tv Washington Journal CSPAN January 14, 2011 7:00am-10:00am EST
joined by the founder and president of the media research center. we will look at the state of the auto industry who will join us from detroit at the side of the u.s. auto show. this is "washington journal." host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal" on this friday, january 14, 2011. house republicans are in baltimore today for their retreat, which they are calling the congress of tomorrow. and the republican national committee will select its new party chairman at its meeting today. president obama speaks with the president of pakistan and later on today, both president and vice president will go to the funeral service for ambassador richard holbrooke.
a question for you this morning as reflected on the gifford shooting in tucson, ariz. and the public discourse, as well as in the media, should there be a fairness doctrine that balances political speeches on the airwaves? the numbers are on the screen. you can also e-mail us and we are on twitter. let's take a look at what the fairness doctrine is. this comes from the museum of broadcast communications. back in 1949, the fcc took the view that stations were public
trustees and have an obligation to afford a reasonable opportunity for the discussion of contrasting points of view. one of the reasons we are talking about that is because there is discussion about bringing it back. with the fairness doctrine be coming back? experts say the chances of a rolls revival are slim to none. our question for you is whether or not it should be brought back
as a way to provide balance on the airwaves. if you have a conservative talk show, you would also have to provide a liberal point of view to try to provide some balance in there. our first call is from the republicans line. good morning. caller: i would like to make a -- has a small question about the republicans trying to overturn the health care law. host: ok, go ahead caller: to answer your question, i absolutely do not believe in the fairness doctrine. is just another attempt, apparently, for people that are losing in the idea realm to try to stack the deck in their favor. conservatives have talk radio. liberals have public radio, funded with public money.
liberals have most of those journalists and media on their side, as far as their belief system. and the conservatives to balance that out, i don't know. it is working itself out in the public arena already. i would like to make a second comment. i am a conservative, a registered republican. i tend to be more like a tea party person even though i did not take part in those events. however, the reason republicans are giving for voting to overturn the health care law is that they are fulfilling a promise. they are not supposed to be coming to washington to fulfill a promise that they gave to us out here, the voters. they are supposed to be doing it because they believe in it. and they should be creating
something to replace it. for them to vote on it without something to replace its is political suicide. it is almost like they are doing in knowing they're going to lose. it is bogus. we want a good health care bill to replace the bad health care bill that is currently law. host: all right, let's go on to rhey in washington state. good morning. caller: on this fairness doctrine, they really do not need it. all they need to do is replace some words that were removed from the original doctrine to serve some public good. "to serve the public good" was replaced for a reason and all they need to do is -- was removed for a reason and all they need to do is replace that. by removing dead, it took many, many voices away from -- myrby removing that, it took many,
many voices away from the conversation. all you hear our corporate voices. as far as what the gentleman said about the health care bill, it is a health insurance bill. if you remove the mandate that people have to buy from these corporations, we might have been better chance at having health care. host: let's look at this piece from the daily caller. practically speaking, of bringing back the fairness doctrine could be done one of two ways, either by passing legislation, or by the fcc voted on and passing the regulations. it is doubtful that the fcc would reinstate it. if the sec tries to, it will be hit with a lawsuit and -- if the fcc tries to, it will be a with a lawsuit, and much of the power
it has. free speech is as free speech does, james clybourn says, and you cannot yell fire in a theater and calling free speech. much of what i hear that is called free speech is worse than that. in the meantime, we will also be taking a look at other stores in the news, including what is going on with the rnc, republican national committee meeting today. this piece comes to us from the ."ashington post hundreds of major donors have abandoned the rnc.
and to join us this morning to talk more about what is happening with the rnc is reid wilson, editor in chief of hot line this morning. guest: could morning. host: how much our finances being talked about this week? guest: this is a major concern of the new republican national committee. there has been -- never been a major debt quite this.
there is a $21 billion budget gap over the next couple of months and that is only going to get worse. it is something that the 168 members of the republican national committee are talking about as they consider a new chairman. the goal is to get someone who can raise that money and close the budget gap. host: and one of your pieces in the "the national journal" talks about how this is the swan song for michael steele. and the feeble likely prevail and win again. guest: -- and it is likely that he will prevail and win again. guest: there are a number of media witnesses -- media representatives who witnessed the president obama speech we couple of weeks ago. it is sort of a celebrity? watch your. michael steele is someone who was been in the headlines
frequently. he has been on the front pages of the newspaper and is not something that the recall rnc is comfortable with. they are concerned with being in the headlines at all. and they are folks that are used to operating behind the scenes. but over the last few years because of michael steele's flubs and gaffes and public statements that have created notice around the country, they have created headlines. that is not something these folks are comfortable with. host: 178 members can vote. who was the front runner at this point? -- 168 members can vote. guest: chairman [unintelligible] has about a 33, 34, about half of what he really needs.
there are multiple vella prounced. -- ballett rounds. and people will vote for -- and there are multiple ballot rounds. this is going to be a fascinating race. nobody has to drop out. it really is like that 1892 presidential election or something like that. nobody has to drop out at all. but we will see multiple rounds of balloting. host: "national journal" has reported that speaker boehner has endorsed maria zeyno.
guest: endorsements mean almost nothing at this point. the 168 members are a very insular group. they talk to each other rather than talking to washington at large. whether it is boehner, endorsing maria cino or some of the bigger names in conservative politics, if it does not matter at this point because the 168 members are so insular. it almost hurts when someone so big endorses one of the candidates for the rnc chairman jim. there have been big endorsement in the past and it doesn't -- chairmanship. dara been big endorsement of the past and it does not matter. host: is a popularity contest or
are they looking for someone who can bring in the money? are they looking for someone who is different than michael steele, as you mentioned, less of a headline grabber? guest: first, they're looking for some and you can fill that budget gap, that $21 billion gap get money is always the hardest money to raise. -- that $21 billion gap. that debt money is always the artist money to raise. they're looking for someone who will move them into the 21st century. atwater980's lee established a good political program. in the 1990's haley barbour established a big donor program. now the people just want the rnc to be competent. they just want it to be managed well and to operate at par with the democratic national committee.
if they do not have that, they will be at a serious disadvantage when they are trying to run against obama in 2012. a political column put out a memo a couple of weeks when he decided to run against michael steele. there was a 72 -- if they had this 70 to our program they would have been able to pupick p seats in vermont and washington state and colorado. and they would have been additional two dozen house seats. finding the rnc is really important -- funding the rnc is really important. the rnc is the only one that can do the ground game. that is why it is so important.
senate candidates are trying to convince them that they will be the ones who are able to do that. host: and they have an unexpected factor working against them, as you cook it. and they are looking for a leader that is the opposite gender of the co-chairman. how is that hurting women who are running? guest: they have iran in which the chairman and co-chairman -- they now have a role in which the chairman and co-chairman have to be of a different gender. they have that role because they were trying to make sure that a woman would be in one of the top two positions of the rnc. if host: but does the co-
chairman actually do anything? guest: different people have made the co-chairman ship different things. some people have made it a big deal and have recruited volunteers and raised money and actually have done something with the position. other people have made it a ceremonial post. the fascinating part about this, though, is that now there are two women running for co-chair that have really serious falling so among the 168 members of the rnc. anybody who wants to vote for one of those two women has a very strong disincentive to vote for either of the two women running for chairman because if they vote for the within chairman candidates and one of them wins, the co-chairman will not -- for one of the within chairman candidates, and one of them wins, the co-chairman they want will not be able to win.
one man is running for or german because if one of the two-one man is running for the co- chairman ship because if one of the two women against the german ship he will automatically have the co-chairman share. -- chairman and ship. -- chairmanship. anne wexler and maria cino have a long relationship. whatever your running for, the relationships matter a lot more than the endorsements. it matters a lot more if you
have known a committee member for a long time, if your endorsed by john bolten or john boehner. host: could something turn that is not predicted today? is it really erase text guest: absolutely. could something turn that is not predicted today? is it really a racist? -- a race? guest: absolutely. you have candidates who have long history of support in the rnc, a large number of backers. if you have ann wagner and maria cino and people with real
followings. in 2009, michael steele was elected after the sixth ballot. there was no clear-cut victory for him. you will see the same thing today. the balloting starts at 10:00 a.m. host: reid wilson at the hot line at the national journal. thanks so much. guest: thank you. host: we are looking at the fairness doctrine and whether or not there should be one. what is the fairness doctrine? legislation that provides -- requires all to provide the general public with a forum in which contrasting viewpoints are discussed and debated. it did not require equal time, but require that contrasting
views be presented. should it be brought back? or should there be some renewal of it? let's hear from scott in texas, a republican collar. caller: i believe congressman clybourn and anyone else who would like to bring the fairness doctrine back is not looking for fair and balanced equal representation of the issues. they want a monopoly. they are losing in the arena of the public ideas. they have npr, abc, nbc, cbs, msnbc, cnn, the, "washington post" n.v. "new york times" and although not liberal media carrying their water now. -- and all the liberal media carrying their water now. host: ok, next caller will, welcome. caller: frankly, you are welcome
for love -- for us letting you use our public airwaves. the gentleman just peaking and all those corporate entities -- you know, even npr, for the most part. if you have noticed, our local npr station in los angeles has left. it is interesting, i watched the tavis smiley program you have on last night and he said the 24- hour news station is on all day, all night, and all white. if you look at the hosts for the most part, these programs are catered to perpetuating something i have called ptsos or ptsod. it is posttraumatic slave owner syndrome. and if you do not check yourself you can develop posttraumatic slave owner disorder. something like the citizens
united decision that happened where corporations are to will to human beings means that corporations -- are equal to human beings, that means that corporations will be able to dominate the liberal ideology or maybe someone that has a minority perspective, latino, asian, native american, african american. those voices are drowned out. even on c-span, i think you are great as an individual moderator, but take away the men. the women almost like sisters on your network. host: i do not know what that comment refers to. caller: all of your one in moderator's on c-span for cordon bleu -- 4 "washington journal" and there is no white -- there are no black women, and latino women.
within more so than men when it comes to cover ratio for how they are broken down for most for my dinner, there are zero black within that host shows on news programs. if it is msnbc, abc -- maybe npr might have a face or to, but overall, the corporate structure is predominantly perpetuating the white power structure. even white people that think -- is complicated, but they are perpetuated, so you worker against your own self interest to keep the power structure at a status quo in a dominating way. it is hard to put it all together in a brief second, but thank you for letting me speak. it has nothing to do with you personally. in our system has a bias -- sometimes a part of ptsos who is that you do not see it. you think the world as
colorblind and now that we have a black president, maybe things are better now and racism is ended. these are all things that the syndrome will lead to to believe. that we do not need to go further with the voices that are being left invisible and unspoken. and i love c-span for being able to speak as long. thank you. host: our question today, should there be a fairness doctrine to ensure stability and balance in public conversation? jeremy is up next from huntsville, alabama. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i do consider myself to be a conservative, but mexico and has more of a broadcaster. hi and squarely against the fairness doctrine -- i am squarely against the fairness doctrine. i work for a radio station. i will not give the name for privacy reasons.
we really do not need the federal government making our programming decisions. those are better left to the people that actually work in the same building that i do. host: jeremy, let me ask you, as a broadcaster, what have you felt is your responsibility here. we have had this discussion this week about civility in conversation. have you been reflecting at all on the fairness or the stability of the -- civility of the work that you do? guest: first, let me say that our station is a music station. as far as political issues, we actually to try to stay away from those. when something is newsworthy, obviously, we will report the facts of the story. but on a personal level, as far as this talk of civility, you know, the message that we are
hearing from those that are talking about civility are really preaching a doctrine of "do as i say, not as i do." host: let's go to it twitter comment from fidelis. -- from dallas. cliburn said from his office he won standards put in place -- he once standards put in place and, elected officials to use better judgment.
calvin from north carolina joining us on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. it is interesting. it seems like, at least in my opinion after the tragedy in arizona over the weekend, i looked at programs across the whole venue. i looked at fox, which i normally do not look at. i looked at cnbc and of course at c-span. after a tragedy, whether it is 9/11 or the arizona for a public official getting assassinated, it seems that for the most part is fairness getting a reported because it is all about the facts. but we have to get the facts to the individuals. but what i also noticed is also on all the channels is that after the reporting of the facts, you know, into the week that the president is giving the memorials and the moment of silence, then you start having
the same philosophical discussions and debates where fairness when out the window. -- went out the window. for me, it seems to fairness is getting the opportunity to say what i think and basically try to influence people's emotions and opinions based on that. piggybacking on an earlier colleague -- and earlier caller's point, when ratings go up and advertising revenues go up because we do not have to be fair because it is generating dollars, then it is not going to give a lot of incentive to independent broadcasters and owners and shareholders and management to be fair because if we cannot be fair and have our arbitrary ratings and revenues high enough to sustain us and our shareholders, then why should we be fair? any attempts beyond tragedies
happening when people think, if i do not like it, and i still willing to hear here? and my still willing to broadcast it? -- and am i still willing to broadcast it? host: ok, let's hear from maureen in michigan. caller: in regard to the person that talked about not enough black people being on air, there are quite a lot of blacks and if you get to the level of broadcasting -- and i think you get to the level of broadcasting by your marriage. however, with the fairness doctrine, i have a friend and we drove a to northern michigan. there is a large radio station in the detroit area and it reaches of a way to northern michigan.
all it does is hate spewing begins the -- against the president and democrats. my friend was shocked because we have a whole station talking like this without any interruption, without anybody else saying anything. and i said, i guess, and that is why, of course, c-span is the program of choice in our home. i cannot believe the hate that these people perpetuate. small minds will listen to this. host: do you think a fairness doctrine will help that situation? caller: absolutely. i have a nephew that lives in texas and he is a staunch republican. he happened to be visiting us and we happen to have msnbc on
we have this comment on twitter from florida, who writes, a liberal, but would like to hear both sides of the issue. the fairness doctrine is ok with me. but you're from connecticut, democrats line. hi, there. caller: good morning, and thank you for taking my call. there have been a lot of good calls with a lot of good suggestions. i definitely wish -- i am not that will fall, but i definitely was that the fairness doctrine will come back. -- i am not that hopeful, but i definitely wish the fairness doctrine would come back. i am 70 and i remember when you could absolutely turn on any new station and your factual things on both sides. -- and you could hear factual things on both sides. in addition, unfortunately, language does matter and the high is up to that 180 degrees.
you are not going to ever listen to a different opinion from that stationed on our radio, or television. and it is not going to be factually checked. i know the news media corporations are struggling like everybody else with bottom lines, so many journalists have been let go. but key to what we have been listening to is, i do believe that we need honesty and if your viewpoint is one way, you need to be open-minded to listen in a nice way. you do not have to use that word about anybody. host: doug rights on twitter, and the fairness doctrine would be barred by the plain language of the first amendment. let's take a look at some of the big stories in the news today related to the arizona suit --
arizona shooting. many pictures in the papers of the green family. 9-year-old christina greene was killed in saturday's shooting. this is that are arriving for her funeral yesterday. the headline of the piece is, the vigil between hope and despair. it talks about the efforts the doctors are making and prayers for family members who are still recovering. this is the family at the funeral service. the first funeral of the aftermath might turn out to be the most heart wrenching. christina taylor green, age 9, was wheeled in a child's eyes coffin -- child sized coffin.
looking at other stories here, profiling, the relationship between women in congress and the friends of congress will win giffords. and it talks about the woman who came in along with -- of congresswoman giffords. and it? but the woman who came in along with her and how -- and it talks about the women who came in along with her and how close they are. and it talks about the friends of congresswoman giffords, and in the kingston gillibrand and also debbie wasserman schultze of florida.
-- kyrgysztan gillibrand and debbie wasserman shoals of florida. -- kirsten gillibrand. this article talks about her recovery. we will be following if there is an update from the medical center. they have been doing noontime briefings. we will see if that takes place again today. go to daniel, republican
caller in colorado, joining us to talk about if there should be a fairness doctrine. members of congress have called for the fairness doctrine in the wake of what happened saturday to try to be in more stability and balance to the media. caller: i think it is a bunch of nonsense. the fairness doctrine is nonsense. it should be called the progressive doctrine. host: why? caller: they want the progress of work to get out there and the people do not want to hear the progress of word. that is why the mainstream media is huge -- is losing its audience. that is why -- nobody wants to hear the progressive doctrine because it is ugly, mean- spirited and it is a way to direct this country toward socialism. baltimore, hear from md., the lease on the democrats line. caller: regarding fairness compaq i believe over the past
two years we have made progress. for eight years while bush was president, fox news and there about now commentators had no competition. i remember there was a talk show on msnbc, but he was on for less than a year because let's face it, most republicans are basically police and do not like criticism from opposition. but now we have ed schultze on msnbc who gives it right back to the right wingers. as a liberal, i am grateful for him and he has lived -- level the playing field. it is about time. and thet's go to robin republican line. caller: i am against the fairness doctrine because i feel we should be able to listen to whatever we want. if people want to listen to fox, so be it. if people want to listen to msnbc, so be it. we should decide what we want to watch. i do not want the government
running it. if they tell the truth, that is all i care about. host: foreign in palm bay -- warrant in palm bay, florida. caller: i worry about how inflammatory some of these people are. i just finished a book by dana milbank and what he reported in the polka and august of 2009, -- what he reported in august of 2009, glenn becher got a phone call and the caller said he was k got a phonebeche call and the caller said he was angry because the congressman would not attend the tea party and glenn beck confronted him at
a safeway store and what happened last saturday? host: what you think the fairness doctrine would do? but caller: i do not think it would work. i turn on the radio and there is no left or moderate show on. as limbaugh said, the reason the other got elected -- hitler got elected is because he gave health care to the german people. bismark did that in 1883. these people do not get called on what they really do. host: let's look at more of the fairness doctrine from the museum of broadcast communications.
glenn, republican in the atlantic city, new jersey. welcome. caller: first of all, i agreed one from the old days. a great point and counterpoint, the economist was the best. where are the stories? people are defending themselves with guns. the spot -- country needs to get strong. the freedom is a way as well as
beautiful. stop government meddling and control over everything we are thinking and doing. host: he was talking about as segment aired on "washington journal" yesterday where we had two guests talking about gun control and freedom of gun used. here is some background on how it has been an active in the past in this country, and what happened. in the spring of 1987, both houses of congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law. let's hear from michael on our democrats line in huntington,
new york. caller: there is more to the story of the fairness doctrine and even what was in that article. the fairness doctrine was from before 1987, a decrease of the president rather than -- a bequeath of the president rather than from congress. in 1986, reagan had his justice department go against a group that wanted the fairness doctrine applied when a nuclear power plant had bought all of these suppose it editorials, which were bought for a station and an area where they were going to put in plan. the people against it quantity = and they were refused. the justice department went all the way to the supreme court, saying it was no longer
necessary, that there were enough venues for them to get their viewpoint out. the reality is that we end up with all of our media control, whether they purport to be left or right. you cannot get anything out without getting it out through the corporate media. other than being on line, where you cannot tell what the truth or lying is or anything else, that is the only place. i am for the fairness doctrine, if applied very narrow lead. it should be only applied when it is directly about things having to do with the hot president's political structure and close to election. -- having to do with the president's political structure and close to election. host: so, you think that if of a candidate has airtime, then the other candidates to have equal
air time as well. let's move on. he said, the best way to deal with a bad speech is more and better speech. half calvin, what do you think in north carolina? -- calvin, what do you think in north carolina? caller: thank you for taking my call. i get fed up with this right wing same is this liberal media. the way i look at it, at abc, cbs, nbc, they all have a point and counterpoint. oftentimes, i see a lot more republicans on there than i do democrats. the fallacy that this is a left- wing media is just crazy. clive wish somebody would pound
that into their thick, narrow minded schools. host: coming up later on in the program, we'll be talking about regulating political speech. but first, we will talk about president obama and the democratic party, how liberals factor into that. if we will be right back with ari berman . -- with ari berman. >> today, the republican national committee elects their new chair. five candidates are vying to for the position, including current chairman, michael steele. watch the proceedings live today at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio and at c-span.org.
this week on american history tv, historians discuss their work on pop culture at these historical conference in boston. khandelwal history, with walter fauntroy. apart -- an oral history with walter fauntroy. candid discussion of the first state to secede from the union, south carolina. see the complete weekend schedule on mindset c-span.org /history where you can also press the loop but none have our schedules be mailed to you. -- press the alert button and have our schedules e-mail to you. this week, clarence jones with a behind-the-scenes look kathy lead up to the historic march -- at to the historic march on washington and the "i have a dream" speech.
sign up to get our schedules directly mailed to you. -- e-mailed to you. >> calo makan -- comments of your congressman, attractively headlines and senate sessions. congressional chronicle, is washington your way. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest, ari berman, is our guest and he is the author herding donkeys."ing donkey how do think the liberal base of the democratic party has responded to the events of this week?
guest: i think they have responded very well to barack obama's speech. there were a lot of questions going in, what should he say, how should he say it. but as he began speaking and a speech to gain some force, i think people realize it was a very powerful message that he was delivering and it was a message that obama was unique to be able to deliver. i heard a lot of his supporters afterwards and they said this was the obama we voted for. he has the ability to rise to the occasion, i think. and that is what they have been wanting to see from this president for the last two years, real leadership. use the bully pulpit that you have and the ability that you have to operate and deliver the message to the american people. orate ande two or eighto deliver the message to the
american people. host: let's look at president obama's comments. >> as we discussed these issues, let's each do so with a good dose of humility rather than appointing -- then pointing fingers or assigning blame. -- rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame. let's look use this occasion to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together. host: president obama speaking this week at a memorial service in arizona. a lot of conservative commentators have praised him for this speech and not delving into the political realm, as you mentioned. why do you think they have been so positive and is there any political calculation in that? guest: it is nice to see them do that for once. he put politics aside in his
speech. it is funny because there is this caricature of obama of -- as this un-american socialist. it is an image that has been created on the right. when you saw his speech this week, that could not have been further from the truth. it was such a heartfelt, pro- american message. as he said, he was speaking to the american family, 300 million strong. barack obama sounded like ronald reagan in that speech, the president that conservatives so revered. things're looking at the they value, american values cannofor example, they gave him credit in his speech. i do not think it is going to last, but it was nice to see 419. host: what you think of the blow back that has taken place -- to see for one night. host: what you think of the blow
back that has taken place with conservatives, that there have been accusations of accusations -- there have been accusations of responsibility, this sort of blow back from the cause of the shooting. guest: i watched a lot of coverage the day of the shooting and part of it was great because we were getting a lot of live coverage. but part of izhak was -- but part of it was stuff that should have been saved for later. the right to a lot more than the left. a lot more of this has happened on the right. i think both sides, liberals under the bush era and conservatives under the obama era have had some hysterical rhetoric about the president. but the fascination with gun imagery is much more prevalent
on the ride down the left. -- the right than the left. host: the book you wrote came out in october. did the liberals get left behind in president obama's first two years in office? if guest: they had mixed feelings about obama. on the one hand they look at what he has done and say, ok, the stimulus bill, health care bill, financial reform, i mean, these are big pieces of legislation. at the same time, they look at the size of the democratic majority and the opportunity he was handed and they do not believe he is able to change washington in the way that he claimed to when he was campaigning. he talked a lot in his campaign about bringing his supporters in to washington, making them a parallel force off to lobbyists
and legislators that are blocking change in the capital and that never happened. instead, obama cut a lot of deals to get things passed, you know, deals with health insurance companies and the like during the health-care debate. and on a broader level, he ran a much more conventional, top- down white house and still with a lot of names from the clinton and bush era. i think, many liberals were open there would be a lot more new faces. -- were hoping there would be a lot more new faces. host: you write in your book, " is typically one sided. guest: i think that happened a lot during the health care debate. president obama said he wanted a public option but did nothing to
fight for it. when it died, people said, you did not fight for it. and it has happened again with the tax cuts. the president has said he did not want to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, but he basically did not fight for it. i think they want him to fight, for what he believes in and if he cannot get it, ok. but have the fight before you compromise. i think that has been the central critique of the obama administration of his supporters on the left that remain today. host: our guest is a contributing writer to the nation and is doing an investigative fellow show that the nation institute. let's hear from john in kentucky on the republican line. caller: i would like to understand about the speech that
was given, how the people worswe complaining of the left. it was a beautiful speech, no doubt. but wouldn't it have been much better if he had spoke from the oval office, first, and directly on the situation instead of in a college atmosphere where it was more of a pep rally situation? it seems to me like it would have been more effective and he would have shown more empathy toward the families and the nation and brought it together more had it not been a seemingly -- whether it was or not -- a political atmosphere. guest: this has become somewhat of a common critique on the right and i could not disagree
with it more. it was not a political pep rally. the president did not choose the format. tucson went through a horrible tragedy. the university of arizona went through a horrible tragedy. and when the president came, they wanted a moral, but they also wanted to feel better about themselves and their community and they wanted to feel that from the president. i thought when he was optimistically and quite graciously praising those who lost their lives and people were cheering, i thought that was a great and healing moment. from what i hear, the people there felt the same way. what i have heard from people who were there is that people wanted to cheer. it was not a directive that came down. i think he was able to reach out to people in a way that he would not have if he was just sitting in his oval office. he does not come through in that
setting as well. host: and here he was acting as minister of the nation, almost a religious moment rather than the commander in chief. guest: it is hard to convey empathy when you are in the a state room. the audience with its cheers and the motion is what gave it its power. -- with its cheers and a motioen is what david is power. you want to be around a lot of people. you do not want to just be with someone sitting behind her desk. host: carroll writes this is on twitter, about president obama and his identity with the liberal base.
and her handle on twitter guntotindem. guest: [laughter] that is great. i think if you look at the obama administration, he has many people that also served in the clinton administration. paul thereof -- there obviously are a lot of similarities between obama and clinton. the times, though, are quite different. even though there are a lot of recurring similarities, and we saw this week with dealing with the oklahoma city -- in dealing with a velocity.
guest: it was a 13 person e-mail list and now it is called organizing for america. it has not been a top priority for the obama administration, especially in the beginning. people wanted this grassroots thing from the president. by and large, they were not made part of the transition, part of the team as they could have been. and i think obama has been playing catch up on that issue ever since. if you look at the electorate, it is radically different of the 2008 electorate. it would have voted for john mccain.
that is the way people registered -- in some ways, democrats registered their complaints with the obama administration. he stayed home and he cannot afford to do that in 2012. he has to be attention to the legitimate complaints of his supporters and try to balance what they want with all of the pressures he is facing on capitol hill. host: we're looking at numbers from gallup that came out this month. party identification is looking at the trends in the republican and democratic leanings. ari berman, d you think it is significant to look at how people self identified, what the percentage of people is the self identify as democrats? guest: what are the latest numbers? the host: saying 45% r. democrat and 45% are leaning
republican, but interesting to note that the democratic idea actually dropped last month. in 2010, 31% of americans identified as democrats. that is down five percentage points from just two years ago and is tied for the lowest measurements in many years. republicans rose to 38%, and that is on the high end of what god has measured in the last two decades. -- the high end of what gallup has measured in the last two decades. guest: there is a major economic crisis in washington that neither party has sufficiently addressed. i think it is significant. i think the parties are evenly divided, which is where we are right now. rising, and keep
that has been happening for a long time. a lot of them are probably conservative, but many are also democratic cleaning. that is what the electorate has been so volatile and it has been hard to have some realignment because independents jump from one party to another. host: let's take a comment from florida. caller: i want to say that i think president obama did a wonderful job arizona. i think the vitriol that has been going around this country is ludicrous. you have people like sarah palin who has the brains of a toad. she is out there talking and everything is about her. we need to change the vitriol in
the country and we need to get along. guest: gained about 10 minutes without talking about -- we made it about 10 minutes without talking about sarah palin. [laughter] that is our record. the contrast between obama and kailyn on wednesday could not have been more striking she looked defensive end somewhat petty in her video address before obama spoke. and after he spoke and laid out an expansive vision for the country, she looked more petty and smaller. and republicans will call-in and yell at me for that. she is a very more polarizing
figure. chic -- i don't know how she is expanding her coalition. obama wanted to be a leader who could reach out across party lines. host: much of your book focuses on howard dean and the influence, the legacy that he really left behind before running for president. you write that the campaign provided the manual for a bottom-up mass movement. his 50-state strategy --
you write -- guest: dean is assassinating to me. i wanted to write about what propelled him to the white house. if you look back, his campaign -- he stumbled upon a new political playbook, figuring out how to democratize politics. through mobilizing to the internet in a variety of forms. even though his campaign was not ultimately successful, the president -- he rode the same
ideas to become chairman of the democratic party which people thought was crazy, this outside insurgent suddenly become chairman of the democratic party. a lot of democrats and insider democrats say they have been left out of the democratic party. they wanted to be relevant in the red and blue states alike. they were yearning for some way to be involved in the party, and they believed they could win if they were given the resources to do so. the swing states will still be important, but they were going to give money to alaska and rebuild the democratic party. that is something that democrats rallied around if you look at what happened in 2006 and in 2008. the obama campaign said that when they were running in all different places. it states like indiana and north
carolina which nobody thought would go blue in 2008, how they went blue, and then if you look at 2010, the tea party picked them up. they wanted to organize all of these places. we are in this interesting era where the right and the left are committed to doing grass-roots politics. >> does howard dean get credit for that? caller: he should get credit. i don't think as much -- guest: he should get credit. i don't think as much. there were a lot of democrats that did not like him. republicans who endlessly replayed his screaming and i walk and love to make fun of him, now they say very openly that they were copying his
playbook. i think he gets a lot more credit compared to where he was two or three years ago. i don't think he gets as much credit from the insiders in the obama administration to date. host: let's hear from barry down in florida. caller: i think the last caller showed typical [unintelligible] of democrats. sarah palin has the brains of the total but we have to down the rhetoric, we should not do these kinds of things. also, mr. ari berman is very disingenuous about the reaction of democrats to these tragedies. it is all like -- it is a wasted tragedy. what they did with the minnesota -- i can remember his name, the minnesota senator that died a few years ago, why they did at
his memorial service, what they do in general is to use these debts to its advance their own political agenda. guest: and there was no political agenda and barack obama's speech other than wanting to be more civil with each other. he specifically said now is not the time to debate health care or gun-control. he specifically rejected to talk about these issues. so i don't see that in terms of barack obama's speech. host: new jersey on our democrats aligned. -- line. caller: it is all of the politicians need to start learning how to tell the truth. this country has risen
drastically and they are telling of federal employees -- of their wages are frozen. they did the same to the senior citizens two years in a row. food went up 11%. senior citizens do not need a flat screen tvs and computers, and doctors do not prescribe them medicine for high blood pressure or sugar. considering them as a part of the economy going up or down is ridiculous. guest: i missed the first part. he talked about the deficit going up? host: concerns about politicians telling the truth and balancing people's economic reality when you talk about how the economy is doing on a larger scale. guest: the economy is not doing well, and i don't think anyone would dispute that. a lot of people are struggling,
people who have jobs, and even some of the jobs that they have -- a lot of people have stopped looking for work. to me, this is still the same issue in the country. we were talking -- we were talking about tucson this week, probably for another week or two, and then we will get back to the economy and the pain that people are feeling. republicans basically it docked in the 2010 election, saying we have to cut spending and taxes and we have to cut the deficit. you are probably not going to do all three in combination. democrats have not really a laid out in my view the next step. what is next? we have not seen that from the obama administration. how are you going to address the pain that people are feeling? how are you going to relate to
all of the struggling americans? president obama has not been as good on bread-and-butter issues that americans are facing. i think that is one skill that obama could borrow from bill clinton, which is to have empathy for the plight of people who are struggling in this economy. i hope he starts talking with us a lot more in the next two years and talks straight with the american people about what is going on in the country, the magnitude of the crisis he inherited, and how much time it will take for it to get better. host: a recent story from a roll call --
what does the obama administration to to stay relevant as republicans lead in the house and a democratic majority in the senate shrinks? guest: i think the president has shown in tucson he is still relevant and still the president. house republicans can do what they want to do what they cannot make laws. the president can veto what they do. he has a much bigger pulpit and go out in the country and basically say to john boehner, you do what you want to do and i am going to do what i want to do. i am not going to abandon my agenda to do that. i was talking to a former reagan biographer and i was asking him how he was able to be successful. reagan went out and sold his
policies to the american people. he had a democratic congress. he did not give up his message. he believed in what he was doing. if obama believes in his own plan and in his own policy ideas, he needs to either try to bring republicans where he is, and if he can't, he has to go out and talk to the american people about what is best for the country. host: it republican caller from minnesota. good morning. caller: i have a comment and question. i feel the fairness doctrine promotes the partisanship. when they first guarded counterpoint speeches, i was appalled. does this not increase by partisanship?
more strongly, the president should be bipartisan. he should be more in the middle, americans think. the presidency is the position of bipartisan and should be worthy of all americans trust. he should be more of a statement like a total american leader. guest: we will see if that happens in the next two years. i don't think he got the cooperation he expected from the other side. i think republicans made the determination that if they helped him to succeed, obama would rise as a result, so they would say no to anything, which is of course what happened. the strategy of saying no actually worked pretty effectively. i think it is going to be hard for them to do that now. i think it is going to put some
impetus on president obama to try to be bipartisan. he has to be bipartisan if he feels like it is actually going to help solve problems in the country today. sometimes it will and sometimes it will not. i don think for example cutting social security and medicare is going to be something that a lot of americans are going to like because i think that is going to be a major issue in the coming years. in terms of the responses, we have had responses to the state of the union, and people tend not to watch it. they tend to turn off the tv whenever a respondent comes on. host: looking at the partisanship, this piece in the political -- -- in politico --
let's go on to frankfurt, kentucky, where richard joins us on the democrat line. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of comments and a question. president obama and the stimulus package, saving our basic auto industry and millions of other jobs. for over eight years, we had the bush tax cuts that everybody is talking about. where are the jobs that these tax cuts were supposed to produce? my question is why does the democratic party not put out as many advertisements as the
republican advertisements to promote what they have successfully done to try to get the economy stimulated, provide more jobs, and i will end the call now and wait for your response. thank you very much. guest: there was an alarming statistic for democrats before the election. something like 95% of americans got tax cuts and only 8% in new about it. if you give someone a tax cut, they need to at least know about it. i think they undersold the stimulus, absolutely. i think there needs to be a two- prong strategy. number one, talk about how you got here and what you have done subsequently in terms of the crisis and talk about how the stimulus and other policies that have been pushed, the auto bailout which has been incredibly successful -- i think
they need to talk more about that, but that is not enough. i think there needs to be some prescription now to go beyond it. and lot of these funds are going to expire soon. states are hamstrung in terms of their budgets. there are a lot of issues in the next two years that the stimulus will not address. i think a lot of americans are looking to howl obama address is the economy and if there will be any action on jobs. the number one concern and priority of the american people. host: ari berman is a contributing writer of "the nation." he is also the author of the book, "herding donkeys." if it talks a lot about howard
dean and his strategy. you talk about his -- when he left the chairmanship of the dnc, and that was turned over to mr. mccain. you talk about how the dean was getting -- was being downplayed a bit. james carville wrote -- you said howard dean's snob did not matter because of one man's bruised ego -- guest: if you look at one of the
main enemies that he made in his fight to rebuild the democratic party and decentralize power away from washington was rahm emanuel who in 2006 was running the campaign committee. he and dean got into a fight of how to fund the democratic party and also a larger vision of what the democratic party could be. rahm emanuel wanted to spend money on tv advertisements and target swing districts. there was a difference in opinion there. after obama made rahm emanuel his chief of staff, a fairly controversial decision, he was not the most popular figure in the capital. he made it clear he did not want howard dean around. not only that, but rahm emanuel had a very contentious relationship with the democratic
base in general who worked so hard to select president obama. he went further and called them f'ing retarded. i think it had a bad affect on obama and his supporters. rahm emanuel will likely be the next mayor of chicago. unfortunately, he leaves obama's administration pretty severely reduced. they have to spend more attention with their base. i think repealing "don't ask, don't tell" and things like that helps. this balance, the balance between negotiating with the public and dealing with the business of the capital, and also dealing with his supporters who are going to be so important
to his reelection, the white house is going to have to figure out how to navigate that better in the last two years. host: a republican from houston, texas, go ahead. caller: i am a black senior citizen grandmother just a few years shy of 80 years old. i left the republican party years ago and i have not regretted leaving one minute. i want to talk to that young man. the only reason the democrats -- you are deathly afraid of her. she believes in the constitution and the sanctity of life. you all are so stupid, you democrats. the more you tax us, the more you push us into her campus.
-- her camp. sitting here prison obama, obama is only president today only because he had a black daddy. remember, he has a white mother. the joe biden was all right then and he is right now. guest: in terms of sarah palin, i am not a spokesman of the democratic party. they are not afraid of her at all. the intensely do not like her but think she would be the easiest candidate for president obama to defeat in 2012. i think if you look at polls, they show that. she is very divisive and very polarizing. i don't see how she broadened
her political coalition beyond that 25% or 30% of republicans who really love her. i think she is too divisive even for the republican party. she will get enthusiastic support if she runs for president from the tea party, but those that of one alexians year in and year out, are going to be terrified of her and do everything they can to defeat her. host: joe is on our independent line. caller: thank god for c-span. we are going after the wrong thing. the fairness doctrine -- let congress opened their doors up. let us decide. washington is getting us aggravated, calling in about
democrats, republicans, and pundits. open the doors. put everything in plain english instead of a 2000-page insurance that we just passed on health care. guest: if you look at obama's speech, he made the argument that if we were more civil to each other, we would have a better democracy. i also think if you look at the main problem of washington, it is that powerful interest and very organized interest has more power than everybody else does. in my opinion, that is a structural problem that exists in both administrations. it bothers americans in both parties, which too much money in politics. the interest of a lot of lobbyists count more than regular, everyday americans who basically buy off politicians
and through campaign contributions and through fund raising. to me, that is the real issue of what washington is broken and it remains broken. if obama wants to pass health care, the first thing he has to do is cut deals with all of the industry's he is about to regulate. that is not a republican or democratic problem to me. that is a structural problem that not enough people are talking about. caller: i think they ought to change the republican party's it tit title. they have been fighting obama since he has taken office. why not -- why haven't they cooperated in the last two years? host: do you think there will be more cooperation moving forward? guest: i think they are in a bind. the bond is that the american
people do want the parties to work together. that is one reason why obama picked up after the lame-duck congress because he was able to pass the number of bills people wanted for once. but the bind that he is in is that -- that the party has been very clear to try to thwart his agenda to elect a president in 2012. those issues are going to pull the republican party in both directions. i am not sure how republicans are going to solve eight. it seems to me they are overriding people out in 2012 and their overriding interest is not going to be entering their constituents. republicans are saying i do not
want it to be me, which makes working with the other side much more difficult unless you are based -- unless you are from a state -- most republicans are getting pulled further and further to the right. it is going to be very interesting to see how they navigate this going forward. host: carl in mississippi, a republican. hi there. go ahead. caller: i cannot believe the memory loss of people who do not remember that when this president was elected, they were going to get health care passed through without republicans. they were going to do it with or without republicans. now, everybody wants to work with the republicans now that we won back the house. have they forgotten -- they were doing things they wanted to do
without the republican party. we have always been a two-party system and a check and balance system. they wanted to do anything they wanted to whether we like it or not. guest: for six months, there were bipartisan negotiations in the senate finance committee led by max baucus. that was a central democratic strategy, to try to bring these republicans on board. it became terry clear that the republican party was not going to support this legislation -- it became very clear that the republican party was not going to support this legislation. they went around the country saying obama was going to pull the plug on a grandmother. in my opinion, obama waited too long to try to push for a democratic-only bill because it was obvious that republicans
were not going to go along with this. they wanted to be -- they wanted it to be obama's waterloo. if it just slows things down and stalls everything, i don't think it should be something that is a prioritized just for the sake bipartisanship is bipartisanship. host: share more of that message guest: i think i have a fairly nuanced view of the president. i think in terms of the report that i did for the book, i followed him for not prioritizing his supporters as much as he should've been.
i followed him for what he did on the stimulus. i don't think tax cuts or big enough. i think there were too many deals cut for the health-care bill to get past. i think they have not been as aggressive as they could have been in terms of dealing with the economy. i think there is a wide variety of criticisms that i do not like, and a think many obama supporters do not like the appointment in the white house, not enough new thinking and new ideas. i think the president has been far too passive at times selling his agenda and fighting for his agenda and laying out what his core priorities are and how far he is willing to push. i think those are all criticisms of the obama administration. if i am far from a stout obama's defender. sometimes i feel like i am
new chair. watch the process and the vote live starting at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span, seized and radio, and add c-span.org. this weekend, historians discuss the importance of their work on pop culture at the american historical association conference. a visit to the bureau of engraving and printing to learn about creating currency. and a discussion about the first state to succeed from the union, south carolina. each weekend on c-span3. "bookeekend on c-span2's
tv," clarence jones with a behind-the-scenes look on the weeks leading up to the historic march on washington. also, a critical assessment of stereotypes and a new biography of our first president. find a complete schedule online and you can sign up to get our schedules e-mail to you directly. >> i believe that the best way to carry on dr. king's work is to reach out to someone in need and make an ongoing commitment to community service. >> on the second anniversary of martin luther king a possible berth, use the c-span library where there are hundreds of programs on the life and legacy of the civil rights leader. >> "washington journal" continues. host: thank you for coming in this morning. what is your impression at this
point in the week, nearly a week after the tucson shooting, what is your impression of the media coverage? guest: before committing to that, everybody should express's the nation's sorrow for the victim's and for those who continue to suffer and their families. the media coverage. it has been a national disgrace. i can't get any harsher than that. every day that goes by underscores a that the national press had had a roofless agenda to use this horror for their own ends. even though on a daily basis, more and more evidence comes out that proves unequivocably that the media are wrong in what they are saying.
they simply will not let up. host: why is it that they are saying that is wrong? guest: that this is politics in general, and conservative politics in particular, that this is about rush limbaugh, sarah palin, or glenn beck, about the tone of politics. we are learning that, for example, this killer had no political affiliation. we know that he cited two works, the communist manifesto and mein campf. neither one of them are conservative. we now know that he never listened to talk radio. we know that he never watched the news, so how in the world is he affected by the news and by talk radio?
if that is the case, then why the continued fascination with wanting to talk about that and halt talk radio has to curb its often do a better job, when in fact we know it has nothing to do with it? we might as well blame a game of parcheesi or the green bay packers for beating the philadelphia eagles. the reality is, those things had nothing to do with this. this man was a killer. is this a demented person or an evil person? the conversation we should be having is that he is insane and evil. that is a far scarier discussion and then about sarah palin. let's stop using it for political purposes, which is what the media are doing. i think the answer to your question is it is disgraceful
what they are doing. host: the numbers to call -- a piece from the new york times -- where is the harm in having this discussion about civil discourse? guest: , i think it is a very good discussion, don't get me wrong. i think it is a discussion which could have had 10 years ago and one that we have today, but do not tied it to what happened. what happened has nothing to do with politics.
do not say it is because of sarah palin and the cross hairs on her web site, that this man was influenced. if we want to have a discussion on civil discourse and civility, i cannot be more supportive of this because it has deteriorated on both sides. i have no problem at all with brass knuckles politics, but the rule of thumb that i follow is a simple one. at the end of the day, [unintelligible] if you can, ok. if you can't you went too far. sam donaldson -- we were debating on the crossfire. afterwards, we had a lengthy conversation about something, a
private conversation, but i walk away with extraordinary respect for the man. i told him he was ruining my campaign because it was much easier for me to dislike him. he wrote me back in perfect words. he said remember, "always professional, never personal." if we could all remember that, that would be everything. if you want to have a conversation on it, absolutely, but let's not tie it to this. host: arizona shooting coverage is a campaign -- when you use words like that, liberal sickos, and language that has its own punch to it, are you adding to the dialogue? guest: i am going to respond
when someone in the press suggests that i am responsible for this, that the movement i believe in is responsible, that because i believe the gunman is out of control and we have to do something to rein in this flirtation with national socialism, somehow i am responsible for this carnage. i get offended by that. then when they turn around and give me a lecture on the civility, well, maybe i will take the gloves off, too. host: hi, steve. caller: good morning. what you refused to seek is that this young man who killed people in arizona, [unintelligible] there are a lot of americans who
are fearful of the republican party. they see the republican party as being a terrorist organization now. thank you guest: i don't know how to respond to that. to respond to that is to give credibility to an outrageous accusation, so i am not going to respond to it. host: do you deny that people are around jared loughner created a toxic environment that included him? guest: good lord. at some point in this man's life, he went into a dentist's office and there was a newspaper with an editorial. do we blame the that writer for this? this is how ridiculous it is getting, that he might know someone that listens to talk radio, so it influenced him? we cannot go down this road.
what if it turns out that for three hours per day, this man, this killer listen to rush limbaugh roo? does that make rush limbaugh and implicit or fair to say that rush limbaugh influenced him toward doing this? if that is the case, are we also going to say that all court bears responsibility for the unabomber? where they're not reports that gore'sbomber had alcor's book bookes in his hut? are we going to blame them? of course not. you cannot do that, but is happening now. host: kathleen is on our republicans blind. caller: i have a couple of
comments that i would like to make a question. i do have a question that would go to research, but i want to make a comment about the president's speech the other day. i watched it clear through until the cameras were off as he walked away. i was just dumbfounded as to how much of his speech took place about the young girl that was killed, and yet i waited to see to shake the parents' hands, and from what i could see, he spent a few seconds with him and then he was off shaking hands with others and spending more time with political leaders. comment -- the second is talk radio and republican democrats -- what is being done and talked about going on in congress and changing everything, you are not
exposed to classical music or jazz or reggae or pop music. we are going to make every radio station played every kind of music. the question is, in your research, have you ever been able to research who does the most name-calling? i always feel like when i of having a debate with a liberal or a democrat or someone who does not have my point of view, if angry words or said or if name-calling, they are losing the argument so they cannot discuss ideas anymore. they go to name calling, the lowest level of debate. has there been any research to discover who does the most name- calling and go to that level? host: we will leave it there. guest: i cannot comment on a handshake -- the hand shake.
this is how the far left has taken this tragedy and is playing politics with it, where overnight a member of congress comes out and calls for the fairness doctrine to be imposed because of this shooting. this is what i mean about the way it does become disgraceful on the part of some on left. the third point she made about name-calling, we cannot with a report on our website -- we came out with a report that itemizes a litmus of commons that the been made by the left on liberal talk radio, on television, on pbs, where one after another, they call for the death of conservatives. i challenge anyone to show me where a conservative or fox has
ever said anything along those lines. do we have to remember nina totenberg, saying she wished that one of his grandchildren would die of aids? this is the kind of comments that you have the from the left, and yet where are the voices or the people who are supposedly calling for civil discourse? host: a piece this week from the new york times --
now, one thing to talk about here, he says that the worst e- mail he received about the stability project were from conservatives with " unbelievable language about communists." "everything is in black and white and no conservatives see any redeeming value." guest: mark is a friend of mine and someone i have great respect for it. he is a very strong conservative. it is unfortunate that that would be the reaction.
i know all three of those people. joe lieberman is a man with whom i agree with about 3% of the time. and yet, he is one of the ones in congress who i have the most respect for because he is always a gentle man and always civil. he has been on a campaign promoting decency for years. he is my kind of liberal. i think it is unfortunate. i don't know what happened. but i know that market is a good man so there is something there reject but i know that marked -- but i know that mark is a good man so there is something there. i guess, a lot of it depends on
who he contacted for what kind of response he got. host: what is your take about that idea, regardless of what group you are a part of, looking within your own ranks instead of pointing the finger? guest: i think all of us, all of us -- i do not suggest that i am pure as the driven snow. i have lost my temper a time or two, absolutely. we can all look at ourselves. that is a good thing. about 10 years ago, i tried unsuccessfully to lure president bush 41 to washington to give a speech on the civility simply because regardless of what you think of george bush's politics,
father or son, but primarily a father, i don't know if there is a more decent civil service person alive today then that president. i wanted to bring him into the national press club to make a speech. i think it is awful to use this series of murders in arizona to do that. i think we need to mourn the families and the victims and not play politics. host: let's hear from catherine, an independent caller from virginia. good morning. caller: this is about civility but also about gun laws and how these powerful lobbyists are influencing these gop people as
well as it democrats. rupert murdoch runs all of the media. that is not journalism. it is just entertainment. sarah palin is not a politician. she is just an entertainer. she shows her lack of education all the time. host: we will leave it there. guest: i do not speak for the nra. if the laws were in place, they should have prevented this young man from getting the gun. the there is a body of evidence seemingly a mile long that he was mentally disturbed, if not very dangerous and should have been investigated by the police.
if they had looked into it, they would've taken the steps -- host: there is no allegation at this point that any laws were broken when it comes to background checks. guest: these things were not investigated. these complaints were not investigated by the police. if he had been prosecuted, they would have followed up with these complaints. i am not a lobbyist so i cannot speak for them, but what i can say is that it is inappropriate for bill maher to go on tv and say that the nra should be renamed the assassination lobby. there are millions of members of the nra who support them because they support the second
amendment. he has just called them participants in an assassination. when he takes to the airwaves on tv and says that conservatives just want to kill liberals, and even jay leno was shocked because he was dead serious, and interestingly enough there were members of the audience who booed him when he said that. this is the far left using this horror to promote an agenda against conservatives. host: let's go to louisville, kentucky. caller: i have a comment and a question. it seems to me -- if i am mistaken, i wish you would really correct me. every time i see anybody saying anything in regard to sarah palin, it is always about the
congresswoman as a victim from the shooting. the only thing i have heard them do it is at play that. every time they play it, this clip, they expressly say they do not hold sarah palin responsible for it, so i think it would be irresponsible to not show that in light of the congresswoman being shot. the only other thing i would like to say is, when you first came on, you stated how this is being made out into a political thing. i don't see how you could possibly be in the situation where politicians are being targeted and shot and it not being about a political purpose. he came to the place where a meeting was being held.
if he agreed with the lady, he would not have been there to shoot her. because of him not agreeing with her, it had to be politically motivated or he would not have been there for the purpose of causing destruction and mayhem. guest: one, we do not know that. we don't know why he shot the congresswoman. did he do it because of her beliefs? there is no evidence on that. did he do it because she is a congresswoman? is that it did not matter that she was a democrat or republican, he would have done it, too. i don't think that made a difference. she was a member of congress, an important person, a celebrity. that is why he did it, i think, and that is going to come out of it. you say that the media -- you
notice something that is absolutely correct. the media say on a regular basis of a preface any story while saying although there is no evidence that sarah palin is connected, and then they talk about sarah palin. if there is no evidence, why are you talking about it? i will give you an example of how words are being twisted. paul clark and of the york times wrote an editorial. he blasted congress, and michelle bachman because he said she has stated that she wanted people to be "armed and dangerous." he said that is the kind of language that is inappropriate and scary, etc. apparently, he said this on a radio talk show. the host of that talk show went
public yesterday or the day before yesterday. they had the transcripts. they played exactly what it was she said. congresswoman michelle bachman was talking about cap and trade legislation, and she was saying the people up in washington were getting away with this legislation because the american people did not know what was happening, so she suggested her job was going to be to educate the american people. . .
and all the democratic senators and representatives said overall for health care, and the people of the united states overwhelmingly elected obama and a democratic congress and a democratic senate. and the republicrats chose to ignore the election. they filibustered the senate. they talked down to obama as a socialist and they did of this ugly stuff and they did it to deny the people of the united states the control of their government.
guest: 50% of the american people want obama care repealed. statistics. over 60% of the people. there is no single piece of legislation, i suspect, in history that has been hotly -- more hotly debated and closely debated and has gotten more media attention than national health care. interestingly enough, the more it is debated, the more ground democrats lose on this in the court of public opinion. now, 50% is a big number. -- 60% is a big number. the caller as saying that the guarantees to listen to the people. i think he means that he supports its repeal. host: to clarify what we are for talking about earlier, this
piece in the christian science monitor, there is evidence that the shooting suspect is mentally unstable. but he was never declared so in court. ... scrolling to the story you get to see more detail. why was he able to buy a gun? guest: that proves the point. if the authorities had done what the authorities try have done, which is investigating these complaints about this bizarre man, they would have in all likelihood found him mentally unfit and he would not have been able to get that done. host: albany, georgia, welcome.
caller: i want to say thank you for your common sense. cliff is nice to hear the truth out of it and not spin from the media. i have two quick comments. one is from a previous caller who said she was afraid of the republican party. i tell you, i have been afraid of the democratic party and the policies that they have pushed through without the consent of the american people. another caller stated that if the shooter had not been politically motivated, he would not have been at the congresswoman's area to shoot her. mark david chapman, who shot john lennon, did not dislike him. he was infatuated with him. it did not stop him from being there.
my question to you, sir, and again, i thank you for your common sense. if you were going to run for a political party, i would definitely vote for you. guest: and another one, john hinckley. the what did he have against ronald reagan? nothing. this is what happens when you are crazy. you do crazy things, if this man is crazy. we do not know because it has not been determined yet, but we do not know if he was crazy or if he was evil. and that is a conversation, i think, that needs to be this -- to be explored. i think the media would do a much better service to the american people to explore what degree he was dabbling in the occult. because to the degree he that he was an to the degree that there is a connection, that, to me, is far, far more frightening than
any silly discussion about politics or liberals or conservatives or democrats or republicans. that is far more serious than this, but nobody is covering that. it might just be that this man is simply a walk job -- whack job, but if that is the case, that we should have a conversation about that. one of the terrible consequences of this is that from now on, every member of congress is going to need to have to have security, or they will believe they do. this country is losing its soul. you look across the state to the capital and it is just full of police and their kids because of 9/11. more and more, we are getting -- police and barricades' because of 9/11. more and more we are getting into the posture. you host: said you do believe in
stability and this course -- host: you said you do believe in civility and discourse. what is served by that by calling someone a whack job? guest: yes. we cannot be so sensitive, so politically correct that we cannot say anything eveat all. you hear so many words that we are told we cannot say any more, so many phrases that we are told we cannot under any more. it comes -- that we cannot under any more. it comes to the point where we need a super on our mouths. -- a zipper on our routes. if it turns out he is crazy, then he is crazy. host: a republican caller from baltimore.
caller: i want to start off by thanking you for all othe you have done for the country and the conservative movement. what we have going on here is that government and governing means we have winners and losers and the more government you have out there, that is more ammunition you will have down the line. would you not agree with me? >> more ammunition in what way? -- if guest: more ammunition in what way? caller: the more government you have the mowry the native americans you will have. guest: i had not thought about -- the more alienated americans you will have. guest: i have not thought about it that way. with more government you have
more and more people who are participants in government, directly or indirectly, and fewer people who are not participants in government. here in the washington d.c. area, you never know that there has been a recession in this country. the homes are booming, the economy is growing nicely. everyone here lives of the government to one degree or another. this is not the real world. and i do believe that this is a feeling of alienation about more and more people who feel that the government does not represent them anymore. they have their own agendas and they do not see themselves as representatives of the people. i firmly believe that. what does that have to do with the arizona killings? nothing. host: chad, an independent caller in michigan, hi there. caller: i would like to thank c-
span for having this kind of discussion that we are having today. it is an indispensable value for this country. i will disagree with mr. bozell because there are some of the cliches that can be applied to conservatives and their arguments that he is presenting. they can dish it, but you cannot take it. i believe this discussion is dealing with a political speech and how it applies to arizona. i would certainly agree that there is a tenuous connection that the gentleman has unhinged, however, you cannot escape the environment that one creates and the impact it has on others. you can see that when we have
democratic presidents in the white house, you saw a ramping up of a republican rhetoric in a very militant way. as a person from michigan, the militia in the 1990's was very widespread. it is kind of like the tea party now. in fact, i have a manager that felt so comfortable that during a break he brought me out to his car to show me the gun that he kept in his car and asked me if i was in -- interested in attending a militia meeting, which of course, i was not interested in. we saw a lot of this ramping up a of rhetoric in the 1990's with rich and others and the bombing of the federal building. i think we are seeing the same thing here.
in his comments and many other conservatives, i think they sense this president is having similarly occurred. -- this precedent, having similarly occurred. it makes great news. it ultimately it has a negative impact. host: let's get a response. guest: you just tied to the tea party to the militia movement. this is the kind of thing i am talking about. about the harshest in the tea party does is using "god bless america" off key. and now they have just been tied to the militia movement. this is the kind of thing that i think is reprehensible. where is the evidence that in any way directly or indirectly
linked this killer to the conservative movement or even to politics at all? everyone is saying there is none, but we can see usain there is a connection. although there is not. -- we can see you saying there is a connection. although there is not. i want to blame parcheesi for this. how can we be so high and mighty about this and not point fingers at ourselves? i would say to you, sir, where were you when president obama said, if they bring a knife, we will bring a gun. -- we will bring a gun? no one on the right said, mommy, he is tried to kill me. he has a gun. no, it is rhetoric. it is completely understood. no one in the media talks about
bombarding someone's ground game. nobody complains about the media because you understand what they are saying. but let's be careful with these accusations. to accuse republicans of ruby ridge and everything else, this is beyond the pale. you should be ashamed of yourself for saying that. if you want to be against republicans or conservatives, fine. but be careful with accusations. host: here is another article about tucson.
guest: the press has been nonstop talking about politics played a role in this, and yet, 57% of the american people reject that argument. i think the public has a lot more common sense than the press does. host: the founder of research center, thanks for being with us this morning. guest: my pleasure. host: coming up, we are talking about the auto industry with bloomberg's staff writer david roesch. >> to take about the republican national committee elects their new chair. five candidates are vying for the position, including the currency chair, michael steele. watch the process and the vote live starting at 10:30 a.m., eastern on c-span, c-span radio and at c-span.org.
how this began on c-span 3's american history tv, an oral history with walter fauntroy, washington d.c. first delegate to congress, the founding member of the congressional black caucus -- caucus. cadets part of our continuing series on the civil war, a discussion of the first state to secede from the union, south carolina. see the complete we can schedule online hatpin c-span.org /history, where you can also press the alert button and have our schedule e-mailed to your . -- to you. former adviser to martin luther king jr., clarence jones, with a behind-the-scenes look at the march on washington and the open
border i have adrienne" speech. also, a new biography of our first president. find a complete schedule at booktv.org. middle and high school students, it is time to upload your videos for c-span's studentcam documentary competition get your 5 to 8 minute video on this year's topic, "washington dc team through my lens" to c-span before january 20. it is a total of $50,000 in prizes. it is opened to great 6-12. for complete details, go to studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. dave host: 12, staff writer of bloomberg business week joins us from -- host: david welsh, staff writer of bloomberg business week joins us this morning.
which are off with an article that talks about how the mood is considerably better this year. if it was the house so, and why? guest: all of the executives -- if it was, how so, and why? guest: all of the executives were upbeat this year. most of the companies are close to breaking even. this was not the crisis we saw a year-and-a-half ago or so. everyone is looking at a pretty good year and getting even better. we are kind of getting back to the business of making cars and trying to sell them. maybe it is a return to normalcy for the auto industry for a while. host: and what are the big discussions? guest: if you go to the show, you will see a lot of smaller vehicles, fuel-efficient
vehicles. everyone is looking down the barrel of oil going over $120 per barrel. you've got efficiency and hybrids and electric cars, that has been the buzz for the last couple of years and it was especially this year. a lot of the vehicles being shown at the show are some kind of put in hybrid that can give you 40 m.p.h. on the highway. they are trying to make the case to the american consumer lead despite gasoline and the rules coming down the pipe, you can have your cake and eat it, too. host: carmakers are attempting a small miller -- asmall miracle, according to one article. and the law of physics still
means that small cars are less safe in crashes. products will still average 35 miles per gallon in 2016. they could be of to 62 miles per gallon by 2025. that all but mandates shrinking cars. guest: this is an age-old problem for the car business. the industry has pushed for more efficient vehicles and consumers have always wanted a bigger as tv's. the carmakers have been -- bigger suvs. the carmakers have always been stuck between what the government wants them to do and what consumers want. for reasons that are very technical, and i will not go to the details, but the 35.5 actually = about 27 to 28 miles
per gallon -- actually comes out to about 27 to 28 miles per gallon by the with the testing is done. for people who want hybrid technology or a clean diesel engine, you do have this push and pull. the company could be held back by the fact that fuel prices are expected to rise. they are already over $3 per gallon right now. that does not make people want to switch to a compact car, but it does make them wary of about -- does make them wary of buying something big. id will be a challenge. why is everybody putting them out if nobody is buying them
>host: david welch with bloomberg is our guest. the numbers are on our screen. a comment coming to us on twitter. guest: it is testing my memory to tally all of them appeared reason members say they will hire zero thousand engineers in the next two years. those are really good jobs. those are people that will work on hybrid drives and electrical systems. there have been some high tech jobs like that that have been at
it and will be added. -- have been added and will be added. ford announced during the show that they will hire 7000 people. we are not back to the level of employment where we were before the crisis started a few years ago, but you are starting to see some growth on the part of ford and gm and they are bringing people back. chrysler hired some engineers as well. slowly coming back and there are some pretty good signs. host: let's hear from michael in oklahoma. good morning. caller: good morning. if you watch motor week on television they go through a to 10 cars for every week. the mileage is terrible with the around town knowledge. they get 31 or 32 on the interstate, but the around town mileage is in the teens, sometimes 60 or 17.
yes, they put out an economy model, but they put 10 other models or 20 other models with horrible around town mileage. it is just where they are. guest: the caller has a good point. when you see advertisements on television, the car companies -- all of them -- intend to talk about a highway fuel economy. -- they tend to talk about highway fuel economy. they changed it to measure more of city driving that highway driving. it used to be the other way around. and it is for that reason. a lot of these cross over as tv's -- crossover suvs get
better gas mileage than they know, you're not getting 35 mpg in combined fuel economy with these. americans are not going to be driving too many cars. -- but are not going to be driving to many cars that are getting 35 mpg out there. there are just not the many options out there that did not super fuel economy. host: the ford explorer was named truck of the year, -- the chevy volt was named the car of the year. are those the two big ones to watch. guest: are certainly vehicles to watch. particularly the vol.
-- the volt. it is not something new out of the show that we need to look at. but it is something that needs to be watched because there is a big debate here. there are people that like a green cap apology and the latest in car technology, do they want something like a niece on leaf petcthat goes 100 miles on a bay engine? other people want something that has to be plugged in. others say they do not want that because they do not want to be stranded.
starting in 2012, they will want to sell quite a bit more than their initial plans. it will be interesting to watch how the public reacts to go and how many of these get snapped up. -- how the public reacts to both and how many of these ducks napa. host: next caller, good morning. caller: you alluded to the fact that drivers do they need more room. -- think they need more room. do these you will have any sense of conscience at all? -- do these people have any sense of conscience at all? guest: there is a great car movie with jeff bridges called "tucker" and in that movie he says it is advertising. nobody is supposed to believe it.
they've got that incredible advertising about what their cars can actually do. if you are talking about fuel economy, it gets people in the door. it gets 40 mpg on the highway and when they look at the window sticker and realize it is less, they have to make their decision based on that. it is an advertising issue. how much do you want to make the case that your car is perhaps greater than is don't include every bit of inflation in there and they will find out later. it is a risk they take in the showroom. host: joe, writes in -- and he is talking about the bailout. talk to us about what the perception is that the auto show about how the bailout has
affected the opinion -- the public opinion of the auto industry. guest: in detroit, first of all, that is where the show is. chrysler is controlled by fiat null and are close to breaking even. gm -- by fiat nowlin and are close to breaking even. gm has growth in the past year. they have saved quite a few jobs here in the u.s.. and some optimism in detroit over that period in the rest of the country -- over that. in the rest of the country where we have seen in the last year, the anti- rea out crowd that really had a problem with this -- the anti-bailout crowd that really had a problem with this, they were very vocal.
some of the companies that were bailed out, they criticized some of their marketing moves or spending ideas. how most americans are not that bothered by the fact of gm was bailed out. there is a certain percentage of the population that does not by gm -- gm -- buy gm. but they are louder than they are big. host: here is another story. let's hear from holly, democratic caller in kalamazoo, michigan.
caller: good morning. we have large bewick's that have done well by us. i drive a honda. he was really banging his knees on the vehicle because it was too small. some people really do need larger vehicles. i think detroit needs to step up and deliver the cars with mileage. i think they can be pushed to do it and if they do it detroit will flourish again. thank you. guest: certainly, they can deliver these cars. if you want a bigger car that gets the fuel economy, the question always comes at what price. you will have to put the technology on board to make that happen. in the buick lacrosse, which is kind of a large sized, mid-size
sedan. they're going to come out with a version that has a small battery on board. does not cost a lot more. i think it can get 37 mpg on the highway. you will see solutions like that that do not add several thousands to the car. but it will still cost. you can get a bigger vehicle, but you'll have to pay more money. you cannot ask these companies to operate cellaragselling a vet a loss. host: and republican in lexington, kentucky, welcome. caller: good morning, david. i agree with some of the other callers. people are bigger today and you cannot put them in tiny cars.
as a senior citizen to live in the cars that set too low to the ground, often times we do not get the mileage that they say we're going to get. we drive a van and it is much more suitable to our needs. guest: you found the vehicle that you want. most vehicles are going to be available. gm is working on a next- generation of trucks and large suvs. again, it depends on how much you need that space and what you want to pay for because fuel prices will get more expensive.
fuel economy is not back to where it needs to be. as fuel prices go back up, you will see more demand for fuel efficiency. you can have it, but you'll have to pay. host: what is the most exciting thing that has happened at the auto show this week? guest: this is not the kind of show that -- where you have some great new bentley or rolls royce or some piece of by kendeigh that everyone is fawning over. -- some piece of white candeye t everyone is falling over.
i looked at a number of vehicles that might be kind of fun. one of the most important vehicles of the show is the new high -- a new honda civic. is everything that honda civic has always been. honda has been in a bit of a slump last -- lately. they actually lost market share last year. it will be interesting to see you aware that will go as far as honda, and then the industry as well. there is a model that is supposed to get 40 miles per gallon, very fun to drive. and a car will be built that is all will drive.
it sits higher than a typical monday, but it is in a small package. -- then a typical mini, but is in a small package. car companies have to make cars more comfortable and more fun. and you are starting to see it happen. host: next caller, go ahead. caller: i know there is a lot of tension after the tucson tragedy, but i have a simple question. this will define fascism as privatizing the game. hypothetically, if the federal government does not make a profit off of bailing out gm, is it or is it not fascism? guest: and no, i don't think it is fascism.
i did not catch whose definition that was, but i do not. but bigger question there is whether the government is going to make money off of general motors. of the government is going to break even on these things prepared that stock went out at $33 per share and eventually got to $35. if you throw a cost of the other bidder could see -- the cost of other benefits, cost avoidance you could call it, and you could say those things as well. it is not just including those
numbers in there. -- it depends on whether you want to include those numbers in there. what the government avoided becomes a bigger question. and it is probably one that people will debate for decades. >> invest a production rose solidly in december. but auto production dipped. what does that say for the auto industry? guest: auto sales are rising pretty steadily throughout the year. and coming off the year before that when sales were really at an historically low level and production was pulled back. as soon as it was built up and they've not the head of a -- they looked at a lot of information that enabled them to
pull back a little bit. i think we will see a steady, level production going forward. now that we know where sales are going to be, it may depend on picking up the market this year. 12.5 million cars estimated this year to over 13. it depends on who you talk to. if it is a 11.5 or 12 million vehicles, that will be in a steady range. let's go host: to austin, texas. -- host: let's go to austin, texas. caller: are people being high educated enough about the electric cars? the average has was on tv show
it being plugged in and you can just take off. i know it will be three or four hours to charge it up. what is being done about these things for electric cars? guest: you have several questions in there. first, our people educated enough on the electric cars? -- our people educated enough on electric cars? they are not. carmakers are doing a full-court press to do that. but despite we have written about them in the media, i get surprise for ackley by those asking some of those questions. this caller asked some very good ones. how long will it take to charge up your card? that depends on what you have in your house. if you have it difficult 120, you can add up -- you could operate on a charge. and you can have more than that,
but it costs extra to have them installed. how the chevy volt hazards of the repair our on board, sort will not take as long to charge. -- the chevy volt has auxiliary power on board, so it will not take as long to charge. what are the city's doing? you see some cities that are progressive with this. portland, oregon is one. they have charging stations next to parking meters. cities in california are doing this in places whereon they are starting to sell these. public utilities are getting involved. they are upgrading the local transformers in the neighborhoods to be sure that they will not be overloaded with a power traidrain.
they're asking people to let them know if they are buying an e.v. so they can make sure that the power in the neighborhood is upgraded. host: in warren, ohio, al, democratic collar. could morning. caller: -- good morning. why caller: the thing i don't care about the electric cars is that they are going to make us who spend more on coal. when our electric prices are going to go up. i switched over to ford because they seen it coming, this your downfall. they did not need a bailout because they are a smarter business. general motors and chrysler, they should have seen it coming.
i know we will not give you be allowed back. the reason they are having problems is that they cost too much. i remember when people had problems paying $15,000 and now they have replaced those with $17,000 cars. they need to get in touch with the american people. they need to understand that we want better cars but when we hire people down here to work,
they are getting half of what the guys were getting before. guest: he said a number of points. he is basically right about the uaw, they have signed an agreement in 2007 that agreed to two-tiered hires. one of the problems here none of the domestic car companies could make money selling the small cars that he is talking about, selling them for $15,000 and paying someone $28 per hour to build it. they lost a lot of money on those cars. his point was that the big three always sell their profits in their suvs and pickup trucks. they have had to strip down
models and now they are putting more features in them to get people to buy them. people have been going to the used-car market there will not be a lot of vehicles down in the $12,000 range any more. some models start there, but it will be very strict and down. that is how they stay in business and how they afford to do research and development and some of with two -- come up with new technology. if a person can only afford $12,000, they will probably have to go to the used market. host: here is another comment on twitter. of course, the bill is putting in some georgian stations, about 201 area.
how dependent is the car company on places like cracker barrel putting in charging stations? and how useful is this for people in their own homes? guest: on companies like cracker barrel, general electric is another one that agreed to buy 10,000 e.v.'s, most of them chevy volts. it's kind of gives them a piece volume -- a base volume and it is a way to stabilize the volume on these cars. you really need that. you need to get volume of in a hurry because you want to see more of these vehicles on the road five years from now.
they have got to become cheaper. you take a four 40,000 -- you take a chevy volt and was there are 200,000 of them over so many years, the $7,500 incentive goes away. they have got to get it more affordable for now to get the kind of volume. the second question, were you asking me about the charging stations? host: i think you actually put it altogether. one of our twitter followers was wondering how much electricity the e.v. uses and if it is viable in people's homes. guest: that is a complex question.
first, what the companies have told me is that the cost of driving the e.v. is about 3 cents per mile. how much of a drain on the total neighborhood? this is when you want people to let them know that they are born to be buying an electronic vehicle. you want to make sure that they have enough to get them on the road. there are already many big appliances coming into homes and older homes may not be able to handle it. most newer homes are already equipped with enough capability to handle something like that. but that is why you should talk to your utilities if you are going to buy one.
in this case, the transformer in your neighborhood, if it handles 8 to 10 homes and it is already pretty well next out to my utilities will have to come in and upgrade data or have another one because it is like adding a whole new home. you need to talk to your utility. but if you go to nissan or you go to gm or to chevrolet and you want to buy one of these cars, they out advisers of -- they have advisers at the utility level. it all kind of happens over a period of months. it is not exactly like just going on a saturday and picking up a car and going home that day. you can, but there may be some issues. not the sincerely.
your neighbor -- not necessarily. the your neighborhood may be able to take the charge just fine, but if you do not have a 240 volt outlet and you are charging on 120, it may work, but it may take more time. and be aware that there may be an issue with your neighborhoods transformer. host: mark in pennsylvania, a republican caller, welcome. caller: like the other caller before. he said one of the things are but like to talk about, too. people like to gas and go. they are not going to wait around and charge up the station's. there are a lot of things that are wrong with the electric car that they are not telling you. i used to be a mechanic for six years. the real problem with gas emissions and stuff, you have
got to make smaller engines. host: we will leave it there. guest: they are doing that already, making smaller engines in hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles. not everybody wants to just gas and go. there are those who tend to be technology enthusiast or they have an interest in the environment. but it will be a limited market for a while for that reason. nissan says it goes 100 miles on a charge, which is true. but that is it city driving. the electric cars can recharge the battery while you are doing a lot of that stop and go in the city. on the highway, you have to use more power and you can get considerably less, let's say, 60 miles on that charge.
it may be a car for someone who lives in the city and drives a short distance host: larry in florida -- but and drives a short distance. host: larry in florida, democratic collar. caller: my car's always had the big engines. the akita run 20 to 22 miles per gallon -- i keep around 20 to 22 mpg. but in 2003 i got a package crown victoria and on the road about 33 miles to the gallon. i have had several of them since and each year they get a little worse and a little worse. but back in the 1960's through
the 1990's, the average cost of a car was about $3,900. they were big and heavy metal and they really protect you. if you have a great big family, the smaller cars, you have to go to of them to go anywhere. i want to know why the prices are getting so much high and so much smaller. guest: it gets down to fuel economy. the car companies have regulations to meet and they are very fearful of what is that the -- of what happened in 2005 and in 2008. oil prices brought up to about $50 per barrel in 2005 and that is when suv took a hit.
and then in 2008 when gasoline went up to $143 per barrel, that was a blow to the car making industry. host: peoria, ill., suzanne on the independent line. caller: i wanted to point out of when you hear people talk about the bailout you never hear anyone mention that the courage of a a a sort -- the current shareholders, it was confiscated. and when it was raised again, the shares were not given back to those who from whom it was confiscated. guest: we wrote about that. you can hear about it from us.
gm declared bankruptcy and when that happens, existing shareholders pretty much get cleaned out. gm posted bond holders -- and we're talking about old general motors, those bondholders get stock. it will not get 100 cents on the dollar. there will get anywhere from 26 cents to 45 cents on the dollar. that is right. shareholders to get white dog and a bankruptcy. that is not just with gm -- shareholders to get wiped out in a bankruptcy. that is not just with gm. host: let's go to the next caller from washington state. caller: i have a 1998 cadillac and i have an early '70s dodge pickup with a cummins motor in it and i get 22 mpg in nothing.
ralph nader in the 60's and '70s, was trying to get all of these cars off the road and it is not a problem anymore. host: in the minute or so that we have less, what is the industry during to curry favor? guest: they're using a lot of technology. as far as being in a small car and getting in an accident with of the larger, you cannot completely overcome the laws of physics. you've got safety regulations and fuel economy regulations and they do not always move in tandem.
the car companies try to engineer the the solutions they can for it. host: thank you for being with us this morning. thank guest: you. host: -- guest: thank you. host: coming up later on c- span, we have a couple of items to mention to you now. at noon eastern time, right around then, on c-span2 we will bring you the live feed from the university medical center in tucson, ariz., where doctors will be a fitting the condition of congresswoman gabrielle giffords. will be hearing from her surgeon. also, jenny barbour, the daughter of ronald barbour, the district director of the congress woman. expect that beginning at 12:00 p.m. this afternoon. also, will we bring you to you
live the rnc national winter meeting. they will elect a new party chairman today. the party candidates include current currency chairman michael steele and former rnc co-chairman, wagner -- ann wagner and maria cino. crossing is for joining us today on "washington journal" and we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] . . .