tv Washington Journal CSPAN April 1, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EDT
lemmon and her book "ashley's war." host: good morning. it's friday the first of april. the headlines are about donald trump and the presidential race. is trailing senator ted cruz. the campaign tries to recover from comments he made about abortion. we ask our viewers to weigh in on this question. is donald trump a conservative? we have special lines this morning.
we do want to hear your views on whether donald trump is a conservative. let's take a look. >> argue all republicans? are you mostly conservative? i don't care. senseust a common conservative. that is so important. walkery told me that used my term. i said make america great again. i copyrighted the term. then walker was making a speech when he first started at he was
saying make america great again. the difference is he didn't get any response. we told him you can't do that. now i said a common sense conservative and i heard he used the term. coined the phrase a few months ago. that's what i am pretty i am very, very conservative on the military. i am very conservative on that lots of things. i am actually very conservative on trade, but a lot of people would say he is not because he doesn't believe in free trade free tradelieve in and it has to be smart for us. that is donald trump talking about his political philosophy. do you think he is a conservative?
what are your thoughts? we're going to our lines. first on our comp supporting line. we have leavenworth, kansas. caller: no. i am sorry. i was on the non-support line. host: why don't you think he's a conservative? caller: in the old sense, there was a sense about conservatives that they were looking at the economy, but they weren't involved in women's personal lives or fascist leanings or working at the crowd. those are scary people called ideologues. they have been in our country for a long time. -- one of the most egregious things he did was
question president obama's legitimacy and say he was born in the wrong place. that went up racist feelings toward the president that we elected. is that why you supporting him? caller: no. i wouldn't support him, said womenwhen he being punished. women are already being punished in this country by getting paid , having menvilified use them as sex slaves. it's really sad how we have slipped backwards. could not imagine someone marrying him. be a leader.ot it's fascism, the things he's saying. it builds up hate.
we so need more love right now. i pray that women be strong. host: that is margie calling in from kansas. next we have ralph from baltimore. he is a trump supporter. caller: yes, i do. he is a common sense conservative. i think they play a lot of soundbites and take them out of context and they control the media and put that narrative out there. it messes with people drawing the right conclusion about what he's really saying. especially about that abortion situation. youtube ando to listen for a second time. you can draw the right conclusions. host: let me ask you this.
you're talking about the perceptions of donald trump. in the washington post today, they point out that some of his polling numbers are falling. quarters of women view him unfavorably and so do two thirds of an dependence and 80% of young adults. republicans and republican leaning an dependence. the you think that perception that trump has is unfair? caller: it's very unfair. you have an outsider that is rocking the boat. there is so much money going into destroying his credibility.
there is so much time and energy that is focused on stopping trump. i think people have the right to vote for who they choose to vote for. if they did not do that, it would be a much better race. i think it said that we have come down to demonizing people. the right to have more than coke and pepsi to choose from. they've pushed out to candidates. agenda goes on when they get into office. we vote for them and send them to washington. it's all talk and no action. host: did you support trump from the beginning? caller: i came into this with an open mind. candidate, hear each i was leaning toward and carson.
to see how everybody is attacking him and so much money and time and negative ads and so much negative publicity and protesters and black lives matter, i've never seen anything like it before in my life. jeremiahnext, we have calling in from washington dc. you support someone other than donald trump? caller: i support hillary clinton. trump context of donald as being conservative, we are moving away from party id. as we are talking about conservatives and him being a conservative, we are talking about him not being a republican or an independent.
we are talking about ideals. what does that mean to be a conservative? if we look at him in that ideal, what does that mean? record, he at his has a track record of giving both republicans and democrats tons of money. what are those issues? lgbt, religion, military, women, he's given tons of money on both sides of the aisle. he's gone to discredit and the ladygregiously from kansas who said it so eloquently. -- i am gay latino and disabled. he has decimated each one of those groups. host: you were mentioning some
of the issues that trump has offered different opinions on it. the financial times earlier this week made a nice chart that outlines some of his positions on different issues. immigration, he appears to be more on the conservative side, he wants to deport illegal immigrants. on other issues like a portion and health care, he falls to the left of most of the other conservative candidates. policy, hed tax falls on the more conservative side of the spectrum compared to the other two candidates. on public spending, he falls in the middle. it does appear that he has different views depending on the issue. to bob ine will go wisconsin.
you are a supporter of trump. do you have any concerns about how he will perform in the primary on tuesday? caller: i am very much in support. i truly believe the media is falsely attacking donald trump. isis,ur nation is facing i am a veteran. when you go back and your president obama who is white, he is not black. he even said he was against gay marriage. words trump is having taken out of context. beit's illegal they should punished along with the doctors. they are killing human beings. i support donald trump.
i want all the illegals out of my country. it he willp will do this back to work. host: let me ask you this question. the new york times talks about the wisconsin primary and how it could be problematic. movementhe stop trump may never have another opportunity like the one here where resistance to mr. trump has been running high before his campaign became consumed by a new round of controversies.
why do you think he is having trouble in wisconsin? caller: he's not. that's what i mean by the propaganda garbage. but right do those people in locking a highway? i'm an american. i've got a right to go where i want. how dare they stop us from going to any. i think that is propaganda garbage. all right. that's bob in wisconsin. this is jean in arcadia. who are you supporting? caller: i am from louisiana. host: i'm sorry. i read that wrong. caller: donald trump is an opportunist. he plays people like a fiddle. he wants power.
i am for hillary. she has been in the trenches for year working for the middle class, women and children. she is tough. she will compete with the big boys. bernie sanders is 74 years old. he has been in the senate for 30 years. sit in the senate and vote yes or no, never having to be criticized. oldaits until he 74 years and then he wants a revolution. he is not a democrat. he undermined president obama. he does not like president obama. he tried to get someone to challenge them. he is a coward. he should have challenged him himself.
all of the rest of the 2016 candidates, if they thought president obama was doing such a theyob, why didn't challenge him? they are cowards and they are hypocrites. that includes bernie sanders. you're talking about hillary clinton and her campaign. in the washington post, it talks primaryw the new york later this month hillary clinton is going on the offensive against both.
shown that he is a fake and a he has changed so many different position the abortion thing really gets me. he did ar in 1988 when playboy interview. he was pro-choice. now you fast-forward 26 years later and he wants to put women in jail for making their own decisions. which one is it? there is an interview he took not long ago before he married this third wife that he has. taking birth control. pro-choice and her making that decision. she told him he was pregnant and he asked what a we going to do now? he is a fraud it. host: who are you supporting now
if you originally supported donald trump? register am going to as a democrat and vote for hillary clinton. host: why hillary clinton? hypocrite. cruz is a low-budget, low energy. he needs to straighten out cleveland with that water crisis they've got in cleveland. they are suffering the same thing. that is michael when in from california. we are talking of donald trump is a conservative. staffer wade in a couple of weeks ago. he is adding new people to the gop. it's take a look at that. >> ronald reagan did that. you go into a state like
michigan, who had voted democratic broke with carter and went with reagan. it's true that donald trump is bringing in low income or non-college-educated blue-collar workers. time, people will be leaving the party. standpoint,raphic his group is shrinking and he is alienating groups that are increasing. isa political matter, he redefining the -- the republican party and that's quite problematic. our last caller mentioned a playboy interview that donald trump did in 1990. the new york times has some excerpts from that interview. there are some similarities between how he spoke about himself than and now. with as ago, he sat down
caller: i think he does have some traits, he is not a career politician. the whole abortion thing that is getting thrown out. ,f you listen to the whole clip it's a gotcha question. that's irrelevant. the whole catch a question is is he a conservative? what do you mean by that? host: let me ask you. it a measure of how conservative a candidate is something you consider? caller: what type of conservatism? what?
what type of conservatism are you talking about? host: what matters to you? caller: some of what he has talked about and he has been one of the only candidates that talks about what matters to a lot of voters. that makes him very popular. he is the only candidate that has brought that up. a very conservative position to have. he wants to have total transparency. supported donald trump since the beginning? caller: actually, yes. i was for rand paul.
he petered out way too early. donald trump held in there. he surprised a lot of people. that is why he is so up billing. he's a populist. he's a nationalist kind of guy. host: that is alex calling in from texas. next would have barbara calling in from new jersey. you are supporting someone else? i think donald trump is the opportunist in chief. i think he says whatever he says in order to generate interest and media coverage, no matter how outrageous. i think he has no integrity or character. bombast and all self adulation.
i think it's a very dangerous personal characteristic. i think he is all about himself and making a splash and i think he thinks the presidency is a reality tv show. i think we are in very serious times. we have a $21 trillion debt which no one mentions. i think he has no integrity. host: sorry to interrupt you. he factor into whoever you are supporting? does -- i am supporting senator sanders. i would like a break in the action. hillary clinton's husband instituted the first nafta bill which transferred our jobs all around the world. he supported that.
rid of got glass-steagall which protected us from the banks for 70 years. not enamored of her or the company she keeps. issue that bernie sanders supporters point is to trade. does his criticism of u.s. trade deals change your opinion of him? his criticism of the trade deals is very good. i agree with him on that. i think these politicians started with kissinger have sold out the american people with these trade deals. i think they are all complicit. republican and democratic. i think bernie is speaking up for the ordinary citizen who has lost jobs, lost income, lost money and the country has lost a tax base by sending these companies all over the world.
i do agree with him on that. i don't think he is an authentic candidate. i think he is everywhere. i think he is too volatile and to emotionally versus cystic to be president. host: if hillary clinton wins the primary, who do you think you might vote for? i would vote for clinton over trump. host: thank you for that call. earlier this month, rush donaldh who has given trump is blessing was speaking on fox news sunday about donald trump's candidacy. >> you don't win everything. you have to take what you get. i think there is a much bigger upside than downside. a lot of people disagree with me. the people who want somebody not of washington, it's serious this time. the disconnect between the
establishment and the people of this country is broader and wider than i have ever seen it. these people have been telling us they are the one to fix everything. look at the college education. it's an impediment the of how much it costs. it's no longer a step up. the american people have worn out their patients. ce.patients you would rather invest in themselves than listen to a bunch of people in washington. host: that was conservative host rush limbaugh talking in favor of donald trump's candidacy. this week in the washington
there are some differing views there about donald trump's conservatism. we are getting your views. bobby is in maryland on the line next. caller: i do support donald trump and i will tell you why. everybody needs to think about this. he is self-funded. that means the lobbyists are not going to be running the white house. washington is run by lobbyists and special interests. those people vote accordingly. donald trump is not part of that. thosenot bringing in millions to the gop. they want those millions. they want the millions. is a democrat.
ted cruz, i want people to research him. he has been in washington since 1999. he was in the late part of the clinton administration. he was in the bush administration. he recommended john roberts to bush. nobody talks about this. host: are you concerned that changingump might be his views? caller: i think he is what we need. we don't need more politicians. we don't know he'll -- mean hillary clinton. i spent 50 years working in washington. i know what i'm talking about. i worked for the space program. i know what i am saying. my kids were born in washington
dc. the special interests and the millionaires run washington. having donald trump there means they are not getting those millions. let me go back to ted cruz. you need to research ted cruz. he has had multiple affairs. the affairs.k with i want everybody to understand that. host: you don't want the millionaires to be in control? does it bother you that he is a billionaire. caller: no. he is not using anybody else's money. they control all the people in congress. they are funding their campaigns. host: all right. we have bob calling in from kentucky. who do you support? are you there? all right. it looks like we lost bob.
let's go to a top supporter in alabama. don't go along with conservative. i listened to donald trump. the lady that just called, i think she has nailed it. tired of thend special interests. now they want to tell us that our vote doesn't matter. they should get together and support the front runner. , they cut trump off or they won't tell the whole story. they want to cut our heads off. they want you to stand there and watch while they murder your children and your family and
then cut your head off. this is very serious. i like donald trump because he is self-funded. they won't have control of the money and tell us how we need to think. the other thing i want to say they are protesters, getting paid to do that. place to have a rally for your supporters and these people want to come in and they want to protest, that's fine. that want to come in there and disrupted. they are not respecting someone else's freedom of speech. host: are you concerned about
his ability to get broader support? the washington post points out the republican autopsy report that is done on into why they lost the last presidential election, he has set fire to that report. he has done the opposite of every recommendation analysts said the party needed to adopt. are you afraid that donald trump won't be able to reach an off other voters? -- enough other voters? caller: i think he has reached out. look at ben carson. i think he is a wonderful man. he has america's values of hearts. i would've voted for him and a heart.
him be love to see surgeon general. if donald trump is going to , he is not aself politician. i said some things back in 1990. we change our views. we are allowed to do that. no one is perfect. cruz, you can tell when he is lying. look at his eyes. host: ruthie is calling in from texas. caller: either hillary or bernie. i wouldn't vote for a republican. thank you c-span for taking my call. host: does donald trump's conservatism way in at all? caller: i did not understand
what you said. as for the conservatism, i don't know what he is. he is a loudmouth person running around dividing people. the people that support him, i just don't understand them. they've got it your problem that he has. i've been thinking about the word conservative since i heard about what happened up in flint, michigan. it's like they are so conservative that they let people die up there. they've got people up there with lead poisoning because they were so conservative they didn't want to spend money to change the pipes and give people clean drinking water. at a let's take a look club for growth ad that is
running, discrediting donald trump. let's take a look
at that now. candidate supports the wall street bailout? he wants us to think he is mr. tell it like it is, but he has a record and it's very liberal. he is just plain us for chumps. in many cases i identify more as a democrat. a programming note, the president of club for growth who ran for that ad will be our guest on this week's newsmakers program which airs sunday morning at 10:00 and again at 6:00 p.m. donald trump about and asking you whether you think he is conservative. we going to our lines of both supporters and people who support others.
up next, we have johnny in texas. do you think he is conservative? thisr: i'm watching politics stuff you have going on here. it's the prettiest mess i've ever seen in my life. nobody knows what a political conservative is. nobody knows what a political liberal is. everybody knows politicians say and do what they need to stay in office ted cruz is a tea party person. he was lucky. he made the senate and texas because he got some money out of that wife of his up there in the big-money bunch and got it set down here to texas. he's not all that good. hillary clinton is the biggest liar that ever came down the pike.
host: let me ask you this. conservatism isn't what it used to be, what made you support donald trump? i just got through telling you. he does not lie. you'd just the facts. they play soundbites and everything else. you do not tell the truth. you slanted just a little bit. you want to come in with club growth and the koch brothers. we are americans. we are not lack, white, red, pink. that's johnny coming in from texas. next, we have indiana. who are you supporting?
caller: i am supporting john kasich. he has a background as a conservative. donald trump is not a conservative. he was asked tuesday night when the three main functions of government. two of the things he mentioned were education and health care. let me ask you conservatives, do you believe the federal government to of their main things they are supposed to do is make sure we have health care and education? if you think that's conservative, you have a different thought that i do. i think donald trump is a phony. the losers in this election is the media. they won't ask him these questions. drug donaldnally trump out into the deep water.
now he's in trouble. aboutsince we're talking conservatism, is that a major issue for you? is it about how conservative a candidate is? are other factors more important? caller: i am a conservative. i have been conservative all my life. i believe that donald trump is a phony. there is nothing conservative about his ideas. his immigration policy is no different than anyone else. he doesn't talk about the revolving door where they come back. what does he mean? how many is coming back. everyone thinks they should be legal. he has no different policy when it comes to immigration. host: up next week have a trump supporter. thank you for taking my
call. host: i'm sorry. you think donald trump is a conservative candidate? caller: that's immaterial to me. but i think is he is a patriot. he is the one that helped our country. ,hat is the person i want looking out for this country. that's really about it. host: that was bob calling in from kentucky. we have 10 in north carolina. tim in north carolina. caller: i am supporting bernie sanders. if he doesn't get the nomination, i would support donald trump. host: why is that? donald trump is not an insider. he tells the truth. he is tried to be destroyed.
they spent millions of dollars trying to do it. they said that he gave to hillary clinton's campaign. he told the truth. he said he did that in order to compete. he does a lot of things to get his businesses knowing. he could not play the good guy. he knows how it works. he knows how the big people are taking over this country. the people with all the money. they are going to completely take over government. host: who would you vote for between bernie sanders and donald trump? would you still vote for him? caller: i will vote for sanders. i think he is more the real deal. host: we want to get one more caller in. caller: i am supporting ted
cruz. there is a trueblue conservative. a guy who knows the constitution. who governs according to constitutional principles. he is not up populist. ted cruz has been a conservative through and through. not a recent convert. trump buys influence. we talk about giving money to both republicans and democrats. it's just trying to buy influence. about whatwho called he said about the three major functions of government. he was right on. government is not to be involved in health care, not in education.
he talked about those things. it tells me he does not understand conservatism. host: we're going to return to a.m. uestion at 9:15 up next, we have wesley clark. e. we will also ask him about the current race for the white house. we'll be talking about those --nges in the military with sorry about that. we will be talking about those changes. we will right back. >> democrats and republicans are supposed to be at odds with each other. recognizeople need to that we need to be respectful to
each other and we to understand that senators are respectful towards each other. that will be more conducive to getting real policy done instead of just the trail. people we see on television are real people. obama, hew president had bags under his eyes. he is tired. i thought that was most interesting. >> top high school students from around the country attend the u.s. senate youth program. they tell us about their experiences. students met with members of the executive, judicial, and legislative members. he came to talk to us. i love the insight about the outside source.
ruth bader ginsburg was the most inspirational person that he met this week. she has been one of my idols for a long time. i either want to be in the legal profession or possibly a senator. >> i understand the need for bipartisanship. i think it's important that politicians go to washington with their eyes on a goal and they are determined to meet that goal. we need to get back to having a constructive discourse. respectingack to everyone. on q&a.y night at 8:00 washington journal continues. host: joining us now from arkansas is general wesley clarke.
general, thank you so much for joining us. guest: it's a pleasure to be with you. host: we are talking about nato in the wake of the brussels attacks. you were stationed in brussels when you are the head of nato. are you surprised by the attack last week? guest: it's always shocking when it happens. i wasn't surprised in terms of the fact that we know that security and the internal security in belgium and brussels has been week for years and years. it's an international city. it prides itself on being open. there are lots of different neighborhoods. there are two different languages. they fought politically with each other for decades. splitwas talk about the that was going to take belgium
apart. country that has had a strong central government. it's never had good internal coordination with its police. they have people who have been disaffected living there. it's the least secure country in europe in my experience. we're talking to wesley clarke about the situation in muscles. you can chime in on our lines. the head of the largest police unit in belgium wins warned on thursday of a serious security
me. they are not a surprise. to secure an airport, you can't do it in isolation unless you are going to have a bunch of military guys to keep people from coming in. it starts with the general security of the public. it starts with local police receiving information from national and international authorities. it starts with working off the terrorist watch list and cooperating with allies. that has to be passed down to local authorities. you have to be able to have a certain amount of listening to the communications in your own areas. these are fundamental outside the airport. you have to look at the airport itself and access to it. it's all part of a broader pattern. it's left over from an earlier age. it has to be tightened up. host: how does europe's security
situation differ from the situation with security in the united states? since 9/11, we billions of dollars into our own homeland security situation. we ended the gaps that used to be between the fbi and state police and local police authorities. that's been tightened up considerably. there is much better information sharing. we have much better equipment. we have integrated watchlist. we have information from international agencies across our border. it's a much tighter system. europe has to go through that process in a serious way. we are talking to a retired general. 1997 to 2000.
donald trump the republican presidential front runner has been critical of nato, calling it obsolete. let's take a look at some video from donald trump. i see nato is a good thing to have. i look at the ukraine situation ukraine as a country that affects us less than it affects other countries in nato. we are doing all the lifting. why is at the germany is not dealing with nato on ukraine? who areother countries in the vicinity of the ukraine, why aren't they dealing. why are we the one that's always leaning. why are always the ones doing
it? the concept of nato is good. i do think the united states has to have some help. i will give you a better example. ofpaid hundreds of billions dollars to support other countries that are in theory wealthier than we are. if you look at germany, japan, saudi arabia. billions of dollars on saudi arabia and they have nothing but money. why? structure a much different deal with them. it would be a much better deal. when you look at the kind of money our country is losing, we can afford to do it anymore. piece, it saysnt
donald trump says nato doesn't have the right countries in it for fighting terrorism. what is your reaction? guest: first of all, we need nato. it's a vital institution for the united states. it's altogether together by the strongest commitments that one country can make to another. an attack on one is an attack on all. we put together when the cold war began back in 1949. it served us well. we need it today. there are security threats in europe. we are in nato to help others. we are in there to help ourselves. we fought two world wars because we recognized we could not allow europe to be dominated by our adversaries. what we learned from that experience was to form strong alliances and have collective defense in peace time to prevent
the third world war. it worked during the cold war. we need nato. it's in our interest. we've been arguing about who pays what for 60 years. there is nothing new in what mr. trump says. there is a lot of information he doesn't share or have. ukraine, it's been germany who has shared the lead for dealing with russia. this is been a concern. russia is a nuclear power in germany isn't. hasas been germany which borne the brunt of the sanctions burden in cutting off economic relations with russia. they had heavy industry trade their that has been shut down. it's not only the united states that has done things. we put more u.s. forces in europe. we haven't been the only ones who have done that. other allies have sent their airplanes, troops, doing training at the ukrainians.
we're not the only ones doing did not hear any of that in his remarks. it's a mixture of old sentiment and a lack of current information. host: we are talking with retired general wesley clarke. ofis currently the chairman a company. they are a consulting firm. we are talking about nato. we will bring our callers in. we have illinois. caller: good morning, general clark. it is an honor to speak with you. i have followed your career many years. question. what are the chances of you
becoming vice president for either hillary or bernie? guest: the chances are very low because they will look for who best can help them and what they need. hillary has great foreign policy experience. i think she will be the nominee for the democratic party. i would be pleased to help our democratic nominees in any way i could. what she has to make her own decisions on that. i am in business today. i often talk to leaders of and important defense officials and other countries. issues.urrent on these but i am not active in politics. follow up, watching the presidential election, are you satisfied with the discussions around nato and national security? guest: they really have not come up in the number credit context. -- in the democratic context.
they will come up in the general elections more. is reflected in what is going on in both parties. the traditional form has been to keep inflation low, make financing available, open international markets, let the free market system work and americans will be better off. underked in the 1990's the clinton administration, where we created 22 million new american jobs and americans at every level of the income scale ended up that are off. that has not worked as well since 2000. that formula is not as powerful today. you are seeing the impact of that in politics, both in the strong support for donald trump on the right and in the questioning of conventional
economic wisdom in the democratic party by a lot of people who support bernie sanders. they are asking what are these free trade agreements about? why send jobs overseas? why has this income disparity emerged? look have to take another at the economics of the united states. of theroeconomic period past is not as powerful today. we need new thinking. that is a good thing in this election and is good to do now. but in the general election, we will talk more about national security. we are talking to retired general wesley clark, former nato supreme allied commander in europe. we are talking nato in the aftermath of the brussels attacks. from our republican line, we have tom from virginia. honor to is a great
talk to you. i have also followed your career. -- caller: it is a great honor to talk to you. i have also followed your career. you made remarks about the middle east and the step-by-step process of changing the government and the middle eastern countries. i am curious what your feelings are about what has transpired over the last 10 or so years. in addition to that, in regards to the upcoming presidential election, i would be curious to hear who you believe is probably the worst possible outcome and the election, for national defense in particular, and who would be best? even as a republican, i am very conflicted about trump. host: let's give general clark a chance to respond. guest: thanks for those
questions. saying in 2002 and 2000 three was coming from information from the pentagon. 2003 was coming from information from the pentagon. people who had worked with the andets in the cold war try to get their policies spread across the middle east. they would say things like let's fix lebanon. but it did not work that way. instead, we have long-term instability in the region. i am glad we pulled most of our troops out of iraq. we have our work against isis. but we were not going to and are not able to transform a country's culture, that has different standards, history, expectations. you cannot suddenly send tens of thousands of u.s. troops over
there, wave a magic wand, put in money, and then say how would you be like -- how would you like to be like us? that kind of nation building is flawed. we have to work with the cultures that are there. we have to work with our friends and allies in the region. we have to promote the step-by-step change that is possible. that people can't accommodate in their lives and values. canwill -- that people can accommodate in their lives and values. it by force of arms. i think president obama understood that. i think he has made some wise moves in avoiding committing of u.s. forces chasing terrorists throughout syria.
we still have to work against isis. we have problems in north and central africa. but we are solving these problems efficiently. i am looking for someone who has experience in the presidential election. every new president is challenged on national security. foreign policy is where presidents have the most immediate impact. for a president to snap his or her fingers and bring jobs and industry back. but national security is the providence of presidents. you want someone who is is reliable,nd let's others work with us, and gear internal politics on the expectation of their relationship with the u.s. i see hillary as the most experienced person we have probably ever had running for
this national office. on the republican side, i do not see anyone with that level of experience. when i listen to mr. trump speak, i am even more concerned. i have dealt with heads of state. you have to have reliability and consistency. maybe there is a time when you do something on predict double. the that cannot be your -- when you do something unpredictable. it does not work in foreign policy. when i look at the record of presidents who have succeeded thefailed, if you go to ones on the bottom of the list and say who had the greatest problems?, it is the people who did not pay attention to details. couldn't work across the aisle. people locked into ideological straitjackets. people who did not see the strategic big picture. presidents inets
trouble in the historical record. i see a lot of that, which is worrisome, on the republican side. host: you hit on president obama's policy and terms of fighting isis. do you think there need to be troops on the ground or are you satisfied with her current approach -- with the current approach? guest: you cannot solve this with troops on the ground. isis got its start because the wrong with trying -- because iran was trying to take over syria, lebanon, and cut off saudi arabia, block turkey. so countries in the middle east, they may shake hands at national summits, but they are feeding opponents of each other. syria was a proxy battleground.
putting u.s. troops there when you have not solved of the underlying issues was a recipe for an effective occupation. unless you wanted to support the charlotte thought -- bashar is.ssad, like mr. putin you have to look at the balance and look at how that played out in syria on the political level. problem, ae that lotto the isis support, that comes under the table, -- a lot of the isis support, that comes under the table, will go away. john kerry has gone all over the world. he has worked hard to try to pull something together out of this. it has not happened yet. but i go back to the experience
in the balkans, which were more simplistic but instructive. it took us almost two years after the u.s. can't engaged to bring effective diplomacy. engaged toe u.s. bring effective diplomacy. today, mr. putin has his own directions. he is not pulling in our direction. that makes it more complicated. we are talking with retired general wesley clark, former nato supreme allied commander in europe and former democratic presidential 2004 campaign.e up next on our independent line, we have john from massachusetts. you are on. caller: thank you. i wish people who have smartphones do their research on the history of this country. -- for 40 years,
we have bombed countries with brown people in it. for theput dictators up international corporate white 1% passes him that put hitler into power. have a question for general clark? caller: i have freedom of speech. let me finish. had prescott bush, who was running union banking corporations for the nazis. -- in oure will move along discussion of nato. we will go to our democratic line. john from maryland, you are on. caller: it is an honor to speak with you. have a question about homegrown terrorists, whether it is al qaeda or isis.
to preventg enough that from happening in our country? or are we too worried about this happening overseas? working think we are hard in the u.s., but we have cultural advantages. people come to the united states because they want to become americans. that has happened for two centuries. people are proud to be part of a new nation. one you look at our record of us -- when you look at our record of assimilation, it is outstanding. europe cannot say that. people come from north africa in the middle east, live european countries, but go back home. they are not really frenchmen or germans in the sense that immigrants come here and become americans. so we start with tremendous
advantages. but we are conscious of the .hreat of domestic terrorism our police agencies, the fbi and others, are watchful of this. they work with local community leaders and police forces. people lost a few young to isis, but we are careful on this. it is not perfect, but trying to do better. mentioned russia's involvement in syria. what is your reaction to russia's recent withdrawal of forces in syria? guest: i have not seen much withdrawal. i saw some airplanes fly away because the imprecise bombing they were doing was less effective than the use of attack helicopters and russian ground be specialnd may
forces. so we do not actually know who is in there. we think it is attack all caps there's -- attack helicopters, maybe aid volunteers. we know there are t-90 tanks, , reconnaissance. so russia is still in there, supporting bashar al-assad. their conquest of the palmyra russia. helped by this was characteristic. mr. putin makes an announcement, the press follows it. just as the case one russia invaded ukraine. you are the little green men -- who are the little green men, but they will not talk to us.
today, we go in and see there is still russian involvement in syria. he is pursuing his own objectives and making a difference thus far. from we have bill pennsylvania on our republican line. caller: good morning, general. notst want to say i am antiwar. oned two grandfathers, injured during world war i. my other grandfather was shot down as a pilot after dropping bombs on germany. and he was killed. so i call him from a family -- a i call him -- i come from family that supports the military. but i think nato served its purpose.
you talked about how indispensable nato is. don't you tell the viewers what nato stands for? you said hillary was probably the most qualified person to ever run for the office. how can you say that, given people like general dwight president, who became after being a general. i think he was more qualified than hillary clinton. did he not warn us about the military-industrial complex. i would like you to say a few things about -- host: you have a lot of things to unpack. guest: nato stands for the north atlantic treaty organization. the zone ofextend stability eastward across europe . it is trying to provide a zone of protection, within which
democracy, free market economies, and self-determination by nations can take place. from estonia to the baltic intories down to slovakia hungary, romania, bulgaria, and all the way into turkey, that is the nato frontier. it is being challenged economically and geo- strategically by mr. putin. challenges,s those the contest of ideas, and active propaganda war in their domestic politics that we do not see here . what theiro alignments are, what their western values are. nato is an integral part of that. that struggle is about keeping
us in america safe by providing for us allies and people who share our values and will work with us around the world. as far as president eisenhower -- one of my heroes -- she was a charm and. a great military leader in world was a tremendous president. leader in world war ii. he worked across the aisle. and he was worried about getting the balance right in our economy. the generals did not always like him. really forbearers were opposed to some of general eisenhower's policies when he was president. the army chief of staff actually protested and wrote a book, criticizing the eisenhower administration's defense policies. but what he did not have and ike hillary does is that --
had not been in congress, seeing state governments up close, had not grown up in american society the way former secretary clinton has. she has been a lawyer in private practice. she has been a governor's first lady in arkansas. she was involved in children's health issues. she fought against discrimination. haveid things ike did not the opportunity to do. he did not see the country the same way. state, was secretary of she traveled the country. she got her hands into the machinery that makes american foreign-policy work. she dealt with leaders at the top of their government. she dealt with the interagency process. she is incredibly experienced. on the issue of national
security and the presidential election, donald trump called for a temporary ban of muslims entering the country. senator ted cruz called for monitoring muslim neighborhoods. what do you think? guest: they are like barroom talk. rhetoric.less it does not solve national security problems. it creates them. i have been twice in the middle east of the last temple -- couple of months. they say what is going on in america? work together. why are you discriminating against us? people inalk to america, working hard to bring people of different backgrounds together as americans, they asked why are you picking on us? we want to be americans. that kind of
rhetoric in this presidential campaign, i am concerned. it weakens america. host: the next caller comes from manford on the independent line. caller: good morning. i am a retired navy guy. served on the nato staff in italy until 1973. i would like to put in a word on the trump position. it revolves around the fact that we are broke. if you take the four largest countries in western europe -- britain, germany, france, and italy -- and compare their population base, their economic strength, their gdp, they alone are far superior to russia today.
britain and france have nuclear weapons. we are broke. in 1968, the french pulled out of the military structure of nato and remained in the political sphere of nato. why should the united states even be in europe when the europeans are more than strong enough to handle the defense of western europe? is right. we should remain in the political arena of nato. europeans should support a supreme allied commander, a european officer, and we should view the situation long-distance -- host: let's give general clark a chance to respond. guest: thanks for your service and interest in nato. but i do not see the balance that way. see the united states as a broken nation. it is the strongest nation on
earth. we are in nato for our own self interest, because we knew that as europe was rebuilding and developing its economies, it was confronting a nuclear state in russia, now, that is more powerful militarily than any european colleagues. germany orant hungary to have to stand alone against russia. that is why there is a nato alliance. could they spend more money on defense and should they? absolutely and certainly. the very first message, back to , every natouman commander has said we have to put purpose on the europeans and they have to spend more. they are promising to spend more now. russia is back. i have talked to their leaders. they want to do more.
but they cannot stand up to russia and maintain the frontiers of freedom without american leadership. that is a reason why the supreme allied commander in europe has been american and why he is commander of the u.s.-european command. that transatlantic link is the key to european security. putin does not like it and is arguing against nato. he wants to be able to deal with each european country separately. ut them off from each other. threaten each independently. it is nato that holds it together. let's remember the organization ept us safe in the cold war. a dollar talk about
here and a dollar there. you cannot run nato like an american business. a long-term effort for national security. it is in our interest. we have always been the leader, because we are the most powerful state. done, and our view, more than our share. that makes europeans dependent on us and gives us leadership that keeps us safe. retired are talking to general wesley clark, former nato supreme allied commander in europe. what do you think should happen to syrian president bashar al-assad? guest: i think he has to go. but he will not if he is winning militarily. so you will have a continuing struggle inside syria. has used the
cease-fire to advance its own ends to strengthen bashar al-assad. we are not going to be able to do what we did in iraq, which is get rid of all syrian armed forces, get rid of the bonds on bashar al-assad. we can get him to leave, but the structure of the syrian government has to remain. utility has to work, roads need to be built. you cannot do that starting from scratch. reach for that in iraq. -- we tried that in iraq. it did not work. we will not repeat that mistake, i hope. host: we have a question from twitter.
it asks "do you agree that israel-palestine conflict is a root cause of a long list of problems in the middle east?" associated but is not necessarily the cause. the middle east is a region caught up in vast disparities of wealth. as european powers designed in the wake of world war i. we try to create nationstates out of areas that were tribal. we put families in charge. came wealthy in some regions because of oil. there are a lot of forces at work in the middle east. the struggleis between israel and the palestinians.
exploited bybeen many regimes in the middle east to distract their own populations from what is happening in their own countries. is certainly a problem, particularly for the people who live there, on both sides. of it is not the root cause all of the problems in the region. your fingerssnap and fix it tomorrow, those problems of modernization, trying to take tribal societies and ring them into the 21st century, and the disparities of wealth created by oil, promoting education and development -- those problems will not go away. line,on our democratic elmore is calling from tennessee. you from your service. i am retired air force. one of the things i know is important is to address root
causes. i worked with a program called social action for about 17 years while in service. when you talk about the middle east, we have to begin to understand the root of those problems. we went in there too tried to establish democracy without understanding -- we went in there to try to establish democracy without understanding the underlying issues. in of those nations are turmoil now. you mentioned experience. it is very important. but we have to learn from our mistakes. nato is very important, but there are some things we must do with that organization to deal with the current problem. , that willn in debt
not go away. we have to have a resolve to deal with that. this is a real problem we must again to address. host: let's give the general a chance to respond. about nato andlk the financial burden. the u.s. is spending between $500 billion and six hundred billion dollars every year on national security. it grows every year. we modernize our forces. in nato, we get the use of bases, training facilities for essentially nothing. ofcontribute a couple brigades, permanently stationed in europe. we rotate forces therefore exercise. we pay a few hundred million dollars for a nato infrastructure and and contribute to the alliance headquarters. if you get rid of all of that
but still want to maintain national security, you have to pay for. because you have to buy the bases. if you do not have those, you'll have to build aircraft carriers. those cost more than a base. yes, we do have a high national debt. but saving a billion dollars at nader's expense will not reduce -- at nato's expense will not reduce the national debt. we have to recognize what has driven the debt. $2 trillion in iraq and afghanistan. a huge -- we have been through numerous tax cuts since the start of the
war in afghanistan. said het george w. bush will give the money back to us from the government because it came from us. it did. but the idea that if you cut taxes and give the money back to the people the economy will grow so fast it will reduce the debt, it has been proven that that does not work. if you are focused on trying to reduce the debt, you will probably have to raise taxes in some way. how you do it, how you make it equitable, how you deal with income disparity, how you do would in a way that does not harm u.s. economic growth, those are challenges our political candidates need to be addressing. host: in the next segment, we will talk about the fact that women will be integrated into combat roles in the military. i want to get your reaction to that. anst: i think it is
appropriate and timely step. we have a lot of great talent that has not in able to serve to the fullest extent of the capacities they have. ,hen i was commanding in nato we had the first woman fighter pilots. they were outstanding. since then, we have continue to broaden opportunities to serve. i remember how proud we were when the first army female indier won her silver star combat, fighting off an ambush and 2005. 2004 people said these women are capable of not only heroic service but valor in combat. in providing direct fire against the enemy. can they measure up physically? lots of them can. are they mentally taught? lots of them are.
can we use them in our armed forces? absolutely. sure, men and women have her from capacities, but i had a law of great female soldiers and sailors and marines who worked with me. i am glad we are moving in this direction. it will make us stronger as a nation. host: next on the republican line is ben from virginia. caller: good morning. thank you for taking our questions. obviously, we have a lot of disagreements, based on me being a republican. i appreciate your candor and agree with your positions, specifically that you cannot change foreign cultures and i believe nato is important. -- would you please comment and i am not asking criminal culpability here -- you spoke about mrs. clinton's experience.
as a former marine officer and 15 year veteran in the intelligence committee, would you acknowledge that any person with those responsibilities, who had made the choices she has, been responsible for the best, release of classified information into an unclassified environment would never again hold a u.s. security clearance? that alone, in terms of a person's choices, says a great deal about her willingness to disregard national security and safety for her own and if it. host: i want to give general clark a chance to respond. you,: it might surprise but i do not see it that way. first of all, people at the top level are very conscious of
national security and protecting information. i think hillary clinton was and is conscious of this. but they also have to be able to travel and be effective. we have not been able to have mobile protection for national security. you had a situation where there were not lack berries, when i was nato commander. we had e-mails, but they came to the office. assistant who handled my e-mails. i left office in 2000. when hillary was secretary in 2008, you could not keep up if you have to go back to the office for a fax or needed to rely on a courier. i looked at the information that has been released that was classified. some of it is technically classified. i have not seen anything thus far particularly damaging to national security. but when i looked at the
process, people were trying to reach her so she could do her job, and they were inadvertently taking snippets of information that were or could have technically been classified. they thought they avoided the problems and sent it to her in a way that should not if it was classified. but that is different from saying that someone has deliberately exposed or leaked or improperly handled classified information. she had her own security experts. they knew what they were doing with her e-mails. discussed it before she did it. and gave her approval to use her own e-mail account. that is the way it worked in the state department. rest ofnnect did to the the government in terms of protecting classified information.
i have found hillary for a long time. arkansas. i know the background. i know the people who know the since the 1970's when they came back to arkansas after college. alien who work with hillary clinton say they are the most talented people -- with say and hillary clinton they are the most talented people. they have attracted friends and opposition. i look at this intelligence issues and see some germ of concern but mostly a partisan attack on a woman who has spent her life in efforts to serve the american public. it has been overly dramatized. it is fundamentally political. to keepd not contribute her from further service to the united states of america and her people. retired general wesley
clark, former supreme allied commander in europe. thank you for joining us. coming up next, we will talk to --gayleemach lemmon on tzemach lemmon, author of "ashley's war." ♪ tonight on c-span, the supreme court cases that shaped our histories with the series " landmark cases." the real-life stories behind some of the most significant decisions in american history. >> john marshall said the constitution sets out the
political structures, but it is also a law. if it is a law, we have to tell what it means. scott apart ised that it is not how you should do it. v. new york, the supreme court said that it should make the decisions. >> tonight, we talk about the clear and present danger standards, tonight at 10:00. booktv has 48 hours of and authors.oks saturday at 7:15 eastern, george washington university professor catherine ross discusses "lessons in censorship," which
examines free speech for college students. examines frances berry inegal voting practices america. she is interviewed by the president of the joint center for clinical and economic studies. >> the donor class, through the people in office and are running peopleice -- the same over and over often in the state legislatures and the families -- they are the ones who are corrupt. they are corrupting democracy. the other people are not getting the benefits of it, because they are not acting collectively to counteract -- have not found a way to counteract it. depth, live with steve forbes, author and magazine.of "forbes" he will talk about his latest
he argues about replacing the tax code and reforming the fed. titles include "," "freedom manifesto," and how capitalism will save us. we will take your phone calls and e-mails from noon to 3:00 eastern. a tourin us as we take of the largest shakespeare collection. tv.org for the complete weekend schedule. "washington journal" continues. joining us from los angeles is gayle tzemach lemmon, : ther of "ashley's war untold story of a team of women soldiers in the special ops battlefield." today is the first day women will be integrated into combat rules in the u.s. military. good morning.
tell us a little about this new policy. give us a little history of how we got here. guest: this is the latest step in a long march that started in 1948. people have -- women have always been serving in the military. what "ashley's war," the story was the storyday of an all women special operations team, recruited for army ranger and navy seal missions while the combat ban was in place. women, and 2011, stood on the shoulders of women who had an serving in uniform since 1948. then you sell what has been a progression. women serving in vietnam.
women deploying in the first gulf war. , youthe post-9/11 wars have seen women serving in all kinds of roles that officially, or unofficially, were not necessarily open to women but that the battlefield demanded. we are seeing the national conversation catch up with the battlefield reality. these are not wars where you have tank-on-tank face-offs. this is a question of having forces ready for the challenges in front of them. and when your enemy is not always wearing a uniform and when every place in the theater is not part of a battlefield, you have the definition of what a frontline is. we have seen a decade in which women have been shown valor. medals, bronze
medals. " was a bush -- was a push to take people inside when women answered the call twice. an animal -- an admiral said we need women on the battlefield. islly, what we are seeing the natural progression on all of what happened. all of this history into 2013. then secretary dempsey talking about how -- secretary panetta talking about the combat ban ending. so we have seen this progression of roles starley -- slowly happening. all secretary carter said combat rules would be open to women.
today is when those plans go into motion. to where weg up are, what were some of the obstacles in implementing a plan to fully integrate women? it is an interesting question. what you have seen is that the battle field has to determined what women's roles have been. when women were needed, commander scott the people in place -- commanders got the people in place to make sure the mission would be accomplished. that is what we have seen. a lot of times the national discussion is catching up with battlefield reality. in the case of "ashley's war," women could not be assigned to special operation teams. that meant they could not be part of seal or ranger platoon's or teams. but they could be attached. they could not be
assigned but they could be attached. so you saw work by commanders in the field saying we need the capabilities we need to the forces that need them. whatever we need to do, we will get it done. so you see a lot of times where the regulation has been behind reality. now we see that reality catching up with where the law is. host: we are talking with gayle an author and, senior fellow on the council of foreign relations. women will be, fully integrated into military positions, including combat positions. we want our viewers to chime in. democrats can call (202) 748-8000. republicans can call (202) 748-8001. you can call in on our independent line on (202) 748-8002.
line for special active members of the military. toy can call (202) 748-8003 talk about this. right now, women are serving at about 90% -- in about 90% of military positions, up until today, even before combat positions were opened up. what positions now will be available? guest: what we see now is the opening of the process to get different roles. for example, the first female herself willt start this summer. navy seals will now accept packets for women who want to join the ranks and put themselves to the test for the navy seal selection process.
you see all of these plans rolled out for how women can become special operators. join the infantry in their own right. large numberspect of women in any of these roles anytime soon. what we see is the opening and clan for putting them in place coming to the fore. open and the decision to combat roles to women has been met with criticism. interest,"ional there is a piece by daniel davis that says though some say lifting the ban will make the military stronger, he writes that they are wrong. the best outcome we can hope for is that the armed forces ability will remain static. the most likely outcome is that there will be some aggradation .n -- degradation
lifting the restrictions was designed to elevate the stature of women and give them butrtunity in the military, the results is that it will likely place women at disadvantage and put them in danger greater than those faced by men in combat. is an important conversation to have. but this was never about political correctness. this is about battlefield readiness. battlefield readiness in the sense of who fight our wars and who fights them. about admiral was mccraven putting in a request to have women alongside combat operations because they needed the skills. everything they saw and knew and understood was going unseen and
unknown in the middle east, because male soldiers could not speak without causing cultural offense. were recruited and joined teams to join special operations combat missions because they needed their skills, the force multiplier. while the question about standards is essential and no one is more adamant about not lowering the standards than women in uniform, their real question is this is an issue of national security. to we have the right people in the right roles fighting america's wars? the central question. it is not about political correctness. host: we are talking to gayle tzemach lemmon, author of "ashley's war" and senior fellow on the council of foreign relations.
today, combat roles in the military are opening to women. on the independent line, daniel is calling from maryland. caller: good morning. finally i get through. i love the c-span. thank you for sharing your time and thank you to your guest. i am in agreement. i spent 24 years and the department of defense, critical technologies, and communications. i think women, if they are qualified and ready -- it is all about being combat ready. need, they meet that should be able to do whatever men are allowed to do. i have no problems with it. i deployed with many women. they did the job and did it well. i think it is good. man, when you are married and have a daughter or whatever, you want to protect them. but in reality, sometimes they can protect you.
so i think there has to be more role.s on that i think they are doing that in the army. seeing what they can handle. overall, i think it is a good thing. host: what is your response? so much of what i have heard. i spent two years in lots of cross-country trips, reporting "ashley's war." ranger first sergeant did 13 deployments and the post-9/11 war -- something else we should talk about. it does us a disservice as a weion to not understand what are asking of people in uniform over and over again. you wore toer
serving alongside women, the less of a problem you had. job retired ranger said a well done sticks out, it does not matter who is doing it. when you have thought that much war, it is about the mission. so many times we underestimate our forces because we think it will be about political correctness and broader conversations in american politics. but it is about battlefield readiness. about the people fighting the war at a time when force multipliers were needed. "ashley's war" was about serving with purpose. about a group of young women who came together to serve on the special operations battlefield, not for glory but for service and their country. so many of the men who served with them, i hear from them , saying thank you, this echoed so much of what i saw on the battlefield. -- onup next on our lime
our line from active members, julio. caller: i am in the air force. host: what is your question? guest: good morning and thank you for engaging this conversation. missionsific roles or -- what specific jobs would you envision women would be best suited for in the combat role? and can you talk about anticipated impacts to the infrastructure or the force structure, having to reopen eyes the military -- having to re-organize the military? guest: thanks for your question and your service. it has been interesting. i was covering the opening of
ranger school to women. conversationot of about what this would mean for ranger school. it meant there were some go up andhat have to some adjustments to be made, but the most important thing wasyone talked to me about that the standards had to be upheld. there had to be one standard. mission and the combat readiness. as long as those are front and center, there should not be too about what women should or should not do. it should be a test when it comes to qualifying for that specialty.cupation and, particularly in special operations, for those teams or platoons, you would want to make sure that
assessment and selection was about finding the best people. andthing i have seen over over is that the woman who had been serving in special operations, both, and noncombat positions, would be the first to tell you they do not want a different standard. they just want an opportunity to meet that standard. there are still some who fear there may be a negative impact on the military, based on this new policy. retired army lieutenant colonel daniel l davis said this -- " there are currently no women in the nba, the national football league, major league baseball, the national hockey league or of their professional sports leagues. the reason for their absence has nothing to do with discrimination but is thoroughly rooted in the fact women biologically are not able to perform physically to this same
level as men. there are some very specific combat related factors that would likely diminish the effectiveness of tactical fighting units if women were included. in the name of advancing women's rights, we cannot risk mission capabilities of ground combat units." did this concern at in your reporting -- echo in your reporting? guest: this is not all about women's rights. we have the best people trying for every rule in the united states military? if they can meet the standard, i do not think there should be controversy about americans wanting to serve the country. country has of this fought 100% of its wars. ans has never been about agenda or politics.
this is about serving with purpose and having people who have the talent be able to try for any role for which they can meet the standard. -- we met so many women talked with the general about how many women had served under him. this is not new. what is new is the country catching up with the conversation on what is already happening on the battlefield. women have received silver vars, bronze stars with a device for balance. one of the woman in "ashley's war" received a bronze star with a v device for valor. that was 2009. we are now catching up with the that so few of us
have noticed. that is what you get when there is a difference between those who have served and those whose -- in whose name they have served. we are talking to gayle tzemach lemmon, author of and formerar" political reporter. up next on our independent line, bill is calling from pennsylvania. i wanted to ask, what was the last war america won? guest: that is a philosophical question we should have an entire war four. in the first book i did, called "the dressmaker of care can -- the dressmaker of khaira khan."
the question of the evolving nature of america's wars is honestly and truly, we as a nation have not fully engaged in the conversation who -- of who fight our wars. officially we are not a nation at war in some view, but we still have u.s. forces in afghanistan. more folks are heading to iraq. more servicemembers are heading to iraq now. i do think there is a gap between what we think of as wars that are ending and the reality for those that are serving in them. those words are not even close to over. host: in your book and reporting, you were embedded with a group of female special operators in afghanistan.
can you talk a little bit about how that shapes your reporting and the lessons he learned? caller: i want to be clear. they had been home of the time they were back. i have lots of rhino resource partners real and also a great deal of experience having been in and out of afghanistan over the years that they were there. there are two things that change you. one is realizing that the conversation around women in combat is an abstract conversation. it has little to do with actual women in uniform who raise their hands. wice when ae t recruiting poster went up in 2011 that said female soldiers, become part of history. joint special operations in afghanistan. in that moment what i saw was this collection of incredible young people, from alabama to alaska, on basis from south carolina to south korea who could not raise their hands fast
enough. they always wanted to serve a longtime -- alongside the best of the best and you really served at the heart of america's mission in afghanistan. it had nothing to do with whether they were male or female. it had to be americans who wanted to serve the country to the best of their ability. at the heart of this team of ashley white -- was actually white. getting to know her through so many people and people who said over and over that she was the best of us. she was this quite person who would never tell you how good she was but let her actions speak for themselves. and you never thought -- you cannot be kind and forceful. that you cannot be intense and warm. that you cannot be a loving wife and an incredible soldier who loves to put 50 pound weight on her back in march for unknown distances in ohio near her home.
mehink this education for was meeting so many young women who embraced this. you can be lots of things at once. so many times when we see women and our stories they are exactly one dimension. they are either fierce or they are warm. they are either capable or they are funny. i'm with a group of young women who start their country who are all of these things, all the dimensions that all these people in our lives truly are. it was my responsibility to show them the three-dimensional soldiers that they were. people that wanted to serve their country, loved their friends dearly, and you were forever changed by serving their country at a time when women officially were not there. spending time with them certainly changed me. i hope it changes of people view the entire conversation. this is not abstract or a policy
that is removed from reality. this is about on the ground service from americans who have been there and seek only to serve the country to the best of their abilities. host: up next way of a member of the military. david calling in from jacksonville, north carolina. and what branch do you serve? caller: i am in the marine corps. thank you for taking my call. i don't want to bash women in combat. i had to towards in iraq and to towards in afghanistan. both conventional and special operations forces. i think we have to be mindful of the difference in combat mos and service mos. about-- legitimate talk medication. walking 10-12 miles and setting up a position in firing. we have to take into account things like weight, combat
stress, understand there are women that can do great things in combat. i'm not saying they should not be in the military. we have got to open it up to everything. that means if there was a woman that can carry a mortar to, baseplate, and a weapons company , let her do it. i can tell you right now it will not last long. i don't know too many men that can do it. if there is a woman that can do it, great. you will not see this flood of women want to serve the infantry. you will not see this flood of women wanting to be in really messed up situations. i understand the soft position. this is a difficult job. i think there is an agenda. i think there is a move to make a point. physical things about men and women are different. it's not that women are beneath us. our bodies are different. i see what happened with the secretary of the navy, with all the respect, i know the people
that ran that study at camp lejeune. they were fair and did not like the outcome of that study. better this, that leadership, better training will bring the woman up to par and we should of picked women were physically capable. that is not the purpose of doing the study. there is an agenda and i think it's disingenuous to think there is not. host: let's like gayle respond. guest: thank you for your call in your service. i think that i would certainly agree, and most people do you will not see a flood of women who are going to meet every standard. i think your concern about standards and meeting that standard is what i have heard over and over again from men and women. i certainly met rangers he did not think women should become rangers but who would stand up every day to talk about what
having those female surgeon -- -- meant to that mission. i think the test is are the standards going to be open where you have a chance to meet them? not that they should be changed or altered for certain people to meet them, which i know is a concern. i think the question is do you have the right people in the right place meeting the right mission? as long as you can meet that standard, best the conversation we should be having. years then in recent increase in reports of sexual assault within the branches of the military, do you have some concerns that with many women being in such close quarters in combat that katrina problem there? -- that could create a problem there? caller: guest: i think it's about leadership and professionals in. easy a great deal of
professionalism in america's armed forces. i don't want to underestimate any excellence that his present. i think what is important is that we talk about setting a tone and a leadership climate in which sexual harassment, sexual violence is eradicated. i think now we see a national conversation that is going on happens and how it is avoided. i think really and truly putting this conversation into a national spotlight has been so very important for showing the centrality of leadership in this conversation and of understanding victims and survivors stories and showing this is not isolated and these are not just a few cases here and there. one thing i would say, which was fascinating when i worked on "active or,"
you don't tell a lot of people when you are working on or store you are passionate about. i remember people had a special operations story and said that is amazing. you would say it has women and it and people just kind of applause. the next -- they kind of pause. ptsd or sexual assault? i think absent of stories of valor coming of the battlefield in a post-9/11 war has affected everything about how we see women in uniform and how women who are survivors of sexual assault are able to access. i think it's important that the valor stories are not lost in the national conversation. host: we have a question from twitter from amy. what you think of compulsory registration or selective service for women? guest: that is such an interesting question. it was brought up several years back.
there are now two bills talking about the draft. the reality is that the draft ended in 1973. selective service was brought back in 1980 in response to the soviet invasion in afghanistan. i think it's unlikely we will see a return to the draft and our time. many military leaders would tell you that the all volunteer service is what matches both capability of the services right now in the wars of a best it will be required to fight. a lot of women i talked to do think women should be eligible for the draft. it's a conversation we should have as a country. host: we are table -- talking to gayle tzemach lemmon. paperback later this month. our next call about women in
combat comes from colleyville, tennessee. dolores on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i had a friend who was in desert storm. she was molested while she was over there by our soldiers. when she told they dismissed her. now today she is messed up. the lady is on medication. it was hard for her to get in the v.a. if they put the draft in, and you look like you are a young lady, would you like to go over there and put your life on the line and then come back and tell us about it and write about it? thank you. guest: thank you for the call. i'm very sorry to hear about your friend. the unfortunate fact is this is not an isolated story. one of the young women in "ashley's war" was a survivor of
an employment to iraq. another member of her unit sexually assaulted her. that was the reason why she wanted to be part of the special operations team and go to this assessment and be part of the team that was recruited for -- he wanted to be putting herself in the most difficult situation and prove he would never be a victim again. she is not alone in that. we see the numbers and they are astonishing. lane wenterself, when to the v.a. services they said she cannot have ptsd for sexual assault. it had to be for combat. i do think we see the v.a. changing. recognition of both the incredible horror of military sexual assault and services that survivors need. and the justice they require. it's not just women. there are more men by numbers, not proportion. this is a conversation we need to have.
as far as the draft, i think we should all be engaging in this conversation. --we want to bring in active an act of congress would be required to bring back the draft. another act would be required to bring women into the selective service. i think this is a discussion we should have. host: can you talk a little bit about how the military is preparing for this change? will they be changes in the way these soldiers are trained, or the type of equipment that will be needed? guest: it's interesting to ask about equipment. i was just having a conversation. there was a moment in "ashley's war" when the green berets wrote to me and said i really love "ashley wore, -- war," i found a typo. pnax.ys on 169 says s it is not a typo,
spanx was when they got the uniforms they were ranger where but they were made for men. where they -- they were small where they should be big and big where they should be small. ashley went on amazon and ordered a pair of spanx so her pants would fit better. the body armor is also made for men. the uniforms are not made for women, the armor is not made for women. it does cause challenges. to relievee devices your bladder on missions do not actually work for women. i think there is a discussion. of whatnk that in terms else needs to change, a lot of ordership discussions
whether it is -- you see a lot of people talking about what will be needed. the absolute center of the discussion is about standards and maintaining the highest standards. it is about combat readiness and forth preparedness. host: we have another active member of the military on the line. robin from alexandria, virginia. you are on with gayle tzemach lemmon. caller: good morning. thank you so much for telling the story of so many women. 17 year army soldier. i have four deployments to afghanistan and iraq. i'm married to a service member. we have two children. we are a family that loves to serve. i am so grateful you are telling this story of those of us who are not necessarily in that category of sexual assault victims of ptsd. my question to you is with all
this discussion on women in combat, the bottom line is we have been and we continue to serve in that capacity. our leadership has decided there will be full integration. whenever you going to stop talking about whether or not it's a good idea and how to get it right? guest: i think this is -- thank you for your call and your service and your family's service. this is a central question. i stopped doing discussion about women in combat because they were all theoretical and not about what has already happened. taught me iss war" that summits of the conversation around women in combat, in 2012 and 2013 when i first reporting this, was what women could do more should do or are capable of. so little was about what they had already done. to me that is the conversation we need to be having. what can we learn? special operations recently brought together a group of people who were part of support
teams at the center of ashley's war to hear about what worked, what can we better, had we get the best of our talent? at a time when fewer and fewer are actually serving you want to have the best people in the right role fighting on america's behalf. i really do think that what we see now is a conversation that is catching up with battlefield reality. host: up next we have joan from pennsylvania. you are on with gayle tzemach lemmon. caller: thank you to c-span. i have two sons who are in the marine corps. one was in combat. we were home when he was here. i never raise my kids to have gender bias.
he said he would rather not see women in a combat situation. he said it was because if i get hit i want to have a guy next to me who is going to be able to drag me either to the helicopter, behind the boulder or wherever. he said i don't see that being able to happen with the woman. he said when my life is on the line, in the end i want to have more muscles propound from somebody who can actually do that. as far as practicality goes, that was his only negative and having women around. he said there are many, many positions where they are appropriate. when it came down to it he wanted a man next to him. i just thought i would mention that. thank you again. host: do you have a response? guest: thank you for your call. this is definitely an issue that came up and a lot of
conversations. particularly on the policy side. one thing that was fascinating was if you look at some of the photos on the website around the book and in the video about it, part of the selection process and ashley wore -- war was able to be doing the buddy carry. you also do see a lot of conversations around whether america is ready for it. the truth is women have been out there. in the marine corps case i think what is most important to a a lot of the marines i talk with is the person to your right and the person to your left has your back. and of the person to your right and you're left is prepared for whatever to happen. that is why you see in general clark earlier talking about the valley that has been shown. women receiving silver star for helping rescue their brothers in combat situations
in which their lives were in danger. i think you do see this already happening where women and men are serving alongside one another and sitting one another's lives. i understand the concern and i think that's why most everybody i have spoken with, men and women, with safety standards and strength are important to maintain. i do encourage you to see some photos of women doing this buddy kerry -- carry in 2011. into did your reporting go what services might need once they return from combat? what women veterans might need? guest: yes. the website has a lot of women veterans writing eloquently about their hunt for services afterwards. was about the recruiting, training and deployment of this operations team. when i met them they were home.
what you saw was they were -- this is what it is an ultimate story about friendship and love. it's because they were each other's baby shower host and present confessors and rabbis and job counselors and divorce therapist and the people they would text at 4:00 a.m. of the people they would call it 11:00 p.m. when anything happened. they were all they had. they came home to a country that did not even know they existed. one are women who have been 70, it operations -- combat operations in missions. a counselor said i know you're a female and you probably were not ever leaving the wire and you don't have those kinds of issues, but you might've seen a little bit of war. i think the disconnect between people service in our reality as americans who are not in uniform is one we really do need to address. how we see our heroes, how we see the heroes of a veteran, how
we see the idea of a soldier does affect the services people are able to access and feel comfortable accessing. i did a story not too long ago with the news tower about women veterans. self identifyith as veterans because they do not think of themselves as veterans. their image of a veteran was of a man who had served. a number of them had done, deployment. -- combat deployment. it's up to us as a country to broaden what we see as a service member. aboutour next caller women in active combat roles as michael. he is calling it from butler, pennsylvania on the republican line. you were on with gayle tzemach lemmon. caller: good morning. i read your book and i think it's tremendous. i have watched your presentations and you have done a wonderful job. the only thing i would add is, and i saw a little bit in the book, the idea that women can
basically participate in any -- it is ok for the standard needs to be the standard. i was running a squadron in germany when congressman patricia schroeder showed up. she had a political agenda. women can dowas anything and man can do. we did a study and we came up with -- depending on the mission, there is somewhere between 3%-4% of women have the upper body strength to do anything. they are tremendous assets to have. an awful lot of women were being codes air force specialty that they cannot do the job.
that builds a bit of resentment. my specific question to you, which i did not hear addressed, through more of the later 1980's and 1990's we started having some problems with our young females being threatened and unfortunatelylted it was a group on two different bases. -- it fairly organized was a fairly organized group of mean lesbians to intimidate the young female airman. the system did not know how to react to that. i wonder if you heard any of this in your research. i will hang up and listen to your answer. call: thank you for your and delighted it for you enjoyed "ashley's war."
i agree with you it's really about standards. -- we went to fort benning to write a piece about the ranger school. it was going to be something different. what it ended up being was a piece entirely about the importance of standards. the women i met, the man i met, everyone in uniform. the first thing they wanted to tell me was the standards must be maintained. that goes for all of these young women and certainly the young men without saying. if you look at ranger school, they werewoman -- people who would be the first wants to talk about how at a moment when they were tired their teammate help them. that changed their minds. i think the closer you service people who are exceptional, whether they are men or women, we are talking about exceptional people regardless of if they are
male or female. the more you think it would be really remarkable as a country to say you cannot serve or you cannot try to meet this test because you were born female. i do think what you see among folks in uniform is that as long as the mission is at the center of it and the standards are upheld, it is always been has been about force readiness and the right talent to be fighting america's wars. as far about intimidation, i did not hear that. i do think the essential question is about leadership and about the tone that is set and what is acceptable and what is not. the leadership has always been a strong part of america's military. i would have a hard time believing it is not leadership that can go a long way in addressing this issue. host: gayle tzemach lemmon, "uthor of "ashley's war.
it comes out in paperback later this month. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. host: we will go back to our questions to callers. is donald trump conservative? you can call in on our special line. (202) 748-8000. though supporting other candidates, (202) 748-8001. a quick programming note. the top 21 documentaries from this year's student can competition are airing at 6:50 a.m. each weekday during the month of april. the theme of the competition, what is she would you like the presidential candidates to discuss during the campaign? we received nearly 3000 films from about 6000 students. the most injuries and 12 years of the competition. they came from 45 states and the district of columbia, the virgin islands, taiwan, and united arab emirates. 150 have been selected as
award-winning entries with the student phone makers share in cash prizes of $100,000. studentcam.org. ♪ this weekend the c-span take you her -- tour to long beach, california to export the history and literary culture of this work city located just south of los angeles. on book tv, learn about women's contributions to the world war ii effort. from the author of "rosie the riveter of long beach." >> when the u.s. army was looking for a place to build a plant to produce aircraft, which they thought we would need in world war ii, they picked long beach because we have a wonderful airport that was founded in 1923. it was one of the first airports that had a takeoff and landing in different directions, which the army loved.
they could use military planes in a way that they cannot use other places. what happened is that douglas went into full production mode. they were turning out planes 24/7. they needed a lot of people to work here. the men went off to war and the women were brought out of the house and brought into the workforce. at its peak douglas was employing 45,000 people a day in the long beach area. about 48% of those people were women. >> on american history tv, we visit the port of long beach and discover the importance of the nation's second busiest container port. >> it was established as a formal harbor department in 1911. we are a little over 104 years old. through that time this port started on a wooden wharf. it was a lumbar terminal that used to come up from the northwest for the growing city
of long beach in the region. in 1940 we had the u.s. navy. the naval station and the long beach naval shipyard was unable complex. they were here enter the early 1990's. unfortunately through the base closure process the naval complex shutdown. what we were able to do this take an old federal facility and turn it into, at that time and it is still one of our modern container terminals, where we are today. 104 years later is we're sitting on the most modern sustainable marine container terminal in the world. >> watch the city to her on c-span best book tv. the c-span city's tour, working with the cable affiliate and cities across the country.
washington journal continues. host: we are returning to our discussion whether or not donald trump is conservative. we are taking your calls on special lines. jump supporters, and those ,upporting -- trump supporters and those supporting other candidates. let's take a look at his political philosophy. this is at an event in wisconsin. donald trump: are you republicans? are you mostly conservative see? i'll he said i'm just a commonsense conservative. and so important, common sense. and somebody told me, they said walker, here's my term. i said make it america -- make america great again.
and then walker was making a speech and said make america great again because he saw the response i got, the difference was he didn't get a response. now i heard he use the term because the press was up and the interviewed me and he said he is a commonsense conservative. i coined the phrase a few months ago. conservative person, i'm very conservative on the military. very conservative on health care and lots of things. and i'm very conservative on same, but's -- but people not conservative because i don't believe in free trade. not because i don't believe in free trade. i believe in free trade. we have joe calling in
from venice, florida. caller: i don't think it is whether he is a conservative or i support mr. trump because primarily in my 50 years voted for john kennedy in my first election. this is the very first time in my lifetime that the people have a chance to vote for somebody who is not owned by the wealthiest establishment on either side. strangely enough there is somebody on the other side who is also not owned, and it would be wonderful for this country to have a trump versus ernie election. host: did you support trump since the beginning of this race?
caller: it was clear when he said he was not going to self fund. that settled it for me. host: melvin from florida, you are supporting some of other than trump. caller: [indiscernible] -- lete it back to trump me get back to trump and the conservatives. thenow he is talking about great people and treasure. another billionaire who bailed icahn, his fund is now being downgraded. and all these people. bankruptcies,four
they build you out and help you get to that situation. he himself owned all that, ridiculous. bankruptcies, he actually had to get out of the head of lead ownership so that other people could take it over. that is how he was able to make some money. he was not the manager of any of those companies. host: that was melvin calling in from fort lauderdale florida. in a state that has seen presidential candidates emerge as well as the current speaker of the house paul ryan hails from that say.
been critical of trumps. there are dynamics within the state that can make it difficult for donald trump. in continuousbeen political warfare for six years. the conservative electorate is highly informed, highly energized, and highly involved. voters andas given acute appreciation of the conservative principles at stake and in defeating union and liberal priorities. they have frayed are sensitive to fake republicans, and many aren't keen on what they are hearing from donald trump, heading into that next context -- next contest.
really radical, so i can't go with them. that's about it. host: danny calling in from finley ohio. do you think donald trump is a conservative? i don't think so, i support trump. pat buchanan was a populist. pat buchanan was against thetion, he was against republican establishment. the republican establishment went against pat buchanan because he was against nafta. he shouldn told him be thinking about getting out of the republican party. he didn't believe what they wanted to do with the middle class. big corporations and the wall
, they arewd destroying the middle class of america. donald trump is going to get in there. i believe it with all my heart. then there is another issue with the border. people are coming into our country who are terrorists. we are $20 trillion in debt. host: some people express concerns donald trump may do or say something different. do you have that concern? i do believe he is pro-life. all the talking points down to
where they want to answer. he is new to the process, he is not a career politician. i think the people are jumping on anything. they are trying to stop donald trump. he has no chance of winning. the only reason he is in their is to stop donald trump. thank you and have a nice day. host: some of our headlines talks about u.s. and allied forces joining together here in washington. one of the items on the agenda
was the north korea nuclear threat during part of that summit leaders also expressed concerns about donald trump's policies, stated policies about nuclear weapons. proliferation concerns has become part of the 2016 presidential race. some u.s.mp has set allies, including south korea and japan, should feel free to acquire nuclear weapons, a position that puts him at odds with u.s. policy. --
we are asking you whether you think donald trump is a conservative. we have nancy, from lancaster, pennsylvania. do you think donald trump is a conservative? caller: absolutely not. host: who are you supporting? caller: ted cruz. host: is conservatism it will meet -- is conservatism an important point to you? absolutely, i want somebody who believes in the constitution and will govern by it. people to control our government, much more so than we have been accustomed to recently.
i believe having watched senator cruz on the floor of the senate he tookwent there, people he would do what he said he would do. that is why he is not well-liked. he kept his word. that is a very important to me. believe he is a conservative and he will stand for us. i don't even think donald trump thought this process well out at all. with aed into this race bunch of angry people. let me ask you this, if donald trump wins the republican nomination, will you be able to
support him then? absolutely not, i will never vote for donald trump. host: joe, do you think donald trump is a conservative? 25% tax bracket, the highest we have seen. and every schoolteacher has [indiscernible] host: pet's joe calling in from new york. we have an apt to show you -- and app to shape it this
have -- to show
you. >> its donald trump. donald: in many cases i identify more as a democrat. m trump makes us believe he is mr. tell it like it is but he has a record and it is a very liberal. trump, just another politician. >> in many cases i identify more as a
democrat. host: david mcintosh, the president of club for growth will be a guest on this week's newsmaker program. air at 10 a.m. and also again at 6 p.m.. up next on our discussion of whether donald trump is conservative, we have mansi, a trump supporter from austin texas. what do you think about donald trump? caller: i have been a c-span watcher since this started.
you are letting your bias show on this trump thing. i am from texas, i voted for crews to be senator. i didn't do my homework, he needs to. he supported pranced -- supported a transpacific partnership, which is all fake. he needs to look at his wife's past. concerned, itp is seems like we are conflating republican with conservative. there was a rockefeller republican, at the goldwater conservatives. people from the democratic party, the neoconservatives, they have taken over the conservative movement. traditional conservatives believed in small limited government, constitution.
we cared about states rights and cared about our borders. we can switch to, he must believe it in slavery or something. no. the founders believed we should keep the decision-making as close to us as we possibly could so if the government got out of control we could throw those guys out. federal world government, it is hard to replace those people. that was traditional conservatism, partly. and a strong national defense. host: you mentioned small government and donald trump has expressed some support on the federal level like health care. do you think you can do that and keep the government small enough?
caller: he want -- he said he wanted to buy it across borders. will -- weink what don't know what he is really going to do on health care. he is a lot more conservative as far as foreign policy then cruise or kasich. he doesn't think we need to be the world's policeman, because being the world's policeman is no way conservatism. we are supposed to use our military for national defense. we are not supposed to overthrow elected leaders. that is not conservatism. he also wants to get rid of the department of education and return education to the states and the people. anybody who believes in common one be enforced down individuals and states, that is not conservatism. that is one of the reasons i
believe trump cares about america. i don't think the other ones do. that is why i'm supporting him. >> there are some polls that showed trump is having some difficulty in the next race of mong folks who may support him. today also points out that the democratic front runner is facing some similar problems, a silver lining for trump is that voters also feel apathy for hillary clinton. that is taste not as strong as it is for trump.
they head into some big primary race is coming up. we have age trump supporter calling in from cincinnati. you think donald trump is a conservative and does that matter to you? caller: it matters a whole lot, but i don't think there is such a thing as conservatives in the republican set up. i think trump is more conservative than any of them ever was. host: what policies have you heard from donald trump?
caller: i agree with him 100%. on what policy would you like me to ask him? you say conservative is important to you. a caller: there is no such thing as conservative anymore. they tried to act like they are still conservatives but there is not. so when he says he is more conservative than any of them, he's telling the truth. husband that is jane calling in from ohio. -- on our line we have who are you supporting in this race? on -- ased
do you think donald trump is a conservative and does that matter to you? could you turn down your tv and listen to the phone? we will be able to talk and little bit easier. caller: ok. host: do you think the fact that donald trump is a conservative and is that important to you? caller: no, he's not a conservative. he's a very sick person. calling in from oklahoma. up next on our line we have a trump supporter, which from troy, ohio. do you think donald trump is a conservative? caller: i believe so after a certain extent. trumpason i'm supporting is he has mixed up politics something we have never seen in the history of the united states as far as politics go.
we need policy -- all to dude just a pad their own pockets, seeing how much money they can get out of these lobbyists. there should be term limits. -- all these millions and millions of dollars. they only make up $200,000 per year but once they get out there, this is crazy. they literally got upset to their stomach because somebody wrote trump 2016. host: what is it about his policies that appeal to you and have you been a supporter since the beginning of the campaign? caller: he tells it like it is, whether he is right or wrong.
i don't agree with the women being punished on abortion, i think he stuck his foot in his mouth. it gets so pc up there in congress. who's going toy tell it like it is and do what they say they are going to do. there is money we can save, there is so much money and waste in this country that goes out the back door that these politicians spin on their own pockets and they get all this money from all these companies. us normalns to american people that have to work 40 hours a week while they work 175 days per year? we need somebody to stand up to our enemies in this world before we are at the bad end of a stick. we don'tg to happen if stand up and defend our american heritage. host: next we have harry calling in from dixon, illinois.
caller: donald is conservative. .c, that is the code word the reason i say donald is a conservative, they pull away from this ideal of abortion. women have been punished in ohio, tennessee or two other states. conservative, and everybody can disagree with this. if we want to go down that road, like we did in the 1880's, we are in trouble.
donald talks about free trade. if you can't walk the walk and talk about america being great, america is great. if you want to go down that road, watch out because donald has learned to talk the talk. don't be fooled america. america is great and he is feeding us down the wrong road. do you think donald trump is a conservative? caller: nobody knows what a conservative really is anymore. host: what is about his campaign that has made you a supporter?
caller: there is a lot of big money against him. i wish people would go on youtube and see the clintons and arkansas, they would come across a different opinion. host: this effect that donald trump is a billionaire, does it give you any concern? caller: he is so rich, but if he wasn't he wasn't able to stand up to these people. think he is doing something right. host: up next we have share and calling in from kingston, illinois. who do you support in the selection -- in this election?
caller: whoever is a republican. host: do you think donald trump himself is a conservative? caller: i think bernie sanders is more of a conservative. he wants jobs for poor people. like a lot of what the republican say, -- i like a lot of what the republican say, but they don't look out for the poor people. conservative can mean anything to anybody, it depends on what you are talking about. sick -- social conservative evangelical type. it means something different to everybody. host: what are issues that have concerned you the most?
caller: i have always been republican. my whole family has been republican. when people say they lean toward trump or bernie sanders, i think it is because of the radical nature. you can't just sell jobs to other countries and keep doing it. around andwill turn do what the gop tells him. i think no one trusts any politicians at all. i think bernie sanders is saying all the right things to conserve our nation. host: up next we have freddie from ohio. you are a chum supporter, do you think he is conservative?
caller: absolutely a conservative. mr. cruz is the biggest liar in either party running for president. it looks like a duplication of what he did in iowa. i will tell you something, donald trump is probably the savior of the united states of america. host: that is going to have to be the last word because we are out of time. washington journal will be back tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. have a great friday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]