caller: yeah, i think it definitely be glenn beck, he brought out the wrong people and shows from the doing more for this country than the president or any other administration. host: thank you, next we have sam. caller: i don't agree with that gentleman with glenn beck, he's disinforming the country, and god help with someone with that echo chamber. i am a muslim and it should definitely be ron paul. i applaud your network because it has some gumption to stay true to the principles. for ron paul, he understands foreign policy and understands the nature of the relationship between intervening in =ññ countries and occupying them. but unfortunately he's regarded as a bit of a nut job with the news media, but i applause you and your staff for having him in your studio. host: we love having him and always welcome. caller: i appreciate that, but i was disappointed as you cut off an earlier caller for the journalalists that wanted to elaborate his point of the nature of his israeli nature. host: you know why, because it's a :icaller that frequents the network, we want to have a wide variet

glenn beck is another thing. the media always changes. when i started off, it was three networks and pbs. daily newspapers were important things. i remember "lief"anfe" and "loo magazine. "time" magazine had content which it does not have any more. "the economist" is still recognizably what it was like in 99 -- 1976 and 1977. "time" and "newsweek" are going donw. th-- going down. the world of media changes. you do not have to track its every mutation. it is an attractive to wring your hands and say woe is us. the answer to the political thing is do the right thing yourself. build it and they will come. >> another question. >> whichi havdo you agree with e will when he said [unintelligible] and there would not be a "national review" if there was not a william buckley? >> yes. >> what do you think about chris buckley? >> he is a friend an an editor -- and an editor of mine. i wrote for him and i noticed he sent out 3 by 5 cards every time i wrote a piece and i thought, that is very nice to see that being carried on. chris was writing about

glenn beck is another thing. the media always changes. when i started off, it was three networks and pbs. daily newspapers were important things. i remember "lief"anfe" and "loo magazine. "time" magazine had content which it does not have any more. "the economist" is still recognizably what it was like in 99 -- 1976 and 1977. "time" and "newsweek" are going donw. th-- going down. the world of media changes. you do not have to track its every mutation. it is an attractive to wring your hands and say woe is us. the answer to the political thing is do the right thing yourself. build it and they will come. >> another question. >> whichi havdo you agree with e will when he said [unintelligible] and there would not be a "national review" if there was not a william buckley? >> yes. >> what do you think about chris buckley? >> he is a friend an an editor -- and an editor of mine. i wrote for him and i noticed he sent out 3 by 5 cards every time i wrote a piece and i thought, that is very nice to see that being carried on. chris was writing about

we have one in italy and here we have glenn beck and rush limbaugh. it seems like there is a clear and turmoil on the right -- there is a clear turmoil. >> there are a lot of voices in both parties and there is a different motive in terms of those in the media than those of us who owe it to our constituents to live up to promises made. i think you are right in that people are castoff in this country -- people are pissed off in this country. as people are out of work they become more enraged with government. >> if you want to talk employment -- if you want to talk about unemployment you do not want to talk about obama being a racist. >> people are looking for leadership and they don't care about that issue. >> when you have that put on the agenda that is a problem. >> i want to make this a less partisan and talk about history. my history does not kopach. law but i remember the 1990 costs where we made a budget deficit and made a surplus. we gave that to the republicans and lost the surplus. the unemployment rate did not start at 0 in january of this ye

we've not northern leagues in italy, and here we have glenn beck and rush limbaugh about what is the true republican party. it seems to me that there is a very clear term out on the right, which also will be a problem. >> adam, i've always said this -- there are a lot of voices in both parties, and there are those in public office and those not, and there is a different notive often in terms of those in the media than perhaps those of us who owe it to our constituents to live up to the promises made. and i think you're right in that people are pissed off, you know, in this country, because there's a lack of demonstrable result. and as people are out of work, they become even more enraged at a lack of deliverables on the part of government. >> you don't want to talk about, as i understand it, whether barack obama is deeply racist, right? >> you want to talk about -- i mean, listen, people are looking for leadership now, and they don't care about that issue. they care about getting back to work. >> but when you have that raised and put on the agendas, that's a problem for you. >> i don

glenn beck is another thing. the media always changes. when i started off, it was three networks and pbs. daily newspapers were important things. i remember "lief"anfe" and "loo magazine. "time" magazine had content which it does not have any more. "the economist" is still recognizably what it was like in 99 -- 1976 and 1977. "time" and "newsweek" are going donw. th-- going down. the world of media changes. you do not have to track its every mutation. it is an attractive to wring your hands and say woe is us. the answer to the political thing is do the right thing yourself. build it and they will come. >> another question. >> whichi havdo you agree with e will when he said [unintelligible] and there would not be a "national review" if there was not a william buckley? >> yes. >> what do you think about chris buckley? >> he is a friend an an editor -- and an editor of mine. i wrote for him and i noticed he sent out 3 by 5 cards every time i wrote a piece and i thought, that is very nice to see that being carried on. chris was writing about

glenn beck is another thing. the media always changes. remember "lief"anfe" and "loo magazine. "time" magazine had content which it does not have any more. "the economist" is still recognizably what it was like in 99 -- 1976 and 1977. "time" and "newsweek" are going donw. th-- going down. the world of media changes. you do not have to track its every mutation. it is an attractive to wring your hands and say woe is us. the answer to the political thing is do the right thing yourself. build it and they will come. >> another question. >> whichi havdo you agree with e will when he said [unintelligible] and there would not be a "national review" if there was not a william buckley? >> yes. >> what do you think about chris buckley? >> he is a friend an an editor -- and an editor of mine. i wrote for him and i noticed he sent out 3 by 5 cards every time i wrote a piece and i thought, that is very nice to see that being carried on. chris was writing about his parents'deaths and i waparents'g about bill's life. two different books. >> i first read

glenn beck is another thing. the media always changes.when i started off, it was three networks and pbs. daily newspapers were important things. i remember "lief"anfe" and "loo magazine. "time" magazine had content which it does not have any more. "the economist" is still recognizably what it was like in 99 -- 1976 and 1977. "time" and "newsweek" are going donw. th-- going down. the world of media changes. you do not have to track its every mutation. it is an attractive to wring your hands and say woe is us. the answer to the political thing is do the right thing yourself. build it and they will come. >> another question. >> whichi havdo you agree with e will when he said [unintelligible] and there would not be a "national review" if there was not a william buckley? >> yes. >> what do you think about chris buckley? >> he is a friend an an editor -- and an editor of mine. i wrote for him and i noticed he sent out 3 by 5 cards every time i wrote a piece and i thought, that is very nice to see that being carried on. chris was writing about h

and we got northern leaps before italy and here we have, you know glenn beck and rush limbaugh and an argument about what is the true republican party. it seems to me there is a very clear turmoil on the right, which is also, will be a problem. >> and adam i always said this. there radio a lot of voices in both parties and those are those in public office and those not. there's a different motive often in terms of those in the media, than perhaps those of us who owe it to our constituents to live up to the promises made. and -- i think you're right in that -- people are angry in this country. because there's a lack of demonstrable results. and as people are out of work, they become more enraged at a hack of deliverable party government. >> if you wrant to talk about unemployment, you don't want to talk about barack obama and if he is racist? >> you want to talk about, people are looking for leadership now and they don't care about that issue. they care about getting back to work. >> when you have that raised and put on the agenda, that's a problem for you. >> and i wanted to -- >> i w

we have one in italy and here we have glenn beck and rush limbaugh. it seems like there is a clear and turmoil on the right -- there is a clear turmoil. >> there are a lot of voices in both parties and there is a different motive in terms of those in the media than those of us who owe it to our constituents to live up to promises made. i think you are right in that people are castoff in this country -- people are pissed off in this country. as people are out of work they become more enraged with government. >> if you want to talk employment -- if you want to talk about unemployment you do not want to talk about obama being a racist. >> people are looking for leadership and they don't care about that issue. >> when you have that put on the agenda that is a problem. >> i want to make this a less partisan and talk about history. my history does not kopach. law but i remember the 1990 costs where we made a budget deficit and made a surplus. we gave that to the republicans and lost the surplus. the unemployment rate did not start at 0 in january of this ye

i am similar tao glenn beck in that i'm a visual guide.chitecture prepa. our ic in -- i see in fox -- aetna. and a big zero in the contents of his mind. why do they get their health care information from these folks? host: about the network -- what you think of the values of the single payer system? gcaller: a single payer system would make it all effici.. if we will leave people in the tracks who the dreg -- in the dregs to suffer and die, that is also in the bible. we should not be doing that to people. host: here is a little bit more. "a lower value plans would have higher out-of-pocket costs. higher and higher co-payments, and deductibles, and so forth some of the benefits of the policies -- the vision care and expensive and mental health coverage. opponents say that as a terrific way to hold down cost bit people will be more reluctant to access services. may have -- people may have fire out-of-pocket costs -- higher out-of-pocket costs." and it goes on. victor on the support line. caller: somebody has to pay for it. my situation is th

we've not northern leagues in italy, and here we have glenn beck and rush limbaugh about what is the true republican party. it seems to me that there is a very clear term out on the right, which also will be a problem. >> adam, i've always said this -- there are a lot of voices in both parties, and there are those in public office and those not, and there is a different notive often in terms of those in the media than perhaps those of us who owe it to our constituents to live up to the promises made. and i think you're right in that people are pissed off, you know, in dled lack of demonstrable result. and as people are out of work, they become even more enraged at a lack of deliverables on the part of government. >> you don't want to talk about, as i understand it, whether barack obama is deeply racist, right? >> you want to talk about -- i mean, listen, people are looking for leadership now, and they don't care about that issue. they care about getting back to work. >> but when you have that raised and put on the agendas, that's a problem for you. >> i donned -- i want to make this