tv Washington Journal CSPAN January 1, 2011 7:00am-10:00am EST
host: if you called us in the last month, put the phone down today. send us a message electroncally. our e-male address is journal @ c-span.org and on twitterc-span wj. the top stories of 2010, "the mass yiffer gulf oil spill triggered at a rig used by bp was the top news story of 2010 followed by the did i vicive health care overhaul. the oil spill received 150 ballots cast for the top 10
stories. the health care bill was next. the u.s. election was third. here is how they ranked them. we'll go through the first four stories and then take calls and come back. in order, the gulf oil disaster, the april 20 explosion at a bp leased oil rig killed 11 workers and unleashed a deep-sea spill that ultimately spewed at least 170 million gallons of crude into the gulf. the health care overhaul, after bitter political wrangling president barack obama was able to sign into law a major campaign promise, a health care overhaul intended to expand coverage to more americans. u.s. electrics. president obama called it a "shellacking" in which an they gained more legislative authority. the recession -- and in the
economy, economists said the deepest recession since the great depression was over and consumers began to spend more as the year ended. our first call comes from lynn, massachusetts. david on our line for inents. guest: good morning. host: what did you think was the top story of 2010 and why? caller: i think it was the teaparty. it was president the republican party that shellacked the president, it was the tea party issue. i'm a tea party leader myself. can i think they will have a bigger impact in the coming year. host: how so? caller: we will be holding more
meetings. i believe people on both sides of the political spectrum will not only come to the middle, but understand that the constitution is our founding document and our blueprint to do what's right. host: that's one of the stories featured. the teaparty republicans score big. the popular conservative teaparty movement that gained traction in 2009 as what participants saw as big government and out of control spending at a time when a president's party traditionally loses ground in congress. you can read more about that in the philadelphia inquirer. next up, brentwood, california. cliff, you are on the line for "washington journal ."
cliff, what was your top story for 2010? caller: i thought the passage of health care and eight months later, when the republicans took the house and the most house seats, a net of 63 since 1938, and of course that record-setting pick-up at the state level, all those state legislators and the state legislatures. you just had on that, very interesting, no labeled meeting. it puts me in mind, you know, when health care was passed, the party in power actually they, you know, they used reconciliation. senate reconciliation to pass health care. the day before they passed it, they were prepared to deem it. do you remember that when pelosi was prepared to deem the health care bill? now when social security was
passed in 1968 and in 1965 when the civil rights act was passed, johnson, in 1964, actually more republicans by proportion voted for civil rights than did democrats on social security and medicare. the party in power received significant support from the minority party. never has america seen major perform passed with only, you know, by deeming something, by reconciliation. host: let's move on to lancaster, pennsylvania. john, your top story for 2010? caller: top story? citizens united. the nail in the coffin of ending the united states as we knew it and becoming an official corpor atocraphy, olegophraphy, you
name it. host: why do you think? caller: rove and his gang, coke, all those folks, piled up the money. foreign sources. didn't matter what the sources were. they are going to be able to do that until the congress can change it. everybody is captured rbling the house, the senate, obama, the supreme court. we're in deep trouble. host: pennsylvania, on the line for democrats. caller: i think the biggest story of 2010 was the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell". this is a giant step forward for americans. host: what do you see as the significance of "don't ask, don't tell"?
caller: it extends the first part of equality to glbt americans. this is one step forward in the push forward equality, and you have to recognize that throughout our history, glbt americans have been discriminated against, they have been oppressed, they have been fired from jobs, thiff been ostrecized in many communities and so forth. this legislation that repeals "don't ask, don't tell" is the beginning of turning those oppressive kinds of behaviors in our society around. host: sacramento, california on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: my story of 2010 is barack obama won the nobel peace
prize and no one had any comment positive toward it unless it was negative, and everyone questioned why is he not doing as much for his country and why is he doing so much outside of the country? well, you are supposed to come home and be comfortable, and when you come home, you're not supposed to worry about your neighbors, so as a man in a worldly manner, you would want to make friends about the world, and a world abroad. so when you come home, when you get home, you always have peace at home sofment what you do is, you deal with situations at home, because you are comfortable, and those things should become more supportive. americans should support barak whether they are republican, independent, or democrat. he has done a lot. he's the first black president, and he's done a lot to help our
country, and we should -- host: actually, i believe martin luther king was the first black american to win the nobel peace prize. the press has as number five, the haiti earthquake. already the western hemisphere's most destitute nation, haiti was shattered by an earthquake on january 12 that killed at least 230,000 and left millions homeless. the tea party movement, though it lacked the trappings of traditional political organizations, the tea party movement had the profound impact on the 2010 election, influencing the stances of republican leaders and enabling some maverick challengers to oust g.o.p. establishment candidates.
chilee mine rescue, in iraq, u.s. fors formally ended their combat role. number nine, wikileaks. first came the online postings of a huge batch of u.s. military documents from iraq and afghanistan. then wikileaks started releasing a cache of classified state department diplomatic cables creating embarrassment for washington in its dealings with other nations. and in afghanistan, after months of deliberation, president obama ordered a troop surge in a major bid to turn the tide of the nearly 10-year-old war. back to your calls. your top stories of 2010. concord, new hampshire. mark you're on the independent line. caller: i have one thing to say about the top 10 biggest stories in 2010. i think the top 10 is the
sacrifice of the few for the benefit richest people in the united states. i'm talking about our military. we've been in this war in afghanistan going on 11 years. that's all i hear about, the economy, why we don't have this, we don't have that. and these men -- i know a little bit about the military because i spent two years in the vietnam war, and i know what it is to go hungry and cold and tired, and to listen to the american people, that's all they think is self-gratification and what they can get. even my own relatives say things like, oh, the taxes are too high. our education system, who is going to support the schools? who is going to improve the roads? who is going to improve the
infrastructure so we can be the greatest country in the word? jand people. -- i don't understand people. they just want real quick results and they are impatient. host: let's move on to marshall, michigan. john, you are on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i believe the top national astory would have been the gulf oil spill. locally we had a pipeline break. i believe big oil with their wreckless rampage and nonregulations and regulating themselves. this is a traff city. -- this is just a travesty and it is time for government to play a bigger role. >> what role do you think government can play as far as cleaning up these oil spills and making sure they don't happen again? >> you have oil speculateors
driving up the price of oil. the government needs to get more involved. they let the oil companies self-regulate. they let them basically name their own profits, and the american consumer is going to pay in the end. >> john out there in marshall, michigan, on the front page of the detroit free press, their lead story is the coverage of governor rick snyder's inauguration and also a fresh beginning, the year michigan comes back with perseverence the state can rebuild its confidence. it is not that michigan is glad to leave 2010 behind, although it was another bad year for far too many people, today it is about optimism in the new year. are you optimistic about the future of michigan, john? >> not presently. oufer wages have been driven down to the lowest standards ever.
i believe unions have a part to play still in this country. we can't let these big corporations run their businesses out of the caymen islands and keep depressing our livlihoods. host: nancy from sidney, ohio, what is your top story about 2010? caller: i mentioned about social security, if they are planning on putting money in the stock markets, which the republicans is planning on doing, wouldn't that be better to go toward taxes and schools and the things we need in this country? i was raised that you clean up your own back yard before you start in on somebody else's. and the taxes is being paid, but they are not being -- accounting and bookkeeping isn't like it
was in my era. host: in the new york daily news, stocks ended with a wimper. trading was at its lowest levels of the year as many traders took the day off. despite investors' concerns and about the u.s. economy and the possibility of european countries defaulting on debts, the dow and the s&p 500 are up about 14% for the year, and the nasdaq is up 18% for the year eafer dividends. bob, your top story for 2010. caller: yes, with the civil rights matter, and the gay and lesbian movement and how the
press in the mainstream media equates the discrimination against blacks with the discrimination against gay and lesbian, and actually, one is a legitimate race of people and one is a pevversion, and i think i would be insulted if i were a black person having that said about me. host: bruce on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: yes, i'm here. i'm on the line for democrats. host: yes, i'm sorry about that. caller: i would like to say that this government has never allowed a hostage situation, and the republicans held this will government, the obama administration, in a hostage situation, over unemployment benefits, which would go directly into the economy as
compared to -- as compared to high-end republican money that goes to a house -- host: ok, bruce, we'll leave it there. next up is becker in florida. go ahead. caller: it's not "becker" it's "victor." host: victor. go ahead. caller: tea party, independents, socialism, activism, whatever you can bring up, are there any americans left? this is primarily one of my concerns. i would like to see a category
instead of people calling in a republican or a democrat or an independent. i would like to see in your category, "americans." i could solve health care. sin -- sincerely i can. there is no need of all the time -- of all this talk of republicans and independentents and 60 votes or whatever the case may be. i am a little bit nervous, but i can assure you, i can solve health care for every american from the president down to a street cleaner. if anybody is really interested and who is truly an american who loves his flag, loves his country, it can be done. host: let's move on to leewood
kansas. go aheed, roger. caller: i have a slight correction. it was dr. ralph bunch who was the first african-american to win the nobel peace prize. >> you are correct. thank you very much for that. caller: the top story, in my humble opinion, is the election in november in which the republican party with the assistance of the tea party has reemerged from the disasters from the prior two elections. happy new year. host: happy new year to you, too. on the front page of the washington times -- earthquakes and elections. andrea billups began with the earthquake heard round the world and the shake-up in washington. millions responded to a
shattering on january 12, the earthquake in haiti that killed more than 230,000 people devastating an already beleaguered nation but touching hearts around the globe. celebrities roads -- rose to the occasion leading a hurricane katrina-inspired telethon with some, such as actor-activist sean penn, parachuting directly into the care bean nation to hine a line on the dire need. let's go to gregory in memphis, tennessee. your top story for 2010, dreg greg. host: all of the stories are very important and they are significant in our history, but what my major concern is that we as democrats and we as republican should unify and come
together. we need to get this country on track. we need to demonstrate love. and even though the past history in latcht year's events took place, we can't seem to capitalize off the difficulties and the tragedies. we need to come together and lover one another and stop all this bickering in washington and show interest in love and making ourselves be more stronger country. the man from florida, he just about took all of my thoughts away from me. but i would just like to wish you and this country a happy new year and i hope we come together and unify. host: thank you. let's move on to lee in arkansas on the line for independents. your top story for 2010. caller: i actually think the unsung story of 2010 is what a
debacle the health care industry has turned out to be. they had, i think the number is up to 270 wavers to different corporations around the country that they don't have to be involved in what's been called "obama care." and the fact that if that many corporations cannot handle the financial burden that that bill is going to place on plerns what about the rest of us that are going to have to be involved in it that aren't working for those people who got the wavers? isn't that going to add up what has to be paid by the others others? host: lee, we're going to leave it there. besides the top stories for 2010, in the news is "chief justice john roberts called on
president obama and the senate on friday to call what he called the persistent problem of judicial vacancies. " the story by adam liptak goes on to say "the plea, in the chief justice's an you'll year-end report on the federal judiciary, was an echo of one of the his predecessor, chief justice william rehnquist, who made front-page news on new year's day in 1998 by criticizing the senate for failing to move more quickly on president bill clinton's on sunday, 6:30 p.m., eastern, you can see inside the historic building of the supreme court and hear from all the current supreme court justices, including the recent conversation with the court's newest justice, elena kagan. the documentary also features a
look at several recent developments at the court. that is our newly updated documentary. "the supreme court, home to america's highest court." you'll be able to see that on c-span tomorrow at 6:30 p.m. eastern time. back to the phones. our top story in 2010, fort myers, florida, michael on our republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, michael. caller: i wanted to comment on the call from iowa, the democrat line. i was wondering where he thinks we will pay for all these so-called benefits since this country is already on its way to going broke. host: what are your thoughts? host: it is one thing to say we are holding the obama administration hostage when in a sense we actually don't have the
funds. the funding is not there. this country is broke already. host: in the "the washington post" this morning, they talk about health care under the headline, the new year brings health care changes. david fahrenthold reports "the new year will bring important changes to u.s. health insurance prules, as new provisions related to last year's health care overhaul take effect." "the requirement that all merneds buy health care insurance is unconstitutional. the judge allowed the implementation of the overhaul to continue until a higher court rules on the issue. " that's in this morning's "the washington post". back to the phones, thibodeau, louisiana.
caller: hello, c-span. to me the top story is that we are still in war in afghanistan and iraq. you can't fight terrorists with a conventional army. covert war demands a covert response. we need to better prepare ourselves to understand our enemies, their language, culture, and history. host: do you think more effort needs to be made on diplomatic routes rather than mill tarle a. caller: a different kind of military approach. and it is always diplomatic, of course, but we needed a different approach covertly, to fight a covert war.
host: next up is jack on our line for republicans. good morning, jack. caller: happy new year. the biggest story was the election when the republicans took over so much of the house. and one of the big reasons that nobody will talk about, but i think it is racial. i think it is the president and mrs. obama showing insensitivity toward issues that the whites are interested in. for example, the worst was -- one was maliq shabaz who said it was ok to go out and start killing white children. we heard no condemnation from mr. or mrs. obama or the black leaders. the black callers calling in saying we should start to get together they should start by
condemning people like shabaz right now. host: the independent line. good morning. you're on "washington journal ." caller: i think the big story is the health care and the complete debt. people think the deficit is just that debt. it is added to the debt every year. congress does not listen to the people. compromise is ok, but we are tired of "let's make a deal congress." that doesn't work. if it is good for america, it should be a stand-alone bill. not tie into all these other things. we want stand-alone bills, not "let's make a deal ." host: a -- fedmech sends us this e-mail, "a big story is the
liberal media is that obama is the president and the rise in gas prices." >> i think the big story is that president obama was able to get through as many bills in the lame duck session as he did. i also have a comment about a gentleman that called. i for got where he called from, but he talk bd our politicians going to washington -- he talked about our politicians going to washington and loving each other. dick gregory said he has done all sorts of thungs under love, but under rt, you never kill or rob or do anything to anybody out of respect. i think they need to have respect. and especially boehner needs to know that we are suffering ute here into -- out here in ohio. i think he was -- well, we shall see what he does. thank you. host: career ship doesn't always
pay off for the jobless. a new study for the republican workers seals sentiments on what a large number have dub to pay for work. many, it turns out, had to switch careers and significantly reduce their living standards. in my cases, these people are not very happen, said cliff zukin, professor in public policy and political science at rutgers university. they're the winners who got new jobs, but then really -- but its not really what they want nor where they want to be." david, what is your top story, for 2010? host: the first one, i thought, was the supreme court hearing where corporate u.s.a., corporations declared war on
people. i saw that as a giant step toward the death of our democracy. in terms of dictating how anyone thinks, controls we the people or the pligs, the killer corporations judge roberts and judge alito saying "the people." that is a turning point. the second story to come out of this so-called "great recession" with millions of people losing their jobs. i think the second story, we had this $800 billion stimulus and what wasn't pointed out enough is that corporate u.s.a. had a $2 trillion anti-stimulus. corporate u.s.a. ask sitting on
$2 trillion. i don't consider that accidental. i consider that intentional to stop people from being hired and brought back into the work force. host: other stories in the news this morning, their lead story crucial this morning beginning for afghanistan. larry king reporting from -- laura king reporting from kabul writes a troop build up in 2010 was meant to blunt the momentum of the taliban insurgencey in afghanistan. now it is 2011 that has become the make-or-break year over there. u.s. and nato officials have sought to put a positive base on the last 12 months of fighting, citing significant military gains in the southern heartland. a concerted campaign of strikes targeting the insurgents midlevel field command and the growth of nato force to lelveds
at last deemed adequate for the task at hand. jean, you are on the line for independents. host: just a quick comment before i get to my big news story. first, everybody wants to talk about the campaign finance issue, but i think they need to look at the democrats and the union and how much money they put into the elections. it turned out to be more than any of the business leaders. my big story is the constitution, which covers so much. illegal aliens and deportation, sealing our borders, getting back to small government. the government cannot help you. it is not their job to help you. it is job per the constitution to keep us safe and secure. it is not their job bring anybody out of poverty. it is up to you to get yourself
out of poverty. host: jerry hearst of the tribune paper writes "did have u.s. clanse complaints about cars quadruple. toyota recalls and a rush by other automakers to announce a fix-it campaign that focused on the public's attention to auto defects. " "the national highway traffic safety administration received more than 40,000 complantse complaints." tell us, what is your top story for 2010? caller: i would agree with the last lady, about everything she said. i have been on unemployment. i went about two weeks into an
extension before i took a bathroom remodeling job and was not able to go back on unemployment after that. you have to make do. i think unemployment extensions should be called what they are, which is welfare, and stop calling it unemployment insurance, because it is not unemployment insurance. thank you. host: in your mind, what is the difference between unemployment and welfare? host: not an awful lot. unemployment insurance is what your employer pays into, but you get back to work. you don't wait -- you go out, you invent something, you do something, you write something. you have to get off your butt. that's all. host: omaha, nebraska. our line for independents. go ahead. caller: march of last year the
v.a. acknowledging 11 infectious diseases from gulf war syndrome, one of them being lou gehrig's disease. that's my top story. host: the race for mayor, davis drops out and endorses braun. braun endorsed as the sole major african-american candidate when davis dropped out in the name of unity. davis, a democrat from illinois acknowledged that with multiple black candidates on the february 22nd ballot there was a risk supporters and campaign money would be split. he says "i want to make sure at least one of us has what is needed." davis called braun the best candidate. there is a big picture on the front page of the "chicago
tribune" with former senator carol mosley braun as davis makes that announcement yesterday in chicago. next up is virginia on the line for democrats p caller: good morning. the first story is the one being overlooked, the touch screens that don't have no paper trail. that's a problem, and it is being overlooked. i hope somebody jumps on that before the 2010 election. the other thing is the republicans are using k the deficit to steer folks. the republicans, along with the major corporations are trying to get rid of the unions so that we can go back to $5 an hour labor. that's what they want. then they can bring jobs to this country instead ever taking them to other countries.
host: did you vote in the 2010 election? caller: yes, i did. the first time i used a touch-screen voting machine, the person i pressed the name for, a different light showed up. so i know the machines can be manipulated. they need to be checked. something needs to be consumer did them before the 2012 election, because the machines don't have a paper trail. host: all right. thank you. in the paper "paulson gets where he lives. few know better than former treasury secretary henry m. paulson jr. how the struggling u.s. economy has battered home prices. as president george bush's top economic advisor, paulson played a lead role in battling the u.s.
hoiled housing downturn and the deep financial crisis it sparked. but last week it got personal. paulson sold his three-bedroom home in a washington neighborhood last week for close to a third less than his initial asking price and more than $1 million below what he paid." your top story for 2010? caller: i think it encompasses a lot of things. politicians increasing themselves in the political spectrum. between the election, they should become part of the republican news network. my other two stories, glen
beck's rally and john stewart's rally. i think both of them were significant. i think more people that came out for the john stewart rally were for sanity, ask that's what it is all about. host: and you don't think the folks that came out for the glen beck rally were for sanity? caller: no, i think they were trying to stirrup feelings. host: c.v.s. care mark greed to buy a medicare d. unit, an
acquisition that may open the nage's largest pharmacy health care provider to further criticism about anti-compttive practices. under the deal, c.v.s. will buy medicare part d unit. the purchase will more than double c.v.s.'s presence in the fast-growing parkt to 3.1 million members up from 1.2 million members. also this morning another twitter message. "the top story for 2010 was obama outed for being the socialist, globalist, controlled puppet he is. illuminati stooge." that which william brandt. caller: i think it ought to be
the popular vote who decides who is the president. host: randy, what does that have to do with 2010? host: i'm not sure, but they need to do away with it, because it doesn't work anymore. host: let's mower on to vince in salem, oregon. vince, you are on the line for "washington journal." caller: unemployment in oregon is crazy. host: what do you mean by "crazy"? caller: there is it lower unemployment here. i go everywhere, and nobody responds back. host: vince are you unemployed now? caller: yes. host: what were you doing previously? caller: i was at a bakery and i've been unploipped employed for about a year now.
host: have you given thought to leffing salem? caller: yes, but i have no funds going anywhere. host good luck finding a job in 2011. live monday at 1:00 p.m., republican national committee chairmanship debate. it will be moderated by tucker carlson, and this will all be taking place at the national press club. again, that will be live on c-span at 1:00 in the afternoon. you can go to our web site, c-span.org for more details. caller: i'm happy to be here because a lot of people didn't
make it to 2010. the thing i want to talk about from 2010 is that i don't listen to the republicans or the democrats. the liberal media or the republican media, because they don't have a focus on how to make america rich. when they get off their butts, and the constitution, when the house and senate do their job, like the constitution said, this country will change with the little bit of money that we have. the president in the white house now, the fearges stop fighting and don't look at what he is, look at what he does. the newspaper and all those people in the papers, they speak for themselves and we speak for ourselves. host: cam pfield, ohio. our line for independents. go ahead. caller: good mourn, and happy
new year. my top story is that they cut the funding for the medicare transplant patients in arizona. to me that is the slippery slope. now politicians will determine who wins and who dies, and she claim prolife. host: the times-piccaune. "real estate deals stuck in subsidy program." "city officials still waiting for finance authority of new orleans to send files from its soft second mortgage program so that city staff can review them and approve them for no interest forgiveable loans ." you can read more on that at nola.com.
caller: i just wanted to say good morning, america, and happy new year. host: what is the top story in your mind? caller: i would say the political change. i'm a rifpblet i have to register as a democrat in my state, because i vote for who i want to vote. so i have vote -- i have to register as a democrat. but i would say the political change. the tide is changing, and it is a good thing for america. host: in the "the washington post" norman ornstein has this op-ed. during the debate over health reform michelle bachman, sarah palin, and others rallied against the death panels that would result from the bill. government bureaucrats, critics said, would decide who would die
and when. the bill passed, and in deed, there are death panels rvings but they do not come from the patient protection and affordable care act, they come from republican administrations in such states as arizona and indiana. in arizona the government headed by governor jan brewer summa. -- sum mayorly stopped approving medicaid payments for many organ transplants in october. one man had a liver virtually snatched away while he waited to go into the operating room. he couldn't get it unless he came up with $200,000 to pay for the procedure. in indiana, the state -- mary, you are on the line for democrats. mary, your top story for 2010. mary? let's move on to -- that is joe in illinois. caller: good morning, and happy
new year. host: what is your top story for 2010? caller: the economy and the destruction of the middle class. host: how so? caller: well, there are three problems, the way i see it. there is trying to compete with countries like china that you only have to spend 3% for labor compared to $100% that you had to spend in this country. that's the first one. the second one is is technology. technology is good to a certain point, but when you have an automobile plant, which i saw an automobile plant on tv, a kia plant, that produced automobiles with strictly computerized
robots that only had about four or five human beings in the whole plant. host: mary on the line for democrats in floor floor. go ahead. caller: my top story of 2010 was the tea party. taxed enough already that was hijacked by dick armey, who is a republican, and his group. and they hijacked the tea party. unfortunately fox news controls most of the news in a lot of parts of the country. and they only get one side, which was the tea party side. people are like sheep. they will follow the leader right over the cliff, and i'm afraid that's where this country is going. the same group, like mitch mcconnell, his wife was head of
the department of labor, and she was instrumental, along with a lot of the republicans that supported the big corporations to ship jobs overseas because she said the american worker was lazy and they got big tax breaks. they are continuing to take big tax breaks. host: mary, we're going to leave it there. thanks for your call. and thank you to all the folks that participated in our open-line sellment. we'll take a short break. coming up next, the discussion on the international challenges facing the united states in 2011. we'll be right back after this break.
and an oral televised history by yvonneburke and her work on behalf of african-american women. see the complete weekend schedule online at c-span.org/history where you can press the c-span alert button and have our schedules e-mailed to you. >> the one thing we have learned is that economists and other sages of the economy are not very good at predicting what actually happens. >> his columns for news week and "the washington post" robert samuelson has written about politics for over 30 years. he will join us sunday on c-span's "q & a." >> calm in a time of anger and
leadership in a time of uncertainty. that is what the nation asks of the united states senate, and that is what this office demands of each who serve here. >> search for fair we will -- search for farewell speeches and every program since 1987. all online, and all free. it is washington your way. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome to the program. >> thank you. host: what are the major challenges in your mind, and threats to the u.s. in the coming year. >> as far as the middle east region is concerned, there is obviously plenty to keep obama busy. there is the issue of iran, obviously, there is israel and palestine, there is iraq,
relations with syria and yemen, and obviously the more pressing issue at the moment for the obama administration which is afghanistan and pakistan. host: so the same question to toby harnden, your thoughts on the major challenges and threats this year. guest: thank you, based out of london. i would agree with all of those. afghanistan and obama initially announced the 2011 drawdown date. i think a big political challenge domestically here at home and in the region, strong feelings that things are not working well with pakistan at all, and there are a number of fundamentally flawed aspects of policy, and i think 2012 -- 2011 will be the crunch time for
afghanistan. i think what's happening internally and the pressure on mahmoud ahmadinejad. will iran attack? how would the region do with that? all sorts of challenges there as well. host: in the "new york times", "2011 may be make or break for the u.s.-ed mission." in that phrase "make or break" in your opinion, what is it that would make or break et u.s. efforts in afghanistan in 2011? >> i think almost the biggest problem the americans have and the british and the other allies is to have these deadlines put in for domestic and political certainty.
i was there recently on a trip with secrerery gtaes and there was a zrong sense, the military was saying, well, we will surge troops are in place. let's start the clock now. the clock here in washington has been going for apromping 10 years, and i think people want to see results. people need to believe that pakistan is doing something about safe havens. they need to believe the afghanistan surt forces are capable of taking over. if we don't start to see evidence about going into a campaign season here in the u.s., i think obama, who -- whose heart -- his head seems to be in it. he went for the surge policy, he went to petraeus, and to me his heart never seems to be completely in it. it could be obama himself will say, you know what, this isn't working, or it's not working quickly enough, and let's start pulling back.
host: jumping off what toby harnden had to say, do you see the president's heart being in this? >> i don't see it make-or-break in 2011. obviously it was clear from the start president obama was aware what happened to the soviets in afghanistan. i think there is a determination that there is no way a similar thing will happen to the u.s. in afghanistan on his clock or on anybody -- any american's clock, for that matter. it is obviously very complicated. we often hear about the taliban, what the us -- u.s. is doing about the taliban. pakistan is an important piece of that puzzle. while the taliban is a huge
problem for the pakistanis government, the taliban in afghanistan is obviously a much more complex picture for the pakistanis government because of tensions with india. it is strategic for pakistan to continue some sort of leverage in afghanistan. they can only see themselves having that leverage through some sort of deal eventually with the tal -- taliban. so 2011 will be important in the way 2010 was important, but i don't think it will be a make-or-break strategy. host: we're talking about strategies in 2011. if you want to get involved in the conversation, by all means,
threat from china hasn't been addressed well enough, china flexing its muscles in the region. so incredibly complicated problems, and i think anything that's going to predict what g north carolina might do, it's going to turn to maybe should -- north korea should do. >> guest: that part of the world is making some nervous about the future and whether, what happens with asia is going to happen at the expense of the relationship with the europeans. i totally agree. the silver lining in terms of what happens between north korea and south korea over the last few weeks is that the relationship between the united states and china seems to have
improved. certainly, the kind of china bashing that we heard in this country during the last election has certainly dissipated. but i think the feeling is that the chinese do wield influence with the north koreans and they have given indications that they have actually put that leverage to the test. they put it to practice with the north koreans and it could be argued that it has yielded some concrete results as you pointed out. host: you mentioned that there are some nervous in europe that the u.s. would focus on the situation in the korean peninsula as a distraction from u.s. involvement in what's going on in europe. tell me, in your opinion, who is most concerned about this? guest: obviously europe at the moment is going through the jitters of the financial crisis, the whole debate about the euro and the future of the
euro. we heard the french president just recently, i think over the last couple of days, reiterate his position that there's no way that europe could reanything on the euro without actually ending the european union -- a slight overstatement, but people do get the point. so there is nervousness in europe that by focusing so much on asia the united states could in some way relegate its natural alliance, as seen by in europeans, with europe to secondary status, especially economic. the amount of trade that the united states is expected to be doing with that part of the world, including with china in the years ahead, is certainly collosal enough to give those europeans who are worried about the future of u.s.-european
relations enough to think about. host: simon johnson, former chief economist for the international monetary fund, wrote in the "new york times" on december 30th what should be the u.s.'s concern in making sure that things stay on a relatively even plain in europe? guest: i think the link between sort of the political union and monetary union is key and been sort of an enduring u.s. policy, some on the right of the republican party, that the eu is fundamentally a good
thing and the euro is fundamentally a good thing. so we've gone through greece, we're kind of going through, is it going through portugal, spain? what's going to happen next? and will europe turn in on itself politically as it grapples with all these problems? and looking out from that, if you're looking at nato and afghanistan and this perennial struggle that the u.s. is trying to get commitments abroad, troop commitments, meaningful coalition partners in terms of actually doing things, i think there's a lot of concern here in washington that it is going to be even more difficult. in the case of britain, it's austerity britain in 2011. huge defense cuts. britain's been the strongest ally. how is that going to affect commitments? host: international challenges
facing the u.s. in 2011. our guests are toby harn don of the daily telegraph and abdurhinfa cara. cassandra on the line for drooks. caller: good morning. i just would like to say that our international relations need to be strengthened but we also need to strengthen them with those people that want our help. the people fight you and you're trying to help them, what are you doing? i mean, i don't understand that. we in this country love everyone. we're supposed to. and we go out to help people, and they shun the help. we need to leave them and help those who want your help. our country is in dire straits
itself and we need help, and who is turning towards us? host: we'll leave it there. toby, who is the u.s. helping the most and who needs -- who is the u.s. looking to help them the most? guest: very interesting point. i think that sums up part of the mood that we've got here in the u.s. at the moment after the financial crisis, tightening their belts, all these commitments abroad. people are saying we seem to be doing everything for everybody else. particularly in afghanistan, that is the country that the united states is helping the most. they're trying to prop up arguably corrupt and dysfunctional governments, trying to prevent the taliban and the different elements that that comprizes taking over, and at ground lovely in towns and villages, there's no love of
the taliban, at the same time, no love for the coalition troops. people just want to be left alone. arguably the nato level is trying to create that space so that afghans can deal with their own affairs. but when you look at some of the thing that is president karzi says, you look at some of the thing that is the pakistanis do while on the face of it being a big ally on the other hand giving sanctuary to elements of the taliban, condemning u.s. drone strikes while at the same time passing on the intelligence and inviting them to take place in certain areas with certain people, it's a very sort of complex picture, and looking at it from the outside as an ordinary american taxpayer and voter, i think it's not surprising that people are starting to put their finger on some of these contradictions in this type of economic climate particularly. host: our next call from florida on our line for independents.
caller: good morning, gentlemen. i would like to draw the journalists' attention, just moments ago you made the comment that i would like to focus on where you indicated one of the concerns of course is the possibility that israel may attack iran, and then went on to say that, well, israel is saber rattling. well, remember that iran and mr. acdin jad attempted to -- actually did threaten the existence of a member state of the u.n. and israel in self-defense and by the by, if i may make another comment, the recent wikileaks that showed that most of the sunni nations surrounding the shiite nation of iran, are attempting to ask the united states to take out these nuclear facilities that the iranians have been building
subrosa. i would also like to draw your attention to this double speak. this is possibly orwe willion. the ihh -- the turkish terrorist group during the gaza flotilla brew hah hah goes to israel, by boats peacefully brought. another boat with israeli commandos in illegal quarnt yin in gaza, remember the aid that the iranians attempted to bring in with all their bombs and rockets and whatever, and even the previous turkish government attempted to restrain the ihh, and the world goes into this
incredible disapbation of israel. oh, my god, these nine terrorists are humanitarians. host: we're going to leave it there. you've given us a lot to work with. guest: the saber rattling wasn't meant to be perjorative. i just meant it there's been lots of threats and talk about taking military action against iran. it hasn't yet happened. it may well happen. i think certainly iran has got the capability and has expressed the intention of being a very grave and potential capiss tential threat to israel and i don't think anyone would argue it's wrong for israel to take that seriously and for the united states to take that seriously. host: your thoughts, sir. guest: well, the issue of israel and iran, i mean, nothing in the middle east is what it seems to be.
there's obviously a lot of jockeying for the leadership of the middle east among three major powers there, the turks, the iranians, and the israelis. and i think much of the rhetoric that we hear, let's say between the iranians and the israelis, is certainly cause for concern. it's obviously cause for concern for the iranians themselves. it certainly is cause for the israelis and the americans. but i think if you look at the steps that the obama administration has taken over the last 12 months, about 12 months ago when the israeli prime minister was making a lot of noise about iran and that was interpreted as iran gearing up for military action against them. and then we've seen the steps of the u.n. that the obama administration has initiate and
certainly successfully led by getting the chinese and the russians to agree to a certain extent to some form of economic sanctions against iran. now, the sanctions, the economic sanctions against iran i think it's obvious that they're beginning to bite. the measures taken by the iranian government in terms of internal consumption of goods, the rationing of pet roll inside iran, all those things are beginning to -- are indicators that the sanctions are beginning to bite and, therefore, it could be concluded that the obama administration has given the israelis something to mollify their concerns with in terms of convincing them not to think about military action, at least not at this particular point in time. host: our next call comes from randy in citrus heights, california, on our line for republicans.
good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. thank you for taking my call. i'd like to go back to the euro. i was thinking there was more than meets the eye with that. and california's going to be ahead of them in line if they want any bailout money, that's for sure. but i heard something interesting. i was in germany 234 june, and gsh -- in june, and a friend of mine who works for a british firm was showing me on a euro bil the designator in front of the serial number which indicates which country the bill was printed in. and he said that each country in the euro zone prints their own euros and that some countries are hoarding, basically, the banks in some countries of the weaker economies are hoarding notes from the stronger economies like germany whose, you know,
their notes start with an x. and i was wondering if you heard anything about that or is that some kind of conspiracy theory that my friend came up with on the internet or something. guest: i haven't heard that. it wouldn't seem to me to make much sense because the value of the euro wouldn't matter where it's printed. and i take the caller's friend that there's a code to where it's printed out. but it's worth the same. so i don't see how that would work practically. host: our next call comes from new haven, connecticut. bob on our line for -- i'm sorry. the next call from larry in maryland. larry. caller: i'm listening to you. the gentleman talks about 2 euro. -- the euro. what they're sbroing to intro deuce their -- and the
[inaudible] it's going to be a global cat clizzm. we're aheading to world war three. so this and that and so forth, we're facing a nuclear terrorist. host: we'll leave it there. guest: any thoughts of the question of the up and down of the euro and the situation in the middle east? guest: i don't see any direct connection except that obviously the europeans have always wanted to play a much more vigorous role in the middle east compared with the role that the united states plays in that part of the region. and the europeans have, for example, in terms of israel, palestine, the europeans have always bankrolled, if you will, the peace process. now, the euro zone is obviously going through a lot of
financial turbulence and that's cause of concern to the europeans about their ability, not in the immediate future but medium to long term, to actually impact events outside of europe. i want to go quickly to something that toby raised at the outset, which is that we often -- and i think larry also touched on it. we often forget that the euro is not just for the europeans. it's not just a means of economic prosperity. the euro is also a means of dealing with the past. europe has had two world wars that completely destroyed europe. and as the french president said, the one thing that has cemented hopes in europe, so not going back to that kind of past, is the euro, is the european union. they're tied together. and, therefore, the strength of the euro not only keeps europe together but it obviously helps
it project its power outside of europe, which it is not amply being able to do at the moment. at least in the eyes of many europeans. host: but couldn't it also be said that the fortunes, or misfortunes, as you may or may not see it, in greece and ireland, will bring down the value of the europeo and in turn bring down the value of the economies of the other countries that are tied to the euro? guest: that's precisely the concern of the bigger countries. the germans are saying why should we pay for the greeks and the irish going stupid with their own economies? it's their fault if their economies faulter, it is their fault, why should we intervene and pay out of our own pocket to bail them out? host: our next call comes from houston, texas. joe on our line for republicans.
caller: yes. good morning. i read recently that putin in november was in germany and got a very favorable response to his proposal that the european community, with the euro, expands all the way through russia and the satellites of russia. and a stronger europeo would -- euro with the entire european community would of course degrade the u.s. dollar even further than it has been. i'd like to get your opinion on that. and the second thing i'd like to say is that the comments we heard before about israel, iran hasn't attacked anybody dem 1250 years. the people of the middle east countries have all said that their biggest enemy is number one israel, number two u.s. so because the dictator says the opposite, he accepts the answer. thank you. host: we'll leaf it there.
-- leave it there. why don't you address the first half. guest: very interesting. i haven't heard that. not too many people wanting to join the euro. people wondering if they should still be in it. we've seen russia being very wary of their former satellite states in the soviet era joining the european union and indeed joining nato as well. so it would be an about face if russia wanted to get involved. i think we're going to see a period of european union sort of turning in on itself and trying to sort out its own problems, and i think major sort of global realignments like russia getting involved. host: would you address the second half of that gentleman's statement? guest: the issue of iran -- look, the 2003 invasion of iraq
has done one big favor for iran. and it has given them wider regional leverage by getting rid of saddam hussein who was the arch foe of the iranians. he had gone to war against them. so there's no doubt that the iranians wield wider influence in the middle east at the present time. now, wikileaks have come out and said that many sunni leaders, the king of saudi arabia, for example, calling the united states to take military action to cut off the snake's head as he called it. but it's interesting to point out that there's a big divide in the middle east between what government, what sunni governments want and what their populations want. while the sunni governments may be rattled by iranian influence, especially when it comes to the issue of the nuclear -- iran's nuclear program, the people, at least the majority of the people in these sunni countries actually
do not object to inche -- iran acquiring military nuclear capability. they say if the israelis have it, why can't the iranians have it? so in a way that's what one of the interesting things about wickie leaks is that it has focused attention on iranian influence and iranian meddling in many middle-eastern countries, particularly iraq, but it has also drawn attention to that gulf between what sunni governments in the region want and what the population -- their populations want in terms of iran's nuclear capability. host: it's also drawn attention to what was said behind closed doors and away from the diplomats that you're dealing with. how is that going to affect the way the u.s. does business diplomatically in 2011? guest: in some ways it will because the wicke leaks have published names of people that
have -- of contacts that the u.s. have throughout the world and therefore it has exposed those people. so as far as building contacts, the u.s. is obviously glowing to have to probably go back to the drawing board. but in terms of what diplomats say publicly and what they say secretly, i think that's probably been much of of a problem for governments in the middle east telling their people one thing and telling the americans another thing. a lot of people would tell you that american statements as disconcerting as they may be to a lot of people around the world have been consistent with themselves. this is what they plan to do. they say it publicly. this is what they plan to do. they say it secretly. and certainly there's much more consist s what the americans say in public versus in secret even if what they say in public and secret does not please a
lot of people around the world. guest: i think u.s. diplomatic cables may become a lot more boring and a lot of business will be done by phone. the big problem is who is going to have lunch with an american diplomat in do har or dubai these days? you know, you'll have to be pretty careful. we've already seen a german government official has to resign because he was a source for the u.s. embassy during the election there. host: we're talking about international challenges facing the u.s. in 2011. our next call comes from charleston, south carolina. don on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning and happy new year to esh. -- everybody. i think it's an interesting conversation and appreciate c-span. a quick comment about the gentleman from boca that was
talking about the terrorists aid ships. only a zionist could say that someone carrying aid to a group in the gaza that are being starved to death by the israelis is a terrorist activity. but that said, i'm also interested in the demonization of iran in the press. we lived through the bush administration where iraq had weapons of mass destruction and we were going to see the mushroom cloud, et cetera. we've been through that. and here we are again with the same old, same old. iran is a threat to us. i don't see any evidence, where iran is making a nuclear bomb, that they are doing this for nuclear power. so that being said, also i ask, why are we in afghanistan?
why is the u.s.? i'd like to know your opinion. why are we in afghanistan. you ask a politician and they say we're there to send a message or we're there to send a signal. the taliban has done nothing to us. al qaeda is not there. could it be that we're just waiting our troops in place until the attack on iran does take place and then our troops are staged on their bord tore go in? host: we'll leave it there. guest: the issue of afghanistan, i find it interesting that when president obama was running his campaign to become president, he obviously made the determination that the war in iraq was a war of choice, the war in afghanistan was the war of necessity. so after many years of the u.s. focusing on iraq he suddenly wanted to go back to afghanistan.
it is understood that it's a war that he inherited from the bush administration and the bush administration would argue that they invaded afghanistan in response to what happened on 9/11. and then the people who carried out 9/11 would argue that they did it because of u.s. policy in the middle east. so it's a never-ending chain of going back to why we are in afghanistan. the situation is that the united states is in afghanistan today. it has commited thousands, more than 100,000 troops, and there's no way that the obama administration or any future president, knowing how u.s. public opinion is constructed around the issue of afghanistan and 9/11, there's no way that president obama or any future president would just cut loose and leave afghanistan whether
the united states was originally -- went originally into afghanistan for the right reasons or the wrong reasons. the situation is it is now in afghanistan and the prestige and the power of the united states globally rides on what happens on the outcome of u.s. involvement in that part of the world. host: the caller also mentioned what he called the demonization in the media of countries like iran. and on the front cover of the christian science monitor's edition of december 13, they've got the headline, the challenge of rogue nations. how the world can respond to iran, north korea and other rising threats. in your mind, is this headline a demonization or how do you see headlines like this? and how does it make -- how does it f it affect diplomatic relations between the united
states and countries like iran and north korea? guest: rogue states it seems like kind of old speak. it's the kind of stuff you used to hear a lot pre-2003, i guess, from the clinton administration as well. and then axis of evil. and the obama administration certainly has cooled things down a lot. i'm not sure it makes that much difference what you call it, whether you call it the global war on terror or whatever this long sort of certain owe cushions the obama administration use's. i think in terms of iran, you only has to listen to what their president says to believe that certainly an intention there no do serious damage to israel which would cause -- could cause a regional conflag ration and destabilize the middle east and therefore the world. iran is not going to be
attacking the u.s. mainland but certainly iran has been helping people fighting against u.s. troops in iraq and then afghanistan as well. and certainly i think that there's a general consensus that whether, if you -- certainly people would say in the middle east israel, as was cited public opinion in the middle east saying israelis have nuclear weapons, why shouldn't the iranians. but i think there are relatively few people that would say it's all for peaceful purposes. iran has no intention of getting the bomb. host: toby harnden is editor of the daily london. and blogs.
go to their website and you can find his address. guest: google me. host: and you were born and raised in morocco and arrived in the united states in 1999 after living in the u.k. back to the phones. ashburn, virginia on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. i just want to wish you all a happy new year. i have got two points and one question. concerning iran being a rogue nation or a rogue by definition being an old term at this point. iran by definition is a rogue nation. i mean, i don't even believe the government currently that exists in iran is legitimate. secondly, there is no question, i don't know if the gentleman from the south carola has been around for the past four or five years but the iranian
president has been questioning the existence of member state. so i don't know if we here in the united states would accept our legitimatesy being questioned. and we would fight vigorously to defend ourselves. so that's what the israelis are doing. the second point i wanted to share is that the wickie leaks, a lot of people are saying that it was a major fallout. but i don't see anything new that has come out. i mean, if you have been around and if you have been watching the news, they haven't shared anything new or major information. everybody knew that the afghani government is corrupt. everybody knew that the arab governments are creamly concerned about the iranian -- extremely concerned about the iranian nuclear power. so i don't know if there was any kind of new information
that really questioned the secrecy or the system that we have in the state department. host: thanks for your call. talk to us about the caller's concerns regarding iran. guest: well, the issue he raised about the president, president ack din jad, and as toby pointed out earlier, he has made no secret of his opposition to israeli policy in the middle east. he's denied the holocaust. and that has actually given the critics of not just iran but the critics of the muslim world as a whole in the west ammunition to say the muslims deny the holocaust when in fact it's only the iranian president. and a few other circles like that who are so focused on this
area, the issue of denying the holocaust is not a major debate in the muslim world birks the way. but it's interesting what he says about the i will legitimatesy of the iranian -- ill legitimatesy of the iranian government and i think that is seen by western. it certainly is a legitimate government which is securing its lifeline, if you will, by violence. but if you compare it with other governments in the region, these sunni governments that we were talking about, these sunni governments are certainly not more legitimate than the government of iran. in fact, it could even be argued and we hear this a lot in the middle east, we hear that even as an undemocratic government -- i'm talking about iran, they say it is still much more democratic than the governments in yemen or saudi arabia or egypt or incidently
talking of the challenges that the obama administration could face, the issue of secession in many of these crucial middle-eastern countries like saudi arabia, egypt, they have very old leaders, what happens after they go is a big headache -- could be a big headache for the united states. but the issue of wikileaks. wikileaks i agree did not bring anything new. if anything, and this is a point of contention at least in the arab world, many people in that part of the world are saying it didn't tell us anything new about what our governments are saying or not saying. but wikileaks has not told us anything about the israelis. that's interesting. host: our last call from berkeley, california. go ahead. caller:
host: well, we lost our last caller. toby, the fact that for the most part there was nothing new in the wicki leaks, does that take the shine off of what julian is trying to do or is there still something to be feared from what he -- what other information he is threatening to release? guest: well, i think the figure that's always close, 250,000 state department cables, i think we had a few of them, 5,000 released so far. i agree that, one, two, three, wikileaks is discussing with minusha and the conclusion we reach is, well werks knew that. but it's interesting that it should be said from the mouths of people who don't normally say those sort of things. i think this way that it is
dealt with by the u.s. and the particular case of julian is going to be interesting because the real view of the dichotomy, across the aisle of both sides of the capitol he is viewed and thought of as a terrorist and as a man of sort of unremitting evil. in europe that's not the view at all. he's viewed as somebody who is being pursued, there's lots of questions about this swedish rape case. it seems that the obama administration is trying to prepare some kind of charges, espionage charges against him and there's going to be an attempt to bring him back to the u.s. while, at the same time, i think there is a widespread feeling abroad that while the war lords from iraq and afghanistan may have been very damaging, that they revealed the names, although robert gates said nobody has been killed as a result of them. it wuled seem on the face much more damaging what we've seen
from the cables so far. so i think this is going to be a bit of a litmus test to how obama is going to be viewed. and if he is pursued through the curts and extradicted and put on trial and the soldier alleged to have leaked the leaks is going to have a huge trial here, i think that's going to play badly abroad. host: thank you very much for being on the "washington journal" this morning. we're going to take a short break. and when we come back, a discussion about 2012 politics. today is saturday, january 1, 2011. we'll be right back.
c-span's original documentary on the supreme court has been newly updated. sunday, you'll see the grand public places and those only available to the justices and their staff, and you'll hear about how the court works from all the current supreme court justices, including the newest justice. also, learn about some of the court's recent developments.
the supreme court, home to america's highest court airing for the first time sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. during the week, watch the u.s. house and continuing coverage of the transition to the new congress. and also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekend you can see our signature interview programs. saturday, the communicators, and sundays, "newsmakers," qua, and prime minister's questions. you can watch our program at any time on c-span.org. and it's searchable on our library. c-span, washington, your way.
"washington journal" continues. host: reed wilson, editor in chief of the hot line and here to talk to us about presidential politics particularly on the republican side of the aisle for 2012 on december 15, you wrote in your on the trail colum, everybody into the pool. why republicans should hope for a crowded 12i field. -- 2012 field. why does that benefit the republicans? guest: i had a republican strategist a couple weeks ago make a joking analogy to the 1984 olympics when the russians stayed home and the u.s. won everything but they didn't win against the best another leeths in the world. so instead, the notion of competing against the best makes you better. in a primary field there are enough candidates that in this year's primary that if everybody gets in, these candidates are going to have to beat the best possible
opponents before they face a guy who is by all measure one of the best campaigners that we've seen in a long time in president obama. obama is going to have $1 billion to run his reelection campaign. if these republicans are able to hone themselves, become better campaigners, that's one of the ways they can overcome what's going to be a huge financial disparity. host: speaking of finances, you write that the drawbacks are obvious. the nominee will be sapped after spending heavily on the primary. defeated candidates will have thrown every bomb possible making the nominee look vulnerable at the wrong time. guest: that's exactly what people think happens in a primary contest. the argument that both democrats and republicans make here in washington is that a contested primary means that the winner will emerged bruised and bloodied and too far to the right or left to actually compete in a general election. but you can actually count the number of times that's happened on one hand. it doesn't generally happen.
in 2010 it happened in delaware senate race, it happened in nevada. but that's about the list. take a look at the kentucky race where everybody said that rand paul was too conservative to be elected from kentucky, too out there with his ideas. well, he's an incoming senator. he will be sworn in this week. so primary campaign looks bad on the outside but let's remember back to 2008 when president obama and hillary clinton continued until june with their primary. that didn't hurt president obama's chances at all. host: now, starting on monday, january 3rd, the whole process i guess begins, starting with the r.n.c. chairmanship debate which c-span will be covering live at the press club and hosted by americans for tax reform. it's going to be a debate for the folks running for the chairmanship of the republican
national committee and will be moderated by grover nor quist and tucker carlson. do you expect that contest will be bruising and bloodying? guest: it will. the republican national committee didn't spend a lot of money this year on independent expenditures, didn't spend a penny on independent expenditures in favor of republican candidates because they didn't have the money. they didn't do a good job of raising it and spent it in ortsdze ways. but these outside groups that have come in, you know, the outside groups have really stepped up and put a lot of money into republican politics from americans for prosperity to american crossroads, these names are becoming familiar sort of an alphabet soup of big money spending -- big spending
in politics. what the republican national committee does, though, is something unique that only they can do. every four years they have to put on a convention, and in 2008, 2012, and in presidential years, they're allowed to spend money coordinated with the presidential campaign. so it's essentially an extra $50 million for whoever their nominee is going to be. republicans have to have an effective republican national committee not only to spend that money but to do the other thing they do best, which is grass roots targeting. the 72 hour program is the famous republican turnout model that wasn't fully funded in 2010. the former political director quit his job earlier this year in mid november and wrote a scathing memo in which he said if we had been able to fully fund the 72-hour program we would have won extra states, governorships in various states. they estimate they could have
won another 21 house seeths. could you imagine -- seats. that would have been a sea change. but the turnout model is not something these outside groups can do. that's why this rmple n.c. race matters. republican national members are looking for somebody that they trust to shepherd their money and to raise the money. the party is in serious financial trouble right now. they are reporting more than $15 million in debt. a lot of people expect that number to go up north of $20, 25 million. there are internal documents being floated around now between committee members that estimate that going into 2012 they will still have $10 million worth of debt. so they will only have paid off half that debt, depending on how big it is. so committee members are concerned about their financial future. come february they've got to
deal with a $5 million note that they have to pay back and as of november 22, the r.n.c. had $1.9 million in the bank. if you don't pay it back, you go bankrupt. so this isn't something they can mess around with. so this contest is shaping up between at least six people right now. michael steele is running for reelection. host: hold ofpblet we're going to talk about that. but first we want to let the folks know that on "newsmakers" this week, ann wag anywhere of missouri is one of signature candidates running for the chairmanship of the republican committee. the debate among the candidates will take place on monday and the chairman's election is coming on january 14. in the interview that you'll be able to see tomorrow on c-span, ann wag never was asked about the process of the the vote for the chairman. this is what she had to say. >> i'm commited to building
whatever coalitions necessary to advance my chairmanship knowing that what is important is new leadership. and i have made a commitment to that and will stand by that. and we'll see. the balloting should be interesting. it's a very interesting dynamic in process. and i would ask your viewers to watch that. i'm sure that c-span will be covering the r.n.c. election, and it's an interesting political snapshot that's a little different. majority doesn't win. people can stay in for as long as they like in the balloting. the person who gets the fewest votes does not necessarily drop off. but there's usually a natural progression. there are people in the race that will realize when they've hit their high water mark in terms of support and then generally that support can be shifted to other candidates, it can be, it can go to multiple candidates out there. it's a fascinating process and one that i've followed over the last two decades, and very greatly, from election cycle to
election cycle. host: you can see the entire interview on "newsmakers" sunday, tomorrow morning, at 10:00 a.m. and again at 6:00 p.m. on c-span. it's also available on line at www.c-span.org. now, regarding chairman steele who is currently there, you will -- one of the "newsmakers" reporters for last week's interview with gentry collins who is another candidate. talk about gentry collins, ann wagner, steele, and everybody else who is running. handicap this for us. we're coming around the far turn and heading for the home stretch. handie c.a.p. the finish. guest: -- handi cap the finish. guest: this has been a month and a half. so it's interesting to see the sprint as opposed to the marathon campaign. in this race, i think there are
two clear tears. in the first tier you've got the wisconsin republican party chairman. he has the most public commitments. he has got the most sort of quiet support as well. it looks like he will come out in top on the first round of balloting. this balloting process, by the way, an ann just said, a majority has to vote for the winner. but that doesn't necessarily mean that anybody has to drop out. the guy who finishes last doesn't have to leave the race if he doesn't want to. in 2009 it took three rounds for anybody to drop out. so this is a content in which second, third choices matter, in a lot 06 cases even fourth choices matter. he is starting out with a good base of support. he has about 27 public votes. you need 85 of the 168 to win. in second place at the moment is michael steele. he's got about 15 public votes. but second place for an incumbent chairman is not where you want to be.
the incumbent is never anybody's second choice. and in this case, a lot of his closest supporters are backing other candidates. look at ryan as well. he served as the top lawyer until he resigned earlier this year. he has been somebody who is very close to steele, has been putting out fires everybody every time steele makes a mistake. now that he has turned he is pulling in some of steele's closest backers that's sending a signal that his foundation isn't there any more. it's crumble. so along with priebus, you have others, all of whom have at least ten public supporters. those make up the top tier. the second i would put collins, and chairman steele in that
second tier. it's going to be tougher for any of those three candidates to win at the end of the day. host: 2012 presidential politics, particularly on the republican side of the i'll but we'll also touch base with some of the democrats, is our topic for the next 35 minutes. reid wilson is our guest. the numbers are on the screen. ohio is where our first call comes from. dan for indents. caller: my question was do you feel that's predictable that the rising influence of the tea party will weaken the republican candidate to the point that the in fighting will ultimately lead to a democratic victory for obama or whoever else may be running at that time? and how will the republican party manage that in fighting process at that point? guest: that's a really good question and i think there's going to be some important stuff to watch in the first
couple of months to watch. one of the first things that members of congress are going to have to vote on is the debt ceiling and whether or not to raise the ceiling and allow the u.s. to issue more debt. this is one of those votes where it's not an option. you can't vote no because the u.s. defaults on loans and the economy goes back into the tank. so john boehner is going, and republicans in congress, are going to use this as an opportunity to demand spending cuts and other cuts in government. but you've still got 80-something new freshmen who come from an ideological background in which they only want to cut government and one of the first votes is a vote to raise the debt ceiling, to allow more spending. it's going to be interesting to see how republicans spin that to their own base and explain it away by saying we've got these cuts. the abc of course would come back, but -- answer would be
you just allowed more spending. i'm watching that closely. i would expect that to come in april or perhaps even early may is when the u.s. will have spent enough that we need to raise the debt ceiling one more time. as we go forward into 2012, though, it's going to be fascinating to watch how the tea party plays out in this elect rat. the tea party is largely a poll lust movement as opposed to more of an establishment republican movement. and a lot of cases, the establishment candidate ends up winning the primary. it's hard to think the last time that a sort of populous won. you can talk about ronald reagan but he lost the primary. by 1980 he was the establishment pick. so it's going to be interesting to see this sort of manager versus populous ethose that's going to play out. i don't think we'll see any kind of split within the republicans. there will be some headaches,
certainly, and the republican nominee will have to eventually deal with some sort of larger questions of how they position themselves for a general election. but i don't think it's going to -- i don't think that alone ensures president obama winning reelection. he's got a pretty good jot at the moment but i think that ensures his reelection. host: the op lead, tea party at turning point. our next call comes from fairfield, california. terry on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: thank you very much. i just want to make a couple of points. i'll try to do it as fast as i can. my first point is, this false dichotomy between tea party and republicans. i mean, we all know that the tea party are voting republican and really represent republican values that a lot of the established republicans wayed
away from. so i don't buy into this tea party versus republican thing. i think they're going to come together in the end. that's my first point. my second point is regarding chairman -- i hope you remember these. my second point is regarding chairman steele. i don't understand why this man does a great job. every time you turn around he dizz a great job. and people are always wanting to replace him. they're banting to dump on him. i don't understand why it is that so many republicans keep trying to go after this man. and every time he turns around he does a great job. he's had a couple of missteps but he does a great job. guest: you bring up two interesting points. first, the tea party versus republican split. i agree with you. i think that there is a -- calling something the tea party doesn't nofsely make it the tea party.
there is no tea party as sort of one organization. it's sort of a hide ra with different parts and moving pieces and i don't think every tea partier would agree with every other on every particular issue. i wouldn't set them aside from the republican party but the point that you brought up is i think illsstrative 06 why there is a tea party. you said after the tea party movement is helping the republican party get back to its core values after more mainstream leaders, more establishment leaders had strayed a bit. i think that's the exact right point. this is one faction of the republican party rising up and attempting to take over the larger party. so good point there. as to whether or not michael steele should get credit for the republican wins in november, there are a number of different organizations around washington. the national republican congressional committee, the republican governor's association, the national republican senate torle committee that's in charge of
electing senate candidates, all of these organizations have raised and spent millions of their own dollars and right after the election it was fascinating to watch everybody sort of try to claim credit without really claiming credit. we saw a victory party, victy party that was sort of a scaled-down party featuring john boehner and a lot of house republicans. mitch mcconnell and some of the senate republicans held their own celebration. it was notable that michael steele was not on the podium. the next day you had mitch mcconnell, john boehner, and hailey bar bor who heads the republican governor's association all standing together claiming credit and talking about republican winds. the r.n.c. wasn't represented. they just weren't there. so it's been interesting. whether or not you think steele deserves credit for wins in 2010, there 45s been a noticeable effort to sort of block him out and not allow him
the same credit some organizations are trying to claim. host: joe in new york calls us. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. i just wanted to point out that a lot of what we hear in the mainstream media is all these new republicans, and i think a lot of that is simply because they don't have a record because republicans who have a record, whose record is known, who are noun what they've done to this country couldn't get electsed dog catcher for the most part or couldn't get elected president certainly. we remember the bush years, believe it or not, and they will come back to haunt you. you say that new republicans, this is the same thing we heard last time at the end of the bush administration. oh, give us another chance. we'll do it right this time. well, last time we screwed up, but this time we're going to do better. we're brand new. we know what we did wrong.
2010 was a rejection of the democratic agendas. i think that is what we are seeing. we are seeing more of a rejection over a number of election cycles than a ratification of an agenda. when it comes to chris christie, he is undergoing his first real criticism right now after mishandling a snowstorm. if you are a politician, don't mishandle snow. make sure you get the plows on the street. we are seeing mike bloomberg and
chris christie both taking a lot of heat for some slow snow response. meanwhile, the mayor of newark corey booker was tweeting about where he was shoveling snow for neighbors and that got positive press. it is very dangerous, you can look at rosters of mayors and john lindsey is the famous example, but mayors of denver, chicago, seattle all have lost re-election bids after bad sandstorms with snowstorms with bad responses. caller: i would say again we are talking a stalking horse. the republicans basically filibustered everything.
you have had over 100 filibusters under this congress, which is unheard of. basically, how can anything expect to be done under those circumstances given that level of obstruction and b.s. from the republicans. guest: i thought i got to the point but something will have to be done. there are two major problems facing the republican congress coming up shortly. the continuing resolution the democrats passed in the lame duck session runs out in march and the debt ceiling in april. those two will generate a deb e debate, some kind of negotiations between congressional republicans and the white house and maybe senate democrats will be involved. but the debate between those two on those two particular issues is really going to bring something to a loggerhead. something will be done. republics now control one of the
levers of government and don't have an option not to do something. host: next up is san francisco, california, pat on the line for republicans. reid wilson is with us. caller: the last guy sounded like he was kind of whining, but the democrats are all whining because they lost. i talked to michael steele first quarter of last year aeurpd told him that i had $4,000 to send to the g.o.p. and what was he going to do about scassofasi of new yo york. he said i couldn't do anything. i said i will send it to the tea party. second quarter i did the same thing i sent it to tea party express. third quarter same. fourth quarter, who is answering? lawyer. he is a lawyer.
two others are lawyers. why is the g.o.p. paying lawyers to answer the phone? that is why they don't have any money. fourth quarter i send it to the tea party express as the g.o.p. is going to go bankrupt because of michael steele. that is my observation. have a nice week. guest: one interesting thing and this is indicative of republican donors and the biggest complaint about michael steele. the republicans have a large donor program in which people can give $30,400 to the r.n.c. a lot of those donors and guys who raise hundreds of thousands of dollars are complaining they never got phone calls from michael steele. the big donors from across the country will all say where was the r.n.c. they gave big checks to the republican governors association because they got a phone call. american crossroads because they got a phone call. but the only thing they want
from the r.n.c. is please and thank you and never got a call. this is one of michael steele's arguments. we have seen a spike in small dollar donors, giving small checks, sending checks by mail. but those dollars cost more to raise. you are spending more than 60 cents or 70 cents on raising the mon money. with the big donor you may spend $30 to get to the reception but you may get $30,000 that. is the chief complaint against steele is he has allowed this program to wither. host: we have a twitter saying obama loves his sheep. he heads them off to the slaughter all the time. they keep following the master. tied in with that i want to bring up the numbers from a cnn
research poll from december 17 to 19. should obama -- host: your thoughts. guest: i think that was 78% of democrats who wanted him. i don't think the republicans want him to be renominated. they don't get much of a say. the notion there will be a primary challenge for president obama is far-fetched. it doesn't happen any more. he will have a billion dollars in the bank it spend on the campaign. he's done a lot of things the last couple of weeks in the lame duck session to try to sort of placate the democratic base. he got the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" which is a big deal for a lot of liberals and gay rights activists. that will make them happy for a couple of years.
but the notion of somebody campaigning against him probably isn't going to happen in any serious way. the guys who might be there, vermont senator bernie sanders not technically a democrat but as an independent from the left, former vermont governmeor howar dean have said they won't run. primary challenges to incumbent presidents don't know any more. host: allen on the line. caller: i was curious and wanted to ask mr. wilson what affect this will have on the republican nomination and if romney is elected it looks like we would have an effect on the general election. guest: the vast majority of candidates who are going to run in 2012 are main line protest attendants or evangelicals. romney is the only one who is
not. this is something he dealt with in the 2008 election and he is mormon. i'm not sure what it says about religion at large and especially about mormonism's place in politics. the notion that he can't be elected because he is a mormon i'm not buying that. at the moment i think he is probably the front-runner for the republican nomination in 2012. but the mormon thing as they call it is an actual issue. people do talk about it. however quietly. nobody will be quoted in a newspaper. but you talk to the average voter in iowa or new hampshire or south carolina and it is -- people know it, people understand, people are aware of the fact that he is a mormon. i don't think people would know that haley barbour is a presbyterian. but knowing that he is a
presbyterian don't think a lots of people know or care. but the fact that people know mitt romney is a mormon is sort of indicative that he does have a problem with at least some voters, not enough to totally kill his chances. host: our next call is from boston, massachusetts, elon on the line for independents. >> happy new year. i want to make a comment regarding the way the republicans, administration and congress have run the campaign the past one year. my comment is based on what happened in the 1980's. we saw gingrich when he came to power and we saw how president clinton couldn't do anything. my concern right now as an american is that we are coming
to another session where we find john boehner who the past year has opposed everything the president put on the table. have we come to a position in our country where the two-party system is not working for the average american. i will take the comments after i hang up. thank you. guest: i think that the people, some people would say we have reached the point where the two-party system is not working quite a long time ago. but it does work. president clinton passed a huge amount of legislation in the six years with republicans in office. president bush even passed stuff in the democratic senate. it is not like it is completely broken. i'm not so pessimistic on the motion there will be nothing but gridlock the next couple of years. something will get done because it has to be done. the economy is still recovering slowly. there is turmoil around the
world. something has to be done. now that republicans have a stake they take it seriously. they are not just playing politics the buyer time. it is not going to be president obama's agenda. it won't be house republicans' agenda that gets passed but some amalgamation of the two that they can agree on. host: this morning in the anchorage daily news online they have the headline miller ends challenge in u.s. senate race. he says he will not end his fight for conservative values. joe miller said he is giving up the legal challenge of the write-in election win of lisa murkowski as he asserted that he was in the fight in -- that his fight, rather, was in the best interests of the state and country. how will this affect lisa murkowski's status when she gets back to washington?
guest: i think this purports he a unique position almost. you don't -- when you lose a primary challenge and win as an independent there is no question that lisa murkowski is a republican but what she has done is asserted her independence from mitch mcconnell and the senate republicans. look at some of the major votes that came through the lame duck session from everything from the "don't ask, don't tell" repeal to a couple of other things that came through and she voted with democrats frequently, not a little bit. s she, scott brown, olympia snowe voteed a few times with democrats that the democrats,ed to pass. so it sort of takes away mitch mcconnell's ability to say you have to toe the republican line. she can say i just won an election with a bunch of independents. i don't need the republican line. host: does the white house reach out to murkowski behind closed
doors or in a public manner and say work with us and we will help you out a little bit with things for alaska? guest: absolutely. that is the way murkowski has operated the last few years. she was one of the lead republicans on the climate change negotiations that ultimately didn't go anywhere but she was the one who republicans -- who democrats, rather, were talking to about working together with. there is going to be more of that, i think. she put herself in a very powerful position. host: reid wilson is the editor in chief of hotline. he is also contributor to sirius xm radio and you can listen to him in your car or on your home xm radio system. back to the phones. west river, maryland. joe on the line for republicans. thanks for waiting. caller: no problem. i appreciate the fact that your comment stator -- commentator
seems to be somewhat trustworthy and not spewing the liberal media spin about everything. my congratulations to him. what i want to speak about is the basic untrustworthiness of the mainstream liberal media when in fact they have the ability to not only report stories but not report stories. and that is an insidious problem as far as i'm concerned. host: give me an example of a story that was not reported by the mainstream media as you say. caller: well, i can cite you to a book since that is the perfect liberal line to give me an example of something i'm talking about. bernard goldberg has written many books and one of the best is "a slobber be love affair" with the media portrayal during the campaign of 2007-2008 and the start of the obama
administrati administration's campaign against the fox news channel. when the last week of the campaign i believe he kicked off reporters from fox news and two or three other organizations and they in fact were the only organizations who did not support then candidate obama in his election bid in the 2008 election. as far as i can tell, that was basic handwriting on the wall to prove the fact that bernard goldberg was 100% correct in the fact that the liberal media has the ability to report and not report certain issues. that is the point. if mr. wilson can speak about that, i appreciate it. guest: sure. if i remember correctly -- and i could be wrong -- i don't think it was a fox news reporter that was kicked off. i think it was the "dallas morning news" and "washington
times." both papers that had endorsed john mccain. but no longer found seats on the airplane. as somebody who has been on these campaign planes once or twice, i was on the flight from des moines, iowa, to manchester with mike huckabee after he won the 2008 caucus and i have never seen more people fit into two rows as we tried to interview him. as somebody who has been on the planes, not a lot of news happens on the planes. you might as well just have somebody on the ground watching as the guy gets off and gets on the plane. but, you know, you bring up a point. the media has a lot of writers that have a sort of a predisposition toward president obama. that is not to say everyone. are a lot of folks who have a predisposition against him. just read the washington times
any day. from around the country, the mainstream media as everybody calls it, i think they are undergoing a change right now. we are undergoing a change in the industry and it is a -- it is fascinating to watch. we have c-span, which everybody gets to call in to which is fantastic. but then you look at two of the cable networks. at fox news it is clearly biased to the right and msnbc which is pretty clearly biased to the le left. and this becomes news. so it is an interesting amalgamation. it will be interesting to see what the average newspaper looks like it 10 years. i don't think it will be like the ones we have now. caller: cincinnati, ohio, john on the line for democrats. thanks for waiting. caller: thanks. i would like to ask how much mr. wilson thought that the supreme court decision earlier this year had to do with, this
being a midterm election, how much did it really affect the o outcome of such a swing? guest: the case that he is talking about is citizens united vf.e.c., a conservative organization that produced a video during the democratic primaries of the 2008 election that portrayed hillary clinton as not somebody you want to vote for. they offered this on demand. i was sitting in the courtroom during the arguments and it was funny to see these generally old people, in some cases very old people talking about fios and youtube and all of these twitter -- i guess they didn't mention twitter but they probably could have. the case essentially vacated part of the bipartisan campaign finance resolve also called mccain-feingold, that required
certain organizations like citizens united and 501-c-3 groups to raise set amount of money and disclose where it came from. the impact has been tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars of new spending. this year it was largely on the right but democrats are right now, as we speak, sort of gearing up to offer their own organizations that will spend money on president obama's behalf. so, this has allowed a lot of money to flow into politics and it has become -- politics is now as negative as it ever has been and ad after ad, if any viewers live in nevada you can remember the local news broadcast before election day when three out of every four ads were political and they were all negative. i don't think there was a single positive ad in the race. around the country it was like
that. you had groups like american crossroads, american action network, americans for prosperity. i could name them another 15 minutes there are so many of them now. they were just running advertisements. and it is only going to proceed live rate. there -- proliferate. there is a guy named mike duncan former chairman of the r.n.c. lost re-election in 2009 and went on to be the head of american crossroads. and one of the funny things he keeps saying is we americans spent $4 billion on the midterm elections. a lot people think that is too much in tough economic times. americans also spent $7 billion on potato chips so which is more important, potato chips or american politics. he thinks there ought to be more money in politics and more discussion of it. host: one day we will pose that as a question on the "washington journal." on "new york times" their lead story political battle on
immigration shifts to the states. arizona law's model. legislative leaders in at least half a dozen states say they will propose bills similar to a controversial law to fight illegal immigration that was adopted by arizona last spring even though a ted court has spun -- a federal court has suspended the central provisions of the statute. it says opponents say that effort would be unconstitutional arguing that the power to grant citizenship resides with the federal government, not with the states. still the chance of passing many of these measures appears better than any time since 2006 when many states, frustrated with inaction in washington, began proposing initiatives. how big a deal will this be in the upcoming congress? guest: i don't think many segregation will be a huge deal in the upcoming congress largely because i think we have seen the end of major bills. the only way that any immigration reform will be passed is if it is
comprehensive, huge and everybody holds their nose and votes for the least bad option. but immigration is going to play out in the states more and i think it is a dangerous prospect for the republican party. they have the opportunity to either invite in a wider tent or to demagogue a growing portion of the population. look at the states that gained states in the recent reapportionment. they are largely in the south. washington state i'm happy we got a 10th seat but largely the sun belt where huge population increases are not coming from middle class whites moving from one part of the country to the other. it is from hispanic growth. that is booming in texas, booming in arizona. nevada, the states that are gaining population, even states like georgia and south carolina, which both gained a seat are seeing explosions in the
hispanic population. so, whether or not hispanics are for or against immigration reform and a lot of them are for it, the question is how republicans talk about it and how they -- whether they can avoid sort of demagoguing a large portion of the population. if they don't, hispanics are voting two to one for democrats these days. in 2004 president bush lost hispanics by only 10 points. there is a big difference between losing to hispanics by 10 points and talking about comprehensive reform and losing two to one by talking about an enforcement only approach. so i'm sure i have stirred up the pot there but this is something republicans have to contend with in presidential elections. one big difference between mid terms and presidential elections is the make-up of the electorate. it is usually older, better educated and more white in mid terminals than in presidential races when a much wider swath of
the american electorate votes. host: you said no major -- that we're done with major legislation in congress? guest: i don't see republicans wanting to put together a massive bill particularly after demagoguing what was a 2,000-page however big that stack was and the resolution that the democrats -- skpwhr what will congress be doing between now and 2012 to keep busy? guest: between 1994 rapid we when clinton will to deal with republicans they with things like school uniforms and making sure that local community organizations had cell phones to report crimes. this is when we didn't have a cell phone. sort of playing small ball. those are the kinds of things that the democrats and republicans will be able to agree on now. they may even agree on where to cut spending. president obama is in favor of
cutting spending on earmarks. so are republicans in the house and senate. maybe that is an avenue. sort of these small avenues of agreement that they can reach. but i'm not thinking we will get another 1,200 or 1,600 or 2,000-page bill. host: this small ball philosophy or program that you are talking about, is that going to -- who does that benefit in 2012, president obama or the republican nominee? guest: i think it benefits president obama in the long run. i just finished reading a book called "the survivor" by john harris the story of bill clinton's presidency. the similarities to this year are stunning. the similarities of the post-1994 when the republicans took over and clinton had to refigure out his presidency and what president obama is doing now are striking. obama seems to be about six
months ahead of wherically was at this point so we will see if he can do the same thing. but remember what happened in 1996, president clinton won re-election by a handy margin. so i think playing small ball and trying to get something done and turning the economy around however slowly or quickly by the middle of this year the unemployment rate will start dropping, people will find work finally. that all works in president obama's favor. so, obama is the one with the megaphone and he will get the credit rather than john boehner or freshman members of congress. host: georgetown, ohio, on the line for republicans, dave on the "washington journal" with reid wilson of hotline. caller: yes, i just wanted to comment on the republicans. i want to know what is going to happen if the republicans don't do what they say they are going
to do and get down and really change things like they are going to change things. and if they really don't change things, and if after, you know, their re-elections come up and the democrats come back in and if they are going to, you know, take back the election and get back into the senate, and to see what would happen when the democrats are in there if the republicans ain't going to do what at the promise they are going to do. guest: the problem is not that the american electorate is looking at republicans or democrats for solutions. they are look agent washington and seeing it is broken and voting out incumbent. the republicans in the next couple of years have two
constituencies. they have the base who just elected a number of new republicans just successfully challenged a number of of republican incumbents, too, because they were not in the electorate's view sufficiently conservative and had sort of strayed. but you have independent voters that will play a huge role in the 2012 mid terms who voted very heavily for president obama and then voted heavily for republican congressional candidates. so, these are people who change their minds and are looking for the best candidate rather than a democrat or a republican. so, you have to appease the middle and appease the right. i don't envy republicans' tasks. it will be hard the next couple years but it will be fascinating to watch. host: richmond, virginia, carolyn on the line for democrats. caller: hi. my comment is this. we have longed the past eight
years to help our burdens and calm our fears with job loss, healthcare, homes and economy downfall. so many in our nation were left in tears. our heart is extremely grateful for the experience president obama brings, his knowledge, his wisdom, his integrity is indeed part of our dreams. so, to president obama, we need him. we thank him for stepping up to the plate. with the light of his open eye that will help our nation not to discrimina discriminate. because we needed him back then and it was not his time. because now is the time and we the people say this is fine. host: carolyn, do you have a question? caller: i had a comment. my comment basically is letting everybody know that we need a president that will carry us to the new days ahead.
because we now live in the words i have a dream dr. martin luther king jr. said. host: we will leave it there. reid wilson. guest: i think that the gauntlet has been thrown down. i expect the next republican caller to speak about that. this is illustrative of the earlier mechanics of the cn thfrpblgts poll showing 78% of democrats wanted president obama to be renominated. there is not going to be a primary challenge to president obama. he is too popular among the democratic base, among every key constituency within the party. unions may not like him at the moment but they will when they see the alternative that republicans put up. i doubt whoever the republicans nominate will be a big friend of unions. end of the day president obama is going to go renominated. anybody who spends time writing that he might not be i think is
just looking for a story. host: 2012 politics with reid wilson of hotline, thank you very much for being on the program. we are take a short break and when we come back we'll continue our discussion regarding the top stories of 2012. give us a call and tell us what you -- 2010, rather. 2012 yet to come. 2010. what were the top stories in your opinion? and you may want to tell us what you think may be the top political story of 2011. all that on "washington journal" when we come back. >> the one thing we have absolutely learned the last 30 years is that economists and other saeupges of the economy a not very good at predicting what happens. >> in his columns for "newsweek" and washingt"washington post" r
samuelsson has written about politics, and social issues. he will join us sunday night on "q&a." >> the original documentary on the supreme court has been updated. sunday you will see the grand public places and those only available to the justices and staff. you will hear about how the court works from all of the current supreme court justices including the newest justice elena kagan. and learn about some of the court's recent developments. the supreme court home to america's highest court airing for the first time in high definition sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the c-span networks provide coverage of politics, public fairs, nonfiction books and american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, online and on social media networking sites. find our content any time through c-span video library we
go on the road with the digital because bringing resources to your community. it is washington your way, the c-span networks now available in more than 100 million homes created by cable, provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: for the duration of the program, about 25 minutes, we will talk about the top stories of 2010. give us a call and let us know what you think the top stories of the last year were and if you want you can weigh in on what you think maybe the top story of the upcoming year. the numbers 202-737-0002 for democrats, republican 202-737-00001 and independents 628 628-0205. if you want to accepted a message electronically the dress is journal at c-span.org and
c-span w.j. on twitter. on the "washington post" this morning the lead editorial talks about the new year and hope springs eternal not just the next 12 months but also for the next decade. a verdict of sorts is in on the first decade of the 21st century and it isn't good. the pugh charitable trust conducted a poll on said roughly two to one more say they have a generally negative rather than a generally positive impression of the past 10 years. by way of contrast the public has a largely positive view of the past half century. even the turbulent 1960's which almost included a nuclear armageddon and a presidential assassination and vietnam war. the editorial in the "washington post" goes on to say it is no surprise that 10 years that began with the horror of
september 11 and undered with a deep recession and foreign war would be regarded as a bad time since so many are living with the consequences and often are still without gainful employment. yet, in is another thing that is not vicisurprising. a solid majority of americans, roughly three out of five believe that the coming decade will be better than the one just past. by the same sizable majority, americans say that the nation's increase in racial and ethnics diversity has been a good thing will only a minuscule percentage saying that it has been bad. we are talking about the top stores for 2010. the first call is from orlando, florida. aaron is on the line for republicans. go ahead. caller: i think that the biggest story is shirley sherrod. i think that let me know where
my party stood. i'm a republican and the length they are willing to go. it was really lonely being a moderate republican and all the republicans that left the party need to come back. host: thank you. lexington park, maryland. on the line for democrats. caller: i feel that they are not giving president obama a fair shake in this thing. host: they are not giving -- who is not giving him a fair shake in what thing? caller: it is the republicans. they are totally against him. host: and how do you think that might change in the coming year, if at all? caller: i think they all need to come together. we have it war going on and obama is trying to repair the damage that has been done over the years by bush. host: all right. we will leave it there.
next call is from martin, south dakota, on the line for independents. caller: good morning. happy new year. host: happy new year. caller: i have several comments to make. i hope you will allow me to say what i want to say and bear with me. i'm a world war ii veteran. i have been watching "washington journal" for a long time. as a matter of fact, about 25 years ago i was a rancher in the badlands and a reporter from the "washington post" interviewed me and he wrote that i kept on -- kept up on politics by watching c-span, which i did at that time. hard to get on the program. something that wasn't mentioned this morning about important stories, one i would like to comment about. the death commission report. they reported the serious
situation that we are in and what we need to do. well, we didn't -- we are not doing it but let me go back a little bit. what we should be discussing is how did we get into this mess and how are we going to get out of it. well, i want to go back to to president reagan. i was very strong for ronald reagan for president. but when he got in i was disappointed. i read an article recently from way back, a magazine i had years a ago, back there about 1983 -- or 1994. by ron paul talking about -- he mentioned ronald reagan, a man that talked conservatively but now we were going to have a huge deficit the rest of his term, which we did. anyway, ron paul was talking about taxes and the economy and the effect on the economy. i wrote president reagan a
letter after he was in office two or three years and he said they turned things around. we were in a mess and turned things around. i disagreed with that. i said that i left him with this comment. i said what do you suppose would happen if you told the american people exactly what got us into the mess and what it will take to get out and i said we could but we won't. i think we could then now i don't know what we can do now. we are in a serious mess and that is what we should be discussing thanks for listening. host: next up is tim on the line for republicans in kansas city, kansas. go ahead, tim. you are on the washington journal. caller: yes, thanks for taking my call. i watch every morning and i get so much information, you know, from behind the scenes so to spe speak. the top story of 2010 would be
actually what the, what i call the three stooges, obama and reid and pelosi, how much they messed up this year. host: give me an example of how they messed up, tim. tim? caller: just the powerplays, you know, while they have had control over everything. the presidency, the house, the senate. host: john boehner of ohio will be the new speaker. caller: thank god we've got -- now we will have at least, i believe, some equality as far as the voting goes. host: all right, tim. we have this twitter message from dennis lane.
host: back to the phone, breedersberg, indiana. kevin on the line for independents. >> i want to comment on what i think it is more the political system everybody is frustrated with any more i don't think it is working as well as our fore tpaert fathers intended it to work. i think that is a major problem in the future. i think that the politician that talks more about less government, of course, republican, democrat, independent, you know, whatever position you are, you have to realize that if the president, the leader, doesn't physically change something in the economy as i'm a small business owner, i own my own heating and air compa company. host: what did the president
physic physically do to help your company? stpwhrao he couldly -- they tried to save the banks. i'm not saying they didn't try. it is just i still can't get money to grow my business. host: is that the president's fault or the banks' fault? caller: who bailed out the banks? caller: who's got the money? caller: but they always have the mon money. but instead of helping the people, what they should have done -- host: would it help your business if the banks were not bailed out? caller: i'm going to the community action program, right? they are a government funded busine business, private business. they apply for grants and they receive grants. i'm right now applying for $50,000 to basically buy some inventory and grow my business. and i will probably get that loan.
but if i walk into a bank, i have a building i bought and they talk about commercial real estate. i live in a small town. it is all small economics around here. but i'm trying to build up my stuff and i'm 30 kwraeyears old american dream, right? trying to make it on your own. host: thanks for the call. we have this story from "new york times", 2011 the year of political change. they write january 1 is technically no different from any other day. the aura that surrounds it emtphaeutsz from the fact that it holds the promise of a clean start, a new beginning. when it comes to state politics that possibility is more real than it has been in decades thanks to the historic gains republicans made across the country in the midterm elections. they go on to write that 29 states will have republican governors and republicans will hold nearly 700 seats in state legislatures, more than they
have held since before world war ii. back to the phones. spero, oklahoma, on the line for democrats. lou is on the "washington journal." stpwhrao i think that the biggest story in 2010 was the republicans taking back control of the house, 60 seats. i think that the biggest story in 2011 will be their ineffectual or not being able to hold together because of the tea party and some of the conservati conservative, more conservative ranks of the republican party. i don't think they will be able to get anything done. host: lou, what kind of leadership are you looking for from the incoming speaker john boehner of ohio? how do you expect he will be able to do things differently than the outgoing speaker nancy pelosi of california? caller: he will be able to hold his party together maybe a little better.
but i don't think -- i don't know. i think that he will, but i think that the tea party will be a constant, constantly wanting himming to more conservative than the american people will take, i think. host: next is raleigh, north carolina. sam on the line for democrats. caller: how are you doing this morning? host: i'm doing good. tell me what you think is the top story of 2010? caller: it would be the tea party and how they got in office and everything. the tea party is an offshoot of the ku klux klan and how the republicans forth into office. they got in with the voting
machine. everybody knows those voting machines when you push a button and somebody else comes up it is not a true election. host: let me stop you there. the tea party says that the t-e-a stands for taxed enough already. how does that relate in your mind to the ku klux klan? host: no quiet retirement for delahunt. he plans to stay in the public square. after four decades in public office representatives william delahunt is ready to take a spin in the private severe. -- sphere. the retiring democrat says he is in the job market in the boston area for work as a consultant seeking to leverage the expertise in international relations he developed in 14 years in congress.
into he says i want to speak out. he carved out a reputation in congress for his willingness to work across party lines, cooperating with republicans on issues as varied as protecting intellectual property and preventing violence against women. back to the phones. pontiac, illinois, on the line for republicans. ron, you are on the "washington journal." caller: i think the top story of 2010 is deficit spending. earlier, if i may, you had asked a call a caller about unreported stories. i think i can combine one for you here. host: ok. caller: 2005, under the republicans, a budget was passed for 2006 where the democrats
were proposing $400 billion in spending above president bush's budg budget. the republicans, in a bipartisan manner, they didn't want to be called mean, increased spending over bush's budget by $40 billion. this is a story that was not report reported. instead, what was reported was republicans over spespent. subsequently, under pelosi, the deficit spending went up to over $400 billion for the last two years of bush and now for the first two years of obama with the democrats completely in contr control, the deficit spending has gone up to what, $1.3 trillion, $1.4 trillion. they tripled the deficit under
bush and tripled it again under pelosi under obama. now it is the biggest story. previously it was unreported. host: david on the line for independents out of sand springs, oklahoma. caller: that is correct. near tulsa. i thought one story that went under the radar was that hillary clinton had said something to the effect that she was not going to seek any kind of public office after finishing up as secretary of state. i remember some rumors going around that she perhaps might replace joe biden as the vice preside presidental -- vice presidential candidate in 2012. secondly, as an independent, there are so many independent voters and they can be swung one
way or another. but as an independent it just strikes me that i see a lot of name calling from people on the right and then a lot of undesirable actions from people on the left. when i say undesirable, it just seems like people on the left just don't want to stand up for their principles sometimes. i know i'm making blanket statements and like people to be more specific. host: we could and we will leave it there. los angeles times, david mentioned vice president biden and secretary of state clinton. the "los angeles times" has a story regarding the vice president saying his role grows as congress tilts. the white house looks to his political and negotiating savvy to span party lines. peter nicholas reporting from washington vice president joe biden is a career politician who
has spent virtually his entire adult life in washington politics. seemingly the antithesis of president obama's hope and change message. yet with a new political order in washington the success of obama's presidency hinges moreed a -- more and more on the skills of his number two. facing a revived republican party the white house is expected to increasingly deploy biden as a presidential surrogate to find compromises and coax lawmakers into crossing party lines, even biden's penchant for veering off message is being reseparate straighevale to ordinary voters that. is in the "los angeles times" this morning. you can find that story at latimes.com. richard, virginia on the line for republicans. landon on the "washington journal." caller: good morning and happy new year. i think the biggest story this
year was the internet and i think that people should read newspapers. it is one of the biggest stories. read newspapers and get the full news reports. the tphebnext -- host: you don't think you can get the full news off the internet? caller: no, it is garbage. the internet is absolute garbage. i tell my son all the time that he looks on this daddy you know this. i say look, look, look, if you read the newspapers and get the full knowledge of what is going on they give you a quick sentence of it but -- host: what about the newspapers that reprint their stories on the internet? they have webpages. caller: you may find some legitimacy in that, but to be honest i'm talking about all of the garbage and let me finish, jose. i think the democrats, they have
respect for the president and i think the republican -- i have been a republican all my life and i say you see how they are acting? if you look at how the democrats are acting toward the president which i think is one of the best -- i'm going to say this and i don't want you to think i'm saying the wrong thing --ening that barack obama is one of the best republican and democratic presidents we ever had. you can call him a democrat if you want but i think the democrats have been absolutely disrespectful. host: landon in richmond has been a republican all his life i haven't been jose a day in my life. atlanta constitution has this. georgia democrats enter the upcoming 2011 session of the general assembly reeling from a series of defections facing an
uphill climb toward relevance. the once dominant party holds 85 of 236 seats in the highways and senate -- house and senate, lowest since reconstruction. the number has been slipping since november when the party lost control all statewide offices. nine democrat legislators have become republicans and including athens representative doug mckillip who switched less than a month after his colleagues elected him chairman of the house democrats. franklin, tennessee, mary on the line for democrats. good morning. mary. caller: good morning. host: what is the top story for 2010? caller: definitely the election of the republicans ain mid term. my mother grew up during the depressions and she said the republicans don't like the middle class and we are on the edge of losing -- in fact, i
believe we have lost the middle class. the republicans will do nothing to help the working people. they are going to destroy this country as we know it. host: what do you think -- give me an example, a concrete example of how the republicans are destroying the middle class. caller: by they keep shipping the jobs out of the country. there are no jobs. but, the democrats are not doing much either keeping jobs here. everything is aimed at wall street. everything. all of this has been caused by wall street. host: we will leave it there. our last call is from we westerville, ohio, carla on the line of independents. what is the top story of 2010? caller: i would rather prefer to just make a statement if you don't mind. what i would like to say is that when we are expecting global
respect and we are trying to build that, that i would really appreciate that some of the name calling and lack of of respect for our current leaders be it obama, be it bush, be it reagan, we need to stand behind our leaders a little bit more because the world is not going to respect us if we can't respect our own. host: that is carla from westerville, ohio, she has the last word in this edition of "washington journal." we want to tell you who will be on the program tomorrow. discussion regarding the christian science monitor article will obama's rift with the left matter. its author will be here white house correspondent is our guest. she will talk about her article as well as looking ahead for what is in front of the president and his administration in 2011. then we will also talk about the state of u.s. homeland security
including combatting and preparing for potential terrorist attacks involving dirty bombsment our guest for that discussion will be colonel randall larsen. he is a senior fellow at the washington university homeland security policy institute. so, those will be the two guests tomorrow on "washington journal." you will be able to see us tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. .