considering the idea of broadcasting proceedings, he talked to them into setting aside a channel for them. it became more apparent what a treasure c-span has come to be. it challenges us to think for yourselves without the clatter of punditry. happy birthday, c-span. we need you more than ever. [video clip] >> from all over the u.s., we're

going to go to california. go ahead. >> all of a sudden we had a screen. it said washington, d.c. people were spending a lot of money on long-distance calls. if i saw a local call, i would not be in a hurry. susan swain was a producer. she typed into the screen, take the call now. >> is this mr. brian lamb? >> would you hold one moment for the president? [laughter] i just came upstairs to the study and turned on the set, and there you were. showched long enough to several questions that show your concern about the exclusionary rule. >> it was great. we were trying to get attention for the fact we existed. the president of the united states called this network,

which has never happened since. >> i would like to ask you a question. >> i thought this was it. we just crossed the finish line. >> gerald ford. is it gerald ford? no. >> she could have been disfigured for life. >> the u.s. government has been involved in what officials in washington described as a full-court press to find the shop a new home. >> when we started, there is no cable in washington, d.c. >> on this historic day, the house opens its proceedings to televised coverage. >> this should have been on tv from the beginning. it should have been completely open. they are spending our money. they are spending money we don't have. people still don't pay attention. when we came along, it changed a lot of things in people's minds. for the first time, people could listen to someone make a speech

from beginning to end. it was incredible. it was exciting to us that as twitter or snapchat and all this stuff is today to the younger people. there is a connection between what freshman members of congress did and twitter. >> those were watching on cable or c-span must find a sort of alice in wonderland quality about the whole discussion. >> newt gingrich was familiar with technology. he recognized this was a platform he could speak. he started a process of standing at the microphone everyday. he told me, when it got to 1981, what i was doing more than anything was talking every afternoon when i got on the floor to the ronald reagan white house. >> it does turn out there is a from the soviet union, and there is a great likelihood that the kgb

detachment in the correct what is involved. >> tip o'neill was speaker of the house. the conservatives were getting up there every day and beating on him. we don't control the cameras. determined to his broadcasting chief inside turn the camera so everybody can see who is here. >> the ethics committee did a thorough job of looking into the incident. >> there was never anybody there but the speakers. from the washington post. the full 5.5 minute video is available online at washingtonpost.com describing brian lamb is a natural -- national treasure. thanks to all of you for watching this over the last 40 years and the steadfast support of the cable industry. we couldn't do without their support. we are back tomorrow morning. tune in every day morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. the president of the bipartisan policy center will join us and

in our final hour, darrell is the author of divided politics, divided nation. also live simulcast on c-span radio. "newsmakers" is next with larry kudlow. thanks for joining us. happy st. patrick's day. have a great week. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] ♪ >> here is a look at what is ahead today on c-span. "newsmakers" is next with larry kudlow. who talks about trade with china, the u.s. economy, u.s. actions on boeing jets and brexit after this week's votes in the house of commons. at 10:35, a portion of the

hearings with tim sloan, the ceo of wells fargo. to theg at 11:50, rode white house events from saturday with former vp joe biden at a delaware democrat fundraiser at former congressman beto o'rourke in iowa. tonight on "q&a" bei had no expectation could sitting here in 2019 about this war. in afghanistan. escalated,has been the way it has escalated every year, the countless lives that have been wasted and the continual suffering. >> iraqi war veteran and former state department official matthew on his article time for peace in afghanistan and an end to the library >> -- into the lie. work onll as when i

iraq and afghanistan at issues in the pentagon and the state department between of those times. bothdministrations were the desire was to win politically or win for political reasons, domestic political reasons. >> matthew tonight at 8:00 eastern on "q&a." >> joining us on "newsmakers," larry kudlow. thank you for being with us. also, nancy cook. mr. kudlow, let me begin on the issue of china and trade. last week, you said we have china over a barrel. where do things stand? mr. kudlow: actually, we are making good progress.