they are doing well and they don't think tomorrow is going to have an issue. when a crisis hits, everybody is in frugal mode and ready to do it, but that is too late. the time to do that is when you have the resources and have the ability to cut. it is easy to cut when you can't pay for anything and things are shut down. i wanted to say, let's prepare and be like the firemen or fire woman who is ready for the next fire. they hope it won't happen but they have to be prepared for that. >> michelle single terry on her book "what to do with your money when crisis hits -- michelle singletary on her book "what to do with your money when crisis hits."

host: good morning. it is washington journal on this new year's day. a quiet day in the nation's capital, but soon, members of the house and senate head back with a to do list. on it, a potential rework of president biden's social spending bill after west virginia democrat joe manchin signaled he was a no on a house past version. also, a deadline to avert a federal shutdown. today, something a little different. we listen to some of your calls from 2021, what you had to say about topics, including the role of parents in public education, potential reform to the supreme court, and the future of our nation. thank you for joining us. let's take a look back to

august, 2021, as u.s. military forces began withdrawing from afghanistan. more than 800,000 u.s. troops had tours of duty through afghanistan through two decades of war. during the drawdown, we opened our phone lines to veterans. host: greg is out of mechanicsburg, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. you have been less partisan this week than usual. hopefully that is an indication that the mainstream media is realizing that they have enabled the defeat of donald trump. this would not have happened had it been donald trump reelected. he was not reelected because the mainstream media decided he should not be reelected. it is time for the mainstream media to get back to their job, which is to be suspicious and

critical of every decision made by government. that leads me to say that, from now on, what should happen as a result of -- i was in vietnam. i was not there in 1975. i was there in 1971 and 1972. what i saw in saigon in 1975i saw again this week. joe biden deserves to be impeached. he deserves whatever negative stuff anybody wants to say. and the mainstream media should now demand there should be interviews with lloyd austin and general milley until they tell everybody everything. when we go into a mission, going to a country, we going with a mission, a restricted mission that we accomplish and get out. the rules of engagement have to be different. we fought vietnam and

afghanistan as if we were doing a police action in detroit or los angeles. no we are not. we are there to win something, do something and get out. host: greg in oklahoma on that line for war veterans. how are you feeling? caller: how are you doing? thanks for c-span. i am confused, maybe a little bit perplexed here. i am trying to really understand the people in afghanistan and also to jicha stan and pakistan -- also tajik istan and pakistan. they have lived in the region for thousands of years. the united states has existed for 200 years and is trying to

tell them how to live their lives? i am a little bit confused about how donald j. trump is going to be the biggest man who lied about an election and had an insurrection in his own country tried to justify sending soldiers over to another country who have been there. host: what war did you serve in? caller: the persian gulf, the first war, during desert storm/desert shield. host: what were your thoughts about going over there at that time? caller: the same. just confused. how are we going to send our soldiers? host: comments from our text messaging service. russ in california, "it is disgusting to see how the administration handled this debacle.

nothing good comes from it but death and debt." this from harry in pennsylvania, "we have the same military now that we did during my time during the vietnam era. the pentagon must never read its own reviews and studies. without hindsight, there is no evolution and no success either." on the line for war veterans, this is william out of houston. good morning. caller: thank you, c-span. to all you armchair quarterbacks, shut up, ok? there was not no war in afghanistan, a videogame more, sitting behind a compound of 2500 soldiers. if it was a war, you would have 250,000 troops, engaging, on patrol, getting killed every day. host: when were you in vietnam?

caller: 1968-1969 and 1970-1971. any armchair quarterback talking about what joe biden could or should have done, you are sitting on a compound, ok, in the green zone, as they say. where are the patrols? go sending your son over there to sit in the desert on top of a bunch of hot rocks trying to kill a co-idea. this army now, they are soft, calling and talking about what is it for? you are supposed to be following orders. host: this is pete. when were you in afghanistan? caller: good morning. thank you for the ability to join the conversation. i'm currently serving.

>> one side, i mean, a lot of us look to the future, where future threats are, strategic competitors, and you think it could possibly be a good shift in our strategic attention to look at the future. however, we reflect on the 20 years of sacrifice of our brothers and sisters. i want to offer that in this time of difficulty for veterans still serving as well as those that have served, we will continue what we did them read, to look after each other.

a lot of mixed emotions but i want to reflect and ensure that fellow veterans -- to your left and right. we will continue taking care of each other and get through this difficult time together for ourselves and our nation. host: you talk about your battle buddies end that you were there for each other. do you think the pentagon leadership was there for you and afghanistan, and did you feel like the larger american public was there for you in afghanistan? caller: i personally feel that we had the support of our country, leadership. at a personal level, i think there were things that perhaps we observed on the ground in afghanistan that perhaps did not make its way to the top.

i would say that a lot of the people who have served over 20 years, have worked with the afghan military, the surprise people are revealing after the afghan national security forces fell in 11 days, i would say that is not particularly surprising if you have worked with afghan soldiers in the past. i am not blaming the individual soldiers. there are definitely soldiers on their side that tried their best, but given the rocks stacked against them, institutionally, culturally, society-wise, they are very different from us, and to try to build them in our image, perhaps we should have thought a lot more doing that before undertaking such an endeavor. host: pete, on the standing of u.s. military in the world today, you are someone who is

still serving in uniform. what has this pullout and the chaos of this pullout and the question of whether we will leave allies behind do to the standing of the military in the world and what does a 20-year effort where we end up with the taliban back in charge of afghanistan due to the standing of the military and the world -- afghanistan do to the standing of the military and the world? caller: i am guilty of following social media but you need to look at the glimmers of hope and humanity that still come and where you see the. i would point to pictures of a small afghan child being comforted in the uniform of an airman while being evacuated out, eco image of that reach flight -- out, an image of that reach flight with evacuees

coming out. those things demonstrate the strength of the u.s. military, our strength in the world, and what people look for when they think of the u.s. military. there are some questions that need to be answered and we will need to work through it with ourselves and our closest partners and allies as we move forward to future challenges and threats to our country. host: phone lines for family members of the veterans. sarah is in new hampshire. good morning. caller: i had three family members in afghanistan. i feel like, you know, we threw 20 years away, and the planning, there was, like, no plan b for the worst case scenario, and they should have been planning to get people out back in april,

and, not to go back to far, but when donald trump negotiated with the taliban, i was like, i thought we never negotiate with terrorists. it was up to the afghan government to do that and us to backup the government. and then joe biden apparently doesn't understand logistics and should have been moving out translators back in april. the most stunning thing was that joe biden, we see him as a pious catholic, christian, and he has absolutely no empathy for the people of afghanistan, which is stunning, completely stunning, mind blowing to me. my family is military. i had six family members in vietnam in one of my family members fought in kosovo, afghanistan, two tours in iraq,

and another cousin's daughter was in iraq also. i just feel like, strategically, that was a good piece of land to keep. we have been in japan for 75 years. we have been in germany for 75 years. we have a heroin problem here and we could oversee that a bit and now that will go gangbusters. we will lose more people to that. we keep threatening iran, russia, china, north korea. they are just going to -- we are a joke now, and afghanistan is between pakistan and iran. strategically, i think that would be something we should have had a hold of. caller: i talked to my son the

other day and he doesn't talk about this but he was one e of the army rangers and parachuted into kandahar airport in october 2001 after spending the night in the hospital with his wife who just had a baby. i get angry when people say we never should have been, because the main reason was to find osama bin laden, which we did, and he is upset. he did not really specify why. he just said i don't trust what is going on. and i feel like a lot of it is intelligence failure. we should have known that the taliban was making deals with all these provincial governors or mayors or whatever for months, since trump made his deal with them, and there's a

lot of corruption, and what would they do when they knew that we were leaving, that we were planning to leave? but i'm just upset. i'm ashamed about how people are reacting to taking afghan refugees is awful -- refugees. it is awful. they are not all the same and it worries me our country is turning into tribes, basically. i cry for my son, what he went through. i did not sleep the whole time he was over there. and he did go over for a good purpose, so -- like i said, it makes me angry when people say we never should have been over there. host: you mentioned he went over right after having -- after his wife had a child. with that grandchild, what will you tell that grandchild one day about afghanistan and about that grandchild's father's service? caller: i am proud of my son,

that he went and fought for our country. i'm ashamed of what is going on now. i am ashamed -- i don't blame president biden. i think there was an intelligence failure. i think we pulled out too quickly and without a good plan. caller: let me say that i have had five members in world war ii, all in the south pacific, one navy, one army, two army airport -- army air corps, one marine. i think every war since korea, we have been fighting an idea, not people. we have become tribal year. we don't know when the next school shooting will be. biden did the best to get.

i wonder how incompetent the army was -- maybe in a year they wouldn't be ready. i don't mind the way joe did it. we were there 20, 30 years. host: cases before the supreme court dominated the news in 2021, including antiabortion laws in texas and mississippi. as he took office, president biden assembled a committee to assess potential changes to the nation's top work. -- top court. in october, we ask you what changes you would support? caller: how are you doing? thank you for c-span. we need more of you. at least two of you, c-span. host: we have three, c-span2 and c-span3, but go ahead on your thoughts on the supreme court. caller: do they all ask

questions and give people time to respond? host: on c-span2, you can watch the senate gavel-to-gavel. on c-span3, we watch a lot of committee hearings. we hope you watch all of the networks. go ahead with your thoughts. caller: my thoughts on the supreme court, there should be time limits. it would eliminate a lot of unfairness. i think it was the republicans that caused this problem by holding up president obama's nominees. they started this before they started holding up these nominees. it was fine. a new president comes in. now that mitch mcconnell and the republicans changed it, holding up nominees for a whole year, they have made a mess of it, so that is why i think you could

fairly straighten it out with term limits. thank you very much. host: term life -- term limits part of that draft document. dennis in indiana, a republican, what reforms would you propose? caller: i will tell you what i think needs to happen is they need to leave the supreme court alone. everything -- it just goes south, so leave it alone. if they don't want term limits on them, don't put term limits on these people. thank you. host: june in oklahoma, a republican, is next. go ahead. caller: i'm calling is a recent republican. i was formerly a party official intercounty for the democrats -- official in our county for the democrats, but i change because

policy changes that party has taken on. we need stability. we need some -- need to be able to depend on a certain structure of government and the knowledge that certain things will be deemed right or wrong. term limits have taken place here in oklahoma years ago, and what happened in our legislature was we got in some people who were good, decent people, but the money that got them in wasn't so great. they didn't have the knowledge base, they didn't have the experience, they did not understand how one decision led to problems in another area, and i think term limits is the wrong way to go because then you've got so much money influencing who gets in and who

doesn't. even though i don't agree with many decisions of the supreme court, i still think stability for the country is better if we leave things as they are. host: that is june in oklahoma. john is out of illinois, democrat. good morning. caller: yeah, good morning. i'm definitely in favor of term limits and adding seats to the court. this is the most part is important i think i have ever seen in history. it is the product of 30 years of work by the federalist society. and they bragged about it being a partisan court. like, it is too bad. so this is the most partisan court. they acknowledge it to be the most partisan court of all time. so as far as stability and consistency is concerned, you will not get it from this court because they will turn everything upside down, so i'm definitely in favor of term limits and adding at least four

seats to balance the power and get some turnover. i would try to give them some sort of standard. they just think that -- you know, the constitution requires a super majority of states to amend it, but if you get a simple majority of the members of the supreme court, you can make the constitution say anything they want it to say, unfortunately. everybody knows it. there needs to be some fidelity to the constitution, not simply being able to amend it with five votes, and that is what they are fixing to do. host: you teach constitutional law. at the college level, postgraduate? caller: yes. and i teach it as a political science subject, but it is just so political, it is stunning. there are three branches of government in washington and the most political is probably the supreme court, and they have the power, with five votes, to make

the constitution say anything they want. they will do it. host: dan is in stafford, virginia, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i think most conservatives -- i hate to speak for everybody in general, but i think, kind of the thing of how did you learn as a young person growing up, if it is not broken, don't fix it. the bias depends on what kind of the fence you are on. but if we must, and i don't believe we should, decide it is reasonable to add justices or make changes, let's add justices, make it a policy where three congress is in the future is when it is in effect, or whenever that presidency ends, so the 120th congress should be when adding a justice is in

effect. so whatever power is in the presidency -- whatever party is in the presidency, it is an unknown. you cannot write your own script while still in office is what i am saying. put it in the future, unknown, and that will bring people back to reality. if you do it now, too much control. if it must be done, let's do it, but put some risk back into it on the side that wants to change rules. at risk. that is life. you cannot write the script when you have your hand in the cookie jar. host: democratic caller, good morning. caller: good morning, america. beautiful day. let me say one thing. i don't believe in term limits. that ain't right. but i do believe that the courts

change precedents on one has already been decided. we have to add more to balance it. host: texts this morning. "packing the supreme court would set a tillable -- a terrible precedent. when would it stop? when conservatives took power, would they not appoint conservative justices?" host: another. "checks and balances is paramount." "leave the supreme court alone," says stephen alabama. melvin saying "that should stop." jordan skipper saying "i would support cameras in the courtroom while cases are argued."

richard, little rock arkansas, republican, go ahead. caller: it is amazing how americans have to make everything political. if you look right now, these three newest justices, how many times they have voted with the left as opposed to the right and everything, people need to look at the facts. it is disrespectful too to say left or right of the supreme court because these people are put up to interpret the law and do what should be done, but packing the supreme court seems like a situation of getting the federal government involved in things, just like the marriage chicago wanted to call the federal police instead of hiring more police. it is another part of having the government take over, which believes, senators -- which means senators and representatives run everything. you have to do something for a

long time before you are good at it. giving someone lifetime employment, they don't have to worry about their future. they know they can just do what they do, the right thing, and not worry about blowback, because they will have their job the next day. have some respect for the people of this country and look up who is voting for who. i appreciate it. host: that's richard in arkansas. this is david,'s waynesboro, georgia, independent. good morning. caller: i will try to keep this philosophical. the constitution says the president sends an appointment for somebody he wishes to be put on the court, and it is the senate's job to have a hearing, not delay it. it is not in the constitution, anything that says they can delay a hearing for an appointment. now, when you break your oath to the constitution of the united

states, that makes you a constitutional criminal. now, what we have is a judge on the supreme court that is in conspiracy with a constitutional criminal act.now , there is a remedy for this particular kind of thing. it is called impeachment. it has to be brought about and settling congress. -- and settled in congress. the question there, though -- when is it ok to break your oath to the constitution of the united states? i would like to echo something you said earlier this week. you are mature. you are doing a great job. host: greg. i was looking up article two, section two of the constitution, which states the president will

nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, appoint a justice to this import. susan is in california, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. excuse me. i say just leave it alone. it is set up the way it is so that congress cannot bully or pressure the supreme court. and also, i don't like the idea of packing the supreme court just to get your online. and also, obama did not have the senate. merrick garland, the candidate, was supposed to have that hearing. obama did not have the senate. there could have been five hearings and he would not have been approved.

host: jerry is in broadway, virginia, republican. go ahead. caller: good morning. the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. that's why this country is in the terrible shape it is in now. this administration trying to fix everything that isn't broken. it results in tragedy after tragedy after tragedy. they don't obey the supreme court anyway. the supreme court ordered them to reinstate the remaining mexico policy. had they done it? they have not. host: that is jerry in virginia. this is margaret in leavenworth, kansas, a republican -- democrat. good morning. caller: first of all, it should be six years and that is it. you are gone. no lifetime appointments. clarence thomas apparently does

not do anything, yet is sitting there taking a big salary, so we need to do six years, you are gone, and that way you wouldn't have people who are 110 on their -- there. also, you have to show your work report. i cannot imagine anybody sitting there doing nothing, which of course is better than doing something not helpful at all, but these are not respected, wonderful people like you used to think they were. no. so nobody gets a job for life. and they have to be held accountable for how much work they do. and, no, six years, you are out. that's enough. you know? and please, when you get to be 80 or something, think about the sharpness of your mind. we know what happened with brett kavanaugh. mitch mcconnell, we should have

nobody in charge when a president wents to appoint somebody. he needs to go. he needs to go. host: it sounds like you are talking about age limits for supreme court justices. am i reading your comments right? caller: yeah. let's be real. you do not sit there forever getting a salary. no lifetime appointments. host: in october, 2021, virginias race for governor became centered around a hot button issue, the question of what role parents should play in public education, the curriculum taught in schools and the books in school libraries. here's what some of you had to say. host: what role should parents play in public education? caller: they should play a role. as far as what they say in these arguments going on with the

racial stuff, if they keep talking about racial stuff, it will be everybody that's racial, black-and-white, it doesn't matter but are they don't talk about it. it is as simple as that. host: you are next. caller: parents -- we have christians coming in, we have a separation of church and state. generation after generation for abuse, ok? in the christian religion. host: this is glenn from lakeland, florida. the role parents should lay in public education lay in public education? caller: i don't believe parents need to be at involved -- to be involved.

all this talk is about one thing. it is about critical race theory she he that they manufactured -- race theory that they manufactured, lied about. it is not even taught. and also the 1619 project. they don't want the truth of the history of white america in this country, the way they were doing from 1619, when slavery started, until now. so all these town halls, people upset and mad, you are teaching critical race theory, it is a lie. why can't we see it for what it is? that is what this is about. the books in the schools that had these different things that might upset kids. it is not the children that don't want to learn. it is the parents who don't want their kids to understand they have been lying to their whole lives. they don't want to accept the fact that slavery happened and

enslaved black people for 400 years and 20 plus million of them died under that program. host: a question that has come up in school boards are in the country, how much to say should parents have in curriculums in school? for example, out in utah, this story out of the tribune. one lawmaker wants to require that all materials for social studies classes in k-12 schools be vetted and posted online for parents to review in advance of that teaching. teachers are pushing back, saying that proposal shows a lack of trust in educators judgment, teachers judgment in the classroom. what would be your thoughts on that proposal, saying everything that will be taught in social studies and reviewing it before the year starts? caller: i will go back to what i said. this is about patrolling the narrative and how teachers do their lessons -- do their lesson plans, will be published,

the whole gamut. that does not need to happen. they are not teachers. they are not taught to teach, to teach students. they are not taught to teach people the things they need to know. the history of this country is the history. host: next caller. caller: i am a grandmother. miami-dade county has lost a lot of students, including my grandson and granddaughter. he had a teacher. a police officer showed up in class with a t-shirt saying black lives matter, defined the police. that was outrageous. his mother, who worked for the school, took it to the principal, and the principal said, oh, i'm sorry. there's nothing we can do. well, now he is in catholic school. he's getting to graduate in may.

not only will he have a high school diploma, he will have two years of college finished. he has a gpa of five points. in broward county, teachers, went door-to-door looking for thousands of children who are no longer in public school, and it is because of the teachers, the curriculum, and what they are teaching them. they are indoctrinating them, and i should know because i'm cuban, and that's exactly what happened in cuba. thank you very much. host: several responses already from our social media feeds. this is elizabeth writing that parents should have complete control over their children's education. and dockery saying "parents should always play a role in

their kids education but let the teachers do their job. the majority of parents are not skilled or educated enough to determine curriculum. it is a shame the extremists are trying to bully professionals about things they don't know or don't exist and try to push a light washed to keep our kids ignorant -- a whitewashed agenda to keep our kids ignorant." another that says "anybody who does not look into what their kids are being taught is looking for trouble. i agree that parents should review school programs in advance." jimmy saying "kids and students are not state property. they are the offspring of two adults. they have no obligation to treat their offspring as if they are state property. the statements back off or it will face a sad fate, jimmy writes. we want to hear from you. this is ralph in morning view kentucky.

good morning. caller: come on. these people who say we should leave teachers alone, have they not seen the statistics on education in this country, and especially black parents? i mean, their kids are failing at greater rates all over this country. teachers don't have the ability to, apparently, teach these kids, because they are all failing. host: so what is the answer to this question of what role parents should play in public education? do you think, as we talked about before, curricula should be posted online for parents to review before the school year starts? do you think parents should be able to dictate what should be top? how would you answer the question? caller: i don't know about dictating that necessarily, but they should be aware. they should know and be informed.

ny -- children are the most important asset this country has and their education has to be number one. why -- there are cameras everywhere else. why can't there be a camera in the classroom? host: up to hyde park, new york. good morning, frank. on the question, what role should parents play in public education? caller: it varies across the country, you know? i am not going to disrespect the teachers union, but they are teachers. they deliver the information that the school boards and administrators tell them to. the parents then get involved because they hear what the teachers are teaching and they are not in that process, and i believe it should be a collaborative effort. you should have the teachers involved, the parents involved. you have some parents that may be professors, who may be way

smarter than others, and others that maybe plumbers who have a different view of the world and can participate. i think it should be a collaborative effort. the parents should be participating. the school board should participate. the school administrators should listen to both of them. host: when you say participate, how? caller: participate in the process. create a process that, when you have new information coming, everybody gets together and they fine-tune it. when they changed the program in new york to "critical thinking," not the other crt, but critical thinking, and changed math, they changed the way i do math and grew up learning math. for me, it was difficult. i, i son the way i did it end up he was learning.

-- i taught my son the way i did it. but i can see some parents not able to do that. they did not include parents in that decision and it messed everything up. i just think there's a better way to do it. we have to come together. we should not be divided. we agree that the kids are important, the most important thing in our world. why can't we come together and sit at the table and work out -- and now each place has to do this. to me, it should not be something the government does. it should be brought down to the state and community level, because maybe some communities look at it differently. host: mary as a teacher in canton, illinois. mary, what grade do you teach? caller: ok, i'm a retired teacher. i taught both in public schools and one year and a christian school. i'm retired. i have fiv grandchildrene.

one of them is special-needs and is homeschooled. i think this indoctrination of f what can be taught and what cannot has been going on for a long time. i have a secondary specialization in history and social studies and, in 1980, i was being told what i could teach and what i could not teach according to the school i graduated from, which was wellesley university, a very liberal school. host: who should make that decision, then, on what should be taught in the classroom, and how do you use those limited hours in the classroom to reach students?

and who should make that decision? caller: ok, it has to be a collaboration. it has to be a teacher who is well aware of what the community is asking. host: so, mary, and your experience teaching public school and in a private school, where did you think teachers did a better job of that, of being aware of what the community wanted? caller: that's very difficult to say. both -- the public schools that i taught in were very keyed in. it was a small community. it was very keyed into actually -- into, actually, the attitude of the superintendent.

also, it was keyed into the attitude of a prominent -- the mayor of the town, prominent people in the community. it was not necessarily sensitive to all people in the community. like, there were many spanish individuals in that community, the spanish was not even on the curriculum. ok question mark so -- ok? so it was responsive in some ways and in other ways it was not. and the private school, the christian school, was extremely sensitive to individuals, but there is also bickering in it, and some teachers -- you know, there were issues, i guess you can say. it was less than what i thought

could be ideal. host: stephen in lexington, kentucky, a parent, how would you answer the question, what role should parents play in public education? caller: i believe parents should be a lot more involved in their children's education. i will not blame the teachers. the teachers are doing an amazing job. i believe it is a combination of not enough funding, not enough transparency, and parents just using education and schooling as childcare. so i believe they need to go to the meetings. just because it is a hot topic now? no. what about in the past? people were not going to the school board meetings, not voting for school board officials. my wife is a middle school teacher for social studies. what a topic to be on right now. she calls parents and they don't call back, don't email, don't

communicate with the teacher. they get surprised when they see certain things. teachers are trying their best. host: has she ever gotten a call like, why did you teach that or i don't think you should be teaching that? if so, how has she responded? caller: not directly, but to the leader of the social studies program. she says you get phone calls, you could emails. teachers or parents inquiring, lives this topic being tot -- inquiring, why is this topic being taught? parents, you can find other means to teach her children. host: michelle in washington, d.c., a teacher, good morning. caller: i used to teach for public charter schools, all grades. my comment this morning as i believe that the parents should be involved and should not be

banned from coming into the school and should be allowed to participate as they would like. they should be involved with the curriculum. i would also like to see that african centered schools, for african children -- african-american children are not learning survival skills in public schools and i think they are feeling the children at all levels, particularly at puberty age, where the teachers don't seem to know what to do with pushing forward and letting them be creative as they turn over into puberty around 11, 12 years old. you have to let children take leadership roles, be creative. they have to learn how to speak

in public. children have to learn survival skills, particularly in ninth grade, such as entrepreneurial -- entrepreneurship, learning about accounting and, of course, civics, but we also have to learn what our african-american people, the foundations they have raised for us -- they have laid for us. we don't look at that in the public schools. how it deals with us in this country, it is needed. we need schools that can do that without being micromanaged by the government. host: some of the world's most decorated gymnasts received a $380 million settlement from usa gymnastics, the end of a multiyear investigation into sexual abuse of more than 300 people at the hands of dr. larry nasser, the longtime team doctor

for the usa women's national gymnastics team. we asked for your reaction to the capitol hill testimony of some of those gymnasts, including gold medalist simone biles. host: out of massachusetts, good morning. caller: hi, sir. how are you? i know for a fact that i have a family member who worked for a senator. she was taken advantage of and abused and they gave her hush money. i don't know how all these guys made these decisions, paid these kids off, but now they are going to save the day for these gymnasts. they have their own issues. just like i don't understand how the fbi director is not good and called out here. it should be the director that was involved at the time. and bringing these fbi agents to the justice department and say, why did you do this, and charge

them. i don't understand. they are as guilty as nasser himself. host: next caller. morning. caller: thank you for updating us on what happened to these last few agents. i think it is clear, and clear from your callers, that the fbi needs to be a little bit more investigated itself. it is not a trustworthy institution anymore, like it was -- i mean, russia gate, the january 6, these kinds of coverups. one tidbit. can you tell us if those people who resigned or were fired cap to their pensions -- kept their pensions? host: at least according to the articles in today's paper, one particular agent doesn't still have a pension, and a lot of outrage about that in some of these columns. caller: that is the scary part.

no jail time, nothing. they resigned, keep their pensions, and they will move along and it will all be forgotten until the next thing comes up. sad. host: howard, atlanta georgia, you are next. caller: it is pretty much a system that very few people should be shocked about because the way the fbi carries out their investigations. they cover up just like the police. there are episodes in dealing with people and stuff. i am saddened about the girls and what happened, but how does that not reach the top when you are talking about these kind of numbers? how could it not reach the top of the chain, as far as the fbi goes? host: brenda in middleton, new york, did you watch yesterday? caller: yes. i think what happened to these young ladies is horrible. i think the whole government

needs an overhaul, not just the fbi, but the cia and all the rest. and for this to stop, enhance -- stop, it has to be investigated at the top. and i hope that, in the future, nothing like this ever happens again to anyone, to anyone's child, anyone's daughter. it is just appalling. that is all i want to say. thank you. host: this is joanne, also new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i am so happy i was able to catch the show this morning because i watched the hearing yesterday also. and they really need to do something about the fbi. it has been over and over and over again. i have watched everything they have done for the last 40 years -- last four years. i watched your show, the hearings, and the fbi needs to

go, period. and they should lose their pensions. they really should. what happened to those girls is a disgrace. host: joanne -- caller: they never even sent a female fbi agent to talk to young teenagers. host: joanne, who else should have been there yesterday? should it have been the fbi agents, directors from back in 2015, 2016? did you want to hear from merrick garland, the attorney general now? who else could have been there? you said comey? caller: comey. comey is very corrupt. it is a known fact. struck all those people, not doing his country a favor. this is terrible what is going on. and when you have young girls, such as those girls, seeing what they have done to trump, i have seen what they have been doing all along.

it is terrible. and for these young girls to have to go through that. imagine what other people go through with the fbi. host: this is sam in hillsdale, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. my view is they would not have even needed the fbi if the parents of those kids would have gone into the examination room and overseen this nassar so he could not have taken advantage of the kids. that is what i think. host: rudolph, good morning. caller: really, i think a lot of it -- i would take it a step further. i think the administration let it go a little bit too far, because i am not sure how

long it has been going on, but they should go back and find when the first report was. it should not have been 15 years. host: this is beth in silver spring, maryland. caller: i am glad you played that clip because i feel like these athletes have been mishandled, mistreated by the olympic committee, everybody they reported to. i find it hard to believe they couldn't find another doctor. i mean, simone biles, athletes of the highest caliber, you are telling me they could not get a new doctor? who is more important to the olympic organization then simone biles, than these athletes? the doctors are a dime a dozen. it tells you how little they think of these athletes as human beings. thank you for taking my call. it is terrible. host: back in maryland, darlene

is in oregon, gold hill, oregon. go ahead. caller: these girls are being very brave. 10 or 15 years that this went on. where were the local investigations going for such a crime being committed against these children? and to me, the whole committee idea that's promoting this athletic program should be totally revised from the bottom up. these girls would not have been -- from the age of 14 to 20 years old every year by a gynecologist or a physician of that level. totally unnecessary. and the people in charge should have known better. host: what does this mean for you -- for the u.s. olympics organization? caller: i think that it is a

shame we have to have such an organization to encourage our athletes. and it has become so much about money, promotion, financial promotion, as opposed to the truthfulness is him. -- the true athleticism. host: eric out of new hampshire, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. appreciate it. my heart goes out to these girls and young women with the abuse. and god for bed they want a little accountability. that is one thing we are losing in this country. there is no accountability. host: james is in aberdeen, south dakota. good morning. your next. -- you are next. caller: yes. i would like to say i watched it, the hearings, into the one

-- hearings, and the one young gal was beyond me. if you could not tell this was the truth, you don't know what truth is. this -- turning a blind eye to this would be absolutely, stunningly, harmfully terrible. what these little girls had to go through. and i am trying to keep my composure year. -- here. i don't know how else i can explain it. host: this is charlie in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. it was good to see that presentation by those girls to the congress. there is probably a number of

people in the nation who probably do not even know about larry nasser. that was in opening to what goes down possibly across a lot of campuses. one item that has escaped us for politics is the wrestling debacle that occurred, i believe it was ohio state university, where wrestlers were abused, hundreds of them. complicit in turning an eye against that was jim jordan. it is rather strange that this has not come before congress. this is the first of many, of an opening in many cases just as

when one woman comes forward for the abuse. other women came forward as well. host: teresa in california, you are next. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: i am doing well. go ahead. caller: i am so upset to find those young ladies did not get their just due, get that man picked up after their affidavits were taken. i feel like those people that did that and covered it up should be charged with human rights, civil rights. that is crime against women. they let it go on. that is crime against children. women and children are not valued. we need our human rights stood up for. there is no reason for that.

we need a qualified immunity of these people that take the law into their own hands. they don't need to be sitting on their retirement. host: mike is in round rock, texas. you are next. caller: good morning. just a comment on your last callers. they want to blame trump. the head of the fbi when the investigation began was comey. don't let anybody forget that. i know everybody feels emotional about those girls. i do too. another example this morning, another example of a corrupt and rotten how the fbi, cia, and the

pentagon have been for years. it is not going to change. host: ben is in woodstock, connecticut. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is obvious the federal government has lost its way. it is time for us to tear the whole thing down and rebuild it. this is not only the fbi, cia. this is also the justice department and everybody who is involved up there from staffers to everything. this goes deeper than the olympic committee. i think it is time we rebuild this country. everybody who works for the government should be fired and reevaluated. it is time to get back to the constitution and take our rights back. host: we have been looking for your tweets, your comments on

social media. sheila saying the idea of swift justice is long gone. the fbi's credibility was damaged going all the way back to the kennedy assassination investigation. those attributes have yet to be reestablished. this from our text messaging, bob, i think everybody that ignored these girls should be charged for everything that happened after 2015. martin is in new mexico. you are next. caller: thank you. i would like to express my concern and hope that the congress begins to take action in requiring the actions and the character of the fbi and cia.

we have history that goes back since the palmer raids and the political prosecution of the 1960's with the black panther party and other organizations throughout the country that were intimidated by the fbi throughout the civil-rights movement. i think it is important people look at the record overall and begin to make some decisions in regards to whether this organization is deserving of maintaining its presence within the u.s. government. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> i used to think this was just a community center. it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers so students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. >> comcast supports c-span as a

public service, giving you a front row seat to democracy. at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on lyndon johnson. you will hear about the 1964 presidential campaign, the gulf of tonkin incident, the march on selma, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries knew because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you will hear some blunt talk. >> i want a report on the number

of people assigned to kennedy the day he died, the number assigned to me now, and if i can't ever go to the bathroom, i will not go. i will not go anywhere. i will stay behind these gates. >> wherever you get your podcast. >> sunday on q&a, washington post syndicated finance columnist michelle singletary on her book what to do with your money when crisis hits. >> it is not if but when. we want to set you up for the next crisis. it is not all about covid. what recession is going to come down the road? it may be long.

it may be short. life is going to happen. i need you to prepare now. i do a lot of financial seminars in my community. it is so hard to get people to save and prepare when they are doing well because they are doing well. they don't think tomorrow is going to have an issue. you need to save. you need to do that. i am going to get to it. when a crisis hits, everybody is frugal. they are ready. that is too late. the time to do that is when you have the resources, the ability to cut. it is easy to cut when you cannot pay for anything or things are shut down. let's prepare. let's be like that fireman who is ready for that next fire. they hope it will not happen, but they are going to be prepared. >> washington post finance columnist michelle singletary on her book what to do with your

money when crisis hits. you can also listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our new c-span now app. >> sunday, january 2, on in-depth. historian alan gill so joins us live to talk about the early intellectual history of the u.s., the civil war, and the reconstruction era. his books include gettysburg, and his latest robert e. lee, a biography of the confederate general in the civil war. going with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts, and tweets sunday, january 2, at noon eastern on in-depth on book tv. ♪ >> how exactly does america get up? >> we believe one of the

greatest characteristics of being american is that we are striving to provide people opportunity for all americans. >> students across the country are giving us behind the scenes looks as they work on their entries using the #studentcam. you can join the conversation by entering the c-span studentcam competition. answer the question how does the federal government impact your life? >> be passionate to express your view, and no matter how large or small the audience will be, know that in the greatest country in the history of the earth your point of view does matter. >> content is king. remember to be as neutral and impartial as possible in your portrayal of both sides of an issue. >> c-span awards $100,000 in

total cash prizes. you have a shot at winning the grand prize of $5,000. entries must be received before january 20, 2022. for information on how to get started, visit our website at studentcam.org. download c-span's new mobile app and stay up-to-date with live video coverage of the day's latest political events from key congressional hearings to white house events and supreme court oral arguments. even washington journal, where we hear your voices every day. c-span now has you covered. download the app for free today. "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. at least nine states are expected to vote on ballot initiatives in 2022 legalizing

the use of marijuana. it is already legalized in 18 states and washington, d.c., and decriminalized in another 12. last year, we asked for your thoughts on marijuana laws in your state. host: james, good morning. caller: we have a $2500 fine for canada's possession. they just need to >> from these superhigh penalties.

host: one post from facebook that says in mississippi the senses voted in favor of medical marijuana over 70%. tell me again how our votes matter. the text says, i don't pay attention to the laws, grow as much as i need every year and have since i was 18. a tweet says i support decriminalization but wonder about people taking over the role of supplier. the government has no business prohibiting it or profiteering on it. another text says my son completed a four month rehab program and is now living in another environment.

i've had several opportunities to ask counselors about early stages of drug abuse and every counselor said all their patients started with weed. repeated use of recreational marijuana leaves behind families and children who suffer greatly. i am a victim of drugs. i do not support recreational drug use. it's a death sentence. let's go back to our phone lines and start with sheila, calling from oklahoma. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. we passed. i thank our governor. i'm glad you put the map of.

arkansas has medical marijuana. they have $115,000 for a license. oklahoma, $3000. our legislature won't regulate it. it has not helped our state. what they are doing is growing it. we have the chinese cartel coming here.

the legislature is letting our land be bought. host: good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. alabama which recently legalized the medical marijuana. i am opposed to that. i am opposed to the government sticking its nose in my business. i have been growing marijuana since 1971. host: you are opposed to them legalizing it? caller: yes, sir. host: you would prefer marijuana stay illegal? caller: yes, sir. host: why? caller: it is not the government's business. the only reason they are getting involved is because of greed. it is just greed in the state of alabama. host: wouldn't it make your life easier if it was legal in

alabama? caller: no, sir. they ruined my marijuana business. i have been growing pot for 50 years. the government stuck its nose in my business. host: explain how making it legal ruined your business. caller: i am an illegal pot grower. i have been making good money selling pot. host: by making it legal, they are sending your customers to different places? caller: yes, sir. the government is sticking their nose in everything. here we go again. these guys send airplanes and helicopters with machine guns for years. now they want to legalize it. that is kind of funky. i got something else i want to say. tell all them hotheaded hippies

to get off the phone and let someone else with good sense talk. caller: thank you to c-span for this interesting topic. as someone who has been involved in the cannabis industry focusing on therapeutic applications and working with our medical school to design a pain management study that would allow individual suffering from ptsd or long-term palliative care to use cannabis and reduce the level of opiates, this is of critical importance about legalizing cannabis and removing the federal laws that still exist. it opens the door for healing. it opens the door for economic drivers. it allows marginalized individuals to have employment and be successful. all one has to do is look at washington state's 502.com,

which will show you all the statistics and data from our cannabis experiment, which went from medical to adult use. host: do you have any sympathy for the illegal dealers? we just had someone on air who said legalization of marijuana is putting him out of business because he has been selling it illegally. do you have any sympathy for people like that? caller: this is what i will say, that gentle man, who has the experience of growing the plant, and obviously he was successful in his world, needs to take the steps necessary to apply for the licenses to jump through the hoops. as we end prohibition, you have

to follow the rules. as someone who was once prosecuted by the federal government for having in excess of 10,000 plants, i was able to survive that because we were meticulous about following the state criteria. it is not that hard. embrace the new economic drivers that cannabis presents for the community. host: tony calling from ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. host: go ahead. caller: the medical marijuana bill in ohio, i voted against it. it was a joke from the beginning. the money they wasted on numerous studies on a weed that 99% of them have already smoked in college. they know what it does to you.

i agree with the guy that grows it. i have grown it since 1976. i'm sure a lot of people have heard about meigs county weed. in ohio, one gram is $22.50. i can buy it off the street for eight dollars a gram, and it is better weed. this bill was flawed from the beginning because it was for the rich people. you cannot grow your own. you cannot own a gun if you get a medical card in ohio. it cost to almost $400 to get the card. no insurance covers it. it is a joke. and needs to be recreational nationwide. host: do you think your state should know that from medical to recreational? do you think your state should

make it illegal again? caller: i think they should move forward and keep their nose out of it. that is what i think. i can grow just as good of weed as they can if not better. host: let's talk to gil from jamestown, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, on your map where it shows kentucky, mitch mcconnell's state, their second cash prop is marijuana versus the first cash prop tobacco. fox news first got their foothold by broadcasting sports events, baseball and football. all the beer commercials you see with fox news they had to

support their broadcasting of sports. the alcohol and tobacco lobbies have been the greatest force against the use of marijuana. in terms of medicinal use of marijuana and from a judeo-christian point of view in genesis, the bible says god gave us every plant for good use. i do support restrictions on the recreational use. in terms of medical marijuana, my dad had cancer. my mother is a fantastic cook. my dad would not eat. once he was given a thc tablet, his appetite snapped back quickly. i was involved in a serious auto accident. my own fault. i was under the influence of

marijuana. god saved my life. i believe the penalties for dui for marijuana use while using a moto variable -- motor vehicle should be the same as for someone using alcohol. host: let's talk to david from atlanta, georgia. caller: good morning. just listening to all the comments. this portion is taking government people out of it and putting regular citizens about this issue. i find what the illegal growers was talking about, there is always going to be a need for people who sell without licenses.

the dispensaries are going to be higher because they have to pay more freight on the utilities and whatever. the guy down the street who grows, he does not have that overhead cost. $22 a gram from the dispensary and eight dollars a gram on the street. i just had a total knee replacement. i take one. it really helps me do the exercises i need to do. i looked at the schedule for the

controlled substances. it was amazing to see on level 3 and four they had tramadol and ambien, and that is basically what marijuana should be because it gives medical benefits. i am in georgia. the sad thing about megan and her family, they had to leave the state to go to colorado. host: jessica, good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i oppose legalization of marijuana for many reasons. i agree with what dr. avery was saying earlier. the medical health impacts

long-term, i was sorry to hear the story earlier of children being born with levels of thc in their system. that is a concern. recreational has been approved in virginia. i support medical marijuana nationwide. i have personal experience smoking the stuff off and on when i was younger. the stuff that you buy today has often been treated. it is not the natural stuff. it has got elements in it that could be harmful to you. it was a completely different

kind of experience then smoking the original natural weed many years ago. host: many states are expected to restrict gun ownership and sales. in may of last year, we put the question to you, is more regulation of guns needed? caller: i talked to my representative from here in kentucky. i have hunted my entire life. i have my concealed carry permit. we need to do away -- the military and the police can have some automatic weapons. we need to dry that market. those that have guns, i don't

want to take them away. they need to have a three chamber limit. it has been that way forever. you can only put three shells in a gun. that gets rid of all these 18 and 38 caliber chamber guns. host: what do you say to people that say criminals are not going to pay attention to those regulations? all you are doing is putting regulations on law-abiding citizens. caller: they have to be destroyed. i don't want to take anybody's

gun away from them. there is no support to that. that is not what it should be used for. caller: please repeat the warning of the second amendment. the subject is a well regulated militia. in 1790 they were talking about arming organizations of the community. there was not a single weapon like the power and multiple deaths these weapons are capable of.

if you can read the english language, it does not include an individual right to bear arms. it is a well regulated militia. america is such a coward, they got the supreme court to change that, just like we had manifest destiny so we could commit genocide all the way to the philippines. we make things up when it is convenient for our cowardly people to arm themselves. they are cowards. host: daniel, what do you think should be done? caller: america digs itself so deep into a hole it is almost impossible to get out. meanwhile, anybody who is not a coward should be revoking their arms. abide by the constitution. let's start there. the constitution does not give anyone the individual right to bear arms. caller: i think we have got lots

of laws on the books. i think we should have a responsibility law on gun ownership. when you buy a gun, it has numbers on it. it should have a slip of paper that you acknowledge what it is you are buying and the damage it can do and the responsibilities of owning it. host: if you pass that type of responsibility act, who would it apply to? are you applying it to citizens, citizens and police, citizens, police, and the military? caller: i would apply it to anybody buying a gun. the military and law enforcement are different things.

i am talking about the civilian population. i am a gun owner myself. when you buy a gun, you should acknowledge it is a dangerous thing, and there is a responsibility of owning it. if you lay it out on your counter in your bedroom, and your child takes it to school and kills people with that, there should be some liability to the person that bought that gun. i am 70 years old now. november 2, 19 57, i was shot in the chest by a friend of mine. i raised four boys. none of my guns got into their hands. they were always kept under lock and key. i took the responsibility

very seriously. caller: i think it is funny that biden is worrying about guns when him and obama let 2500 guns go to the mexican drug cartels. if they want to enforce the laws, they have to enforce the laws. host: that brings up the same question i have asked a couple of times. how do you get the laws to apply to criminals who are not paying attention to the current regulations and laws? caller: put them in jail. enforce the ones that we have got. if you want to add to gun control, make it an automatic 20 year sentence if you commit a crime with a gun. not if you shoot it, just if you threaten them with it, rob them, 20 years if you use a gun. that would stop it.

host: let's go to stephen who is calling from south carolina. good morning. are you there? let's go to thomas calling from wichita, kansas. good morning. caller: good morning. i fully support the statement from the gentle man from kentucky. i served in the u.s. army. i fired fully automatic weapons. when i turned in that combat m-16, that was the end of firearms. i respect the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. that should be restricted to lever action long guns and revolvers or semiautomatics that have a restriction on the amount of ammo in their magazines. i've got a solution to all the

criminals are going to have the automatic weapons. hire between 1500 and 3000 more special agents in the u.s. department of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. before two months go by, we will not have another mass killing in this country. caller: i have been living this past year in milwaukee, wisconsin, originally from madison, wisconsin. i live in the most segregated part of milwaukee. there is a documentary about it if anyone is interested. after a year of living there, i have been sitting in my living room hearing gunshots next door. there is a lot of violence, a lot of poor neighborhood. i don't make a lot of money. i am a social worker.

i care about my community. i have advocated at my state capital about gun violence. when it is right next door to you, almost in your face, it is a different story. i believe we need stronger laws. i have been part of the movement in wisconsin, anti-violence. as a social worker, social justice -- the main reason i became a social worker -- causes that are important. the biggest thing for me, i worry about the children. host: i will ask you the same question i asked earlier in the show. the opponents of any new gun regulations will say the criminals are not going to pay attention to those regulations. all you are doing is putting restrictions on law-abiding citizens. what would be your response? caller: i am going to say we

need systemic change. the biggest causal factor that relates to gun violence is poverty. we need to look at how we are treating each other. how do you define a criminal? we are more than the worst thing we have ever done. i don't believe people walking around with guns, including the police. host: here is a post from facebook that says no. gun regulations only hurt law-abiding citizens. criminals do not obey laws. here is a text that says published crime scene photos of the carnage of every mass shooting. once americans see the damage weapons of war cause, they will demand change. a tweet says civilians should not be walking around with assault weapons. another tweet says i voted for democrats in congress so we could change legislation on

guns. it does not seem to matter. discouraged. another text says if we can get people to the surface of mars in the next 10 years, why can't we make a safer gun that will only incapacitate people and a weapon that is completely traceable back to the original manufacturer? of course we need more gun regulations. it is far too late with more guns than people in our nation. if we want to live in a peaceful country, america is not it. caller: the second amendment literally says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. that is what it means. it does not say the right of the militia. it does not say the right of the government. it does not say the right of the person who wants you to only

have a gun that he approves of. this is how i see things. if you are going to do this to the second amendment, apply it to the first amendment. we have had billions of dollars in damages and hundreds of injuries, scores of deaths because of protests. you want to do that to the gun, let's do that to the protests. before you can protest, you need to pass a background check. you are going to have to buy a stamp to ensure whatever damage you do during your protest helps get paid for. let's put this on the first amendment. host: how would you define armed? ken armed mean any weapon? caller: of course it means any weapon. from a hammer to a knife to a gun. anyone who says it only applies

to muskets, than the first amendment does not apply to the internet. it does not apply to the radio or television you are on. you guys sound like loons to me? host: does it apply to assault weapons, tanks, anything bigger than guns and semi automatic weapons? caller: do i want an atomic bomb? that is a silly argument. that is a crazy argument. host: then how do you define the word armed? how do you define the word armed? caller: i just told you. anything you can use to defend yourself is an arm. look it up in the dictionary. do not try to play games. you can donate machine-gun in the u.s. you try to pretend you cannot. you just have to buy a stamp. it costs a lot of money.

you can own a machine gun in the united states. because the second amendment says it shall not be infringed. caller: good morning. appreciate you taking the call. reiterate a lot of what the previous callers have said. we seem to be focused on the how and not the why. if you look through history, most of the deaths in the world have been caused by conflict over religion where people are feeling insulted, disrespected. if we can control the amount and type of education people receive , how many times you need to go to church, limited to once a week, review what they are teaching in a church, synagogue, mosque, and control speech, maybe we can establish a list of hate words and limit our speech

in an orwellian fashion. this is all tongue-in-cheek. we can have a safer world if we just control religion and speech. host: as last year drew to a close, we asked you to take a look back on the first year of the biden administration and the performance of kamala harris. here is how you graded the vp. host: democrats line. go ahead. caller: i would have to say i am disappointed in joe biden and his entire administration. they ran saying they were going to straighten out the capitol and hold everybody accountable. we have investigations into what happened and is going on.

if i was a politician, i would be running on a truth instead of alive. i would make sure i do this like barack obama. i am disappointed in kamala harris and joe biden. i think it is better than it was in the beginning. they did inherit a total mess. our economy has failed because of the trump administration. we still have major problems in florida. the first law should be a law against lying. host: appreciate your comments. our open question is about the vice president's job performance. on social media, before vice president harris was assigned the crisis at the southern

border, republican leaders were there daily for photo ops. that has all stopped, so i gave vice president harris a high rating. she was given one job her first year, come up with a solution for the southern border. she has failed miserably. she receives an unexcused absence for the year. johnny on the independent line in boston. caller: good morning. i have been a democrat my whole life up until, and this is how strongly i feel, because i was involved with progressive legislation most of my life. when harris -- host: make sure you mute your volume. mute your volume on your tv. caller: i got it down.

i am sorry. when harris interviewed -- i don't know the name. i want to say what she did to cavanaugh, supreme court justice nominee, in front of his wife and children. what she brought up and how vicious she went against this man. the next day after that hearing, and i have been watching c-span for years. i love it because this is what gets me all my information on both sides of an argument. when she got through with that man, the next day i went to city hall and changed my affiliation. i went to people i knew and said this woman will do anything to

get some popularity or recognition. actually followed her with her comments to cavanaugh, which i thought was disgraceful. host: were you surprised joe biden selected kamala harris as his running mate? caller: i love joe biden. joe biden is the type of guy that works from the street up. that is where i came from. i could not understand. i can only go by age. in politics, you have to go with the person you think you are going to get the most on. i think he went that way. she tried the job on him, almost calling him a racist because she was on a bus. my kids were on a bus back then. she literally went after

something like that, which tells you something about the personality. all you have to do is look in their eyes. i have dealt with a lot of politicians. you look in their eyes, and you can tell what type of person that is. host: let's hear from john on the republican line in ohio. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: c-span is wonderful. long live the republic. i am going to give vice president harris an a. she called president biden a racist and many other things. we witnessed it. he was correct in picking her because politics is all an act. she has done a wonderful job. we may not agree with what we are seeing now. personally, her achievements have been remarkable.

this is a challenge for the republicans or any other party, a chance to do better than what we are witnessing now. a chance to do better. i look forward to her performance, whatever it may be. in the field of politics, she has accomplished a lot. it came from another form. you can read about women of her ilk in the bible. everything is all through a man. she has accomplished a lot. i look forward to c-span doing extensive coverage of what you all have been doing. host: jim calling from

massachusetts, also on our democrats line. go ahead. caller: i want to tell you the vice president is doing an awesome job. i think she is doing great. she was a great pick for biden. she is great, kamala harris. she needs to be given a chance. i know when they elected newt gingrich the speaker, all you heard was give them a chance. give kamala harris a chance. give the first woman vice president. someday she might be the president. i think that is awesome. cannot do any worse.

she is doing great. i don't understand what the controversy is about. host: republican line, ray and webster, new york. go ahead. caller: about kamala harris, i think she is doing a terrible job. when she went to the border, all she did was laugh. the border is a very serious issue. the next time people come over, i think there should be no people allowed for so many years. too many people coming over. we are paying taxes where they live, go to school, everything. a bunch of bunk about labor.

we have more people working on the farm. host: reaction on social media. on twitter, you need skin as thick as an armored tank to be a woman, especially a woman of color, especially if you aspire to power. most people do not know what the vice president does daily because it is not closely followed by the media. jody says the first woman vice president is the direct result of trump being president. in atlanta, maria on the democrats line. caller: good morning. trying to figure out what do she do besides walking around. every time i read something about her, her office is in chaos. people are quitting.

i don't know what she do. i think the purpose is to be a female african-american woman. host: do you think that is part of the media's fault? that one person on twitter said the media does not report what the vice president does, or the vice president does not want to be covered. i am saying most vice presidents are not seeking the attention. caller: they should be covered. they are in office. we should know what you are doing. you make a lot of money waving your hands. i don't know what she is doing. i am a news junkie. i don't know what she does. i think she was put there to be an african-american woman. i never cared for her. i don't know nothing about her. host: go ahead. caller: she is from california and her history. i see her waving her hands.

i don't know what she do. host: tim is on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was going to ask -- appreciate all that has been said. didn't the democrats speak to this issue in the primaries when she got out of the race early. she could not get the numbers. they have already spoken their thoughts on kamala harris. host: scottsboro, alabama, let's hear from michael on the independent line. caller: hello? host: you're on. caller: i think she has been given a thankless job in charge of the border and border security. cannot be -- it can only be

managed. it cannot be cured. i think she was a former prosecutor in california. host: former attorney general in the state as well. caller: yes. she has the credentials. i am glad she is there. she is capable of doing the job. i don't think she has much of a chance of winning the presidency. i would like to see her, but i don't think she has much of a chance. host: why would the president give the vice president you called it a thankless job, this issue of overseeing the border? why would the president ask her to do that if he knew it was going to draw a lot of negative

attention? caller: the only thing i can come up with is that it is a thankless position. whoever has it draws a lot of fire on them from the right. we still have a lot of people listening to people on the right , the insurrectionist mob. maybe he would not draw as much fire from them as he has in the past. it can only be managed. it cannot be cured. host: do you think that is a role that joe biden served as vice president under barack obama? caller: to a degree i think it

was. it was definitely a different administration. joe biden still thinks that the people on the right can work with. you cannot work with people who do not believe in the constitution. they don't believe in democracy. they want a supreme leader. they want a furor to tell them what to do so they do not have to think about decisions and make decisions on who to vote for. they want an imperial leader. that is the part mrs. trump:. -- that is the part trump

played. host: rob in ottumwa, iowa. caller: biden just got in there. his whole plan was to get the presidency, no plan after. he wept up the people coming here come as soon as they got to the border they could walk in. that is not going to happen. harris, a former caller said her staff left her when she was in the primaries. that is true. she did not have a clue. we should look at chris christie, a fellow that has the sense. no problem of calling someone a stupid idiot because they are a stupid idiot. chris christie is a guy we need to get in there in this next election. harris, imagine if she becomes president. she did not have a clue which

countries she was in, the people she was talking to. we cannot have that person representing us as president. host: let's hear from james in ohio. go ahead. democrats line. caller: i just wanted to say that harris is doing a good job as compared to the other side, which are doing nothing and nothing is not a very good thing to look at so i say you are elected there to do something and so far, we haven't seen republicans do anything. thank you. host: let's hear from texas, independent line. how would you grade kamala harris? caller: i would say she's doing

a good job, but that lady was talking about the vice president. they are not on the news. they never are. they never get much time on the news. it's always been that way. republicans and democrats. why can't everybody get together and stop being like this. i've seen a lot of presidents. i've seen a lot of stuff happened, but everybody needs to get together and stop worrying about who is what. just get together and love everybody. thank you. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. >> the greatest town on earth is the place you call home. right now, we are facing our greatest challenge.

we are doing our part so it is a little easier to do yours. >> spark light supports c-span along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ >> sunday on in depth. joins us live to talk about the early intellectual history of the united states. the civil war and the reconstruction era. gettysburg and robert e lee, a biography. join in the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts and tweets. sunday on book tv. it visit the website to get your copy of his books. ♪

>> c-span online store. browse through our latest collection of c-span products and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. shop now or anytime at the website. ♪ >> next week on c-span come out wednesday to the senate rules committee holds a hearing since the january 6 attack. coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern. we will have coverage throughout the day marking the one-year anniversary of the attack. friday the supreme court hears the argument dealing with the biden administration vaccine mandate for health care workers and test mandate for larger

private companies. both the house and senate return january for the start of the second session of the 117th congress. social spending plan known as build back better despite west virginia joe mansion -- joe manchin opposition to the bill. may require changing filibuster rules. february deadline to pass additional spending legislation. watch these developments on c-span networks wants congress returns. head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live or on anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> get c-span on the go.

watch the days biggest events live or on-demand anytime anywhere on our new mobile video app, c-span now. discover new podcasts for free. download c-span now for free today. ♪ >> washington journal continues.

host: welcome back on this new year's day. the house voted to remove the number of staff from the u.s. including those of confederal -- confederate officials and sympathizers. spark debate, should these people be honored in places of power. here's what you had to say. caller: might start this off and blame washington. we should not be taking down any statues. i think these people are trying to erase our culture. they are trying to erase our heritage. that's unacceptable. i feel like the united states has declared war on jesus christ and i'm just tired of it. host: keeping these statues up,

particularly those who supported the confederacy? caller: i just don't think those people are the worst people in history. i just think they are, people have done much worse things. the japanese on pearl harbor. al qaeda 9/11. those people did much worse things. host: i will go next to helen in greensburg, north carolina. caller: absolutely. if they want to take, i suggest these people calling in that agrees with this, i suggest they visit gettysburg, pennsylvania. are they going to go after all those statues and that federal part? i suggest they take down martin luther king's big statue up there. i don't know what's wrong with our politicians. we can't go back 150 years and

change history. a lot of the average college kids in college today can't even tell you what the fourth of celebrating. some of them don't even know who their president is and i suggest the american people when we have the next election in 2022, i suggest they bout some of these people out of office. it's like if they run a business , they would not last long. host: what is the value of keeping these statues on capitol hill? caller: because these people fought for what they believed in, sir. they believed in that and that what they -- and that is what they fought for. host: that is helen and north carolina. let's hear from pete and iowa. caller: the thing that i like is

what they did in germany. they faked the holocaust and everything that went along with it and they put the monuments, or not monuments, the designations of what happened and they teach it in their schools and our history and our past, we will never come to grips with it and resolve the situation. host: do you think the average person will browse all of that history just in a statute in itself? caller: i can't say that for sure but i think facing the history and acknowledging what

happened and trying to express that or teach that is one of the ways hopefully resolving the conflict. host: on facebook saying no, like it or not. everyone represented by these stitchers had out part and putting -- of these statues had a part in putting together this country. it is a perfect but by far better than other countries. caller: i would like to say something in defense because sculptures and these statues are works of art. it seems like in the future, this is going to be deprived of

the enjoyment of these works of art. we should consider that, that's important for its own sake. just because the subject of these statues have fallen out of favor, that's no reason to deprive people the enjoyment of a work of art that people slaved over for their hearts and souls to create. host: this is eduardo. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i just want to say support the removing of the statues because first of all, a lot of the republicans talk about democrats being traders and how they need to be removed -- traitors and how they need to be removed. the fact that lincoln and other

people did not hold them accountable for treason and for gave them, that doesn't change the fact that they were traitors . so why do we need to keep statues? we do not see statues of people in germany? and they learned their history. i don't think we should keep all of those monuments and statues just for history. thank you. host: let's hear from kip, it's rip. go ahead. caller: it's our history. a good, bad, or indifferent. to do what has already been done, it's been done by the most uneducated individuals, but we

have common contact with the tear down your history. you don't really have a lot to do actually. if you do tear down all of your history, and i do believe we will have another civil war. and that may be the best thing that could happen to us. host: we will go to ben and mississippi. caller: i agree with what james said. i was going to say what he said, but he said it eloquently. i would like to say this. you all need to have a statement on that because all of these so-called republicans, their forefathers were democrats. they were the ones that fought for slavery. you need to have a segment on that. i get sick and tired of these republicans callanan talking about the democrats -- calling in talking about the democrats

fought for slavery. they are the ones they called dixiecrat's that ran for the republican party. host: in your own words, why do you support the removal of these statues? caller: i got a couple more reasons. one is why not have general william sherman statue beside all of these confederates? why not have some general grant or some of these union generals, republican generals? you never hear them talk about them. always talk about these, that's it. i'm through with it. host: this is langston in washington dc who opposes. caller: i oppose it because

honestly most people have already said it, you really don't have a means to look back and see what led this country and what brought us to where we were during that time and if we remove these statues it is a little bit like burning the literature and that was a precursor to world war ii. we remove these statues, we should be able to remove any kind of literature that has to do with anything negative that comes from jim crow, any type of civil war literature because what we are seeing because our history is blemished, has dark marks we should be able to remove them and once we remove them we will be fine and that's not how you get rid of a disease. if the system is messed up, you need to work on the system. changing the figureheads or what you see on the front is just gilding it and it's not going to get rid of the issue.

why remove the issue but not remove the racist system that is upholding all of it? host: langston in washington dc, and now on our support line from pennsylvania. caller: what they want to do because those statues, they don't need to be destroyed but they need to be put in museums like gettysburg, museums for the civil war. any place that they could put these historical that you have a choice whether you what to see them or not. if you put them in public like washington, people have to look at them they don't even want to see it. if they want to learn their history, they can go to the history museum and it about these people. that's all i got to say. host: san jose, california.

says they do not belong in a place of honor. they should be placed in a museum that explains why they were removed. this is from joe in georgia. america should forget about the past, but we must reserve the statues. from g and apple -- mr barrel maryland. caller: these people, democrats and you can go down to the museum and these people are there and you can learn from the past. host: next we will hear from brian. he is from massachusetts on our support line. caller: i just want to thank, i

oppose because they have no place in a public place. they can put them in a museum so people want to look at them, that's fine. but they should not be replaced with another statue. maybe a plaque that says whoever was here was removed because they betrayed us, more or less. the critical race theory thing that everyone is talking about. that's all nonsense. host: but as far as a plaque, whether you think that accomplishes? caller: like they stole all the

paintings and i've been there a couple of times and they left the picture frames there. just as a reminder of what happened. host: ok. that is brian from massachusetts. from maryland, we will hear from patrick on our oppose line. caller: hello. i oppose it, but not for the reasons you would think so. the timing it's what here. remove them as needed. take them out and put them in museums. attention being focused on it, it just feels like there are bigger issues to deal with today. infrastructure, defense, cybersecurity, fiscal policies. to spend days and days on the

floor over statute removal and this could be handled by historical societies and organizations, it just seems like it's not a good focus of effort. i've been to germany. i've been stationed there. the germans, they are not proud of their past but they don't hide it and they don't hide it because they want the people and the world to know, these are the mistakes we made. we are not proud of. i don't be like us. host: that's patrick in maryland. last call on this topic. it rate, new york --ray new york. caller: generals and politicians who help and slavery.

that in itself was a true cost. >> a debate on the nation's past. david by drought so the nations future depended on us and we asked you what you saw. host: do our nation's best days lie ahead? host: gary, where are america's best days? caller: hello? the best days were in the past. i'm afraid to say that because i'm a little older and they always hold that's always heard older people speak that way and didn't have any problems. the problem is the people who usually seek justice always held a high standard and they would correct situations and a party

that was trying to seek betterments acted worse than the people they were trying to correct. and that was an eye-opener for me that this country has never seen before. i just see the erasing of history which normally has been a way to talk about things in the past to remember to not repeat, trying to be erased. host: this country's best days. are they ahead? caller: thank you very much for taking my call and note. i believe the best days are behind us. i did a little survey and created a survey maybe two or three or four years ago, and i used the lower left server that

slow left side of the bell curve was slavery and halfway up was freedom and the top of the bell curve was prosperity. on the way down on the right-hand side was apathy and at the bottom was slavery. anyway, i titled it the lifespan of empires. i asked a number of people, many people, put a mark on this survey where you think we are as a society. 75% approximately put apathy, we are over the peak, past prosperity on our way back to slavery. what was interesting though was those folks, nobody said

prosperity. those of us, 35% of us and going for apathy. with immigrants and minority people, interestingly, they put on the left side halfway up at freedom heading toward prosperity. i thought that was quite a thing. just wanted to pass that along. host: what made you decide to do that? caller: i'm going back a couple 3, 4 years and i wanted to find how people felt at the time. where are we, lifecycle of empires? i'm a student of history. i'm an old man.

i'm just wondering what are people thinking? host: where would you put your mark today? caller: apathy. and i can tell you why. in the 70's, the late 70's, i was a community organizer. i was doing a lot of knocking. the participation rate was approximately 4%. 2007-2008, i was involved in another project doing doorknocking. the participation rate was under 1%. i was shocked at that. the reason why i wanted to do the bell curve chart. host: thank you for sharing that. this is k republican. caller: good morning.

how are you? i don't think the best days ahead. i'm 81 years old and this is the first time in my life i can honestly say there isn't a day that goes by that i'm not upset or nervous over watching the news and i just hated and i can't keep from watching it, but i hate the border. i hate afghanistan, what's happened over there. i hate our military getting slaughtered. i don't know. i just can't think of anything positive right now. i hope it changes. host: when you say you hate the news, why not turn it off? caller: i can't. i try and i turned to another channel and the next thing i know i need to know what's going on so i can get upset and get nervous.

host: do you feel like our best days are behind us? you said you are 80 years old? when were our best days? caller: they were -- they weren't all bad until a plate about a year ago. host: why is that? caller: i haven't been happy since by then got into office. i have respect for every residence, but aim -- but i am a republican but i just haven't felt comfortable and i don't know if i ever will. host: coleman, florida. how would you answer the question? caller: when the question is asked, when they asked the question about best days ahead or past, the question has to

come to best days for who? you had a lady call, she said she was 81 years old and she would vote for trump again. right then, that put in a mindset of people like me, when they say i vote for trump or this and that, their best days. but what about best days for everyone? today is supposed to be columbus day. it is america, florida. columbus discovered america. how can you discover something when people were already here? the best days for who? host: what do you think would be america's best days for everyone? caller: perfect question. america's best days for everyone when it doesn't matter who you

are, you are treated the same. today is monday. every sunday and a black community in a church, they picked up tithes and offering. those people take that money on a monday and deposit it into a bank does not give loans to black and brown people. millions and billions of dollars over generations. it will be america's best day when they quit looking at everyone and when they start looking at everyone as equal and quit judging them just because the color of their skin or just because of the way that they dress or just because they have tattoos or whatever. but we will never get there, never get there john as long as there is this divide. when you have 74 million people

who will vote for person to be president and that person will talk bad about goldstar families. host: next out of arkansas, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. host: when will be america's best days? have they already happened? caller: i think they have already happened. i'm a military vet. i retired out of the service. i served two years out of vietnam. i've been married 54, 55 years this year. my wife and i discussed things this going on. most people have no idea, they don't listen to the news. they don't read the newspaper.

they are just not interested. they just don't care anymore. the woman that spoke, she should have never said she voted for trump because we know him as a republican and that's a bad taste in people's mouth. but they tormented our president for the whole time he was in service. served us in the white house. i'm not saying he was perfect. there was only one man that walked this earth who was perfect and they killed him on the cross. but what i'm getting at is if you ask most people this question, what you think about the last administration took over? don't you think about your gas price is up 50% and will rising? taxpayers money are going to freeloaders. you give them too much money, and there are people who need money. we have widows and widowers at

our church just got the social security and it's not enough for them to live on. that's who we need to think about. if you are going to enable, you should be working. baltimore -- host: baltimore, you are next. caller: i think we are at a point as a nation identifying people who are operating in hate in plain sight and they are being exposed. and i think the reason why they are acting so outrageously is because they know their days are numbered. we are coming upon an age when people can be gay, can be bisexual, can be recognized as another ethnicity but not have that count against them and i'm

really excited about that. and i think it's so unfortunate that so many people are saying that the best days are behind us when those days were so horrible for such large parts of the population. host: do you mind if i ask how old you are, asking whether there is a innovation old divide? whether this is something that younger feel more optimistic about? caller: i do think there is that gap. i am late 50, but i guess i am a bridge between the boomers and the millennials. i just see the damage that was done to so many people's lives when they had to hide in the shadows and deny who they were all these years.

it is a relief to see that that is over and it is going to be a relief when people operate in the hate are removed from being in power. and i can't wait for that. host: stacy is next out of virginia. independent, good morning. caller: good morning. as long as republicans remain in office, that would be unknow. if they cannot run the country, they will destroy it and they will destroy americans if they have to. what sickens me the most is that they complain about the dead that the debt and raising the debt ceiling and yet they don't want millionaires and billionaires to pay the debt. you have congressmen and senators that are -- that go back taxes. they are not going to pay taxes now. they are not going to -- to pay taxes later.

host: doing well sir, go ahead. caller: you can't get defeated. what you live in for if you don't think it's going to be successful? for almost people saying we are not going to survive this, they need to go and go to another country and start another one and let us do this one. those from january 6, they need to go. they can't destroy the country. if they don't like it here, they can go. host: your comments from a social media on this country about america's best days. referring back to the day about selling its pap that rights hope

will pay that bill. sad to say this, but if we continue down this road of division there won't be any best days. the twentysomethings of today will not have what they need for tomorrow. no medicines, no food. please stop this radical madness before it's too late. a text message, the first best time for america is over. we have to work together a lot harder to get it back. the fit -- writing this, the country could be the greatest country in the history of the world. we could be leading humanity by sharing our technology and our wealth, but instead we are greedy. host: we asked you about health care on the 11th anniversary of

the affordable care act. how the law impacted you and your health care choices. here's what we heard. caller: good morning. how are you? i think the red states have allowed the medicaid expansion to work better. it would have drove down prices, but they didn't do that. they wanted it to fail. i have three insurances, but i believe the only way this is ever going to work is for everyone to have single-payer health care. our taxes should go to help everybody. i'm done. that's all of got the site. host: let's go to bill who is calling from buffalo. caller: i've been listening right along.

there's no doubts the argument about whether we have government sponsored health care as opposed to private health care. it's over because so many people do rely on the aca. bear in mind going through the aca from private insurers one set of problems for another set of problems. the unspoken problem with the aca is that the primary providers, primary doctors are not adequately paid for their services. they are paid late. and there are in numbers of them to serve our $350 million -- 350 million person population.

more medical schools need to be built across the country. more primary doctors need to be graduated. i'm calling in to say the affordable care act. i did enjoy the part i would not have insurance without it. the only problem is i think we are looking at the problem in a way that is not solvable when it comes to insurance coverage because of so much variation with the insurance throughout america. and i think the way we lead to look at it -- we need to look at it is figure out a way to where there is a set price for certain procedures done, whether it be through a doctor's office or the hospital.

the price amounts to different surgeries vary from hospital to hospital. we're talking $10,000 difference for a simple procedure. all of it's so expensive. all of the insurance companies are making way too much money. our for a living at private insurance and it is way too expensive. thank you. caller: originally started out with, i think i pay $300 a month now. oklahoma, i was on it for six years. the tobacco settlement actually runs it. they dropped the income down to 20.

hardly anybody can get on it now. the problem we have is issues have been called the blue cross blue shield act. i don't understand how the president of the company can get $50 million salary when all of these people in the united states are going without insurance. i think we need to say take the prophet out. they need to post all of the priceless. my wife has a prescription and of course she's on medicare. our singular talk -- cost $28 a pill for her pain medication. host: you're like the second or third person is one is that we need to take the profit best -- profit motive out. how do you do that without the government taking over the entire health care system? caller: look at europe, canada, the rest of them. i've got a granddaughter from britain. they pay her when she's sick. they take car in a cab everywhere she wants to go in england.

ours is three or four times higher than anywhere else in the world. the problem is, if you walk in, a been a contractor for 45 years. i have a pricelist. my doctor, hospital, everybody else. no priceless. free enterprise. it's a monopoly. host: let's go back to some of our social media followers. the week of the 11th anniversary of the affordable care act. he one suite that says, medicare for all. glad we have a foothold with aca. another tweet that says, the past 10 years at aca has saved me from having to sell my farm to paper health insurance. i now have blood tests and work up once a year, quit smoking and

all things blue cross and blue shield wasn't covering before for all the previous years. here is a text that says, shortly after aca started, three interns and a doctor's office quit. two retired and one change to close practice. all three doctors held in person group meetings with their patients to explain that the aca is tearing apart the quality that they are able to provide their patients and they cannot morally be involved in substandard medicine. here's another tweet that says, the aca affordability problem is due primarily to not being able to negotiate prices. another text that says, wow, 11 years. downward trend in health care costs. what was the point? go ahead, larry. caller: obamacare took us in the

wrong direction. we need to go to a market-driven health care system and insurance should be for catastrophic coverage. host: isn't that the system we have before the affordable care act? isn't that the system that we had before the affordable care act? caller: no, anytime we talk about health care we talk about insurance. insurance is not health care. we need to go to a system where when you go to the doctor, you pay the bill. no matter what we do with health care, it has to be paid for. what we are arguing about is how are we going to pay for it. what are we going to do? no one will take care of your money better than you will. i don't believe you think i

would take care of your money better than you will so we need to go to a market-driven system. host: one last highlight. we asked you to call in on the line that reflects your own party affiliation. democrat, republican or independent. we asked you to tell us a little more. why did you choose that party affiliation? host: we hear from diane, florida. why are you a democrat? caller: i'm a democrat because of bernie sanders, because i believe in progressive issues. i was a union worker and i remember in the 80's had broken the union, i think that was the worst thing that ever happened because for me unions protected my work. they gave me good pay. now i see with biden, one thing

a lot of people will comment on is the democrats are in the majority read why can't they get anything done? they can't because they've got two people in their senate that don't vote their way. they don't have the numbers so you can't honestly say the democrats have influence right now. they need more senators and congressmen in their party affiliation to get things passed. host: republican, new york. go ahead. caller: i'm a republican because i feel like i am fiscally responsible and i want our government to be the same. i work for the young republican party when i lived in milwaukee and i did that because i owned a business and i felt like the republican party was more business centric than the democratic party. host: where your parents republican? caller: no, my parents were

actually democrats and they were very liberal, but that was just not my thinking. host: whether they have to say about you going to work for the young republicans in milwaukee? caller: they were a little concerned, particularly my father because he owned a democratic journal in philadelphia when he was young. and he could not understand why i wanted to be republican. and i just explained to him that the republican party was more in line with the way that i wanted to live. host: what did he say to you? why was he a democrat? caller: he had a journal, wrote a journal during the mccarthy era. he fought for democracy and he

felt the republican party wasn't for the people. i tried to explain to him that as a business person i employ people. i employ 35 people and i wanted to speak out for other businesses that were were responsible as well. host: new york, maxine. independent russell, d.c. what makes you an independent? caller: i'm an independent because i was raised democratic and i still tend to vote democratic. mine beginning as that's my beginning as an independent and i became more independent,

left-leaning independent, because i was fed up with the cynicism, especially the republican party. everything seems to be focused on these conjured poles --polls. and we have pundits controlling everything that everyone in one direction or another. i think this country doesn't always have to be this way. our country has evolved. it needs to evolve. host: as a left-leaning independent, have you ever pulled the boat -- have you ever voted for a republican?

caller: i have never voted for a republican. i have supported republican politicians on individual issues , but never have i voted for them on their policies because the policies that they project are usually self-centered and self-supporting. host: back in maryland, george. what makes you an independent? caller: i consider myself a john mccain conservative. i cannot believe that our former president got away with what he did dishonoring john mccain. that only did he do it once, but he did it twice. not only when john mccain was in

the senate, but when he was in his grave. and then for him to do it, to colin powell, was just beyond my comprehension. so when i watched the attack on the capital, i'm a vietnam veteran. proud to serve in the marine corps. and i cannot think back when i saw the colors roaming through the capitol building. the capital flag, the marine corps flag and how they were dishonored. attacking people and police officers with the colors, it broke my heart. i love my country. i was proud to serve. a lot of things happened in vietnam and a lot of wars that

we are not proud of, but for me i was serving my country. host: what do you think about republicans who still focus on the 2020 election, still don't believe joe biden won that election? caller: i think it's disgraceful. i'm very proud of mitt romney, liz cheney. and those that are voting and speaking out with their hearts and their conscience and not worried about the almighty vote. host: also looking for your social media posts. here's a few. mark from maryland, born in 1960. democrat 2002 thousand 18 -- 2018.

libertarian 2018 to present. the government is not your daddy to take care of you. new jersey saying, i'm a democrat. my family is lifelong democrats. i'm seriously considering joining yang's forward party. do you really think any party is different? they talk a big show to get elected but nothing changes. it is seriously way past due to break and do away with those two parties. john, ohio. why are you a democrat? caller: i decided to be immigrant when i was in the first great. we had it in our spelling book about the two parties and what they stand for. they said the democratic party rule and i thought it was more

democratic and i still feel more democratic even though it has been a lot less since the superdelegates came along. i can tell you that. i agree a lot with the first caller. if there was a progressive party, i would vote that. as far as joe manchin, i grew up in west virginia. i'm almost 70 years old. to me, that's not what west virginia democrat met. when i grew up, west virginia was the most likely state to vote democrat. over the years, which way? i met three west virginia senators and they put me in line that in mind of west virginia democrats. senator byrd is an outstanding person. senator randolph.

they did not stand with republicans. they stood with the democrats. host: richard, arizona, independent. good morning. caller: i first voted for president dreamy carter -- president jimmy carter. i do consider jimmy carter a very moral and decent person. shortly thereafter, i decided i was going to be independent back when they said five or 10% of the people were independent. i get it and i don't want to emphasize too hard on the word people, but i get it because some people back then were described as voting for the lesser of two evils.

and i did not want to do that. ever since, i have never voted. i voted for rand paul. i voted for ralph netter -- ralph nader. all i can say, he was strong. some words you can't always pronounce. host: when you say you tried to vote for the lesser of two evils, what are the qualities, the issues that pushes someone in your mind to the more people category, the more bad category? caller: well, i consider myself

and it's easily explained if i say i'm physically conservative but socially liberal. as a child, we got brownbag food . so society helped raise us, a family of six kids. all of us turned out good. none of us are in prison and all of us are still alive. the lesser of two evils is kinda like, i question them all. i questioned everything. i did not vote for the clinton dynasty or the bush dynasty.

host: back to our lines for democrats. christine, what makes you a democrat? caller: i'm a democrat because i believe the democrats drive to improve people's lives. they just voted on infrastructure. they want to do voting rights which my senator, joe manchin, he just doesn't want to do away with the filibuster to help voting rights. i got a letter in the mail that he is trying to get voting rights. they say that he can't do away with the filibuster and i'm disappointed in him, but as a democrat it is all about helping people's lives and that is what they have tried to do for years. and i think they are also more prone -- more pro-democracy. host: this is deborah out of

virginia, republican. why are you a republican? caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. go ahead. caller: i can't say i'm true publican. i have voted the mechanic, but -- democratic, but when i was younger the party was for the younger people and the working man. to me, it seems as if the democratic party has split. they are more for power and their self than they are we the people. and we the people, they are not to rule over us. they are to do for us. and i vote a lot on values, morals. not so much what they say because they will say things to

just get elected. but i vote more on morals and values. that's why i voted republican. host: the can -- the conversation continues tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time here on c-span as we take your phone calls and comments on social media. that is tomorrow morning on 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, on c-span.org and our c-span now video app. at thank you for joining us and happy new year. ♪

thursday 7 a.m., we will have coverage throughout the day marking the one-year anniversary of the attack. friday, the supreme court hears oral argument into cases dealing with the by the administration's vaccine mandate for health care workers and the vaccine or test mandate for larger private companies. live coverage beginning at 10 a.m.. the senate will return in january. the senate takes up the presidents climate and social spending plan known as build back better despite senator joe manchin's announced opposition to the bill. senate democratic leadership also hopes to take up voting rights legislation which may require changing filibuster rules.

there is also a february 18 deadline for both chambers of commerce to pass legislation to avert a government shutdown. watch these developments on c-span networks once congress returns or you can watch full coverage on c-span now. also had to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream information and video live at any time. >> see is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more. >> cox is committed to providing access to affordable internet. bridging the digital diet -- divide. bringing us closer. >> cox supports c-span as a public service along with these

other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> next, military officials testify on the possibility of releasing prisoners from guantanamo bay. numbers of the senate judiciary committee examine rights for detainees and the role previous prisoners may have played an -- in the taliban's takeover of the afghan government. this is about two hours.