tv Washington Journal CSPAN May 30, 2012 7:00am-8:04am EDT
foundation gets underway this morning at 11:45 eastern. coming at this hour on "washington journal," jay cost on his new book about the democratic party. copnner kennedy joins us to discuss j.p. morgan chase and financial regulations. later, "new york daily news"column the ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." mitt romney officially has enough delegates to be the republican nominee with a winning in the texas primary.
today president obama signs the export/import bill. the senate is out until next week. a western nation are expelling syrian delegates. our question is whether or not you think the u.s. should go further. here are the numbers to call. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. you can also find us online at twitter. you can also join the conversation on facebook by looking for a c-span or e-mail us, email@example.com. here is the headline in "usa today" this morning.
get involved militarily? should we send in drones? you think this has reached a point where the of intervention? how does it compare to libya? how is it compared to egypt, in your eyes? give us a call and let us know what to think. area in profile of the league. -- the league. as we mentioned, while there were some killed by tank fire, the rest had been executed.
we are trying to police our world. i just not want any more wars. we have a more money. you have a good day. host: before you go, what is the tipping point? when you think the u.s. should get involved in a place like syria? caller: the tipping point -- there isn't, really. we should not be involved there. we shouldn't be in the middle east at all, in my opinion. host: "the washington post" editorial says, who will stop syria's massacres?
president obama, and the u.s. as a whole? in south carolina, a democrat, the morning. caller: good morning. host: what you think about this? should the u.s. did involved in syria? caller: in my opinion, no. we have enough problems of our own. we to take care of our own problems. we need to get stuff straightened out. host: we will hear what mitt romney had to say about this. also, john mccain. here are the numbers if you want to join this conversation. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. joseph tweets and and says american troop intervention into syria is not an american national interest.
wendy, good morning. caller: after this last massacre, i said to have the ability. i say we go into that specific area and get involved with air power. i think they have gone too far. we've already gotten involved with a lot of different places. i am sure most people in the middle east are seeing the same thing. this is ridiculous. host: ok. john, a republican in arlington, virginia. caller: they should be trying to get the violence of down. we have heard, let's get rid of assad. no, let's get the violence down. we intervened in libya after 1000 people were killed. the integration resulted in 25,000 dead and 50,000 wounded. syria would be a lot worse.
i think the emphasis should be on getting the violence down and getting peaceful politics going in that country. it is not easy, but it is way better than a war. host: let's hear what the press secretary from the white house had to say about this yesterday. [video clip] >> in this case, we have removed options from the table. we do not believe that further militarization of the situation in florida, at this point, is the right course of action. we believe it would lead to greater chaos and greater carnage. however, again, we are assessing the situation and working with our allies and the security council as we continue to give the non-plan support and hope that the pressure on assad has an affect. we obviously believe there is an
affect among members of the assad regime to defect. we encourage those who would to take that action and separate themselves from a regime that will go down in history for its willingness to murder its own people. host: hi that was the white house secretary speaking in the briefing room. russia and china are blocking in the attempt intervention in syria. here is what john mccain has to say. greenville, south carolina. a democrat. good morning. are you with us? greenville, south carolina. germantown,ve on to
maryland. independent scholar. caller: thank you for taking my call. please give me enough time to talk and do not cut off after 30 seconds. if you go to infowars.com, he has an article. host: mike, tell us what you think about this. we want to hear your thoughts and opinions. caller: ok. the bbc pictures showing the child over is an old photograph from nine years ago from iraq. the bbc never issued an retraction. russia reported the people in this massacre were killed at close range. why would assad kill his own people? it does not make any sense. host: let's look at a commentary by it jamie fly.
there has to be some money involved. from the way i see it, most people that i hear talk about it, they just give everybody guns. let the law kill each other and let got sort them out. it is a shame that is the way the world is. host: on twitter -- how are we supposed to know what to do in syria? good morning. caller: good morning. i had the same opinion when we got involved in libya. today, there's a story on the front page of "the new york times" that i read. allies from the u.s. move to syrian diplomats. maybe diplomacy is the best way to do it. we will see how far they kick their heels. it is really hard to pinpoint
who is responsible here. i'm sure there are more than one dozen people responsible. i just do not think it is our role right now. here is why i draw comparisons to libya. in libya, the same thing was happening. gaddafi was an admitted terrorist. he admitted about that guy in the jail who put the bomb on the plane. and we all know what happens to gaddafi. it might be a little different in syria, but not much. and with, that is all i have to say this morning. thank you for c-span. host: let's look at the start he was referring to in "the new york times."
in california, pat, on the democrat line. caller: thank you. in a long, long time listener to c-span. this time of morning in california, i will tell you. i just went to the veterans ceremony on memorial day to put flowers on my husband's grave. no more intervention in the middle east for the united states. we do not need to lose any more american lives. not for this type of situation. my god. it is so terrible. these young people come back from the wars today in the middle east. their wounds are so horrific. lots of limbs and everything. it is not worth it to the united states. we have too much we need to do to get back on our feet again.
host: here is how mitt romney responded to what is happening in syria and expulsion of syrian timmer -- syrian diplomats around the world. this is from his website. kansas city, missouri, al on our independent line. caller: good morning. it is a shame on the international community not to get involved. shame on them that they are standing on the sidelines and watching tens of thousands of kids being massacred.
this regime is the most ruthless regime in the middle east. they are criminals and need to be taken away. they do not have to have boots on the ground. all the have to do is just take out the most important forces. that would solve the problem. host: what do you think about arming the rebels and bring in weapons? t think that is a safe call or a dangerous step. caller: it is not dangerous at all. they have to. those people are so helpless right now. the government party in syria right now aren't being armed by iran, russia, and china. the ports of syria -- while
those people are being helpless, you know? we have to arm those people. host: ok. comments coming into us on twitter and facebook. let's take a look at some of the other stories in the news right now. turning to politics. the texas primary happened yesterday and mitt romney has enough delegates in his camp now to get the gop nomination at the republican convention in august. let's talk now with "the washington post" political power -- political reporter. good morning. guest: good morning. host: everything in your paper
talks about the texas senate rate forcing a runoff. tell us about mitt romney's when and what it means for his presidency. guest: obviously, we all kind of knew that he would be the republican nominee for president. last night, in texas, by virtue of his win, he now has secured the number of delegates he needs to be able to officially when the republican nomination. it will obviously not be 100% official until the republican national convention in august. at this point, it is safe to say that he has secured the number of delegates he needs to win the national convention dom -- nomination. >> many of the headlines talking about his win being overshadowed. tell us about what is overshadowing the romney's win
in texas. guest: as he was winning the texas primary last nine was at a fund-raiser in las vegas with donald trump. his been a romney supporter for a couple of months now. this is the first time that mitt romney has actually used his help as a surrogate. before the fundraiser last night, trump went on cnn and talk to some media -- the big four, about the whole birth issue and casting doubt whether president obama was born in the united states. this is something the romney campaign would net -- would rather not be talking about. romney has set himself said that he was satisfied the present was born in hawaii. does not have any doubts about that.
trump keeps talking about and it creates an awkward situation for the campaign. host: how are they reflecting on trompe's comments? guest: they have not distance themselves from him personally. the have made clear that they do not agree with what he said about obama's birthplace. that is not always work out very well, because it is a very sensitive issue for a lot of people involved. it is definitely something that romney's campaign would not be -- would rather not be dealing with. goingit looks like we're to have to have a runoff. a tea party challenger is forcing that to happen. there is no clear winner. what will happen next? guest: the governor was the favored early on in this race. he nearly won the amount of
votes that he needed to win the primary outright. he needed to get 50% of the vote. he fell a bit short of that. now he will face a matchup with the former solicitor general of texas who has a tea party support in that race. he won the race by about 14 or 15 points, but that was a two- man race. people think that cruz can marshal that tea party support and make this a more competitive race. that is the tea party versus the republican party establishment. july 31 ofout on what that means. host: he was favored to win and then he saw the share of his boats slip below the 50% mark. how did tea party efforts coalesce in texas? did it come from inside the state? to outside groups come in?
guest: those are kind of the big groups that generally get behind these tea party candidates. the lieutenant governor has significant personal wealth and will be able to spend more than $9 million of his own company -- of his own money on the campaign. the question, going forward, is how to involve those groups get? before there were involved in the primary, there was a sense that it would go to a runoff and get more involved there. now this may focus more on those contests. we will see in the next few weeks. host: we also saw an upset in
the democratic race. in that 16th congressional district, reports the national journal. is this a big upset? guest: yes, it doesn't happen very often. this is only the fourth congressional incumbent who is lost a primary to a non- incumbent challenger this year. senator richard lugar lost his primary. it is unusual. i think the campaign was caught off guard by this challenge. that makes it a little bit harder he became the latest incumbent who lost the primary. now have many who lost the
primaries this year. host: we see him defeated as we see a tea party challenger. it is up for grabs. what is the take away from texas for the national scene? guest: there is all kind of change going on in this election. also, in the republican party, there is still this tea party elements that is very significant. we do not exactly know how significant it is. we're still trying to figure it out. they notched a big win in at nebraska. now have a chance to do it again in texas. i think the big take away here -- we will find out. host: thank you so much for talking with us.
guest: thank you. host: going back to our question, military intervention in syria. should we get engaged? should we get involved? is it worth american boots on the ground? should we get drones? richmond, virginia. what do you think? caller: bashar al-assad sucks. he is doing genocide on his own people. send him a message just like ronald reagan sent a message to gaddafi and 1986. host: a democrat in arizona. turn down your tv, please. you are on the air. barbara, are you with us? we have to move on. turn down your tv, folks. we look forward to talking with you. if steve, an independent. caller: i take it that we need
to get a coalition like jordan, libya and, and saudi arabia so we have credibility, especially with the muslims in the region. i think we can do it and take out assad. i am concerned about not putting american boots on the ground anymore. also, if we give the rebels arms, it seems inevitably does come back to be aimed at us or our allies at some point. aka, afghanistan. host: let's get a comment on twitter. do we need another war for candidates to distinguish themselves? talking about the politics of it all. we will look at some facebook comments in a moment and see what many more of you think. let's look at a couple other news stories briefly. the judge in the john edwards' trial, still no verdict.
date sent signals that they're not close to a verdict. looking at a couple of other items here. money is rolling in despite the wisconsin recall. the wisconsin governor who faces a recall next week mayst more than $5 million in the last week alone -- raised more than $5 million last week alone. that brings his total fund- raising to $30 million. we will see that play out in the next couple of weeks. from arizona, mike is a republican caller joining us now. what do you think about military intervention in syria?
caller: are you talking to me here? host: we are. you're on the air. caller: i have been considering that it is really not resident with a majority, large or small and the country, things about invading or using military activity in syria. what is important is that whatever is used is originating from the people are some government entity. it is going to have to be a catch word that those wanting a war feel they can successfully prosecute. so, in one sense, it is not relate morality. it is not economics. it is not even politics. it is can those who want the war, for whatever reasons they wanted, get away with it? host: facebook, coming into us. aba says, no on intervention.
-- bob says, no on intervention. anthony, in washington, d.c., a democrat. good morning. caller: i say, no. the only thing we do is we get our resources and give our brand enough time to stress their resources. which is connected down on another war. getting into a war. it is hard to get out of. host: what about air strikes? caller: you can do air strikes, the still need the support.
their air defenses stronger than libya's. they use a lot of the tax from russia, china, and iran. host: what would he do? if you do not use military force? caller: i would stick with diplomatic. he will fall. it is just a matter of time. i feel bad for the people in that country. eventually the rest of the world will come in. the united states cannot just keep going it alone. i think the president is doing the right thing. i am ashamed of mitt romney and john mccain. by then say things like that, it is easy this is america when you're not in that position. host: on facebook. would you think?
is there a domino of fact that play? you can join the conversation by giving us a call or tweaking in. missouri, barbara, democrats line. good morning. caller: why is it that our country can support rebels going against the government in their own country, and we assume that the government there deserves -- that the people should be armed and tried to kill the leaders of their country. kennedy that in this country? we would be murdered in the street as well. -- can we do that in this country? and where are these rebels doing this? if we get involved militarily, we will die and will be killing syrian civilians. host: an e-mail for seattle.
cincinnati, ohio. john, republicans line. good morning. caller: what you just read really describes the way i feel. we have no business or there. we cannot afford it. which not even really know. i have been following this war. which not even know who is really killing who. assad is saying the rebels are killing people. we have seen rebels had within general population of women and children. people getting killed.
we really do not know who is killing who there. it would not be the first time the rebels have killed people for political gain and blame it on their government. i am almost 50 years old. i've watched of this drop in 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. it is the same story played out over and over again. when is the united states going to learn that we're not the police of the world? if we cannot afford this anymore. that is number one. we just cannot afford it. we are so strapped her at home, we pay some taxes now, we to take care of our own people. host: let me read you a headline in "the hill." you are calling in on a republican line. what you think of the president's position versus mitt romney? caller: i actually agree with the president and i disagree with mitt romney. we have no right on armies lab
-- on these rebels because we do not know who they are. we now know what to do when they get in power. look at what happened to libya. case in point. you know? people walked off with stinger missiles. region and even now have the distinct missiles. thousands of the disappeared of the armory over there. the same thing to happen in syria. and there are a lot more well- armed than libya was. really, we need to stay out of it. let assad take care of his own civil war. host: bill bryson on twitter. jack, independent caller, welcome. caller: i guess the, i have to make is our politicians are crazy. we should do is cut our taxes
and go to war i guess. that is all i got a said. host: arizona, barbara. good morning. turn down your tv. caller: ok, i did. my comment is that ria, were all of those 150 got killed. host: what about it? caller: yes, i am here. host: turn off your tv and what do you think about syria? caller: i think it is unfair that although those people were killed, but i do not feel that we should send our children to be killed. there is then i'm not killing. when you send them over to the war, they are killed. i think they should stay at and let them handle their own. that the president worry about the united states and let mr. romney, if he wins, worry about
the united states. the has been enough killing of our children. host: thank you for your call. richard is an independent in massachusetts. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. all the stock but syria is a moot point. iran is the real problem. if iran can be slow down or stop, the nazis -- than the serious situation will be easier. we do not need to put american boots on the ground because in syria, it will not make any difference. host: richard, what do you think, if anything, should be done? was your reaction to the store is coming out of syria? caller: the stories are horrendous. but if we look through history, how many other situations? there have been other countries where this type of genocide has been committed and we have not done anything but pounder fist on the table and say it should be stopped.
it seems that we pick and choose which area and which suggests that is important to us based on politics rather than the actual acts of the individuals. iran needs to be stopped and syria will slow down. host: rhode island, democrats line. good morning. caller: i just want to say that i believe that our allies should take the lead role. like maybe china, russia should take up more of a lead role. maybe the arab league should get involved. before we get involved. i don't think we should get involved and start any more wars. spend money on wars. i think we should lower our defense and spend money in the united states. that is all i have to say. host: before the ego, russia and china are not giving condemning
syria. how long should the u.s. and the international committee wait for them to take the lead? caller: if they are friends with syria more than us, they have more of an influence. i believe they should take the lead role. if they do not condemn something like that, then we do not have the support, we will be fighting everybody. we know what get into a situation where we're at odds with china or russia or syria or the other arab countries. i did nothing wish to get ourselves into a situation where we spent 10 years and there, trying to rebuild their country when our country needs so much. host: steve wright sent by e- mail from colorado.
republicans on line. should the u.s. get involved militarily in syria? turn down your tv for us. what do you think? you're on the air. all right, we're going to move on. south carolina. caller: hello? host: you are on the air. caller: the answer to the first question is no, and held in that -- and hell no. it is not necessary for us to get in there. we have our proxy allies, saudi arabia, arming them. the guy who called from ohio is correct. propaganda is 24/7 in this country. you remember the kuwait babies thrown out of incubators? remember the meweapons of mass
destruction movie? we do not know who killed those people. we are do know is theat propagandized constantly. this is a long-planned since at least 1999. when he came back from yugoslavia, he was met by one of his generals say that they had a plan to topple seven governments in the middle east. well, we have toppled about half of that seven. william the couple more to go. syria is the next one on the list. it is time i guess. and iran, of course, the big prize will be next. host: consumer confidence falls in may. that is the headline in "the washington times." the drop could hurt president obama and election times. eight more states receiving in
no child left behind waiver. piquancy the mayor of new haven in a round-table discussion on education reform yesterday in connecticut. this, from the new york times. he used a web cam to spy on his roommate days before his roomma. and at this piece. the aid to cory booker has stepped down as communications director. she abruptly resigned yesterday
as he faces continuing criticism from democrats for slamming president obama's campaign adven capital. let's get back to your calls. randy, shreveport, independent line. should the u.s. get involved in syria? caller: well, no. they should never been involved in anything over there. this is all but the big stuff being orchestrated over there. the all-star with egypt. the banking system is china get these people unless they can control them. libya wasn't bothering anybody. they had probably the most
intellectual people over there in the middle east. he at least tried to educate the people. and now you've got out kind of running the show. host: you don't think a gaddafi needed to go? caller: in no friend of gaddafi, that is for sure. he wasn't bothering anybody. he got rid of his nuclear program after is our happened to iraq. this was all orchestrated. he had his own banking system. it is all about the banks. that is wrong pot and try to tell everybody, but nobody is listening. it will be the same thing all over it and whoever gets it. romney or obama in office. ron paul is the only one who would straighten this out. this is all orchestrated. the people do not understand that. as far as osama bin laden, he was probably killed in 2002.
host: world leaders pressured syria is the headline in "the baltimore sun." miami, florida. republican line. good morning. caller: the problem we have with syria is the same problem we had with libya. we did not know who is who. we do not know who the rebels are and the fighters. in libya, it was supposed to be a suppose a massacre. a massacre never took place. in syria, the massacre has been taking place for a very long time. nato, the north atlantic treaty organization that was founded in 1940 stopped russia oppose the
advancement and germany's re- rise. how are they going to attack a country in africa when has nothing to do with the north atlantic treaty organization? we talked about the $200 billion that was there. but in syria, this little bit of oil. gaddafi had this week oil. it was all peaceful. when we rose up in libya, they got arms. host: ok. let's look at a comment on twitter. coming up on "washington
journal" this morning, we will hear from author jay cost. he has a new book called "spoiled rotton." later on,connor kennedy joins us for a discussion on wall street and 2012. you can see this picture here of a bob dylan being awarded. a dozen others received the highest honor. let's look now at president obama talking about how the honorees have impacted him. [video clip] >> these are the recipients of the two dozen 12 medal of freedom. just on a personal note, i had a chance to see everybody in the back. what is wonderful but these events, for me, is that so many of these people are my heroes
individually. you know? i know how they impacted my life. i remember reading song of solomon when i was a kid and not just trying to figure out how to write, but how to think. i remember in college listening to bob dylan and my world opening up because he captured something about this country that was so vital. i think about delores and reading about her when i was starting off as an organizer. everybody on the stage has marsh my life in profound ways. -- has marked my life in profound ways. i think about my daughters who are tall and the gifted.
they are standing up straight and diving after loose balls and feeling confident and strong. and that i understand that the impact of these people have a extends beyond me. it will continue for generations to come. what an extraordinary honor to be able to say thank you to all of them for all of the great work they have done on behalf of this country and the world. it is now my honor to present them with a small token of appreciation. [applause] >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is "the wallstreet journal" -- joining us is jay cost, author of the new book, "spoiled rotton."
good morning. guest: good morning to you. host: you say the democratic party has shifted to being of the people to special interests. what special interest? and how did that happen? guest: it is a plethora of special interests. it is a process that began 80 years ago. franklin roosevelt became president in 1943. his -- he was conservative. but the time he left in 1945, the balance shifted to the north. one of the recent that happened is not simply because the roosevelt efforts to combat the great recession -- the great depression, but also his efforts to build a democratic majority. the actions he took in procedure that, in particular, using the powers of the government as it had been newly expanded during the new deal. for instance, he brings an
organized labor as an interest group to the party. previously, labor had been a free-floating player and not very powerful, at that, in the 1920's. by the end of roosevelt, it was extremely powerful. you also see him putting the machines under his heel, under the federal government increasingly. at times that meant destroying it. in other cases, the growing machine in chicago is now at fostering it. even in the case of pittsburgh where there had been a republican machine by the time roosevelt left, there is a democratic machine. of course, roosevelt maintained the southern plank by giving them all sorts of special carve out some things like social security and the agricultural
adjustment act. at the end of roosevelts's tenure, it really pigeonholed democratic leaders. they try to bring groups into the coalition by offering them special benefits. also, more importantly, once they were in the coalition, maintaining their support through special deals. host: how does that play out when we look at president obama? who'd you think he is beholden to and other house democrats? guest: the turning point is the end of the 1960's and the cultural and social economic revolution. that brings in new groups. few of the environmentalist movement, the consumer rights movement, the fed it -- the feminists. then in the 1990's, bill
clinton does a good job of appealing big business away from the republican party, at least the republican monopoly starts to disappear. businesses start to become free- floating entities. the democrats start buying their support in a lot of respects. when we come to obama, his problem in office, in my opinion, is he has this vast array of interest groups and his party. all of them work hard for the party and all of them expect something in return. the challenge this president has had and i think it is a virtually insurmountable one is to maintain the support of those curbs while simultaneously governing for the public interest. that is the court challenge of the democratic party. that is the thesis of my book, that there have come too many groups for the party to govern the entire public.
host: if you would like to speak to jay cost, here are the numbers to call. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. jay cost, d thing there is ever a golden age of the democratic party? a time when it fulfilled its mission? guest: i think all political parties have this problem to some extent. their goal is to acquire the control the whole government. they never do that by getting the whole load in the country. the only get a portion. there's this tension within both political parties to support and reward their. their contributors, their donors, their base, while also governing the entire country. in the book, i conceive it as a balancing act. it is expected for political leaders like roosevelt to take care of his own voters.
is this sort of unseemly from a broad, a theoretical standpoint. when you get into the meat and potatoes of american politics, it is quite typical. i think the party was able to strike a balance to the 1960's, but it became too difficulty, really starting in the carter administration. we see this process began to break down and carter failing to juggle his party coalition with the need for national policies. this is something that continues through the present day. host: mitt romney looks to have the republican nomination because he won at texas yesterday. as he heads into this with the support of the republican party behind him, critics say he has fallen into big business. the point to his record. republicans are beholden to a
whole set of other clients. ?here they're beholden to guest: i know that there is any doubt that the republican party has historically been the party of big business. that was the criticism roosevelt launched in 1932. woodrow wilson in 1912. up through to the present day. that is exactly the point that barack obama is making now during his campaign. i think, in many respects, it is a fair point. the point of the book is not to suggest that the republican party's hands are clean. it was really just a story about the democratic party. there's a lot of overlaps and how they behave and in many respects the have the same problems. and they're very unique. the story of both parties is different.
arguing the democrats have a problem is not to suggest the republicans do not have their palm -- do not have a problem. in fact, i think they do. host: you can check his morning columns twice a week. north carolina, are democrats aligned. caller: good morning. i wanted to tell you that i agree. i met the tail-end of the baby boomer generation. remembering the 1960's and kennedy asking not what your country to do for you, but when you can do for your country. that seems to have dissipated. like to say, it is all about what have you done for me? it is not going to work if we do not all pitch in.
we are asking whether or not america should get involved in syria on a global aspect. i just feel that if we do not work together, things are not going to pan out right. we're the young this country compared to everybody else. we have a whole continent. everybody is looking at us. it just seems that we have to be a different mind the source. the one that i can up with, we all pitch in no matter what. the other one, somebody comes in, what about me? what about me? guest: the i think that is a great comment. the country has always had the problem of what you might call tribalization. that estimate is back to the founding of the country,
frankly. i think the challenge, and it is a persistent one with any kind of government that is run by political parties, that their purpose is to win elections. there are lots of different ways to win elections. unfortunately, one way is to curry favor with the individual groups. it is not a guarantee the political parties are going to try to win exclusively by offering brought national policies. i think it is a challenge that both political party suffer from right now. the focus on an electoral victory. host: independent caller from florida, good morning. caller: i want to make a couple of comments. is important to stand when the nation was founded, those who participated were men who owned property. it was considered the bedrock of whether night you were able to exercise influence a bearde-.
all the founders realized that the purpose of performing political party was divisive power. unlike your guest, i see the development of political parties as an issue, unlike president issue. i think it is a natural outgrowth of what happens as people come together to use the mechanisms of government in order to further their interests. yes, the democrats have issues. they are trying to meet the needs of a broad coalition. likewise with respect to the republicans. this is the american political system. unless you want revolutions, i think the political party system in the united states serves us well. it should be revised in such a way that suits our culture.
i think before he paints the american political party system with a broad brush of being effective or flawed, think of the alternative. guest: those are some good comments. i think i would make two points. the first one is i agree with the premise that political parties in this country are inevitable and not a bad thing. i think they are a good thing. you can look as early as the debate in the constitution of 1787 through all of 1788 and you can see the beginnings of these political factions that evolved into the jefferson and hamilton parties. political parties in this country are pretty inevitable.
that being said, i think there have been times in history when the competition between the two parties has been helpful and constructive. there have been times where it has not been constructive. when we think about american history, we usually think about the founding period, the civil war, and then there is this a blank spot until the great depression. that is in large part because the country did not get much of anything done during that time because the two parties were focused on small issues that did not affect the great vast of population and not focusing attention on the key issue of the day like territorial expansion, industrialization, and the urban crisis. all of these issuers were
festering in the 19th century and were left unaddressed because the party system had broken down. while i agree political parties are inevitable, i also think they are prone to be corrupted and broken-down. that is what i think we have right now. i think the party system is extremely dysfunctional. host: what would you do to fix that? guest: that is a good question. the first thing i would do is institute term limits. i think they go a long way in cleaning out the established interests within the government. the argument of my book is this problem appears most notably in congress and in the house of representatives. i do not think the 535 members of congress are so essential to the nation's continuing
functioning that we do not need term limits in the second thing i would do is probably eliminate -- do not need term limits. the second thing i would do is eliminate party primaries particularly for congressional seats. the electorate does not pay enough attention to be able to use the primaries as a vehicle to clean out and monitor incumbents. i think the old party system and reinvigorating the local parties would be a good thing. something that we forget about now. nowadays, political parties are like target and walmart been date they just appear on television and send us messages -- target and walmart. they just appear on television and send us messages through television. 100 years ago, the political
parties were mass institutions that cultivated broad participation in this country. for instance, the election in 1896. voter turnout in ohio hit all boards of 95%. -- upwards of 95%. i think one of the big differences was that back then these parties were these mass organizations that brought people into the process and served as not just political organizations but civic and social organizations as well. one of the big reasons why we do not have that is because of the institution of primaries. host: john on our independent line, good morning. caller: 47 years old and i am
unhappy with the way my life has been going on for the last three years. i know so many people my age that are out of work. i have been is security officer for so many years. it has only been three years since i have been out of work. i have always been a hard worker and then it just seems like -- i sent out a million resumes, and a lot of people calling me back saying i have too much experience. i can give you $7.50 an hour or $8. i am not prejudiced because i grew up in west new york county. my best friends were spanish and every kind of nationality you could think of. there was a long stretch of railing that everyone was hanging out and they were all
teenagers from 13 to 25, and none of them were working. i tried to realize why none of them were working. every single restaurant on the boardwalk -- there are 50 mexicans in every kitchen. they are all willing to work for $5 an hour. host: how does your stance turned into how you are going to vote this fall? caller: i do not know how i am going to vote. politics have been very hard to me in the last 10 or 15 years. its seems like most politicians do not care about the people they they talk all of this technical talk. i do not understand a word they are saying. they use such large words. they need to speak, and english
for people to understand what is going on -- they need to speak english for people to understand what is going on. guest: i think he is tapping into a broad sentiment that is out there and a shared sense among all that political processes are breaking down. increasingly, our representatives in washington do not speak for us. they speak for somebody else. not entirely sure who that is sometimes. i think this is an acceleration of a broad trend that goes back to the late 1960's. when you ask people do you trust the government, the majority of people would say yes. now, if a pollster asked me that question, i would probably laugh because of course i do not.
i think that is the majority sentiment out there now. i think it is a problem that both political parties have. i think it is going to make it extremely difficult for the next president to form a governing coalition and actually govern. very difficult to do that in a republican form of government like ours when you do not have the trust of the people. not the trust in the people and their personalities, but increasingly there is a distrust about our institutions themselves. when you look at the job approval ratings with congress, that is a real warning signal. i think it signifies that people's suspicion to move beyond the personalities that they see on television and to the institutions themselves -- in other words, people are
realizing these institutions are broken. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i do not really see that the institution is broken. there are some things about the way the thing works that are broken. largely to me, it revolves around the fact that you have two competing political ideologies and only two. one of them revolves around the success of the individual creating the common good and the other revolves around elite people deciding what the common good is and trying to force everybody into that model. but on a larger scale, it really comes down to people have forgotten about the golden rule. it is not hard to treat people the way you want to be treated. yet when we elect people to
public office, they look at their offices as a way to increase their personal wealth of connectedness, and we cannot expect to have any real constitutional government as long as the concept of a moral and religious people has been thrown out the window. host: do you see that across the board? caller: it is hard to say because i do not want to lay blame on any one's feet. human nature has fallen. the fallen nature exists throughout the entire human race all the time and that means it exists in the political parties. from where i sit, it seems to me pretty well obvious that the founders of this country intended for a moral and religious people to be the basis
of representative government and self-government. people needed to be able to govern themselves. host: we will get a response from jay cost. guest: i think this country has always had a problem with graphs in politics. we still have that today. the returns on investments for members of congress far outstrip that of the average investor. there is this great book, over 100 years old written by one of the bosses of tammany hall. he called honest graf as seeing my opportunities and taking them. of course we had a lot of the things that george washington plunkett did have since been
made illegal. but there are a lot of ways where politicians can seize their opportunities and take them. it goes back -- your caller was articulating many of the same sentiments that andrew jackson was making in the 18 twenties. i think the great challenge the comes when do we get to the point in this country when the typical gamesmanship of politicians becomes so overwhelming and so problematic that the public could begins to be undermined? for instance, tammany hall -- what you could say about tammany hall in a lot of respects is it kept the trains running on time. that stopped happening when the great depression hit, and there was wide discontent in new york
city. we have seen this before in the past. the concept of patronage on the federal level where presidents fire all of the people in the government and hire their own supporters. james garfield was assassinated in 1881 because of patronage. look, the country is not functioning very well and i think most people agree about that. i think the sentiment about that remain very polarized because of ideology and partisanship. if this dissatisfaction continues for the next couple of years, i have a difficult time seeing the public not sweeping out the established interest. in the modern memory, we have no recollection of that happening.
but it does happen before. it happened in the 1890's, the 1930's, and it can happen again. if you go to washington, d.c., and see these buildings on k street, you know they are chock full of interest groups but it does not change the fact that the constitution empowers the people with the final call. host: jay cost, author of "spoiled rotten." you read about the health care law that president obama pushed to get signed into law. you'd say that it was a symbol throughout the democratic party that various people tried to
fight for. harry truman back in the 1940's. teddy roosevelt called for a national health service back in 1912. health care reform turned out to be the party's undoing. even though congress wanted to see this go forward. what do you mean by the party's on doing? guest: health care has long been a liberal goal, and it is a noble one. as a conservative, i do not have the same sense of the means by which we can achieve universal health care. for liberals, much more so than conservatives, their priority in politics is a quality. health care in the provision of universal health care would be a great step forward for the quality -- for equality.
the book does not have anything to say about single payer for instance. i have my opinions on the efficacy of programs like that, but that is not my specialty. is a problem for the democrat with the health care bill was that in pursuing what has long been a dream of egalitarianism and a great step forward in national equality, the democrats signed into law a bill that treats people in grossly unequal ways. this is where we were talking earlier about the clinton administration bringing in big business. and the health care bill is not just fall of payoffs for feminists and labor unions,
although it is, but it also includes payouts for the pharmaceutical industry, the doctors, the hospitals, the nurses. that is the way they chose to write the bill. the obama administration in my opinion learned the wrong lessons from the clinton experience with universal health care. clinton had had three clinton stepped away from the bickering and input and write the bill with just the experts. the bill that was produced offended to many interests within the congress and it never even got a vote. what the obama administration did was the opposite. they opened the doors wide to interest groups that were willing to deal. they were very concerned about
getting another version of those ads i think it was from insurance companies. they were very worried about interest groups writing ads to undermine public opinion on the bill so they made deals with scores of groups. they were this close to making a deal with the insurance companies even as they were on television blasting the insurance companies for being so evil. they were working behind the scenes to make a deal with them. in the senate finance committee, the final draft had too weak of an individual mandate which forced out insurance companies. host: let's get a few more comments and calls. about 10 minutes left. this viewer writes on twitter --
guest: i think that sends the citizens united case -- it is a red herring. i think both sides get themselves hung up on the symbolic -- the right has george soros, the left has koch brothers. the problem in this country is increasingly these political action committees and lobbyists in washington, d.c., that the average citizen has not heard of. to suggest that this started with citizens united i think is a red herring. the problems date back to the 1971 campaign at. organized labor put pressure on them to do so. ever since then, it kick open the door to countless streams of lobbyists and political action committees.
the real problem is under the still.t radar atst this point host: another comment on twitter. michael has to say from michigan on our democrats lined. caller: hi. everybody is crying that we need to cut a billion here, a billion there. just before bush left office, they gave the banks $7.70 trillion. sign off on this, obama. he did. they kept that a secret for three years. $7.70 trillion. coupons that into any computer, and it comes -- you punch a that
into any computer, and a comes up in just one month's time right before obama came in. why doesn't anybody comment on that ever? guest: i think both parties have a problem with the big banks. you look at the tarp bill, the majority of republicans voted against it. if you look at the contributions that obama and john mccain received, obama out-raised john mccain two to one. businesses are very, very smart. liberals and conservatives only like to play one side. they apologize for one side and do nothing but criticize the other. most are very smart and they buy
access. they are more than happy to play both sides of the i/o. host: john is an independent caller from georgia. caller: good morning. i want to comment about the guy who called in and talked about hispanics working for $5 an hour. he must have forgotten that this country was built on slave labor. he talks lies out of both sides of his mouth. host: are you a democrat? caller: i am an independent. host: what do you think about the state of the democratic party and the republican party? caller: what i think about the democratic party?
we have an lot of money into politics now. comment about that, what the supreme court did, and money buys elections. guest: i am not sure money buys elections. at least on the presidential level. the way money functions in this country is a lot more subtle. i think it intimidates challengers to members of congress. it is a classic example of what happens every time there is a big wave election. in 2010, you saw the republicans beat a lot of democratic incumbents largely through individual contributions and grass-roots. then they get into office and are going to raise twice as much money, and now the money is going to come largely from
political action committees. of the goal is to intimidate would-be challengers from running -- the goal is to intimidate would-be challengers from running. in other words, money works in much more subtle ways. i think the human cry over citizens united is really misplaced. although i do not agree with the opposition of that case, by focusing on citizens united, you missed the real underlying tendencies of how money to operate in politics. it tends to happen much more often in congress than at the presidential level particularly in the house of representatives. host: let's hear from don in detroit. caller: i am calling to protest the "washington journal" -- he
is here to sell his partison book. the way you are presenting it is this guy is presenting the facts and nothing about the facts. host: it sounds like you take issue with what jay cost is saying. give us your opinion. caller: he probably mention it tammany hall of five or six times. i have not read his book so i cannot comment on that. tammany hall was a machine a 50ublican state foabout years ago or 100 years ago. specifically, if you look at institutions like the democratic party in wisconsin or minnesota
and how it was a coalition of farm groups that came together. they formed a coalition in the late 1920's with labor. even until this day, the democratic party is still called the farm labor party in minn.. host: we have a liberal guest coming on next. jay cost is a writer from "the weekly standard," a conservative publication. talk about what our caller had to say. labor, meaning individual interests and not necessarily the union. farms, the farmers, not just big business. guest: i think i would make two points. the first is regarding the book itself. i do not make any claims to be riding without a point of view.
frankly i think anybody who is trying to be objective with a capital blow -- the point is to withabout republican ism a small 'r'. look, i appreciate that as a conservative, liberals are not necessarily going to buy the argument. on the flip side, someone not wed into the democratic party, perhaps i am in a position to critique it. i tried to do so in a responsible way. i think if the caller read the book, he would be surprised in many respects. talking about tammany hall and
why i mentioned it as many times , it was destroyed by franklin roosevelt himself. roosevelt threw his weight behind and split the vote in new york city for the mayor. and went on to make sure laguardia had support. the point of mentioning tammany hall, franklin roosevelt ported the model into the national government in a lot of respect. talking about organized labor. the problem i have with organized labor is it is an interest group within the democratic party. increasingly when it comes to choosing between the public good and the interests of organized
labor, the democrats are going to choose the latter. the farmers have been a broad based interest for a long time, but that does not change the fact that after harry truman won the election, he and his advisers looked at the returns from the great plains and noticed that he did very well in the farm belt. a plan was created as an effort to buy off the farmers of this country. something that harry truman tried to do. that is the point of the book, that the democratic party increasingly uses the powers of government to bring in new groups to its coalition permanently or pay off other groups. this is something that every democratic leader has been obliged to follow. host: jay cost is the author of "spoiled rotten."
he is a staff writer at "the weekly standard" and writes a twice weekly column. covering everything as he does it from politics to the economy to what is going on in washington, joining us this morning from pittsburgh, pennsylvania hostcoming up next, we will talo conor kennedy from the progressive change campaign committee. we will talk about regulation in particular. later, s.e. cupp will be our guest. first, this news update from c- span radio. >> more on yesterday's primary in texas. the former chairman of the house intelligence committee was
defeated for reelection last nine by a former council member who won enough votes to avoid a runoff. he now becomes the sixth house incumbent to lose this year. international reaction from poland reacting to remarks made at yesterday's medal of freedom ceremony at the white house. president obama referred to "polish death camps." the phrase is considered offensive in poland. responding to the phrase, the polish foreign minister writes on his twitter account "it is a shame that a ceremony was overshadowed by ignorance and incompetence." the white house says the president misspoke. later today, a jewish heritage
month reception at the white house. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> sunday. >> i think the problem with walter cronkite is people only see him as a friendly man but there is another side of him that wanted to be the best. he was obsessed with ratings. he is probably the fiercest competitor that i have ever written about and i have written about presidents and generals. to be the best was very pronounced. >> a best-selling author on his new biography of walter cronkite. sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: conor kennedy is a senior associate at progressive change campaign committee. thanks for coming and.
what is your group's message on wall street reform? guest: the progressive change campaign committee has almost 1 million members. our basic idea is the middle- class's savings should not be invested in financial, risky, shady deals on wall street. four years after the financial collapse, nothing has changed. we see with jpmorgan they have lost $2 billion unexpectedly and could go up to $5 billion. it could be up to $100 billion invested in these shady financial dealings when we know they caused the 2008 financial collapse. it is time for a new glass- steagall which is the smartest, simplest wall street law in recent history. host: let's talk more about glass-steagall and why you think it would be effective
coming back. as noble as glass-steagall and maybe to some, some say it would not necessarily affect the financial crisis and we saw a few years ago. guest: i disagree. having not repealed glass- steagall made the 2008 collapse less painful, but "the new york times" road the editorial calling for the ultimate repeal of glass-steagall which allowed the banks to invest over $100 trillion in these financial dealings. that is the life savings of basic families and communities and something that needs to be drawn back. four years after the major financial collapse of 2008, and we have not seen accountability. in 2012, that is going to be a major theme for voters. host: in response to the tenure
of nearly 5000 banks during the great depression and created the fdic and the federal deposit insurance. it regulated speculation. it sounds like it is the separation of the commercial and investment banking that is crucial to you. guest: basic banking should entail communities investing their money in basic banks, and that money should be loaned out to small businesses leading to job growth. right now, only 2% of the money has loaned out to small businesses in our community. at a time when unemployment is too high. we have an unemployment crisis in this country. big banks should serve communities. that is what makes them work. host: conor kennedy with the progressive change campaign committee. last year, you were awarded --
your group was awarded the most valuable campaign. how are you making a difference? what is your organization doing to get involved in the races and get candidates in office? guest: what the committee stands for is people-power campaigns on the hill and progress of folks out in the country who are democrats with spines. when democrats on the major issues of the day are actually major, majority issues that most people agree with, they really should stand up and recognize there is a cavalry waiting for them which is why thousands have signed onto a petition to reinstate glass-steagall to update it for the 21st century. host: let's go to the phones. from pensacola, florida, good
morning. caller: how are you this morning? the thing that concerns me is that banks are going to do what they are allowed to do. bought the corruption in congress is my concern-- but the corruption in congress is my concern. they trade on information to increase the size of their purse. spencer bacchus and alabama traded on the information that henry paulson gave him before the 2000 eighthcrash. -- 2008 crash. nancy pelosi was able to have a sweetheart deal on an ipo of information that she was given. so, the congress has become a corrupt place, not as a whole perhaps, but a lot of individuals are there to sweeten
their own pockets. we need term limits and we need to turn over congress on a frequent basis. guest: i think that is a very interesting comment. when it comes to corporate influence in washington, it is overwhelming. i think there would be some people that would respond for self-regulation of the banks. we need to reform government while also using it to achieve the goals we cannot achieve on her own individually. host: are you disappointed in democratic leaders including president obama and how they have responded to the j.p. morgan chase financial law? guest: "the wall street journal" ran a poll and said that two- thirds of americans do not fundamentally believe that obama's promise of financial reform has been fulfilled.
some folks are still fighting to hold our politicians accountable and fighting to make sure that we have an economy that creates jobs for folks. that is why if you believe in that, check out some of the things we are doing and joined the fight. honestly, we lived in a democracy where folks have the ability to have their voices heard. host: nelson, welcome to the program. caller: good morning. ok, i do agree with the aspect that the glass-steagall act is the only thing that is going to stop what is happening with the banks. the problem is trade between the corruption and the power that they wield is something tough to have our government regain what is there at the moment. being able to have -- keep it
separate. maybe turn fannie mae and freddie mac into a private bank. better,akes for a sound bank. you can even come up with a better model for loans or mortgages that could be applied. there are other alternatives. so, it is a tough fight this nation is having to change the banking system and bring it back to glass-steagall. i think it is better to separate from them and allow them to do what they are going to do. guest: nelson, i just want to say that it is great to see that
republicans are on board with glass-steagall as well. i think you will find there is a number of tea party conservatives who recognize that we should not be bailing out the big banks. i also want to address the idea that this is a tough fight and we should therefore compromise. for us, that is just not the answer. the answer is to draw a line in the sand and go out to the country to make the case and to have folks across the country let their representatives know this is an important element that needs to be put into law. glass-steagall is a simple idea and has worked in the past, creating the long this periodo o of financial stability -- longest period of financial stability we have had. this is the first step in
getting control of our country again. host: someone tweeted in earlier saying -- guest: we have a struggle and it is a bipartisan struggle. you have campaigns on the one hand and corporate influence on the other. when you take bold positions that the banks quite honestly do not like, i think at the end of the day, if you talk to most bankers after hours, what we are talking about is reasonable. you recognize that there will be more volunteers and more grass roots donor's bank that is what we stand for. it works. roots donors.ass that is what we stand for. it works. host: let's take a look.
[video clip] >> what is his record? >> your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot. >> 2000 dealerships were shut down, wiping out over 100,000 american jobs. >> your job is to think about those workers who get laid off. >> obama invested our tax dollars in solyndra. >> that risky investment strategy does not stop there. 11 green energy companies got billions of tax dollars and declared bankruptcy or are suffering from other serious financial issues. >> failed investment strategies, the jobs eliminated, billions lost.
plaguing wall street games with our money. >> this -- playing wall street gains with our money. host: an american crossroads ad against president obama. some of the things they are criticizing are those that you have been criticizing. what do you think? guest: when it comes to investment in green energy, risk is something you will need to incorporate because it is important for the country to move forward and will limit our dependence on foreign oil. that is an important goal and something that matters. when it comes to wall street's influence, it would be one thing if the republicans were criticizing obama and trying to limit the amount of influence in the country. i am on board with that goal. but offer a better alternative.
self-regulation, it does not work. beyond that 30-second ad, he will recognize that the republicans are not -- you will recognize that the republicans are not on the right side of this issue. some are calling for corporate accountability and making sure our economy works. host: from ohio, hi, cindy. good morning. caller: good morning. that ad is so laughable. what the heck? look at how much halliburton took from us. i saw this on the news quite a while back, 2014, they plan on -- all government tax, you have to have an account for it to be
put into. if this is right, we'd better put these banks in line because that will be the next thing. people need to be held accountable. it is not right. the little man out here, trying to live month-to-month. i am on disability, $700 a month. i would like to see them try that. people have lost their livelihood and their sense of self worth more than anything. i do not even know if you want to call them people because they just do not care about us. host: are you going to get involved in the campaign at all? in the presidential campaign or local political races where you live? caller: i am not involved in any campaign at all here except to
try to get people that make these laws abide by them right now because i have a son-in-law who fought in iraq. they keep trying to jail him because they try to keep taking away their compensation for child support. we try our best to fight the government laws, and no one wants to help accept what the bully in jail. host: how do you channel -- ac except put the boy in jail. how did you channel that anger? guest: we have funneled that energy into fundamental change. host: how you get somebody from
being upset to becoming involved? guest: one of the chief assets that we have in congress is we connect people in congress to real folks on the ground who have important stories to tell about lost benefits and how the wall street collapse and what has been going on has directly impacted them. when you see your story or your name on a petition being delivered to an office, he recognized that you have the ability to change things in congress -- you recognize that you have the ability to change things in congress. that is why we encourage people to take a look at our campaigns because we have progressives out there fighting the good fight on the campaign trail and they will continue to do so. host: conor kennedy is a senior associate with the progressive change campaign committee. elizabeth warren is running for
senate in massachusetts. how are you involved in her campaign? guest: i run the legislative side. then there is the progressive change campaign committee. we stand for the same basic ideals and we work together. recruiting grass-roots donors, volunteers, and new media people that will be able to get her message out and make the case. the more you hear about this race, the more you recognize who is on the right side of history. that is elizabeth warren. she has a proven track record and is unafraid to take on the important fight on behalf of the american middle class. she held folks accountable and she is going to do that in the senate. we are going to be able to recruit a large calory of folks, both candidates in the house and senate but also grass-roots
activists who are going to make their voices known in washington blamed an host: that is the policy advocacy arm of the -- known in washington. host: that is the policy advocacy arm of the progressive change campaign committee. how much money are they giving to the campaign at this point? guest: my job is to talk to the office is about policy. she was the largest senate raiser throughout the fall and a lot of folks are wondering how can i go about doing that. where is that power coming from? it is coming from the fact that she does not back down and will hold wall street accountable. independence and swing states all recognize that we need to do more. we need to do more to hold wall street accountable.
most believe that wall street executives' crimes have contributed significantly to the financial collapse. that is why some are saying wall street bankers should be held accountable for their crimes. host: let's go to an independent caller from baltimore. good morning. caller: good morning. glass-steagall needs to be reinstated. everybody deals with commercial bankers. they go to congress and get their money back. that is just not an even playing field. more need to be told to the american people of what glass- steagall actually means. if it was still in effect, this
financial situation would have never happened. it is in st.. -- it is insane. the banks are not regulated. guest: i totally agree. when it comes to the banks that life the middle-class' savings, they should not be in the business of making profit deals. glass-steagall basically stands for fairness. the banks are at a five-year high for profit but small business loans are at a low. a lot more is sent into these crazy credit default swaps and derivatives where warren buffett has called financial weapons of mass destruction. your caller rightfully said if
these big, risky deals end up with profit, the ceo's get to keep them but if they lose they pass off their losses to the taxpayers. i am not sure why government insurance should be put towards banks profits. i am not sure why banks should be able to take risky bets with our money and then be bailed out. host: one story online says -- we are looking to see it new numbers come in. that is a significant amount of money and the largest your group
has both contributed and drummed up support for. is encouraging people to donate to the campaign -- encouraging people to donate to the campaign and act as an adviser. guest: we show folks who is on their side. a large majority of that comes from small donors, $20 or less. every time they hear that, they are excited not only about the resources but where it comes from. even a $3 check is a packet of trust. host: difficult to track how much these organizations have raised for warren. the fcc only requires disclosure of donors more than $200. virginia beach, good morning.
caller: i am a republican in virginia beach and i agree 100% with what you said about reinstating glass-steagall. you started talking about your support for warren and howwall street. i think establishment politicians organized this whole thing because they have wrote the laws. i think elizabeth warren is a product of this and also she supports dodd-frank. we have seen that dodd-frank does not work. they need to reinstate glass- steagall. you saw what happened with facebook. guest: i think when it comes to
financial disclosure, i probably disagree with the caller. what i am surprised with is she thinks elizabeth warren is a member of the establishment. this is someone who has held wall street accountable. she has fought the good fight. i commend the fact you have republicans, independents, and democrats working together toward a joint gold. host: george is on our democrats' line. good morning. caller: good morning. wages falling at the expense of rising productivity and stock prices growing. we need less dependency on wall
street and more local self proprietor's flourishing in our community. a little bit of wall street is ok. they micromanage every retail outlet. they do not one people's skills or creativity or imagination. we need less dependency on wall street. we need to choose local so people have less dependent on wall street. thank you. guest: i totally agree and i think why it is one of the reasons why we are supporting glass-steagall and fighting congress and white people have signed onto -- and why people
have signed a petition online. we have basic savings banks that make good loans to small businesses that create balanced returns and jobs. we have a banking sector that works. when big institutions serve communities, that is great. when they do not, we need to reform them. host: on twitter, one writes -- guest: we are working hard and fighting to make sure we hold obama accountable. part of that means showing what happens when you have progressives that actually stand for something, taking a big stand on key issues. one candidate is running an historic ad. wall street bankers who committed criminal acts in the
run-up in 2008 should be sent to jail. that is what many fundamentally believe in something at the end of the day will help that candidate and his run against a democrat and in the general election. when president obama sees when he sees what is going on in new hampshire and the successes on the ball progresses taking stand, he will come around. we need to work hard as a group to organize and to have a sustained progressive movement. host: conor kennedy is a senior associate with p street. campaignking about 2012 and campaign reform.
here's a story from "the washington post." host: you are putting money into this. is is the final stretch? should democrats have done more? guest: democrats should always do more to make sure they are holding republicans accountable. that's something that's always true. sure working hard to make we're holding scott walker
accountable and i'm optimistic. host: some people say more money should have gone in earlier. guest: we should work hard and that we're putting in the time and energy and resources to win this fight. host: do you take the democratic committee to task for not investing more and d.c. this as a bellwether -- and it do you see this as a bellwether? guest: it spoke to the fact that when you have politicians who are somewhat popular, making sure that local media is paying attention is going to have a ripple effect. scott walker is well known because of all the things that he is done.
i'm pretty optimistic about the situation in general. this is an important message out to folks. he will not be able to advocate on what he is after. host: tom is an independent caller in arlington, texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to back up a few callers. everyday somebody calls in and says, we need term limitations. we need more than term limitations. when you go down to cast your vote and your candidate gets elected, he gets your proxy with that vote. beyond that vote, we have nothing legally binding between us and the people we elect.
if we did have something legally binding, then there is a wrongdoing by an elected official in office, they could be fired. right now we're stuck with them. hopefully those them back out. the memory of the public in this country is so short and it seldom happens. thank you and have a nice day. guest: it is important when reforming our electoral process. that gives me hope in our democratic system and that is why i am a part of both progressives and -- bold progressives. host: tom from north plainfield, new jersey.
good morning. you are on the program. caller: thank you for taking my call. i hear you talking about elizabeth warren. i lean republican. she has used the opportunity to further her education and used it to benefit for whatever the reason was. i'm blaming the system for allowing it to happen. when we find out -- host: i think we lost tom. elizabeth warren is part native american. what do you think of for using that as something she describes herself. guest: i don't have time to
think about that when i'm wary about making the economy work for the working class. i am working to make sure i'm fighting on behalf of our members. we have a million folks across the country that wants to focus on corporate accountability and to protect our seniors. i compare this to perhaps the salience of something like affirmative action and whether elizabeth warren is native american or not, i see the former as taking precedence. it is more important to focus on that. there are corporations that are making sure that you hear that story because they are afraid of the substance of her message. we need to bring back glass- steagall. she sent an e-mail saying this is the time for a new ass-
steagall. we should not be bailed out on the back and. that is the real message. host: scott brown is talking about this issue. she continues to be dogged about her heritage. guest: again, i think this is going to blow over. i do not think people care about this. it just doesn't matter. what matters is that people have a safe and healthy economy and that they are getting jobs and
that we're making sure the money we put into bank of america and citigroup, they are using the money not to gamble wall street's' casinos but to invest in small businesses and to create job growth in this country. if you ask the average voter which you care about, the average job or who was a native american, they will talk about their jobs and the economy and an economy that works for the working class. host: charlene is a democrat. go right ahead. caller: good morning. i was thinking i feel like a greater loss of trust in banks then and our governments because after glass-steagall and the low
tax rate for the uber-wealthy and the concentration of wealth and citizens united -- i do not trust the supreme court. the supreme court has passed the most crazy what ever they are. i feel like there is a whole confluence of events that puts power and money in the hands of a few and that this election is going to be flawed by the republicans. host: what is your solution? caller: the immediate solution? i would say we would eliminate
all the pac funds and have everybody identify how much money they are giving and are people are people, corporations are not people. get rid of that. that is another wonderful example. guest: i think we need to limit corporate influence in our political system and we need to reform government while making sure it is used to create the solutions that we are not able to find on an individual basis. i completely agree with the idea that citizens united, the idea that -- that finding was wrong. if you read the opinion, the
supreme court found there was no corruption interest. in doing what they did and freeing up corporate money and allow it to be injected into our system was not going to have any direct impact on the level of corruption in our country, which makes most folks go, what? if you take your passion and go to places like boldprogressives.com and you allow your voices to be heard, you'll feel better about your government and about the fact that we live in a democracy and that we have real people power and that influence is congress and that influence is only going to increase. thank you for your call and i hope to visit the web site. host: barry from michigan. caller: thank you for taking my call.
this is a comment about what you said being independent on foreign oil. there was a guest on c-span and he was from the blm. according to him, there is no such thing as domestic oil. once the oil is brought out of the ground, and it is on the international markets. lower fuel costs would do more for the economy than anything you could do for the banks. i'm not sure how you go about that. there has to be something if you take the oil out of my plan that it should benefit us as a country and not being sold to china. the keystone pipeline -- that well is earmarked for the international markets.
we'll have a big pipeline come to our country and we are not going to benefit from it in any way shape or form other than some chinese steel. guest: look at the democratic alternative. green jobs bills. we should be developing 21st century energy that we can use at home. i take your point about the keystone pipeline. for the sake of benefiting -- who/ ? who is this for and who is the economy working for? this is why he should visit boldprogressives.com and check the work we've been doing. host: steve from houston, texas,
a republican. caller: let's get to the issue of fairness. i am 57 years old and i've worked hard my whole life. guest: i believe you. host: what have you ever lifted -- caller: what have you ever lifted? guest: interesting. i guess i have worked hard in my life, too. i respect manual labor. i certainly take the point but at the same time i want to push back a little bit and now that i'm working hard to make sure that washington is held accountable, which is a pretty
heavy lift. host: do we still have our last caller? why did you ask conor kennedy that question? caller: i make a fairly decent living. i made $200,000 last year. they took a third of my income and wasted it. i do not see the fairness and that. you should arrest two welfare cheats. guest: you made a lot of points. let's look at tax savings. we are in favor of bringing the bush tax cuts for the super
wealthy and for making sure that the middle class tax cuts are put in their. as for arresting wall street bankers, i am for enforcing the law. it is a shame that the $10 crimes are enforced way more than the $10 million crimes. host: thank you for being here this morning. we continue our columnist series the "dailyupp fomrrom news." >> the list of nations expelling syrian diplomats is growing. the united states told the top
diplomat that he had 72 hours to get out. iranian experts had defeated the flame virus. the oil industry was affected by the oil virus. an update on the phone-hacking scandal in the united kingdom. one man has been arrested. a former editor was detained at his home in london overnight decision of committing perjury. he quit as the communications director in 2011 amid revelations of phone-hacking at his former newspaper.
>> spend the weekend in wichita, kansas, with book tv. american presidents and black entrepreneurs. the founding of beechcraft. browse the rare book collection at workbooks. experienced early planes liins . two participants of the kansas civil rights movement. they sat down for a service at a drugstore. c-span is local content of vehicles export cities across america. this weekend from wichita, kansas, on c-span2 and c-span3. "washington journal" continues.
host: we continue our spotlight on journalists this morning with s.e. cupp. on sunday we had, colbert king. yes today we spoke with clarence page -- yes today we spoke with clarence page -- yesterday we spoke with clarence page. guest: thank you for having me. host: this is what you wrote. what do think the u.s. should do? guest: military analysts have talked about a number of possibilities from arming the rebels and working more diplomatically with turkey and jordan and in number of other avenues we can take.
we're allowing cove in on and the u.n. to allow the -- we are annan and the u.n.in kofi to allow this six point peace plan. the insurgents do not want peace. they want him gone. it is not going to make everybody happy. we have to look at our interest in the region. i feel we have a moral obligation to put an end to 13,000 deaths and growing. they are also political. al qaeda is moving in. it would be nice to cut off by proxy.
we have a lot of interest in making the serious problem better and along the you went to posture as peacemaker is not getting the job done. host: checking one of your recent columns. what mitt romney can learn from the president. you have some tips that president obama uses. .on't question of authority tellus about how you think the president employs his strategies. guest: mitt romney is a nice guy. we have seen he has some difficulty playing the bully. this business is dirty. i do not think nice guy politics is going to work.
look out the record the president had and his political style. he has not been a wallflower. he has been something of a bully. he has been aggressive and it has been effective. remember back to is campaigning days and he did not like some things that some conservative journalists were saying about him. he removed them from his plane. other networks objected. scolding the supreme court was a bullying tactic and a warning shot to future decisions, health care included. probably do not do that again unless you want more of my wrath. he even scolds his friends.
he told them to essentially stop whining. i don't think the president takes kindly to push back. mitt romney will get a lot push back over the next few months and i think he needs to take the gloves off. host: s.e. cupp is a co-host. how'd you pick a flavor and a direction to write that makes you stand out from the pack? guest: that is a good question. part of the job is to say something new or interesting or provocative or fresh about things that everybody is talking about. there's a lot of noise and competition out there. i consider myself fairly mainstream.
what i'm watching on television or listening to, i imagine most people are, as well. i do not think i have unique interests. i have to imagine that whatever is peaking my interest will probably be interesting to other people, too. i take it interesting story and say something interesting about it. if i did not have anything interesting to add, i did not talk about it. i do not need to be prolific for the sake of quantity. i have the luxury of being able to talk about whenever i want and only one want to talk about. phones.t's get to the here are the numbers. 202-737-0001 for democrats. 202-737-0002 for republicans.
202-628-0205 for independent callers. mike. caller: i have a question. let's say there is a rebel group -- guest: you're making a comparison to syria, is that correct? caller: if we had a group in this country that rose up against the government'. we to be careful about the government. that is why they were elected. guest: i'm not arguing for interventionism. we have a strategic interest over their. re. syria has harbored terrorists
for years. they are implicit in existential danger to the nine states and israel -- to the united states and israel and neighboring countries. an insurgent group in the united states presented the kind of threat to the rest of the world as syria and al qaeda do, i think we would expect some international reaction. caller: good morning. thank you. i think the biggest question would be if america wishes to remain a sovereign nation for returning. i think that is a question that needs to be asked of all americans. we are undermining that ability to do that. do we respect mexico's sovereignty as a nation?
why are we allowing their best here andtest to, and wor come work? mexico needs intelligent and hard-working people that wish to stay there. they have natural resources. they could make that a better nation. what is in line for the future, 30, 40 years from now? guest: you are getting into the immigration question. america has always had a strong open immigration policy. we welcome democrats from all over the world. we always have an ethic we should. republicans are starting to stanch a problem that you might be alluding to. our obligation to other nations is to welcome citizens who feel like they did not have opportunities in their home
countries. i know a lot mexicans feel like they do not have opportunities with increased violence and a worsening economy. they feel like the opportunities are lessening. it is our obligation to provide those opportunities here as long as they take the legal measure to move here within our legal system. host: robert from columbia, south carolina. hi, robert. caller: good morning. i always enjoy the program. my question is about glass- steagall. i'm calling as an independent. i think the country is at an impasse as far as politics. i like to say term limits and
financial reform -- i would like to ask a question -- do think it would be feasible to have the middle of being an independent and the left and right and to divide the country equally so there wouldn't be so much bickering and arguing? host: so you divide the country into three different sections based on political leanings? caller: yes, exactly. guest: i think we tried to segregation and most of us a agree it did not work out. i think the polarization of the country that we're seeing is a
good thing and it is indicative that a lot of these issues are issues that we care about immensely. we are incredibly passionate about the things we're talking and fighting about right now. i think you're seeing that trickle into the zeitgeist and into our media dialogues and our political campaigns. if we did not care i would be worried. if the narrative work water down and we shrug our shoulders, i would be work for the future. the fact we disagree is not the problem. the problem is that we are not coming to meaningful solutions or that we're coming to solutions too slowly for the economy and for employment. i have confidence will get there eventually. i am opposed to term limits. i think that should be up to the
people and not arbitrary time lines. that would only hurt the great politicians, if there are any the we have an office, who might be doing a great job for their communities and might be really well liked and really productive and effective and then plea asked to leave after two or four years. i think our system as messy as it is actually works pretty well. host: s.e. cupp is an author. maria from riverside, california . caller: i have a couple of comments and a question. i want to speak to a statement that barack obama it is a bully.
it was bush who said you are with us or against us on national tv. why was the republicans out of the house and out of power -- republicans did not vote -- there is a reason. because of the crash in the 20's and 30's. republicans have not been in power. guest: ok. is there a question? host: what about wall street reform? president obama purses president bush -- versus president bush?
she said president bush is a bully. guest: i do not mind when my president is a bully to thugs in other countries that are attacking us. i am honored to have somebody stand up for us like that. obama has not been terrible in terms of its foreign policy. he has not been great but he has not been terrible. he had some positive moments. there was a story is it that amount on his kill list. he is increasingly positive in going after terrorists. i congratulate him for killing a lot al qaeda operatives. the bullying i was talking about was domestically for his perceived enemies anyone who
would slight him or question his authority question his wisdom. journalists in the united states -- this administration has employed the aspen night act to silence journalists and whistleblowers -- has employed the espionage act to silence journalists and whistleblowers. president obama bowling is friends and families to compare that to president bush is in congress. host: a story about cory booker leaving the job. guest: i heard about this and that it was amicable. i don't really know the facts here. if this was in response to the
"meet the press" moment. but cory booker is a friend and someone i admire alli lot. i often wished he was my mayor, to rescue with every pothole and traffic incidents. host: burning building, things like that. guest: i find him to be very fair and honest and admirable. i do not know what happened in turley in his office and whether that was a response to his honesty regarding the obama campaign -- i do not know what happened internally in his office. host: how do you develop your political philosophy and your voice over the years? a lot of the columnists in the papers are older than you are.
guest: i got to tell you. this was sort of an accident. i was not particularly political as a kid. i got to college and was surprised i disappeared -- disagree with everybody around me. even then, i was not spurn into political action. it was a 1990's. there was a lot going on. i became politically aware after 9/11 happened and realized i needed to be an activist of some kind. the only thing i know how do is to write. i tried to enlist and my parents would not have it. i decided i would write a book about being conservative and the stereotypes that belong to an
older generation of republicans. as a young conservative, how bright navigate a liberal universe like manhattan? once that happens, things sort of snowballed and started writing about all kinds of political issues and still grateful that i wandered into this career and they let me stick around. it is been a lot of fun. host: randy from citrus heights. caller: good morning, ladies. thank you for c-span. i am wondering what you think what we would be talking about if the current president was a republican incumbent and the economy was like it is and if he had scandals like solyndra and a lot of his campaign donors ended
up spending millions and going bankrupt and there was a scandal where uniformed personnel died due to the administration tried to attain a political goal. it amazes me frankly that we are even having this discussion, that this guy can be reelected. to me, he is just been a disaster and it is amazing how many people -- the press is willing to give this guy a pass. thank you for c-span. guest: i completely here yoar y. anyone who says there's not a double standard is either naive -- i will bring up the catalykil
list. if we're to believe this piece, sidestepping the messy detention issued by not taking anyone alive, i think we would be hearing for president bush's impeachment. it doesn't bother me that the president is going after targeted al qaeda members. dishonesty that i think is rampant in this administration should bother people and i think it does. you're not alone in feeling that this president is kind of getting off easy. that's because the media does have a double standard. i wrote about this in my last book. they made an investment in president obama in 2008, a lot of them.
i'm generalizing care. a wholesale investment in obama's election. they helped him and supported them and asked note strong questions -- and asked no strong questions. they want to see this pan out. it is as much making them look good and vindicating the hard work they did in 2008 as it is liberals liking his policies. i think most people agree it the economy and unemployment are not where they should be. his energy policy is flawed, to say the least. i think you're right, there is a double standard and there is a lot to criticize here.
it remains to be seen whether the microscope spotlight of the presidential election will bring most of that to bear. host: avear honor independent line -- avery. hi, avery. caller: s.e., you're very gorgeous. i fall you quite often -- i follow you quite often. you breaking and starting your own political views as far as how republican is perceived to a republican or democrat. you're not the ones that are critical on obama on certain issues. with you being in a new generation and myself being a
new generation and being in to to usics, and it is up to direct this country and you're doing a good job as far as not staying with the pundits and saying that he is wrong when you know damn well that he is right. you have to excuse my nervousness. guest: that is okay. i appreciate that. thanks. i appreciate that. in.nk you for calling an it is important in this business when you have a platform to treated carefully. that means you have to question your own sometimes a question your own sacred cows. i tried to do that.
the tea party deserves some credit. they would say this started when bush started bailing out the banks. that is inherently rebellions in questioning authority. i think that is a good thing. i have said that this attack on president obama for rising gas prices is intellectually dishonest. we need to be honest in this business. even though i am and opinion writer and i have a position and a political leanings, i still try to be as honest as i can. i don't always succeed but i will promise to do my best. host: the caller was commenting at how you convey.
you're a supporter of gay rights. president obama, gay-rights hero, you ask? many questions unanswered. route reflector whether to do meaningful to the gay community. guest: this unmitigated joy over he president's' slow-drip evolution on gay-rights bothered me. i am active in the gay community and have been vocal for gay- rights. the fight has not been to win one man's approval and that is essentially what we got with the latest well timed political evolution on gay-rights. the fight has been to win rights.
there was no policy change, nor was there a promise of a policy change. this simply one man, albeit the leader of the free world, who says, "i accept you." i do not know what to feel like to have that moment in your lifetime. i'm also a fighter. i didn't feel like teatime to pop the champagne just yet -- i don't feel like it is time to pop the champagne just yet. idear: i didn't like the mitt romney trying to get into office. he is trying to strike back.
he is going to get rid of obamacare and it doesn't care about the middle class or the poor. he inherited when he got into office from bush and bill clinton and all of them. the speaker guys do not want to sign the bill. they walk out the office, stormed out of the office like little kids. president obama has the reason. he has to go through them. sit down like human beings and sign the bill. he is trying to get money from the rich. they are having a heart attack complaining, taking money from the middle class, poor people. guest: ok, well, i'm understand
you are frustrated and you do not want mitt romney to win the election. i would expect that if you are a supporter of obama's. the problem is that you have a republican-led house and a democratic-led senate any president who is not been particularly effective as a leader. you can blame john boehner and the tea party all you want, but both sides have to come to the table. at the end of the day, it tot is the president's job work it out. he is been ineffective in corralling all sides of the political spectrum within congress. he is not just president of the
democrats. he is president of the democrats and republicans and the tea partiers and everybody else. the present still bears some of the burden. to not acknowledge that is to be a little rosy-eyed about president obama. host: comments, and on twitter for you -- common com eie in on twitter for you. how much of a dialogue do you have with social media? you have over 100,000 followers. the reach back out to other people -- do you reach back out to other people? guest: i do.
i try my best to have conversations on twitter when they are meaningful. i like to thank people who voice support for may. i do enjoy it interacting with folks who are interested in things that i'm interested in. that is why they are reaching out. whether we like the same things are where both moved politically about certain issues. we're there talking to each other because we have common interests. it is as much fun for me as it is for others to engage that way and i tried to nurture that as much as i can. as a columnist, i'm always looking for material.
i look to see what other people are talking about. that is helpful for me. i get some of my best ideas listening to what people on twitter or angry or excited or moved by. host: victor joins is from minnesota. hi, victor. caller: hi, s.e. i i like you but i disagree with you -- i lived in that part of the world for some time. the non is the best place to live then -- lebanon is the best place to live in. now the sunnis --
[inaudible] stilldo thiyou think it is like that? what do you think about assad? man.r: asasad is a good some people around him may be doing the bad things. host: he said he had a good experience in syria and he had opportunities for religious freedom and he sees it as a good place to live. guest: i have not lived in syria but i've talked to a number of people who have been to that region. it does not sound like a great
place to live. if you're a woman and depending and probably it is proud not a good place to live. this man is overseeing the 00 people nearly 13,0 in this country simply to cling to power. i don't think this is worth addressing. host: we go to texas. welcome to "washington journal." caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: when osama bin laden was killed, the day after you heard people saying people should get credit. now they criticize obama because he didn't give credit to
the navy seals. in 2004, he was the only person that could keep us safe. i did not vote that year. "why did you vote for bush?" the only thing they didn't do was put bush in a rambo outfit and coming out of the water with a machine gun. host: maybe she read your article. you didn't like the way he was using this for politics. guest: at the time i was in the camp that congratulated president obama in killing osama bin laden. i did a report from just outside ground zero, getting a very
emotional over the fact that bin laden was gone and filling some relief and vindication as a new yorker that live with 9/11. he certainly does not deserve all the credits. to do not as though he had the decision -- the option to say no. "let's not go after him." i did not like obama's recent politicization of bin laden, injecting men rum into a campaign ad was silly and a huge misstep for someone who is a smart campaigner. this may look like politics as usual and is if he has nothing else to run on, which might be
the case. i think it is clear you think that pretty much the centerpiece of your first term. i thought it kind of unwise to see him put bin laden and mitt romney in a campaign ad together. host: democratic caller from chicago. caller: good morning. when i listen to the young lady and listen to describing mitt romney as a nice guy and president obama is a bully, td almost laughable -- it is almost laughable. the republicans said they would work to get him out of there before he even got started.
i have watched c-span and all the stations, even fox. he tried to work with the republicans and they are not going to change. they don't like him. the promote hatred for him. -- they promote hatred for him. bring up tea party on your computer pc hateful people running around with signs and thatobama is a monkey. it is he's a bully, level. butbe bush wasn't a bully, his vice president was. host: let's get a response from s.e. cupp. guest: i think his tactics and lack of transparency in this
administration has been bullying. as some of the whistle blowers -- ask some of the whistle- blowers or some journalists are some folks opposing parties who have descended with him. asked the supreme court -- ask the supreme court. he is been a bully -- he has been a bully. to see the tea party has been unique in opposing obama or terrible in terms of the way the lie.it is a there are fringe elements in both parties of course. certain elements of the right wing that i think everyone would eshew.
he has never been accused of raping people at protest or never been accused of vandalism. you'd have to look at occupy wall street for all that kind of action. look back at the way that president bush was treated while he was in office and the signs that would come up on the internet if you go "gusbush and hitler." let's not pretend that somehow obama is the subject of a unique and new vitriol. hei is not. the kind of criticism he has faced has paled to the kind of criticisms that republicans and president bush faced. host: mitt romney got enough delegates to be the nominee.
this is from "the washington post." what do you think? donaldi don't think that trump needs to complete mirror mitt romney. mitt romney does not have to see surrogate. every store g my issue is not that he believes in something kind of kooky and conspiratorial. that is okay. and i'm not a birther. don trump seems willing to put mitt romney in the cross hairs. would you want someone to say, i want to support you and do what is best for you even if it means i'm going to suppress some of my i'm going to suppress some of my own issues right