Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal  CSPAN  November 29, 2015 7:35am-10:01am EST

7:35 am
i feel quite secure because i "prepaid."ords -- then if anybody gets any information, it will not do them any good. there is no reason to be afraid. i have one major credit card. i pay a few things with my credit card automatically. things like netflix, small things like that. 80% of the time, i pay cast. host: you have never had an instance where your information was stolen? caller: never. like i said, if you use a prepaid credit card, if they get
7:36 am
the information, it will not do them any good. host: got you. that is terry and alabama. a headline saying, "for our safety, our future: chris christie for president. that is "the new hampshire union leader," chris christie is their endorsement. let's go to jean. caller: good morning, pedro. just on,eman who was he is on point.
7:37 am
never have a card with large sums of money on it, where is someone gets a hold of it, they can use it. as americans, we have gotten lazy, where we want all the convenience, but along with the convenience comes the danger of other people, or bad people, doing things that are not good. the internet is a wonderful thing. there is no such thing as security on the internet. i used to work for for ricin. i worked for them for 33 years. i did network administration, system administration. -- the name of the
7:38 am
is if you can get access, anyone, and does not necessarily have to be some criminal on the street stealing your credit card. there are people who are trafficking information. , if theydy wanted to had intentions, if you can get one of the sites, and clamp on the internet address, what you do is you get on their , and whatpe a command happens is everything that comes
7:39 am
yourss is readable -- password, the login, the information, your conversation. place.ave things in we are provided with things that we consider a security. the reality is there is no such thing as security on the internet. host: thank you very much for your thoughts this morning. jody online saying the first time i shopped online, my .nformation was stolen if you have student loans, there is an adjusting piece in "the new york times" this morning .aying, lend with a smile
7:40 am
liz kelly now owes the government $410,000 and counting. this is a staggering sum. host: there is more information in a store you can find from "the new york times." jim is in florida. go ahead. caller: how are you doing? host: fine. caller: i will be shopping on cyber monday, using my desktop and ipad, and maybe iphone also.
7:41 am
my devices.ecure on i think really it is a matter of how much risk you want to take. if you really do not want to out any risk, you do not go of your car. shopping on the internet is convenient. sometimes it is the only way to get some of the products you would like to have. host: whippings lead you to the level of security you place on those devices? sure that mye operating systems are up to date. they have all the security patches on them. i have a very good virus protection program on them. reputable firms. something, and see a deal on a website that i'm not
7:42 am
familiar with, i will look it up and see what kind of response they have had. i think the biggest issue i have had is what customer service people will give you. host: anthony and alabama, your next, go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. looking pretty good. i want to hit on what terry and jean said earlier about the prepaid cards. that is what i do. you have to pay something like one dollar-five dollars. you load how much you want on it. you buy whatever you want to buy . you to not have to worry about your bank account, or anything like that. went youput the money want to buy, and you don't have to worry about anything else. host: you would not let a credit card or debit card online? caller: no.
7:43 am
i would never put the online. muchgreen., that is pretty your security. you don't have to worry about your bank information or anything like that. host: do you do a lot of shopping online? caller: not too much. a little bit. host: one must call on this. we will hear from yvonne from florida. caller: i just want to mention because i've not heard anybody say this, i have several citi online,nd you can go and get a virtual number that is good one time. to me, that is just about the best security there is. when i use that number that one time, it is no good, so they can steal it, but it will not work. that is how i take care of the situation.
7:44 am
of course, i also watched that their toe "https" on show it is secure. you have everything up to date on the computer that you are using. will be the last call on this topic. the internet will be the basis of our next topic, especially when it comes to fighting isis on the battlefront. how is the united states doing and engaging in terrorist activity on the internet. the american enterprise institute's james glassman will join us for that. deanse will hear from bob of the national resource defense of the and oren cass manhattan institute. first, i want to talk to you about our "newsmakers" program that follows this program.
7:45 am
the iowa party chairs will join us. [video clip] shiftave seen a decided since the terrorist attacks from the economy and a lot of conversation about immigration to foreign policy and terrorism. , note seen that change only in the questions being asked, but also in terms of the speeches from the candidates. that is not to say that immigration questions will not be important, by really believe that foreign policy, how to fight terrorism, how to deal with these issues, i believe those are going to stay with us through february 1. it, if you like one person's view on the economy, immigration,ew on
7:46 am
the iowa caucus viewer will go through -- caucus voter will go through an analysis of who to vote for. whatnk there is a fear of terrorism can do to this country and the state. i think there is also trepidation of how the candidate will handle that. >> what i hear from people is about college affordability, and income inequality, and paid ande, and immigration, health care. those are really the issues i hear about. i think these issues that here in the press are not the issues i hear from caucus voters. i think they will fold on things that affect their pocketbook. i think that is more indicative
7:47 am
of what will happen in the caucuses, then other issues. host: you can see that full conversation on our newsmakers program with the iowa republican party and the democratic party chairs. that will take place this morning at 10:00 and you can see it again at 6:00 this evening. morning isuest this james glassman of the american enterprise institute. good morning. how isis lot about uses social media, and why they are six successful at it. tell is why you think that is. guest: the first reason is they have put a huge amount of effort into it. a strongy have message, which is building a caliphate, that is to say, their own empire.
7:48 am
they have been quite successful. islam is on the attack. that is very attractive to thousands around the world. social media,s how does that work on the day-to-day for isis? guest: it is very much a operation, and lots and lots of people doing it. there was an interesting piece in "the washington post about how during one of these horrible execution extravaganzas that they do, they have 10 people with cameras doing video. that video then went to several other people who edited the video, and put it online. they have probably 50,000 twitter accounts. network.ast
7:49 am
it does not appeal to all that many people around the world, but it is used mainly for recruiting purposes. has twoi put it is isis different approaches. propagandass approach, which is not all that in sophistication from what hitler used. the second thing is they target recruits and apply not just social media, but also personal approaches, sometimes by phone, sometimes in person. that is what they are after at this point, getting more recruits. partly because that is a morale booster for them, a sign that they are doing well. that is important to continue the flow of a few thousand recruits every month or so. the internet, does the
7:50 am
united states have some kind of targeted response? guest: yes. overresponse has ramped up the last year. it is under the direction of the person who is my successor, richard stangl, who is the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. it is moving -- i would say it is moving well. i also think it has been somewhat slow. it is something that is very difficult for americans to do. we are not all that great at propaganda. i'm not sure how effective it has been. i have been critical of some of the things they have done. i think the general effort is exactly right. host: tell us a little bit about this effort. of the things they are doing is they had a program called "think again, turn away," which i have some doubts about. they are telling young people, this is really terrible, and
7:51 am
show pictures of people being beheaded, so forth. that unfortunately may be a plays uptractive, and the importance of isis. they are also doing something that i think is very effective, or supporting something that i think is very effective, which is having people who have gone and then leftsis, because they became disillusioned, and by the way, it is not easy getting out -- putting them on camera, and talking about their experiences. i think that is the single most important thing we can be doing. they are doing that or supporting those kinds of efforts. they are doing other things as well. i think it is starting to be effective. a lot of the anti-isis activity on the web is not coordinated by the u.s. government, it is spontaneous or being done by groups that are completely
7:52 am
the government. there was a story in "the new york times," i think yesterday about a large indonesian group, probably one of the largest islamic civil society groups in the world doing a tremendous amount on the internet. people are simultaneously mocking isis' videos. there is a lot going on on the web to counter isis, both organized and not organize. host: james glassman is our .uest to talk about isis if you want to ask him questions, you can do so. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 745-8002 for independents. post on her twitter page, @cspanwj. or you can post on her facebook page, facebook.com/cspan.
7:53 am
you mentioned, "think again, turn away," we have a video from that. we will show it to you and get your thoughts on it. [video clip]
7:54 am
host: part of that relies on testimony, i guess. guest: right. testimony is tremendously powerful. there is no doubt about it. i would prefer -- maybe this is for oneetic -- person to talk before the camera and say, "this is what happened to me. go there are lots of stories. i think those stories are very powerful. there are several problems with telling the stories you read one of them is that, as foreign fighters have come back from syria and iraq, and there are a lot of them, governments are about bringing them back in. they would rather put them in prison, or not allow them into their countries because they are worried that they could be -- they could do terrorist acts
7:55 am
when they are in the country. those are the people to put in front of the camera. host: an american voice, per se, would not have any impact whatsoever. all of these kinds of videos are not in english, they are not aimed at americans, although americans have gone over.on this video starts off in a way that i do not know how effective it is to say, this is what you and you'reromised, not going to get it. and other words, you are building up when you have been promised. i think this is better than the "think again, turn away" video.
7:56 am
this came from the website, the other one is there too two. i think one of the important things to remember in the art of persuasion is that it is essentially emotional. we like to, especially in washington, make rational arguments -- this is wrong. this is something i learned as undersecretary of state. one of the biggest myths we have going is the west is out to destroy islam. one of the things we can do is , we foughts not true on the side of islam in places like kuwait, etc. that does not work well because rational arguments actually sometimes get the person you are it just o convince --
7:57 am
does not work. an emotional argument works better, and emotional connection, let's put it that .ay when your thing, look at all the terrible things isis does, to a lot of people, that may be shows how powerful isis is. it is dangerous, i think, to approach these kinds of questions from a rational way of view like, no one would want to join an organization that chops .eople's heads off actually, that's our organization is seen as powerful. i think the best message we can get across is that isis is not winning, they are losing. that is hard because certainly in some ways, isis is winning. we can amplify isis' losses, and i think that is more effective. host: the first call is from in connecticut.ect
7:58 am
caller: thanks for taking my call. jihadi's are proving to be dangerous. englishman, and now this parisian jihadi, they .re all media jihadists all of these westerners are the savvy ones. against thee fight west. what are we doing to keep our eye out on these media jihadists coming back. paris had to rely on the king of morocco to find this guy? what is wrong with europe? guest: there are certainly americans or westerners who have gone to fight for isis. many of them are involved in the media side.
7:59 am
there was a "washington post" story the other day that said the people who work for the media part of isis are paid about seven times as much as a foreign fighter. obviously, they're not doing it just for the money, but it is very hard to stem the flow. what we can do is target exactly these kinds of people. hashead of google ideas done an excellent piece in "foreign affairs," where he talks about how to do that. part of it is denial of service, trying to get these people off the internet. part of it is using some of the same techniques we use against violence, such as infiltration. we have to see what jerry calls a mount what jerry calls
8:00 am
counterinsurgency. host: don from california, republican line. clipr: i saw that little you had of the anti-jihadist video. it lame anti-smoking commercials that we wasted millions of dollars on. if this is what we are fighting isis with on the internet, that is pathetic. this is really bad and sad. these videos are people are cutting their heads off, people are watching them not because they are spectacularly edited, it is because they are bloody carnage of people's heads getting cut off and a lot of gruesome people like to see something that. you are not going to fight that. why bother. what you need to put out for propaganda is the smoking hole in the ground where isis used to
8:01 am
be. like your guest list saying, isis is winning -- like your guest was saying, they are winning because we are not fighting them. i don't want to fight them on the internet, i want to fight them with missiles and bombs and bullets on the ground and kill them so that the only things left are the stupid videos. host: thanks. guest: i think the caller makes a very good point. there is a connection between perception and reality. we can talk all we want about ,hese things that isis is doing but what really has an impact is that the caliphate is not ,orking or is not being built and that the promises are not being kept. it does require success on the ground. when we have success we want to promote them.
8:02 am
one of the things that isis has done is a tens of videographers to its battles and shows its victories. we should be doing the same thing. there is one other message i would just touch on, we need to provide a vision for people in iraq and syria and other parts of the middle east for what our .nstincts would be isis has one. they talk about this caliphate, which is kind of a seventh century idea, but what is our? -- what is ours? what is our vision? i say this in two senses. one is, can we and others in the middle east establish a true democracy or some kind of free government in places like syria and iraq, where sunnis and shia ?ave equal rights
8:03 am
do we have that vision? right now we don't have it. the second thing is to promote universal ideals of tolerance, freedom, and justice. we need to do more of that. kate -- caller from stanton island, democrat line. caller: i would like to talk to the guest about homegrown terrorism that has been going on. i noticed his they have not been talking much about planned parenthood. i think that is more of a problem than any refugees coming , bombing planned parenthood clinics. host: only because we are foreign terrorist groups, we'll move on. haley in texas, democrat line. caller: hi, i am calling from
8:04 am
dallas. my question is this. i hear the word isis, i cringe, because that is what they want to be called. their name is propagated by the and all that have to do is behead somebody in 10,000 times a day the word isis, which is a grandiose name for a few that are neither muslim nor a state. they should be called daesh. they hate to be called daesh. in syria and iraq they threatened to cut people's tongues if they call them daesh. why are we calling them a grandiose name they want to be no -- known by? guest: i think is a good point. thenotice in the video clip word daesh was used and i am
8:05 am
hearing more and more from u.s. government officials the use of that word, and you are absolutely right, it is something they don't like. it does get confusing. there is the atomic state, .here's isis, there is isil but yeah, i think it a good idea to call them the name they don't like. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for a public and, and (202) 748-8002 four independents. james glassman joining us to talk about how to fight terror groups. there is a headline that i wanted to talk about. the group isis has an english like which magazine, and it uses it to tell the message that those who would participate would face the concert was on judgment day.
8:06 am
talk about the magazine aspect. is there a print arm? it is an online magazine. i am action not sure that they produce a print magazine. they may. and let meslick -- just say one thing about isis. it's media doesn't really are sophisticated, but they are nothing compared to where we are. it is kind of amazing though that this terrorist organization has pretty slick stuff. biq is actually the name of the city where according to judgment day or the apocalypse will be realized. i think it is important to understand what the ideology is. but yes, they have interviews. it tells you how to make weapons
8:07 am
. it is a pretty effective and terrible kind of instrument. da, mooresville pennsylvania, democrat line. caller: i would like to know -- you want to have us working on the internet to take down this much iand if we have so would like to know how anonymous can go down there and take down 20,000 sites in a day and a half, and we can't even do one thing to stop this. say you want to do it from the cyber area, then why aren't we doing it? i will take my answer off the air. guest: unfortunately i can't answer that question because i don't know the answer, but it's a good point. anonymous has targeted isis and anonymous has gone after them. there is no doubt they have done all sorts of interesting things. host: that is the hacking group, anonymous. guest: the hacking group. substituted viagra ads for
8:08 am
things that isis has put up, that kind of thing. there is also a debate within the intelligence community about whether the site should be left up, because we can gain intelligence from the fact that there is -- that there are online conversations going on. but i think in general, and this is what jared cowen's article says, we need to be much more effective in reducing isis's footprint. debbie in lansing, michigan, independent line, go ahead. know why would like to we have not hired some of these of sophisticated hackers to embed a virus into these websites, that when you access it it fries your computer. guest: interesting idea. i think that a lot of attention has been given -- to my knowledge, don't forget i have not been at the state department for a years or whatever -- for
8:09 am
ight years or whatever -- so don't know everything that is going on. there may be efforts exactly like this. but it it is my impression that a lot of the effort has been on the messaging side rather than on the technology or tool side. that is why one of the reasons i like the article in foreign which is really talk more about the technology and that is what you are referring to. host: as far as the wind isis reaches out to those they want to get a message to, how do we do that in reverse check out who are we reaching -- how do we do that in reverse? who are we reaching out to? guest: it is not easy. we are trying to identify people who would be subset -- deceptive -- receptive to isis messaging. one of the things we have heard about is the idea of targeting such people through google ads. so if somebody googles, how do i
8:10 am
get from belgium or minneapolis to syria? we can'tt person -- arrest that person, certainly, that we can do is automatically put a counter idea into that person's head. then we can follow the person on the internet as well. we don't have to do it just at that point. there are some sophisticated means of getting at people like that, but it is not easy. obviously not everybody who is in the target age group is going to go for isis. how do you find the people? we have got a problem in doing that. i believe that stemming the flow of foreign fighters, of recruits, is the single most important thing we can be doing at this point, because as i said
8:11 am
earlier, not only does that denied them the kind of cannon fodder that they need, but it also is demoralizing to them if their flow of recruits goes down from 1000 month, or whatever it is now, to 500 month. that is a signal to them. it is a signal that they are losing, and it is an important signal. host: sorry, i thought we took debbie. ray ino to read top --ra dallas, texas, democrat line. caller: i love c-span. i am so glad you have it on. i just watched a very interesting video on pbs frontline this morning. to see how they are recruiting these kids, their young kids. it is pathetic. but here's my question. aside from all the things that we have done that probably were
8:12 am
not good, specifically within -- with invading iraq, in your mind -- and i want to try to phrase this in such a way that it makes sense -- let's go back to the , and whoever gets elected in office, or even with obama, if you will accept it, -- if he will accept it, go to congress and ask for a declaration of war. i believe that is important. we need to do it. thinkmay be people that it is not necessary, or that obama or whoever is the president already has that power, but i believe that if we went and sold this to the public , and made a very hard drive to the public of how bad isis is, made a declaration of war, and then come on tv, tell the americans look, this is the
8:13 am
deal. days -- these are very bad people -- host: we will let our guest respond, thanks. guest: i think the important message the guest is getting across is that we actually need to defeat isis on the ground in order to defeat it in the communications sense. we defeat it a communications sense but not on the ground, that won't work. two things are links. i do think it is important. as iingle best message, said earlier, that we can be getting across is that isis is losing. we can get that message across in even if isis is doing now, because isis is being defeated in certain places, and we need to be playing that up. but the fact is that as isis start losing on the ground -- and i hope that happens -- we have a powerful message. host: chicago, illinois, here is william. go ahead. caller: good morning.
8:14 am
first-time caller. this is more of a comment than anything else. i think we failed to look at the historical aspect of why these things are transpiring. had -- we don't look at the ottoman empire and how these and thents were created blowback as a result of these governments. look towardsdon't the ideology, we look more at body count, which was the mistake of the vietnam war. i think it is important for us to win the hearts and minds of people in the middle east instead of demonizing them and declaring war on them. what is your aspect on that? thank you. guest: let me elaborate on the point of that ideology. first of all i just want to say,
8:15 am
your last comment i just don't agree with. we are not making war on the people of the middle east, we are making war -- to some extent, and i think we should be making more war -- on a group of terrorists who have proven to be quite powerful. but i think the point about ideology is really important. this is an organization driven by ideology. we should not minimize its importance. when i was at the state department that was really what i focused on. think we should take our eye off the ball. we may consider the ideology ,hat they have kind of wacky but it actually does drive people. the point about building a caliphate, even if it is a throwback to the seventh century , this is what is motivating people. we have something else that motivates people and it has motivated the vast majority of the people in the world.
8:16 am
i think we did to stand up for that. it is bill from mobile, alabama, democrat line. caller: good morning. i would like to question his point about a goal of democratizing the middle east in contrast to their ideology. we tried that. that was george w. bush's goal when he went into iraq and afghanistan, oh, we can build up the middle east, democratizing. that would be wonderful. areare these people -- we saying we are going to impose our government on their way of life? is that really -- is that realistic? i really question that as a goal of our country and would like a response. guest: i may be naive, but i think virtually everybody in the world wants the freedom to choose the people who run their government.
8:17 am
that is what democracy is. use whatever word you want. one of the things we have found is that democracies tend not to make war on their neighbors. so it is better for the united states, for our own security -- forget the moral aspects of it, and i don't want to forget it, but for us to promote democracy, justice, whatever word you want to use. it is isis and other terrorist groups that are denying the people around the world. and as far as whether they want it or not, the fact is that there are many examples of muslim countries that are democracies, or fledgling democracies. just look at indonesia, which is the largest muslim country in the world. look at india, which has many hundreds of millions of muslims. i don't think that that is a
8:18 am
far-fetched goal at all. my main point was that we need a vision, that people -- especially sunnis -- who are attracted to isis on the ground because they are being oppressed by their government, by ,overnments in iraq and syria they are looking for some kind of vision. yes, a lot of it has to do with tourity but a lot of it has - do with the ability to make their own choices in life. that is freedom, or democracy, or whatever you want to call it. are we the only country that is getting anti-isis messages out there? guest: no, not at all. the eu is doing that. and there are people who are doing it on their own. people can look on youtube and see some of the things that have been done. some of them -- i don't know how effective their -- they are, but
8:19 am
there certainly is a lot of material out there. surprised ife there is actually more anti-ice is material than there is pro-isis material on the web. host: we found something called coolianey and -- foundation. what is that? guest: it is something started of -- former supporters not violent extremism, but certainly the kind of ideology we are fighting right now. and they have switched sides and are promoters of democracy and liberal ideas. they've been quite effective. one of the things they have done is they have put out some anti-isis videos that are effective. they are really doing a great job.
8:20 am
they are also in the united states, their leaders have come to the united states. host: we have a portion of one of their videos. let's show it to you. [video clip]er.com/cspanw >> it's me. i know right now you don't want to talk to me. , i would tell you that i was sorry. i would tell you that i wish i could text back -- take back every time i sent you a tweet saying that the west had turned its back on us. it all changed. i started sending you all those isil films, going to all those meetings you wouldn't tell me about. -- when i said
8:21 am
that we should fight for what we believe in, i did not mean it like that. host: a different tone than what we saw in the last one. guest: i think it is a very effective video. it really shows the conferences of joining isis. it is not as glorified as one might think. and also, it brings it down to a personal level. these are two brothers communicating. it may be a little difficult to understand what they're saying, but i think it has had an impact. host: for massachusetts, let's go to david on the independent line. you are on with james glassman. caller: i just wanted to follow up on the caller from california talking about the content of the propaganda on the internet to fight isis. thatt wanted to point out what is readily available on the internet are the horrendous
8:22 am
photographs of the women and children, and the destruction in gaza. i don't think that that is too popular here in the u.s., but i'm sure that isis can utilize what is going on in gaza and the west bank, which is basically done in our name, and we support israel. , particularly of a year ago, in december of 2014, with 520 killed -- 500 and 20 -- 520 children killed, and they have graphic videos on the internet of death and distraction. idle think we can produce anything equivalent to that -- i don't think we can produce anything equivalent to that. i don't think that is particularly relevant to the point. i don't know whether isis uses pictures of gaza or not, but i
8:23 am
do think that what they generally do is they have a very simple theme, which is not that islam is under attack, but quite the opposite. that we are winning. not that we are suffering and that we are losing, but that we are winning. that is their theme, and it is a very effective theme. host: here is greg in arkansas, go ahead. wondering ifi was , if we declassified the 9/11 documents and held those responsible for 9/11, if the people in this country and notice,orld would take and see that we are not just the most powerful country in the , and hold those people responsible. guest: i think we know who is
8:24 am
responsible for 9/11. it was members of al qaeda. you don't want that ever happen again and we need to keep our eyes on that particular folk -- focus our eyes on that problem. that is what we are trying to do with isis, and i think with al qaeda as well. host: i know you are not at the state department anymore, the given -- give us a sense of the manpower that is required to produce this? the money, the time, the resources. guest: i don't think it is anywhere near where it should be. we spend most of our money in the public diplomacy area on exchanges, which are great, but they tend to be longer-term. we have really not developed the kind of resources that we should. when i was at the state people,nt we had eight and most of them had been sick hundred -- the condit --
8:25 am
.econded from other agencies at our counter violent extremes in center -- we did not call it much -- we do not collect that -- called it , but it is not much. not devotede have the resources that we need. i also want to say one other thing. one of the differences between the bush administration and at least the early obama administration -- i think things are changing now -- is that the president himself and the national security council were very much in favor of a very serious communications effort. i think that the obama administration -- my sense is that they have come kind of late to the game, but yes, they now may understand the success of that.
8:26 am
unfortunately this happens with the change of every administration, the new administration comes in and says those guys did not know what they are doing, we will dismantle that. and that as time goes on they realize, that was not such a bad idea. my hope is that as this administration changes, as it 2017, we not dismantle the things that this administration is doing that are good, and we rebuild the apparatus. we just do not have a great tradition of this kind of thing, and what we did have that was dismantled at the end washe 1990's when the usia subsumed within the state department. host: here is john from temple, texas, hide. there are just a couple of simple things that i think you could do to stop these guys in syria.
8:27 am
one is, stop the money. if you stop the money, that works for everything. ifyou stop the money -- there is no money and it, then you will be able to stop everything. that is the way it works. , than they have no money to operate. i think that is kind of simple. you can get all these other things that you want to do and stuff like that, but stop the money. reports, isisall is one of the best funded terror groups that we have ever seen, but it is not only money. also a very powerful ideology. we should not forget that. we need to attack that ideology, and one of the best ways to do that is by promoting what is the counter ideology, which is i think the ideology that most of the rest of the world has adopted.
8:28 am
but yes, money counts, but let's not get ourselves -- there are insane estimates about how much money isis has. maybe it is $1 billion. the united states, less time i looked, is a $17 trillion, $18 trillion economy. if we set our mind to it, if we and ie well -- will -- don't just mean the united states, but europe, asia, the isis. east, we can defeat there's actually no doubt about that. i think we need to apply that. host: let's get one more call. this is connie in new jersey. good morning, you are on with our guest. caller: good morning. i wanted to ask, the longer that isis has so much money, which countries are buying their oil in the black market jacket that is my first question. , india is very
8:29 am
powerful. why don't they do anything about it? there have been complaints that the saudi's are not doing enough, although when you bring up oil there is certainly a theory that they are happy, or at least tolerant of a oil price because it does hurt isis, it hurts iran . from reports that i have read, the isis models -- isis smuggles oil across the border into turkey, and there is a very that ismuggling chain producing quite a bit of revenue for isis. we have been attacking that think that we ought to be doing a better job of it,
8:30 am
but we are never going to cut off the complete flow of funds to isis. they also make money from kidnapping. as i think you know, they have broken into banks in iraq. there is money coming in. i don't think we should overestimate the importance of money, but they are able to pay people like these media experts $700 a month. but it is not just the money. it is also the ideology and the relative success, and what we have been talking about today, the sophistication and communication. but these are all things that i think we can overcome if we set our will to it. host: if you had the chance to advise specific steps his administration could do as far as using social media and the internet, what would you advise? guest: a few things that i have talked about our, kind of messaging that involves people who have been to isis land and
8:31 am
have changed their minds and can talk passionately about why they have changed their minds. second, one of the things we have not talked about today is providing opportunities for young people. not just things to do, but also in inspiring them in different ways to be nonviolent and not go down this path. that is what i did when i was at the state department. i think that those kind of things are effective and we should be doing more of that. but i also think that we need to hear from the administration a much stronger statement of ofport from the kinds efforts that are going on now. they need support, both funding and i think an expression of support from the white house that this is really important. , originallyglassman from the state department.
8:32 am
he has several writings on this issue. they do for your time. many -- several countries have made agreements to take specific steps to reduce carbon emissions. they will meet in paris starting tomorrow for a two-week conference taking a look at these plans. we will have to guest joining us, not only talk about the conference but the u.s. plus role. we will hear from oren cass from the manhattan institute and bob natural resources defense council. we will hear from the next as washington journal continues.
8:33 am
♪ >> monday night on the bok talksors, mr. about microsoft revisited. ,e worked for them for 10 years as chief xbox officer, guiding its creation and development. he also discusses technology, tech competition, and microsoft, and the importance of civics in american life. >> today's of the engineering is the work that all of us could and should and must do to make our communities operate more efficiently and more effectively.
8:34 am
to make us serve citizens in the better way. it is old school civics and it is super important. >> monday night and iraq eastern on c-span two. john hinckley, of course, was the man who shot president reagan he was not wearing a bulletproof vest that day. it was a short trip from the white house. he was talking jimmy carter before this. >> tonight on q&a, ronald feynman talks about various assassination attempt of physical threats made against president and presidential candidates throughout american history. 16there have been presidential assassination .hreats since ronald reagan i also covered three presidential candidates why talk about huey long, who in 1945 was assassinated, and i talk about rob kennedy in 1968 who was
8:35 am
assassinated, and george wallace, who was shot and paralyzed for life in 1972. i cover candidates as well as presidents, and it is a long list. andonight at 8:00 eastern pacific on c-span today. >> "washington journal" continues. host: two guests joining us this morning to talk about issues of climate change in the environment. we hear from bob deans of the national resources defense council, he is there director of strategic engagement. of thening us, oren cass manhattan institute. he is their senior fellow. good morning to both of you gentlemen. one of the things we're going to hear a lot about this week is something called the paris climate talks. oren cass, let's start with you. what do these toxic copper's? guest: it is the first big effort to get all the countries from around the globe together to talk about what they're going to do about climate change.
8:36 am
the last attempt was in copenhagen in 2009. that pretty much fell apart when the countries realize they did not have much in common. i think the problem this time around is rather than personal differences, but they have essentially come up with is let's just ignore our differences and sign an agreement that says everyone is just going to do with they would've done anyway. i think there will be a lot of fanfare, a lot of applause for each other, but not a lot accomplished. host: bob deans, what is your assessment? guest: i think everybody remembers when pope francis came here at the before and one of the most profound spiritual questions of our time, are we going to accept their obligation to preserve future generations from the danger of climate change echo the answer is, you bet we are. we're going to cut our global carbon footprint. we are going to smarter energy of the future and make sure that people of every nation have a chance to come along for the ride. host: so everybody comes with a
8:37 am
plan in mind, but is there an overall number that we are seeking? caller: -- guest: there is no number, but here's what has happened, 170 countries have already, to to cap or cut carbon. what we will do in paris is consolidate those gains, accelerate that progress, and make sure that the countries come together every five years to build on that progress so that we can get were ready to be guest: i think it is important to recognize that india has not promised to cut or cap intermissions. they have promised only to continue to attempting to improve their efficiency at less than the rate that they had been. similar to china. they have put forward what they are calling a pledge, it is a pledge to do what even the u.s.
8:38 am
government's own study said would probably happen anyway. i think a lot of the things described as aspirational goals on climate are admirable goals, they are just not what is actually happening in paris. >> and what -- host: what is the result of all these agreements? the two degree factor, as i'm hearing you described. how would you describe that for the audience? guest: scientists have looked at, swarming they think the climate can survive before you start to see really damaging impact. the threshold they came up with about two degrees. that was long time ago and a lot of people have wondered if it was more to set any threshold, that is the number that people have clung to. the problem is if you look at what trajectory we were probably on anyway. there is a range of estimates. between 3.4ld say to 3.8 degrees celsius, and what you look -- what you get after you take the pledges into
8:39 am
account is still 3.4 to 3.8 celsius. fahrenheit an old guide, so business as usual. we are on track now for eight degrees fahrenheit. that would be cataclysmic. host: eight degrees when? guest: eight degrees over some time, the century or so. the budget put in place in paris, most people think you have cut that down to about .3 degrees fahrenheit. still way too much. we need to get down to about 3.6 to raise fahrenheit. clearly we have got a long way to go. down: if i could just jump on that, this is one of the analyses that has circulated a lot. it is from a group called climate interactive that has partnered with the u.s. state department. the a degree number is not actually a projection for what people think is going to happen without an agreement. the a degree number comes from something that the united nations intergovernmental panel on climate change created as a had medical situation that
8:40 am
climate modelers could use to run their models and test them. in its ipc see says report, the number is actually significantly higher than what most people think would happen and what a baseline would be. it is not really a fair point of comparison to assess the agreement. host: how do you respond to that? guest: i would say this is what we know. it is not about this a lot better or the models. we just finished last year the hottest year since global record keeping began 136 years ago. the first 10 months of this year have been hotter still. 19 of the hottest years ever recorded have been in the last 20 years. this has meant rising sea levels , whitening deserts, raging wildfires, storms, and droughts. and here is the problem. the national academy of science, the national oceanic and atmospheric association, nasa, the guys who put the man on the moon, the state department, the pentagon, general motors, general mills, apple's computers
8:41 am
, google, the bank of america, these are the people who say it is a problem. we have to do something about it. host: before we get your comments we will invite our viewers into the conversation. if you want to ask either of our gentleman in question or make a comment, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 four republican, (202) 748-8002 for independents. you can post also on twitter. guest: i think bob raised a lot of great points about potential challenges from climate change, but it is still not addressing the question of whether the agreement does anything about this. i think one thing that is actually a little bit surprising is that you have a lot of environmental groups really cheerleading for this paris , it'sence, when in fact climate change is what you are describing as, and addressing it is so serious and the way to move forward is really the pressure on people to take
8:42 am
action, then a plotting an agreement that does not take action is really counterproductive. i'm surprised that more environmental groups are not , first, whatnd say bob said, the tackling this is very important, but second that this project is not developing what people ask for. guest: let's see what comes out of the talks before we prejudge it. here's a we know. paris is not going to be as perfection. we know that. it is going to produce progress, and that is what we need. i think most americans understand that we have a competent problem that has been developing since the dawn of the industrial revolution, we are not going to solve it overnight, that sometimes you are confronted with a choice between protection and progress. perfection is not possible. we will take progress. host: let's weed in some calls. first is dawn in pittsburg, kansas, independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. guidelinese idcc have been shown by at least the
8:43 am
authorities that they are way too conservative, and there is no carbon left take out of the world. we need to start taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and we need an immediate program for renewable energy. there are no excuses for third world countries and developing world. we will all die if we do not just on the about this. i guess that is enough. , do want toass start? guest: i don't know if anyone is saying that we will all die if we don't do anything about this. there are certainly a lot of debate about what level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is ok. their carbon -- climate activists who say we arty have to get out. that there is also the reality of what the developing world in particular is going to do. short of essentially moving to a to footing and threatening either embargo or attack countries that continue to build coal plants -- they will continue to build coal plants -- and so the question is are we at
8:44 am
least going to stand up and put pressure on the object of the process that we are embracing right now does not even do that. it says china, if you want to develop on exactly the trajectory you are already developing on, we are going to give you a pat on the back. india, if you don't want to make any commitment at all, we will give you a pat on the back. and we will see what comes out of the talks, but we are probably going to throw billions of not hundreds of billions of dollars your way just as a thank you for signing on so we can say we got a global agreement. bob: james glassman -- deans? guest: i appreciate the call. i have family outing kansas. you have folks who built farms with the sweat of their brow, and they are not up -- now asking the question, will this land still produce for my children? that is a serious consequent of climate change, drought, extreme heat. i am grateful for the question, but here's what we know. it is not 1750 anymore. we don't have to develop along
8:45 am
some just -- dickensian nightmare. there are smarter, better ways to power our future than digging up fossil fuels in our ground and setting them on fire. that is where we need to be headed. host: florida next, tom is calling on our independent line. caller: hi. they are really using this as a political wedge and a way to get money from the taxpayer into the politicians pocket. al gore has been making a living off of this climate change for , and now president obama is going to leave office and he is going to have it all set up so he takes a bunch of the money. the clinton foundation is going to be the climate foundation, and he is going to line his pockets with taxpayer money for years to come. the documentary that blames the sun for our climate change throughout history.
8:46 am
we are in different cycles. solar cycles, they're all the kinds of cycles going on. there are plenty of scientists that have said climate change is phooey and silly -- they need to be listened to. every time the scientists are on the opposite side of the climate change question that you -- lose their jobs or are squashed by bad media. host: ok. thanks for your call. bob deans, so the topic of money. one of the things that will come out of these talks is the conversation about money. what is the end result? be a $20 hope it will billion fund by 2020 that nations will continue to -- contribute cut -- good to be two, including us, to help poorer nations a part of the clean energy to do that is imperative.
8:47 am
that i just have to say, from tom calling in, how grateful i am. miami, one of the greatest cities in the world, is already flooding at high tide every month because of writing seat -- rising sea levels. the everglades, one of the most magnificent ecological treasures in our country, is starting to saltwater intrusions. commented florida friends are dealing with conflict of climate change right now. host: one more question about the money. once the developing countries get the money what are the expected to do with a? guest: they are expected to help build resiliency for their own people, so that a coastal community in bangladesh can begin to cope with the confidence of rising sea level. and so they can invest in efficiency as we have done in this country and began to do more with less waste. and three, get less -- more power from clean renewable resources like the wind and the sun. , what about the transfer or the giving of that money? guest: i think the transfer of
8:48 am
wealth we're talking about, in the order of $100 billion a year, is something that has not really been up -- explain to the american people. certainly you hear about ambitious leadership in action, but you don't hear an awful lot from president obama about the idea of frankly, tens of billions of dollars year from the united states going to these developing countries specifically as part of a climate deal. obviously we arty have a foreign , and there are a lot of things we do help the people thing that is. if one of the things we want to use the money for it i'm a change resilience, certainly they could, but the idea that we should create a whole new fund money with no real requirements from them, i think it is really more of a slush fund that a practical policy. guest: just a quick point. that is not what it is at all. and in most cases our foreign
8:49 am
aid is tethered in many ways to the export of american products so that we are leading the world right now in the development a lot of the clean energy technology. turbines,ls, wind this is going to be a boon to jobs in america. at the same time it helps folks who need the help in some of these developing countries. guest: it is certainly not true what you are saying, solar panels are almost entirely made china. i think if you look at what would most like we happen if we were to send the money to other countries to build, for instance, renewable energy, that money would create jobs and manufacturing opportunities there. how far wes funny have come from what president obama used to talk about, which jobs that cannot be sent overseas, but we actually have. we are going to invest in the technology, then let other countries take it, either fairly or unfairly from us, to do the manufacturing.
8:50 am
then we will them the money that they are going to use to build it and we will just keep the bill. i don't think that is a particularly smart policy. guest: let me just can't -- comment quickly on green jobs. the bureau of labor statistics took a look at this and they found that 3.4 million americans wake up everyday and go to work helping us get more power from the wind and sun and get more efficient in manufacturing. and all other manner of environmentally sustainable practices in this country. 3.4 million americans. fore jobs at the lifeline families during uncertain economic times. that is important, and the president was right to invest in it. host: one more comment before we go to calls. guest: this is just an example of what gets run around without tethering to actual policy issues. the definition of green jobs includes everything including garbage processing and disposal, because in three waste management has something to do with the environment. obviously you can define
8:51 am
everything as a green job and say we have a lot of green jobs. that is not mean that our investment in wind and solar are having a significant impact. host: two guests running us this morning. you just heard from oren cass of the manhattan institute, director of mitt romney's presidential campaign. of the natural resources defense council. we are talking about the climate change talks which began in paris on monday. if you want to get in on the conversation, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001 and four independent, (202) 748-8002 . michigan,from independent line, go ahead. caller: god bless america. with our wind power that we have in the world, why can't we make wind turbines for automobiles to help stop building -- burning gasoline on the earth and use the wind power from a 70 mile an hour wind you have going down
8:52 am
the expressway to turn electrical weren't -- wind turbines to create electricity are run them? we need wind power on automobiles and a combination of climate control for an automobile which will help stop burning gasoline all over the earth. god bless america. host: anybody want to take that on? guest: i will start. and god bless the people of michigan and the great automotive industry in detroit which is investing hundreds of millions of dollars into exactly what the gentleman is referring to. they are building some of the best all electric and hybrid cars anywhere in the world right here in this country. that is investment right there in detroit michigan. wind turbines right now in some of our areas, let's take texas. they're getting 10% of their
8:53 am
electricity from wind turbines right now. iowa is getting 30% of his -- its electricity from wind turbines. and not only are they providing us with clean were no, they are all thing to help keep the family ranch and farm impact -- intact. host: 2000 technology is making some inroads with these green issues. there is terrific news i think in the success that we have had in some cases with both solar and wind technology. there are places where the weather makes it a perfectly viable additional source of power. sources of wind or solar power of would be held cut them off from the coal and gas they still need at night time or when the wind is not blowing, but i think it is really important to understand the scale that we are talking about. 1%ar today is well less than electricity in this country, and if you look at even how we have managed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the united states, the increase due to natural gas,
8:54 am
thanks to the fracking revolution, is bringing down our missions about 30 times faster than our use of solar. so there's certainly a great ecological story out there. it turns out not necessarily to be so much about solar and wind. ,hen you start project forward does the self problems around the world, it turns out it really can't and that is why you see what the national academy of sciences called a renaissance of coal under way around the world. you have hundreds of millions of people with no electricity in deep, deep poverty, and when they look at their top priority it is not a solar panel. it is getting power, getting light, and getting economic growth. i think the united states should support that. guest: let me challenge it. the power company executives in this country have found that in more and more places around this country wind and solar are just a better bet, dollar for dollar, then cold. you don't have to take my word for it.
8:55 am
that is while most 60% of all the new electric generating capacity built in this country in the first nine months came from wind and solar. those were power company executive decisions, because this is a better bet. 50% of all the new electric generating capacity in this country is coming from wind and solar. that is the investment of the future. globally, bloomberg new energy finance, one of the most authoritative sources on this, has forecast that we are going to spend a trillion dollars on wind and solar power, globally, between now and 2040. 80% of that investment is going to be in these developing countries that we are going to help with this good green fund. and i think it is terrific that we are building more wind and solar. i think it is little bit disingenuous to say that those of just power company decisions in the united states, as they are obviously getting very large federal subsidies to make those decisions. i think it is also a little problematic to you the number like 60% of all new power, which sounds terrific.
8:56 am
the reality is it is not adding any power in the united states because our economic growth is not that great. the thing to focus on is not a number like 60%, it is the less than 1% of our power is actually comes from solar. ralph watching from harrisburg, pennsylvania is morning, hello. ago,r: the caller a while there is climate change. it goes in cycles, in phases, over billions of years, and 8000 year cycle. man cannot control mother nature . this guy named al gore has made a fortune, and president obama is just setting the groundwork for when he gets out of office for him to stop his pockets full. that is his main goal. what the caller said about wind power, not too long ago they wanted to put a whole lot of
8:57 am
wind power up in cape cod because the wind was so good up , but not my backyard. kennedy and kerry crushed that right away. it is ok to put anywhere else, but not my backyard. host: is there any take away from that guest:? think the question of what president obama is leaving behind is actually a very important one. really the topic of discussion today is the upcoming paris talks, and the question of what kind of agreement are we going to get? the reality is that president obama has put his own legacy, and his own desire to prove that he is achieving something, ahead of the interests of the american people. we are getting a very bad deal. what we are getting is, as bob described, a commitment to spend enormous amount of money in other countries. we are ourselves making a commitment to take very costly action to reduce our emissions, and then we are applauding
8:58 am
commitments from other countries to take no real action. not only is that a problem right now, it will be an even bigger problem down the road, is five years from now we will come back together to review how we are doing and who is sticking with their pledges. and countries who pledge to do with their going to do anyway are going to say, look at us, we are terrific. the united states is not going to build say that. the united states is making a pledge that is even more ambitious than what the president's very costly environmental regulations, coppage, which means we are going to show up and say, we are the ones spending all the money, sending you will the money, and it we are the ones who have to of knowledge we have not even been able to do what president obama said we would. that is a terrible position to put us in, and if that is what the president legacy ends up being on climate i don't think it is going to be one of people look at very favorably. ?ost: bob deans guest: this is not about the
8:59 am
president legacy. this is about the future of our children. the world looks towards the united states for leadership in every area, and president obama has done more to stand up to protect children from the dangers of climate change than any leader at any time anywhere on the face of this planet. we cut carbon from our cars, our trucks, we are cutting in from a parent plants. that is important. the president goes to paris say we are doing what is right for our country, just like we have always done, and our friends around the world are watching. by the way, we have a great partnership with china on this. they have a 25 prison office right there in beijing. workhinese are hard at because they understand nobody has a greater stake in fixing this than the chinese themselves, who are right now dealing with the worst pollution issues in the history of all mankind. they have to fix it, they have to get on top of it. they are investing more in clean and renewable energy than any other people in the world. in aillion last year alone
9:00 am
new, clean energy technology in china. they are the world leaders in that. guest: there is no question president obama has this leadership, but with so many things, it is important to ask if we have gotten anything. you start with china by population, the air willing to do what would happen before the india made no and pledge about emissions and only to improve efficiency. indonesia, whose pledge is so vague, even if the world institute resources said they cannot figure it out, climate action trackers said it was less ambitious than doing nothing. they said they were cut emissions less than what have declined. nigeria did not submit a plan and did not even complete the home work assignment. it goes down the list. you can talk as much as you want putt showing leadership,
9:01 am
what we are getting is a lot of talk, a lot of self-congratulation and very bad deals for the american people. host: quick comment? guest: yes, our standards are what we can do in the united states of america, and if we do not get on top of this, we are going to trade the promise of our forbearers. if we do not can on top of this, we will have failed our children. that is not who we are and not who we have ever been. guest: i'm site, i went to jumping quickly because it is the opposite of what you said a moment ago. you said it was all about the u.s. joining leadership and leading the world. it absolutely is our standard, whether it is countries like china, pakistan, and nigeria are doing anything. even the obama administration angie mccarthy has been that the obama administration's actions
9:02 am
do not the compass anything on climate change unless they bring the rest of the world along. what we are seeing is that in reality, we cannot bring the rest of the world along because the rest of the world, particularly developing countries, have impoverished populations and are desperate for things like life, heat, and they will focus on that. it would be nice if we spend more time supporting them on that and less time telling them they should get solar panels. host: let me get a call in. from pennsylvania, ronnie, republican line. morning, c-span, good morning, gentlemen. i am a conservative and i believe in conserving energy in all forms and everything we can do. with the book he co-authored, i do have a question about solar power.
9:03 am
sun, does thehe sunburn at the same exact temperature year after year or is there a fluctuation change? may be 200 degrees which will affect our temperature honor? arounde earth revolved the sun at the same exact distance year after year? or is there may be a fluctuation in the orbit of a few hundred miles and it affects our temperatures on the earth? guest: thank you, ronnie. billion year story of the earth is fascinating. as you suggest, there are natural variability is year after year, but nasa has looked at that. the climate changes we have seen are far and away beyond anything that can be explained through natural variability. it is due to the rise in carbon dioxide pollution in our atmosphere from burning gas and
9:04 am
oil and most of the change has come in the past 50 years or 60 years. host: the world we create, a message of hope's or planets, the co-author is bob deans. from missouri, go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro, mr. ss, i hope you are all well. i am an engineering student at the moment, and i wanted to make sure we are being intellectually honest this morning. first, i would like to say that to my knowledge, no solar panel or wind turbine has ever produced, in its lifetime, more energy than was used to produce steel, upper windings. this deal is made from high-voltage electric gas.
9:05 am
-- the steel is made from high-voltage electric gas. paraphrasing, by strangling the solar industry, they are setting an example to the rest of the world. we note this is nonsense. we live in the global economy, and as a undermine our own energy production, we incentivize other countries, like china and india, who are competing with us for the energy, and he will do it cheaply as they possibly can, and we are making it more stupid for ourselves. until we are able to harness the nuclear energy and hydroelectrics safely as we can, we are not going to solve this problem. host: lance, thank you for the comment. guest: i will take a crack at it. thepreciate that and
9:06 am
chemical engineering student like yourself understands complexities of the issues and they are. if they were easy, we would have solved them. i want to get away from this glass pane. it is sunday morning, let's show faith in american enterprise ideas. in the past 35 years, we have cut energy consumption 60% as a portion of our economic output. dad is huge, we are using less than half the energy per dollar we produce then we were 35 years ago. think of what we can do in the next 35 years. we are using right now in this country, 21% less than we used one decade ago. our economy has grown to 16%. we are using 13% less oil while our economy has grown 16%. that is the direction we need to keep moving in. not talking about what cannot be done, it will be and what is being done. host: mr. cass?
9:07 am
why the think may be glass is empty this morning is because the talks are tomorrow. i think there is a story to be told about technological innovation in the country and about the efficiencies we are gaining and the opportunities for economic growth. i think you do a great job telling that story, bob. it has nothing to do with negotiations in paris and what the country is committing itself to, and what we are now hearing about whether or not we are making progress. i think we could have a positive discussion about technological innovation in america, unfortunately, the story about the final negotiations and the position president obama has put us in is overwhelmingly negative. i have yet to hear anything that indicates we are making progress through negotiations or that they are even worth the carbon dioxide that we admit finally there and back again. host: someone on twitter asked -- republican becomes next
9:08 am
president, will we be able to undermine global agreements? guest: that is a fascinating legal question. what will the meeting of the agreement coming out of paris the? be?f paris unfortunately, the approach they throughen is to go regulations and executive orders with no support from congress and telling the american people what comes out, of paris is never going to be ratified by the senate because what you would need for a legally binding treaty -- and it is not likely to have very much political support, so whoever comes into the white house next will have free reign from a legal perspective to either continue or not continue the president's policies. politically, i think the united states will find themselves in a difficult position internationally if president obama goes over there and makes
9:09 am
all sorts of promises, and then we are on the hook to either follow through on them or say, actually, he did not know what he was talking about and he did not have our support. host: mr. deans? guest: there is no question that every member of congress will look at this. i am willing to bet every member of congress will make a statement on it and we will have a good conversation and the debate, as we always do, on whether it is a treaty, agreement or what and how, but let's be clear, pedro. the american people understand the stakes in this. lls,ave seen the po and they all showed that roughly seven in 10 people what action, but that is not the issue. the issue is we have a fossil fuel industry, oil and gas, that takes about eight cents out of every dollar for american output and the stakes are huge. that industry, $720 billion into
9:10 am
campaigns -- $720 million into campaigns to support their righttes and their agenda up your capitol hill. that is of the problem and that is why we hear people in one party saying, there was no such thing as climate change, it is a hoax, and that is the problem. the american people know better. we need to stand up for what is good for our future, our children, our economy and what we know was generating jobs and creating a healthier environment. host: north carolina, democrat fine, ryan. caller: hello, thank you for having me on. i have been listening to the comments, mr. cass, i disagree with you on everything you have been saying. you look at countries like china, china spends more than all the countries combined and they have to because they are choking in the exhaust from factory emissions, but india is also on the solar mission with the new prime minister.
9:11 am
if you look at other countries, they are trying to leapfrog the fossil industry and move into solar lights and even small solar electrical systems. many of them, like morocco, are trying to go 50% renewable energy. egypt is investing in solar power. germany, the other world leader, 30 percent of electricity comes from renewable energy. england is trying to get 30%, state of iowa the now 30% from wind. that energy is the future. solar has come down in price about 60% or 70%. it will be much cheaper than coal, so, mr. cass, you're just wrong. nasa, thoseentist, are science organizations and the have verified that climate
9:12 am
change is an affect. host: ok, we will let our guest respond. guest: i think it is important to take apart the differences within the climate debate. one question i think that you really start with is, is climate change real? like you said, i think there is a broad consensus that it is. that we talk about here today to suggest it is not. whether or not climate change is real is a different question of what you do about it. when you get to the question on what you do about it, like you said, renewable energy could be a huge part of the solution. like we have said, many countries are making important investments in global energy. more because of local concerns that climate change concerns, but neither of them has anything to do with the question of a kind of international agreement we can or should get. we are now moving down this path with the international agreement and spending the tremendous
9:13 am
amount of money in the country trying to provide go because leadership to help catalyze an international agreement. if you look at what is in the international agreement, it does not accomplish anything. i think it is important to talk about the climate science, talk about the promise of renewable energy, but also important to acknowledge that what we are getting with this agreement versus what we are given in the agreement does not make a lot of sense. frankly, we could be doing just as well if no one even went to paris. host: mr. deans? -- we have had more than 170 out of 190 three countries putting commitments on the table. they either cut or cap their carbon footprint in the years to come, and but we need to do in paris is put in place mechanisms so we get back together in five years and accelerate the progress. paris is not going to fix the this, no one believes it is going to, but we have to make progress. host: so, what the country brings to the table, --
9:14 am
guest: i think 170 commitments do not save they will cap omissions. one of the things developing countries rejected was the idea that the commitments have anything to say about a missions at all. they say they do not want standard formats, metrics, and anyway for them to compare and evaluate what we may or may not set, so you get all sorts of eggs in these documents. even though that srd happy i will continue to happen. they say it will peak at some point, and after repeat, we will produce emissions. is the definition of a peak, but not a commitment. it is frankly ridiculous and
9:15 am
dangerous because of the only justification for this approach from saying, everyone is coming, submit everything you want, it is called a name and shame approach. the premise of this approach is a make everyone put your cards on the table, and then you call out and publicly pressure people who are not putting anything meaningful on the table. we got the first part, people wrote in the document, but instead of getting the second part where the callout and pressure the people who are doing anything, we're getting this empty round of applause and celebration that at least to get to go to paris together. i think it would be more intellectually honest and more for the groups are most concerned about climate change to say, you know what, china and india, this is not the acceptable,s not and we will not sign an agreement you continue to move down the exact path you are moving on. host: mr. deans? thet: name and shame is not
9:16 am
only way to build global consensus. i say this with great respect, but my friend oren continues to criticize countries like china, india, and pakistan. i have been there a lot, and these countries are all doing something that no country has done in the history of the world. china is taking hundreds of millions of people and moving them from poverty to the global middle class in the span of a single generation. we all understand that takes an amount of energy and it has come with complications, and nobody understands it better than the chinese. we are working to make things better, that is what paris is about. host: robert from romeoville, illinois. republican line, go ahead. onler: i agree with mr. cass several things except nuclear power. you cannot really forget japan and the meltdowns that have been going on and they continue to melt down and they are polluting
9:17 am
her years and thousands of years. i really think we should find a and i am aof energy, republican, but i disagree with nuclear power. i think we should find something safer, whether it is solar or whatever, wind power, nuclear power could destroy the planet and it is already doing a lot. i just pray all the time that we don't get anymore meltdowns. thank you. guest: i think it is an important point that every energy source has a cost and energy sourceery has drawbacks. as you said, there are some risks we see with nuclear power, certainly, and i know obama would agree on this, fossil fuels have a lot of help impacts as well. -- adea that cash a lot of lot of health impacts as well. the idea that we decided not to
9:18 am
pursue that is misguided. nuclear could be part of the solution as well, but i would like to come back to the question of name and shame for love toecause i would understand a little bit better bob'sob's perspective -- perspective on what the plan is for paris if not name and shame. the hold was to build a clear binding agreement in which all countries are forced to agree to commission cap's. when that plan failed, they said, what else can we do? peru, thed lima, structure was established which is everyone will submit commitments. my understanding is that it was everyone's view that this was a naming and shaming approach. in "the your times" headline was -- "an agreement built on pressure." in the "new york times"
9:19 am
headline, "an agreement built on pressure." we recognize the importance of i don't growth, and know what we're left with. i am not sure what we are pursuing through the ask forional process the talk of the sake of talk and everyone getting together that i think we will see in paris. think, pedro, if you look at any kind of international agreement that has been negotiated, whether it is the north american free trade agreement with the wto, or mobile arms control talks, cash or global arms control talk you have these -- global arms control talk, you will always have these conversations and questions. they give you transparent and verifiable targets they can .evisit five years from now the country is not lived up to an obligation, that is the time to ask questions.
9:20 am
talk iswhat this paris all about. we are going to consolidate the promises, put in place tolls for transparency and verify international accords, and then we put in place of the tools we need to make sure that people from every nation can be part of the progress. host: from massachusetts, diane, hello. caller: good morning. about the climate change thing. i know we are going through changes, but i am not sure if it is just a cycle or what, but where you guys lose me as you always just seem to attack certain industries like the coal industry and stuff like that. like you tell me i cannot use my lightbulbs because it is too and of a carbon footprint we had go with these light bulbs from china, that if you break one, hazmat pass the come in and
9:21 am
clean it up. that sort of thing makes no sense to me. i also wonder why you never go after cell phones as a carbon footprint because there are billions of them going off all the time and did not tell me that they are not leaving some sort of footprint. i cannot even talk on one for longer than two minutes because of the heat. another thing, when i was growing up, every city had to factories or three factories, and i don't remember choking on there, but i do remember every street was tree-lined, we did not keep chopping down vegetation, which is earth needs, and if you want to talk about science, trees breathe in carbon and they breathe out oxygen. host: caller, thank you. mr. deans? guest: first of all, pope technology is incredibly
9:22 am
and vastly more efficient -- four technology is incredibly and vastly more efficient and many americans like it because they don't pay as much. automobiles, the previous get 50 miles per gallon, but chevrolet is putting out a spark that gets the equivalent of 110 miles per gallon, an electric car. we could go on and on. we are trying to put in place a miles per gallon approach to home efficiency nationwide, so that when someone goes to buy a home, they can find out how much they can save that one person to another due to energy efficiency. all of these things will move us in the right direction and putting more money back into consumer pockets. creating jobs, industries for the country, and making our country more secure, more prosperous, and healthier. host: mr. cass? guest: i think it is to improvements can be great, but the caller raises an interesting
9:23 am
point about whether she does not want to more efficient light bulbs? what if she prefers an incandescent lightbulb that maybe needs to be changed more? or what if she would prefer a car that maybe gets a less miles to the gallon but does not need to be recharged constantly and is bigger for her family? the difference i think between frompproach that you see environmental groups and what i think would be a more sensible approach is that environmental groups say that we are going to mandate it. this is the approach of the obama administration has taken and will continue to take, which libel,, we like this therefore, everybody must buy this level. we like this small and efficient car, therefore, we bending enormous increases in efficiency across the board. whereas if you let the market the moreamericans want efficient product, i can guarantee there will be something mining up to provide it. americans have other priorities and him not sure what the basis is for, you have to change to
9:24 am
the product we like better. the climate change talks begin tomorrow in paris. oren cass of the men had institute. bob deans of the council. is takingch mcconnell a look at the president claimed power plant and he says, the lawsuits that will probably take level, ande state how much of this plan composes what we are about to do in paris and what is the media for all of them for what we bring to the paris talks? yesterdays -- mr. deans? thet: present obama -- starting point for mitch hisnnell is talking about state of kentucky, but let's be serious. we have 80,000 pull -- poll monitors around the country and those jobs are important. we have one quarter of a million people helping us to get more power from wind and sun and they
9:25 am
are the future. what we need to do is connect opportunities to the future with the skills of these people who are struggling with an industry in transition. that is our view on that. lawsuits. pender, you are not old enough to remember this, but i remember when you had a car, you have to take it down to the shop, and install one. congress said to the automakers, you will have to put a seatbelt in every car, and that is when we started saving lives. what happened? car executives said, you're going to bankrupt the automobile industry. that is what we are hearing from some members of the fossil fuel industry, not all. most of the power companies around the country had states are on board with a clean power plan that will cut dangerous carbon solution from our power plants which are 40% of our carbon footprint in this nation. it is astounding we have not done it already. thexpect to hear that from industry that cries wolf when we
9:26 am
try to do something for the good of our people, but we will overcome that. host: mr. cass? is not true that the majority of states support the clean power plan, the majority are in opposition. the opposition goes well beyond the question of cost but the question of the american constitution and how the country roads. what the president and the epa have done with the clean power plan is to essentially take the clean air act that we designed 45 years ago to address a variety of air pollution that directly affects public health, and take secure provisions that no one never understood the context and said, actually, it music and oppose -- impose a cap plan on the country, even though it passes congress. that is a concerning way to govern, regardless of the issue. it is why president obama's
9:27 am
mentor at harvard law school has said, this is -- paraphrasing -- front the -- a front to the thatitution and i think president obama should make the case to congress and the american people and that is the way democracy functions. doing it in these sort of e-the scenes and manipulative -- sort of behind the scenes and manipulative waves are not good for our country or energy policy long-term because it means that incident having a policy supported by the government and public, it will have these games we are playing through the epa and other agencies and are creating anything lasting that could make sense for a long-term. host: quick response. guest: larry tribe made that comment in a that different context. the fact is, the clean air act was passed by, majorities of
9:28 am
both parts of congress, democrats and republicans and it was signed into law by a republican president, richard nixon. it has been on the books for more than 40 years and one of the most successful pieces of legislation. that is a sound legal foundation. guest: i have to jump it because it is non sequitur to say how much support there was to the clean air act or how many people voted. the clean air act does not have a provision to impose a carbon program.ap and trade if you asked the people who voted in 1970 whether they thought it was a carbon dioxide cap and trade plan, i think it is impossible to conceive that any of them would sate yes. to say that because the law had support, therefore, there is a basis for the president's actions, that does not make any sense. host: jumped two weeks in the future, what do you and results from the paris talks? will see annk we agreement signed with fanfare and a press release from the nrdc that applauds the president
9:29 am
for his leadership and the important progress on climate. i think we will see the united states sign up for an expensive energy policy and potentially for sending billions of dollars abroad, and i do not think we will see any change in our countries pursuing climate change. host: mr. dean's? guest: we have the choice to be in the dangerous and damage since -- dangerous and damage that also feels bring or we can move forward to give power to the future and cleaner for the kids. that is what paris is about. we will go back and make it better. ,ost: oren cass and bob deans thank you. coming up, campaign 2016 and .hat it means amongst many things, he will be overwhelmed with political polls. we want to get your thoughts on political polls and if they are accurate and the you trust them? (202)-784-8000 for democrats. (202)-784-8001 for republicans.
9:30 am
(202)-748-8002 for independents. we want to get your thought of political polls and he will take the thoughts on "washington journal." ♪ >> all persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states gives their attention. >> coming on c-span's "landmark cases --" >> this shows a piece of paper and we demand to see the paper and read it. they refused to do, so she grabbed a copy and looked at it, and then a scuffle started and she put this piece of paper into her bosom.
9:31 am
readily, the police officer put his hand into her bosom and removed the paper, and thereafter, thereafter, policefed her wild the -- while the police officers started to search. >> in 1957, the cleveland police theyto a home, who believed was operate a suspected bomber, and amended entry. she refused them access without award. later, returning with the document they claimed was a word, they force themselves into the home and searched the premises. not finding this is the, they containing a trunk obscene pictures and she was arrested and sentenced for seven years for contraband. she sued and her course made it to the supreme court. we will examine the case and export the matter of evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures and how this and other supreme court
9:32 am
rulings transformed who is practices nationwide, coming up on. the next "landmark cases" on monday. -- live background on each case, ordered the companion book, available for $8.95 at www.c-span.org/landmarkcases. "washington journal" continues. host: we want to get your thoughts on political polls and do you trust them. (202)-784-8000 for democrats. (202)-784-8001 for republicans. (202)-748-8002 per dependents -- for independents. this was spurred in a story by mike lillis of "the hill." mr. lillis, good morning. guest: good morning. host: tell us about the pollsters and set up the context. guest: we just had this
9:33 am
governor's race in kentucky and all the polls showed the democratic was in the lead. then you had met evan as a tea party conservative who slept in and really question him and to people by surprise and everybody scratch their heads and say, what went wrong? that is on the heels of missed , britain, israel, greece, and of course, last summer, we had the former majority leader who is leading by 30 points going into primary runoffs, and he got destroyed by the current congressman. the have been high-profile misses, and people are say, should we be paying attention to these polls and trusting them? it has gained such importance this year because gop primaries have been based on national polling and who gets on the debate stage and it is a factor of that. everybody wants to be on the
9:34 am
primetime stage, so it is a real advantage or disadvantage not to be there. the question is swirling around and they question back saying, well, you have to take it with a grain of salt, and imperfect science but it is a science with value in the working democracy. host: i was going to ask you about the defense that posters breakup in light of these things. as -- are polls becoming more difficult because of cell phones and everything else? or is it improving or getting more difficult? guest: i think it depends on what you want to know. i think that is the short answer. these polls, on who is winning, who was winning -- who is losing, up and down, all the pollsters say in this stage of the game that those are meaningless. the public does not get anything out of those at all. there is no way to predict who
9:35 am
is going to win the primary races next year based on polling. factors thatot of go into that we can get into the details, if you'd like, but they suggest that we we better pull consumers and the things to focus on are not the horserace polls but public sentiment. a lot of people say that no one really predicted the trunk and that trumpredicted and carson would be doing solo, but for those paying attention, there was this antigovernment, john boehneron, getting ousted, so there is this sentiment in the republican base that they want an outsider, so it is not surprising to pollsters that these guys are doing well because they are outsiders. all the public sentiment polls they have been conducting point in that direction. the other thing they suggest is
9:36 am
to focus on issue-based things and where people stand on different issues. recent supreme court decision on probablymarriage was swayed by that view because there has been a cultural shift in this country, and it is more accepting of same-sex marriage and that kind of ways into these kinds of things with capitol hill, and they say, public sentiment issues are not so much the horserace that people can get much more out of the polls. host: mike lillis wrote the story for " "the hill" and you can read it at their website. thank you for your time this morning. guest: thank you. i appreciate it. host: if you want to give your thoughts on political polls and if you trust them, (202)-784-8000 for democrats. (202)-784-8001 for republicans. 202-7 48-8002 for independents.
9:37 am
caller: good morning. i was trying to get in on the climate change so can i talk on that for a little. have alreadysts left, sorry about that, but you can contact the organization if you want to return them -- if you want to reach them. let's hear from charles on the democrat line. caller: good morning. yes, to a particular call. about anious assessment when it comes to the polls that they are talking about. projection on how did the polls good in to the -- how did the polls fit
9:38 am
into the bush election a couple of years back? and what happened last minute with the surge that put the british -- that put bush ahead. i will take my comment off there. host: christopher from florida, republican line. talking about political polls and what do you think about them? caller: all i really want to say is that with holes, i believe that the media uses them to push an agenda. they might favor some people in it isain way, but i think just there to push an agenda. host: so you did not pay attention to them personally? whatr: no, ip attention to is going on in day-to-day life and what goes on overseas and what are the big stories because that shows without look of what
9:39 am
our country is going through and what is happening. host: when you choose the candidate, where he or she stands on the poll does not influence you in your support? no, on policies and what comes out of their mouth. if they say excepting straight from the heart and tell it as it is. -- if they say it straight from the heart and tell it as it is. host: danny from west virginia, democrat line. caller: good morning and happy thanksgiving, everybody. i actually trust the polls. they have been reliable for a long time. the has changed is electronic computerized voting, and it is so easy to rig elections. my father a used to run elections in canada, montreal, and he used to say, you cannot trust any technology. you have to use paper ballots, count and witnessed by representatives from each major
9:40 am
party and two representatives from the government. they managed to count 20 million an hour in canada. it is done quickly and they do not need machines. as soon as we introduced technology, there is room for playing games. host: as far as polls are concerned, what permission do look for -- what information do you look for? caller: just generalized public mood and the up-and-down the candidates. in the last election, you can see the republicans with love affairs after candidate after candidate, but it would fade quickly and move to the next guy. they just give a temporary indication. the only one we can really trust is on election day. host: on twitter, one fewer says it is all enough -- it is all in how you ask the polling question. also, donna st. paul's are outdated, just like iowa caucuses. thoughts onear your
9:41 am
political polls and if you trust them, especially as the campaign is underway. (202)-748-8000 for democrats. (202)-748-8001 for democrats -- the republicans. (202)-748-8002 for independents. you can take a look at online polls. the story says online polls arriving with concerns about results. this is in it: writing that to of the most important thing campaign headlines may be about to cross.
9:42 am
host: new york, nancy, democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you today? host: well, thank you. go ahead. caller: polling can affect the voting situation negatively. and soare a democrat he or-- and the polls say she is going to an overwhelmingly, maybe you will not go out to vote because of you think that candidate is going to win. the reverse side is that i will not vote for that democrat or republican because the polls are that so and so is going to win and there is no point in voting if they are going to win. i think the polls can be dangerous, but the ultimate affect -- dangerous on the
9:43 am
affective voting itself. host: eleanor is next on the republican line. caller: thank you for answering my call. , am a registered republican and i am astonished that donald trump is ahead. and i has ever told me consistently vote. to our. host: so you have never been called for polo are asked to participate -- called for a poll asked to be dissipate? guest: never, not once. i cannot believe that this man is so far ahead in the polls. .e is always on tv i mean, it seems like every channel on television, especially news programs interviewing him by phone or in person, and he is getting a lot of time.
9:44 am
some of my carly fiorina, who works really hard for marco rubio -- or marco rubio, or ted cruz or even john kasich, who is an exceptional candidate. host: that is eleanor in arizona. the new hampshire union leader has given its endorsement for president of the united states and that person's new jersey governor chris christie asked the person they endorse for president. in the paper, it says that chris christie is a solid pro-life conservative who has managed the governing the broke new jersey and faced down the public unions and win a second term. governor christie can work across the aisle. he is coming from the private sector with the public experience and it goes on from there. that is the "new hampshire union leader" giving support to chris christie. here is john. .aller: thank you for c-span
9:45 am
30 five years of great service to the country. i would like to say that we have got a situation where democrats are asking the questions of the republicans. are pullingle democrats and asking them who they like for the president of the united states. i am a democrat, all my life, my mother was a democrat, her father served in world war ii and was a democrat, and this time, i am blaming the donald trump and being a blue dog democrat, someone who has conservative tendencies, i think they are not taking into account the crossover vote. you are asking most of your polling is biased because of the samples. they sampled more of -- they are calling home phones that was people do not have.
9:46 am
i do not have a landline, and on the other side, you have cnn and msnbc viewers who they call and i think you have biased on these polls that gets a different outcome. all the polls said [indiscernible] would be present if you recall. have a good day. he set -- so it shows that it is donald trump at the top of the list and 38% of respondents participated in this poll followed by ben carson, ted cruz, marco rubio, and it goes down from there. mark from maine. good morning. caller: good morning, pedro. thank you for taking my call.
9:47 am
say thatnted to generally speaking, the polls be used to be more accurate in the past, but i agree with the last caller. technology and technological adds to we have today the difference, and i just think the polls are good because generally, they give us an estimate, but anything can change in the last minute. host: how much attention do you pay to them? caller: i do not really watch them. i think a lot of that is getting picked up with social media and what people are saying, so generally i just look at it and it is always in the back of my head again, this will change, it will constantly change and we will not know until the very end. host: you think it is too early to pay attention overall? caller: now, i think it is good practice to have them, but i think we need to look at it as
9:48 am
an estimate. host: thank you, that is mark from maine. (202)-748-8000 for democrats. (202)-748-8001 for republicans. for independents, (202)-748-8002 . political polls and you trust them? a couple of stories in the paper about presidential candidates. jordan,carson visiting visiting refugees there and he that he is seen meeting with medical personnel and relief workers. in one shot, he is seen with a baby.
9:49 am
that is an "-- host: that is in "the washington post" this morning. there is an article on marco rubio and his age. jeremy peters writes the story saying, that age for the conspicuous lack of it infuses every element of the marco rubio campaign, from the punch back -- from the punch lines he delivers to the workers who make up the vast majority of his staff. host: cherry from alabama -- jerry from alabama. caller: i am from alabama and
9:50 am
the way we did polls 20 years ago is they were called landmines. today, less than 20% of houses and doing a poll by internet and mail has not been developed to be used. there is no way you can do an accurate poll today, and with cell phones, if they do it on the cell phones, you may be someone in alabama or someone in california. it is just the matter of the case. host: from your experience, how would you change it? caller: i don't know. i have no idea. the most accurate way would be, i guess, knocking on the door. door to door, but that is expensive. male could still be used and you could mail to particular areas
9:51 am
and get an opinion. you cannot have a random poll a mess you have something like that, -- cold unless you have something like that, and do cannot take a poll today and get results tomorrow. it just cannot be done. that is what i wanted to comment on on polls. some day, somebody will come out and happen i could poll, but it is having a accuracy today. host: let's hear from john in south carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do not trust polls. i think they are garbage. i would not trust him if i could and i think we got to go back to the old ways. host: tell me one reason you do not trust polls. caller: i do not trust polls
9:52 am
because they have their hand in it. i don't trust him. host: we are talking about political polls and if you trust them. (202)-748-8000 for democrats. (202)-748-8001 for republicans. and for independents, (202)-748-8002. the president released a statement yesterday, taking a look at the shootings that took place in colorado, and the store in the papers this morning, this is jonathan martin writing out of "the new york times" with the headline -- enough is enough, obama says after the latest topic of gun violence." he says -- "we cannot let it become normal. if we are going to offer up our thoughts and prayers against god knows how many times with the truly clean conscious, then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons on our streets --
9:53 am
host: people woke up in the morning and did their loved ones goodbye with no idea it would be the last time." william, virginia. democrat line. caller: i think the polls are t ged and prompt -- and of the a reflection republicans trying to hide their candidates are qualified running for president, and the american people need to really look at what is going on in the world. host: why you convinced that a are rigged -- what are you convinced that polls are rigged? caller: because nobody is standing up for the people anymore. if what be easy to
9:54 am
believe that polls are rigged? caller: the things that trump says and the media keeps trump stop coveringuld the dumb stuff he is saying, they are not covering anyone else like they do trump. host: let's hear from chris in delaware, independent line. caller: thank you for c-span. whoree with the caller called in talking about the canadian votes and how his father did polling and he mentioned that there is still a way to do it by ballots that can be read by multiple people. technology today, i am sure they can rigged the polls and everything. personally, i think that trump is not any kind of candidate, so i think that whole thing is ridiculous.
9:55 am
representson, trump the majority of what is wrong with things today. , i do think the majority of america is like that. -- i do not think the majority of america is like that. bush was not really elected but put in place by the supreme court. i think all of it is corrupt. the media is corrupt and the majority of america is fed up. host: senate tenure texas, republican line. -- senate tenure, texas, republican one. nio, texas, republican line. caller: [indiscernible] example, have for
9:56 am
mail or five males, and all of them are getting that information from online. polls are not something we can rely on, but my view of the republican candidates, their truth is americans need to change and they want to see the country succeeding. the reason why push is having many troubles, there is no doubt he inherited the profile of his brother. i can see hims sitting well but people are not focused on him. ted cruz has a point, but he needs more study on foreign policy. be a goodwould
9:57 am
president, the only thing is that trump does not have knowledge about domestic policies. thank you. host: let's go to scott in oregon. the current line. -- democrat line. in the pollsieve on hillary clinton and i am a good democrat. host: why? soler: because she is outstanding and attractive to the public. i think that is the main reason. host: would you apply that the leak to oppose the candidates and how they stand? caller: yes, marco rubio. call him thee topic, this is ohio on the republican line. caller: i just think the polls are rigged and i think they give a poor representation of what people really think, and i think they sway people by seeing the polls. they are swaying their votes and
9:58 am
i do not believe they do best justice. we need to see what the republicans and democrats have to say. and we cannot go by the polls. host: that is the last call on the topic. for tomorrow, the former executive to nato and director of the mccain institute for international leadership will join us. we will discuss the u.s. wall in nato and the challenges cash role in nato and the challenges they face a isis, especially with article five of the nato charter and what it obligates the u.s. too. that will be at 7:40 five. at 8:30, alberto fernandez will talk about countering the isis propaganda. of confinements extremism, and do appear from senator james lankford, republican of oklahoma and the home of ted leonsis security and governmental affairs, and he puts out something called
9:59 am
[indiscernible] it shows spending excesses with the federal government and categorizes them and put them in a published form. we will talk about his findings tomorrow at 9:15. "washington journal" starts at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we will see you then. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> next, on "newsmakers" the iowa state party chair discuss the 2016 campaign. then, from the tech crunch conference, entrepreneurs discuss new technology.
10:00 am
then, discussion on money and ethics in political campaigns. welcome to c-span's "newsmakers" on this thanksgiving weekend when the real countdown to the iowa caucus begins. you will meet the chairs of the democratic and republican parties joining us from iowa. on the screen is jeff kaufmann, the iowa party chair. let me introduce you to the reporters who will be introducing him. and karenur tumulty. voters haveweb determined the candidate twice. why do believe that iowa should go first and selecting nominees, if they do not reflect the larger republican electorate? mr. kaufmann: fair question. mitt romney was in a virtual t

8 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on