tv Washington Journal CSPAN October 20, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EDT
a discussion on the 2016 presidential race. we are joined by jon huntsman who currently cochairs the bipartisan group "no labels." ♪ theretoday in the senate, is a plan procedural bill addressing so-called sanctuary clinton ishillary scheduled to appear before the select committee on benghazi. jim webb expected to announce today that he will run as an independent. you can see that live at c-span.org. gallup has a new poll out on gun ownership. a new poll suggesting that when
asked about gun laws, 55% of those responding say that gun sales should be more strict than they are now and the majority of those responding saying they don't favor a ban on handguns for the average american. if you are one of those who wanted stricter laws or maybe you disagree with that for republicans. gun owners, we set aside a line for you too. can also tweet us at c-span wj and posts on her facebook page. here is the poll from gallup taking a look at gun ownership and gun ownership issues. americans desire for stricter gun laws is up sharply. americansat 55% of say that they want laws covering
the sale of firearms to be stricter than they are now. fewer americans than last year what the law to be less strict and the proportion of those who want laws to stay the same has declined slightly. this gallup poll adds context , the percentage of americans who favored stricter gun sales got to a majority for the first time in several years and since then, the support for stricter laws tested under 50%. 58% of americans say that they were in favor of stricter law on gun sales. when it comes to gun sales and stricter laws, is that something you oppose or support? republicans (202) 748-8001.
democrats (202) 748-8000. independent (202) 748-8002. and if you are a gun owner (202) 748-8003. tweet us and you can post on our facebook page as well. . hillaryast week that clinton was in new hampshire and was asked about the gun sale and gun ownership issues. nationald about buyback program. she talked about that program and what she thought about and here is what she has to say. : canada is a good example and australia is a good example. each of them had mass killings. australia had a huge mass killing about 25 years ago. canada did as well and so did the u.k.. in reaction they passed much stricter gun laws.
in the australian example as i recall, that was a buyback program. as australian government part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns and it basically clamped down going forward in terms of having more of a back project approach. in i think theed evidence supports them that by offering to buy back those guns they were able to curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future. communities have done that in our country. several communities have done gun buyback programs but it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that
could be arranged. from last week, the gallup poll recently taken against 55% of those responding saying they want laws covering the sale of firearms be stricter than they are now. you may agree or disagree. independent, -- will start with ed in georgia. that i want toy remind anybody out there as far we do gallup poll goes, not live in a democracy, we live in a republic and if they a good gallup poll, 95% of americans want to put poison in the baby food it still has to go through congress.
the gallup poll means nothing. somethingse they want doesn't mean that's what they are going to get. >> what do you think about the idea of stricter gun laws. >> depends what the law is and how it is written. chicago, all of the people that are killing each other in chicago they have the strictest gun laws there and nothing is happening. it's not strict gun laws that we need to take care of, i think what we making take care of his sure that the people who have mental problems are unable to get guns. >> we will hear from richard, a gun owner would get a pfizer is a democrat. i richard.
owner, iegistered gun believe that the and a rate does not represent me. i consider them to be a major impediment in enforcing our current laws. the only change that will happen is when legal gun owners stand up and have the courage to tell down and selfnd enforce, allow the laws to be enforced and stop this gun show loophole. >> next up is harvey. i think that the public has to look at the fact it is that the gun that kills it is the person behind the gun and if you look back over the past 15 to 20 years, the federal government has ceased to fund these training schools and have released many mentally impaired people on the street were easily
influenced by these death games they play on videos and the internet and the violence that they are exposed to and i blame the fact that these people being released on the street and the that 95% if not 100% of the people who have been involved in this mess shootings have been deemed mentally impaired. i feel at the federal government has done a great injustice to this nation in not funding these training schools to help these people who have mental host: so stricter gun laws would not take care of a situation like that? caller: i have talked and talked about putting in stricter laws
regarding background investigation as to people getting hold of guns but there is no way if some parent has children that are mentally impaired and have access to weapons, in some way or another if they deemed it to be involved in a shooting or feel that it is necessary, it is no way to stop this other than to take these mentally impaired people and put them in the facilities that formerly existed so they can get help. >> a gallup poll saying that 55% of those responding what stricter gun laws. the poll also adding that the rise in the proportion can be contributed partly to an increase among certain demographic groups. and among those who do not personally own a gun that support increased even among those who say that they own a 36%gun from 20% in 2014 to
this year. darlene lives in las vegas. good morning. don't iorry but i really don't believe that stricter gun laws are going to help anybody. like prohibition, people who want to get away from the law will find a way. i have been a licensed gun owner since i was 21. my grandfather was a gunsmith and a sheriff. i'm sorry, but from what i ansonally have seen we are open carry state and from what i have personally seen, people who want guns get guns. i don't think we should all be painted with the same brush. host: how difficult is it to get a license in las vegas? >> you walk to this id and they run a background check, you bring in a firearm and they run the numbers on it and they make
sure it is not a stolen gun. caller: -- host: if you wanted to purchase a gun are there different rules purchasing and governing open gun sales? caller: at gun shows people are supposed to do background checks at that does not necessarily happen. when it comes to everything from a private sale to a registered gun store, if you were to register that gun and lord for bid in this town you have an unregistered firearm that is a no-no. everything better be above board or you are going to be an large trouble. host: becky from michigan. caller: i grew up in a family where my father was a mighty hunter and went every year for a always cameeks and
back with all kinds of antlers on the car. withnot against guns but all of these horrible things going on these mass killings not even that, i'm just not couple -- comfortable with people having guns they can just carry around. i don't even go out much anymore. what i wanted to really bring up is i don't know how many years ago it was but i know it was on this station because you are my guys. when we had this last big deal killing in one of the schools? host: sandy hook? >> it probably was. they had polls for a long time and people were really getting into it. overhe one i remember was
.5% at one time a good poll. you used to read them every time laws. butout on gun with that amount of people wanting to change the gun laws and the republicans completely ignoring it, i have no respect everhem and i will never have respect for them again. host: loophole that we're referencing here is from gallup great you can see 35% saying they want stricter gun laws to apply. for independent -- if you're a gun owner and what
to give your thoughts. you heard from the former secretary of state hillary clinton on her thoughts on gun control. these trump asked about similar types of questions when he appeared on meet the press. moste revenue have is the stringent laws are almost in every case the worst. it is a tough situation. schoolscomes to these it is mental health. think there are too many guns. >> you could make the case that the schools -- i see it was a gun free go in and where not a lot of guns at all and that area. you can make the case that it would be a lot better people to have the guns. >> to you make that case? couldn't be much worse. the police to a great job and they got there are clean but i can make the case that if there
were guns in that room other than his, fewer people would have died and fewer people would have been horribly injured. >> we will hear from other candidates, they are the lines if you want to call in. gun owners. we hear from a gun owner and baltimore, maryland, ralph, you are on the air. caller: how are you doing? personally, every shooting at every mess killing everyone of these shares the same thing in common. they have some mentally ill problems. illegal haveat are no intentions at all a following any policies or regulations.
i would say in pose those strict gun laws in chicago and let's see how that turns out. turn the american people's attention to stricter gun laws in chicago and then run the polls and see -- use that as a starting place. said dallas had a buyback program. also adding that most people will back stricter background checks will not back national registration of their firearms. floyd is up next. jonesville, virginia. i think it is wrong to add more laws because it's not one to stop it. when you have evil people out there that uses them that's causing the problem. what they need is these schools
either teachers where they can carry a gun and put a stop to it. these triple don't go to the police department killing people because they know they won't last long there. they go to these places where it says no guns allowed. you talk about background checks. they do a background check on, there have been 70 million babies killed by americans. like these democrats. god has a background check and it is called the lamb's book of life. every reason is written there and they will be held accountable for it. there is a background check coming one of these days. i believe in background checks. not selling guns to people that are evil and crazy out there. but these teachers need to be able to have a gun where they can put a stop to it. host: a gun owner from
connecticut, this is bud caller:. caller:the sandy hook shooting was tragic. but there was so much publicity that thelt of that idea gets out to every nutcase or everyone that is a little bit disordered that if i do something like that i will be famous and it looks like this is played out, the one in oregon just recently -- i don't know. stricter gun laws, a background check in connecticut they do a background check. you cannot buy a gun without it. to buy a handgun it is a six-month process. you get fingerprinted and that goes to the state and that goes to the fed and it is extremely thorough. benthe people who are so
on collecting guns and living in a gun free zone. go to australia. >> so the rifle, do you use it for sport, protection in your home deco white do you have one? >> just for target shooting. it is a target rifle and very heavy. when i shoot i usually shoot on a bench. as far as a self-defense weapon it is totally useless. it is total heavy to maneuver. i have limited upper body and lower body strength because of my paralysis. host: bill from new york, you are next. good morning. bill from new york? caller: i have a couple of points.
the first point is that all a gun is is an efficient killing tool and the purpose of the second amendment at the time of the founding of this country, we did not have a standing army so they allowed citizens to have guns so they could raise militia to fight wars. the second thing is people needed to hunt. more bombs for controlling gun violence, i'll take anything will work. like the lady said if a bad person wants to get a gun they can get a gun. i know that screening people for mental health can be very unreliable. but i am against guns and what i think we should really do is repeal the second amendment and even if we do that it would take years and years for the guns to be confiscated and it still wouldn't be perfect but it would
be safer. >> i have a few points to make as well. , but i'mn-gun owner sick and tired every time we have a mess shooting we get a week on mental illness. it is not a mental illness problem. if you look at the commonalities between these mass shootings they are white males. if these were black males that would have brought in the troops already. becauseis being done they are white males. that's what needs to be looked at. you're the white child in tennessee, five years old learning to shoot a gun before he learns to read. that's our problem. this psychotic obsession with guns, firearms and explosives. be lookedt needs to
at. all this mental illness talk is a bunch of maloney. if you're black, you're a thug, if you're muslim you're a terrorist if you're white you have mental illness. no official word from the vice president if he is going to the unitedsident of states in 2016, but a couple tweets to show you. this is from ed henry reporting that three sources telling him the vice president telling supporters to call and jump in the race. the daily caller takes a look put out by democratic congressman brendan boyle at a pennsylvania saying he has a very good source -- joe tells me that vp biden will run for president. that is brendan boyle on a tweet
he sent out. no official word yet from the vice president. brett is in georgia on the republican line asking about gun laws and if you agree or disagree with a poll that says the majority of americans want stricter gun laws. >> first, i would like to say that calvin in georgia is angry and to talk about whites like that -- that's like saying muslims and african-americans have an obsession with hatchets and knives because of all the cop shootings and stabbings we have been seeing on tv. as far as gun rights, the reason i have guns is because i am an american. i can. i am a good guy and so is my whole family. when i say raised with guns, we don't worship guns and carry
them around the home. we have them because we can. and they areome there just in case. that is how most people that i know look at it. new gunl that want laws, they don't own guns to many have never shot a gun. obama has never shot a gun. these people want to enforce guns and say they don't understand our perspective. the cops can't always be there for you. just in case we have them and that is really the all i would like to say. if you take all guns away do you think to range people or evil or mean people won't find other waste to kill people. what about the tsarnaev brothers? you cannot ban all explosive materials and they will find
ways if they have evil intent to do things. >> for the years you have on the gun have you ever used it in defense of your home or come close to that? >> never have. years ago i was in law enforcement so i use it a lot to defend myself and innocent people. but it wast anyone there to go against the bad guys just like it is in my civilian life.. host: let's hear from sophie in canton, ohio. caller: i just wanted to say that i am a registered nurse and i wanted everybody to know that there is a difference between mental illness and personality disorder. you do find that a lot of these people involved in school shootings have personality
disorders in addition to mental illnesses. the difference being that mental illnesses are things that cannot or cannot be nurtured into people. a lot of these we don't of the cause of them but a lot of them have a history of credit terry problems, genetic issues and genes that can be passed down. like instituting new laws with gun control, the early thing that would help was the background search. presenting more guns being put in the hands of people who are known criminals, there is nothing we can do. it's not as if we can have everyone submit to mental health screening either because that is protected health information. host: sophia and ohio taking a look at presidential politics.
jim webb is said to be considering an independent bid for president. the campaign e-mail that details today. jim webb to consider an independent run. 's debate he'llk had a chance to speak for about 15 minutes according to npr. rigged who would get time of the floor by the way anderson cooper was selecting people. web goes on to say it is difficult to win a debate we don't have an opportunity to speak the same of time on issues as others did. that announcement planned for today at about 1:00 and you can see it live on c-span.org. if you want to look at that look for it on c-span.org for more information. one of the things going on here is republicans get back to work
in the house. the future of not only what happens in terms of the agenda but who will replace john boehner. joining us on the phone is lauren french. she is a congressional reporter. can you tell us where we are at is far as the speaker's race? what can we expect? guest: this week all eyes will be on paul ryan. will he get into the speaker's race or won't he? his office has said there is no decision that he wants to hear from lawmakers when he gets back and this is going to be the pivotal and key decision. if paul ryan gets and he has the ballgame. in the house can move forward on things like the debt ceiling in the budget agreement. doesn't go in, he
is a family man a dozen what to be on the road. it was never history and to be speaker. then it is really going to be a chaos situation because there is no one else in the conference who can get that magic number on the house for and lead. you can see a situation where boehner might have to stay longer than expected. the coalition could build and someone could get the support of boehner allies or mccarthy allies. the moderate group to build to get enough votes. >> if it is not paul ryan who else is a serious contender? guest: that is the tough thing to say because there is no one right now who could feasibly get the votes. florida waser from always running for speaker. he is the favorite of the conservative house freedom caucus.
there is jason chaffetz who has been in the race on the long but he hasn't picked up enough support to create any momentum even with mccarthy dropping out. also talking to their colleagues is the texas republican bill flores. you have marsha blackburn talking to colleagues. you're a slew of texas republicans talking to colleagues. was moreland's out there having conversations about how he would be willing to serve. there are a lot of names but none of these people have the following that kevin mccarthy could have built up that paul ryan has. it really would take multiple rounds to have someone emerge with a majority of votes. host: do you know if the house speaker is currently calling mr. ryan to consider the position?
aest: paul ryan is under tremendous amount of pressure from republican leaders to enter the race. he's got calls from speaker boehner. kevin mccarthy is the gamut of top-tier republican leaders saying you are the only one with the reputation and the only one with the street credit to get in and rule this unruly and unmanageable conference. in, johnsn't get boehner would likely put his somewhere else to push his allies toward a consensus candidate but everyone is waiting to see and hoping that paul ryan gets in because there -- we are on plan c or d. for: what is the timeline an actual vote to take place? boehner indicated that he would call a vote or schedule a vote
for some time this week for sometime in the future. he does have his eye on exiting at the end of the month and they are only in washington for about eight days. if he is going to meet the original deadline it would have to be quite soon. you want to have some leeway time to schedule the vote and rico back to conference if necessary. you can expect to hear some news on that this week. french rights for politico. miss french, thank you. >> thank you for having me on. >> back to our calls, taking a saying gun laws, gallup 55% of those responding want stricter gun laws.
this is been from wisconsin. commenti just have one regarding the gun laws. people keep saying it is the mentally ill that should be taken care of. because of non-strict laws they are allowed to because they are not checked out. statewide, but like in wisconsin that gun dealership and the lucky they got fined. that might come down to keeping them accountable also. -- after everyn mess shooting, we have the same conversation. who is the winner yet go the nra deco.
i believe in having a gun legally but this is out of hand already there it when you see this kid's shot in the schools or wherever, what the republicans sit back and smile and say the nra made some more money. when it hits home maybe something will happen. that is betty from wisconsin. let's hear from randy in louisiana. >> if i was a betting man i would bet that is as phony as cnn, abc, nbc, cbs and fox news. the only thing i listen to now is wwcr.com. as far as guns go, look what happened when nazi germany took everybody's guns. you talk about tyranny. same thing with stalin, pol pot
in china. now they took australia's guns and great britain's guns. give up your guns and see what switzerland,s. there is a fully automatic weapon in every home. they didn't get touched in world war ii. people that want to give up those guns, or what happens when you give them a. i had to get rid of mine because the onlyial problems thing i own now is a single shot shotgun. that's because i'm on unemployment and at my age don't we wants to hire me. but you give up those guns and see what really happens. host: the washington times has a story, one of several today looking at upcoming select
committee on benghazi, this is saying the state department officials serving in the city had increasing worries about safety, reaching out repeatedly to the syrian and libyan government in dealing with issues that raised additional red flags. the documents were given to the washington times by u.s. officials. the provided contemporaneous accounts of career say officials coping with an increasingly unstable city. in response to threats of a planned attack on the internet, benghazi is requesting assistance from the supreme council. in may 20arson wrote 9, 2012. there is more to that story you can find in the washington times. that committee testimony will
take place this coming thursday at 10:00 in the morning. you can see it live on c-span3 and listen to it on c-span radio and go to our website for more information on hillary clinton testimony in front of the select to midi on benghazi. carol from west virginia, you are next. good morning. because calling in these gun laws that everyone keeps talking about. i believe there should be something done about the loopholes for that gun shows and on the internet but at the same for people having guns to protect themselves and for hunting purposes. the same time, people are scared that if they start doing these laws that they are going
to get further and keep adding and adding until they take the guns. the problem is, what about the they that have these guns? are not going to go by any laws and they can always get them. so i just hope that they keep in mind that we do have our second amendment right and i hope that something is done but not drastic. host: regina into virginia, a gun owner calling in. how are you? caller: i just want to bring up a few points. i am a gun owner. so is most of my family. it is a moral issue with people i think. mental health issues and that kind of thing but you cannot
regulate morality with people. taking away all of the guns from all the people across the country is not going to make people morally right in their heads. it is silly. you're trying to regulate human behavior and it cannot happen. there are certain things we can do but we already have background checks here in virginia. it's just that bad people will get guns if they want to. host: your governor in virginia took some executive action on the gun issue. >> i saw that in the newspaper the other day. everybody has a knee-jerk reaction when some of these massive killings happen. instead of thinking about it
logically about what can actually be done, it is like hurry up, we have to get something done we have to get some thing done. laws have been on the books. we just a to enforce those as well instead of trying to pass all of these extra things. >> paul barrett has a piece taking a look at the issue of gun law and talks about legislative actions that might be considered. he writes that while we are rationalizing background check systems there are two true others that congress ought to consider. limiting exemptions allowing gun sales to go through automatically if because of delay a backhand check is not completed. the charleston killer but a glock 45 killed nine people. would expand bill
the domestic abuse restraining order to cover not only current and former spouses but abusive boyfriends and convicted stockers. those are some of the legislative efforts highlighted in that piece in bloomberg's business week. supporters sing and a gallup poll that they want stricter gun laws. alfred in north carolina, a gun owner. are you there. caller: [indiscernible] if hillary clinton wants to take everybody's guns, i feel like the detail that protects her and other presidents, they would
have to give up their guns. withcannot protect my wife my gun, then she should not be protected by one. that swings both ways. that is how politicians are. put donald trump in the office and we will straighten it out. the global mail highlighting the change of leadership in canada. in a stunning political comeback propelled by a national -- national desire for change, justin trudeau and the liberals won a decisive majority bringing an end to a stephen harper era and a decade to a long conservative rule. a liberal leader will not be the second trudeau to take up residence after leading the liberals from the political wilderness back into government. the result signals a vast reversal of fortunes for a party that was all but written off.
monday with huge gains across the country largest increase in seats for a party between elections in canadian history. you can see that on their website. from lorenzo in louisiana, either. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to say i think people need to be trained before they can get a gun and if you live by the sword, you die by the sword and if you live by the gun you die by the gun. host: what do you mean by that. they go to buy a gun and they haven't been trained had a use it and they don't realize that the damage that it does. once you have been trained to use a gun you will be less likely to go do something crazy with it.
like a two-week course before you can buy a gun. some people out here they really don't need a gun to kill. went to kill they could get a brick or a sword or a knife or anything. people that need to be taught how to use a gun. the proper use of a gun about deadly force. the way gun should be used. i was a drill instructor in the marine corps and we had a screen these guys out. you just can't go give a gun or a hand grenade to anybody. you have to check them out. and checkphysically with the mind is before you can go and start issuing guns. and the way they do it today is
you can go just about anywhere like these big gun shows and by nothing wronghave with that but that should be a process that a person needs to go through before you stick a gun in their hand. that is my comment. host: the washington post highlights the policy change coming for unmanned aircraft but you know them as drones. this line says the faa will require the drones to be registered. regulators saying monday they will require recreational drone users to register their aircraft for the first time. compel droneto owners to register their aircraft represents a policy shift by the obama administration and an admission by the federal aviation administration that has been unable to safely integrate into
the national airspace. u.s. officials have a study to sort out the basic details but concluded that they had to take swift action to cope with the surgeon sale of inexpensive, simple to fly drones interfering with regular air traffic. there are factoids giving us number 31 saying that the number of drone hobbyists are expected to buy this year which is a 63% increase according to the consumer electronics association. andher number given his 100 the approximate number of fighting sort calls reported by pilots every month. joe from atlanta georgia on the independent line. say these people , shewant to take my guns works for the state department
that looks like that graduating ghosted beirut, she benghazi and tries to make an oil sell for that eu in the had to kill gaddafi because going green don't work in the other rebels killed our ambassador. she went to the other place in an putin cut off the oil now she's there with iran making them house of c 40. host: as far as stricter gun laws are concerned, where do you stand specifically. >> and what to take our guns away civic and do anything they want to. to withtor is trying his cows eating grass. then they stole $1 billion out of the fund for their donations and you have the c 40 city project trying to bring the
mexicans in and get rid of the blacks and the whites so they can give our country -- i want to keep my gun. from bob inr montana. >> i am just calling in to let you know that hunting is getting ready to start this weekend in montana and i think that probably 80% of every vehicle that you see on the road will have a gun in it and i have about three pistols, two shotguns and for rifles. each one of them has a specific purpose and everyone of them are for hunting. is -- i am on this 65 years old now.
i've been trained to shoot a firearm since i was nine years old. and i think that is the real key. i was trained in i was trained. i got to shoot my first deer when i was 12. having thet knowledge of exactly the proper use of the gun and to have more training for everybody to be able to use a gun and to be able to handle a gun and to be aware of what a gun can and cannot do. the problem here that i see is that people have this fantasy in their head they have seen the shows on tv and all of this and they are going out and slinging these guns around. i have three sons and i have trained all of them and i have trained many other kids. i have seen this glow in their eyes for how great it is to be
shooting and i have to settle this is aand say, very serious thing to have a gun. you had better know what you're doing with it and you had better gun you handle is loaded, whether it is loaded or not. training is my thing that i want to pass out. more training and mandatory training to have a firearm, i think it might help the problem. host: one more call on this topic. alan from indiana on the democrat line. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. chicago had bad guns and they still had violence. that's because you can literally walk across the street into it
indiana and by all the guns that you want. pen -- ban,d have a but if the surrounding communities don't, what difference does it make? in 1980, the resulting like 10,780 some odd people died from gun violence. overyear it was up to 33,000. each year it has gone up and we are the only developed nation in the world that has a problem with gun violence. i wish people could wake up and realize that you were to train people to shoot guns will just make them a better shot. that man in sandy hook was trained using assault weapons and what did he do? .hich i thought was insane shot.t made him a better daily thing that will stop and
put a cut into the amount of deaths is we need a ban on handguns. probably 90% of the deaths occur from that. is seven rate that times more than the next 22 countries. you talk about japan, australia, canada, england and france. host: that is alan from east chicago, indiana talking about his experience and others talking about what they think about the prospect of stricter gun laws. in our next segment we will talk with lenny davis. he will join us to talk about hillary clinton's campaign for president and the testimony this week in the select committee on benghazi. later john hudson will be here both sides canow
do more compromising. we want to tell you about the landmark cases series beginning tonight on c-span. if you missed the series last night, here is former solicitor general paul clement talking about the importance of the case. [video clip] >> this case definitely belongs on any list of great landmark supreme court cases and the the firstthat it is opportunity that the supreme court has to interpret the 14th amendment. the recent that is so important is that is what essentially takes the guarantees of the bill andights eventually constrains the actions of state governments. the first 10about of an midst of them were really designed to restrict the federal toernment and what it did the people and the citizens of the united states. that wely at the port
go through the civil war when people realize it is not just the civil war -- civil government have to worry about but the state government. the and the 14th and 15th amendments. they restrict the states. they are tremendously important and slaughterhouse case is the very first time the supreme court interprets the 14th amendment. host: you can find out more about the slaughterhouse cases on our website for landmark cases. encorecan watch an presentation of the program coming saturday evening at 7:00 on c-span. joining us from houston is the former white house counsel for the clinton ministration. mr. davis, good morning. guest: good morning. host: before we start, people know you as far as your relationship with the clintons,
give a snapshot of your relationship and are you formerly -- formally involved in the campaign? guest: i have no involvement with the clinton campaign. i am proud of the clinton campaign. hillaryngtime friend of clinton and president clinton. we were in law school together, hillary and i, in the late 60's. i met mr. clinton when he returned from his rhodes scholarship and that was a long time ago. this is friendship and i am there to talk about the hillary clinton that i have known for many years but not as an official spokesman. host: we will continue our conversation with mr. davis. we are working through some issues. but you are available to talk to him. mr. davis, what do you think the four secretary of state faces as
she sits before the elect committee on benghazi this thursday? the most important thing that every viewer should keep in mind is what is this about? it is about the tragedy of four dead americans. what happened at benghazi? why was there a failure of intelligence? political manipulation during and after the episode? what responsibility did she have for the tragedy? focuses on benghazi and the death of four americans rather than political motives that we are told by the republican leadership are what than wemittee is about, can at least examine how the question her. whether it is about benghazi, what happened, and why. whether it is about political issues, e-mails and other issues that kevin mccarthy and the majority leader of the house of
representatives said this was about bringing down her numbers about politics. was a terrible but truthful acknowledge and by him. that political cynicism is of fourhe exploitation deaths of americans which should be the focus of the inquiry. host: mr. davis and the cochairman of the committee, elijah cummings talked about those political issues and it prompted a response from mr. dowdy. the 54 interviews conducted by the committee only one has been related to the server and the interview was very short because the witness invoked his if the mimic rights. the news of her private e-mail and private 2015 -- server in arch in march 2015. mr. gaudi saying this has been a focus on benghazi and other
e-mails. guest: he speaks the words because he is trying to overcome facts. his words are contradicted by his republican conduct. i will give you one example of conduct that contradicts those words. they had sidney blumenthal, a friend of the clintons as a witness for 10 hours. they won't release his transcript. people who are democrats who were there say that in 10 hours, benghazi him up only a small number of minutes. all the other time spent was e-mails, his relationship with the clintons and the clinton foundation. what i just said to you is fact. they refused to release the transcripts to contradict what i just said. just recently, trey gowdy said that an e-mail by hillary
clinton contained classified information with sources and methods that needed to be redacted. he issued the e-mail and redacted it with the words, to protect sources and methods. the cia released two days ago a statement. there was nothing in the e-mail they had looked at that was classified. they had not redacted and had not written the words sources and methods. mr. trey gowdy did. when he says one thing and his actions contradict and suggest he is lying, because he knew that his staff put sources and methods and said it was classified, he issued a press release saying this is a terrible compromise of national security information. the cia put a release out saying false. there was nothing classified. what i have just said to you is fact. what mr. trey gowdy says shows that kevin mccarthy, the majority leader of his party
spoke the truth. when he said this is about bringing down numbers. as congressman hannah also set, this committee is abouthe gets e facts contradict. host: julius to talk about the upcoming testimony and secretary of state hillary clinton is expected to testify this thursday 10:00 which you can see live on our network and c-span3 or hear it on c-span radio and see it on c-span.org. i apologize for the signatures we are having but we will work through it as much as we can and take as many phone calls as we can from you starting with sean and was virginia on the democrats line. go right ahead with lanny davis. caller: good morning. i like to say the key going on
benghazi and hillary clinton letting these people get killed. republicans are the ones who cut the funding to the state department, not hillary clinton. i never got a chance to call in on your last issue but i am waiting for the good guys to show up with all of these guns to save these people who are getting murdered massively. that is not. host: we will have to leave it there. mr. davis, go ahead. true thatis appropriations for security in embassies around the world would cut and were cut by republicans, divided a think it is fair to blame republicans what happened in benghazi. this is something i want every viewer to remember when you watch on thursday. seven committees of congress examined who is at fault in benghazi before mr. trey gowdy
created this committee. seven committees found there was no intelligence failure that could have predicted what happened. the two most appointed committees, the house intelligence committee and the house armed services committee led by republicans, they extensively investigated benghazi before the trey gowdy ca committee was created and two republican chairmen ,aid no failure of intelligence no standdown order preventing people from being rescued, and finally no political exploitation of talking points by the white house or secretary clinton. those are three conclusions of republican committee chairmen of the armed services committee and intelligence committee. gowdy, are you second-guessing your chairmen?
if not, why did your committee of taxpayerillion dollars and 14 months longer than the 9/11 commission where longerren commission -- then the warren commission at pearl harbor. you have spent more and you have concluded nothing other than redundancy that has been done by a fellow republicans. host: here is frank from new york. go ahead. caller: it is really tough when you are in a foreign country. they do not like us as it is. you cannot expect everybody to like this. there is nothing you can do about it. democratic government we run is the best. we know it and everybody knows it. that is why we are here.
we prosper all the time. they need to learn to prosper because a lot of them are uneducated. that is the way it is. it is like the wild west, and it will never change until someone or something comes and says change it. that is about all you can do. host: mr. davis. i am not sure the viewer's point, but it is dangerous out there. saidtary clinton has america has a tendency to withdraw from places that are dangerous. exposed with are an obligation to them, a moral obligation, a natural interest obligation to protect them. i suggested three questions that the committee should be asking secretary clinton. one of them is what did your own accountability review board you
appointed -- ambassador tom pickering and admiral mullen, to people about politics -- two people about politics. she asked them tell me what i did wrong and what i should do differently. they did that and came up with 27 recommendations. she immediately said i accept. she published their results transparently. should the personal response ability. everyone remember that she did that right away before congressman gowdy decided to try to bring her numbers down by a bogus investigation which has done nothing new but redundantly if not even that will other republican committees have done. host: mr. davis, that review prompted a response saying more people should have been statutoryd, that
mandates of that board limited the scope of the investigation. also saying those involved in the discussions about benghazi security were responsible for selecting board members and staff. the even had questions about how the board was formulated. look, the cognizant is one of many people who has looked at this. i sent the committees tens of thousands of augmentin hundreds of thousands of witnesses. whatever the congressman criticize someone who served in a previous administration. if he is criticizing them, he is entitled. i happen to believe they did the best they could. other people in congress, seven committees, examined this. anyone who has not read the house intelligence committee written by republicans, anyone who has not read the house armed services from our
--services report written. do you know trey gowdy escorted someone out of the room when he wanted to be present? i do think that ever happened in the history of congress with the same member of a party escorted out of the room. this is the way gowdy has conducted himself. he denies what we know is true. that he says something he knows is false, which is a lie, and puts out an e-mail that says highly sensitive information revealing sources. he does not say his own staff wrote that. the cia embarrasses him and says that is false. that is in the last two days. have we heard gowdy apologize for that line? have we had him fire the staff ?
wereeadlines initially clinton reveals highly sensitive classified information. he owes the american people an apology for that lie, for that alone. will other people have tried to do and seven committees and what gowdy is not explaining is he andicizing congressman issa all of the colleagues who have studied this? that should be the opening comments he makes. what my doing that is different? what am i criticizing my colleagues for not doing? host: sorry to say this, but i will have to apologize for you. the signal we have for you is degrading to a great deal. it will force us to cut short this interview. our hope is to have you back on this program with a better signal. i want to extend my apologies for that. guest: thank you. i hope you heard some of what i
said. host: we did. thank you very much. we will work to get you back in the program. or apologies to you mr. davis and our audience. will move on to our next segment. jon huntsman will be here to talk about how both sides can do more compromises in washington d . to get things done for the people. he is currently the chair of no labels. we will have that discussion when "washington journal" continues after this. >> a signature feature of book tv is our all-day coverage of book fairs and festivals from across the country with top nonfiction authors. here is our schedule beginning this weekend. we are live in the nation's heartland for the wisconsin book festival in madison.
at the end of the month, we will be a national for the so the festival of books. at the start of november, we are back on the east coast for the boston book festival. in the middle of the month, is the louisiana book festival in baton rouge. we areend of november, live for the 18th year in a row from florida for the miami book fair international. the national book awards from new york city. some of the fairs and festivals this fall on c-span2's tv. -- book tv. >> c-span has her coverage of the road to the white house 2016 where you will find the candidates, speeches, debates, and your questions. this year, we're taking our road to the white house coverage into classrooms across the country with our student cam contest giving students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to get the most from the candidates. --follow c-span
coverage on tv, the radio, and online at c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our next guest is jon huntsman, the cochair of the group no labels. also the former governor of utah from 2005 to 2009. guest: thanks. great to be with you. host: how do you describe no labels to people who ask you about it? guest: it is a movement that is reshaping the culture of politics around problem-solving as opposed to the nastiness, the finger-pointing, the acrimony, the division that marks politics today. the american people deserve so much more, in this country is capable of so much more if we can only get our political act together. it is not to say we are some third party alternative movement. we recognize we live in a two-party system.
it is about getting them to do what we have always been able to do in the past. that is to set goals, american goals, and then move through our respective political channels in getting there. we have done it before and we believe we can do it again. in the meantime, we are missing a lot of low hanging opportunities to make this country the very best it can be. host: given example of one in political history we have done it before and why is it not taking place today. guest: i would argue back to ronald reagan working with tip o'neill. they set a goal of fixing entitlements. they worked on it and made progress. tax reform is another example. the end of the cold war could not have happened without those both sides working together. we had a balanced budget under bill clinton's term in the 1990's. newt gingrich have the same goal. they set that goal. it was a transcendent overarching objective for the government. they got there and proved you
can make government work when both sides set goals that are american goals as opposed to partisan goals. we just got out of that practice. meanwhile, we have numbers that are out of balance.we are missing a lot of opportunities in a hypercompetitive 21st century to be the best we can be. we have other countries nipping at our heels who want to take away market share, who want to innovate faster and better than we do. they want great research abilities. they want political systems that work. host: you had a recent event taking a look here at the presidential candidates in new hampshire. that prompted a response by the editors of the new hampshire waiver. guest: that's right. host: how would you respond?
guest: you do not have to shed your political responsibility to do that but we have a compromise to make the system work. copper mines has become a dirty work, synonymous with treason -- compromise has become a dirty word synonymous with treason in some corners. you do not have to compromise at the end of the day in some places. you have to sit down with people, figure out the issues and a goal you are working toward an uncompromised to get there. it is the way the system has always worked. every other aspect of life operates that way with the exception of politics in washington. host: you talked about the budget numbers. why do you think compromise is not achievable in that context? guest: you have special interest politics putting ultimatums on the table and making it impossible to break away from the presuppositions. --break away from
the preset positions. that raises problems. host: you meet outside groups? guest: all of the above. you go down the street and you see special interest politics that raises money, a lot more money than they used to. they put out ultimatums, pledges. now they expect candidates to sign. if you do not sign, you do not play ball. you are not a member of the team. if you do sign, you are expected to be in a dug in position. that is not good for the situation long-term. aboutwhat do you think the influence and how politics? guest: it is hard to govern by gangs. that is what is going on in congress. we have gains here and there as opposed the two overarching leadership pursuing transcendent goals. if you were to sit down with a member of congress and say what is the goal as a nation?
what we try to achieve that is good for the american people in the 21st century? i am hard-pressed to think you would get consistent answers and there lies a big problem. if we have a president willing to sit down with our house and senate leadership, both parties involved, and say here are the goals we have to shoot for. they are american goals because this is what the american people want us to do. let's see if we can make that happen. the labels has put forward a national strategic agenda. we spent a lot of time on it listening to the voices across america. big goals part of our national strategic agenda. not we think we have to do but with the american people like to see us do. it includes things like a balanced budget, a jobs agenda, energy self-sufficiency, and doing something about entitlements. these are american goals. republicans and democrats should want to do the same thing.
this is what we are hearing from americans. i expect the house caucus will say that is their goal also. guest: let us hear about it. any other caucus will have to work to make it possible because this is what the american people want to see happen. there is no gang that can get their own way. i don't care whether it is in business or politics. you cannot survive as a gang. you can stir up trouble and run from the law as a gang but you cannot achieve a big goal. to do that, you need a leadership and a focused set of political attention around goals. that is missing right now. host: jon huntsman is our guest, the former governor of utah, the current cochair of no labels. you want to ask them questions? you can call him on the line. if you want to tweet him, you can do that or post on facebook.
what is the political makeup of no labels as far as membership is concerned? guest: i would say if you were to look at our problem solver caucus on capitol hill, we have an army of problem solvers with people. half republicans and democrats. i cochair this movement with senator joe lieberman. we have vice chairs people like al, matt, who was president clinton's chief of aaff, charlie black, well-known political figure going back to ronald reagan's first run. it gives you a sense of balance we have at the top of no labels governance. it is both sides with a focus on setting goals and reaching those goals. host: would you say those legislators get a voice in the
current political makeup of congress? guest: i think increasingly they will have a very powerful voice. you cannot take a group of 70 or 80 members of congress, even know they are fairly new to power in the house of representatives. you have to factor them into the decision-making. one of the reasons they have not been is we are not pursuing a big goals. we are engaged in trench warfare for the most part. it is gang on gang warfare for the most part. as soon as you set the goals, in theblem solver caucus house of representatives and increasingly in the congress will be instrumental in moving us to what we are talking about. host: our first call for you is from arthur in new orleans, louisiana. go ahead, please. you are on. caller: good morning, gentlemen. host: are you there? i think he hung up. guest: sorry arthur. we will catch you again. host: one of the people that
spoke about compromise was donald trump. he had his own definition of copper mines or what he thought it should be. i want you to listen to it and get your response. [video clip] >> the work of mice is not a bad word to me as a negotiator and having to read the article the deal and make deals all my life. i like the word copper mice. we need compromise. it is always good to compromise and win, meeting let us compromise -- meaning let us compromise and win. guest: that is the mantra donald trump uses in his meetings. he is a negotiator and has put a lot of deals together. he has worked in complex metropolitan environment. we talked about it backstage before he went up to speak for the no labels group. he has had to optimize his entire career. he understands what a good negotiation is and how to get to the endpoint.
that is what we are missing right now. how do you get to the goal? host: do you think it is wanting to compromise but as far as the people out there that elect these legislators, what do you think about their desire to come from ice? -- we in a highly g and have taken element of competition out of politics when you make blue districts or rent district. -- red districts. what happens when competition disappears from anything?but atrophies -- it atrophies and dies. it is no surprise that you have town hall meetings that are all red or blue. we have to get redistricting efforts to bring a more 50-50 approach to congressional district making that refuses politics with competition. you want people in town hall meetings who represent the american ideal.
as republicans and democrats and independents, they bring their background to the table and talk about how to get things done that matter to american lives in the 21st century. that we are not getting. we are getting a more partisan gathering that engage in critical rhetoric. you see members of congress that -- partor those lines. parrot those lines. host: we have james on the line. caller: the problem is we are too enamored with the two-party system. if we had no parties, we would be much better off. people representing the district as opposed to a party idea. i think that is what has gotten off-base.ry on base -- guest: the point is well taken. in an environment where you are not working to a transcendent toional objective, we fall
the moment and get pulled down. the rise of the tea party, which happened when i was in china as , we had anssador economic storm that passed through this country. we are just now beginning to feel some recovery. not much, but some recovery. jobs are coming back a bit. wages are stagnant for the most part. people became angry when their bank accounts disappeared, retirement was diminished, home values sunk. they became angry and took it out on the political class for better decision-making. you had the rise of the tea party and occupy wall street. that is a symptom of what we find ourselves which is an environment that is not setting these and send in old that the american people can really see a representative of their interest.
tags and labels. i do not think they mean a lot in the end. together as americans whether you are republican or democrat. we have to have our respective ideologies. we bring that to the table. what we are failing to do is remember that we are all americans and are in pursuit of american objectives at the end of the day that would allow you to roll up your sleeves and get some things done. i think labels are probably less relevant in politics today, although we are organized around labels and people fund based on labels and that is holding us back to some extent. host: jon huntsman with us to talk about no labels.
202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats.0 for don in california on the independent line, go ahead. caller: i just wondered if there discussionent or about someone being on the no labels conference. guest: we are open to everybody who wants to embrace this type of approach to problem-solving. is bringinglessing an issue he feels passionately about to the table which is campaign finance. andas an important issue one that i think is at the center of many of our problems and challenges on the campaign front. that is not necessarily the net amount of money in politics whether it is $7 billion or $8 billion in that is not bother me
as much as the concentration of sources of the money and the control they have over the agenda. $7you can take the billion dollars and spread it around the grassroots, we like individuals more invested in the $10 and $15 level. that would strengthen democracy as opposed to cause democracy to atrophy. it was the in 2014, worst turnout in this country since world war ii. to have to go back 75 years see a lower turnout and participation rate. in a day and age when we need people stepping up and expressing their desires and opinions and using their voice, we are not getting enough of it. that is a sign of democracy that is atrophying for all caps of reasons. young people feel
disenfranchised for the most part. they are not turning out. this is what they have to be most evolved. , one of you say that the reasons is exposure that you can get a lot of exposure at the debate. what you think about his decisions and independent third parties to get things done to work on specifics like campaign finance or work on other avenues that are important to people in politics? guest: i think that is inevitable. we may be one election cycle or two from an alternative or third-party movement of consequence we had them in the past. . theodore roosevelt ran as a bull moose. he ran his own party. you can imagine if theodore roosevelt got 20% or 25% of the vote and have the power of the internet. and more recently ross perot. when you match that aspect of
an independent run or alternative run, we are now 42% unaffiliated as the voter class in america. 42% unaffiliated. people are basically signing up for none of the above. we have never seen numbers that i. high.t i think we will see things that are consequential. if you are not delivering something that the american people are looking for, you will go out of business eventually and someone will tak move out ad take her place. we have a strong history of two-party politics in america. i am not sure we are built for three parties. there are a lot of structural barriers in the way. say that the two parties that currently exist are built to hang around forever? the marketplace does not lie.
people will make that determination in time. host: frederick from brooklyn, new york. you are on. go ahead. caller: how are you doing? guest: how are you? great to hear from you. caller: i just wanted to say even though i am a democrat, i feel like you are the only republican that would have given obama a run for his money. on the side those of your party got swallowed up in the process. i just wanted to let you know that. guest: i appreciate that. you made my day. we had a great run. we took third in new hampshire, which was not quite good enough. if we took second, we could have gone on to south carolina where we had the endorsement of a state newspaper and a terrific group on the ground. i had to make a decision as we were running. i had a track record of
decisions and policy initiatives as governor. some of those things were not as popular in the post-lehman republican party as they were beforehand. you can either change or you are forget you have done certain things or you can embrace it and say this is who i am and i would rather stick to my authentic self and be true to what i tried to do for the people i have represented in the past and go down in flames of i have to as opposed to being the shape shifting type of politician that is why i think you see some of these other candidates that are doing pretty well, they have a sense of authenticity. they will do it their way. we had to make that choice. our choice was the stick with who we are. we did not get a lot of lift. we did, ultimately in new hampshire, take third place. that, unfortunate was not good enough, but we love every
minute of it. host: was it a difficult decision? guest: not at all. i respect the president. i want to work for his a administration as a republican because he asked. i was raised -- host: ambassador china? .uest: ambassador to china i had been national cochairman inhis opponent, john mccain, 2008. i got a call to serve for china, which is an area that i have been involved in for decades. i have lived in asia for different times. i thought, ok, i have two sons in the military. they do not have the luxury when they are deployed to ask what party they're president is. they do not have a luxury. they salute and serve.
i thought, when i was having conversations with the white house, i have a choice, i can do what my ancestors always did, which is salute the president, whether you disagree or agree 100%, and i did that. i did a beating for that, when i got back, within my own party. i was probably predictable. when i do it all again? of course i would. i did the principle of putting your country before your party is strong. regardless of the president, people step up and serve. host: barbara, your next with governor huntsman. caller: i would like to know when we became and why we became instead of acan't, country, "we can." we can't fix the broken immigration system. we can't fix the income
inequality. we cannot fix the broken social security system. we cannot secure our borders. it seems like the only thing we could do any more to agree on as a country is go to war. .uest: thanks, barbara your point is so very well taken. i would say, part of the "yes we or, "i want to be a theyr, not a divider," failed to mention the , which is the most important part. be a uniter,ing to not a divider. when we come from a country of soundbites, without the how-to, for success, and is sense, what we are doing at no labels is the how-to, the formula, the recipe for the substance that the american people are looking for. say, the negative
commentary in politics is a lot easier sometimes than the positive commentary. somebody, when you say something is a failure, and you're going to get rid of it, whether it is obama care, or anything else, you get an in certainlause political gatherings. it is a lot harder to say how you will get something done, and achieve a goal. i found, when running for president, you have some candidates that come before crowds, and it is a never ending series of putdowns. everybody cheers. having a conversation about what we really need to get done in the country, about the issues that matter, that is not how they talk. it is necessary, but in politics, it is tough to do. they do not result in sexy,
snappy soundbites. host: "wall street journal" did some pulling not only for a presidential candidate, but the candidate for the house eager. -- house speaker. survey said ithe was more important to find a successor who would stand up for principles, rather than seek compromise, even if that meant less work would get done. what do you think of the first part? as far as the idea of compromise. guest: i think they are pulling one segment other property. this could be what you have 42% of people today registered as unaffiliated. they have had enough. it is none of the above. the attitude gets us nowhere. it is why we do not have budgets, we do not get the big things done. no one is paying attention to entitlements. i don't care if you are bred or blue, the problem with
entitlements is basic mathematics. sending at a certain level, you will go off a cliff, and if you go off a cliff , that hinders your ability to put a budget together. this position of to nothing, just stand behind principles -- principles matter, and you should take those in and argue your case, right up until the end, when you have to fix things. instead of fighting, let's do more fixing. that means we have to sit down together at the same table, democrats and republicans, look at the same objective, as americans, compromise a bit, negotiate, get things done. and raising seven kids. not much gets done in a family without some old-fashioned compromise at the table.
everybody brings a different wishes, desires, at the end of the day, they cannot all get what they want. you have to create a pathway with some overarching goals for your family. atwe all stood on principle the dinner table, we would be throwing food at each other at the end of the day. host: let's hear from eric from michigan. caller: thanks for being on, mr. huntsman. i personally have friends in all .olitical aspects i have friends of all different religions. thato recommend them national sovereignty is not as important as getting some of these trade deals done in order to have the world order that we are all looking forward to? guest: i'm not sure what new world order you are looking for.
trade is a key aspect of nationhood. it is a key aspect of who we are. i'm not sure what you're talking about. trade is a way, as always has been, to facilitate the give-and-take of a commerce, the exchange of goods, the facilitation of investment. we have done a lot of trade investments. we have done the mostly with smaller markets. we have not seen the uplift potential that trade brings. canada is our largest trading market, and is soon to be eclipsed by china. as china develops more of a purchasing class, you better believe, they will be buying a ,ot more from the united states and our export potential and opportunities will be genetically increased. that is good for the country. it is a job creator. it is something that every community and every state should
be planning some export strategy around. that is around the bend over the next 10 years. i think it will be an important part of economic growth in this country. host: as someone who saw firsthand how china is doing economically, what is your impression of the transpacific partnership? guest: the transpacific partnership represents 12 it goes from the united states to vietnam on the lesser end of the spectrum. the agreement that has been struck is not perfect. it includes aspects of trade that are very difficult to get negotiated -- labor, environment, intellectual property protection. these are difficult, tough things. then you get into agriculture, pharmaceuticals, autos. i have done this before as a trade ambassador. they are really difficult to by laterally,
then you get in the multilateral context, and it is times 10. it is nearing completion, we will see what congress does, they will have the chance for an up-and-down vote. that vote could happen anytime soon. i would suspect late next year would be the soonest. then, china will have to say, what do we do with this transpacific partnership that brings together some of the and oureconomies, friends, i would say, andy asia-pacific region. that is a good thing. it is better to be with friends than not. we have to show some signs of life in the asia-pacific region too, we have not for long time. ,hina will have their own block where the standards are not as high. for china to be part of the tpp, they have to up their game. they will have the of the game in terms of market access and
openings, particularly around financial services. they will have to give up this innovation drive with a favor, companiest indigenous and state owned enterprises. they have a lot of work ahead of them. i think longer-term, it would be good to link up china with the transpacific partnership. i think it would be better for experts in the united states -- exports in the united states. host: in terms of the compromise, were you surprised by the reactionary a got, particularly from the house and the senate democrats, republicans somewhat supporting it? breeze apprised by the political reaction? what does it say about the nature of compromise and trade? guest: i think trade promotion authority was a pretty good example of two parties coming together and expressing the aspirations of the american people. trait has always been really tricky. i remember when we got trade promotion authority back in
2002, when i was deputy trade representative. it came down to a to vote margin -- two vote margin. president bush was calling, arm-twisting, and everything he could to get the trade deal over the top. he did, but the margin was about two votes. then, you go back to clinton, and his fight for nafta, which was also a harrowing journey. .hese things are never easy there are sensitivities that go with trade. they need to be debated. industries need to understand what they are in for, what it means to them. beyond just the rhetoric that you hear from the respective corners of politics, you need to sit down and understand what this is going to mean. i don't think enough people do that. generally, trade has been a bipartisan thing in this country, and by and large, it has been good. host: colin, democrat line, hi. earlieryou had talked
about millennial's that basically lost faith in the system. , i believe i am a millennial, i was born in 1995, theink the biggest issue is system is set up towards a two party system, and towards favoring incumbents. congress has i think like a listing.pproval i think the biggest problem is we are using an outdated system of the electoral college. in this day and age, there is no elect theectly
president or congressman. guest: i think the point of the incumbents having a built-in advantage is correct. what happens is you are rewarding bad behavior. morethat result in outlandish behavior? of course it does. , and's no competition sometimes they have to go back and face stuff comp and -- tough competition. i would say that is a problem. millennial's understand that, a good many of them, as represented by this caller. they have to get out there and fight for more competitive system. we need not just economic
reform, not just adjusting inequalities that exist, and i say that as a republican, we have to step up and recognize that too. structural, some electoral reform as well. been a believer in term limits. i said, if i did my job right, you would not want me more than two terms. and, if i've not done in two terms, what i should do, i certainly should not be old to do it by the third term. i think we have to address the byle term limits thing congress. pac's are really an abomination. it is a cancer growing in our democracy. the way we fashion congressional
districts, we have to take the lead of states out west. i think there's something that can be learned as they begin to experiment a little bit. there are really important electoral reform steps that we need to have a conversation about in this country. dan from maryland, thanks for waiting, go ahead. caller: i was going to talk about something else, but i will jump in on trade. trade deals make it possible for a company to contract their manufacturer. in the past, they owned a factory, andg -- they had to treat them half decent. now, it is a market price. now, no one wins, not even the worker in other country. to prove it, look at some goods
that coming from overseas, and look at the country of origin. a lot of times it is a different place. i richly came from massachusetts. i remember when the factories left massachusetts. they went to factories in the carolinas, and they still had protected people in the way. now, there is no -- the company has no labor problem. big airline companies, and manufacturers, are waiting to be able to contract our work in india, and places like that. it is the worst thing you can have. it is marketplace labor. it is no good. increasinglyk training and skills are going to be increasingly important. we have talked about off shoring. i think we are in for a period
.f on showing -- onshoring that is putting our people to work. the training has to be world class. i think we've gotten out of the practice in this country of skills acquisition, vocational skill development, and that step after high school, and getting people properly trained, not for the 20th century, but for the 21st century. there are now industries in this country that can manufacture product and send it to china, cheaper than they can make it in china. argument of people going offshore, i think with the energy revolution that is occurring in this country, we're just seeing the early phases of that. i think that will change the economics of manufacturing. you will see in the automobile sector, my money is right here on the united states, as far as the competitive capacity, going
forward, and what it will mean for workers. that does not say we cannot do a better job, when it comes to training. a lot of people, who were in their 50's, who have young the skill setuse is lacking. shame on us for letting that happen. host: when it comes to building copper must, especially among leaders, how do you think president obama has done? a sorry think it is chapter in american history. his willingness to engage the other side has been sorely lacking. i think the attempt to sit down and negotiate with leadership in congress is something that he has not done. would you do? you rely on your own party, you rely on a second order to get things done. the fact that health care reform went through with a single -- without a single republican
vote. we learned about health care changes, insurance, affordable, portable, accessible insurance policies, and how to take cost out of the system, which is the biggest problem we have. it was the perfect opportunity for republicans and democrats to come together, even at the state level. that just did not happen. it totally blew my mind that we had something that was a straight up partisan vote. that is representative of the operating style in the white house. i thought the nuclear deal with the same, a straight line party vote. government, you get a straight line vote without the opposition party, they will likely not serve the people well because they are tilted, or biased, in one direction, and therefore unrepresentative of the people at large. host: what about the leadership
of the house and senate? guest: listen, there's nothing more powerful than the bully .ulpit of the presidency, t when you're calling people to higher aspirations, to work on things together, and then you have to sit down with them, take , dry to, your motorcade capitol hill, and sit down with them, i think that has a multiplier effect. in encourages people to want to do that. anyone who is governor knows you want from one end of the capital of the other, you sit down with those in your party, and those are maybe not in line with your thinking, and you can move the political market. that,es that leadership if left without, you are just going to have the status quo prevail. the status quo is what we have today. from indiana, here's
laura. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say i really appreciated your presence in the last election. you were one of the few youticians i thought showed cared more about country them party. thank you for that. guest: i appreciate that. caller: my question is about campaign finance reform. it is a really big issue for me. i don't think it is discussed enough. campaignike to see finance reform to get all of the corporations and unions out of donating. i think money should come from individuals. if we could have campaign-finance reform where you could only donate to a candidate for which you could vote, i really resent outside into my state,
influencing campaigns. if it was all transparent, and no limits, people could give as much money as they wanted, but only for candidates for which they can vote. guest: i think laura brings up a really good point. outside money. free-speechve , and theons, and all supreme court has spoken, but if you could not give to someone, unless you could vote for them, imagine the change that would have on grassroots electoral politics. wouldhat simple premise change the dynamic of how we go about funding and raising money for campaigns. it is a bigger, deeper issue that gets to what no labels is trying to advocate around big goal setting. the amount of time is wasted raising money, as opposed to focusing on the issues at hand,
and developing strategies, and building coalitions for the american people, we get a balanced budget to fix entitlements, self-sufficiency -- so much time has been spent raising money. talk to anyone on capitol hill, and they will tell you of the three days they spend on capitol hill each week, how much of that is that on the phone for raising money. i think the american people would be completely shocked at how little time is actually spent on the issues and challenges at hand. that then gets to what we are advocating. in order to get some of these big things done -- i'm not talking about stretch goals. what we're talking about are the tuneup aspects that need to be done to keep the v.a. running and keep us competitive and it's 21st century. how can you focus long enough on those big issues when you're
spending more time raising money? host: from new jersey, mary lou. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i want to talk about labeling. i do not like labeling either, mr. huntsman. unfortunately, labeling often defined to be are in how we think -- and how we think as a society. for example, to conservatives do not believe in abortion on demand. they believe in traditional marriage. they believe in rule of law. of morality and legality, there is very little room for compromise. ,e live in a society right now and have been for many years, where we are moving toward no more individuality.
we are expected to all think alike about everything. a good example of that is the gay rights issue right now. if you do not go along with the way these people think, you are punish severely, especially for beliefs.gious unfortunately, labeling is often necessary. guest: thank you. i think labeling is part of politics, whether we like it or not. everybody cares to label, that is the reality. all we are saying at the end of the day is we are all americans, we should probably get a few things done. as for the issues that mary lou a believer and'm federalism. they ought to be handled at the state level. have those debates at the state level, like we did. they ought to be ongoing, but ked atught to be dupe out at the state level.
not everything you have to get done, but you have to get a few .hings done you have to balance budgets, you have to deal with the energy opportunities. labels, they will always be around, there's something you can do about that. in the end, we have to get some things done in this country too that matter to the economic growth prospects that play into our ability to succeed, so that we can continue to have this debate at the state level. right now, i'm concerned that the engines that really feel this country are weak, and the ourpects for them firing up lessons because we are not doing the fundamentals beard host. host: from michigan, dave, going ahead. caller: you should have been a nominee in 2000.
guest: i did not catch it all. host: say that again and keep going with your question or comment. caller: you should have been the nominee in 2012. you were able to form -- are onave, i think you delay. we will put you on hold real quick, and then maybe you can try your question or comment again. from twitter, saying, how would you negotiate with a political faction that openly says they would oppose any and everything you proposed? guest: you have those fractions as governor. right now, we do not have any endpoint inside because we have no goals. we have no overarching american executives. we have no strategy. you will have factions that behave as they do, on both sides.
as governor, i was trying to have goals. goals for education, goals were tax reform. goals for how we use public lands. then you bring people together and say, here it is. generally people in that kind of environment work towards some endpoint. right now, we don't have any endpoint. -- what iss it it about the environment on the state level? guest: you are closer to the people on the state level. you know that when you walked on the street. they follow you in the papers every day. you are closer to the challenges. your closer to the opportunities. you can see at the state level where a state can be, where you can enhance freedom, liberty, and opportunity for people, how .chools can perform better how to deal with population growth, which we have a lot of in our state. we had unemployment at 2.5%. .eople wanted jobs
probably the most important thing that people can have as far as self dignity. we set goals. you either sign on or you are an outlier because the people will ultimately insist that they get with the program, and work towards a better tomorrow. host: here is john from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i've heard a lot of good things that mr. huntsman has done, but thing -- genuous when president obama invited , ifle to the white house you are going to talk about that, why not talk about infrastructure? thank you. guest: i did not catch that. host: i think he was talking about the importance of infrastructure because we are facing a deadline now as far as
and for structured products in the state. guest: last i looked, roads, do not have dams republican or democrat associated with them. they are assets that we use to keep our markets connected, and allow for the one thing we haven't so feel people have, mobility. the freedom to be mobile. i did not think people appreciate how unique that is in our world. the freedom of mobility. you cannot have it without a solid and researcher. when your governor, you understand the importance of infrastructure. you are the responsible party. you monitor that on a regular basis. host: what happens if some type of agreement is not reached? how does it affect the state? give examples from utah if you can. guest: you probably go on a continuing resolution or something like that.
it means that states will have to draw down from their own resources, and generally these projects are done in project with the federal government. you have some roast on the local level, but the key infrastructure, the spine that country, theur i-70, the i-80, and their tributaries, those are done jointly with the federal government. they are big projects, and expensive. theithere utilize now, probably more than ever before, with cheap gas prices, and people getting out to trouble. it means you delay, delay, delay. as you delay, the infrastructure becomes more in tatters, and more expensive to fix, when you do get there. host: and and applets, marylan, henry. caller: [indiscernible]
i agree with many of his republicans in congress tried hard to make him a failed residency. guest: i'm sorry, i did not catch that. host: he asked about the resistance that the president received from republicans. as far as his agenda, what would you do differently? guest: you go back to health care reform, which i think set the mood for operating in washington. after that was done, it's so set up the division in washington. was really difficult at that point to put the pieces back together again. it was a huge, missed
opportunity not to engage republicans, as difficult, and .ecalcitrant as politics can be it can be done, and it should be done. i think the aftermath is that you really created a toxic environment for the most part. host: rachel is in texas. you are on with governor huntsman. caller: we are talking about soundbites this morning. when the president was talking about building roads and bridges , and he was talking about construction. aen he said, when you own business, you to not build it. i'm not a rocket scientist, but i know what he was talking about. he was talking with the building of the business, the building itself. they took that, and they run it -- we built this. the republican party. i mean, they think we are a bunch of dummies out here.
we understood what he meant. for you to go out and played out like you did -- another thing, 9/11, the 20n hit hours, i never could understand laden's familyn sent over here, and got them through security like he did, and nothing was made of it. what was the purpose of bin laden's family coming over here after 9/11? guest: i cannot speak to the movement of bin laden's family. all i can say is the security situation for the united states is so fundamentally changed from when i was going out -- growing up. we live in a different country. we have to recognize the security threat, and deal with that realistically. to the men and women out there every day fighting, and
protecting us, and to their families, i know their families back them up. they have our heartfelt gratitude for what they do. this is a situation, and we can't blame this person or that. problem, security and the middle east on fire. that will not be an easy fix or solution. we have to gird ourselves up for the fact that this will be a long-term struggle for the united states. we need friends and allies who are like-minded like never before to put out the fire. host: carol from mississippi, republican line. go ahead please. huntsman,s, mr. h i can't see how you can cover my's with the democrats. they outsmart the republicans, .nd outmaneuver them all the time the republicans
i just want to say that. also, you would have been i handsome president -- a handsome president. guest: thank you so much, carol. long since we have had republicans and democrats working together, i can't remember who lust got the better of whom, but in the 1990's, we achieved a balanced budget with newt gingrich and clinton working together. i remember the growth in the aftermath. i remember went reagan and tip o'neill worked together. i worked with ronald reagan, the of the lowest person on totem pole of the white house staff. he was a man with a few basic , and a respect for people. i don't remember him calling anyone a name. in fact, in debates in the
1980's, i don't think he ever prefer to his opponent other than, "my opponent." he was gracious, he had goals, and he went after those goals. he wanted to end the cold war, he wanted to expand economic growth, freedom, and liberty. he got them. tip o'neill, i will never forget, on st. patrick's day, as a young advanced man, the two of them in the backyard of the irish investor in d.c., having a beer together, and talking as friends. yet, they fought each other, they were on different ends of spectrum, butl they came together around a american ideals. i cannot imagine the cold war would have ended, as it did, without tip o'neill playing the role he did as speaker, and ronald reagan being willing to sit down, face-to-face, and negotiate with someone, who he did not necessarily like, and certainly did not agree with. it was through the power, and
the majesty of the ideals and principles that he had on display, as an american, that he was able to make progress, and bring an end to the cold war. it was not one man, it was a series of events, and the leadership of both parties that ultimately made that happen. we have to remember those lessons of history. there is relevant -- they are as relevant today as they were back then. host: let's hear from greg and indiana. mr. huntsman, i have a big thought. you are also smart up there, but we have the california drought, south carolina, that is flooding, and all that stuff. you are talking with jobs, why don't you get 10,000 water trucks and do some water treatment plants, and then you don't have to worry, the government will front it anyway. you can get jobs. you are smart, but cannot think
about real comments and stuff -- common sense stuff. guest: to say that everyone is so smart in the nation's capital is probably missing it. i think we lose a lot of the smart people to sides, business, finance, and economics. i wish we had more smart people in our nation's capital. i think if we did, we would have a much better outcome. i have to disagree with greg on that point. they may come across a smart, but they talk too much, they don't listen, and they don't work together. that is a problem. host: in terms of solutions, there are people concerned about spending, defense issues, what is the no labels approach to the budget issue? guest: you can imagine, are problem solvers caucus, democrats and republicans sitting down, dealing with the budget crisis as it is, there will be give-and-take, no doubt
about it. it is a pipe dream to think you can achieve a balanced budget overnight. you can over time. you submit a budget, they rip it apart -- what governors have to do which would be a good practice for federal government is you have to make a budget balanced, you have to make it work. every time i sat down with my budget makers, i had to take something out to make it fit, or add something to make the numbers work. there is no such attempt at the federal level. having a goal, which we are advocating for at no labels, would probably be one of the more important things we could do. it would bring a practice of a .alanced budget to the table without a balanced budget goal, i dig it becomes very difficult to get anywhere. host: from waco, texas, the last call for our guest. whyer: i would like to know
that people do not get to vote in the states for ideas, instead of the congress and senators, , whenthe decisions for us big money gets them into the offices. as independent people, we do not get that vote. they go through you guys in the theye, and the house, and make the decisions. then, the supreme court either says, that is a good idea, or no . the people never get to vote. you may beink underestimating the power of the people at the grassroots level. runs for governor and my unsuccessful run for president, i found it is nothing voice ofrful than the the people. people who show up at town hall meetings, people who organize, people who knock on doors, people who make the calls. it all starts right
there. the fact of the matter is our political process, and again, with all the big money, i think we are seeing evidence of this just a little bit. our motto has always been fueled by people at the grassroots and turn out. i think the ideal is still alive ,oday as it has always been turnout, get out to vote, learned issues, the compassionate about the future of your country, look for constructive goals that we can shi shoe for as a country. tilde hope for our future more for our futuree more. we can get back to operating as free people, as we always have. in conclusion, let me say, we have had human failure -- the only way to put it. we have not had structural failure, because we have a constitution. we have had the institutions. we have had human failure.
we have had human beings that have failed to do the most basic things in getting to an endpoint . they do not meet, they do not talk, they do not negotiate, they do not copper mice. we see what the results are. how do you fix human failure? only human beings can fix that. you cannot redesign the way we do governor. government. people have to fix it. that means getting back to one of the points we had earlier. we need better people in washington, smarter people, more compassionate people who bring to washington a sense that we are all working towards a common american destiny. i know the next generation. i'm raising seven young kids. that is what they want. host: i think you are seeing that play out in the house speakers race currently, only because speaker boehner said he believed. first the foremost, what do you think of him as a leader in
terms of compromising with factions in his own party? what you think about his ability to negotiate the bringing together of those factions? isst: i see it as the proof in the results achieved. we did not get too many big things done. we had a lot of hunkering down on capitol hill. he had an operating style that was not a bottom-up approach that a lot of people are looking for. top-downre of a mandate. that hit a wall, and created a division within the republican caucus, as far as i can tell. nextll see out of this speakers race to see who steps like paul ryany is willing to do it, who i think is an extraordinary public servant. he is a numbers guy, he knows the budget, he knows tax reform. he has put forward some good ready.ms and ideas all ri
i think he is a transcendent figure who can bring more people together than we have seen in the past. host: you did not see that happening with kevin mccarthy? guest: i do not know kevin mccarthy enough to say what kind of operator he would have been, but presumably it would have been more into tradition of speaker boehner, who mentored him. out of catastrophe can come a sense of renewal. i'm an optimist in the icy out of this house calamity, the opportunity for a new somebody with a new approach, and new ideas, to bring people together around eight things that are really important for this country. i'm optimistic in the sense that it is not all a train wreck, it is not all a calamity. it appears that way, and i think that headline writers want to
stress that point, about a calamity can sometimes come renewal, which would be very good in the case of the house. host: i have to ask, you sent out a tweet, looking at the issues, specifically kevin can you give some context? guest: he was an example of someone run over by someone pursuing a sense of ambition. host: he used to work for you, jason chaffetz? guest: he did. he is a good man, but there was a series of incidents that appeared the same, when you looked at them closely. it was a little bit of the wrong ambition, and people who get thrown under the bus, who make the career for you. host: the best advice he would give to the next house speaker, if you could sum it up? guest: have goals. reach across the aisle. remember you are an american first enforcement -- first and
foremost. jon huntsman, governor of labels.d cochair of no theighlighted a poll on race for house speaker. those who responded said it was more important for people to principle, rather than see copper mice. we want to ask you about the qualities for the next speaker ahead. is it someone who stands up for principles, or someone who seeks compromise? if you think principles is the thing to go for, (202) 748-8000 is the number to call. if you think compromise could the, (202) 748-8001 is number to call. again, republicans only. earlier today, we spoke with lauren french.
we will talk to her about the housefor the speaker. be will do that as "washington journal" continues after this. ♪ presents landmark our landmarke to cases series, which explores 12 supreme court decisions, including marbury versus madison, korematsu versus united states, brown versus board of education. landmark cases, the book, introduces highlights an impact of each case. written by tony mauro, and published by c-span, in cooperation with cq press. "landmark cases" is available
for eight dollars 95 sent -- $8.95 plus shipping. get your copy today. a signature feature of booktv is our all-day coverage of book fairs and festivals from across the country with top nonfiction authors. here is our schedule beginning this weekend. we're live in the nation's heartland for the wisconsin book festival in madison. at the end of the month, we will be at nashville. at the start of november, we are back on the east coast for the boston book festival. in the middle of the month, it is the louisiana book festival in baton rouge. at the end of november, we're live for the 18th year in a row from florida for the miami book fair international. awards inational book york city. just some of the fairs and festivals this fall on c-span booktv. >> "washington journal"
continues. host: it was in that recent "wall street journal" poll the as people what is more important when considering a house speaker, principles, or willingness to compromise. for our last segment, republicans only, we want to get your thoughts on not only who would be a good house bigger, but as principles are concerned, forf they should stand copper mice. if you see someone who stands for principles, (202) 748-8000. who wille someone compromise, (202) 748-8001. earlier today, we have a chance to talk with lauren french about the status of this speakers race. here's a bit of that conversation. guest: all eyes will be on paul ryan, will he get into the
speakers race, or won't he. his office has said that no decision has been made, he wants to here from lawmakers when he gets back. this will be the pivotal, key decision. that isryan gets in, the ballgame. he has the support to get to 18 .- 218 if paul ryan does not get in, which is a huge possibility, he is a family man, it does not want to be on the road, it was be a speaker.m to then, it will be a chaos situation. there is no one else in the conference that can get that magic number of 218. you may see a situation where stay longer than expected. he was expected to leave by the end of this month. host: if it is not paul ryan,
who else is a serious contender for the position? guest: that is the really tough thing to say. there is no one now who could feasibly get the votes. there are about two dozen people whose names are floating out there, of course daniel webster from florida. he has the favor of the conservative house freedom conference. as jason face jason chaffetz, be has not picked up enough support to create enough momentum. also talking to their colleagues ,s texas republican bill florez chair of the republican study group. you have a slew of texas republicans in the race who are talking to colleagues. lynn westmoreland is out there he wouldbout how
serve. there are a lot of names out there, but none of these people have the following that kevin mccarthy could have built up, that paul ryan has. it really would take more rounds of the republican conference to have someone average with a majority of votes. host: do you know if the house speaker is currently campaigning , calling for mr. right to consider the physician, and is he talking to others is mr. ryan's position is for that he will not run? guest: absolutely. paul ryan is under estimate is about a pressure to run. he has gotten calls from speaker boehner, kevin mccarthy, kind of the gamut of republican leaders saying, you're the only one with the reputation, the street credit, to get in and rule this very unruly and unmanageable conference. if he does not get in, boehner with likely put his support behind someone else, only to his his allies toward
position. right now, everyone is waiting to see and hoping that paul ryan gets in. i thinks not a solid -- we are on plan c or plan d at this point. host: what is the timeline for an actual vote to take place? has there been any indication? guest: boehner indicated that he would call a vote, at least schedule a vote this week for sometime in the future. he does have his eye on next thing at the end of the month. there are only tw weeks, and their only in washington for about eight days. if he would meet his original theline of exiting th at and of october, quite soon. you wil would want some leeway time to reschedule a vote. you should expect to hear news on that sometime this week. host: that was lord french
talking about the house speakers race. a poll saying, 56% saying they want the next house speaker to stand up for principles. 46% saying they want them to compromise to get things done. for republicans only in our .inal segment this morning if you believe the house speaker should stand up for principles, (202) 748-8000. if you think is important quality to see compromise, (202) 748-8001. we begin this morning with amy and texas. caller: good morning. i wanted to say that we have to compromise. that is what the whole system is based on. that is why you have different parties. as corny as it sounds, our country is symbolized an ea gle, a bird, it has a right wing and a left wing. ,ur government, like the eagle
has a left-wing and right-wing. until we start flopping them together, we will just end up a giant lump on the highway of history. go, are thereou certain areas where compromise is ok, but standing on principle is not, or vice versa? caller: you should always be open to compromise. there are two main people in this country for everybody to think one way. a lot of these ideas based on principles have a lot to do with religion. i watch c-span. i see politicians on the floor quoting scripture. if i want to hear your future, i will go to church -- your scripture, i will go to church. we are trying to do what is best for the most people. not everybody is going to be happy. sometimes you get what you want, and sometimes you don't. that is life. host: let's hear from joe in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my
call. that welican, i think should compromise. i think everybody would agree with that. i think the reason that we are seeing the numbers that we are ising, that you indicated, because republicans feel that there is not a feeling of compromise that is available in the past. in things like immigration, things like obamacare, things moresome of our recent military engagements, when things look like they are not going to go the way demonstration once, compromise goes out the window, and the will gets carried out by executive order or some technicality of law. i think a lot of republicans are frustrated in the whole idea of trying to compromise. i think that may be why the numbers seem the way they do.
host: from florida, this is keith. caller: thanks so much for taking my call. i really appreciate watching you .uys about five days a week i feel compromise is essential. neari heard john boehner, the beginning of the minister should, obama's a administration, when he came on tv and said, they were not going to compromise, i thought, that is a mainstay of democracy. ,aybe there are certain issues from time to time, when compromise has to be looked at a different way, but in general, compromise is essential for democracy to work. no one always gets everything they want, neither side. it has been more trouble because of the non-compromise stance. .t should be from both sides you have to be somewhere in the middle to please the majority of
the country. host: do you think the compromise has to take place in all areas of political life, or are there some more important than others? caller: there is probably some areas that compromise might have to be looked at in a different way. i don't have a list of those. compromisegeneral almost always has to be at the top of the list. i do agree with an earlier caller when she said -- when religion starts to enter into politics, you are going to guarantee there is going to be -- more problems. an importantis thing, but there are so many different types of religions that when you start saying things -- where religion makes the difference in whether you can be president or not, or what religion you are makes a difference if you can have the you areoffice --
getting into even more trouble. keep your spiritual values, but keep religion out of politics. and keep compromise on the top of your list. thank you. host: and the best quality for the next speaker of the house? someone who stands up for principles or six compromise? for principles, (202) 748-8001. for compromise, (202) 748-8000. is in nashville, tennessee. go ahead. caller: i want somebody that stands up for principles. the problem with john boehner is that he always caved every time. he gave obama everything that he wanted and he promised us. if they got the majority of the house and senate that they would
stand up for conservative values. and that hasn't happened in the house or the senate. we need somebody that stands firm on conservative principles and doesn't just give carte blanche to this executive. thanks for taking my call. host: do you think it's the reason that john boehner is leaving office? caller: absolutely. himll saw pictures of chalking it up and laughing and having a good old time with president obama. that's not the reason the -- that thevoters voters gave the majority to the house and the senate. they promised us that they would do different things and once they got into majority, all of those things went out the window. the other thing i didn't like
about john boehner was when a few tried to stand up to him. or tookned them chairmanships away from them and it was just mean-spirited. he was a big disappointment as speaker of the house. host: who would you like to see is the next speaker of the house? caller: i would like to see someone like trey gowdy. i think mitt romney would be a great speaker of the house. and therecked on this is no constitutional requirement that the speaker has to come from the congress. the speaker can come from outside. i think that romney would be a great speaker. host: that's rose in tennessee. a story focusing on trey gowdy and the benghazi committee, scheduled to hear from hillary clinton on thursday. his pleas to keep the probe
above politics have gone unheeded. returned, his campaign three donations after the washington post inquired about pack that aired a controversial ad about the benghazi attacks during last week's democratic presidential debate. it showed images of the americans killed in benghazi as a narrator addressed hillary clinton. servedasurer previously as treasurer of a fund-raising committee affiliated with trey gowdy. he is the treasurer of three that each donated $2000 to trey gowdy's campaign.
don't forget the hillary clinton testimony at the house committee on benghazi will be airing live on c-span on thursday. hello. what do you think about the speaker of the house? what's more important? caller: compromise. the president has been in office almost eight years. done with the republicans as far as compromise. and the republicans can't even compromise with each other in the house or the senate. you must compromise. that's how you get things done. you are not going to get everything you want. republicans are like a bunch of spoiled kids. if i can't get what i want, i shut the government down. host: are you a republican? caller: oh, no. know, wet to let you
want to keep it to republicans for the next 45 minutes. lucia in texas. good morning. caller: yes. good morning. hello. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: yes sir. i just want to comment on the best quality for the next speaker of the house. the problem is you have to stand on the institution where you eat and you have to check -- what is the maturity of the american people want -- what do the majority of the american people want? you don't have to stand on your gop group. differenthas principles. i don't have any problem with the gop.
they are good in congress. all the representatives. and the ones nominated for the speaker are good. but the problem is they are trying -- you know these tea party people? they have to stand on the institution where they are in. what is the law that we have to get it in and what is the majority of the american people want? host: that's from beaumont, texas. about the best quality for the speaker of the house. eric schmidt writes in the new york times this morning that the army general in charge of the pentagon's failed $500 million program to equip syrian rebels is leaving his job but is likely to be promoted and assigned a senior counterterrorism position here in the states.
the officer is stepping down as commander of the american special operations forces in the middle east. the training program he was responsible for would only produce a few dozen fighters. he is in line to be awarded a third star to lieutenant general. officials emphasized the decision was not yet final. lee in waldorf, maryland. time and call all the the first word out of my mouth is jesus and the last word out of my mouth is jesus. speak about jesus, you guys look like a deer in the headlights. you have no idea what i'm talking about. half the nation's communists. the other half of the nation is fascist. we nude lord jesus in our government, not less jesus. he's the one that brought us to
the dance. he's the one that started this nation and built this nation up. there was a time that you could have children come to sunday school and figure they had heard about jesus somewhere. host: what about the next speaker of the house? caller: that he would be a god-fearing man. this country has become a country that has no idea who jesus is. there is only one god and that is jesus christ and that is why our country is in the trouble it is in. we homosexual allies are children, we murder the rest of our children. we need a man who's going to stand up against all of these things. but it's not going to happen. we are going to be punished for the way we have been living our lives in this country. shanda from woodbridge, virginia. caller: hello. for me, when i look at the situation of what the next speaker of the house should be, compromise is an important tool. don't stand for
something you will fall for anything. the democrats and obama knows that. i don't see too many republicans who are committed to actually carrying out the things that people elected them to do. when i'm looking at someone, i want them to be able to say i'm willing to work with someone but put their feet to the fire. and once the president sees that they are serious and that we are really going to carry through with representing the people and not just what the big businesses or whatever your political friends want, then they will come to the table and you will get them to work together to get this country back on track again. host: what do you think is a good principle to stand on? is it economic, is it social? i will tell you something about my fifth. -- family.
i'm a millennial. social principles are very key. i recognize that the country might not reflect everything that is what i would hope it to be. and that's the beauty of america. one thing that we can usually unite on his economic principles. so we need to cut down the deficit and stop putting so much money on things that aren't beneficial to our country. when i get ready for retirement age in about 35 or 40 years, what kind of life are we going to have? save foreven retirement or other things for our children because things are because taxesive are high, we are paying so much in health insurance and other things of that nature. it's to the point where it's like, the people who are in power right now are not considering that.
there are just considering what's going to happen for them right now. what's going to make their lives easier right now. for our last segment, for republicans only. we want to hear from you the best quality for the next speaker of the house. someone who it's stands up for principles or someone who seeks compromise. (202) 748-8000 for principles. (202) 748-8001 for compromise. we will continue with those calls. a new decision by the administration takes a look at what are commonly known as drone. s. drone rules are getting fast-track. here to talk about it is bart jansen of usa today. he reports on transportation issues. tell us a little bit about this decision by the faa. faa announced and yesterday that they want to
create a registry for all drone owners. the folks that fly commercial drones for aerial photography, pipeline inspection, they have been registering already. so really this proposal is targeted at the hobbyists. the recreational flyers who have their own remote-controlled aircraft. it's to try to get a better handle on who they are and where they are. host: are we talking things you could buy at a toy store? is it a certain dollar level that we are talking about? set of.est: they haven't yet they asked a task force of two dozen people of industry leaders and regulators and airline pilots to come up with the detailed provisions. what information they would ask for, where it would be stored, how it could be accessed.
to come back by november 20. we will have to wait and see what the specific proposals are. the transportation secretary anthony foxx said he wanted to register all drones. the hobbyists say that it is not worth registering small drones. so small that they wouldn't go above the height of a house. so we will have to see the details about how small they do go. host: mr. jansen, some of the factoids coming out on this decision are highlighted. 7000 or and are expected to be purchased this year and about 100 sightings or close calls with drones take place on a monthly asis. can you expand on both of those and what it means for this policy? guest: yes. the close calls is sort of a disputed area. the faa is getting reports, about 100 reports per month from pilots of aircraft.
whether it is airliner's poor little -- or little generak aviation aircraft. people seeing what they think are drones out the window. the concern is potentially you could have a collision or cause some damage to a plaintiff they ever ran into each other. that's why they want her own operators to fly safely and people and from airports. the hobbyists have taken a look at those actual reports and found that in very few cases are drones actually very close to planes. like within a few hundred feet of a passenger plane. but they find many reports where it might have been birds or it might have been balloons. so there is some dispute about how many of those reports are actually a small remote-controlled aircraft. however many the number is, there is great concern. nobody wants a collision.
so they are coming up with these rules to try to encourage safe flying. you say how big a problem is it -- there are estimates that already hundreds of thousands of these sorts of aircraft have been sold already. and because they are getting so popular, they are cheaper. they fly with high definition cameras now. you can get a pretty good one canas little as $40 or you get really fancy ones for a couple thousand dollars. availableecoming very and the estimates run from anywhere from 700,000 to one million might be distributed around the holidays as gifts. host: has there been reaction from the industry itself or members of congress that serve on transportation related committees? guest: yes. the lawmaker reaction that i got chairman of the
aviation subcommittee of the supported this proposal. senator markey of massachusetts also supported the proposal. been concerned about privacy implications from too many drones flying around. so the lawmakers are all in support. but they have also focused almost entirely up to this point on the commercial drones. the people flying them for a reason, for a job. up until now, the hobbyists have not been regulated. they do not now have to register. and so that is the question. how many of these hobbyists are the registry going to apply to? hundreds of thousands of these have already been sold to secretary fox said he just wants to register the ones that are already out there. figure outl have to
how to do retroactive registration for the ones people already own. host: what happens if you don't register? threat if you fly unsafely or if they catch you flying unsafely and you are not following rules -- which are basically stay lower than 400 feet, don't go within a few miles of an airport, flight only during the day, keep the drone within sight of the operator. if you are not following those rules, you could potentially be vulnerable to fines up to $25,000 and also potential criminal charges if you interfered with an airliner flight. so the charges are little bit vague, but they would have this in their toolbox of enforcement. if uber flying unsafely -- if you were flying unsafely, that would be one more penalty they could tack on.
host: bart jansen is a transportation reporter with usa today talking about the new rules for drug users. thank you. guest: thanks for having me. host: back to your calls on the best quality for the house speaker. jack in indiana. caller: good morning. i think most people in this country regardless of their party affiliation would like to see congress compromise and work together better with the executive branch. the one thing i find a little is that within the white house we have a gentleman right now that doesn't really seem to want to compromise on anything. and if you doubt it, look at at hishappening executive actions on immigration and paris other things that he just kind of seems to want to go his own way. as far as theg next speaker, i'm not sure whether we need somebody that stands up for principles or is
willing to compromise, but one thing i would like to see if somebody get in there who is truly extremely charismatic. because the republicans always seem to lose the battle of publicity and it does seem occasionally they want to fight for the wrong things. -- how bige how much a deal it is for most people in this country that we really go to battle and shut the government down over certain things like funding for planned parenthood. host: rick from twitter says that paul ryan clearly doesn't want the job. whatever happened to louie gohmert? he wanted the job. jerry from tennessee. go ahead. caller: yes. i think you guys should of had a of standing on principle at the same time, compromising what you believe.
it i believe there are times that you do need -- because i believe there are times that you do need to try and come out with a solution that will work with each other. i do believe that you are not going to get everything you want every time. but last eight years, we have seen a government that you either go one way or you don't go at all. and for some odd reason, the republicans are the ones that are -- that get blamed for it. which i think is kind of crazy. because if the congress sends a , it's hise president job to either veto it or sign it. it, he's in my opinion the one that shut the government down because he didn't sign the bill. to president,
compromising with the republicans. obama hasn't done that in my opinion. because he has done so many executive orders on issues that i don't believe in my time i have ever seen a republican president do. host: steve in idaho. go ahead. i just wanted to say that compromises the only way you get anything done. i'm a single parent. i've raised three children by myself. in most cases, as the head of the family, you try to put your principles forward. you try and set a direction that you want your family to go. but like everything else, you don't get to control every aspect of it.
there are times when you want very desperately for them to go one direction, but they are individuals just like congress. just like the rest of us. we have our own opinions. the only way you get anything done is to find that neutral ground where everyone can -- not agree, at least live with the situation. but the bottom line is we have a country we need to keep moving forward. we have many problems not only economically but worldwide. and this decision of drawing a line in the sand and not moving past it is basically like dealing with a 4-year-old who once cookies for dinner and won't listen to anything else. to have some sort of compromise because no one in the world always gets everything they want. host: the new york times highlights this morning what's going on in britain when it comes to strategy announcing th to prevent radicalization among muslims.
the strategy did not include a specific proposal to close mosques although it did promise to push legislation to create new powers for fighting extremism. they want to make it possible to ban organizations that promote and draw people into extremism and restrict access to premises which are repeatedly used to support extremism. ony also plan to clamp down the dissemination of extremist messages on social media. that's from the new york times this morning. and the front page of the globe and mail out of canada highlights that it is justin trudeau won the election. lynn in california. you are on. caller: good morning.
compromise, like everybody else has said, i'm sure would be really nice. with, it seems the trouble congress and washington, d.c. as a whole is they are just completely out of touch with most of the country. and it is such a complicated system that i don't think that most of us really understand the whole process that goes on, all the lobbying that goes on. people who live in washington, d.c. that aren't from their always say it is a whole different world and they live completely different than the rest of us. how at thisure point you can bring republicans and democrats together. it seems like everybody wants to get stuck on fighting with social issues, which we are
never going to agree on based on the fact that we all have our certain beliefs depending on where and how we were raised. and that is not going to be changed. the media, not c-span, you guys knows thatthe media it is better theatrics to just show the things that people -- don't get along or don't agree on like abortion and gay marriage and all those things that just dominate the news instead of what really goes on. more aboute to know the lobbying system. how many people are involved in the selection process and how deep is it? believei just fully that as americans, we are completely misinformed about the process. ton those of us that try watch as much c-span as we possibly can and try really hard to educate ourselves to grasp
what really goes on. and you turn on the news, and it's just totally skews the whole thing. there,ver gets in whoever is president, i just really hope that people can start dealing with the serious issues. talk about infrastructure and all the things that are wrong with our country but you turn on the news and all you hear about is planned parenthood or gay marriage or whatever. those are social issues that we are not going to solve. if we could go to work on the problems in the country that we can solve, i'd don't think that it would keep us divided as much as some of the other stuff. lynn from was california. fox news reporting that jim webb will drop his bid for the democratic nomination today at 1:00. his political future is unclear.
if you want to watch that announcement today, you can do so on our website at c-span.org. jane from ohio. go ahead please. caller: thanks for taking my call. i agree with so much of what the previous caller just said. and i would like to thank the freedom caucus for what they are trying to do. i appreciate their efforts and jim jordan is one of my heroes. as far as what i would like to see in the next speaker, i would like to see honesty. come to the podium and tell the american people what we already know. as the previous caller talked about, all the social issues that have become political. the next speaker needs to tell us honestly that the communist party has taken over the left. and that's what the social engineering is about. i pray there are some democrats that can overcome that. i used to be a democrat. i wouldn't vote democrat now if you paid me. but the republicans also need to
tell the american people they are afraid. they appease and capitulate because they are afraid. quit lying and pretending you are going to do something you are not going to do. to talk aboutoing what the elephant is in the middle of the room because you would hang up on me. but they are not going to fight obama. fight theot going to propaganda machine of the communist party because they are afraid. so just sit down and be quiet and watch them hurt us. the left is hurting us. the right is watching. and that's what's going to go on until we get another president in there. so frustrated and exhausted hearing about things that are never going to be solved and have nothing to do with governance that are just social issues and watching people shoot themselves in the foot that are good people trying to do the right thing, but the media is such a corrupt awful thing in this country. russia is nothing
compared to the propaganda machine that goes on in this country on the left and on the right. host: i have to leave it there because we're out of time for the program today. another edition of this program comes to you at 7:00 tomorrow morning. you then.ee uo ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> and in the presidential race, after last week's democratic debate, nbc and "the wall street journal" showing former secretary of state hillary clinton with 58% of support without vice president joe biden in the race. and if he