host: president biden is not the only politician to say budgets are about priorities that what you spend on reflects what you value. when he signed the debt ceiling

bill on friday, he okayed record defense spending. it was not drive for some republican senators unveiled a plan for possibly more military spending a to ukraine that would circumvent the debt deal. this will some progressives in the house voted against the deal in part because of its military spending. it is sunday, june 4. welcome to washington journal. we will ask you about u.s. military spending. it should be usb spending more or less on defense? if you are a republican, the line is (202) 748-8001. democrats use (202) 748-8000. independents and others (202) 748-8002. if you are active or former military, the line is (202) 748-8003. we also directed to that line if you want to send us a text message. tell us your name and where you

are texting from. we are on facebook and twitter and instagram. we are sharing with you some of the thoughts of lawmakers, members of congress and the president on this specific issue on u.s. military spending, which largely went untouched in the debt deal. your thoughts on u.s. military spending. are we spending too much or too little? here is what it looks like in terms of the fiscal year 2024 budget for the remainder of 2023 and into 2024, the defense budget will be the same. it will be 28 billion more dollars next year than it is currently this year and 886 billion is the highest defense

budget in u.s. history, the largest in the world. the increases in addition to the 10% increase last year for fiscal 23 defense from the previous fiscal year, 2022. this is from roll call looking deeper into the potential for more military spending that some senders are calling for. senators on wednesday signaled interest in using ukraine focused supplemental spending bills as a mechanism to security fence spending outside of the strict caps that would be imposed by a debt limit compromise bill. the caps would restrain defense spending in fiscal 2024, roughly 3% increase from current levels. in fiscal 25, the cap would be

895 billion, 1% increase from the previous year. ukraine aid, if classified as emergency funding, could not count for the limits, providing lawmakers with an outside avenue for military spending. congress has appropriated simple mental funds for ukraine before, including a measure signed by president biden into law in may of 2022. senator tom cotton, the republican of arkansas on the senate floor this past week, warning about how the passage of the debt ceiling bill could impact future defense plans. [video clip] >> we need a military to match this peerless moment. protecting our people is the first and most fundamental responsibility. we cannot shortchange the military today without grave risks tomorrow. the weapons we buy this year will be the ones we field in 2027. the time by which china will be

at its greatest relative strength compared with the united states and when war is most likely. i know holding firm on defense priorities is not always easy. there are parts of the bill that i support. but i cannot support the bill because it does not adequately fund our military dividends we face. supporters contend the situation is not as bad as they make it out to be. arguments do not hold up under scrutiny. the same hollow promises were made by congress in 2011, which devastated the military under president obama. i ran for the senate in part two reverse the disaster and i will not vote for a new disaster. as i have explained, the sequester in this bill produces more domestic spending there in the core provisions, which

encourages your responsible democrats to trigger sequester. others claimed we can find efficiencies in the pentagon to make up the difference. i do not disagree there is fat to trim in some places in the military. but no serious person thinks it is enough to make up for tens of billions of dollars in cuts. or the biden administration will put our readiness ahead of social engineering. be skeptical on that one when they start looking for efficiencies. host: should the u.s. spend more or less on defense? this comment says they are not liking the debt deal that does not limit defense spending going forward like discretionary spending is. the white house to eat bipartisan budget deal fully funds veterans medical care and includes mandatory funding for

the topic -- toxic exposure fund that deals with burn pits in afghanistan. president biden on friday, a tradition in washington attending the friday evening parade at the marine barracks in the nation's capital. should the u.s. spend more or less on defense? (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8002 for independents and others. if you are active or former military, the line is (202) 748-8003. first in maryland, good morning. caller: good morning. this is my second time getting through, every time i get through i hear your whole thing. host: you are stuck with me. caller: the guy doing the screening was very polite and professional, thank you.

being a veteran in the navy for 10 years, i would say less spending is the way to go and more focus on the veterans who have served and make sure they are brought up to speed. i think you can do both, you can have wealth that military readiness in preparedness but also take care of veterans who have given their blood, sweat and tears serving the country. host: mississippi -- sorry, missouri. you are on the air. caller: good morning. you look very dapper today. this goes back to eisenhower, he warned us this was going to happen and it is. it is ridiculous. i would mirror that with what has gone on with health care and

education. public and higher education. disbursement of funds has been abysmal. really, and we can also go to the crime rate. these are problems we have to look at. host: do you think because of military spending, we do not provide enough resources for the areas you mentioned and other domestic issues? caller: that is exactly the problem. look at health care, i am quoting sanders and everybody knows this. we pay more for health care and receive less. same with the military, they monopolize everything in we are

seeing this now in our grocery stores. there are several companies that control all of our food, so we see this. history repeats itself. you look very dapper today, this is the second time i have called in with you. at least you get the town right. have a great day now. host: anthony in arizona, veteran. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call. move us to every 45 days, give us an additional 15 days of cooling off so we can make sure more people can get in. would not hurt a bit. should the u.s. spend more on defense?

the u.s. should spend -- host: i'm sorry, lost your response. you said the u.s. should do what? caller: spend more on defense. host: what do you think we are missing? what aren't we spending enough on? caller: first of all, anytime a decision is made to use military action, we have enough smart people worldwide and especially in the u.s. to do a total cost analysis from the amount of time and money spent, including these individuals, training them, utilizing them when they have been injured as in the soldier recovery unit, putting them back on active duty and, when they go into veteran status, we can quantify that to a pretty good

number. here's what is most significant. all of our elected officials use the military as pawns. our senior military leaders know what systems they need and their hands are often tied by their elected officials who represent these other industries dictating what military leaders should be buying. host: isn't that part of the job of a member of congress? to bring jobs or industry back to that congressperson's district and certainly the defense industry is one of the biggest in the country? caller: the defense industry is

not bigger than the auxiliary. around every military base, do you know how many small businesses make money off of soldiers pay? when we talk about money being brought into the economy, we only think about things that are kinetic, that blow up. we have to regenerate them. what about the mom and pop stores, the homes that are built , what about the cars sold by the dealership. that is where the money is generated. if you have a better war fighter , you no longer have the need for all these kinetic weapons. host: appreciate your input. a couple of views from inside

washington organizations, the first on the side of more defense from the american enterprise institute. it is underfunded in meetin strategic intent and protecting e foe. we see it in unfunded priorities, perching $17 billion. an air force that is too small and too old, and navy with capacity and capability challenges, an army in need of attention. and notorious facilities restoration backlogs. it is important to remember defense is the only mandatory and exusive job of the federal government. at only 12% of federal outlays and near historical as a percent of gross domestic product, it is not a driver of the deficit. that is a view on more defense

spending from alain at the american enterprise institute. we will share comments from another side. the comments from a congressman on the floor of the house taking some of his republican politics to task on defense spending. [video clip] >> 60 minutes covered a story where a former pentagon official talked about the insane price gouging taking place at the pentagon. he told us the pentagon over pays for almost everything. in one example, the pentagon paid $10,000 for $300 oil switch. we are hearing from republicans we cannot find any savings. really? they say let us continue to take from the most vulnerable in our country. give me a break. i know my republican friends claim investing less in military expenditures would somehow undercut national security.

we want a defense budget that ensures we are second to none, but to put everything in perspective here, we spend more on national defense for in the next 10 countries combined, and in china and russia. defense spending accounts for nearly half of discretionary spending. our national security is so much more than bullets involves. it is health care, education, food, clean environment, good jobs, safe neighborhoods. it includes adequate support for veterans, seniors and children. all the things that strengthen our communities and thank god for joe biden. he secured expanded food benefits for some of the most vulnerable individuals, like veterans, kids emerging from the foster care system and the on housed. --unhoused.

it is clear the president entered the negotiations trying to protect as many people as possible from the gop's war on the poor. host: should we spend more or less on defense spending? there will be an increase next year. here are comments from other members of congress on defense spending as reflected in the debt deal. a republican saying as chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, i intend to work with my colleagues to focus on your term threats and long-term modernization within the agreed-upon caps. a democrat from new jersey, president biden was able to extend federal assistance to the homeless, veterans and young people aging out of foster care. the department of defense is already loading budget, the increase is lower than it would have been otherwise. let us get back to your calls and comments on spending, should the u.s. spend more or less on the military?

(202) 748-8001 the line for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats and (202) 748-8002 for independents and all others. for active in former military, it is (202) 748-8003. lawrence is next, independent, in minnesota. caller: thank you. i agree with the first caller, you do a very nice job. a couple of comments, book notes talked about military preparedness for 2023, people should either get the report, which is available to download or watch the program. i think he gives good insight into military spending. number two, we need to recognize we have a volunteer military

service. quantity has a quality all its own, that is why china and north korea have millions of soldiers. we do not have that option here. one last, and i will hang up. you could go to the department of defense and look at the process for military procurement. people talked about savings, we spend a lot of time -- not saying we should not spend a lot of time before we buy, but the process is very, very tough in the process alone probably injects costs into the military procurement process. thank you for the time. host: good insight, we go to philadelphia, mary is on the line. caller: good morning.

i want to let the people know -- i am a retired government worker from pennsylvania. this is not our military in these other countries, these are private defense contractors. we are spending the bulk of our taxpayer funding toward private llcs, limited liability companies, that have created their own defense. our military is not allowed to go into these other countries. this is why they use private contractors. in the beginning, we were collecting taxes from them, than they did away with that when they created limited liability contract. we need to make sure these people are paying their fair share in taxes because what has

happened, they created their own offshore accounts. when president obama requested they bring their money back on shore, they failed to do so. what we had to do as investigators, we had to force them to bring that money back on shore by prosecuting these companies, because they were not paying any taxes at all. we need to make sure we spend less on these private contractors that have entered into these other countries. it is not our military. president biden needs to make sure he collects the taxes from these companies, the private contract years that have entered

into the countries, based on waste, fraud and abuse. host: you talked about your job, clawing back some of the money that was earned by contractors overseas. how successful were you? caller: we had to do it based on looking at our system and it was primarily where the security and change permission failed to do their job -- because it was listed on all the systems. the state security exchange irs, the cia, everything was documented on the system and remains there because we have no statute of limitations on honest services fraud. we can claw back the money at any time.

we are taking our time to do this. i am retired and we are still trying to claw back a lot of the money. host: the gallup organization keeps track of how people feel about military spending, they have been doing it for decades. this is from earlier in the year, but pretty reflective of where things are. for those on radio or black-and-white tv, the lines are tough to see. there is much discussion as to the amount of money a government in washington to spend for national defense and military. how do you feel about this? are we spending too little, the right amount, or too much. ? about 35% said spending too much, that drop down to 26% to little. you can see by the chart, those

views really altered depending on the year. sometimes almost by year. that is from the gallup organization, the latest snapshot. patrick is up next in florida, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i think there should be an analysis of what the goals of our military is. look at afghanistan and iraq, spent 20 years there. what really changed, what goals did we reach? the russian ukrainian war -- water tank divisions worth when you can send out $100 intake at one million-dollar tank?

that was a corrupt family country dictatorship up until almost the 1980's. they did not have any rights into the late 1980's. we are supposed to risk our blood and treasure for a 30-year-old democracy? taiwan, bunch of thugs ran away from thugs in china in the 1940's, killed their way to supremacy. they did not have the right to vote until late 1980's, they did not vote for president until 1996. our foreign policy, if we had any type of real foreign policy, every country itself in central america should be a rule of law free market, democratically elected government.

what is there, to countries that fit that bill? and we are spending $900 billion a year? you had some guy on, v.a. spending. the majority of v.a. spending goes to don service related injuries. type two diabetes, prostate cancer, smoking. one less thing, ptsd. maybe they are having emotional problems because they fought for nothing. i have never seen c-span bring up the fact the president of cobol and afghanistan is the biggest arms dealer. they went through all of that so this guys brother could be a heroin and arms dealer? host: this is a piece published

in the pittsburgh post-gazette. we must trim the defense budget. another view from washington with defense priorit, to the extent the u.s. hpolitical problems, they are largely of its own making, drivena need to preserve a u.s. dominated global order and a tendency to view international relations as an epic accide contest between right and wron the u.s. often over extends itself or worse, backs itself into warsundermine u.s. power. onef the arguments used by those in support of big e budgets today is rebuild from the exhausting counterinsurgency wars of th. there was always a inhope a debt ceiling crisis would finally force policymakers to acknowledge the obvious. perhaps that was too optimistic. this morning asking you about defense spending, should the

u.s. spend more or less on defense? (202) 748-8001 is the line from republicans, democrats use (202) 748-8000. independents and others (202) 748-8002. the line for active in former military (202) 748-8003. tina is in florida, republican. caller: i think we need to replace all of the stuff we gave away to ukraine. host: do you have an idea of how much that would cost? caller: i have no idea. host: go ahead. caller: you gave billions of dollars worth of merchandise to them. host: ken is a veteran from connecticut, good morning. caller: good morning.

i just have a couple of things i would like to say. we need to bring the draft back. we need to build a military. if you don't have a strong military, you will not have a country. you are letting people walk in and step all over you. the other thing is, i do not see the flags, american flags around like i used to. we need more american flags in the program where the government gives american flags away for free and promotes patriotism. the young have run amok. we have not had the draft in this country in 50 years and now we see what we have. host: how do you think that will go over with young folks who would be eligible for the draft? caller: [laughter] everybody has got opinions.

if you do not have a strong military, if you do not keep children in line where they learn morals about their country and promote patriotism -- this is what china loves to see, this is what countries that hate democracy and liberty want to see. it is a simple question. do we want a strong military or do we want a weak country? host: if you want to implement the draft, is your view a strong military would mean a larger military? more people, more men and women in the military to counter say the size of china's military, for example, as you referenced? caller: what are we doing? shrinking the military so they can take us over in the future. that is what is happening here. you need a strong military.

people have alarms on their houses, people have guns to protect their families. without a strong military, without an alarm on your house, you are letting people walk in. we have weak borders, weak military. you are going to have a weak country. host: the issue of the chinese military came about a conference this weekend in singapore. patrols near china will go on, the u.s. says. the u.s. pressed beijing on two fronts this weekend, warning of the near-term risks of military mishaps and the looming dangers of a nuclear arms rivalry, prompting an accusation from a chinese general that washington was stuck in confrontation. in speeches from jake sullivan on friday and defense secretary lloyd austin saturday in singapore, the biden administration sought to draw china toward talks on the rising

military perils. mr. austin also indicated the u.s. would keep operating military ships and planes in international cesium skies near china despite recent close calls with chinese forces and keep providing support to taiwan, the self-governing island that beijing sees as its own territory. we will not be deterred by dangerous operational behavior at sea or international airspace. out to long island, ronald is on the independent line. hello. caller: good morning. i urge you and all of the listeners to catch the piece that 60 minutes did that was referred to by the congressman you had on a little earlier.

it shows the unbelievable waste that goes into the pentagon budget. i feel that we should slash the budget tremendously, because this country is bankrupt already. the war in ukraine is a ridiculous waste of money. the united states -- unfortunately, we have not learned from george washington yet. it is the opposite now, we go after foreign entanglements whenever we can. this is one reason for the deficit that we have in the budget. thank you. host: new york is next,

democrats line. caller: thanks for c-span. i wanted to continue along the lines of my fellow new yorker that just was on. we are spending so much for the military and we have been, it is ridiculous. the pentagon is so wasteful. they need a hammer and instead of going to lowes and buying it for $20, they get it from some defense contractor in costing $600. it is that ridiculous. the republicans just did the debt crisis fiasco and all they wanted to cut was social programs. they want to cut medicaid and food stamps. another gentleman was talking about a weaker country. how do we have a strong country of people do not get the medical care they need, if people are hungry?

it is ludicrous. we get into these wars we have no reason to get into. i'm reserving my feelings about ukraine, but come on. we attacked iraq, it was totally false. the reason criminals gave was there were weapons of mass destruction. it was a big lie. we have so much military we have to get foreign entanglements. it should just be for our defense. host: one of those members of congress -- senator lindsey graham of south carolina had this to say on the senate floor. [video clip] >> if you believe the number one job of the federal government is to defend the nation, then we have made a serious mistake in this bill. i have heard house leaders suggest this bill fully funds the military.

for that to be true, you would have to believe the military is ok if you cut their budget 40 $2 billion below inflation. the party of ronald reagan would never allow inflation to reduce defense capabilities. this bill, the top line number locks and less chips for the navy at a time when china will expand dramatically. in 24 and 25, we are going to cap spending at a level we cannot expend the navy and in the same period of time, china will go from 310 chips to 440 -- ships to 440. not a penny in this bill to help ukraine defeat putin. they are going on the offensive as i speak and we need to send a clear message that when it comes

to your invasion of ukraine, we are going to support the ukrainians to ensure your loss. if we do not do that, we are going to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. host: some views from other members of congress on the defense issue, republican senator of mississippi i will oppose the debt limit deal. speaker mccarthy deserves recognition for his work to negotiate the package, but the agreement does not do enough to address rising debt. worse, it would enact the inadequate defense budget for the next two years. i democrats as well the debt limit keeps us from a disastrous republican default, i cannot support it. because programs that help working people, tightens burdensome requirements for snap and shovels more money into an inflated defense budget. senator from alaska, recently we

had a brief from intelligence officials who said the real chinese military budget is probably closer to 700 billion and we are supposed to cut at one of the most dangerous times since world war ii? back to your calls, james is a vietnam veteran on the line from pennsylvania. caller: how is it going? i wanted to comment about the one guy, saying about the veterans that are having nonissues that still get v.a. benefits. they were told they would be taken care of. may be the guy that made the comment should put a uniform on and put his life on the line. we need to build up our air force and navy. there is a lot of wastefulness going on in the military, there's a lot of other problems. the money we are spending at the border, we have got to secure

and there are other things we can do. we cannot take money away from the brave men and women overseas. host: pittsburgh is next, we talked to patrick on the independent line. caller: my father was the former commander of the u.s. air force, my brother just retired as the highest ranking u.s. navy seal. he was an operations director of seal team six. we are looking at a financial break of our country, our nation. we are looking at trillions of dollars being disappeared down multiple black rabbit holes to line the pockets of military-industrial corporations. lindsey graham had the audacity to stand before the american people when he is standing

shoulder to shoulder with ukrainian nazis. these are nazis, they are completely antithetical to the democracy we were supposed to stand for. the war in ukraine is illegitimate. like every war we have been articulated in over the past 20 years. at what point will the american people wake up and smell the coffee? our infrastructure is imploding, brothers and sisters of color should be provided some type of reparations as long as they can improve the representative reality -- can prove the representative reality with family members who were enslaved. we have thousands and thousands of veterans who are living on the streets homeless.

we have thousands of americans addicted to drugs. look at any of our major cities. at what point will the american people wake up? host: patrick in pittsburgh, is is from the washington post on ukraine. nato trained units will serve as tip the spear in ukraine's counteroffsi. when ukraine's long-awaited counteroffensive begins, the fight will be led by big grades armed not only with western weapons, but western know-how gleaned from month of training aimed at transforming ukraine's military into a modern force skilled in nato's most advanced warfare tactics. now the wargames are over. the 47th brigade in other assault units have been armed with western weapons including infantry fighting vehicles and relocated to a secret location closer to the front line.

during a recent visit by a journalist, soldiers were waiting for the order to charge ahead to retake a large swath of ukrainian territory and tipped the war back in kyiv's favor. the counteroffensive will be the biggest test yet of u.s. led strategy of giving ukrainians weapons and training to fight like an american army might come up on their own. the president was asked last week about the priorities of defense spending with a debt limit debate and discussions underway. he spoke to reporters on the south lawn. [video clip] >> some republicans are saying it does not give the pentagon enough money. do you guarantee america's fighting force will have what it needs the next couple of years? >> whatever the fighting force needs -- first of all, they passed my budget. what i ask for in defense, they passed that.

i have no doubt we would be able to get additional funding because we can jointly do it. host: should the u.s. spend more or less on defense spending? (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, independents and others (202) 748-8002, and for active and former military (202) 748-8003. lauren is in new york, republican line. hello, warren? caller: thank you for taking my call. if you go back to the original fathers, our country was founded to fund three things. everything else was supposed to be left individual states. the military, postal and paying

of salaries. where we got away from that and now we are all broke, but the military should never be touched . i had a family fight for this country in the revolutionary war. the people that sit there and got their hands out and want money and never served a day in our military, it is sickening. they have no concept of the american pride. the american military, that gives you the privileges you have. host: let us go to j from boston. we lost two, we will go to paul in connecticut, independent line. caller: good morning, thank you kindly for taking the call.

i am a first time caller. i can only answer this question in my own fashion and pose it in this manner. if we were to imagine a scenario where vladimir putin no longer had any interest in acquiring territories and north korea for some reason totally ceased shooting off missiles and iran no longer had any interest in enriching plutonium and china decided to focus solely on growing their economy and not acquiring taiwan, to make a perfectly sensible decision to spend less on defense. since that is an imaginary scenario, my answer is of course yes, we need to spend more.

i hope i put in a coherent fashion for you. host: next is victor on the republican line in albuquerque. caller: good morning. thanks for taking michael. -- my call. i heard you say we are spending more than china, how come they have a bigger military than we do? i wonder where the money is going. if we are spending more, our navy and everything should be taken care of. it does not make sense. host: i think that comment what you are referring to was a tweet that we read from dan sullivan, his remarks was that china was more like 700 billion. the latest figures out of the current debt deal, the current figures on with the u.s. is spending -- this is the defense budget, not the veteran's budget. overall defense budget for this fiscal year will be $886 billion

, that will be -- next year, fiscal 24 will be $288 billion more than 2023. the current year is the highest defense budget in u.s. history and the largest in the world. the increases in addition to the 10% increase last year for spending from the previous year, fiscal year 22. more about the debt ceiling analysis about negotiations between the white house and republican leaders, the white house debt ceiling strategy was to win the fine print. the one of the key negotiators in the debt limit deal writes that in pursuit of an agreement, the biting team was willing to give republicans a victory after victory on political talking points which they realized mr.

maccarthy needed to sell the building's conference. in the end, the deal included deep spending cuts, huge clawbacks of unspent covid money and work requirements for recipients of federal aid. but in the details of the text and decide deals that accompany it, the biting team wanted to win on substance with one large exception, 20 billion dollar cut in enforcement funding for the irs. the way administration officials see it is spending cuts are nothing worse than they would have expect in regular appropriations bills passed by divided congress. they agreed to structure the bill $1.5 trillion over a decade in the eyes of nonpartisan congressional budget office. side deals including accounting tricks, white house officials estimate the actual cuts could total as little as 136 billion dollars over the next two years

of spending caps that are central to the agreement. about 10 more minutes of phone calls and comments on the opening topic this morning, should the u.s. spend more or less on defense spending? bob is in texas on the republican line. caller: thank you. i tweeted my response, it is quite short. i will read it. it says defense spending must be fixed by those who do not violate their oath of office. the foundation of u.s. law and foundation of the oath sworn to protect it is found in the first sentence of the law books in your courthouse library. the subject of the first sentence allows nature's guide reminds all who read it that no human lives should be suffered to contradict these.

those are the limits founders placed on everything we do as a federal government. people can spend a lifetime studying the first sentence or first page of u.s. law and understand what the original intent of our constitution is. host: in terms of defense spending, do you think we stray far from that? caller: we have strayed and we have broken our oath of office. the understanding of the laws of nature was what sir william blackstone taught thomas jefferson and all of the founders. that is creation in the bible. until we are following the laws of creation, all men are created equal, endowed by their creator

with certain unalienable rights, life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness and consent of the governed. until we understand the limits that founders placed on what our federal government is to do, creation in the bible, we have to know that to know how much we spend for defense. we are being way too offensive, we need to be strong enough to protect ourselves under any circumstance. we need to get away from doing what man wants us to do and start following what the lord wants us to do. host: facebook post hear from steve who says we should spend more on education, infrastructure, health and environmental protection and pay for it instead of sending the bill to future generations. we are setting and the bills for everything, which is wrong. pretending we do not need or use public goods is not a solution, it is denial.

another says ukraine continues to ask for more money. biden in the democrats continue to send it. what is going to happen when we need it and what is going to happen if we need oil from to teach it reserves that biden has depleted? they are to ministration is the greatest threat to security of this country. iowa, the traditional first in the nation state had a number of potential and current presidential republican candidates. the headline stress ball pork sandwiches and metal hogs, the sights and sounds of a roast in ride -- and ride happening in iowa. former vice president mike pence hinted at announcing a 2024 presidential race. >> we gave america a new beginning for life and we can do it all again. i am here in iowa today and i

will be back later next week. iola -- iowa is the place where we shape conservative leadership , that shaped the standard of this party. over the last two years, we spent a lot of time reflecting in praying about what everything in this country is dealing with and what we might do to serve. i do not have anything to announce today, but when i have time to announce this wednesday, i am announcing in iowa. [applause] in contrast to the democratic agenda, republicans have to offer a positive vision of the future grounded in conservative principles. we have to speak hard truths. we have to resist the temptation to put what is popular over what

works and has been proven over time. we have to resist the politics of personality and the siren song of populism for thomas conservative principles and we need to stand on the conservative agenda of life and liberty and a commitment to freedom that has always led us to victory. host: should the u.s. spend more or less on defense? the morning topic you're on washington journal, let us go to the republican line -- topic here on washington journal. caller: calling from plymouth where it all started. we established us to be a beacon around the world of freedom against the dark world. china is on the move because of the debacle in afghanistan and we can see the executions in iran of students and those that oppose this regime.

i want to remind people it was the obama administration that canceled the weapons program in europe that the russians were against. these are the same talking points where we talk about controlling spend. as the left goes right to military, is the great society wwe promised? we are leaving our grandchildren $31 trillion in the hole. the german defeated -- do not be naive. the enemy from within is what will destroy this country. t where of the left, -- bware of the left, they are deceived of how dangerous the world is. let us not be naive. this is a very dangerousld, ronaldean understood that.

the reagan revolution did not happen because he got more republicans,t s desperate democrats because of the failed policies oth left that created the reagan landslide. unless we have that landslide again, this country is in trouble. mark these words. host: the washington post, and extensive editorial. this is the america first case for supporting ukraine. he goes over 10 points, the one we touch on deals with spending. he writes that the victory will save the u.s. billions, victory in ukraine will save the u.s. billions. russian adventurism is a drain on u.s. resources. by decimating the russian military threat, ukraine is reducing the amount of money the

u.s. will have to spend defending europe without risking american lives to do it. russian might never regain the strength that has been against ukraine. it's military has suffered more combat deaths in ukraine then all of its wars since world war ii combined. they lost about 2000 tanks, more than half of the operational fleet, plus thousands of other pieces of military equipment including combat vehicles, radar and antiaircraft systems. and at least 18 navy ships. the british defense ministry estimates 97% of the russian army is committed to ukraine. for every russian tank and infiltration -- infantry division, the u.s. left to spend less to deter russian aggression in the decades to come. let us hear from mike in california. caller: good morning. i commend president eisenhower's farewell address where he warned

us about the military-industrial complex. it is really wise. think about the american presidents, eisenhower led the normandy invasion, which was a daunting experience. the warning was about the military-industrial complex. if you look at the scale of military spending the u.s. is spending today, it is three times second-place china. most americans are unaware of that. i was not aware until i checked out the wikipedia entry on the military-industrial complex. i recommend that to the viewers. what we are doing with that spending is policing the world. the world wants us to police them. to them, we are foreigners and i would suggest all the misadventures we have had, the

biggest and most egregious example is the vietnam war, has been clear disasters. at least in retrospect. i recommend for viewers to go on wikipedia and look up the military industrial complex. -- host: melissa is in indiana on the democrats line. caller: hi, i hope you're having a beautiful day. i do agree with the last caller on the dangers of the military complex. however, i think part of that too is a lot to do with the contractors. and then the way we have realigned our military, however with russia and china. russia is involved with africa and i wonder if ukraine is a

diversionary tactic so they can drain resources as taiwan is our main resource. it is important for that. however, i think we should put in check our contractors. and that would probably curt tail some of our industrial military complex. the prior caller was right. people need to be aware of that and don't forget history because it tends to repeat itself. host: this from cody on facebook. he says every time the issue of the debt ceiling pops up, veteran benefits will go on the chopping block. it is decided they will be before anything else. it is not how much, it is where. a final thought on this topic from charles in moorefield, north carolina. army veteran. caller: hello. host: hey, charles. mute your volume on your television and then go ahead with your comment. caller: ok.

host: great. caller: there you go. what we have going on today and with the biden administration all of these free giveaways and not securing the borders and all of this and that, it used to be when i first was in the army in 1972, i served from 1972 through 2007. i have been to these wars. i've seen what it has done to people. i have seen more or less handcuffs put on us by our elected officials. the older, older democrats that are in their have done a lot of

things that they had no business doing. the ptsd israel -- is real. the younger veterans, the vietnam vets stood up for us. and on top of that, the american people, the only way that the american people will ever get their stuff together is either russian or chinese troops parachute their backyards. host: charles, we appreciate you weighing in with your views as we wrap up with this segment. thanks for all of your calls. there is more ahead. coming up next, more republicans reportedly will enter the 2024 race for the white house this week. joining us next to talk about

the race and how it is shaping up are bj martino and joe caia zzo. later, cal thomas has a book out on things he has learned in his 50 year journalism career. ♪ ♪ >> tonight on q and day, in his book lost and broken, washington state democratic congressman adam smith details his decades long struggle dealing with chronic pain and anxiety and his efforts to find the right treatment. he also talks about the u.s. health care system and the ability to meet americans

physical and mental health care issues. >> i had no idea what to do. i felt like i can't do it, i can't do it. very self-pity. then, i would be like ok. i can't wallow all day and i would go work. i was writing down what am i going to do? what am i going to do? when i was running for state senate, i could walk out the door and go knock on doors. i could use something. here, what can i do? i had this feeling of unbelievable anxiety, i can't sleep. i'm in pain. i'm trying to exercise but i can't. i was lost. >> adam smith with his book, "lost and broken," on q anda. -- q and a.

♪ >> live today on in-depth, author and journalist david will be our guest to talk and take calls about natural history and the origins of deadly viruses like ebola and hiv. a contributing writer at national geographic, he has written many books, iluding the reluctant mr. darwin and spillover. his latest is breathless about the race to identify and beat the virus that caused the covid-19 pandemic. join the conversation wi your phone calls, facebook comments, texts and tweets. in depth with david quammen on c-span2. ♪ >> c-span now is a free mobile app, featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington. live and on demand. keep up with the days biggest events with live floor

proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, campaigns and more from the world of politics. all at your fingertips. the latest episodes of washington journal and find information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio and a variety of compelling content. the c-span app is available on the apple store and google play. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime. >> washington journal continues. host: and it is time to talk 2024 politics. to do that, we are joined by two guests. bj martino is a political strategist and pollster. he is the ceo of the terrorist group. joe caiazzo is a democratic strategist. both have lots of campaign experience and experience with candidates. gentlemen, welcome to the

program this morning. but start with the debt ceiling. i talked about an opinion piece by you, joe, which said a divided congress could be good for biden. coming out of this divided debt ceiling deal, you think the debt ceiling deal was good for the president as a presidential candidate in 2024? guest: it shows that joe biden is prepared to lead. he is absolutely willing to bring everybody to the table and put forward policies that constantly function in the best interest of working family struck the country. i think that is what this debt ceiling deal is. i think there are parts of the bill that are less than ideal. but knowing a default would be devastating to our economy and the global economy, this is one example of president biden showing that he is suited to continue to lead our nation. host: and bj, the sentiment of the debt deal, how could this potentially benefit a 2024

republican presidential candidate? guest: i start back and look at president biden from this perspective. a year ago, he was still not great in terms of his job approval. we will see what happens in terms of his numbers following this deal. the beginning narrative at that point was who is going to be his successor? you think back to mid-2022, is it going to be harris, is a going to be buttigieg? this helped him start to shut that door and that talk. the debt ceiling bo allowed him to turn the lock in terms of not having challenges and clear sailing to the nomination. for the republicans, i think this was a chance to demonstrate that they could govern in this divided government for the republican candidates. now that it is over in the presidential race, it is not going to be an issue going forward. they are certainly going to talk

about what is next. i argue that this was perhaps one of the most normal weeks in washington we have had in a long time. this is how we expect government to work in divided government. one side passes a proposal and the resident does not entirely like it. they each get a little something and neither side is truly happy but that is how washington worked for many years. each side has something to come away with and say they got the other side to compromise and they have a few things they can say now we can go and build this for the future. the republican government will say we can do x, y and z and now here is what i would do to take it further. host: do you think it strengthens speaker mccarthys standing as speaker with the various faction, the -- various factions, the freedom caucus and everything else? guest: certainly.

the ability to pass something and bring a bill to the white house and say we have passed this, this is our initial negotiating position certainly strengthens it. host: this could be along the lines of what bill clinton did in the 1990's, working in a divided congress with newt gingrich and etc. this could benefit him in that regard although the progressive wing of the democratic party may not view it so kindly. guest: i think it would have been great if democrats all voted in support of the debt deal. i think at the end of the day what is clear is the way biden is governing is focused on delivering for working families in the country. and i think that everything he is doing is solidifying support from 2020. the biggest issue any president faces is are you better off

today than you were four years ago? the answer to that question is simply yes. every time biden takes the stage, he has the ability to work across the aisle to go and deliver for people. which continues to go and further support the claim that you are better off today than you were four years ago. host: can i ask about the issue of taking the stage? people saw the video multiple times of the president tripping over a sandbag after giving the commencement address at the air force academy. it brings up the issue of his age. this is going to be an issue -- is this going to be an issue throughout the campaign? guest: yes, because they have -- the republicans have nothing else they can attack. go and attack a healthy man in his 80's who fell on stage. it shows desperation because the president has delivered time in

and timeout. host: ok, bj. republicans arguing against the presidents record. guest: we are excited by and get ourselves worked up about this debt ceiling boat that happened and this bill that was passed and signed. for the average voter out in america, this ultimately, how does their life change as a result of this? is this going to change joe biden's job approval numbers? we might get a short term boost out of this. you talk about working families, they are still living with the aftereffects of the increased inflation that we had last year and it is not over yet. many of these families, you look at the amount of credit card debt that is being held in this country right now by families. a lot of people floated through by using debt in order to get to where they are. eventually, that has to come home to roost. you still ask voters what the number one issue is that they want someone to address and it

is cost-of-living and inflation. maybe we are tired of it in washington, talking about it. but voters certainly aren't. and you see that in terms of the president's job approval. and you ask them who they trust about economic issues and dealing with jobs and the cost of living. republicans are still more trusted on that issue than the president. i don't think there is going to be any sort of mentions of the presidents age directly by end of these republican candidates. the real thrust of the argument against the president when we get to the actual campaign is going to be about his record. it's going to be about reminding voters, going back to afghanistan, and really looking at the breath of his presidency and saying there have been failures. there have been times where the president that voters expected out of joe biden, they expected

competence and they did not necessarily see that in afghanistan. they certainly did not feel that in their pocketbooks throughout much of 2021 and 2022. there are going to be issues in which republicans can contrast with the president. it's not going to be just saying he is too old to serve. host: let me make sure we invite our listeners and our viewers into the conversation. (202) 748-8000 for democrats and independents. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. joe, you are going to respond. guest: if republicans want to make the 2024 race about jobs and the economy, we will take that twice a week. the president tackled inflation. he has done the things that have

been required to help families throughout this country. the jobs report yesterday for the month of may was phenomenal. there were 340,000 new jobs. i think the expected job rate was 195,000. democrats would invite that conversation. the economy is always a top issue. people across this country are concerned about making ends meet. i think the democrats, time in and timeout, have gone to be met for working people and succeeded. host: do you think, bj, that republican candidates need to be talking more about the and less about socialists. -- socialists? you hear about lgbtq issues, drag shows, desantis had a jacket that said florida is a place where woke goes to die. our republican -- are

republicans better serve bringing up the economic issues you brought up? guest: just as president biden uses maga as a derogatory term to fire up his base, the republicans have woke on their side to fire up their voters. when we move into that phase of the general election, i think you're going to find a lot more discussion about some of those issues. when you talk about these cultural and social issues, it comes down to republicans about being on the side of paris, ultimately and helping them decide. and we get into trouble when we go beyond that. we have seen politicians be on the side of parents, such as terry mcauliffe in the virginia elections, that is the wrong side of the issue. republicans have some things to

say that have broad support, just beyond the republican base. i think once we get through this primary season and we are a long way off from getting through this primary season. we have barely begun. i think you will see these campaigns turning to talk to a general election audience, rather than narrowcasting to the republican base. host: we are doing this the morning after a significant event in iowa. we played some comments from former vice president mike pence a few moments ago. he is likely to enter the race. how do you see the race changing in the upcoming weeks? guest: the senator is a client of the firm and the roast and riot has become a seminal event leading into the caucuses and it is an opportunity for the candidates to meet iowa voters and iowa caucus-goers expect to meet the presidential

candidates, in person. not just through a television screen, they expect to meet them in person. we are in a phase. we have a long way to go right now. everybody is and teeing in right now. we have not seen the flop yet. everyone has their cards. they know what they are holding but we have not really gunned to have these campaigns engage. when you look at the numbers right now, former president trump has a significant amount of support and part of that ace is locked in for him. -- base is locked in for h. desantis's launch has not given m the bounds one would expect out of other lunches but in many ways, he was defined. how will republican voters and voters at large look at these multi-candidate races, they look at the person who they think is the front runner and they person -- look at the person who they think and beat the front runner. that is where the majority of

the attention lies. there will be opportunities for other candidates in the field to have their moment in the sun, have their moment and make the argument they deserve a position to be the pole or the person on the person's tail. host: there is no one significantly in the democratic field. from the other side of the fence, joe, how do you view the republican field and the challenge to former president donald trump? guest: polls go up and down. the one thing is for certain, donald trump holds the eyes and minds of the republican primary voters. that showed true in 2022, when you look at places like pennsylvania and arizona, the most trumpian candidates won their primary. desantis is trying to be trump light.

he is trying to be the cover band. why would you go see the cover band when you can get the real thing? host: let's get to our callers. a lot of them are up. we will go to priscilla, calling from the independent line. welcome. caller: yes. i would just like to ask the viewers to check back if they bring up how we left afghanistan again. check on how we left vietnam. it is the same. no difference. host: we lost our caller in georgia. but bj martino, you brought that up. what was the point you are trying to make about the withdrawal of afghanistan? guest: certainly. it was perhaps the two worst months of the biden presidency from a job approval standpoint. the moment he stood at the podium, bowing at that podium, you can put that moment in

time on his job approval and watch it begin to degrade over the next couple of months. you saw independents, who had been 20 points positive, you saw them flip. you saw many democratic voters who had been enthusiastic about their support for president biden begin to tail off. measure intensity in our surveys, not just if you approve or disapprove. if you go back to president trump, everyone felt strongly. you either love him or hated him. with president biden, especially after that moment in time, there were and still are close to 20% of democratic voters who say yeah, i approve of the job he is doing i'm not passionate about it. and the independents are still, at this point, net negative. it was seminal in that there was an expectation of what president

biden's term was going to be and how that was handled and how he appeared during it begin to put a lot of questions in voters minds. i do agree that he has done a lot since then to try and answer some of those but it has not changed the fundamental dynamic of that job approval. he has been at and around the low 40's job approval for a good period of time now. host: do you want to respond, joe? guest: i think the job approval always fancy -- fascinates me. it is different from what happens when voters go to the polls. the president's approval rating was not incredibly strong throughout the summer of 2022 and then we head into the fall and it was crystal clear that it was a battle for democrats or trump style republicans to take over congress. and we saw the results of that. from coast to coast, we saw the projection of swing voters. we saw the projection by swing voters of trumpian style

candidates in battleground states. host: let's hear from bobby in north carolina on the republican line. caller: good morning. i have two comments or questions. one for each of the guests. first, for the republican guest, i voted for trump twice. and i thought the way he ran -- the people he put in his administration were extremely good. but i have to tell you, i will have a difficult time voting for him unless he is running against biden. if you look at the people who threw their hat in the ring on the republican side, there is an awful lot of good people in there. and anyone of them would be able to defeat joe biden, easily, i believe. somehow, trump needs to get out of the way. i don't care how you do it.

the other item is, the republicans really need to address the abortion issue. quit dancing around it. any polling that i have seen says that abortion is supported up to a certain point by 70% of americans. so, unless you address that and at least state very openly that the states have to take on abortion and make it more liberal, 14 weeks, 16 weeks. the democrats position on that up to time of birth is ridiculous. you can't go along with that. so, please. on the republican side, address abortion realistically. people want it to a great extent. that is on the republican side.

i ask you to address both of those issues. host: all right, bj martino. i will give you a first shot and then joe if you want to respond as well. guest: i think the caller is exactly right in that it is a testament to how many leaders we have in the party right now who throw their hat in the ring and anyone of them i think, as you said, could be a strong general election candidate. on the issue of abortion, i think it is interesting to see, when you really start to ask voters about their position, that despite the fact that we talk about extremes and that we push our opponents to both sides of the spectrum in campaigns. there is a lot of voters who find themselves in the middle on this issue. they identify as pro-life or pro-choice but the caller is exactly right.

there are a lot of pro-choice voters who would say i am pro-choice but i don't believe there should be abortion up until the time of birth. and you will find some pro-life voters who while saying pro-life, say they would make exceptions for rape and i don't believe about the first 6-15 weeks. there exists a center in the abortion issue in this country but the discourse has been more about where each side is. host: so, joe, the abortion issue for democrats in 2024. guest: trump said the best thing they did was overturn roe v. wade. that is where the former president is on it and that is where the majority of his supporters are on it. that is not where the majority

of the country is on it. trump is not getting out of the way. trump will be the nominee of the republican party. he represents the values of the majority of the voters in that party. they share his position, which is not one shared by the general public. host: a question on twitter for the both of you. michael sends it. what do the guests believe the role of chris christie to be in the gop primary? guest: that's an excellent question. i wonder that myself. he is walking in with an image rating that iset negative among republican primary voters. often times, why does anyone run for president? i'm not describing this to him, necessarily. you run for president because you want to be president or vice president or you want to make sure that you are continuing to

be in the public eye and keep that public cachet that you need to have. i'm not saying any of those are necessarily applying to chris christie. but i think for any presidential candidate, the question is what is the path going forward? how do i take new hampshire and how do i leverage that? or do i need to skip hampshire and iowa and have a different strategy? i don't know what the chris christie team is looking at in terms of their strategy but i don't see being upside down by 25 points in terms of your image among republicans a good starting point to go forward. host: joe caiazzo, you worked for the bernie sanders campaign which gave a real challenge to joe biden. can chris christie be a similar factor in the republican race? guest: the high watermark was when he hugged president obama.

i think chris christie will be a footnote on the wikipedia page about the 2024 primary. i don't see a pathway at all. i think he does not feel too gop -- appeal to gop primary voters who we have seen solidified their support behind former president trump. i think their style is very different. i think christie does not offer what the primary voters are looking for. you are starting from a net negative. he is not syncing from the same hymnal as the majority of the voters in that primary field. host: we welcome your calls and comments. we move on from calls -- with calls and miranda is in jersey city on the democrats line. maranda, go ahead. caller: hello, good morning. i am calling because every time

i hear people talking about the polls, the polls, the polls. y'all are not polling the right people. you need to call me. i'm one of the people who loves joe biden. these people who take these polls, they can't speak for me because i love joe biden and i also think that in the republican party, they need to talk about social issues. the republicans don't. it's like they turn their head up to social issues. the price of rent is very high. host: all right. bj martino, getting polls right. guest: the sense of the polling industry. after every cycle, i say it is like the line from godfather where polling has been dying of the same heart attack for 20

years. we have been constantly blamed for getting it wrong or that if we get it right, it is our fault somehow. so, the fact is we do talk to plenty of strong biden supporters in our polls. the goal is to get a representative sample of voters across the country in our districts and our states, to help campaign, primarily. that is where we have some public polling that comes out. we are not one of the pollsters who is releasing public polling, though. we are working very hard to picture we get that represented of sample. it is important. we are sorry we have not called you but we will get your number. host: to nashville, richard on the independent line. welcome. guest: there is so much to uncover here, my goodness. i called in on the independent line. i have voted democratic in the past.

i vote republican more so than anything. christie hasn't got a chance. nikki haley was not all she was cracked up to be. if it wasn't for donald trump, it goes on and on and on. i have watched donald trump fro 1969 all the way up. he has been on oprah and everything. if he is such a crook, why isn't he in jail with all of the police force, whether it is local, state or federal or whatever. i believe a lot of politicians are running because, if i am not mistaking, -- mistaken, i am 67 years old, i honestly believe there is crooks in every party. i say that with love. donald trump paid for his own election when he first started running. and then when he went into the general election -- it sounds

like i am for trump. is trump perfect? no, he is not. i voted for all of the bushes. i even voted for jimmy carter because i thought he was a good man. but a good man can't run this country. it has to be a strong man. a strong man who is not willing to lay down. trump has put out letters for everybody. he was a democrat in the beginning. he went against himself because he saw the writing on the wall. these politicians run, what do they do with the campaign money once they fall out of the election process? don't they get to pay their donors and keep what is left? that is why a lot of them are running. it has nothing to do with the nation. the reason they are so scared of trump is because trump has all the goods on them. lindsey graham had to take golf clubs to get rid of his cell

phone because trump gave it out. they all borrowed money off of it. he has the goods on them and they know he does. i actually believe in the working man. i don't believe in all of this globalism and all of this stuff. if you don't take care of your backyard first, then somebody else will. i remember when my daughter was waiting tables in college. she would come home and throw money on there. i started picking it up and she said where is my money? i said you mean this? i said if you don't take care of your money for yourself, somebody else will. host: richard put a lot on the table. if you want to start to respond, go ahead. guest: i think that, you know, all campaign contributions are closely monitored by the fcc and that is super transparent and you can check it out online. at the end of the day, trump has

had a career that is absolutely littered with multiple misgivings. i think that we are going through this exercise now where he has been openly investigated. and i think that, you know, let trump's record speak for itself. guest: and what will it look like if he is running and facing these charges in 2024? guest: certainly every time a democratic prosecutor brings a charge against him, it confirms to republicans that this is just a witchhunt. you go back to 2016, i was out doing focus groups in minnesota, outside the twin cities. those who split their tickets and voted for democrats and this was back in 2016, i had a

gentleman say very similar here, she represents the status quo, meaning hillary clinton at the time. he might start world war iii but at least there will be change. he said that verbatim and that has stuck in my head. because there is this idea and we throw the line around too easy but you began to see working-class voters. especially in rural parts of the country, speak to what this gentleman just said on the call, which is that they view the party that donald trump build in the campaign was speaking to working-class voters and they were not listened to by much of the political class in this country. and every time we have had a recession and a recovery, a primary happens in 20 counties and it never goes away anywhere else.

there is something to this and this idea that we need a leader. whether it be trump or someone else in the republican party, who can continue to speak to those working-class voters. who, despite the fact that there are good job numbers, they are not exactly necessarily balanced in their personal budgets, they tried their best. and they want someone who can come in and get things done. that was the appeal of donald trump in 2016 that is why you see how the parties have shifted over the last few years. the republican party has become a party more of working-class voters than it has been at any time in the past several decades. joe caiazzo -- host: joe caiazzo, the working class was joe biden's calling card. how does he regain that with voters? guest: the democratic party is

ultimately the party of the working class. whether it comes to increasing the wage, injecting money into these towns and cities for infrastructure. i think that we actually are the party who has gone and delivered for these working families. i think the republican party has done a terrific job of selling a bill of goods. every single republican in congress went and voted for the trump tax cuts. what the trump tax cuts did was made it so that working people in this country will be on the books to pay more than the corporations. it is as cut and dry as that. host: let's hear from pete in texas. go ahead, pete. hey, pete. you are on the air. pete in texas, that's you. caller: this is keith. host: go ahead, you are on the air. caller: thank you, sir.

good morning to you and your guests. you are talking about the campaign 2024. i was born in the late 1950's. and i have witnessed -- i was four years old when kennedy was assassinated. i saw the martin luther king assassination and we can move up to the ronald reagan era, the george w bush era -- george h of w bush era and up to the era of clinton. clinton left a surplus. let's just be honest about this and talk about what happened after that surplus.

when bush took office, there was a tax cut and it was for the rich. and there was a war. we look at that air and we look at obama who adopted a lot of what bush did. and we look at what happened with mr. trump. and then we look at what happened with our president now, biden. one thing i can say about biden is he columns a lot of the -- calms a lot of the confusion and chaos that was caused by mr. trump. my point is any campaign, 2024 or any campaign, we can look back. we need somebody who will be honest. we need somebody who is going to tell the american people the truth. and someone who is going to look

us in the face as americans. we are not stupid, we are not dumb. i consider most of america educated. let's just be honest. host: thanks for the call. joe caiazzo, if you want to tackle that one. guest: i think president biden has offered a steady hand at the wheel since day one. we have seen that bear out. we have seen that bear out through legislation. we have seen that bear out as we recovered through covid. i think we have seen it bear out on the global stage too. i think the chaos and fury of the trump administration is something that we will feel the lasting effects of for a while. but the chaos is bad for our country. it is bad for the globe and bad for working families.

host: pj, he said something like biden col -- calmed the confusion and chaos. guest: that was the expectation for a lot of voters who voted for him and some didn't. that speaks to the disappointment of what happened post afghanistan. he was supposed to be that steady hand and they didn't see that. i think it still plays out today. you look at the polling among democratic primary voters, even though there is not really any legitimate challenge against the president of the democratic primary right now, a majority of democratic primary voters say they want someone else other than biden. you look at the field and there is really not a lot of good options. there is the one that i think democrats are stuck with going into 2024 right now. you look at the 2022 results and the debt ceiling deal and there will not be another legitimate

challenge coming to resident biden in the primaries. doesn't mean primary voters are enthusiastic about this. they were hoping for another option. but there is frankly not one there. guest: i think the bench of the democratic is extraordinarily strong. democratic voters support president biden because he beat trump like a drum. he will do it again in 2024. if you look at the map, even if trump is able to flip arizona and georgia, he is still at 286. i think that when you look at this field of play and you look at where voters are and how many people will respond to trump's style and his approach is overwhelmingly rejected.

and president biden, calling the chaos, will win. host: somebody said anybody else in the republican field could beat president biden. do you agree with that, bj? guest: i think any of our candidates could beat president biden. i caution anybody to look at a poll about november of next year and say this would mean someone would win or someone would lose. it is in large part just a reflection of where voters are right now in their decision-making, perhaps in the primary. i think we have a number of candidates who could potentially beat joe biden. i don't accept the premise that donald trump is automatically the nominee of the party. he certainly has a plurality of the support right now for a lot of the polling that is going on. and i don't accept the premise he is the only one who would lose. i think it is going to be competitive. ultimately, you have a a lot of voters in this country who are

polarized in terms of their supporting the republican or the democrat. when it comes down to a fundamental choice, they will come home. and then there will be a small pool of voters in the end who will have an unfavorable view of oath, whoever they are. they will dislike both of them. this happened in 2016. it was the first presidential campaign where it came down to who was going to vote based on who they liked the least or who they were paying attention to at the time. and it ended up being hillary clinton got the unfavorable votes, those votes broke against her. that is where we will be in 2024. both nominees will be underwater. there will be a group of voters who don't like either one and will hold their nose and vote for the one they dislike the least. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i would like to say as

far as afghanistan, trump had sold off the afghan army and the government of afghanistan. the taliban was camped out around every capital in afghanistan. having said that, i would like to move on to biden. he had to take over a tough situation. everything was in chaos. in 2020, due to covid and trump did not handle that well, i don't believe. i would like to ask the republican guy, why should i revoke -- i vote for a republican? i get a decent pension. i get decent social security. but if i had that same job, i would have note pension because they are anti--- no pension because they are antiunion.

and they have no benefits. they are completely against raising any wages. so, why should i vote republican? thank you. host: bj, martino -- bj martino. guest: when you look at republican policies in the states, you see and i think the data bears this out across several states, that -- red states, led by the public and governors are the states that are growing. people are moving into them. their jobs are doing better. when you look at the blue states, california, there is a lot of people left to leap at they are leaving in droves. -- leave but they are leaving in droves. you can see how republican governments in the states have

been much more successful than democratic governance by and large. when you talk about workers, i know you are a member of a union or were and you are receiving a pension but there are a lot of workers who aren't members of unions and have gotten entire wages and saved up for retirement and they are doing just fine. i would argue that republican governance has been successful and voters recognize that. go back to the polling. every time you ask about views of economic issues and the you trust more, republicans continue to have more trust fundamentally by voters than democrats. host: joe caiazzo for our wisconsin caller. guest: i think some of the biggest things to look at our

medicare expansion, minimum wage and there are major differences between democratic and gop governors on this. if you want to live in a world where a governor is going to ban -- and not expand medicaid, giving millions of people access to the health care they need. those are some of the real differences that make an impact on the lives of working people throughout this country. if you look at the difference between access to health care in tennessee and kentucky, it is vastly different. one state has a democratic avenue who supported medicaid expansion. another state has a republican governor who does not support medicaid expansion. there was a piece in the time about this. -- in the times a couple of months ago about this. in tennessee, when you can't get the health care that you need, that is usually important in people's lives.

host: bj martino, a quick response? guest: i'd say when you look at medicaid expansion, it was a tough fiscal decision a lot of states made this idea that there is a pot of money the government is offering now that they will not be offering years to come. you might get this pot of money and people certainly could be helped now but the long-term fiscal consequences for our state and for the taxpayers would be pretty profound, once the federal money goes away. and so, a lot of the states became pretty entrepreneurial in figuring out how to make sure that voters who don't have coverage under this expanding medicaid have other options and ultimately get access. is it the same way in other places? no. i think a lot of fiscal -- which republicans get credit for --

guest: medicaid expansion is one of those things where the richest country in the history of this world, the fact that the gop governors make the claims they won't be able to fund this, make corporations pay their fair share in taxes. we certainly can do this and we must do this. host: ron desantis, who is part of the roast and write in iowa, several republican candidates or potential republican candidates at the roast and write. i want to get your reaction to comments from ron desantis. >> we will ensure that our constitutional system reflects the vision of the founding fathers. they never created a fourth branch of government. an administrative state that is unaccountable and weaponized against segments of society that

it does not light. most of the key issues in our country right now are not being decided by your elected representatives. they are being imposed by nameless, faceless bureaucrats who you can never vote out of office. we will re-constitutional eyes this government. you will have a new fbi director with me on day one. i can tell you that. you will have an attorney general that has backbone and that will take these people on and hold them accountable. we have a responsibility to return this government to its rightful owners. we, the american people. and in order to do that, we have to find -- have a country of people who share our values and share our vision and will be able to uproot -- you can't recycle people in from washington, d.c. you have to uproot people from other parts of the country, send them on a mission to go to washington, d.c. and get to work holding this bureaucracy accountable.

this bureaucracy has imposed its will on us for far too long. it is about time we imposed our will on it. [applause] host: a quick bit from ron desantis in iowa. reaction from our guest, bj martino, the republican strategist, what did you think? guest: the use of the phrase administrative state has come into our dialogue the last few years. but you think of the rhetoric and it is not that fundamentally different from what republicans have talked about in terms of societal government. it is new terms to describe some of the same fundamental principles that republicans have to say that the federal bureaucracy is too large. yeah, you could go back and find ronald reagan saying those things with different words. i think the other thing that he said that is very important for a lot of voters is the idea that we send our representatives to washington to continue to convey our values and what we want them to do and there is always a concern about folks being sent

to washington. being captured by the allure of the state and all of the trappings that come with it and failing to represent voters. it is a good reminder for every candidate and every representative to get back to the stay and understand who you are representing as you go forward. more than anything that sounds untoward and is not different from what republicans have been saying for a long time. guest: one word that jumps out to me, desperate. ron's pull numbers are spiraling down and he is offering no vision aside from fear mongering. if you believe you have the vision, skills and record to lead the country, you should run on that. i think we have seen desantis

continue to buy into this notion that the pathway to winning is to go and fear monger. i think that speaks volumes about the longevity of his campaign. host: a few more calls. steve in missouri, welcome from the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of comments i want to make. the 2024 presidential campaign is becoming increasingly difficult for the republicans to win. that is mainly because of the corrupt mainstream media. when we look at the mainstream media, and i am recently retired, so i have time to watch all of it. it seems as though abc, nbc, cbs, cnn, msnbc and quite a few other locals are political arms of the democratic party. in other words, they try to control the american people here and more importantly, what they don't hear.

the hunter biden laptop story, the afghan withdrawal. the january 6 investigation where nancy pelosi put all of the people who were on the committee there and kicked off the republicans. i believe it was jordan and banks that were supposed to be on that. when you look at the small things like trump walking down a ramp and they made a big deal of that and said oh my god, he's all. and then biden trips over his own shoelaces and they say he's fine, he's ok. the problem is the mainstream media is on the side of the democratic party and they control everything. they figured that out, they can control what the american people see and hear and can push the

narrative a certain way and seem to control the story. most americans, they wake up in the morning and go to work and turn on their local news and get bits and pieces of stuff and then they come home for dinner and hear the news while they are cooking dinner and they hear the stories from nora o'donnell or lester holt or whoever. host: we will get some comments. bj martino. guest: i'm glad to hear he did not list c-span among that list, first of all. i think to your point that -- and this is not anything new -- it has been a gatekeeper. what is news and what is not? the good news is there is a lot of ability to go around that

nowadays. particularly for republican presidential campaigns right now , there are those that can take advantage of how the media covers this presidential race right now and there are those who are going to have to may do an end around or go through some of those traditional gatekeepers to talk to some voters. you think back to 2015 and 2016, someone did some quantitative analysis of how much free press the cable networks gave to donald trump the early days. where he would spend 30 minutes on the phone, talking to joe scarborough or something like that. it was in the millions of dollars of free airtime that he was given. there are those who have been able to successfully use those gatekeepers and understand what they want and what they need to get a message across. but the campaign, ultimately their goal is to take the

message -- their message directly to voters and not have to count or rely on those gatekeepers. guest: two quick thoughts on this. i will respectfully disagree that mainstream media is a mouthpiece of the democrat party. local papers are going away at a pretty rapid pace. which means that the national narrative is driving all of these races for school board or city council. you think back years ago and there was a daily or weekly local paper. those have just been slowly going away. there is a fantastic or scary map that was put out by the new york times where there was no local coverage through large swaths of the country. which means every bit of information was completely nationalized. trash pickup is not being

covered because there are no entities left in some of these places. guest: that is very true. i think back to 1992 when i was in college with a great professor who wrote books on southern politics. he has passed since then. we had a presidential campaign class. he had everyone subscribed to a different newspeak -- newspaper. i had to read the wichita eagle. we read about the resident shall campaign through the lens of all of these papers at the time and how differently they were covered. i totally agree with you that things have been in many ways the coverage is national and not with a need focusing on their own needs. host: virginia in orlando, florida. caller: i want to talk about president joe biden. i was born and raised in

birmingham, alabama and then i moved to huntsville and works of government and retired after 40 years and i now live in orlando, florida since 2017. i need the democratic senator to talk about president biden. yes, he is 80 years old. i am 81 years old and i still remember and recollect history. host: the segment is running long and we will give both a chance to respond. guest: president is the spry. he is prepared to lead our country for another four years. he has a record that is strong. he has gone to bat for working families.

when the president took office, schools were closed and people were wearing masks and we were losing tens of thousands of americans two it and the economy was shaky. kids are back in school, movie theaters are full. biden has tackled in august issues such as prescription drug costs and climate change. guest: to come back on the age question. when we talk to voters, those who look at it from the most critical i tend to be seniors. this color is of roughly the same age as the president and clearly supports him and thinks he still has what it takes. often times seniors look at the president or an older candidate running for office and they think, would i have the energy and capacity to do this still,

and it is how a lot of them are going to look at it. it will bring increased scrutiny on kamala harris because inevitably it will be part of the discourse and i don't think it will be republicans necessarily driving this and the idea that we have to accept the premise that in a biden-harris administration, there might come a point when kamala harris needs to be looked at in terms of can she lead. host: decades of experience,, thanks guys for being here. coming up next, we will be joined by cal thomas to talk about his latest book highlighting his 50 year career in realism. that is next. your calls and comments are welcome. ♪

>> this week on the c-span networks, the house and senate return and our campaign 2024 coverage conties with three p esidential hopefuls announcing their candidacy, or mark vice president michael pence, former new jersey governor chris christie and north dakota governor doug burka. in hearings on the southern border, a hearing on migrant surges and how they have exacerbated law enforcent along the border. any house subcommittee examines the biden administration's level of preparedness for the search. on wednesday, the select committee on intelligence will hear testimony on national security and intelligence related matters. watch live on the c-span networ or it now, our free mobile video a. also to stream video, c-span,

your unfiltered view of government. >> weekends bring you book tv, featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. on in-depth, an author will be our guest talk about natural history and the origin of natural viruses. his latest book is about the race to identify and beat what caused the-19 pandemic. onftwards, former minnesota attorney general keith ellison offices thoughts on how to stop police violence. he is interviewed by legal analyst laura coates. watch every weekend on c-span two and find a schedule on your program guide.

>> c-span's campaign 2024 coverage is your front row seat to the presidential election. with meet and greets, to make up your own mind. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by cal thomas, author of numerous books including his latest titled "a watchman in the night: what i've seen over 50 years reporting on america." welcome back to "washington journal." guest: thank you. host: tell us about the genesis

of your book looking back on your 50-year career in journalism. how did you go from being a journalist into a syndicated columnist writing your opinion on issues? guest: i started in radio when i was 16 years old. after my voice changed, and then we tore off a wire story from the ap and it would be written in broadcast style and you would do the news at the top of the hour and do a little local news and then play the top 50 music of the day. later i got a job as a copy at nbc news in washington and that is where i fell in love with the journalist profession. i was joined by men and later women who came from newspapers and wire services.

many or most were democrats and they embraced david brinkley, the most famous broadcaster at the time along with walter cronkite. he said it is impossible to be objective but we must try and be fair. i took that as a mantra for my career. i try to be fair as a reporter before i became a columnist in 1984. it is good to have that background before you go into opinion writing because you cover the school board meetings and hurricanes and a number of other things that i think help shape your world view and help you to see what really works rather than just talking points for politicians who want to use them over and over again to get elected. host: said it was 1984 when you started your column. what cause you to write opinion pieces and moving away from the reporting part of journalism? guest: in 1983, it was the 50th

anniversary of the nazi book burning in berlin and the media were full of stories about crazy right wingers who were trying to ban books and even ban national geographic because it had just of topless natives on it. you would see professors on news programs denouncing censorship and controlled thought and i thought, there is a lot of censorship coming from the other side. it takes different forms, the power to ignore and not cover story is equally dangerous. so i wrote a big called "book burning." i had never written a book before because i was in broadcast journalism and i decided to write a column and sent it off to what i thought would be the least likely to print the new york times and

they printed it and they got a lot of mail. i wrote one for the washington post and they printed that and i wrote one for the l.a. times and they printed that. i said this is ruining my talk on the biased media. i remember a talk with a fellow in the lyndon johnson, ash administration, who later command to be the president of this -- who later went on to be the president of cnn. he said the next time you are out i will set up a meeting and get you in the door. i managed to persuade them to give me a chance and the column took off. at its height, 500 papers were carrying it. unfortunately, there are fewer and fewer papers today and many are cutting back. if you look at usa today, you can see the weather page from

the front page because it is so thin. this is a real problem. the founders understood that a strong press was essential to a constitutional republic, even though they were the subject of the attacks george washington called the "infamous scribblers." they thought it was important that a strong press helps to sustain situational democracy. host: tell us about the title of your new book. what prompted you to title it that? guest: you used the word genesis earlier, the first book of the bible. there is several verses in the old testament were the agent israelites posting watchman on the wall to look out for bad guys so they could warn the people inside the wall. i see myself as a traditionalist and holding up a lamp watching

out for invading cultural armies undermining with the founders and human nature have taught us about what works and what doesn't. i think we are being invaded by all kinds of armies right now, economic armies. we have $32 trillion in tet -- debt that cannot be sustained, no border in the south, uncontrolled immigration without assimilation is a prescriptive for instruction and deterioration of moral values. 20% of the younger generation say none when asked for their religious beliefs. all of these things are contributing to the problems we are seeing in the culture that politicians cannot solve. if they could, they would. the debt ceiling is a perfect example. it solves nothing but will increase the debt further. host: cal thomas, are we at a

dozen books for you? guest: i will keep writing them until someone reads them. host: [laughter] you have written about 10? guest: i think 12. it is called "a watchman in the night." cal thomas is with us for the full hour. we welcome your calls and comments. (202) 748-8001 is the line for republicans. democrats call on (202) 748-8000 , an independents and others call on (202) 748-8002. you write that the goal of your columns is to remind people a beautiful truth exists and ask them to look at recent history for certain programs and policies like tax cuts, less government spending, fewer regulations and more boundaries continue to the preservation of our liberties. football fields and best while courts are defined by

boundaries. if the nation loses its boundaries it will eventually cease to be. have we, as a nation, lost our boundaries, cal thomas? guest: there is no question. if you look at our major cities, chicago on where the weekend, 52 shootings and 13 deaths. the homeless problem in oregon, san francisco, los angeles. the looting of stores. many companies either shutting down in some cities or putting up barriers to looters. everywhere you look there is a problem. we are not the first generation to exist. we didn't just crawl out of the cave. we don't have to discover and use of fire or invent the wheel. there are people -- been people who have fought through economic things, cultural, foreign policy, whatever it may be, and they have learned from these things. we can learn from the past and

update as necessary and move forward. we have so many people entrenched in their political, economic and cultural positions. it might be ratings or fundraisers, all kinds of reasons and possibilities, who will not budge. i have argued for years with respect to the government that we need an auditor to come in and examine every agency and program to see if it is working, to see if it can't be done better by the private sector if it needs to be done at all and get rid of those things that aren't working and costing too much. we do that in business. if you are introducing a new hamburger at a fast food place and the public doesn't like it, you have two choices, you can tell them you are going to get it anyway because it is good for you or you can give the public what they want and need. we have too many people trying

to force-feed us from climate change to gay pride month and all kinds of other things in public schools that just aren't working. i think you are seeing a rebellion beginning to build against that and i hope it continues, because we can't continue to be a united states of america if we are going to continue to be divided from each other. host: your book is looking back at the 50 years of reporting. what are some of the common feedback you have gotten from the readers of your columns that they learned? guest: as you can imagine when you write an opinion piece, you get all kind of interesting mail from people who think they know who you are. on one side some but he would write, i never thought i would live long enough to see something i agree with appear in my local rag. on the other side, one of my favorites when i was doing

connotation for npr, someone wrote, is there some kind of inbreeding program for npr that produces some like thomas? i thought that was funny. one of the things i am proud of this book are the endorsements. i got tom johnson to write a beautiful introduction. i have endorsements from the left and the right. skip the eighth of harvard has done several series on african-american reconstruction and on the other side, pat sajak . i was going to get vanna white what she was picking out dresses. host: in doing these columns, you mentioned fewer and fewer newspapers are out there. how has it been for you in trying to get your published pieces out via social media? has that been a challenge? guest: not really.

not only do i have my own webpage that carries all of my columns i post my columns on facebook, twitter, linkedin, and that is helpful. they don't pay the bills. you put those out for free. at the height i had over 500 newspapers. it is down to 250, 240 right now. there are still some in major cities and the fact that people can access on social media is helpful. i am old school. i like to hold a newspaper in my hand and turned the pages and get a little print on right fingers, but that goes back to my days as a cop be boy where i was changing ribbons on a teletype. host: we got into that with the previous guests on the loss of local newspapers across the country. what you think that has meant for us?

guest: they are exactly right. if you look at the election in virginia a couple years ago where glenn youngkin triumphed as governor. it began in loudoun county, virginia, where parents, mostly thanks to covid, had kids at home and work more able to find out what was being taught in their schools and they started showing up at school board meetings, in large numbers, something that hadn't happened before. your guests were right that local news is extremely important, not only so you know what is going on with trash removal and snow removal and others but lots of local officials go on to win at the state and national level. so the time to learn and influence them is them.

a constitutional republic is not the normal state of humanity. if it were, more states would embrace it. ronald reagan used to say we are only one generation from losing it all. we have to renew these values and principles within each generation and certainly between generations. what is it that sustain the great depression out of world war? it was the pay tradition and commitment -- patriotism and commitment to this country that caused them to be the greatest generation. we have to get that back or we will lose what we love. host: we welcome your calls and comments. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. the democratic line is (202) 748-8000. independents and others (202) 748-8002. let's go to new york, cj on the

democrats fine. go ahead. caller: good morning. mr. thomas, it is an honor to speak to you this morning. you do well with this book. i am curious now that you have had a few years and your career to look back. is there any public figure that either you totally underrated and then he or she were to get some whatever, admiration from you, or vice versa, someone you were in for and then as time went on, not so much. guest: that is a great question put i wish i had an adequate answer. i think about what king david said when he was king over israel, put not your trust in princes or kings or mortal flesh . politicians are a reflection of who we are. they say and do things and

create talking points in order to get votes and perpetuate their careers. if they were interested -- and is not true of all of them but a majority, otherwise we would have a solution to problems -- but the debt ceiling did not address the three drivers of debt and big government. it only slightly slows the growth rate and that is not sufficient. i haven't seen in person or met every president since jfk. some impressed me more than others. i was delighted initially being a washington, d.c. native and remembering segregation. i was delighted to see barack obama as president and thought he had a unique opportunity to be a kind of black moses leading poor and minority students out of failed public schools and giving them a real chance of

education and future. i'm sorry to say he didn't do that. ronald reagan i had lunch with him and interviewed him and many times it was an amazing individual in personality and substance. here is a man if you go back through his diary and radio broadcasts, reagan i am talking about, he was not the dumb actor he was portrayed at by so many people. he fought through a lot of these issues and commented about them and wrote about them. when he became president his objective was not to accommodate the soviet union but bring it down to the scandalized view of europeans. he did the right thing. this gets back to my point. we need to look to the past to see what worked and not just repeat everything over and over again that is it working. host: a call from florida. this is david on the republican

line. caller: good morning. i haven't read the book but i will get it and read it. i wanted to ask you, if the democrats sweep the 2024 elections, with that tell the country that they are on board or would that tell the politicians they are on board with wide open borders which will get much worse in the weaponization of the doj and fbi and irs. i would be afraid to call this program as a republican if this continues or gets worse. guest: it is all up to the voters. we, the people begins the preamble of the constitution and a people keep electing people who create the problems, why would they expect to get something better?

look at the election of the new mayor in chicago. he is worse than lori lightfoot. he said he is going to have a bunch of peacekeepers on memorial day weekend. more people were shot in chicago than any time i can remember. you have left wing mayors of portland, oregon, san francisco, los angeles, new york, although mayor adams has been making some good comments recently, but you have alvin bragg the district attorney who reduces felonies to misdemeanors. let's get them back out on the street and create new crimes. these people are elected or in the case of alvin bragg appointed by the previous governor kathy hochul. i think of the d behind his

name, many would vote for just because of that. the same with republicans. the attitude of donald trump by many is that he can do no wrong. but many who are in bed with trump -- no pun intended -- said they cared about character but then it didn't matter. you can't get into shape by watching an exercise video, you have to go to the gym. you can have a strong republic unless you are involved. host: on the independent line calling from honolulu is jason. caller: i am going to age myself an age you too. i hope you remember this. i watched you speak and doing a great speech.

thank you for your words about president obama. he attended -- you were speaking no more than two miles from his high school. i think you. you came into the democrat stronghold of hawaii to speak. that was a cool thing and you are a conservative back then. i thought that was great. guest: do you remember the best part of that outdoor gathering where people were tossing frisbees? there was the guy protesting my appearance dressed in a ku klux klan outfit? you remember that? caller: i didn't see that. that is low class. guest: that was funny. host: what was your question?

caller: if there was one thing you could change about conservatism, what is it, and a loja. thank you. guest: we have to go back to william buckley junior, an ideal man and policy man. we have so many comments and debates about wokeness and disney and corporations and the rest. we need to get back to actual thinking and political leaders who have real policies that have the opportunity of working. it is not rocket science, as the cliche goes. why do we have school choice? ron desantis says he will make it national if he is elected. it is interesting to me that the people on the left our offer choice when it comes to abortion but antichoice when it comes to school choice. that seems inconsistent.

i think we need to upgrade our education system. our universities are a mess. a lot of them are anti-american and anti-religious and anti-a lot of stuff. you can't send your kids to institutions like these and expect them to come out differently. we don't send our military to russia and china to be trained, we trained them here. many of them send into public schools and universities who talk about things that are antithetical to what the founders believed. host: you have been pinning your column since 1984. in your new book you write, what went into the minds of public schools and universitytudents was a big issue as it became in subsequent years. then the education secretary william bennett quoted thomas jeffer a news conference, he said jefferson believed one of t as should be "the improvement of one's morals and faculties."

bennett, a strong supporter for school choice also said that if people want to go to super expensive universities, the federal government does not have an obligation to pay for it. the federal government student loan situation, cal thomas, was the conservative solution for that? guest: i would also add that if you want to live in a floodplain where your house is likely to get wiped out in a hurricane or flood, you shouldn't expect the federal government to pick up the tab for you. this whole idea of government is a first resource is set up a last resort is a total flip on what the founders and president believe government should be. this overreliance on government has created the nearly $32 trillion debt and many other the problems we have. we have to understand who we are as a country and nation.

our motto is out of many, one and now we are coming out of many one. i think one of the great quotes from barack obama was when he was first running, we are not a black america or white america, we are the united states of america. that is the kind of attitude that needs to be promoted. despite wherever you came from, you are an american. if you want to come here, you become a citizen and if you are born here you are an american, not a hyphenated citizen. that is what is causing so much angst in the country. need more political leadership to talk like that. host: felt his next coming from brooklyn on the democrats line. caller: good morning, mr. thomas. guest: good morning.

you have a great voice page are to be in radio. caller: thank you. i've had the pleasure of reading your column over the years. i am 74 years old. i enjoyed it even though i am not a conservative but you are true to your values. guest: thank you. caller: i have some questions. guest: the may pick up on something before you ask the question. you are a dying breed. i read liberal friends and have friends on all sides. today, it seems to me that so many people, liberals, conservatives, republicans, democrats turn in only 2 -- tune in only to those things that reinforce their values. they don't listen to each other anymore. we throw rhetorical barbs at each other and then we feel self-satisfied.

i appreciate you reading me and i want you to know that you are a great american for doing that. go ahead with your questions. caller: you are an even greater american, because i totally agree with you. the questions are -- i notice you made a quote from your book about learning from the past, not living in the past. my question is, how do you feel about the santos and wanting black history in schools in florida? that is question number one. question number two, what is your take on donald trump and his attack on the press? i know you have heard the phrase fake news when they started writing about his troop actions, the grabbing women and stuff like -- about his true actions, the grabbing women and stuff

like that. host: thank you for the questions. guest: i don't think that ron desantis is against black history. i am interested in black history. one of the endorsers of my book is skip yates of harvard and a friend of obama and most likely a democrat, a smart man. i think what desantis is doing is opposing the critical race theory that sees everything through slavery and racism. we should be focusing on those who have overcome, not just those who sing the song "we shall overcome." look at tim scott who is running for president, clarence thomas, who the left hates, grew up in horrible conditions, no father, dirt floors, poverty and the managed to overcome. we ought to beat telling their stories instead of just focusing on slavery 200 years ago.

i think it is important as part of history, but we should not be dwelling on it, because nobody now living was a slave or owned a slave. with respect to the second question, i completely agree with donald trump. i have a column coming tuesday that looks back on what national review asked a number libertarians and conservatives what we thought about donald trump in 20 and how things haven't changed. i am just amazed at how many evangelical christians still support trump with they set about bill clinton and his escapades, that character was everything. as the husband of eight women and father of doctors and grandfather of granddaughters, i am offended by his view that when you are famous you can do just about whatever you want to do with women. that ought to be a disqualifier on its face. he is a very bad man in terms of

his personal character and it besmirch is the office of the presidency of the united states. we have a lot of great candidates out there. we should take a look at them. yes, he did some good things as president but not enough to warrant a second term. host: 20 recent columns about ron desantis, is the complaint of in assess ability to the media, you talk -- to your recent columns about ron desantis, is the complaint of not being able to assess the media. can you talk about that? guest: i came out of a meeting and there was governor desantis waiting to go see him. i said i have been trying to get an interview with you and i am not hostile. he said i get a lot of requests. and i said don't give me that line. his deputy chief of staff gave

me his card. i have written three emails and have not heard back. he has a warmth problem. you can't just get away with attacking the press. you have to overcome it. break -- reagan did it brilliantly, kennedy, even some of the things they didn't like, he got around with his personality. i am not the only one to mention it. there was a piece that talked about desantis' difficulty in connecting with people. that should be one of your greatest gifts as a politician, connecting with people. host: let's hear from matt in new york, republican line. caller:. it is an honor talking to you. guest: living in the people's republic of new york, i don't

get to see your column in any printed newspaper. anyway, you are talking about attacking the press. the fact of it is the press is a big problem. you were talking about how the decline in the major cities. they need to vote these people out. if they are not informed about what is going on, how are they going to know what is going on? you can't find in the so-called legacy media and some of the political wings of the democratic party, which are msnbc and clinton news network, they don't talk about this stuff . during the riots in 2020 they had a guy on cnn saying they are having a mostly peaceful protest and in the background you can see a burning building. it is just ridiculous. guest: it reminds me of baghdad

bob in iraq that said there were no u.s. troops in iraq and there were tanks moving hi tim. the internet has given -- tanks moving behind him. the internet has given us the ability to do our own homework. you have to be careful because there is misinformation and disinformation out there and i think the rise of artificial intelligence and chaps -- snapchat, tiktok -- other things will be worse at spreading disinformation, but you have to do your own homework and you have to care about the country to do it. it is something that is needed. you don't have to rely on the legacy media. i read it and i am in it and have been for many years, you have to go to different sources and have a balanced media diet like you have a balanced food

diet for good personal health and move on from there. host: let's go to new jersey, kurt on the independent line. you are on with cal thomas. caller: pleasure is all mine. i want to change the subject just a tad. my thoughts are i got a free book that was called "return to hiroshima. the line said 78,000 people known to have been killed i the bomb. estimates go as high as 200,000 or more. why are we not talking about the breakdown of foreign affairs and powers in we are talking about getting rid of plastic bags in new jersey. wouldn't abound destroy the country? guest: the politicians,

particularly in washington when they come back for the three and four date weekends get together and republicans and democrats, one of the talking points of the day are repeated on other networks. born policy is not a major issue right now. republican can strive to make it with the precipitous withdrawal from afghanistan and leaving the equipment behind and the loss of women's rights that were in existence while we were there they have all been destroyed by the taliban. it does not get a lot of votes. we have been, and to some extent understandable, but no longer in a uniform world. we are an isolated entry and we don't like to be involved in other affairs we have spent toyon's of dollars on wars trying to bail people out and threats here and i think we need

a new study of what america's role in the world is and most importantly what the role of nations might be in defending freedom but others as well. it was playing top -- pocket change while we were rolling out the dollar. let others step up and why should we bear most of the burden? host: in your new book "watchmen in the night," you make your views about theapital attack henrsi you said it was deplorablend disgusting -- about the capitol attack j 6. you t was deplorable and disgusting and ty should denounce it with more vehemence

than the rts in 2020. guest: his comments were insufficient and lacked insincerity. what he think the long-term scars are of january 6 in our society? guest: i was born in washington, d.c., and there were two guards at the house and senate outside. there were no metal detectors. anybody could walk in anytime they wanted and most were expected to behave themselves. you look back in the late 1950's when the puerto rican terrorists shot of the senate or house, anyway, that was a very rare event. now there are very are several and metal detectors everywhere. you go into the house and senate, you have to go through all of these detectors and x-rays and the rest. i think we are becoming an armed

camp. every cabinet agency has weapons now. why does the department of education need weapons, the irs, the department of agriculture need weapons customer qc cameras on every corner, not just to monitor but to monitor your movement here this is the stuff of a totalitarian society. this has changed in my lifetime. a metal detector was something used to take to the beach to find coins someone dropped but now they are everywhere, airplanes, everywhere. the government is monitoring virtually everything we do and now we have 87,000 new irs agents going after more money for the government. revenue isn't a problem, spending is the problem. all this talk about millionaires and billionaires is ridiculous. they are the ones hire people. with respect to poverty, we

spent $11 trillion on antipoverty programs. your democratic strategist was talking about helping the needy and the rest. we help the needy but the goal ought to be to make them on needy -- un-needy. ago would be to get them out of poverty -- my plan would be to get them out of poverty not keep them in poverty. bill clinton reached ed agreement on welfare reform and the left said it would be terrible -- reached an agreement on welfare reform and the left said it would be terrible. when they realized it wasn't going to be there they got jobs and most were able to get jobs and take care of their families. host: we are talking to cal thomas on his new book, "a watchman in the night."

(202) 748-8001 republicans(202) 748-8001,, dem dots -- democrats (202) 748-8000, independents and others, (202) 748-8002 host: a color on the democrat line. -- a caller on the democrat line. caller: we have too many bosses and the first one is abortion. i would never have one, but i do not have the right to tell somebody else they can't. guest: i feel the same way about slavery. i would never have one but whom i just -- to decide about others. guest: -- caller: i can't believe there are so many lies going around. you know right from wrong and what is good and bad.

they spread more crop that is not true and as far as trump, i was a republican for a long time but i knew they were going to start getting in trouble when they started with the tea party stuff. trump has far too much baggage. guest: parties change. today's democrat party not like yesterday's. you have people like the democrat from washington state and labor union leaders who were strong anti-communist, strong national defense. jfk cut taxes because he believed people should have more of the money they work for. things change. not all republicans are the same and most democrats in my view are the same today but that is why you have to do your own

homework and vote intelligently at election time. if you don't like the way things are going, then why don't you vote for somebody else? one of trump's lines in 2016 to an ever can american audience is, look, you have been voting for the democrats for 40 years, what have they done for you? your cities are a mess why don't you vote differently and try different avenue. host: about diversity and the parties, who has more, the republican party or the democrat party in terms of range of views? guest: i think pretty much they are united in their worldview. the democrats, if you were pro-life, a pro-life democrat i remember, when was tony hall a democrat from ohio, long since

retired from congress, and bill casey, the father of the governor of pennsylvania. if you are a pro-life democrat you'll never get invited to dogcatcher or invited to speak at the democratic national convention. you will be isolated. it is the same for the whole progressive section of the agenda. on the right, if you are a pro-choice republican, you will not get the nomination. we don't talk to each other or have debates and ask what is really best for the country. we are locked in our little cabinets and we don't communicate anymore. we have more ability to communicate, not only like we are doing now on a zoom media -- meeting with c-span, but we talk with -- we talk over each other. when we went out on the lecture

circuit, bopp would say, find somebody you disagree with and sit down with them over a cup of coffee and this into them. don't just talk at them, listen to them and you will find out some things you didn't know about them and they will ask you about yourself and they will find out things they didn't know about you. and out of that will come common ground moving the country forward. but now we label people and after we get through labeling people we feel better about ourselves but no problems are solved. host: good morning on the independent line. caller: how are you doing, cal thomas? i want to make three statements before you filibuster me. guest: i'm not going to

filibuster anyone. caller: you give mixed signals when you say obama would work with everybody. you want to have rabbit schools with public money but the people who are poor cannot go to these schools. my third thing is talking about black history. we are equal, mr. we are the same. i am saying with everybody. i am not asking somebody to give me anything. don't talk about people asking for something for that is crazy. if you want to put the was their don't filibuster. guest: are you through filibustering? host: go ahead. guest: that is a lot of stuff to

unpack. he made his point and let's move on. host: do you agree with his stance on crating private schools with public money? guest: again, if competition is what gives all votes, that is why we have packaged delivery. competition works in every other area of life, from your phone carrier to your internet provider, to your fast food restaurants, to just about everything. what we have created in the education establishment in america is an monopoly and monopolies are bad. they promote the welfare of the teachers unions. look at this teachers union president weingarten who did not want open schools during covid but still wanted the teachers to get paid. i find nothing wrong with

competition and the idea of public when he, public money is my money, your money, tax money. we ought to be able to decide where our children should go to get the best education and not be forced into some of the failing schools with bad teachers. that is just a recipe for failure. if you don't allow a child to have a decent education, that child is not going to have a very good future. forcing them to remain in public schools that are not performing, and some are but many are not an into this whole lgbtqai+ business which has nothing to do with reading, writing, and science, which is what china is focused on, does not move us forward. that is what i am saying. host: tony says there were no red states and blue states in the obama speech. he proceeded to exacerbate

racial visions in his reelection campaign. that is the tragedy of his residency. do you agree or disagree? guest: to repeat what i said earlier. i grew up in washington, d.c., where segregation still existed, separate restrooms for african-american and white people, separate water fountains, separate seating in certain restaurants if they could get in at all. i remember this. i didn't really begin to associate with black people until i played basketball in college. the only black people i knew before that was a maid my parents employed. late hud secretary at once said he had showered with more african-americans than existed in the republican party. that was funny, not exactly true, but made an important point. we can talk about racism and

slavery and the heritage of america and all these other things, but just talking about it and focusing on it does not roof life. that is why we need to begin with improving education in the school system in this country. that is my education choice is important. you talk to the parents of children and they want it overwhelmingly but the politicians are standing in the schoolhouse door to keep them trapped within. host: let's hear from bob in memphis on the republican line. go ahead. caller: mr. thomas, i am a very conservative man. i believe in doing right for people. i am not eight segregationist and all that, but i don't hear

too much about the anti-minority people, and talking about the mexicans taking over the country and everything. my daughter went to harvard university with barack obama and she was very liberal on some things. my father and mother treated our black and colored help with respect. poor people sent there kids to universities and got dr. degrees and were smart people. we can't label everybody in big cities, what about those of us white in the crime and killing our babies?

i agree with my doctor on that part. all these kinds of people that stoke a lot of these things. host: we are running short on time. guest: again, i think there are people who sow racism in this country for personal benefit. you look at tim scott and trey gowdy, were great friends and wrote a book together. there are many, many people in america who are friends and who genuinely love each other who have different ethnic racial backgrounds but you never see them on television, because television promotes conflict. burning cities, get eyeballs and

ratings. there is a whole race industry that promotes division in order to improve their financial ratings or other political success. i think it is disgusting as well as discouraging. we ought to see ourselves as fellow americans and not somebody trying to take over the country. i think we need to have a takeover of the country when it comes to economic sanity and a strong national defense and a view of what is consistently been proven to be right from wrong over the entire course of humanity. that kind of takeover i would support. host: jim is conference parsons, west virginia on the democrats line. caller: form -- good morning. i wanted to add some thoughts. you speak of a lot of good and

honorable notions and you mentioned tim scott who has been successful in this person is black and have been successful. that is the notion i grew up with. but i believe people need to remember a lot of those notions were predicated upon a liberal viewpoint. for example, you might say, look at these people who got shot in chicago. people need to stop and think, where is governor dissent is from? come any people were shot in florida that weekend, in texas? red state, blue state, blah, bl ah, blah. don't get me wrong, it is important to have a democrat dialogue and a republican conservative dialogue, but this

whole thing that started being pushed with someone like trump and ken starr, whitewater, blah, blah, blah with the clintons. republicans and democrats will say wrong things but you can't build a career on it. with the advent of someone like trump a lot of protests and social agitation happened because people are aware of -- host: i am going to let you go because we are running out of time. any other thoughts? guest: we have had conflict in the country from the beginning and has been stoked by all kinds of backgrounds, racial divide and many other things. we began in conflict, our

nation. i think the reason i wrote this book is to show where things have gone since 1984 when my column started. there is a pattern and a narrative, a diary and things are getting worse, frankly. we know what the solutions are. we are not talking about a cure for cancer, low that was certainly be nice. we know what solutions are but the frustration for a lot of us, certainly on the right, is the solutions are not applied. we had this notion that government is our keeper, we shall not want the government will be there with government checks is totally apathetic oats what the founders believed and frankly to what a lot of even democrats believed until the recent gay. that is why i wrote the book. thanks to those who say they are going to get it. thanks or having me on again. host: cal thomas, you can follow

his columns at calthomas.com. thanks for being on the program. guest: always a pleasure to be on c-span. host: that will do it for this morning's show. we are back tomorrow at 7:00 eastern. we hope you are as well. enjoy the rest of your weekend. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]