tv Washington Journal CSPAN May 6, 2011 7:00am-10:00am EDT
screen. you can send us a tweet. twitter.com/cspanwj. or an email. this is the front page of the post. promise kept. we mean what we say. he is on the cover of this and the daily news. we will never forget his visit to ground zero. a noise of the compound raid. only one of the five people shot was armed. the head of the house intelligence committee say that they've revised the story again. mike rogers says white house
officials got ahead of themselves in talking of a firefight. that bin laden used one of his wives as a human shief. there was a rifle. waited,yey should have rogers said. the white house did not expliaan wrong.y key elements were here is the "washington t imes." in retrospect, killing the most dangerous man was easy. the hard part is figuring out what to do next.
of the killing. mike, on the democratic line. caller: thanks for taking the call. if anybody had death coming, it was bin laden. he killed those innocent people. as far as rush limbaugh goes, he is just ridiculous. obama is a much better president than the last guy we had. i am grateful he is there. i don't care what color he is. thank you. host: obama to visit the seaals who killed ben laden. the president will go to ft. kentucky.l,
lvania.er, pennsy john, on the independend line. caller: we are missing a large point. it would be ok for iraqis to kill bush in dallas or go down to the eastern shore and knock off cheney. we are losing the point of soverign capabilities. it would be nice to have people talk about this. host: in the "washington post," pakistan warns about future raids. any repeat would be viewed as a violation of soverignty.
and would imperil relations. david on the democratic line. caller: the 3:00 am call was made. business.theok care of the g.o.p. debate was sad. lieberman wants to legalize heroin and they want to turn medicare into a voucher system. host: waht dhat do you think of obama's handling of the killing? caller: he mad an executive decision. obama did what they needed to do. he did this.
they got this over with. the american people can sleep at night. host: susan from north carolina. caller: obama did what bush couldn't in eight years. i worked in government. my life is better with democrats and independents in power. i want to thank obama for what he's done. host: a tweet comes in. obama spiked the ball. it was funny if it was not so seriously warped. caller: thank you for c-span. it was gracious of him to call president bush and i am sorry
bush didn't join him, yesterday. this is a great moment for america. host: why did you want bush to join him? caller: it is a great moment. if you do this, we will hunt you down and get you. however they got him, i am delighted they got him. caller: it was a great thing that happened. they did the right thing. if they show that pictures, we are just doing something the terrorists would do. hopefully they won't show those pictures. he is going to be a great president. he did something in two years
and bush never did a damn thing. i want to commend him. we have to look out for the guy in iran. we should take them out completely. host: donald from michigan. t obama did was good. he got rid of a threat to the american people for 9 years. another thing, president -- obama, soverignty, as far as pakistan, it was a good thing. if somebody is a threat, it should be open for any country
to go on soverign nations to get this person. god bless the people going through the floods. host: safehouse the key to keeping bin laden down. there was a safehouse for a small team of spies, who looked into the town where osama was killed. the secret facility was a base of operations for one of the most important human intelligence gathering missions. -- next call from selma, georgia.
kelly. what do you think of obama's handling of the killing? caller: they did a great job. host: please turn down your tv volume. lee in maryland. caller: i supported bush in his efforts. and i support obama. he is doing a great job. i don't understand why you'd read reports of rush l imbaugh. thank you and have a good day. host: data shows bin laden planned attacks after viewing the documents from the compound. analysts say he was playing a
killing this week? caller: i don't understand. why do they want to prosecute the people who brought down osama bin laden. s, itybody understand,s would be nice. host: a tweet says -- why did they dispose the body so fast. we didn't do this with saddam's sons. analysts look through phone numbers and email addresses. about theor links b concerns over nuclear materials.
the race is on to identify this. the support system inside pakistan. these sources are not authorized to speak to reporters. we cannot -- according to the former deputyg general of the atomic energy agency. what do you think of obama's handling of the killing? we are listening. caller: this was a lost opportunity. like the mosaad taking eichmann in argentina, the same should
have been done for bin laden. let him appear in a plexiglass enclosure. let the victims and their families, particularly, the hundreds of muslim victims, give their testimony. it would have been a powerful antidote to muslim extremism, and it would defang the image he has.tha host: brian on the republican line. hi, brian. caller: i was curious as to why -- i -- taking those actions.
host: president obama. caller: i am listening to reports of dumping the body at sea. saying he's been killed and is on ice. what did you hear about that? host: we will let it stand. in europe, it is quiet over the pakistan raid. they have not criticized the killing. but questions about the death sharpened after the white house said he didn't fight back and did not use a woman as a shield. people wonder if thjustice was done. if they made an effort to take him alive or executed him.
this may lead to terrorism. it he disquiet is among the elite in the news media. the u.s. was criticized for international law. that is from the new york times. let me find the right button. >> i have two comments. i want to answer a question. the two comments. you have had republican representatives from congress. one man did not know what was on his chart. 60.1 million. he didn't know what he was talking about.
another said obama would not go get bin alden. -- bin laden. he said he had information. you said, if we had -- if somebody got the president, one of our presidents who did something wrong. violating a soverign country. if we had this criminal at the mayflower and didn't turn him over, they should get him. obama did the right thing. he went in and got him. host: it is time to stop second- guessing the president and focus on protecting schools and
rights. margaret on the republican line. caller: i want to comment on using "geronimo." i have used it as a term of respect when something difficult is accomplished. when some dishes were falling, i grabbed the rack of dishes and yelled "geronimo." this is respect, as far as i know. host: we are taking calls about the handling of the bin laden killing. he is on his way to fort campbell. the lead editorial. with al qaeda on the ropes --
one outcome seems certain. the quick end to american involvement in the war. the u.s. went to war 10 years ago. the goal was to catch or kill bin laden and remove the taliban government. now that the taliban is ousted and the camps are destroyed, many say the job is done. half of the responders said the mission was accomplished. usa today says the quickest way -- is to press the advantage. al qaeda has never been more
vulnerable. an opposing editorial, "bring the troops home." there is no military solution in afghanistan. u.s. officials including leon qaeda isay theal diminished, and nation-building does not mean better counter- terrorism. bob from omaha. how are you? caller: this is a great show. i think, most callers are missing the point of your question on how the obama adminsitration is handling this. too many conflicting stories. one person should be designated
with all the facts. and get out on television and convey how this operation went down. i give him great credit for what he did. but there are too many conflicting stories and it makes ent.ook incompett and whether or not this story is true. as opposed to releasing the photos, they should be released and it qoulwould quell the conspiracy theorists. thank you. host: from michigan. is this rickerson?
caller: i am happy we got osama. the past few years -- i do feel like we got saddam all over again. i agree with obama. and i think the photos should be released. host: this is from linda. george w. bush, "we're going to ge thim." we did that. what's the problem? randy on the democratic line. caller: thank you for washington journal. i have to give credit to the president. he did his job. it has to drive the right wing guys nuts.
they start it but a righteous- hearted person has to dclean up. -- has to clean up. how many people wanted to see our bodies hanging from the bridge? you want to see his picture, don't complain when ours go out there. that was right from the bottom. that is what we do. thank you for helping me put my time in. host: thousands of afghans reject the peace of the taliban. thousands gathered to oppose the taliban and any peace deal,
saying it would betray the stand against extremeism. it was attended by abdullah abdullah. it was an attack on the government's policy. the organizers said they would go to the streets in protest. there is the picture in downtown kabul. we take the next call from randy, independent. caller: if you go to gcnlive at 11:00, maybe people will wake up. bin laden's been dead since april 2001. all i hear -- i am talking about
bush, too. they are a bunch of habitual liars. they keep covering up. the people -- host: what is gcn? caller: genesis. it is genesis news communications. go to infowars.com. they have talked about this. there is so much propaganda, it is unreal. host: we will leave it there. "the washington times" islamism thrives. this is how they close out the editorial. there is a risk the policy makers --
but he got what he deserved. now we have to ge tbact back t e o the economy. host: renewed calls for an afghan pullout. more calls from legislators to speed up the withdrawal. they did not remove the politcal obstacles from putting pressure on the white house. they still do not have urgent legislation to force the congress to focus on afghanistan. caller: good morning, peter. i am so proud. the president and the seals. that is tthing that thing is
knew there would be conspiracy theories. i knew with no photo it would ramp it up. if you need to see the photo of a dead bin laden, you probably won't believe this one way or the other. people who think this is a hoax do a disservice to thet seals. i don't need proof. i am proud of the soldiers. we shouldn't have to occupy the countries. i am proud of the military every day. host: from the telegraph. joe biden talks about the navy
seals. when obama announced osama bin laden being killed, they did not talk about the units that killed him. john brennan didn't and dennis did not. despite the numerous reports on the seals, no briefers confirmed this. then it says, this is joe biden. this is what the verbose joe biden said at the ritz carlton hotel. acknowledgesaid, "let me the honorees. james is the real deal. he can tell you about the phenomenal and capacity of the
navy seals and what they did." that is from joe biden. celebrating a death -- ugly but only human. some americans celebrated loudly in the streets. others were appalled. not by the killing, but the celebration. i don't think it is decent to celebreate a killing. others were much mrore critical. jingoistic hubris. some people said, doesn't this make us look like the terrorists? the answer is no, say social scientists.
laboratories and in the world, the appetite for revenge is a measure o fthe seriousness of a crime and the larger threats posed. mary, a republican in evansville, indiana. how did the obama administration do? caller: he did fine. in my opinion, i am a republican who didn't vote for him. but he did a great job. my son fought overseas and we've been through everything. everyone says, if we didn't go after him, they'd complain. we did get him, they'd complain.
people can't stop complaining. host: thrasher says, he did what he needed to by telling us as soon as he could. the lead report in the "financial times." the ferocity of the assault on the indian people shows he will not bring reform, as european d's regime.k at asaaad' sanctions on syria and its europe with align eruop the u.s. shiftingrihetoric has been
to violence. concludes.s is how it even they rely on the support of henchmen. a referral may strain the support. and the u.n. tribunal. other countries turned their backs on mubarak just before a popular revolte. the call for the president of yemen and gaddafi. steve in las vegas, independent line. caller: they did a great job and what the president did was smart.
summon the unity and the will. the lead story in the "financial times" a plunge in commody markets. investors fled the market among the concerns over the strength of the recovery. they would benefit from rising inflation. and jean-claude trichet signalled that an interest rate increase was unlikely in june. copper, silver, and goald
have taken the place of several -- back to obama's handling of the killing. ed, on the democratic line. caller: i have a question about .his we got bin laden. the question -- does this open the door to other countries. can we waterboard them to get information from them? i told the american people how we got the information.
operated by the special operations command were redeployed to reinvigorate the operatives.quadaaeda back to your calls on the handling of osama's killing. william on the republican line. caller: this is his wife. everyone gives obama credit. it is not him who got him. the american soldiers got credit. our men went in and got this man. give our american soldiers credit. why don't they show the body. why dont' they do that on tv.
they showed it when they killed our men. we are trained for all this stuff. give our men -- all the yare doing is telling people what is going on. they are telling them everything, preparing them. come on. you have to stop giving obama credit. host: at 3:50 pm, the presien dent will speak at fort campbell. the next call comes from charles in new york city. caller: i was brought in by reagan to do the satellite system. at t.r.w.
and manhattan beach. let me give you my observation. the killing of this target is a great loss in intelligence. thsi man should have been taken alive and brought back. ver it is.amp, whereeve if there is an atomic weapon. if i had to get the number one terrorist, and it was reported i shot him and threw ihim in a lake because he was a muslim -- i don't want a picture of lee harvey oswald. i am for drawing and quartering
him. f.b.i. standard procedure. capture him. host: this is from role call. akaka was injured in fall, breaking two ribs in alexandria, virginia. a minor fall -- it prevented the indian affairs -- akaka will return to work as soon as monday. from politico, katherine sebelius -- seniors may die sooner under this plan. seniors will run out of money quickly. if you run out o fthf the vouch,
you have to go without care and die sooner. there are not a lot fof options. releasing a report for economic and policy research -- seniors need to save $182,oo000. ron andrews said seniors have less than $100,000 in their 401k. the confusion on thursday -- there is often an insecure leadership and a bright chairman given to jumping ahead of his troops. eric cantor steppe don the
message before talks ahd begun. it is unlikely any debt deal will have the medicare changes. next call is from wyatt lake, brant on the republican line. caller: they should have tooken and brought some proof back that osama bin laden is dead. another thing, if they want to do this with the deficit, the ycay can cut the pay. not the oens that have to give to him. host: a tweet from c-span
democrat. informationom of requires release of the video. john boehner says trillions in spending cuts should be made if the debt ceiling should be raised. it is time to talk about trillions. he seaiaid spending needs to be reigned in. he sayid nothing was off the table, and it was time for obama to put forth a budget proposal since the house passed the budget. it is set to be breached by august second. lsast call, on the obama administrations handling of the
killing. caller: i would like to commend obama in a job well done. he's shown what a commander-in- chief does. if you need to look at what a president needs to do, you see the act this country needed. host: that was david in mansfield. i want to show you this article. may 17 is the 50th anniversary of the freedom riders. that is the first segment. in 45 minutes, tim bishop of new york is here. we will talk about tax cuts for oil companies and his proposed legislation. first, we will talk about that
this is nothing new. they promised to pay and go. they refused to in the 1930's. they said they would pay foreigners in gold, and we defaulted. we default every single day. that is what your prices are doing. >> crawford, what did we learn at the g.o.p. debates. >> ron paul -- a lot of new candidates were introduced. the great thing about these early debates, when the big names don't participate, you get to meet new people.
herman kang surprised me. group frankoup, the luntz had on fox overwhelmingly supported him. the father of godfather pizza. he is probably a longshot, obviously. he is articulate and plainspeaking. he is like ross perot. like donald trump without the crazy hair. >> ron paul comes the closest to obama. guest: drudge did a screaming
headline on the poll. i saw this yesterday. ron paul has been around a long time. he has a feverish following. he raised a million dollars -- i learned his supporters are very supportive. i think that voice, that libertarian voice, questioning the role of government, is a worthy debate to have. a lot of americans believe this. a lot of things were said that wouldn't work in a general election. it is good to have that debate. the ytaley say things the short- shots aren't afraid to talk
about. host: we talk about 2012 presidential politics. the republican field. divided by political affiliation. twitter.com/cpsanwj. craig crawford, of cq rolecall. guest: he used his time to introduce himself. a lot of republicans are flocking to him. the big story was people who aren't there. mitch daniels, newt gingrich.
this wasn't a real debate for the real race. when we get to the crux of it -- we see a different dynamic. guest: he is a reluctant candidate. i thrwow in a question. who do you like? mitch daniels name shows up among the conventional crowd. i think the governor of indiana has fared well and seems to have a following.
unless he is planning a game -- host: were insiders surprised by haley barber's decision? guest: this reminds me of 1992, when clinton got in because the big names didn't. clinton only ran because al gore chose not to. mario cuomo did not get in. they were afraid of george bush. they thought he was a shoe-in. clinton proved them wrong. it is looking like that on the repubican silican side.
host: crawford is the guest. first tweet for them. if kaine and paul go third party, is this a risk? guest: i would say this would help obama. host: i think that tweeter meant that. guest: i think that would be a big boost for obama. they have enough juice going so that they'd stay in the party. host: first call. clearwater, florida. republican line. caller: ihavi have two issues. i will be concise as ican.
this thing with the assassination, it is an old diversion.tric ok of he leans on his strategists on his staff, on how to divert the thoughts of the american people, or the fact we sold our country to china. and we owe everybody substantial amounds of money. astrnterest ins nomical. maybe obama thought he should press the panic button and see, what could we do that would be considered monumental enough to divert the american minds off
the financial situations. guest: you say obasama's killin gis g is a diversion, but he spent months planning this. he was quite methodical about this. whenever a president is trying to divert the public, the public will pay attention to what they want to. host: 90% approval rating for bush afte rthr the gulf war. obama has gotten a bounce from the killing of bin laden. it is a poll that
showas the high single digits, 9% for obama's approval rating. the same george w. bush got after capturing saddam. if that holds, and that is the bump, it is surprising. the iraq war didn't have the consensus for hussein than fo r this. the iraq war was fairly unpopular. bump.d expect a grat eeater it will fade into memory. it helped him in the short run. he may have more umph and on the
military front -- it will be hard to say he is weak kneed. a lot of people had said that. host: i get your reaction from chris in 'bama. anyone who can't kiss grover's ring -- guest: the issue is powerful. none of these republicans who are serious and seriously taken are off the tax -- are on the wrong side of the tax issue. you have governors here with tax records, gary johnson of new mexico.
thought his delivery last night was halting and un stasteady an tentative seemed. he complained about not getting enough questions, which he wasn't. but that always looks bad. host: waukegan, illinois, betty, democrat. caller: i'm a 72-year-old african-american born in greenville, south carolina, my memory is so horrible i don't go back for family reunions. the debate was good to see the republicans have an african-american there. i wish donald trump had a come.
thank you, have a good day. guest: that is an -- i'm glad you bring that up. as i watched herman cain it would be if they responded to the first black president with their own black nominee. he is a long shot because he has no political background though he tries to make an asset out of that because they elect on experience and how is that work being out. i think he has a strong style. i was talking about gary johnson being so unsteady. herman herman cain seemed like the more veteran politician in the room. he has been a talk show host so he had a little practice. host: others have suggested
allen west and herman cain be the g.o. pfpp. party. did anyone ask candidates if they approved of new g.o.p. governor attacks on public employees and public commons? guest: they got into that a little bit. that was asked, the whole wisconsin thing. i didn't -- there were not any real memorable responses. most of the focus was in that section on unions. and whether there was union bashing. the candidates seemed to back away from wanting to attack unions. one questioner made the point in the past republicans of reagan notably succeeded by appealing to union voters, not necessarily on union issues but getting those votes and going out of their way to bash unions might,
looking at history, might not be too productive. host: next call is baton rouge, louisiana, roy, republican. caller: i find it very interesting that ron paul is so consistent with the audiences at the debates. he got applause almost on every answer. guest: even for heroin. caller: it seems to me that there are -- they are determined to make him out to be a caricature almost like a pariah. he is never taken seriously to be the republican nominee. i don't get it. if he got on stage and debated any of the democratic nominees, which will be obama, i think he would hold his own and he would get the american people to see that the primary cause of our financial woes is the way we conduct our monetary policy by
giving our money -- print being our money and regulating to private bankers. if we don't cut the head off the snake it is never going to change because we will never be sure of our own situation. why don't they take ron paul seriously? guest: i think because he is so radical to conventional thinking in washington. he is taken seriously by a lot of voters but i agree, i think the media establishment and washington political establishment -- when he says things like abolishing the federal reserve, that seems radical to washington thinking. i think he is threatening to them. there is a lot of threatening talk from ron paul to the conventional establishment media and political, so there is an
effort to marginalize him. but i take him seriously, i always have. i think the financial meltdown really plays into his hands. that is an example of the thing he had been talking about for years. host: do you think ron paul has a chance of getting the nomination? guest: i'm beginning to think this could be a year when republican voters figure, kind of like a goldwater year, where they figure obama is going to win anyway, we are going to make a statement. we are going to send somebody that scares the hole out of everybody -- cares the hell out of everybody because we know we can't win. that might not be a conscious vote on the part of voters but when goldwater was nominated that was really the birth of the conservative movement in the republican party. many republicans knew they couldn't win that election but decided if we are not going to win we are going to make a
statement and gold water is our man and he went out there and said -- what was it? violence in the name of liberty is no vice or something like that. maybe one of the callers remembers. host: do you think it is president obama will be re-elected? guest: i think -- i don't think it is inevitable but as i look at the republican field, it feels like that. and obama is a great politician. when he is on the stump he can turn it up. here is why i think he gets re-elected. there were a lot of new voters, minority, ethic voters who came out it droves in 2008 to elect him. they disappeared in the midterm election. you look at a lot of races around the country, virginia, north carolina, they didn't show
up, which is why democrats did so poorly. my theory is when he is on the ballot again they come back. all about obama. they are not into the democratic par party. unless they are disillusioned. but i don't think so. i think there is a wave of voters that come back for him. host: could ralph nader do damage on the left to president obama? guest: i think a lot of democrats have become save have i to the point that ralph nader harm in the past. i have talked to a lot of voters who regretted voting for him because they realize they elected republicans because of that. host: we have this tweet. woodbine, maryland, jordan on the independent line.
we are talking 2012 presidential politics. caller: i'm a serioustifirst-ti. my statement is more about marginalizing candidates such as ron paul when he polled above paul leand cnn showed him the bt against obama and he raised almost a million dollars yesterday alone so why isn't he a serious contender? guest: i think he might be taken more serious this time. i think the media in the past marginalized him but those factors that you mentioned are plain to see. he has been around long enough. what comes with that, though, when you are not marginalized and taken seriously is more
scrutiny. and there are things in his past i don't want to delve into some of that controversial stuff abo about some of the racist things that were said way back when on his behalf mostly, it seemed. but there are a lot of things that were touched on. but from what i have seen he can mostly survive scrutiny, i gu s guess. unless there is something we don't know. he has been around long enough i think we know mostly everything there is to know. host: i have this tweet. was this sponsored by the south carolina tea party? guest: he was taking the 10 commandments out of alabama. i thought he would run last time. that is when he was better known. i think the tea party is at a
point where they need to reach out to some people that are more credible who actually get their and broad en support. host: 3400 tweets in -- baltimore, democrat on with craig crawford talking politics. caller: hello. you mentioned this briefly earlier. i think someone tweeted about grover norquest i think the new house republicans had to sign a pledge where they would not raise taxes and new senators. my question to you -- i didn't watch that debate -- i wanted to
verify whoever runs on the republican side, i can't imagine the republicans not touching the tax taxes, period. i want to verify if you think that whoever is the nominee for the republican party would have to sign a pledge not to raise taxes if they are going to be representing the republican party for 2012. guest: well, the trouble with that is, you know, george w. bush sr. famously said no new tax taxes, didn't say he wouldn't raise the old ones but everyone took that to mean he would never raise taxes. and when he did that is one of the biggest factors in his losing re-election. and circumstances change, so any candidate who has a real shot at winning who doesn't feel like he doesn't have to sign that pledge is not going to sign it because
they don't want to bind themselves if circumstances chan change. cost them some votes, but i think a strong candidate of the republican party can win without signing that pledge. host: i have this tweet. from ohio, republican line. caller: good morning. i have a statement more than a question. first of all, i was waiting as a republican american voter and i said let's see if we can stand president i la like obama because i won't vote for him because when i call the white house comment line and his secretary laughs, i call and compliment him like hit and strike and 21st century warfare in libya and what he did with
osama but he is still a democrat and i believe sarah palin can beat him. we did great last night. like i told president obama on the comment line if i had my way, it would be sarah palin and mitch daniels and that is who he would face in 2012. look like sarah palin is going to run though. host: you don't see it at all? guest: the best sign to me was i don't think she went to new hampshire on the become tour that. would have been a no-brainer when she was touring for her new book. she didn't schedule a stop in new hampshire. that suggests to me she is not serious about running for president. in the polling, for such a big name in the republican party, she does surprisingly poor numbers in the polls of
republican voters given her attention. it suggests to me the media is more interested in lower as a candidate. host: this is diane from new hampshire with her e-mail. guest: the problem that candidates face, the better known candidates, the well known candidates, face in the early debates is if they go to them -- i'm saying this is their thinking, i don't necessarily agree -- if they go to them they draw more attention to the lesser known candidates. there is more coverage. so a tim pawlenty gives more attention if they go and their name recognition is already so
high they don't need the debate for the exposure. that is the calculus that goes in it. i happen to think mitt romney made a big mistake by not going because this was in south carolina and south carolinians, the republican party is very strong and tightknit and i'm guessing they took offense of him not coming and that is a critical state in the republican primary process. even though it is not in the first tier of iowa and new hampshi hampshire, south carolina is the ratifier of whoever the nominee will become. that was a about -- that was a bad state to skip. host: what else have you heard about money raising among the republicans? guest: the congressional and senate committees haven't done as well as democrats, i believe,
in the last i saw. i think republicans in the last midterm did pretty well. but what really plays into the republican hands is this supreme court decision allowing corporations to basically just spend all they want. that money really flowed to republicans in the midterm election. host: what about the presidential, the potential presidential candidate? guest: when you look at who has the track record, mitt romney can raise a lot of money. i don't know about mitch daniels but i get the impression a lot of big money folks are interested in him, the indiana governor. and ron paul just has this phenomenal ability to push a button on the internet and raise a million dollars. of course, that is the big change in fund-raising in politics is how, if somebody
catches fire, they can scoop up a lot of cash on the web. host: joan in randolph, vermont, e-mails in -- guest: yes, i wouldn't disagree with that. i don't know, watching him last night i thought maybe his time has come. he got some laughs, too. i have never heard applause for legalizing heroin, which he kind of made a joke about it, but it was a pretty funny moment. he is getting more comfortable on the stage in these things. host: next call is rutland, vermont. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning, mr. crawford.
i think you referred to paul as a radical when it comes to the fed. i remind you that president kennedy started to print u.s. not notes. he printed i think the $5 bill and another denomination and there's been a lot of conspiracy theory and that he was killed. but when you buck the most powerful people in the world that might be the real reason he was assassinated because he started to print u.s. notes and said we didn't need the fed. so i consider ron paul to be currently o currently -- courageous in fact committing suicide. guest: i'm very interested in some of his ideas. he makes me think. that is the thing about ron paul, every time he listen he has such a different world view compared to most conventional politicia
politicians. most conventional world politicians don't make me think and he does. host: we have this tweet. early.well, it is 'm just not going to write anybody off. from herman cain and ron paul down. politics can take some wild turns. people wrote off barack obama and bill clinton early on because they were not known and barack had that funny name and so on. that is the beauty of our primary system. you have these little states -- io iowa, new hampshire and south carolina -- little states where unknown people can get known real fast. and if they are strong and appealing and if they win in those early states, then in this
world you can become famous overnight. host: we have a recent piece annualizing the state breakdown talking about fact that some of the states, battle ground states that president obama won in 2008, now have republican governors and republican legislato legislators. why does it matter that new hampshire elected republicans in 2010 to replace their democrats and other states elected republicans for governor? does -- how does this help the republican field? guest: i think it enthuses and we will have big turn i couldn't tells. host: john kasick being governor makes a difference?
guest: yes. governors have networks. when your party has the governorship, you have a ready-made organization that has been successful and the thing about political organizations, it is like your body, it needs exercise. so, they need to exercise them between their own elections and presidential campaigns can catch on to that. host: amy a republican in bethesda, maryland. caller: i really think obama is going to be there the next give years. we will have a republican run house and maybe a republican run senate. the reason i say that is watching the debate yesterday, just like oh gosh going that you another 18 months of political spe speak. tim pawlenty was the typical politician and rick
santorum is a little crazy to me. i actually think gary johnson, even though his delivery was halting, he actually would appeal to moderate republicans and democrats. and ron paul, i think, is really exciting. he could never win. and herman cain can't. so, even though you raise the governor issue, i feel that now that medicare is off the table, a lot of the issue about the budget and a lot of seniors who came out to vote for republicans in 2010 are going to take a look at this cutting of medicare and swing back to democrats. so i really don't think i want to go through the same looking at politicians just speaking out of two sides of their mouth with the other big names that were not there. host: we got the point. guest: i like her point.
i think that is possible that we could see obama re-elected and a republican run senate. i put some money on that happening. because there is a market for these republican ideas. i don't think they can sell them in the presidential election necessarily. i think the medicare, wanting to privatize medicare and the budget that is half passed on republican votes could have been a huge mistake for the because those y senior voters are not going to forget that. as this caller suggested, it is going to be on their minds when they consider voting for republicans. host: with the house g.o.p. seeming to back down from paul medicare changing budget, is he -- he had been talked about as a potential veep
candidate. is he political ly in-fighting still today? gues guest: i think he gets points for courage as the caller said about ron paul on the federal reserve. when you take on these sacred cows you get points for courage. but the trouble for him is it is all he's known for. i think he is a very strong future star and maybe now star for the republican party. i have known him for many years. but this being all you are known for is privatizing medicare and then kathleen sebelius said you are going to kill the seniors, they will die if ryan's bill becomes law, this is the sort of thing that can hang on to you for a long time.
i think that he needs to get better known about other things real fast. host: we have this tweet. guest: well, he cut a lot of budgets in that state and he was popular for it. that is something on the republican side they just can't change is this abortion issue. you just cannot get the republican nomination without being pro-life it seems. host: call from tennessee, republican. caller: there is a candidate who is not in the race and i think think he might have a chance and that is general bush. he was a successful governor in florida. i know the bush name seems to be a down trend but of what happened to obama and other things i think the bush name is
pretty good. i think that general bush is more of a moderate. his wife is hispanic. i wish they would find some way to talk him into doing that because i think he would be a formidable candidate. >> you will have to talk him into that because he is not convinced. i'm from florida and grew up there and started my career there and i have talked to a few republicans who know him well and he's dead set against it. host: no chance? guest: i agree, i think he would be a very strong candidate and was a strong governor. was controversial on some things. but he is not an insanely ambitious person. i think that he is enjoying himself and doing what he is doing and doesn't believe this would be his year. the bush family, i don't think, is completely convinced that their name is fully restored enough to elect another
president. host: the g.o.p. shot themselves in the foot by voting to kill medicare. the campaign ads write themselves. mark, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. eason mitt romney didn't appear in south carolina is because that is the bible belt and he is a moral and that is what is -- mormon and that will kill him. guest: he can't avoid that forever. that is a big part of the republican primary process. i thought he got over that issue in 2008. he cracked a couple of jokes and said that he believed in marriage between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and i think he dealt with that well enough that i don't think it is as much of a factor. his bigger issue is having
passed what was essentially obama care in massachusetts. i think that is another thing he didn't want to get faced with in the debate. he new if he went to that debate been a target. you notice none of the candidates attacked each other because there was nobody -- there were no targets. there was nobody in the room who was a big enough threat to anyone else that they needed to. had romney been there he probably would have gotten hammered on that issue. host: how do you see john hunts pha huntsman playing into this? guest: i don't. i really don't. i looked at the filings. there a there are like almost 20 official candidates. one of them, i forget his name right now, is a self-declared vampire in florida.
i would like to see him get in the debate. host: but you are not seeing john huntsman even though he left his ambassadorship in china? guest: i think i saw him on c-span. i thought hee seemed more like a bureaucrat to me who is not going to break through. i wish it were not true. we only talk about charisma. a lot of these candidates -- i mean, mitch daniels is in the boring. i hate to say that because i do not think you have to be a song and dance man to be a good president. at that leads to candidates like people like donald trump getting all of the focus.
there is no denying -- host: do you think he is going to run? guest: i don't think so. that one story about the older woman that he tried to throw her out of her house because he wanted to build a parking lot for limousines. how many stores like that does he want out? host: you are the last call for craig crawford. caller: hi. i think the nation is split. what the party stands for is what can look at. if all of the republicans want to be on the top shelf, we are going back to the bush administration with karl rove a and sarah palin, going clear back to the cuckoo clocks klan. -- ku klux klan.
look at it all. they are not for the people. host: thank you. guest: i think the republican party -- this could be a real ground-building campaign for them. they are less afraid to talk about some of their beliefs like the medicare thing. what i like about the republican party in this race is i think they have m little courage and their lack of confidence about beating obama that it is going to be like a laboratory year for them to talk about a lot of ideas. even though they got hammered in 1964, that was the beginning of what really a revolution in the republican party that led to
ronald reagan and everything else. at that race was hugely important to them. >> this tweet coming in -- guest: no. anyone see any democrat, serious, certainly, talking about running against obama. that could be a bad thing. he needs a sparring partner because he will walk through those primaries getting very little attention. all of the attention will be on the republicans if he has no one to run against. i do not even know if kucinich is going to. he is talking about changing states. without anybody out there for deep dates, how are you going to
have a presidential debate on the democratic side if there is only one candidate? i do not see anyone serious even toying with it. host: craig crawford, thank you for being with us. in 45 minutes, the author of this book, "righteous indignation," andrew breitbart will be here to take your calls. in just a minute, tim bishop to talk about oil companies, taxes, and related issues. >> c-span's comprehensive resource on congress as new features to make it easier to find information about your elected officials.
take a look at the new congressional chronicle at c- span.org/congress. >> now available, a complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress. contact information, including twitter and addresses, committee assignments, and information on the white house. order online at c-span.org/shop. >> congratulations to all the winners of this year's student documentary competition. you can view the videos and the time on our website at studentcam.org. select any portion and create a video of why the u.s. constitution is important to
you. the c-span network -- we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non-fiction books, and american history. find our content any time throughout c-span's video library. which takes the stand on the road with our digital bus content vehicle. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host code joining us now is congressmen tim bishop, a democrat from new york and recently introduced a bill called "the big oil welfare repeal act." what is it? guest: that bill would repeal one of the tax credits that the oil companies enjoy that are
frankly impossible to justify it. it would repeal of the domestic manufacturing tax credit which basically allows the oil companies to reduce their income prior to assessing their tax liability by as much as 9%. these subsidies were first put in place in the 2004 when oil was much less per gallon than than it is now. even president bush said that once oil hits $50 a barrel, it is impossible to justify the subsidies. the recently retired president of royal dutch shell said the same thing. this is something that we need to do and would save the taxpayer $1.3 billion a year. $13 billion over 10 years. the way i have been looking at it -- our constituents are
paying at the pump. they should not have to pay on tax day to subsidize these profits. it was put in place to -- it is not just for the oil companies. it was to try to incentivize domestic manufacturing and create jobs and put people to work. some of the industries that it applies to, it is certainly justified. once you are looking at profits -- the big five oil companies realized $8 billion in profits last year. they do not need any further incentive than they already have. host: do you think that the high current price of oil is due to oil company policy? guest: i think it is due to a lot of factors.
the least of the factors that plays into oil prices is supply and demand. yesterday, oil dropped by $10 a barrel. nothing happened in terms of supply and demand globally that would have resulted in a 10% reduction in the price of a barrel of oil. there are a lot of factors. there is speculation which is a huge compound right now. there are geopolitical factors. there is the value of the dollar relative to other currencies. host: what is the point of your legislation? is it to increase money to the government coffers? guest: one -- we recognize that we need to reduce our deficit and make tough decisions in order to do that. this is one of those decisions,
to take away a subsidy that the american people are paying for that is impossible to justify. the other one is a fundamental fairness. if we are going to ask kids to not go to head start or ask seniors to not pay more for nursing care, student paying more for college, then we should also be asking oil companies to do their fair share. host: is there any similarity between your bill that you introduced and the windfall profit tax of jimmy carter? guest: i do not really think so. this is a say in the industry does not need the incentives to do with they are going to do anyway, which is explore and drill for oil. host: how did you vote yesterday? guest: i voted no. first off, i think that to fast-
track environmental issues is unwise. i also think -- we had a very thorough bipartisan study that resulted, the bp oil spill. that study made a lot of recommendations. 14 months out from that oil spill, we have put in place and none of them. the issue is not about fast tracking permits. we have granted a great many permits. there were 47 shallow water drilling permit requested for the gulf of mexico. 37 of them have been granted. there have been 22 deepwater permits issued. we have to have a process that is fair, reasonable, that withstands environmental scrutiny, and it is safe. host: it was about a year ago
when the gulf oil spill began. >chairman of the national resources committee spoke yesterday on the house floor. i want to get your reaction. >> my colleagues across the aisle will say that drilling will do nothing to lower gasoline prices. the truth is, and this is the important part, it will send a strong signal to the markets that the u.s. is serious about producing its own resources and bring in more american production online. this argument has been used by energy production for decades. we can no longer delay and prevent access to our own american resources. my colleagues will propose increasing taxes on american energy production. they will also propose increasing taxes on american
energy production. i have to ask. when has raising taxes lowered the price of anything? the answer to that is never, and it will not happen with energy. guest: a couple of comments. a first off, domestic production of oil in the mid states is at an all-time high. this notion that the obama administration's policies are choking off domestic production is simply false. so, we have increased our production which has done nothing to hold down prices. this is not a supply-driven problem. at this point, in my view, the praise is being driven more by speculation and anything else. the point that a representative
hastings makes it is a respect to taxes. the house passed a budget that would reduce the tax rate for the top 1%, 35% to 25%. we are going to hold it tax receipts constant as a percentage of gdp. at about 18%. right now we are at 14.5% of gdp. if we are going to reduce the rate for higher earners, but keep it the same, someone who is not paying now will be paying. that someone are people below the top rate. if we are going to increase the tax rate for the vast majority of americans, i do not think -- first off, we should not be doing that. it is not unreasonable that we should increase the taxes for
the five most profitable corporations in the world. host: democrat tim bishop is our guest. the numbers to call in or on your screen. -- are on your screen. he is a member of congress so he can cover the gamut of congressional issues. he serves as well on the education and work force committee. the unemployment numbers just came out, and i want to get your reaction. employers added more than 200,000 jobs in april for the third straight month, the biggest hiring spree in five years. and the unemployed rate rose to 9% in part because some people presumed looking for work.
the labor department said the economy added 244,000 jobs last month. guest: well, i think this is a good news, bad news story. we continue to add a private sector jobs. this is the 14th or 15th consecutive month that we have added jobs. all very good news. the fact remains. we continue to have a chronic unemployment problem. the problem of the long-term unemployed is more pronounced than it has been in quite some time. we have a long, long way to go and a lot of work to do. i think we should be encouraged that the private sector and employers continue to add to
their work forces. we are now four months into the republican majority in the house of representatives and they have not offered a single bill yet that would stimulate job growth. i think that is the number one issue in this country and one i hope that we will turn to in a bipartisan way. we have to deal with that issue. host: the first call comes from st. petersburg. caller: i agree wholeheartedly to stop subsidizing the oil companies. i believe the congressman is motivated more by politics than a good policy. i think what we are seeing here is a bit disingenuous. why not stop more subsidies? one not stop subsidies to other corporations -- why not stop subsidies to other corporations?
other subsidies, the list goes on and on. farming subsidies. why would you continue to support other subsidies but only go after oil unless you are playing the game of politics? guest: i appreciate the question. the bill is designed to advance a public policy initiative, and that is to get the oil companies to pay their fair share. it will be folded into a larger bill that i filed yesterday which is a comprehensive assessment of the subsidies that the oil companies receive. with respect to other subsidies, i voted as a part of the affordable care act last year to reduce, if not eliminate, the subsidies that are right now
paid to the private insurance companies for the medicare advantage program. that is a program that was sold to the congress by the insurance companies as a means of saving on medicare. it turns out, they need approximately a 14% subsidy to provide the same services that medicare provides. i voted to eliminate the subsidy. i do think that the whole issue of corporate welfare is one that we need to look at and one that we need to be vigilant about. now that we are asking every other sector of our society to take tough cuts and make sacrifices, i think we have to ask the corporate sector to do the same. host: john is a democrat. caller: i am in favor of cutting
tax benefits for the oil companies as well as all corporations should be cut like that. i am 77 years old and their work in construction all my life. there was no security or anything like that. they talk about high union wages and earnings. wheat earned them. when the iron workers put out the assigned [unintelligible] at least the democrats try to do things for the people. the republican party from the time when i was a kid, 70- something years, they are a party of whiners. "no" against everything. we finally have a president who has some smarts and is a decent
person. all they do to him is say no and cut him up instead of working with him. thank you so much. guest: i do think that we are going to have to come together and set aside the differences that we have. i am very hopeful that the negotiations being led by vice president joe biden her on the issue of raising the debt limit will yield the kind of bipartisan solutions that we need in order to move forward. we must move beyond the practice of political posturing to try to score political points and put in place decisions that will move this country forward to help serve the people that we were elected to represent. there has been an lot of obstructionism particularly in the last congress. i hope we can move beyond that in this congress.
host: congressmen the show, this t -- congressman bishop, this tweet coming in -- guest: yes, we should drill more. this is one of the reasons why the debate is not as well informed as it ought to be. there are 80 million acres of federal land, publicly-owned lands that are under-leased to the oil companies right now for exploration and drilling. roughly 20% of that acreage is under active development. what we are saying to the oil companies is, look, you have roughly 60 million acres of government-owned land that is available to you to explore and to drill and it is estimated there is 11 billion barrels of
oil available on those lands that are under lease. have at it. go through the appropriate process. the leases were put in place so the oil companies could explore and drill. host: the next call comes from denver on our independent line. caller: thank you for c-span. i am an independent gas producer. my company does not receive subsidies. instead, we feel -- we receive tax preferences. it encourages my partners and others to drill. it this has been in place since about world war ii or before. either i drill or i will be
taxed. the money either goes to drilling or to taxes. we are looking at the small, a domestic tax structure is a tremendous, ibm drilling more and paying more tax. the gentleman from ohio would be the worker that would support my business, a small construction company to support drilling services. it could be environmental companies that support of those services. it is not just the producer. it is the service companies, the folks who have porta potties on the site when we drill for oil. what about the small independent -- guest: my bill applies only to the big five oil companies.
it does not apply to the small independent operators such as yourself and others. it only applies to the big five. i think it is impossible to take the position that the big five continue to be the kind of public tax support that they now receive. today had profits of $77 billion -- they had profits of $77 billion in the 2010. it was a pretty good year for them. this is not about the kind of operator that you are. it is about exxon, royal dutch shell, and conocophillips. host: chris is on our republican line. you are on the air. i am outongressmean,
in the long island a lot and interdistrict a lot. i can tell you that starting a business of any size in l.i. is near impossible because of the costs associated are high. the costs are really filtered down because there are all sorts of costs, and the price at the pump, 60 cents or 70 cents of that is in texas. there are all sorts of costs of employing people, mandates, where if you are a certain size, it is like an employment tax on the employer. this is prohibitive. i think the tenor of the democrat-republican anger that you are hearing is republicans saying less government, please stop with all of the intrusions
whether giving tax breaks or not, and the democrats saying "your fair share." i do not know what the fair share is. host: all right, chris, thank you. guest: i think the observation that it is difficult to get a small business off the ground is one that we have to pay attention to and work on. in the last congress, we passed into law eight separate tax cuts for small businesses. we recognize that they are the job creators in this country. we wanted to put in place as many practices as we could to facilitate what the small businesses do. we have to continue that. i think the president's call back in january for an examination of all the
regulations that the federal government has and an effort to eliminate those that no longer serve a purpose or to streamline those that are exceptionally difficult to comply with, i think, that is a good initiative on the part of the president. i called together a gathering of the small businesses in my district so i could hear directly from them on those areas of government regulation that they found the most difficult to contend with. we are trying to assemble a process here where we will deal with the office of management and budget to see what we can do for those, to be able to deliver a benefit to our small business owners. i think all of us recognize that we have to put in place policies that do help small businesses. when we are so focused on cutting taxes for small businesses in the last congress.
host: what was the tenor of your town meetings that you held over the easter recess? guest: very different from the town hall meetings that i had in the 2009 and in 2010. they were very substantive and civil exchanges of information. i think, at least in my district, the tenor of the public discourse has improved significantly. the first district of new york is approximately the last 75 miles of long island, the 75 most eastern miles of long island. it runs from a suburban area through the rural coastal communities. suffolk county remains the largest agricultural producing county in the state of new york.
host: what do you grow? guest: we grow potatoes, oracle corp. products, and vegetables. there are about -- potatoes, horticultural products, and vegetables. we are very proud of that. the an employer rate in suffolk county is about 7%. it is higher than any of us would like to see below we are doing somewhat better than the national average. host: cleveland, rich is a democrat. caller: since the oil is ours, it is our resources, why can we pay somebody to drill? i see them on cnbc all the time saying they can produce oil at $20 a barrel. pay somebody to refine it and
keep those resources here in america. guest: are you suggesting to nationalize -- if the suggestion was to nationalize the oil industry, i do not think anyone is discussing that or would be supportive of that. yesterday on the floor of the house as we were debating the final stages of the bill, the representative from new mexico offered a motion to recommit that would specify whatever is produced as a result of these new leases would remain for domestic distribution in the united states. what we were saying is if it is oil coming from u.s. lands being drilled by a u.s. company, then they should be in the u.s. market for distribution and for refining and distribution. that motion to recommit was defeated.
frankly, i do not understand the logic that the public has followed in voting against it. i do think that if oil is coming from federally-owned land, that we have leased to private companies, it is not unreasonable for that oil to stay here so it will have an impact on the prices that americans pay at the pump. candidly, my bill does not have a chance. the speaker of the house, -- i guess it was a week or so ago saying he thought it might be time for these oil subsidies to be taken away. paul ryan saying essentially the same thing. the speaker has made it clear that this kind of legislation for will not come to the floor of the house.
host: congressmen tim bishop spent 29 years at southampton college. next call for him, we have about 15 minutes left, santa clara, california. caller: three quick facts. the fed can to the congress two days ago and asked for $3 trillion. no one is talking about that. the oil subsidies were removed in the late 1970's. i do not know how obama was able to bring this green herring up. he knew he was informed that osama bin laden was in that spot 10 months ago. i watched him for 2.5 years to deliver to the american people something that the american
people do not want. host: thank you. guest: i am not sure about the reference of the removal of the oil subsidies in the 1970's. i do not know where subsidy she is referring to. the oil companies realize subsidies or benefit from subsidies to the tune of approximately $3.5 billion a year to $4 billion a year which is a benefit to us if we are looking to bring our deficit down to manageable levels. with respect to jobs, everyone recognizes that we need to increase the pace of hiring in this country.
we have added private sector jobs for the last 14 months. for the last 13 months of the bush administration, we lost jobs, approximately 780,000 jobs. thankfully, those days are behind us and we are beginning the process of clawing our way out of a very deep hole. hopefully we can keep that going in and increase the number of jobs that we add each month. host: next call, north carolina, beverly, you are on the air. caller: good morning. i wanted to speak to the oil rig drilling. they still have the flow blowout preventer. the man in charge said all they have to do is they can prove to contain an oil spill in 17 days.
that is ridiculous. as far as obama is concerned, congratulations. he blew it. guest: all of us should be commending president obama, the cia, and and our armed forces for the work that they collectively put in to bring osama bin laden to justice. it was a long time coming and i think it is something that we should all celebrate. with respect to the block preventers, as i say, and there was a significant assessment of the environmental disaster in the gulf conducted by a bipartisan commission. they recommended several safety mechanisms that we should put in place to make offshore drilling more safe and more
environmentally responsible. we have enacted none of those recommendations. i think we are flirting with another environmental disaster as long as we do not heed the recommendations of that commission. host: was your reaction to that floater idea of taxing vehicles out by miles? guest: i served on the transportation committee, and one of the issues out there is a way of replacing the motor fuels tax. i think is something that we should look at. i am not endorsing it. i do think it is something we should look at as we try to figure out ways to generate the kind of the funds that we need to rebuild our nation's infrastructure. one of the great concerns that many of us have is we are presiding over a crumbling infrastructure.
it is one of the reasons why we are struggling. we have to find ways -- the motor fuels tax, there appears to be very little tolerance to put that in place. vehicle miles traveled is one of the mechanisms that has been suggested. i think we should look at it. i am not endorsing it. i have not studied its early enough to have an opinion on it. host: this is a tweet coming in to you -- guest: frankly, i do not think there is a downside. we have had a three releases from the reserve in each of those cases. the press have -- the price of oil has dropped significantly. when george h. w. bush released oil from the reserve after the first iraq war, the price of oil
went down by 33%. when president george bush released oil in the wake of hurricane katrina, the price of oil went down 5% or 6%. still over 700 million barrels. the legislation that i filed yesterday would authorize the president to release up to 5% of debt and to release from the reserve oil to deal with market manipulation. that is a price-driven by speculation which is what we are dealing with right now. host: john boehner said yesterday everything is on the table as far as budget cuts go, except tax cuts. instead of tax increases. guest: i think that is an
unhealthy position for the speaker to take. 14.5% of gdp. if you look at the drivers of our deficit and the drivers of our swing in the clinton years to the very real deficits that we are contending with right now, the biggest driver is the collapse of tax revenue, partly from tax cuts and partly from the difficulties that the economy is experiencing. we cannot absolutely rule out tax increases. we have to be very careful and recognize that we have a very fragile recovery. we do not want to choke that off. we have to put in place a tax structure that is fair and provides us with the revenue that we need to support the
programs that most people in this country want to continue to have. host: you are on with congressman tim bishop. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was looking back at the acquisitions in the 1998 through 2001, and it seems to me the big oil companies, or as you call them the big five, and they put the standard of oil back together again. you combine that with glass- steagall, it seems like it is a party out of control. we dould not -- shouldn't something about all the speculation in the oil market? there are 50 million federal employees out there. -- 15 million men federal employees out there.
-- 15 million federal employees out there. guest: i do think that we have to deal with, very aggressively, with speculation. goldman sachs has let its investors know that the price of a barrel of oil is $26 higher as a result of the speculation that is going on. the dodd-frank bill empowers the futures trading commission to crack down on excessive speculation. i am organizing a letter among my colleagues to go to the chairman of the cftc to urge him to use that authority to intervene in the case of excessive speculation. yesterday, the price of oil went
down almost $10 a barrel without any external factors at play. this is about speculation, and we need to get it under some form of control. host: you are on the air. caller: thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. i am so concerned. and i love this country. i am african american, and i do not support barack obama. number one. there are three entities destroying our country. number one is the epa. number two is the presidential administration. the other is the democratic party. i went back and did some research in the 1700's and the 1800's. in the beginning, the republican
party was started to stop slavery, to help the african americans. i was so concerned that, when they were fighting slavery, there were so many african americans that were democrats. it made me wonder. the democratic party needs to stop playing god and respect the acknowledgement to god. guest: i am not sure where to start. let me take this one point. ernest fingered three villains in terms of the future of this country. let me talk about the democratic party. we have had four balanced budgets in this country since world war ii. we created 22 million jobs in the clinton administration. the clinton administration handed over a 10-year surplus
of a $5.50 trillion. the next eight years produced the worst job creation record of any president since herbert hoover and resulted in the trillion dollar deficits that we are looking at right now. the congressional budget office estimated the deficit for fiscal 2009 when president obama took office -- on the day he took office, a deficit of $1.30 trillion. this administration inherited an economy in free fall, two wars, and a great many other problems. the party has been working through those problems despite monolithic opposition from the republican party. we need to come together and try to solve the problems that the
american people sent us here to solve and hopefully the kind of process that is going on right now led by vice president joe biden to bring some closure to the issue of raising the debt limit to what kind of policies we need to put in place -- that is the kind of process that we need to move this country forward. host: the last call for our guest comes from massachusetts. john is a democrat. caller: apparently, common sense is not common in the mark. ever since the bush administration came in, all of the oversight has left wall street. these are multinational corporations that have no alliance to this country. it is all about money. there is supposed to be regulation. there is supposed to be epa and the fda and everything else. if they call it obamacare, we
deserve it because all of these oil companies are poisoning the oceans. there is mercury in the water. they are poisoning us, taking our taxpayer money to make bonuses. it seems like the markets are rigged because the minute obama does something, the market goes down. it seems like there is a consolidation of power. where is our money? you can find our enemies money. but where is our money? guest: i think the whole issue of regulation is one where balance is what is required. there is no question but that is the absence of regulation contributed significantly to the financial collapse that we experienced in the summer and fall of 2008. there is no question that if we
allow the epa to walk off the field we would be contending with very significant environmental disruptions all over the country in terms of clean air and clean water. the challenge is finding the right balance environmentally and in terms of regulating wall street and corporations. i think throughout our history we have sometimes fallen off that balance on either side. i think it is important that we move in the direction in seeing to that we have appropriate regulation so we do not fall victim to the crisis that we fell victim to in the financial markets two years ago. host: tim bishop, thank you and i hope you can come back soon. we have about 45 minutes left. up next, andrew breitbart discussing his new book, "righteous indignation." we will be right back.
>> said this weekend, -- this weekend, francis fukuyama. conservative blocker discusses his transformation from a liberal to a self-described conservative cultural warrior. also this weekend, david gold fiefield. look for the complete schedule online. sign up for alerts. >> you can access our programming and the time with the c-span radio iphone app. all commercial-free. you can also listen to our signature interview programs every week. download it for free from the app store.
>> a complete guide to the first session of the 112 congress. inside, new and returning members. and information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online at c-span.org/shop. >> michele bachmann is here. she is thinking about running for president. which is rare because i hear she was born in canada. [laughter] yes, michelle, this is how it starts. [laughter] >> this video is them -- is our most-watched youtube video ever. watch it again online. >> "washington journal"
continues. host: now joining us from our new york studio is andrew breitbart. his newest book is "righteous indignation." andrew breitbart, what makes you indignant? guest: the book is built around this construct which i described as the national alliance of the mainstream media democratic party and liberal interest groups. why did i come up with deconstruct? cut used to be a default liberal. what i learned in my prep school and american studies at tulane university, whatever learned from abc, cbs, and nbc, is that liberalism is a righteous and anybody that disagrees with it
is somehow against children, the environment, and all things good. i happened upon conservatism during a time when i was driving scripts around hollywood. when i discovered a.m. radio, i started to hear a perspective that i never heard before. it made a lot more sense to me. i am indignant about the fact that the mainstream media pretends to be objective when in fact it is used by the last american people. i am a tea party guy and i am righteous about their causes. the idea that the mainstream media complex would frame the tea party from the get go as a potentially violent threat and a
nation when they have lost control of academia, hollywood, and the cultural reign, and that they think john boehner and eric kanter can write the the wrong after a generation or two after having no place within the humanities department, not controlling any aspect of the levers in hollywood, it is a huge d.c. problem. i plan conservatism more than others that have every right in a free country to make movies that reflect their world view. host: who are cheery and arlene breatbart? guest: they are my parents. they are still alive. they were very middle-class compared to the majority of people that i grew up and los angeles.
a lot of times i am accused of being a rich kid because i went to a private school. my dad ran a restaurant and make sure i went to the best private school. i am glad that he made a lot of sacrifices in order for me to do that. -strain in high school and college -- they were not hitting me over the head with conservatism. they acted out their hard- working, not taking anything from the government -- they lived their conservatism but they did not preach it. i now realize that my dad has always been a republican, my mom has always voted as a republican. i thank them because i think they allowed me to stray in high
school and politics which made me the warrior who i am today. i think the apostate from left to right made me a pretty affecting cultural warrior out there. host: andrew breitbart, you write in your book that you spend a lot of time trying to create a secret network of conservatives in hollywood. guest: well, yeah. ever since my book cannot and started going on tv and radio and started to talk about the perils of underground conservatism in hollywood, people started coming up to me in public -- actors, writers, directors, punk rockers, people that you would not imagine in 100 years, gaffers, key grips
-- they would come up to me and tell me on the shoulder and say i am on the team. they would whisper in my ear, onh, don't tell anyone i'm the team." there is a consistency within the cultural rom, wherever conservatism exist within academia and the humanities department, which in hollywood, there is a whisper that you are conservative. they do not want to be known publicly because there is something akin to a plausible deniability -- blacklisting. people lose their jobs who believed that conservatives equals fascist. conservative equals racist.
why would people believe that? why would they choose a conservative over someone who is like-minded? i want to connect this people so that they have the strength in numbers. it is happening. over the last eight years, i am telling you, he would not believe the people who are libertarian-minded -- they are just trying to figure out a way that they can emerge. i think the best way to emerge is to put their money where their mouth is and actually create and engaged in a free market. yes, the left behavior's intuitively with those that disagree with them. anyone who denies that is ignoring reality. conservatives have to fight the fight. the have to fight this cultural
war in the trenches. they have to look at people who are behind enemy lines as people that they need to support. what is your connection to orson bean and the bay city rollers? >> the baked city rollers performed at my first party. i became a tea party member and i went to my first tea party with orson bean who is my father-in-law. that is the greatest luck get of my life that i did this beautiful woman and her father is orson bean, the great raconteur. he went from the left where he was blacklisted back in the 1950's to the right. he helped me very much during my transformation at the first tea party we went to, as i was walking proof the santa ana said
it center, looking at police officers who were there to keep the peace at the moment that janet napolitano said that this group of people may be potentially violent, the police officers were giving me a thumbs up. as i was walking through the crowd, i heard the bay city rollers. afterwards backstays, i met ian mitchell, a newly minted american citizen. he is the most patriotic guy and a world and he does not want the country to turn into the country that he left. does not want this country to move toward european socialism. host: we will start with a call from last vegas, a democrat, you are on with andrew breitbart. caller: good morning.
i am astounded at the mindset. the hatchet job you has done, i don't think there is any reason to take a position that you are a warrior for the right. it comes out of the same playbook as fox news. the store, like, continue to live. -- distort, lie, continue to lie. don't distort the facts. that's all i have to say. >guest: i would ask him to do the same peri. i believe he has been given the talking points from the left. the truth behind the sharad
thing is that out of outer space a video shot that was edited. that is not true. it was a long excerpt that was two + minutes long. at the end of that video was the retentive arc where she says this year realizes it's not it's not about black versus white, is about rich versus poor. who defended me on this? chris matthews of all people confronted howard dean and joan walsh on the air instead of this is a hack job, why did andrew breitbart keep in the park where he said she had a change of mind. in my 1400-word piece, it says eventually her basic humanity informs her to help a white farmer. how did this thing gets so distorted? the first day, sharad blamed the undoubled -- naacp are predicament and the president
fired her. she said she helped the white farmer. she said she had a change of opinion. the naacp excoriate did the audience for its affirmation of her telling the story about how she sent the farmer to one of his own and how she patronize him initially. that was the point in which was the previous attack by the naacp, attacking the tea party as racist. my argument one week before was that if you're going to attack the tea party based upon negligible evidence, those that live in glass houses should not throw stones. the naacp apologized for the audience reaction which was in the context of the video. the problem that happened and i felt i hit the target there were
attempts to-would grant the tea party. everything went awry when glen beck went on television and said i need to apologize. he claimed that he did not do this story because he saw a greater context he thought there is a context missing and he refrained from doing it. in fact, that morning, glen beck took the two plus minute video and cut it into a series of little clips and mercilessly attacked surely share rod. the white house said there were fearful that glen beck would buy this on their tv show. glen beck took away the context of where she said it is not about black versus white, is about rich versus poor. he took out the context of the naacp's constant bashing of the tea party and he made about surely sharad. that is what happened then i went to him after that and after he said i apologize.
i said let me on your show. i wanted to explain myself. he refused. i was thrown to the walls and the mainstream media wanted to take me out based upon me having been successful in the acorn in getting them defunded. host: his book debuted at number 13 on the n.y. times best seller. arizona, you are next. caller: what does this gentleman think about the debt crisis. i did not read his book but i imagine if he is with the tea party, he thinks like me that i think the country is like a car. if you don't make the payments on that car, the repo man comes
and gets it. you claim the car engines the oil but we are not working, we will not be able to make our payment on that car, we will lose it. i think that is what the country is like. we have to go to work to keep it. guest: i agree with them. when i went to my first tea party, i don't have a paul revere outfit. i don't have a short for my lauber a doodle that is an american flag. i don't talk about the constitution as articulate as other people. i don't talk about fiscal responsibility. my role in the tea party from day one was to defend tea party from the predictable attacks from the democratic media complex which tried to frame the tea party as racist, homophobic, fascist, potentially violent like timothy mcveigh.
it was absolutely offensive to me. i went out to every single tea party to say to be where the mainstream media. they will reflexively puts you in a position where you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent and they will not give you cover. that will not allow for you to explain yourself. one of the big things that i did on behalf of the tea party was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the biggest accusation made against the tea party that congressman carson said the day beforec dayare was passed, -- the day before obamacare was passed. he said they were walking out of the cannon house building and they were walking down the steps and they were surrounded by a mob of 400 people. they said 15 people call them the 'n'word.
they said they thought rocks would be thrown at them and the police had to usher them out of this dangerous situation. i offered $100,000 of that crowd of 400 people for any evidence of a video or audio evidence that the n-word was said ones. it shut them up because nobody thought somebody was going to challenge them. then the associated press said that andrew breitbart has put out this $100,000 reward but the absence of video does not mean it does not happen which forced me to find four videos of them walking down the steps unobstructed, nothing like what congressman carson's audio accusations made it out to be. i have been fighting the tea party battle against the mainstream media who want to frame them in the worst possible light. that is why i find myself in
peril with sharad and in the middle of the mass. it has been a continuing. if the left is going to accuse people of the french right of being birthers, the last two years has been an unbelievable moment of the democratic party, the left, being racists where every disagreement on fiscal policy or environmental policy is delineated to charge that the people who disagree with it or obama care are racists. it is outrageous. that's what i dedicated my book to clarence thomas. that black man's apparel as a result of the democrat media complex and the media complex tackled him mercilessly. my eyes opened up when day -- when i saw how they treated this black man different way than a
black man who was liberal. this is my battle and i am not afraid of the race card anymore. it will become so worn out it will actually work when there is actual racism. host: we started this program by talking about the obama administration's handling of the as some of been laid in killing last sunday. al qaeda has said that they will release osama bin laden audio. they had a tape made about a week before he was killed and they will be releasing that shortly. how'd you think the obama administration has handled this killing of osama bin laden? guest: that is an obama grand slam. the first thing i did sunday night without calling anyone, i twisted congratulations president obama. -- i treated -- i tweeted
congratulations president obama. the idea that he would make that tough decision but if it did not work out like the j. carter foray into iran, all of those events are fraught with peril. without any challenge to it, thank you, president obama for doing the right thing. since then, i feel his political allies, his political apparatus has tried to take too much credit for that grand slam for themselves. they have behaved in a politically correct fashion. i think he should have just lighted exits as it is. as it relates to the photo, the american people want closure on this. the world wants closure on this.
a lot of muslim people were killed by osama bin laden. what he did was a blasphemy against his own religion and that is the mayor of the democratic party and barack obama would like to say. i am not worried about inciting the arab streets through appeasement. i want closure. most of the american people want closure on this. host: the next call comes from centreville, va., on our independent line. caller: i have been learning more. i was going to ask you how old you are but i realized i saw a thing on you. hollywood is not the center of the world. in growing up not too far from their, i know that california -- hollywood is not all of california. to assume this one little enclave controls how everybody else sees things is ludicrous.
i am trying to figure out -- you credit your parents for allowing you to pursue and you're fighting spirit from high school. it is critical thinking. that is what you go to college. california is the state of ronald reagan. it is the state of proposition 13. tic -- you can tell it is more conservative and you have liberal enclaves. to say that people are scared to say they are on the team, i am an independent. i am not conservative. i am more libertarian and there is a big distinction. if the conservative group was involved in social polities maybe i would be more conservative. but the liberal does not want the government in my back pocket.
guest: what is your question? caller: you are rambling all these different thoughts together and i would ask you -- host: finish up your statement. caller: if you can delineate conservative, liberal, or tea party or libertarian, i am a libertarian, closer than a conservative and it would seem to me that you should state that and state the difference and realize that california does not rule the world. host: we got your point. guest: i don't know what our primary point was. if you are a libertarian, if you are a conservative, if you are a tea party person, if you are a classical liberal and you are in hollywood and you are on a set
and you state when somebody says george bush's hitler, is not smart for you to defend george bush for the sake of your job from a libertarian standpoint, from a tea party standpoint, from any standpoint. there is an overarching liberal orthodoxy in that town that has a totalitarian tinge to it. it is not blacklist but it is a plausible deniability where individual producers often make decisions based upon their politics. they base their decisions on what type of movies they make. hollywood created an onslaught of anti-porn movies. there was not a pro-war movie that came along from hollywood. there is no way you could get that movie through the creative process and get it distributed. there's a problem in hollywood. to deny there is a problem in hollywood is to deny that water
is wet. host: on his twitter site, mr. andrew breitbart part describes itself as a righteously indignant senior fellow at the senior fellow institute of senior fellow studies. next call comes from battle creek, mich., a democrat. caller: i was wondering if you could offer an opinion on where president obama was born, maybe help out his right wing following. we have had the short form birth certificate released and the long form birth certificate released. we also have donald trump talking about obama should release his transcripts. give us your opinion as to where the president was born. guest: i'm the guy at the tea party convention in nashville of it -- in 2010 that was confronted and i said his line
of inquiry on that was inappropriate especially for the tea party which had a lot of affirmative points of view such as let's have a return to fiscal sanity, return to constitutional values, and to raise this question, this unanswered question of this president, i thought was inappropriate. i have been attacked from the right or from a certain part of the right for being an anti- birther. for the longest time, said the democrat media complex did not vet this president and i want to know more about his biography. i found out the gore and kerry and george w. bush were all mediocre students. i have always wanted to know more about president obama's
background, his time at columbia, his time at occidental, the courses he took, some of the papers he has written. i believe that you can believe president obama when he tells you at occidental that he did not want to hang out with your typical liberal. he wants to hang out with radicals. i would like to know what is interaction from the standpoint of somebody who is pro-israel, i would like to see what is interaction was with edwards said the west both at columbia and moved to chicago at about the time barack obama did. i would like to know why the los angeles times had a video of another radical islamist who is associate with barack obama. i don't think finding out his history is problematic. on the bither thing, i believe
he was born in hawaii and is an american citizen. host: what did you learn at tulane university? guest: i learn how to drink. i chose american studies as my major. i thought i would be reading a lot of mark twain and emily dickinson and learn about the constitution. when i graduated, i graduated with a nihilism and a profound distrust of america. i started to analyze the curriculum in the book that was reading in my american studies course. i came across a series of names that kept recurring and the right things kept recurringtony
and i s to these people i looked it up and found out they were the frankfort school and found out they were cultural marxists whose goal was to tinker with the american experiment and socially engineered the american experiment and to not go after necessarily the pillar of capitalism in our country but go after the pillar of today appears christianity. -- go after the pillar of the judeo-christianity. it is part of my battle to believe that political correctness and multiculturalism run against my personal values of the poor of this on them. instead of positioning people black versus white, gay or straight, the oppressor verses the oppressed, i believe one for
many. i am an e pluribuys unum. i'm a supporter of black conservatives in this country want to be part of the american experiment, not sitting on the periphery and lightning society and expecting government to give back to them. i have stood up for the gay conservative group. i want more people within the ronald reagan big tent, not less. i have some complex but, i think, egalitarian notions and where i think this country needs to go and it certainly needs to go away from the left believe in putting americans against each other based upon something as superficial as our blood.
host: what is your current relationship with alcohol? guest: why you ask?" host: he talked about it in your book. guest: in what regard? can you be more specific? host: i think it is fair to draw from what you wrote in your book that you had an alcohol problem at tulane university. guest: i did not have an alcohol problem. i had a great time at tulane university. i recommend anyone going to new orleans should have a great time. i graduated 20 years ago. i am admitting to my flaws the way that barack obama admitted he did cocaine when he was in college. would you ask barack obama in an interview, would that be one of the 10 questions you ask, what is his relationship with cocaine? host: you just talked about quite a bit. that's where it came from.
next caller, go ahead. caller: i was listening this whole time. from the very beginning, i was struck by something. your guest regards himself as a default liberal. he said his parents were conservative republicans. i find that to be intellectually dishonest. people are more likely to change their religion from their childhood than to change their political affiliation of their parents. it seems to be underscored by this reliance on anecdotal stories. that seems to be the only evidence for this rather ironic claim that the left is constantly and selectively editing.
that sounded across the board. you absolutely cannot rely on these stories to paint the left in that light without also painting the right and the tea party in the exact same light. i will leave you with this one question. you said you were in support of the gay and lesbian log cabin. how does that jive with your tea party supporters? guest: i don't care. i am an independent. i only care what i think. i am not going to anyone. it is not my job to go to the tea party and say this is my opinion on something and you need to agree with me. this is a much broader, a big
tent, existential movement that is a challenge to the organized left. i am very proud to be supportive a "go proud." i don't understand that a movement can't allow for gay people to exist in it. i know gay people are against gay marriage. and a straight people who are for gay marriage. what i am for is an open and honest debate on the college campus. it does not happen now. if you are against gay marriage and you are gay, you are called a caterer. if you are straight and for the same position that barack obama and the dali lama have on a college campus or hollywood, you are called a hater. i believe and more voices, not less. i helped to create the huffington post because i
want more voices. that is my narrative and i am sticking to it. host: what is your car relationship with barry on a huffington? guest: it is awkward these days. i was writing for the front page of the huffington post and a group called color of change had been following me. this is a group that consists and was greeted by van jones. much of my reporting of him saying outrageous things and his communist past and his support of mumia abdul jamal and man in the various parts of his background were reported from my side. former acorn people started color of change, two entities that my journalism vanquished those two entities. they are now going to auriana huffington and abc and wherever i go in the media, they say why
would they allow that man to be there. they called a race baker and liar. i go to these meeting places and have to answer the same questions over and over where i answer truthfully. if people can show where i am not telling the truth, i would like to see it. i'm willing to take a lie- detector test. they don't like me because i tell the troops that they'd like to be told. they don't like the acorn thing because i was able to get that so that people were able to see even though the mainstream media did not want to see it. every office except for one, when a pension prostitute go in pretending they want to bring under age prostitutes over the border, a corn offered service with a smile to hook them up to government dependency. that is the reason why a d it wase-funded because it was patently obvious.
even some members of acorns t saidouche, we got caught. this is payback for having successfully exposed a corn for having many corrupt members and a leadership that was in complete disarray host: last call from west chicago, illinois, republican. caller: i have to say that i agree with andrew on a lot of stuff. i have been readingsaul alinsky's "rules for radicals." if i want to be allowed, i have to use their sandals. if you read his roles, what ever he tells us to do is the same thing that he has told them to do. we just follow him along. i think more americans should start raiding