first u.s. televised presidential debates. we will also take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. president trump: it is our honor to nominate one of our nation's most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the supreme court. she is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials, and unyielding loyalty to the constitution, judge amy coney barrett. host: that was the scene from the rose garden at the white house yesterday, as president trump, for the third time in less than four years, announced his supreme court nominee. judge amy coney barrett's nomination now goes to the senate where republicans are wasting no time. last night judiciary committee chairman lindsey agram announced that confirmation

hearings would begin two weeks from tomorrow. we're getting your reaction to all of it this morning on the "washington journal." as we do, we want to hear from you. phone lines split up as usual this morning. democrats, it's 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can also send us a text this morning. that number, 202-748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you're from. otherwise catch up with us on social media, on twitter, it's @cspanwj. on facebook, it's facebook.com/cspan. very good sunday morning to you. you can go ahead and start calling in now as we show you some of judge amy coney barrett's first remarks at the supreme court nominee. >> the president has nominated me to serve on the united states supreme court, and that institution belongs to all of us.

if confirmed, i would not assume that role for the sake of those in my own circle, and certainly not for my own sake. i would assume this role to serve you. i would discharge the judicial oath, which requires me to administer justice without respect to persons, do equal rights to the poor and rich, and faithfully and combabblely discharge my duties under the united states constitution. i have no illusions that the road ahead of me will be easy, either for the short term or the long haul. i never imagined that i would find myself in this position. but now that i am, a sure you that i will meet the challenge with both humility and courage. host: judge amy coney barrett yesterday from the rose far different white house. here's the headline in today's "new york times." trump's pick for court opens

dash to the vofmente here's the tellline we're looking at hearings to begin in just over two weeks, two weeks from tomorrow. october 12-14, you can watch them on c-span when they air. listen to them on the free c-span radio app. that was the announcement from the senate judiciary committee last night. that announcement coming at 9:00 p.m. here's the press release from senator lindsey graham, chairman of the senate judiciary committee, saying the hearings will last three to four days. opening statements by judiciary committee members and the nominee will occur on monday, october 12. the questioning of judge barrett will begin on tuesday, october 13. that expected to last perhaps two days. testimony by those who know judge barrett and outside legal experts expected to follow. that could happen on the 15th. but again, just over two weeks until those hearings begin. we're getting your reaction

this morning to those hearing dates being set, the nominee being announced yesterday. of course, our phone lines, split up, democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. as he continue to call in, want to show you perhaps a flavor of what democrats will be saying in the coming weeks when it comes to this nomination. this was senate minority leader chuck schumer yesterday in a press conference about the president's nominee. >> the american people should make no mistake about it. a vote for judge barrett is a vote to take away healthcare and its protections for over 130 million americans who now have protections against preexisting conditions. for over 40 million americans who pay for their drugs on medicare, we're close to 10 million americans who will lose their healthcare all together. a vote for amy coney barrett is

a dagger aimed at the heart of the healthcare protections americans so desperately need and want. by nominating judge barrett to the supreme court, president trump has put americans' healthcare at grave risk. and as covid-19 continues and we need more healthcare, the nomination by president trump of amy coney barrett will mean less healthcare for over 100 million americans. healthcare is the most important issue on the ballot to americans. and as americans learn, judge barrett's introduce on healthcare and so many other issues, she'll become less and less popular and hopefully they will call their senators and say don't vote for someone who ill take away my healthcare.

host: senator chuck schumer yesterday going right at healthcare, and expecting to hear more of this. this is from political reporter paul cane. democrats plan to make the supreme court fight about saving the affordable care act, talking, writing the democrats have an obvious hypocrisy argument they could make against senate majority leader mitch mcconnell who declared merrick garland wouldn't receive a meeting, much less a hearing, but they want to avoid a process trap. in singe with joe biden, democrats want to replicate their successful 2017 right to preserve the affordable care act, which peeled off enough g.o.p. senators to defeat trump's fwoid repeal the health law. they remain skeptical of defeating this particular nominee, judge amy coney barrett, but democrats leave this policy focus message could propel them to big wins in the november election. if you want to read more about it, paul cane's column today in

"the washington post," taking your phone calls this morning about all of it, saving this first hour of the "washington journal" today getting your reaction to the nominee announcement and to the upcoming dates for confirmation hearings. gary, ohio republican, you're up first this morning, go ahead. caller: good morning. i think the president has done a tremendous job in picking ms. barrett. she was first in her class in law school, a professor at notre dame, and now on the u.s. district court of appeals seventh, and i think she'll elp keep our healthcare in line. i think she'll go right with the constitution and i just think it's a tremendous pick, and i'm so excited for her and proud of our president for choosing her. host: that's square any ohio. you mentioned her service on the u.s. court of appeals for the sevpbt circuit court nominated by president trump to serve on that court back in

2017, confirmed by the senate for that position. three democrats back then voted to confirm her, including former senator joe donnelly, tim kaine, joe manchin all voted to confirm amy coney barrett to that position. three other democrats chose not to vote when it came to her confirmation. facing another confirmation hearing coming up in just over two weeks, getting your response, your reaction. dexter is in dayton, ohio, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. what are your thoughts on the nominee? caller: basically i think that too much of one thing is not a good thing. and if you look at the atmosphere of today's democratic and republican arguments, neither one of them stand very much ground, because if the democrats were in office, they would try to push

for their nominee. so it's like the common thing we hear on the radio and tv, hypocrisy. it's hypocrisy on both sides, the democrats and the republicans. is so if this nominee is pushed forward, trump should realize that he is nothing but a puppet. so if we can get rid of the puppet, then we can more of an understanding of what exactly is going on. host: a puppet controlled by who, dexter? caller: a puppet controlled by mitch mcconnell. mitch mcconnell is the puppet master that's controlling the strings. i haven't seen anything less. it makes me wonder who's running the country. is it mitch mcconnell or is it donald trump? host: that's dexter in ohio. this is david, middleton, new jersey, independent. good morning. you're next. caller: good morning, c-span. the best channel on television. good morning, gentlemen. i'm a 96-year-young world war

ii vet, and i am completely, completely disgusted at what is happening in our country. ow it's judge barrett, a brilliant, brilliant judge, but she doesn't represent what i feel this country needs. she will be so far right, and she will undo everything that udge ginsburg stood for. she will undo everything justice ginsburg stood for. i don't want to think what our country will be like years from now for our grandchildren, and for the grand children of all of the american people. we're going to have a court that's going to be predominantly far right for

any, many, many years. the effects for many, many years. i don't know what the medical people can do, but she can do it now as far as i'm concerned, whether the country is going. do not go in the right direction. for some y is not people. it's for we the people, and that's not what our country is all about. we looked out for each other in world war ii. we were known as the greatest generation. and they managed the greatest generation, but really for people. and ountry is polarized, we have to come together and do what's best for each other, and

not what's best for the right -wing part of our country. i wish our country the best, and god bless america. host: david, thanks for the call. thanks for what did you in world war ii. taking your phone calls this morning on the "washington journal." phone lines split up, democrats, republicans, and independents, showing you some of the reaction to the supreme court nomination that judge amy coney barrett, this from david cole, the director of the american civil liberties union, a professor at george toufpblet he writes in the lead to his column today, not since clarence thomas filled the seat has a supreme court appointment been as con convince shall as ruth bader ginsburg's replacement is likely to be. if amy coney barrett is confirmed, a die-hard conservative will once again replace a civil rights hero and resulting shift will be tectonic. e writes --

caller: good morning. i just want to say to president trump, great pick. it will bring this country back

on track with following the constitution. i think that chuck schumer would have said this about any justice, and they have said horrible things about every republican justice beforehand, and even the ones that became liberal, it's utter nonsense. if the democrats want to complain, they're the ones who destroyed the process by utterly ruining clarence thomas and brett kavanaugh without evidence, and it's a shame. there is a difference between now and 2016. in 2016, the republicans had taken back the senate. in 2014, as an opposition to president obama, and this in 2020, the republicans kept the senate and took even more seats in 2018 in support of president trump. so there is a slight difference. but the as a young person i'm looking forward to everything the supreme court does to pre this country back on track and following the constitution. host: you say you're a young person. how young are you?

caller: i'm 20. not enough people any age know about the constitution and understand what it says, and the person who called before me, god bless him and everything did he for this country. therp truly the greatest generation. host: on president trump's picks for the supreme court, his nominee, amy coney barrett, 48 years old, brev kavanaugh now 55. neil gorsuch, 53. your thoughts on their influence in the years, decades to come on the supreme court? caller: well, i hope they keep to the constitutional conservatism that we expect them to, and the constitution is not a living, breathing document, it is written, it's the law of the land. we can't change it. there is no right to abortion in the constitution, no right to privacy. we should follow what the constitution said f. states want to decide that abortion is legal, go ahead. but it's not in the constitution. host: that's jury ned brooklyn. his message to the president.

great pick, president trump had a message for senators yesterday at his nomination announcement. here's more from the president. president trump: i want to thank you for your commitment and to providing a fair and timely hearing. i know it will be that. judge barrett was confirmed to the circuit court three years ago by a bipartisan vote. her qualifications are unsurpassed, unsurpassed, and her record is beyond reproach. this should be a straight forward and prompt confirmation, should be very easy. good luck. it's going to be very quick. i'm sure it will be extremely noncontroversial. we said that the last time, didn't we? well, thank you all very much, and thank you for being here. it's really great. thank you. i further urge all members of the other side of the aisle to provide judge barrett with the respectful and dignified hearing that she deserves, and frankly, that our country

deserves. i urge lawmakers and members of the media to refrain from personal or partisan attacks and the stakes for our country are incredibly high. rulings that the supreme court will issue in the coming years will decide the survival of our second amountment, our religious liberty, our public safety, and so much more. host: president trump yesterday, getting your reaction this morning on the "washington journal." also along with your calls, looking for your posts on social media. this is peggy kennedy from facebook. i find myself walking doubt middle on this one. on one hand, i want to trust that she will be impartial in all issues. on the other hand, i think she will hurt this country. we shall see is what peggy says. brilliant, accomplished, the right choice. that's mel understand afrom facebook. this is alan from west virginia via text messaging. the republicans are going to

get their supreme court nominee, and unfortunately there's nothing that democrats can do about it. might as well move to another topic. and one more from scott in houston, texas, we can kiss scommunch state separation goodbye. this is herbert out of fort washington, maryland, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is more trump is a good mafpblet i'm a democrat. i'll tell you why. ost: that was herbert in maryland. this is from alabama. caller: good morning, john, how are you? host: doing well. caller: listening to trump yesterday, as a matter of fact,

listening to him since he's been in office, trump is not for america. everything that trump does or say is like a used car salesman. listen to the 94-year-old man just a while ago. he said it perfectly. america is not america anymore. with this president we got, he's -- he loves to get on national tv and holler, listen to me, do what i say. this is the most con man we ever had. that woman that he's trying to put up, that's his card to stay out of jail, because he knows if he lose, he going jail. and for all these republicans calling in, i wonder why don't they just pack up and move to another country, because they don't love america. they love the money that america is about. host: you talk about if the president loses, how much do you think this pick will influence what happens here in less than 40 days with the

presidential election. how much are we going to focused on this? caller: that's exact what will he's looking for, somebody just like justice kavanaugh. he don't want the beam to bad mouth her. any time trump open his mouth, he bad mouth the whole country. nobody has any credibility with these republicans. they just like, that's all they re, and thank you, john. host: speaking of the 2020 presidential election, this is joe biden's tweet yesterday after the president's announcement. supreme court decisions affect our everyday lives and the constitution was designed to give voters a voice on who makes those decisions. the senate shouldn't act until after the american people select their next president and the next congress. americans deserve to be heard. this is dwight out of pennsylvania, republican, good morning, you're next. caller: good morning. i think that donald trump did a

good pick on amy. i really think he did. host: why? caller: because we need more people like her in the supreme court. host: what do you like about her? caller: i just like her ways of talking and stuff. i really think she did a good job. host: did you know much about her before yesterday? caller: no, i didn't. no. host: if there's something you want to know about her, what do you want to know? caller: how she's going to bring the court up to what it should be. host: what should the court be? caller: like kavanaugh has been doing stuff. he's been bringing it up pretty good. i just think it should remain the same. host: dwight, if amy coney barrett replaces ruth bader ginsburg, it won't remain the same of what it is right now. she'll be replacing a staunch

liberal. are you ok with that? caller: yeah. host: linda is next out of statin island, new york, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe that president trump picked a judge with a conservative resume, because we have so many judges in this nation. but the real issue is why the courts even exist and what is honorable. over the years in my state, the supreme court have made many ishonorable decisions. that should be redressed in the united states supreme court. and how is the supreme court going to judicially decare energy in new york? we have so many streets parked on our streets from every state except haw scommaw alaska.

thank you very much for allow notice talk on the air this morning. host: that's linda in new york. a couple of comments about judge barrett's judicial philosophy. she addressed that yesterday in her remarks. they told us about seven minutes. here's part behalf she said yesterday. >> i clerked for justice scalia more than 20 years ago, but the lessons i learned still resonate. his judicial philosophy is mine, too. a judge must apply the law as written. judges are not policy makers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold. host: judge amy coney barrett yesterday at the rose garden at that nomination announcement if up to the watch it in its entirety. you can do so on our website at c-span.org. we're also talking about it in this first hour of the "washington journal" today. we'll show you several bits of it, as we get your reaction,

including from ann in silver spring, maryland, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the just wondering how courts are ruling, the supreme court rulings would be changed if black americans could think about the black supreme court justice. i can't even remember his name. how long he has sat silent and whether it is time for him to now really come forward and at least give some of the liberal justices on the court some support. host: what do you want to flare clarence thomas? caller: thank you. clarence thomas. 'd like to hear something. i don't think -- the only thing i remember about clarence thomas is that once he got on the court, he was -- well,

maybe a little time after. he was asked to speak at a sixth grade graduation. it must have been longer than maybe three, maybe four years after. and the mothers and the parents and the fathers did not, would not even allow him to speak to their children in the sixth grade graduation. that's how low he's thought of. it's time for him to come of rd and stand up for, course, the law, of course the law. but it's time that he change his side or done something. at least get on the liberal justice's side and open his mouth and speak. his silence has been great. i mean, it's been so poor, except i think he wrote a couple of opinions in the last two years on something, that is so pitiful. host: that's ann this morning. this is beverly out of madison, alabama, republican. beverly, good morning. caller: yes, good morning.

i'm just glad on its face that mr. trump is doing a really well, good job, and he nominated judge barrett. i think she's going to be a good mom to me. and she's not going to be the one lady that just passed. what was her name? host: ruth bader ginsburg. caller: yes. i mean, total different fill sofmente different doctrine, everything, so people can't expect that out of here, but i think she believes in her separate, you know, doctrine of her religion, separate, she can do a good job with the judicial without bringing her religion into it. and i don't know what people e looking at, but she brings to black children from haiti, and she has a mixed family, seven children. if somebody's willing to do that out of their life, that, as anybody would look without

being a republican or a democrat. i mean, that is a good woman, and that is somebody that you would want to represent you, i would think, or make rulings, even though she has to tcheep separate. i mean, with her heart, she has a good heart, and i think her rulings would be fair and just. host: beverly why, do you say you don't think she'll bring her religion into it? caller: because i think she's professional enough. she's been on the court. i know she's younger, but she's been on the court, and i wrote some of her readings, and i dogma of her her religion, i think she separates that, and her rulings seem to be her brief judicial is not you know, her

religion. and i just think -- i just hope they don't do what they did to kavanaugh without my proof. host: you said you've read some of her rulings. as folks try to get to know amy coney barrett over the next two weeks headed into the confirmation hearings, what would you recommend they look at? what have you looked at to try to understand her rulings? caller: i read one thing about her obamacare, that she didn't agree, i guess it was in 2012, she agreed with the ruling that they cared, accepted it and didn't more. things like that, i did not read everything about it. i just tried to get to know her a little bit better. and from the things you look on the internet came up, that i think she'll be just and fair and what more can you ask. i mean, everybody is so divided now. i mean, without being afraid

that somebody's going to rip it down or harm your house, and that's not america. that shouldn't be that way. everybody should have their values and what they want to believe, and you can work together. it's just too much. host: that's beverly in alabama this morning. this might be one of the cases that the caller was referring to when it came to her thoughts on healthcare. it was back in 2017. it was in a law review article written before she joined the circuit court of appeals court. professor barrett at the time was critical of chief justice roberts' 2012 opinion sustaining a provision central provision of the obamacare law. chief justice roberts is what she wrote back at that time. the caller also brings up amy coney barrett's family. she spoke a bit about her family yesterday in her remarks

after president trump announced her nomination. here's a little bit more from judge barrett. >> while i am a judge, i'm better known back home as a room parent, car pool driver, and birthday party planner. when schools went remote last spring, i tried on another hat, jesse and i became co-principals of the barrett e-learning academy. and yes, the list of enrolled students was a very long one. our children are my greatest joy, even though they deprive me of any reasonable amount of sleep. i couldn't manage this very full life without the unwavering support of my husband, jesse. at the start of our marriage, i imagine that we would run our household as partners. as it has turned out, jesse does far more than his share of the work. to my chagrin, i learned at dinner recent that will my children consider him to be the better cook.

for 21 years, jesse has asked me every single morning what he can do for me that day. and though i almost always say nothing, he still finds ways to take things off my plate. host: judge amy coney barrett yesterday at the rose garden. in just over two weeks, she'll be before the united states senate judiciary committee, up here on capitol hill, to begin the process of confirmation hearings, and we'll be covering it live when they happen here on c-span, c-span.org,, and of course, you can listen on the free c-span radio app. hose confirmation hearings are one step in the process before the final vote on the floor of the senate. right now republicans would have the votes if those, if it's just those who have announced that they would not support a vote before election day. there's only two senators on the republican side who have

said that they would not want a vote on a supreme court nominee before election day. lisa murkowski of alaska, susan collins of maine. but even losing those two, republicans would still have the votes needed to confirming amy coney barrett. here's some reaction from republican senators on capitol hill after the nomination yesterday. senator tom cotton, the republican saying instead of wringing our hands about what the democrats will or will not do, it's time for senate republicans to roll up our sleeves. the left will stomp and storm all at once. it's our job to be the adults in the room by confirming judge barrett. to senator chuck grassley, judge barrett is an inspiring american and highly respected jurist. she's an excellent choice for the supreme court. when hearings begin, i'll evaluate this nominee on her merits as i always v. i hope democrats don't repeat the shameful tactics from 2018, the awful treatment of brett

kavanaugh, whose hearing i chaired. and this from senator lisa urkowski -- host: senators across the aisle

putting out their statements, giving you some of that reaction this morning. but mostly we want to hear your reaction on phone lines split up, as usual. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. trent is in monroe, louisiana, an independent. good morning. you're next. caller: hi, john. i wanted to respond to the fellow who wrote in and said goodbye, separation of church and state. it's really legitimate. the first, before i make my real quick comments, i've always wanted to know, do the cable guys put pressure on you to have the kind of people who come on, they seem to be all pretty much from think tanks. i understand that. host: there's no pressure at all. our editorial decisions here on the "washington journal" for c-span completely independent. but no, to answer your question

in a word. caller: that segues into what i want to talk about. because, you know, yesterday they had the return on the mall with tens of thousands of christians really saying some pretty startling things. and there is the possibility that you guys could have some powerful theologians to come on and talk about the issues. i'm thinking about people like oz guinness, a christian philosopher and sociologist and people like that who are there in washington. that's that. but my real quick comment about what's happening is that i imagine that the republican party and the democratic party and the intelligence community are all going to pond hear i'm about to say, because i think the leader of the modern conservative christian movement, the intellectual catalyst, i think she's undoubtedly the most feared intellectual in recent american history by both the left and

the right. the doctor is a theocratic, biblical law, intellectual founder of the christian reengagement in the social political economic and judicial foreign policy world. he's the intellectual leader behind everything we're seeing in the conservative christian resurgence. and i imagine that miss barrett probably understands all that, and she needs to be asked about it. and i believe one guy who really put this whole issue of what we as conservative christians are about, was c.s. lewis back in 1945 wrote a novel that hits every point we've ever discussed. i think all of us would do well since he's beloved by both the left and the right, c.s. lewis, to read this novel, that hideous strain.

and thank you for letting me say hello. over and out. host: that's trent in monroe, louisiana. we've been bringing you some reaction from senators up on capitol hill. this idea of religion and how much it's going to be talked about in the next couple of weeks on the mind of senator marco rubio yesterday on twitter, saying in the wake of comments about amy coney barrett's religion, her catholicism, marco rubio saying the assault may object catholicism, tomorrow, no religion may be safe from the ame attacks. >> that's every person's impression, that people are more important than things, and everything should be judged, that society should be organized to promote the common goods, that we all have a right to what is needed for human decency, and we all have duties to one another. the most basic moral test

facing any society is how to treat its most vulnerable, that the economy exists to serve people and it must protect the right to productive work, fair and decent wages, and to private property and initiatives. that whatever your race, your ethnicity or your ideology, we are all part of the same human family, that we have a do you toy make peace and to pursue justice, and that protecting our planet is a moral requirement. how many people would complain if these principles that lived loud until someone serving in a public office? if you tell them you believe these things, because it's what you learned from your professors, you'll be the darling of the media and a celebrity. but if they find out that you learned them from your creator, from your faith, you will instantly become a villain, accused of things like being part of a weird cult. this is not just a grotesque double standard, it's the slippery slope of religious bigotry. if we accept the standard, then

today it may be on catholicism. but tomorrow no religious will be safe from the same assault. and then message will be clear. if up to the serve in public office, especially on the highest court in the land, then only ones who need apply are those willing to hide or deny their faith. . host: senator marco rubio twitter yesterday. back to your phone calls on "washington journal" about, 20 minutes left in this segment as we get your reaction to the nomination announcement yesterday. this is eric here in washington, d.c., democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i compare people to keep screaming about the constitution. so this is the same constitution that allowed people to be in bondage. sass the same constitution that denied people the right to vote because of the color of their skin. there is one race, and that's the human race. and when i heard this lady craze about she got two black kids. no, she just got two kids. and this is the problem with

america itself. they run this religious crap. they're going into stores without masks, and they talk about religion. they always talk about your private property. you go into people's store, that's their property, so they have the right to choose for you to come in. and for you to even vote for a person that the entire majority of americans did not want as the president, that tells me a crazy -- well, i'm not going to say crazy, but conservatives, they want to safe a life, but they always want to go to war. that's a conflict of interest there. i'm not down with that. host: they always run this religious crap is what you said. what is this religious crap? caller: the religious crap is that cey a baby, but kill a person once they go to war. od this, god, you know, what he said is the law of the land. there's no proof perform p of

this. they don't even believe that humans, you know, they believe humans were created by god. it wasn't. size is proven fact. religious is not a proven fact. and you can believe what you want to believe, but proof in the pudding that as i walk, you know, and see the devastation that humans lay on each other, then you holler about you a god-fearing person, you shouldn't do that. a life is a life. host: that's eric near washington, d.c. on the issue of abortion, which he brought up in his comments. president trump was asked, as he was departing the white house yesterday after his nomination whether he talked to amy coney barrett about the issue of abortion. here was his response. >> illegal in certain states? president trump: well, that's up to all of the justice. they're going to see.

i never discussed that with amy. this is something that, because it wouldn't be appropriate to discuss, they're going to have to make a decision. that's going to be for the judges to see. host: some background on judge barrett's decisions when it came to matters of abortion access, this from the "new york times" story today, wrapping up some of her past opinions. judge barrett had considered three laws restricting abortions from her home state of indiana. in all three cases, she expressed misgivings about earlier rulings from appeals judges that had struck down the laws. in one case, her court let stand a ruling that threw out a law tightening the requirements for notifying parents of minors seeking abortions. judge barrett was on the losing side, joining an opinion that the ruling was premature and that the law should have been allowed to go into effect to assess its actual impact. if up to the read more, "new york times" today with a wrapup on various issues, whether it's abortion gun rights,

healthcare, the death penalty, and more. brenda out of arkansas, good morning. you're next. republican. caller: good morning, john. something you said about justice ginsburg, that she was a staunch liberal reminded me our courts are not arenas for politics. they're supposed to be places where judges uphold the law. and i've been following amy coney barrett since she was assigned to her last job, and that's somehow she believes. i don't think her religion, i don't think her children, i don't think anything about the other exterior things in her life matter. i think she wants to uphold the law, and we should be following the constitution. i think our difference of opinion is some people believe it's a living, changing constitution, but constitutionalists like amy coney barrett do not. the constitution is our constitution.

it's the longest laster document to its successful survival t. doesn't have to be conservative or liberal. how about let's follow the law? that's the most important thing. we shouldn't even be thinking about whether the person, because who appointed them, look at kavanaugh. we thought he was going to be a conservative. he's not. he's following a law. host: you say that the court isn't supposed to be a place for politics, not a place for conservatives or liberals. in practice, do you think it has been that way? caller: of course. why did you just say to the other gentleman, well, you're going to let a person replace a liberal, a staunch liberal at that? and she was. bless her heart, she did some wonderful things for women, but she always didn't exactly, you know, she mostly defended. she didn't exactly follow the constitution. she used it as a living document as they say.

but it's not. it's not. we have to follow it as it is. we have to uphold that law. we can't be changing it, twisting it around, and saying, well, this one is more liberal. if we just start looking for people who follow the law, who follow the constitution, we will number great shape. host: brenda, one more question before you go. about two weeks ago, it was constitution day in this country, and one of the questions that we asked that day on this program was if you could propose a constitutional amendment, what would you change about the constitution? how would you answer that question? caller: first of all, they're making it way too hard to change the constitution. maybe is or maybe no, but you got to have a convention of states, what i would do is term limits for congress. i would put them at eight years max. they get there. they live there. i mean, dianne feinstein is 87

years old, and she's going to be responsible for questioning amy coney barrett. these people should retire. i mean, it's great to have some experience and to know people, but i mean, you get to a point where people that are 75 and 80 years old, they need to be home. they need to be with their families. they need to get out of government. host: do you think -- do you think that age limit should apply to presidents as well as members of congress? caller: absolutely. the president is eight years. why shouldn't we hold congress to eight years? host: no, i mean the age limit. caller: oh, yes. i do. definitely should be before 80. i mean, just by human nature, or atter how highway active brilliant you are, at some point you start diminishing. host: next out of st. paul,

minnesota, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. so i'd like to use c-span and its programming to debunk a lot of myths that people v. the lady talked about clarence thomas about a half-hour ago, and if she checked in to c-span, she would be able to see how many times clarence thomas has spoken to various groups over the years. and how he's made a career out of writing dissenting opinions. so there's a lot of information that people could see or hear about the supreme court that people should take the time to do. that i love listening to oral argument that is c-span presents. host: you gave me the opening. our video archive is a great place to do that. all you need to do is type clarence thomas in the search bar at the top of the page, and you will see most of those appearances that he's made. caller: yes. the most relevant information that i've been able to pick up, i love listening to him speak,

from justice breyer. i'm going to slightly get the numbers off, but it will give you an idea behalf he's said over the years. about 40% of the supreme court ases are nine to zero. 30% are t's about 35%, five a four and not always the same five to four. it's not strictly democrat-republican. and then the rest, which is about 20% or so, is a mixture of all others. so when people talk about the divided supreme court, mighty suggest they stay away from just because they were appointed by a democrat or republican president that they looked at their performance, because their performance on the bench to me is a s far greater than who they were appointed. so john, i love the program. that c-span provides to the public, and more people should

turn off all the other stations and listen to what c-span provides. thanks for making my sunday morning. host: thanks for calling in. when it comes to clarence thomas, 264 videos of him in the c-span video archives. the first appearance was in 1987 when he was chair for the u.s. equal employment opportunity commission. the year with the most videos, 1991, 27 video that is year when he was judge of the district of columbia circuit in the u.s. court of appeals. by comparison, we'll compare his appearances that have aired , that he has done with that of the late justice ruth bader ginsburg, 392 videos in the c-span video archive. that first appearance by her, 1986, an interview she did as a judge for the district of columbia circuit. and then one more comparison, the chief justice, john roberts, 334 videos in the c-span video archive. first appearance in 1993 when

he was deputy solicitor general for the department of justice. all available for you to watch, to browse, to look through at your convenience, c-span.org. doug, fairfax, south dakota, democrat. good morning. caller: yeah, good morning, john. i don't understand the republicans on this deal unless they think trump is going lose, because all they're going to do is throw a bunch more divide. and trump is definitely moving this country toward a dictatorship he's got the justice department bringing charges against bolton's book, because he's scared about the truth coming out. and then also he's got the justice department defending him in that carol case, the lady he raped back in the 199 on 0's. and now he's got this 1776 deal coming into schools. i wonder if that's like kim jung's in north korea, i suppose he's going to challenge the worship the great leader, donald trump.

they're just throwing a lot more divides into the country is all i got to say. i guess that's all i got to say, john. host: from south dakota out to the atlantic. cape cod, this is ivan. good morning, independent. caller: yeah, good morning. before i speak about judge barrett, that man from south dakota, i mean, teshed challenge people like that. it's just really sad to hear that he's not really talking about it. he's just venting. and, you know, i just think people should stick to the topic. i was very impressed with the goodness of the integrity, but this candidate seems to raid ate, i don't think he's going to be divisive at all. i think she's a consensus builder. she's a person that cares about the issues and about people. i think she's one of the best picks i've ever seen, to be

quite honest. you know, i've been mostly a were sent of democrats all my life. i usually always voted democrat, but i'm independent. i was amazed by trump, and he seems to amaze me every day. like superman, the man never sleesms he's probably done 100 times more than any politician i've ever seen, and i'm a real political junkie. my first vote was for george mcgoverpblt i'm just astounded by trump. it's almost like i can't believe how good he is and how good of a job he's done, and i know this election is going to be a landslide in favor of trump, and you know, you know, i know the media doesn't like it. they've worked so hard to degrade him and destroy him. we've had, the first time in history, we've had agencies of the government, you know, try to overslow the elected president. host: ivan, friday back to the supreme court nominee, the topic we're talking about this morning. you talked about your initial

initial reaction to her. how did it compare to your initial reaction to judge gorsuch when he was nominated, brett kavanaugh when he was nominated, yes, very simple to me. we have our three branches, and they value their job. but over the last 30, 40 years, for some reason because the democrats weren't able to get the liberal agenda through, they decided they would change what the court does. so instead of the court just calling balls and strikes and saying this is what the law says, they've become legislators, and they're trying to legislate. host: ivan in massachusetts. this is susan out of orlando, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't know a great deal about the supreme court nominee, but i was a little surprised that she adopted two children from haiti. i would wonder, there's lots of

children to adopt in the united states, so i've got to figure out why she chose another country. and as a woman, i'm concerned about roe v. wade and if women are supposed to follow the supreme court rulings that get overturned, then there will be a lot of children who will be up for adoption. and whenever i'm faced with someone who says that abortion is the main thing that keeps them voting as a republican or religious conservative, i always ask them how many children are they going to be willing to adopt. usually nobody has adopted any, and i ask them to please consider that and put that -- be thoughtful about what they're saying and take some action about it. host: can i ask you about what you think about he will lease's commonets facebook. she wrote, i sure wish that amy

coney barrett told us more about her resume than things i did not need to know about her family. this is one of the most revered positions in the country, if not the world, and she's treating it like a first date is what emily said. caller: well, that sounds about right. but she's got to put out the picture that the trump team wants to have her put out, that she's a family person, that she's, you know, a conservative person that's going to probably be asked to look at women's issues, so she had to put a little bit out there about her family. but i'll give her a chance, but i also give all of the christian conservatives who are against abortion the opportunity to go ahead and apply to adopt some of the children here in the united states. host: got your point. that's susan this morning. this is thomas from lincoln

park, michigan, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: doing well. caller: i think he picked an excellent nominee. she'll do a great job withholding the constitution, and that's what i think needs to happen, withhold the constitution like your caller from arkansas. she hit the nail on the head. the constitution doesn't need to be twisted or changed. i think our forefathers had a lot more intelligence than we give them credit for, and i can see today with the leaders we have in there today. thank you very much. host: harry our california, independent. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. good morning there. how are you? host: doing well. caller: the issue that i have is we have to take politics out of the judiciary. i think that is the root cause of all problems, number one. nd number two, the discouraging statement, with

all due top justice ginsburg, the discouraging statement about her wish she be replaced after the election is belied by the fact that she had every opportunity to resign or retire 20 years ago when she first was pushing 70 and had health issues back then, and she had every opportunity under the obama administration to do so. so her statement is basically saying whatever judicial officer is nominated is going to be a political tool. and it's very discouraging to hear that coming from a supreme court justice. if she felt that, she shouldn't have made that statement, because that really undermines the judicial system in its entirety. host: what do you say to democrats who say that mitch mcconnell should be applying the same standard as merrick garland that she this is

happening in an election year, and whoever wins the presidency should get to decide? caller: right. there's been a lot of talk about the possible hypocrisy. i think that's the issue that's being pushed right now. but based on my review of whatever statement mitch mcconnell said, his mcconnell rule was that doing an election year, if the opposite party controls the senate there should not be a nomination going forward. and so it's not an issue of hypocrisy. i think the media should reflect correctly what his statement was. instead of claiming the hypocrisy to incite the masses -- decide with one part or the other or to undermine the republican party. now what he said is correct and should be applied, and his reference to the 1880's, i'm

not quite sure. that seems somewhat hypocritical that he did undermine the obama pick. but if that was the rule, that if the opposite party controls the senate, then by all means, i would think the democrats would have done the same thing. and then watching -- i mean, justice clarence thomas is over 80. he should be retiring right now and allowing a younger nominee to go in, but he's still staying with his position. and so to come back and to argue otherwise is for me hypocritical, for justice ginsburg, she thougs going win sticking to that position to celebrate with the president that nominated her? you know, we have to take the politics out of the judicial system. i think that's the problem. and i think that starts right out of law school or during law school when people have to be aligned to get anywhere. we have plenty more to talk

about. it up next, we returned to the topic of the coronavirus in the u.s. bonds to the pandemic. we will be joined by dr. william schaffner. with just days be go before the first debate, we take a look back at the 60th anniversary of the very first nationally televised presidential debate. discuss the four debates between vice president richard nixon and senator john f. kennedy which took place in september and october of 1960. we will be right back. >> monday night, rebecca slaughter is interviewed by the politico technology and

antitrust report. >> what advice do you have for parents concerned about their kids privacy online. >> we should talk a lot about digital issues interns of who has-- in terms of who internet. i am also worried about the ways in which the digital divide exacerbates privacy gaps. better off children from wealthier backgrounds can pay for privacy protected services or more access to things. lower income kids have to pay with their privacy. on theay night communicators on c-span two. tonight, eric dolan talks about his book a furious guy, which looks at the history of

hurricane destruction in the u.s.. >> as this hurricane barrels pushingalveston, it was an enormous wave, especially on the right-hand side of the hurricane, and enormous mound of water. and tumblingashing on top of it. it slammed into galveston that day and essentially turned alliston into a lake. at 8:00 eastern on q&a. >> washington journal continues. we turn to the coronavirus pandemic. we are joined by dr. william ataffner, the professor vanderbilt university medical center. good morning to you. caller: it's good to be with you. host: let's start with the

numbers. we passed 200,000 coronavirus deaths this week. what do you make of the projections that the u.s. death get could double before we large-scale vaccinations? caller: it's enormously concerning. there are two populations out there. there are the people who have been careful in the people who have been carefree. intoeople who have joined large groups, going around without masks. that's the problem. be virus loves to transmitted in those circumstances. it doesn't care who you are. it just wants to be transmitted to another person. much of this country, it still being transmitted in an unimpeded fashion. it's gone from cities to rural areas now. quite ast spread in

explosive a faction, it is moving steadily. we still don't have a national to try andfort curtail this virus. will consider -- continue to spread. issue?s this a cyclical will this go back to big cities again? caller: one of the things we don't know very much is whether this virus has a seasonal component. thoughtthe spring, we it would abate during the summer. it didn't do that. agile --f reenter regenerate itself. in the winter, we spend more time closer together indoors.

there are more opportunities for the virus to spread. this fall we will have covid continuing or increasing and then the flu will arrive. those two illnesses are very similar. they will be acting together. that could be a very large strain on the health care system. we should all get vaccinated against influenza. that's the virus we can do something about right now. it's not a perfect vaccine by any measure. it will prevent many infections completely. even if you get the flu despite having the vaccine it, you are likely to have a less severe infection. there will be less likely need for hospitalization. you are less likely to die. what's wrong with that?

does this vaccine have anything to do with the coronavirus and whether you would get it more or less severely? caller: the two are quite separate. vaccine, the covid flu and the flu vaccine are separate tracks. we are talking about trying to prevent the flu. there is a covid vaccine in the works. we will be talking about that in a few moments. host: we are talking with dr. alliam schaffner, join us for discussion and taking your questions about the coronavirus as we headed to the fall and winter seasons. the phone lines are split i region. (202) 748-8000 if you are in the eastern a central time zones. (202) 748-8001 if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones.

we will take this conversation up to about 9:00 this morning. start coming it your questions. what do you think is a realistic timeline on the vaccine? any concerns about the public trusting the vaccine when it does come out? anticipate some time toward the end of the year, the beginning of next year. there are four vaccines in the works that are starting or into their trials. we will have information on any number of vaccines coming along in sequence as the trials complete themselves. there has been so much vaccines,tion about there is a lot of skepticism and concern out there. look ateys don't

doctors. i know from conversations around the country that the medical profession is somewhat skeptical. will will be people who withhold themselves from vaccination, just waiting to see how things go. the major concern is safety. is this a safe vaccine? have we cut corners. we are looking forward to the results of this data which we need to present in a fully transparent, clear fashion in order to restore the confidence of the medical profession and the general public. host: can you talk about how the fda intends to secure that trust of the public? why can president trump get involved in approval standards? there are two things

happening at the fda. speakingrship has been to the medical professionals and we areeral public that taking politics out of the process, the decision-making process. then we learned immediately that an fda issue is going to the white house not for information but for comment and approval. i don't see that. that's why there is a concern in the public and the profession. isormation after a trial completed should be presented to the fda, who give that information to an external advisory committee. that's been long-established. they are notoriously rigorous

and notoriously independent. wh if thee the fda, fda uses the external advisory committee, a lot of us will have more confidence in the process. politiciansuld be stand back. let this be a professional decision, support the professionals and restore confidence in the process. host: before president trump indicated he might get involved in the process, the fda administrator was before the senate this week. this is about two minutes long. i want to play for viewers and let them hear about the process he talks about with vaccine approval and then ask you about it. >> when a vaccine sponsor reaches the conclusion that the

data from its clinical trials are adequate to submit to fda, they will decide whether to apply for approval or emergency use authorization. this will be based on the trial meeting success criteria that were established by the sponsor. this is really important. they should be consistent with fda recommendations regarding those criteria. fda will receive that application for submission and our scientists will review it. quality andfacture consistency data. fda made clear recommendations in our guidance regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. we need to see that prior to the approval process. we will provide additional information so that it's clear what we expect to see should a sponsor choose to submit an

emergency use application. previously,icated we plan on seeking advice from the products advisory committee comprised of independent members who have to screen for ethics, -- conflicts. this will be public. we will need to adhere to confidentiality requirements. the public will have an opportunity to comment. the process will be transparent and independent. fda career staff will take the committee and put into account as they make their decisions regarding the application or request. issue, fda would have to determine among other things that the statutory standard is met. would be this demonstrated based on adequate

manufacturing data to ensure vaccine quality and consistency onedata from at least well-designed phase three clinical trial that demonstrates safety and efficacy in a clear and compelling manner. let me emphasize that again. data from at least one well-designed phase three clinical trial the demonstrates safety and efficacy in a clear and compelling manner. a plan for active follow-up to monitor safety among individuals who receive the vaccine. fda will not authorize or approve a vaccine that we would not feel comfortable giving to our families. on behalf of the 17,000 employees if the fda, i want to make the following commitments to the american public. fda will not authorize or approve any covid nine vaccine before it is met the rigorous

expectations for safety and effectiveness. decisions to approve any vaccine will be made by the career staff at fda through our thorough review processes. fda will not permit any pressure from anyone to change that. i will fight for science. i will fight for the integrity of the agency. i will put the interests of the american people before anything else. yesterday, last week ,efore the senate, a lot there a lot of acronyms being used. what's the key take away? dr. william schaffner that is a very strong statement from the commissioner. i have a couple of notes. the fda has not been that rigorous in the past.

that's the basis of concern. are two details. the first is he said something about confidentiality. that's conventional. there's no need for that. you and i have put a lot of money into this vaccine. there is no need for confidentiality. data, all ofe the the data at the same time they make the recommendation. where ahave procedures trial can be looked at before it goes to completion. if they do that and make the decision halfway through the beal, that would controversial. appropriate, it would be controversial on the

safety side. that's where all the concern is. we have the largest possible safety database before there is an approval. a lot of people would say if you're making this decision before you come to the end of the trial, that's cutting a corner. that would be controversial to say the least. ist: dr. william schaffner our guest from vanderbilt university medical center. he has joined us throughout the months of this pandemic to take your calls and hear from you when it comes to the coronavirus and treatments and vaccines. we are taking your questions until about 9:00 eastern. we will start with karen from detroit. good morning. caller: good morning. i was concerned about the winter months.

what is your advice that we ?hould do when we are all cold are there mutation concerns about that? guest: the winter months are coming. we expect not only covid but influence it. my recommendation is clear. everyone older than six months of age should get vaccinated against influenza. october is the golden time. that is the month to get vaccinated. please get vaccinated. take your whole family and get vaccinated against the flu. all of those other things we need to prevent -- do to prevent covid, wearing the mask, avoiding large groups, they will help protect against covid and

the flu. the better we do those things, the better off we will be going through this winter season. this is jim in ohio. know how would like to terrific this virus is? i watch the tv every day. all the recovery rates are very high. why are we locked down? are locked down because 200,000 people have died of this virus. the majority of people who get infected with the virus have mild symptoms. this virus is moving through the population. only a small proportion of people have been infected. if we keep having lower

, then continuing large numbers of people will die. let's compare it to influenza. season such asu we had three years ago, 80,000 people in the annexed states died of influenza. already from covid, 200,000 people have died. that's an underestimate. . this is a very serious infection that will continue to make people very sick and put any people in the hospital. you would not have your question if i could take you by the hand and bring you into the intensive care unit and stand by the bedside of one patient who is so sick with this disease.

host: dr. william schaffner, talk about work at vanderbilt university. colleagues are there. in nashville, we are holding steady. we are doing ok. we are taking care of patients week by week. we are not stressed at the moment. many of us are working through the process to reduce the transmission of this virus. i'm working on the public health side of this pandemic. keep and reduce transmissions so fewer people become ill in the future. what can we learn about a second or third wave when we look back at past pandemics,

going back to 1918? 1918 was influenza. at that time, it took a long time for it to work its way around the world. transportation was much more primitive and it took much longer. itself.integrated covid is a different virus. the world is much smaller today. virus months, this starting in china and around the world and infected every exceptnt on the globe antarctica. that's unprecedented with its speed and impact. this is a much different circumstance and it has the potential to eventually be worse

the 1918. in public health and infectious diseases, we have profound respect for this virus. will go across the pond to england. tony is listening this morning. good morning. retired u.s.a navy. i live in cornwall. i'm originally from mississippi. i find that our people in the united states don't have respect for each other. for the virus, we know what it is. we see it right now. if we do with the scientists it and doet on with what we need to do, if we have respect for each other, we will come out of this on the others.

we need to have leadership in t eachite house and le person know this is for real. this is no joke. i will stop and listen to what you've got to say. host: thanks for the call. guest: thank you very much for those comments. you are right on the mark. we are together on this. masks, do, wearing avoiding large groups, has to do with protecting ourselves for sure. you make the point that this is a communicable disease. it is contagious. as we do that, we protect others, those around us. that together, we protect ourselves. purport --has this disproportionately affected

people of color, ethnic diversity. in order to protect the entire community, we have to get together and do this. unfortunately, there are large numbers of people who are indifferent to the virus or disdain it and are not concerned. i wish we could all get together on this. other countries have been substantially more successful than we have in the united states. this is what -- in kentucky says. guest: let me deal with the general notion. no vaccine is perfect,

particularly influenza. it's a good vaccine. notill imprint -- will prevent many infections. virus protected you. let's talk about the covid vaccine. there is a lot of misinformation. they think the vaccine will be 100% effective once they are vaccinated. it will be like wearing a suit of armor. that's likely to be mistaken. likelyid vaccine is more to be akin to the flu vaccine, partially effective. suppose the covid vaccine comes out and it is 70% effective and

safe. give it anl emergency use authorization we will start using it. a thousand people are dying every day. effective, that means of every 10 people who get vaccinated, three will remain susceptible. they won't be protected. we won't know who they are. it will take a long time to vaccinate people, months. there are people who won't present themselves and be vaccinated. together, those partial effectiveness, taking a long time, people holding back, that means we will all have to

keep wearing our masks and social distancing for months. just because the vaccine comes out doesn't mean you can throw your mask into the trashcan. that will not be correct. there is a lot of misinformation about that. be a profoundll addition to what we can do. we will have to keep up our social distancing. every time i say that, people get very unhappy. it's correct and we need to prepare ourselves for that. host: until when? lot on howepends a effective the vaccine is and the proportion of people who accept the vaccine. if it's very effective and a

large proportion of people get vaccinated, then we can go back to some semblance of the old normal. slow, vaccine rollout is vaccinated,n't get we will be here this time next year wearing masks. ist: dr. william schaffner joining us from vanderbilt medical center. left.e about half an hour the phone lines are split up regionally. (202) 748-8000 in the eastern or central time zones. (202) 748-8001 in the pacific or mountain time zones. this is david in massachusetts. you are next. caller: i'm dealing with copd. myself over beside this. everyone tells me you can't go

here, you can't go there. you have to be so careful. this is getting a little bit crazy. guy, he said you're masks are a waste of time. he said it can get you through the eyes. i go shopping, i go to the mall. i go to home depot. nothing happens to me. this is got to be the biggest money grab. everybody goes to walmart because they are the only place that's open. everybody else, no one can go to church. no one can go to a funeral. this is getting ridiculous. i sense your impatience and frustration. chronic obstructive

pulmonary disease. that puts you in the high risk group. should the virus find you, you are much more likely to get severe disease. careful because i take -- virus very seriously. we have curtailed substantially our conventional social activities. we don't go out in groups at all. we maintain social distancing. this is not something the government has imposed on us. this is a virus that is going through our population and making people very sick. i am so glad you haven't been infected. please stay that way. this is not a virus you wish to encounter. host: lauren wants to know about the better treatments being used

now. guest: there are better treatments. we have learned much more about the virus and how it harms the human body. if you are sick, you can anticipate these things and do what we can to treat them. now, a some therapies low-dose steroid. we have an antiviral drug. we can use those to improve survival. that's excellent. we are not at the point yet where we have a magical drug. we probably never will have one. there are other studies underway assessing different treatments that we hope we can bring to bear as soon as they work out. we need to science in order to decide which treatments really work. we are hoping to have more in

the future. madefinitely have progress. host: rebecca is in california. caller: you are worth getting up early for. i love c-span. i have a question in the comment. is americans have been abusing antibiotics for decades. has this compromised our immune a fixs to where it's not with the vaccine. our abusive and a biotics, i don't know about other countries if they do animatics as much, could that affect a vaccine? of mercer.me that started to make me aware of antibiotic abuse. host: good question.

guest: thank you. good question. then reassure you that ,ntibiotic overuse issue vaccines and our immune system are another. antibiotics used appropriately or inappropriately will not have an effect on our immune system. germse results in the becoming resistant and it's difficult for us to treat. vaccine, we will have to see how well it works. that's why we're are doing those trials. peopletrying to see if with underlying illnesses, young respond to well they the vaccine. that's why we need the results of those trials. i hope we get to complete the

trial so we have the maximum good information when they are complete. twitter.uestion from it is possible. there are already case reports of dual infection simultaneously. the case reports are scattered. it's not clear whether that leads to a more severe infection. let's do everything we can to prevent influenza so that doesn't happen. this is jan in florida. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i want to ask the doctor something. i'm 75 years old.

shotbeen taking the flu and i've been social distancing. i don't go many places. i wear a mask all the time. i am happy about this vaccine. guest: i'm glad that you're being careful. are atof a wonderful age greater risk of severe disease. your caution and care are quite appropriate. i hope the vaccine comes out. listen to your local and state health departments. they will tell you when it's your turn to get in line. stay healthy and safe. host: what determines if it's my turn to get in line? guest: there will be a prioritization scheme. enough forve everyone on day one.

cdc, is a committee at the from the advisory committee. participate in those discussions. this general agreement among workersy, health-care who might have covid infection should be first in line. beer that, there will priorities involving essential workers. in a sequence that is coherent, transparent, arecal, we reach people who in our minority communities or ethnic communities. they have been disproportionally affected. that needs to be communicated at the local level.

will tell you where to go and when. when the vaccine becomes available, you need to stay tuned to those announcements. caller: good morning. god bless us all. i have a question and a comment. the ebola andh the sars virus. it never hit the country like covid has. the doctor toor explain that. the other saying is it breaks my heart when i hear people say it's a hoax. i work with people that say that. membersad two family who have died. that have associates survived it. they are still having a lot of difficulties.

that. could weigh in on i would appreciate it. thank you. guest: thank you for your comments and your affirmation about how severe this virus can be. the difference between this isus, sars, any bullet, each transmitted in a slightly different way. they are not all transmitted the same way. contagiousastly more virus than sars or ebola. in anirus is transmitted even more contagious fashion than influenza. -- a person can breathe out the virus and if you are , you arethat person likely to inhale what the infected person has exhaled.

that attaches to the back of your throat and chest and it starts making you sick. viruses like that are very contagious. this is among the most contagious. that the doctor believe the virus was man-made? guest: this virus was not. molecular virologist says this is a natural virus. that's how they enter the human population. it happens with flu all the time. otherpens twice with coronavirus's. sars, the other was learners. we anticipated this would happen sometime. we didn't know what kind of virus.

virus jumped species to a human. it happened only once. every other human infection around the planet came from that one transmission of an animal to a human. an amazing biological phenomenon. this was not man-made in a laboratory. host: robert, you are next. caller: thank you. couple of days, noted thatn a strain is more contagious than the original strain. it's maybe not as lethal. it is still very severe. i thought maybe you could give some information as to whether

that is a new strain that is expansivee even more in its nature. neither my wife or i have left our house other than to go through a drive through in the last six months. asthma and other issues. we are very concerned. thank you. safe. stay keep doing those things. you are doing the right thing. about this new strain, this has been a remarkably stable virus. we want to vaccines to work. we don't want it to change very much. there is some laboratory shows the virus

and some of its characteristics contagious,ome more not more severe, it can make you just as ill as any other strain. it may be even more contagious. it hasn't really been demonstrated in the field in real life. there is that potential. we are watching that carefully. more reason to stay away from other people and where those masks and shelter at home a great deal. we thank the california caller for getting up earlier. we really need to thank betty in alaska. a.m. there?n 5:00

thanks for calling in. what is your question. i am a young 81-year-old. i walked in our everyday. i got sick in february and i'm sure i had the virus. i was sick for three weeks. the reason i'm healthy is i was a marathon runner. i know how to eat and i exercise. when i'm sick, i'm sick. i went to get tested because i thought i had the virus. i had all the symptoms. they wouldn't test me. i didn't have a fever. i had the chills and everything else. maybe they should test me anyhow. know what i have the anti-bodies?

they didn't test you back then because you didn't have a fever because testing resources were so much more limited. that wouldn't apply today. much more readily. covid then, we can't be sure because a lot of these viruses have similar symptoms, if you did, we now have a blood test available and it's available in some states. we could tell if you had covid back then. that would be available. sure if that test is positive that you can't get another infection? , we are notwe think absolutely sure about that.

we certainly don't know if you are protected or for how long the protection lasts. that is still an unknown. this is robert. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. diagnosed back in march with walking pneumonia. sick for three or four weeks. later, she was tested and it came back positive that she had the virus. i only have one lung. i have copd. i take inhalers. showed that ind i didn't have it.

we have great grandkids living with us. they've never been tested. i wonder if taking inhalers may help? just one lungor into cancer operations. curious, i play golf every day and walk. i'm in good shape for my age. what is your opinion on that? you, you sound as if you are managing your chronic illness well. i'm so glad that your wife recovered. that's good news. your use of the inhaler quite appropriate to your illness will not protect you from covid. you were lucky. let's stay lucky and stay careful. stay safe. host: i wonder if you want to

take up this question from st. louis. guest: i don't like to give grades to our national leadership. i will say that we have not had sustained science-based leadership in this country. program should be improved enormously. gatherings for whatever reason, this is not a political statement, the virus doesn't care about your politics. when large numbers of people gather together, indoors or outdoors, is exactly the wrong thing to do. i can promise you the virus was

there in that crowd. it's being transmitted from one person to another. sick are people who became because of those gatherings that wouldn't have gotten sick otherwise. there is no public health person in the country that endorses gatherings like that. we shouldn't be doing it. about 10 minutes left with dr. william schaffner of vanderbilt medical center. (202) 748-8000 is the number four easton central time zones. (202) 748-8001 is the number four mountain and western time zones. most of these cable news networks love to tout the number contractedho have the disease and the number of deaths.

i can count on three fingers how have overcome the virus and no longer have it. nothing is ever said about the people who have contracted it and gotten over it. why is that? obviously, we focus on the worst aspects of the virus. that's an indication of its severity. fortunately even people who are very sick, many of them were able to leave the intensive care unit and go back to a normal life. let me give you a footnote.

we are learning more about this virus. symptoms orwithout mild symptoms turn out to have long-term complications, we are only now defining that. some of that relates to the heart. labeledre not being because they don't recover completely. sometimesfatigue, difficulty thinking if you can imagine. headaches, we are just discovering the long-term implications of this virus. virus isure you, this a very bad actor. it is even worse than influenza. coastback out to the west , good morning. caller: good morning. theg the train of thought

drug companies won't put something on the market they feel is unsafe, the legal liability could be huge. speedesidents warp program, have they given drug companies any immunity from lawsuits? entirely clear about the details. i ingest a vaccine, 2001, there isn an indemnification program. the government sponsors the vaccine. we have invested in this vaccine already. protectionlevel of for the companies. goodompanies are

manufacturing practices. if they did anything felonious, they would be liable. injuries, there would be an indemnification program. you could try for compensation under those programs. host: good morning. caller: i would just like advice as to how i can convince people without having to get into an argument to look up some facts or research it and take it responsibly. they make fun of our governor in our state we are doing rather well. our governor followed strict guidelines. people viciously attacked him for doing that. guest: i think it's difficult.

first of all, you and your friends who are being careful, continue to stay careful. i don't recommend getting into arguments. the approach to covid has been , it's veryzed difficult to communicate across lines. we've got family and relatives who think differently about this than we do. difficult tovery persuade people. if you could have a reasonable discussion, go right ahead. don't get into an argument. host: good morning. i'm a 67-year-old like mail. i still work. .- black male i still work. , lot of my caucasian friends

they are the ones who were not wearing masks. a lot of my people of color or wearing masks. , i guess it's a cultural thing. i don't say anything to them. keep my mask on and i listen to the doctor. guest: keep wearing the masks. heard of mask wearing having a racial distinction. urbanare rural and distinctions. in nashville, we have a mask order. conformance is pretty good. and you leave nashville and go into the rural counties, people don't wear masks.

they are kind of indifferent or disdainful of wearing masks. there are large parts of the united states because there has been so much confusion from on high. the message has been different. people andareless then there are careful people. i wish everyone would be careful. we could protect ourselves and everyone around us. when you are careful, you protect others. no one wants to be a spreader of this virus. get one orll try to two more calls. thanks for waiting. caller: i just had a question. if you were a patient with covid, do you have the option to request what kind of treatment

you would like to have? guest: of course. if you are a patient with covid, you can discuss that with your physician. your physician will tell you what the best is regarding treatment. please discuss that with your doctor. minute and a half or so that we have left, a question from one of our viewers on twitter. i will find it for you. they are asking about south korea being the gold standard of response. what did they do different than we did? clear south korea had a national program that was science-based. it relied heavily on testing.

they had tests widely available. they found all the contacts with the people and put them in quarantine. they communicated that very clearly. there was no controversy. this is what science says and this is what we are going to do as a country. countries population understood it and agreed with it. they have done a very good job. they have done very well. host: on the communication front, this is something you've been doing for us on washington journal. we do appreciate you. dr. william schaffner, professor of preventative medicine at vanderbilt university medical center.

come back and join us again. guest: stay healthy, everyone. thank you. host: we have plenty more to come, including the first weekend or the final weekend before the first presidential debate. it marks the 60th anniversary of the first nationally televised presidential debate. the director presidential studies at the university of virginia will join us on c-span. we will discuss the 1960 debate between richard nixon and john f. kennedy. this is part of the opening statements from 1960. the television and radio stations of the united states are proud to provide facilities for discussion of issues and the campaign by the two major candidates for the presidency.

they need no introduction. the republican candidate, richard nixon, and the democratic candidate, john f. kennedy. make an opening statement of approximately eight minutes and a closing statement of approximately three minutes. the candidates will answer questions from a panel of correspondence. discussion, the subject matter has been restricted to internal or domestic matters. for the first opening statement. in the election of 1860, the thelincoln said

question is whether the world partexist part slave or free. but it move in the direction of freedom. whether it will move in the direction of slavery. i think it will depend in great measure on what we do here in the united states. we held , on the kind of strength we maintain. it we discussed tonight domestic issues, but i would not want bet to any indication to given that this does not involve mr. khrushchev. mr. khrushchev is in new york and he maintains the communist defensive around the world because of the productive power of the soviet union itself. the chinese communists have always had a large population but they are dangerous now because they are mounting a major effort in their own country, the kind of country we have, the kind of strength we

build will be the defense of freedom. >> senator kennedy. >> the things senator kennedy have said, many of us can agree with. there is no question that that we can only discuss their internal and fairs in the united states without recognizing they have a tremendous bearing on our international position. we find that your wages have gone up five times as much in the eisenhower administration as they did in the truman administration. we find the prices you pay went up a five times as much in the truman administration as they did in the eisenhower administration. this means that average family income went up 15% in the eisenhower years as opposed to 2% in the truman years. this is not standing still, but good as this record is, may i

emphasize it is not enough. a record is never something to stand on. it is something to build on. i building on this record, believe we have the secret for progress. we know the way to progress. our own record proves that we know the way. >> washington journal continues. viewers welcome in our joining us on c-span3's a history tv as we are joined by barbara perry, presidential studies director at the university of virginia's miller center. it has been 60 years since the debate between senator john kennedy and richard nixon. if there is one thing you hear about the legacy of that debate is that those watching on tv thought kennedy one and those listening on the radio thought won and thosedy

listening on the radio thought nixon won. is that true? guest: it is a myth. [laughter] guest: it is partly true. he watched the rerun of the show he thought kennedy had won. the reason that popped up as there was a survey done by a marketing firm of people who listened on radio and they thought nixon had perhaps one it -- won it. you can watch it and then listen or vice versa and decide if there is a difference. most people think that kennedy emerged the winner from the first because if nothing else he looked better and poor richard nixon was suffering from an infection to his leg and he did

not wear proper makeup. this weekends since that first nationally televised presidential debate. there were four debates between john f. kennedy and richard nixon. 13, 1960 and october 20 one, before the election. how did these four debates come together before the election and what were the hurdles to putting them on television? barbara perry, are you still with us this morning? we may have had a sound issue. as we work on getting barbara perry back, let me get the phone numbers to our viewers, asking you to join this discussion. (202) 748-8000 four democrats to democrats tor

call in. for republicans to call in. independents. for we are asking for you to call in and give us your take from 60 years ago if you watched it or watched it since. we want to play a little bit from the second debate. the candidates were asked about their positions that year on the issue of civil rights. [video clip] president, you have accused senator kennedy of avoiding the civil rights issue in the south and he has accused you of the same. with both north and south listening, will you sum up your intentions? time ido i talk every

speak about civil rights in the south? it is because i am preaching. it is a problem for all of us. it is a responsibility of leadership. i do it because we have to solve this problem together. i do it at this time khrushchev, because a man who has enslaved millions, man who has slaughtered thousands, we cannot have a situation where he can continue to point a finger at the usa and say we are denying rights to our citizens. those trying to carry out the situation -- what will he do to provide fair employment? he has been the head of the committee on government contracts and he has not indicated his support of providing fair employment around the country so everyone can get a job regardless of their race,

nor has he indicated that he would support title iii, which would give the internally -- attorney general additional powers to -- host: we are back with barbara perry. giving viewers a taste of the debates from 60 years ago. how did these debates come together? what were the hurdles to putting them on television and who sponsored them? >> the stations -- guest: the stations, the channels. we had three basic channels at cbs.time, nbc, abc, and we headed tv that only got two of the main channels. only got totv that have the main channels, nbc and cbs. some people might remember that for example walter cronkite's

interview with president kennedy around a labor day was to promote the fact that walter cronkite's evening show was going from a 15 minute format to a 30 minute format. we were also coming off the 1950's quiz show scandals. we were trying to boost to boost their image among the public. they were trying to -- they approach the candidates and kennedy jumped on the idea because he knew television was his medium. once he did, the nixon camp could not really refuse. technological. medium,ill a fairly new same for television in those days. of theive us a sense 1960 campaign during dutch at -- time of the debates campaign at the time of the debates. guest: the cold war.

the first debate was meant to be devoted to domestic policy, kennedy and his opening statement jumped right into the cold war, which must have put nixon off a little bit. of course the two were so connected. the cold war, the communists, the u.s. leading the free world after world war ii but in a bipolar world in which we were communists,ing the certainly the soviets but also the red chinese. at home there was a recession so kennedyn in 1958 kept bashing the eisenhower administration on that. m -- unemployment was high for 7% range.in the 6%, both candidates wanted to shy away from civil rights so as not to put the south off, but they

wanted to attract the african-american vote. medical care -- kennedy hit hard on that. those were the basic issues foreign and domestic in 1960. host: who is considered the better debater? .uest: i would say nixon nixon was a champion debater in college. he went to whittier college. he had gotten into harvard but he did not have the money to travel there. he had gotten a scholarship, but they did not have the money for incidentals. he had a bit of a chip on his shoulder because of that but he was an excellent debater. kennedy though had gotten better as a public speaker as he went through his career from being elected to congress at the same time nixon was in 1946. 1960e time he gets to the

debate, he is good too. he had an odd accent people were not used too. his mother always thought he talked to rapidly. i would say nixon had the edge, hiskennedy was nipping at heels and because he looked better in the first debate, he is usually viewed as the winner there. from that point on it was pretty much a draw. host: there is always focus on who the moderators are. who were they in 1960? guest: the names people would probably recognize would be those who went on to be anchors on their networks. howard k smith was the first moderator. we also had people like frank mcgee who went on to be a moderator. questions,ere asking

some of them went on to be encouraged, most famously walter cronkite and don chancellor. the others, although i have paid a lot of attention, were still new to me. a lot of them were printed journalists from the time because they wanted to have a mix between broadcast and print and some of them were on radio networks that no longer exist, but those four names were household names. host: a twitter user rights and saying "i remember the debates as a young person. kennedy was inspirational. accent was not. there was little need to fact check -- nixon was not. there was little need to fact check trade how times have changed." can you comment on the role of the moderators? impressive, even

if one does not think nixon has nixon wasin some ways at his peak in 1960. he was not the nasty assassin nixon. his running mate before the nixon hadte said that an image from a fighting communists. i thought that he was sort of a balanced personality and he was not the so-called new nixon who re-created himself for the 1968 run. he kind of became the nixon of parody. he became a balanced nixon at that point. in terms of moderators and fact checking, people will notice both of these debaters are excellent debaters. they have their facts straight. they keep to the time limit so

there is no intervention from the moderators. it goes very smoothly. it is quite nostalgic to think -- wouldn't it be great if we could have that kind of debate now? host: barbara perry are guest now as we look back 60 years to the first nationally televised presidential debate back in 1960, joining us from the miller center at the university of virginia. millercenter.org is where you can find out about the miller center. phone lines are split up as usual. democrats, republicans, and independents. we will start with joe in pittsburgh, republican caller:. -- republican. caller: do you think nixon's big mistake in 1960 besides looking so horrible in the first debate was this stupid 50 states a strategy he had that he promised

to visit every state during the campaign? i think it was self-defeating. my second question was obviously 0 debates were influential. why were there no more debates and 1976?0 guest: great question. the 50 state strategy -- i think joe is right -- it worked against nixon. i believe he was in an old mode. he was thinking of us. campaigns of old where the more the candidate got out in the 20th century, the better off. more people saw -- because he had that period three weeks before the debate, he had an infection and had the flu, he

ran himself ragged and continue to do that through the rest of the campaign. that backfired against him. kennedy went to 48 of the 50 states himself but over a longer period of time. the question about why no more 1976.s until we get to lyndon johnson was not the most charismatic figure, so he did not want to debate in 1964. very goldwater and kennedy who were friends from the senate odd about doing a whistle stop debate tour -- thought about doing a whistle stop debate tour. who is running in 1968 but richard nixon? he was not going to go back and debate after his experience in 1960. host: we go to nicole in england incoal in england -- cole

england this morning. jfk, john f. think kennedy is the best orator? do you think that's why he won the 1960 election? guest: possibly one of the best rhetoricians in the presidency, i would say yes to that. he did not start that way. he was not a natural public speaker. he had taken public speaking lessons. i studied the relationship he had with eleanor roosevelt. she wrote to him in the early part of his presidency and said "you need to take more voice lessons." as we look back now and contrast him with some more recent candidates, he does seem to be a smooth talker, a fluent speaker, a great rhetorician, a great

orator. he had a lot going for him the time he got to 1960 and did to the presidency. i would rank him up there among the top rhetoricians in the presidency. host: did nixon and kennedy dislike each other in 1960? guest: no, they did not. congress at the same time. they both came in in 1947 and that is when they first met at the press club in washington. --y were both pale fellows hail fellows well met. a famous anecdote my friend chris matthews talks about in his book on nexen and kennedy -- nixon and kennedy, they went up to pennsylvania to do a debate because they were seen as the young up and comers in the democratic and republican parties and then they talked

baseball. they hopped on the train into shared a burger on the way back sharedington and -- and a burger on the way back to washington. politics we long for now where people can be friends across the aisle -- kennedy always said i opponents -- see my as enemies, i see them as adversaries. guest: along the same -- caller: along the same lines, kennedy had a dry run when he debated senator humphrey as they were going for the nomination. c-span had an opportunity to watch that debate and i was blown away by how two thirds with -- i agree with senator humphrey," i agree with -- " i agree with senator kennedy."

how did that opportunity help kennedy prepare for the debates against nixon in the general election? guest: that is correct. short of the presidential candidates debating, we had some of that leading up to the 1960's yes, theyal debate, had debated. i think that helped but more to the point for kennedy was he loved it to chat and debate informally. his family was famous for doing that at the dinner table. both of his parents promoted that. reading this biography called from a random house, and in that biography he talks about kennedy's time in the navy and all the men who served with him said he would sit around at night, all the men wanted to play cards and kennedy wanted to talk politics.

they made a note to themselves "this guy is probably going to end up in politics." carolina,igh, north this is bruce, republican, good morning. you're on with the barbara perry. guest: -- caller: what do you think about having a debate between the networks like cnn and fox news? i think it would be appropriate because there is all this talk about fake news and so on. that would be an interesting experience to watch since we are only having two debates, why don't they throw in the networks and have them debate? thosedo you think we get debates every night if you just flip the channels back and

forth? ander: they don't sit there talk back and forth. an interesting idea. the way these debates came about in addition to the networks wanting to have them was there was a fellow called brett kohn, who is still with us. he lives in a suburb outside of washington. he was a lifelong federal bureaucrat, worked in the federal government and as an undergraduate at the university of maryland, he was a holocaust survivor. he believed the nation would benefit from hearing presidential candidate's. he started writing to people in -- networks and ask them asking them to have debates. idea --t may be bruce's

maybe bruce's idea of having to newscasters debate, go for it, bruce. the firstears since nationally televised presidential debates, showing viewers parts of those debates , including the third debates where the candidates were in separate studios for that third debate. kennedy was in new york, nixon was in los angeles. here is part of that third debate, the candidates responding to a question about recent comments about president truman [video clip] it was declared that you owed a public apology for strong charges made by harry truman who -- doy suggested that the

you believe you owe the vice president and apology daca -- an apology? way oftruman has his expressing things. he has been in politics for 50 years. it is not my style. i do not think there is anything i can say to president truman that will coerce him at the age .f 70 maybe misses truman can. >> any comments, mr. vice president? of course senator kennedy and i and ielt truman's desire think he can speak with feeling on this subject. we all have tempers. i am sure mr. kennedy has one but when a man as president of the united states or a former president he has an obligation not to lose his temper in public. one thing i have noted as i have

traveled around the country are the tremendous numbers of children who come out to see the presidential candidate. i see mothers holding their babies up so they can see a man who may be president of the united states. i know senator kennedy sees them to. it makes you realize that whoever is president is going to be a man that all the children of america will either look up to or down to. host: what do you take away from that clip? guest: that is one of my favorites. i'm so glad you all chose that one. let me tell you about morden, who was the head of the rnc. hewas a kentuckian and became our senator after. a great statesman. i love this clip because it has three profiles -- first of harry truman. there is an old story of truman taking from -- some friends of

his wife and at one point he used the word manure. bess's friends- were scandalized by his use of the word manure. kennedy's wit and how he dealt with that, that was typical of him to diverge attention away from what might be a difficult question, but get a gleam in his eye and turn up the grin. he handled it well. for richard nixon, it was poignant to me because today's before the second debate, my mother took me and my two brothers to downtown louisville, kentucky to see senator john f. kennedy campaigning through our town. until she passed away, she would say "i got there early and stood in front of the podium so you could see him." what he is

saying is true. it is ironic as we know how his presidency ended and he was not the kind of person people could look up to because of the scandal of the watergate. anding about harry truman his colorful language, both kennedy and nixon could swear like this so -- sailors they had been in what two. -- in world war ii. caller: in a presidential debate, what should we be listening for? really important question, isn't it? i would be listening for facts. it is always good to know that those who may be sitting in the oval office are informed. they obviously can have different approaches to the facts and different ideologies and different partisanship and different policies but it is helpful to understand that they know what is happening and

especially since we are facing at least three crises at this time with covid, racial unrest, and obviously and the economy that is lagging in part because economy that is lagging in part because of covid. it is important to know that they can be fluent in speaking about those facts and informing the nation, that and basic personality types are important. previous tweets that we showed, the viewer brought in fact checking. where there such a thing as fact checkers in those first debates? guest: i'm not sure because this was such a new format that they formally had fact checkers. checkingdates were each other in real time. they were checking each other for what they had said on the

stump or they were checking each other on their careers and how they had voted in the past. that is what i found so impressive about both of them and the fact they were speaking most of the time seemingly without any notes. occasionally kennedy would refer to a statement, but they would look into the camera and to speak and speak fluently and with knowledge and with a great care given to analysis. host: do we know how many americans watched those debates in 1960 live or listen live on the radio? guest: we do. we believe upwards of 70 million. rds of 66 million tuned in for the first debate. remember, there was not a lot of choice in tv watching at that time and obviously no computers

and cell phones and things like that to distract people. there was a bit of a captive audience. host: one of the stats from cnn in 201680 million watching the debates between hillary clinton and donald trump for comparison though. have 200 did not even million americans in 1960, so obviously a vast proportion of americans. once kennedy was elected, the same was true for his press conferences, which famously were live. florida, petersburg, paula, republican, good morning. caller: i am really enjoying this segment today. i remember back during that time. i was not able to vote. i am 74 now, but at the time i

would have voted for kennedy. i think a lot of people were enthralled with him. in the past i have voted for president carter. i try to vote for the man or .oman who would be the best i just wish we could get back to that respect between our candidates and get back to what you are talking about in the fact checking. it is so important today. i am enjoying this very much and brings back a lot of memories for me. host: barbara perry, anything you want to add? guest: polyp might want to know that in one of the debates there was a question about party labels -- paula might want to know that in one of the debates there was a question about party labels. in 1960the candidates

were saying do not vote for me because i am a republican or democrat. yes, i do tend to follow the policies of my party, but vote for me because i am ready from day one to be president of the united states. recent feature of presidential debates is the spin room, the attempt by each side to immediately claim that their candidate won the debate. what happened immediately after the 1960 debates? was there anything like that? guest: if there was, i couldn't find it. because these were so new -- you have to remember the difference in technology on cameras for example. it took a lot of time for those big, heavy cameras to warm up. they would have had to have those cameras in place

somewhere. it was not the kind of the spin room phenomenon we have right now. i could find that at least in private, the candidates were talking to their advisors about the debates and kennedy was pleased with his performance in the first debate and he called up his pollster lou harrison and them."i think i can take -- take him." nixon knew he did not know what -- do well in the first debate particularly when his mother called him and asked " are you ok?" guest: i was a little girl when those presidential debates were on but i can remember sitting with my mother and father watching the debate. they told me how important the debate was. now i believe that the young children and young adults do not know much about united states

history. it is not being taught about how important debates are and how important the presidential elections are. above all this year is one of the most important i believe. people as a family should get together and tell themselves how important this is to get the truth out. the only way some people are going to know the truth is when you do have a debate and they can have the fact checks on tv right away because of that. i just want to say i was so happy i have that memory of the 1960's presidential debate. guest: good for the caller. i have that same memory of gathering around the tv. some may remember the scene in the first back to the future where michael j. fox comes back

to 1955 and he mentions that they have two tv's into the saysr -- and the mother "he must be joking, no one has two tv's." it was one tv and the family gathered around. there is a marvelous picture of it families with young toad trend sitting in front of their -- young-white tv's children sitting in front of their black-and-white tv is in tv'swatching the debate -- in 1960 watching the debate. we need to put more emphasis on history and civics but we are doing as good a job as we can. we can always do better, but i agree with her. gather the family around and watch these debates coming up. host: the back to the future

reference i thought you would bring up is when doc is incredulous when marty says that ronald reagan is president in the future and he says " the actor?" i suppose he says jack benny is a secretary of the treasury! that's a great one too. to his j. fox says family that he has gone back to and he says "that is not john f. kennedy boulevard is it?" and the father says "who in the hell is john f. kennedy?" perry onned by barbara c-span and c-span3 as we look first0 years to those televised presidential debates, taking your phone calls. democrats, it is (202) 748-8000. republicans, it is (202)

748-8001. independents, i. (202) 748-8002 . guest: my husband called me a nerd for watching this on a sunday morning before church, ash -- caller: my husband called me a nerd for watching this on a sunday morning before church, but my question is imminent that past -- things in their is given that both had things in their past, if the both of those candidates ran today, how would they fair given social media, is a splitay news second everywhere you turn, how do you think they would fair? host: no nerds here are may be we are proudly all nerds.

just think of us as historians. itderful question, because seems like we have come in some ways full-circle. that is, yes, if you would think about people knowing about kennedy's indiscretions, that would be all over the media and look what happened to bill clinton because of that. he was impeached, not convicted, but impeached because of indiscretions. now we get to the point where we have a president who seems to have many indiscretions, but it to peopleve -- matter who voted for him. we have come up full-circle. in nixon's case, no one said he had personal indiscretions involving unfaithfulness to his yes,pat, but his anger,

and some corruption issues or ways he went about his campaigning. he had a scorched earth approach to campaigning. that seems to be the road to the white house now. watergate seems almost mild by today's standards. in some ways it seems that we would have more information about those two candidates from 1960, but we seem to have come full-circle. perhaps we are so satiated with all this information that it no longer seems to manner -- matter. host: martin, a republican, good morning. martin, turn down your television so we can hear you. caller: can you hear me now? host: yes or. -- yes sir. caller: i have a comment that has been bothering me for a while. i think our news has become propagandized too much. i look at one channel.

if i am hearing someone speak, then i turn channels and i am getting hold different answers. it is rhetoric. it is not true. i feel like the news should be thinkiased and i do not we have reached this peak of propagandized asian ever in our ion everpropagandizat in our news. guest: i would not say we have never had propaganda. we have had times in our press history going back to the founding -- i am sitting here in charlottesville, virginia and thomas jefferson was excoriated by the press on the opposite side of the political aisle four years. years.

we have had partisan press, press that became more professional in the 20th century. watching c-span, you are getting real time news, you can judge for yourself. for students, read newspapers. now you can get them online. know when you are reading a hard news story versus a feature, versus an op-ed, versus an opinion column and get a variety of sources then make your own judgment. that has always been true but it is true now more than ever. host: steve on twitter once you to dive into the relationship between ike and nixon. .e says ike disliked nixon he took nixon as vice president to placate the gop and to then was stuck with him for eight years. ike was right.

what do you think? guest: he is right about the history and analyzing how eisenhower felt about nixon. he wanted to duck him prior to the checker speech. interestingly desha famously in the debate one of the newscasters who is -- famously in the debate one of the newscasters asked about this very question. when eisenhower was asked to give an example of nixon helping him with the decision or having influence on how he operated as president, eisenhower said " give me a weekend i could perhaps come up with one." that was really damaging to nixon. that is the example i think the caller is talking about. host: detroit, democrat, your next. -- you are. democrat, you are

next. 64, johnson and goldwater squared off on a thursday night. perry.arbara something you know about? guest: i am unfamiliar with that particular program, but that was common in those days. they're called sunday talk shows. meet the press, face the nation. kennedy loved being on those programs. you can watch them on youtube going back to the mid-50's and even early 50's. he would take every opportunity to sharpen his skills in debate and to questions, but i am not familiar with that particular show. i know goldwater was not

friendly towards johnson, did not want to debate him and johnson knew he was not as skilled a debater as kennedy would have been. he was always being compared and contrasted on -- unfavorably with kennedy. johnson was not interested in trying to debate goldwater formally as had -- as in the 60 debate. if kennedy wasw looking forward to debates in 1964? guest: yes. he was at least friendly with goldwater. people across the aisle did not see each other as mortal enemies in those days. well, i'm sure a few did. kennedy did not and goldwater did not. they were both military veterans and they were excited about going out on the stump and owing around the country and debating

-- going around the country and debating. host: looking back 60 years to those first nationally televised presidential debates. here is a clip from the fourth debate from the candidates closing statements from that final debate held october 20 1, 1960. 21, 1960. [video clip] >> if i lose this election, i will continue in the senate. i run because i believe this year the united states has a great opportunity to move forward, to make a determination here at home that it will reestablish itself. my judgment is that the republican has stood still here in the u.s. and around the world. we are using 50% of our steel

capacity. we had ever session in -- a recession in '58. 54.had a recession in ' if we appointill, people in washington who have a status quo outlook, then the united states will not maintain its influence. if we fail, the cause of freedom fails. >> in the years to come, it will be written that one or the other of us was elected and he was or was not a great president. what will determine whether senator kennedy or i was a great president? it will not be our ambition that will determine it because greatness is not something that is written on a campaign poster. it will be determined to the extent that we represent their deepest ideals, the highest feelings and faith of the

american people. in other words, the next president as he leads the free world can be only as great as the american people are great. i say, in conclusion, keep america's faith is strong. to see that the young people of america particularly have faith in the ideals of freedom and faith in god, which distinguishes us from the atheistic materialists. politicalers of a new generation,on -- nixon and kennedy have used a new medium. the character and courage with which these two men have spoken set high standards for generations to come. surely they have set a new president. perhaps they have established a new tradition. ent. new preced perhaps they have established a

new tradition host: barbara perry -- a new tradition. host: barbara perry on those closing statements. guest: both are focusing on freedom because of the cold war and tingling with the communists, in particular the soviets. kennedy was trying to distinguish himself as the person who would ultimately be the youngest elected president, replacing eisenhower who at age 70 was the eldest president we had ever had. he wanted to make that distinction. is an ironycase, it he talks about the greatness -- ironyon's case, it is an he talks about the greatness of a president. he is usually placed at the bottom in presidential rankings, he is notnnedy, if considered among the greatest kennedysidents,

continues in the public consciousness to be at or near the top of people's favorite presidents or presidents they most approved of i think because he was young and inspirational, certainly because of the horrific way in which he died. there is this burning into the american psyche of his persona. a new look back at those two closing statements we can be proud of them as americans. nixon makeseference to the atheistic materialistic communists. to recommendtime c-span's ranking of all the greatest presidents. you can find it, that survey of the presidential historians lacing abraham lincoln in first ince, the latest a coming 2017, followed by theodore

roosevelt, dwight eisenhower. all available at c-span.org, if you want to sort through those charts. we hear from illinois, an independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is this -- the format of the debates has 60 years.he same for unrevealingk a very format. have canned answers, canned responses. theyewis-douglas debates, debate a small topic of slavery in the territories. it would be far more revealing to have the two candidates discuss health care. what is the future of health care.

what is the future of foreign relations daca without a moderator just -- future of a foreign relations? without a moderator just to see what develops. i don't know why we have not thought about the format of the debates. i would like to hear your comments about what you think about this format. guest: i like that idea of taking one topic, particularly something like health care. i know they have topics lined up for this upcoming first debate on tuesday and certainly that is one of them. the supreme court is another. they have about a half dozen, but in that short period of time, they don't get to really delve into it and they tend to come up with canned, pat answers. i question whether the lewis-douglas debate format and that was for the senate in illinois could stand up for an

hour, go on each, then debate each other and forth. i do not think we could hold on to an audience for an hour each candidate speaking. one format change that has happened since 1960 is the town hall format change. not sure we will be doing that this year, but i tend to like those better than a panel asking questions. getting questions from the american people can help us think -- know what they are thinking about. obviously those are screened but debate back to the 1992 with bill clinton and george h. asked awhere someone question about the economy and george h. w did not seem a relatable whereas a bill clinton approach the person and said "i come from a small state. if someone loses a job, i know who they are and what job they

lost." host: that town hall format is happening and we happen to know the moderator of that debate. ,illing in for him this morning just a few minutes left with barbara perry of the miller center of the university of virginia. democrat.egon, caller: miss perry, i have really enjoyed this segment with theo. first i tweeted in my question, -- with you. first i tweeted in my question, then i got carried away. tv at thatything on time, you watched and it was great. my question is the women league of voters. be parthis is going to

of my contribution to the history or i am going to get a history lesson from you. didn't we have the women league of voters, they ran those debates, they put pamphlets out. as a first-time voter, i found that really helpful and then it was taken over by corporations, if i am not mistaken. thank you so much. your answer off air. goodbye. guest: you are right on with the history of the uighur -- league of women voters. they took over the debates to run them as a nonpartisan organization. 1960, 1984, 1988. they grew so disheartened by trying to deal with the two andies and the two sides

all the demands they were making that they literally stepped out from organizing any further presidential debates and it has been taken over by not corporations, but the national debate commission. that has worked pretty well -- been run pretty well by the heads of the two parties. they have done as good a job as they can in putting these together. i liked having the league of women voters and control because nonpartisan and always looking out for the good of the american electorate. host: california, this is robert, a republican, good morning. caller: our current president is a businessman. did nixon or kennedy have a business background or did they come to the debates as politicians? between a difference the thinking of both groups.

guest: neither man had gone into business or worked in business themselves, but in nixon's case, his father was a small businessman and not a very successful one. his father had run a grocery store in southern california and had not done well in that business. the family was a very poor. nixon had several brothers, a couple of whom who ended up with at tuberculosis so they had real health problems in the family. they had a hard time making ends meet. that is why nixon was not able to take advantage of his admission to harvard. kennedy came from business. his father was a hollywood mogul and a wall street mogul. business, butrom was not interested in going into business himself. both of these men were military veterans as i mentioned from world war ii, nixon and kennedy

and they decided they wanted to serve their country as public servants. host: rose is in chicago, a democrat. caller: just a little note, just because someone says they are a businessman does not mean they are a businessman. received everything from his father. we are not sure what donald has done with business. actually i was going to ask about the league of, but barbara answered that. asting back to the debates far as fox or msnbc or cnn, i think that is a great idea too. i think it was last week steve scully compared sean hannity to maddow.ddow -- rachel rachel maddow is a rhodes

scholar, so we could have her in a debate then have sean hannity in the debate into them bring in wolf blitzer. couldk the three of them debate what the media should or should not be since we hear about the media all the time. it might be a great avenue into talking about what brian lamb used to talk about, american exceptionalism. then maybe we can find out when america was great. host: that is rose in illinois. barbara perry. guest: the theme has returned about having debates among those in the news. i like that as an opportunity to see how people think of things differently. if we could bring back jim layer, who was an excellent moderator. we lost him in january.

i would love it if jim would have been able to debate -- moderate debates between fox and msnbc. host: do you think a presidential campaign can happen any time the future without presidential debates? could there be what happened after that 1960 debate, a gap in years of having televised presidential debates? said "if one candidate just won't debate," and there were some -- was some talk about that, but if just one candidate said i won't debate, the other way take issue with that. if both major party candidates did not want to debate, and who knows what the future holds for technology and format, but for the foreseeable future we will

have presidential and vice presidential debates. barbara perry of the university of virginia's miller center, thank you for joining us on c-span and c-span3's history tv. if you missed any of this program or want to watch it again, you can see it tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. coming up next on american history tv, you can watch the entire fourth and final debate between richard nixon and john f. kennedy from october 21, 1960 in new york city. that is going to do it for us today on "the washington journal." we will be back here tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. in the meantime, have a great sunday. ♪

the keyars ago we said to restoring confidence in our tradition and our institutions was public officials who would stand up and tell the american people exactly what they thought . to paraphrase what i said that day in 1972, i mean to be that candidate. >> i will fight for you with every breath in my body, and i will never ever let you down. today, profiles of former vice president joe biden and president donald trump from c-span's video library. and thebob cusack

washington examiner on the political career of joe biden from his three presidential campaigns, his time in the senate, and as vice president. and julieathan carl discuss the career of president trump dating back to decades from real estate developer, reality star, and becoming the 45th president. c-span or c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app. ofwatch book tv's coverage the 20th annual national book festival this weekend. this virtual event hosted by the library of congress features online author discussion and live call-in segments. at 7:00 p.m. eastern today, "c