tv Washington Journal CSPAN April 24, 2016 7:20am-10:01am EDT
they do it. thank you. host: we're looking at some of the scenes at t.s.a. checkpoints around the country. this story from u.s.a. today. seattle, tacoma, international airport became one of the latest. they warned passengers to expect longer wait lines because of t.s.a. staffing not keeping pace with passenger volumes and the hash tag was pack your patience. and this from another viewer not on the security issues but the airlines themselves.
next up is john joining us from ohio. good morning. caller: i have two comments. we should have never invaded none of these countries. now we've got this mess. and let's have -- i mean, i hope they've got good luck getting that bill through the house because they can't get anything finished. so that's my comment. host: ok. our question, your own experiences with t.s.a. as you go through airport security. nathan from pennsylvania. caller: i can't believe i got through so quick. that's better than t.s.a. host: we aim to please. but we're not t.s.a. go ahead. caller: i haven't flown since the 1970s since i was a kid so i hear the stories.
i wouldn't want to go on a plane. i went to disneyland and a couple other places in the late 70s and jumpen on a plane was as innocent and fun as jumping on a greyhound bus. i haven't been on a greyhound bus in 0 years. that was also very -- 20 years. that was very easy. i'm wondering what's happening with buses and trains. that's probably next. host: how do you get around? do you just drive? caller: i just drive. i don't really travel. but interesting my parents -- this happened a few years ago. they were close to 80 and they were come back from a trip. my mom had a snow globe with a little manger scene in it. it had liquid in it. and theyically clfiss kated it made her go to the back. she's an old woman about that time about 79. my father had a money clip taken from him that had a
little tiny thing on it to open something up. but just he's a world war ii veteran. a marine. it's just the thing that bothers me is like what the other person said, is why are we doing this? why are we becoming a police state like this? and we're doing it because we have no trust because the government doesn't know who we are and we don't know who they are. and there's a loss of trust when you have importation of so much people from the third world and you have to have -- you have to have a form of a police state. so i'm wondering how long it's going to be before trains -- are you going to have to be searched before you get on a train soon? i'm sure that's coming next. and i'm sorry, but if i'm still in the air i'm sorry to say this but of course we're not looking for chinese american grand moms, japanese americans. we're not looking for
80-year-old pennsylvania dutch moms like mine. we're looking for muslim men 18 to 40 that's who does this kind of stuff i'm sorry but that's who does it. and i just -- it's just amazing that we have to lose all our liberties because our country can't get ahold of who is here. that's why a moratorium on migration from muslim countries like trump says would be a good idea until we got a handle on this, i think. host: thranchingse for your call. and this is another tweet. host: good morning. caller: good morning. well, my light is read in with the t.s.a. i was in the las vegas airport with my disabled daughter who is in a wheelchair. and we're sitting in front of an elevator to go down to the
bottom level of the las vegas airport. the door opens up and ten t.s.a. agents just walk in front of my daughter and fill the elevator. they were doing a shift change at the time. i mean, they're just rude and think that they can do whatever they want to do. and this is just my latest one. there was an escalator ten feet away from this elevator they could have went down but instead they had to crowd in front of my disabled child. host: was she in a wheelchair? caller: yes. sheness a wheelchair right in front of the doors and the doors opened up and all them t.s.a. agents walked in front and took the elevator and left us standing there. but anyway. they're pathetic. security. i mean, they all the time get guns through and they try to test them. i mean, it's ridiculous all the money we spend on them. host: ofpblgt thank you very
much sorry for your own experiences. good luck to you by the way. this is a fronted storty as the president winds down his remaining months in the white house. he flew to germany earlier today overnight meeting with business executives, a private dinner with the german chancellor. first lady obama was in london
on friday to join the president for lunch with queen elizabeth. the president will be flying back tomorrow. he will be at the white house correspondents dinner. live coverage of the dinner saturday eevepbling. our coverage gets under way 6:00 eastern time. you can watch it or listen to it. back to your calls and comments orn t.s.a. security your experiences. caller: the fishing company that i actually work for out of dutch harbor alaska, they were stationed in seattle, washington. they didn't open up until 8:00 or 9:00 that morning. i had to leave the airport at
6:00 a.m. when the buses started running from the t.s.a. agents for a security reason. i was not allowed to sit in the airport after just getting off a flight. i don't know. for some security reason. i don't know. they actually made me jump on a bus and leave. i ended up riding the buses for over two hours. host: wow. that's crazy. caller: it made no sense at all but they said it was a security reason and what could i do? i didn't want to sit and argue. i had to do what they said. host: how long was your overall journey? from start to finish? harbor, left dutch alaska, to bethel for the weather. and had to stay in bethel overnight. when the weather got better went from bethel to anchorage and then after a few hours
whatever layover. so we arrived at 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. host: thank you very much for the call. we appreciate it. the "new york times" sunday magazine looking at hillary . inton how she became a hot time magazine is out with the 100 most influential people. back to g to ask you your phone calls dealing with t.s.a. your own experiences going through airport checkpoints. the house begins debate this
week. good morning. caller: good morning. you're a frequent flier? caller: yes, i am. i fly around two to three times a month. the smaller airports are better than the larger airports. the larger airports for some reason had -- like atlanta, had to staff more people for larger crowds. the smaller airports are easy to get in, easy to get out. no hastle. now, the thing i had a problem with when i traveled through larger airport, items get stolen or they're delayed when i'm landing in another large area. in recently, i landed nashville, tennessee coming
from texas, forthood area, and had to wait almost half the day ust to get my luggage. my luggage had all my work clothes in it. host: thanks for the call. this is the headline from .s.a. today. betty good morning. caller: good morning. ok. i wanted to comment regarding the t.s.a. agent not the security but the agents in general. i just wanted to say to all the people out there that complained about the agents being rude. i think a great idea would be to have serning planes that fly every day where people can come into the airport and fly without going through security at all.
just put all of them on a plane together. let them fly without going through any security and see how they feel about that. i think americans complain too much. technically, i think i sense a m of some type of izz involved when they're talking about the agents to a certain extent because they all have jobs and most look like they're young kids. a lot are minorities especially in the larger cities. so americans complain too much. so what if you have to wait? i've had to throw away bottles of water. i've had to wait in long lines and take my shoes off and everything. and it is inconvenient. but at least we have a system. like i said, the great suggestions for everything would be to put them all on a plane without going through security and see how long they complain then. thank you. host: betty. jan has a similar sentiment on
was : i had a friend who sponsored for a ticket by another guy who had frequent flier miles and they had the prescreening clearance to go through who was extended to my friend who was not and that is a dangerous loophole. host: thank you for the call. another story that will be getting attention this week as the u.s. supreme court hears oral arguments on former governor bob mcdonald. this is a piece this morning.
caller: i was flying to the united states bowling national tournament looked on the t.s.a. list and you're allowed to take bowling balls. every teammate took bowling ball's. they said i might have a bomb inside my bowling ball. and i suspect that's fine if they can't x-ray it sufficiently. but then they gave it back to me and said i could either throw it away take it back to my car or mail it back.
well i had enough time to take it to my car. but if you think it's a bomb why do you give it back to somebody let them walk through the airport with it? and i only fly once a year maybe twice a year and my wife and i have taken an overseas trip and were coming back through frankfurt and i bought her a little snow globe that had a castle in it. and we get to detroit, they take that from me and my wife was upset. it was a surprise to her that i had bought this because she collects those kind of things. and the lady said well here i will give it to you and you can look at it and give it back to me. once again if you think it's something that's deadly why would you give it back? host: with regard to the bowling ball why didn't you just check it through? caller: i did. i'm in a top list bowler so you can only get two. i figured it would be safer to keep that one with me.
so that's why i didn't check it through. and then in t.s.a.'s defense i wrote them a scathing letter about them taking it from me. and it really ruined the trip. it was a ball that i wanted to use. and she apologized and said it's up to the local t.s.a. guys. they make a decision on something like that. but why would you give it back if you think it might be a bomb? that's just ridiculous. host: thanks for the call. the hill newspaper reporting on the f.a.a. debate.
senate leaders ultimately decided to drop renewable energy tax breaks from the bill which democrats said were left out of last year's package but that drew the ire of conservative groups. more details available on line. vancouver, washington. your experiences. caller: one morning about nine months ago i was taking my mother to the portland international airport in oregon. she had forgotten in her purse a large butter knife about eight inches long. the top half being all metal the bottom half being metal and plastic. so she went through the checkout line there. and they put her -- since she's elderly put her through the easier line and they never noticed it it was in her purse. if i remember correctly some of the nine 11 had a box knife hidden.
i really question what are we paying for here? thank you. >> thank you. we'll go to jack from miami. caller: good morning. just on the other hand i have a very good friend of mine who is a t.s.a. officer works out of miami and he is relating to me -- and this is in reference to the not enough personnel -- that the t.s.a. side, they are so aggressively negative against their officers that they did a credit check on him and if your credit is not absolutely pristine, they let you go. so you have the pressure from the irate travelers, which is part of the standard of t.s.a., and then you have the pressure from the t.s.a. against the t.s.a. officers by having all these little int cal parts to keep their job. and it's just a lot of pressure on these people. i just thought i would pass
that along to the general public. host: thanks very much for the call. we're getting your comments about your experiences. over the weekend we covered the president who held a town hall meeting in london. he calls the meeting with european counterparts over some shared challenges over the debate in june whether or not grabe great britain will stay as part of the european union. here's a portion. >> every few months i keep with a new group of white house interns. they're roughly your age. they come in for six months they are assigned to various aspects of the white house. and i often talk to them about the fact that if you could choose one moment in history in which to be born and you didn't know ahead of time what you were to be, you didn't know whether you were a man or a woman what nationality, what
ethnicity, what religion, who your parents were, what class status you might have. if you could choose one time in history where the chances that you led a fulfilling life were most promising, you would choose right now. this moment. because the world for all of its travails, for all of its challenges, has never been healthier, better educated, wealthier, more tolerant, less violent, more attentive to the rights of all people. than it is today. that doesn't mean we don't have big problems. that's not a cause for complacency. ut it is a cause for optimism. in a moment ng
where your capacity to shape this world is unmatched. what an incredible privilege that is. host: the president at a town hall meeting with residents in the greater london area. we carried it yesterday. it is on our website at c-span.org. back to your calls. from new jersey, karen. good morning. caller: they've not been very pleasurable. i was at the airport in dallas, texas. they want you to go through the big machine, it's like a big x-ray machine and i won't go through it. so they have somebody host: where where you put your arms up and it goes by in three seconds. caller: it spins around you. host: right. guest: and they don't have that at the lehigh valley, airport but they have it at dallas airport. i don't trust that thing. i wonder if that gives off some
type of radiation or something. i don't trust it. so i have them pat me down. i felt like i was in a porn movie. it was so weird. and i get that we have to have security. but it's sad that the airport is not a fun experience like it used to be. host: thanks for the call. next up is yvonne from puerto rico, good morning to you. your experiences with t.s.a. security. what have they been? caller: not too good. i noticed that when i go i always have my head patted. can you hear me? host: we sure can. go ahead. caller: i always have my head patteded. there's an african american. if there's a white lady they don't pat her hair. i go through they want to pat my hair. fiff it in a bun, if i have it in a wig. i don't understand it. and i know that there's a rule that they're not allowed to do
that. so they still do a lot of profiling. host: ok. did you have a final point? caller: that was it. host: thank you for the call. lou from high labd park, illinois. caller: first thing i would like to say is if you're giving these t.s.a. employees almost lice roles and they have absolutely very, very little training in how to do with the public. i had a horrible experience with the t.s.a. person at chicago, o'hare. host: what happened? caller: i came through the line and he told me to remove something from my wallet. i didn't see it. when he said it to me again he screamed, took my wallet, emptied it out, and then took my carey-on luggage and i was careying gifts for my
grandchild. and he shook it violently in the air in front of everyone. he shoork it violently. this guy was about six feet, maybe four inches tall. then he threw it on the convare belt. host: when did this happen? caller: this happened about a year-and-a-half ago host: did you complain to t.s.a.? caller: oh, yes. host: did they get back to you? caller: no answer. i would say there's no supervision there. there's no training. these people have -- i will tell you something else. they make fun of women coming through the line. they have these code -- code words. one -- and i've heard them use it is did you see that? and they pass that along to the other t.s.a. employees. and if there's a good-looking woman coming through they all look and remark that did you see that did you see that. it's really -- it's
coming up we're going to introduce you to one party that has a nominee. no second ballot. the nominee for the constitution party. and jeffery, is out with a new book called "let the people rule. " but first "newsmakers" this week is robert mcdonald. the program airs in its entirety at 10:00 eastern time. here's a portion. >> we're all about satisfaction. this wait time thing has kind of over-- taken over control of really what should be the real measure. now in terms of wait times, we believe the data that we're using is good data. we believe that wait times generally are on average three
to six days depending upon the specialty that you want at which location. but we've admitted two things. number one, if you go to the ents of the bell curve, you're going to have people getting same day access, almost 20% getting same day access. on the other end you'll have some people waiting much too long. and those are the locations, the specialties that we've got to fix and with the here in the community program that we've put forward, it's a huge opportunity to fix those. that's why we're working that with congress. but i think ultimately the measure of satisfaction is really what's important. and do veterans trust the v.a.? we know that the vfw as you know put out a study that over 80% of veterans love coming to the v.a. they like the care they get at the v.a. we're working hard to improve
access so more veterans can have that care. >> you measure the wait time not from the call or gets in touch from the v.a. but when he talks to -- >> how does cleveland clinic measure wait time? >> i have no idea. >> does it matter? >> it does to the veteran and it's three weeks before they get the call back. >> the important thing is to get the veteran in for care. since the crisis we have over 7 million more completed appointments. 7 million. host: robert mcdonald the secretary of veterans affairs as he talked about long lines and trying to shorten those waits for patients at v.a. facilities around the country and also streamlining the department overall. the full 30 minute interview is airing at 10:00 eastern time. "newsmakers" every sunday here on c-span and on c-span radio. joining us from memphis is the constitution party nominee, darrell castle. thank you very much for being
with us. guest: thank you. i'm glad to be here. host: one party does have its nominee no question as to your own nomination. why did you decide to become a candidate for the constitution party? i think that the rule of law is very important. the constitution is very important. i'm trying to preserve those things and to reestablish the rule of law in america. the people in the constitution party wanted me, so here i am. host: and the platform of the constitution party includes the following mission statement. the mission is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity through the election at all levels of government, of constitution party candidates who will uphold the principles of the declaration of
independence, the constitution of the united states and our bill of rights. it is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated enumerated constitutional functions. what does that mean to you and your party? guest: article 1 section 8 delegates only 17 powers to the federal government. under article 10, the tenth amendment all other powers are reserved to the states or to the people respectively. so that's what we mean by that. we think the constitution should be followed in its original intent. host: what is your background and what do you bring to the party and also to this national debate? guest: well, by profession i'm a lawyer. i've been a lawyer for 35 years approximately. but i've been in the constitution party since its original founding in 1992. so 24 years i've been vice chairman of the party three different terms and in 2008 i
was vice presidential candidate. host: your nomination in the constitution party convention itself that took place in salt lake city we were there and covered your speech. it did not get a lot of national attention. so how do you break through in this clyde scope of media, how do you get your message out there? guest: well, i'm sitting here talking to you so thags certainly a help. i mean, i've only had the nomination for a week. and here i am on national television. so it is going out thanks to you and i think al jazeera was there as well. but it's not easy to cut through the fog and to get media coverage in this day and age. but people seem to be so dissatisfied with the four candidates still existing in the democrat and republican parties that we are getting some attention. nd thanks to your coverage and
al jazeera's coverage we've gotten quite a bit of attention from the convention. host: scott bradley is your running mate. what does he bring to the ticket? guest: well, i've known scott for 20 years i guess. he's a man of integrity and he understands the issues that confront the country. he is especially gifted in the issues -- the land issues from the west. he is from utah. he has a very good understanding of federal control of land in the west, which is a big issue for people who don't own 90% of their own state. i think that's the figure in nevada now. but those are the things that he brings. he has a complete understanding of the history of the country and the founding fathers and the precepts under which they founded our government. so that's why i chose him.
host: certainly as you look at the history of third parties in recent times, since 1992, and to a lesser extent 1996, the last time that a third party self-funded ross perot had any real impact. perot getting a percentage of the vote. why is it so hard for you and other third party candidates to break through in america's two-party system? guest: because democrats and republicans control the system. they control access to the ballot. that makes it very, very difficult. the states who have the most ectoral votes like california, like texas, new york, many other states, those states have the hardest requirements for access to the ballot. those are all controlled by the democrats and republicans in the state legislature. here in tennessee now, we are in the ninth year we just entered the ninth year of litigation against the state
for access to the ballot. we've won several cases but they always appeal. so it's very difficult. i mean, you control the process and you make the process exclusive. and that's how for about 160 years i guess it is now they traded power back and forth. they don't want to give it up. it's like a drug. once you have it i suppose you don't want to give it up. host: we're talking with darrell castle, the constitution party presidential nominee. what's your goal in this election cycle? guest: well, my first goal is to be president. and along with that goal my goal is to get the issues that are important to the constitution party out before the public and have the public hear them. and as the third goal, i would say to make the constitution party stronger. and to help build state parties around the country. host: our conversation with darrell castle includes your calls and comments.
our phone lines are open. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to ask mr. castle the difference between the tea party views and the constitution party. and what are the views on the constitution party about the social issues going on? thank you. host: thank you. guest: ok. i heard the first part about the difference between the tea party groups and the constitution party. the answer to that question is the constitution party is actually a political party. and the tea party groups are simply political activists. they're not -- a candidate for public office might say that he is a tea party candidate or he
is a member of the tea party. that just means that those groups support him. but it's not a legitimate political party like the constitution party is. it's not -- i missed the second part of the question. host: the second part dealt with social issues. whether it's gay rights or abortion or other hot button issues like that. caller: well, are you asking me a question about where i stand on those issues? host: that was her comment. the specific was your views on social issues. guest: if you want to take the issue of abortion it's certainly against it. we believe very strongly in the right to life and we believe that those waiting in their mothers' wombs to be born are legitimate persons. and are deserving of the right to life. now, if you take same sex marriage as a social issue if you want me to comment on that, i'm a christian, so i
personally don't believe in it. but i believe the government has no place in marriage to begin with. the government wants you to buy a license to do everything. but in my view marriage is an act between us and god. god determines what marriage is. and it's not up to the government. so it shouldn't be a government licensed event in any case. host: this is from j.d. redding. do you have a strategy? guest: well, that is a very good question. my old friend christine toben with free and equal has done some things to get us in debates and we usually end up relegated to third party debates because like ballot access the republicans and the democrats control access to the debailingts and they're simply
not going to legitimize other parties by letting them in, whether it's the constitution party or the green party or the libertarian party. they're not going to let them in to the debates because i suppose they assume that if people had a chance to hear their views and see their candidates they might choose someone different. so it's a very difficult process when you have a debate system that's set up and controlled by the two major parties. host: and this is from jody. how many states will be on the llot? guest: i don't know what state you're from, but right now we're on the ballot in 18 states. we're moving forward. we certainly expect to be on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the election. so if you told me what state you're from i could tell you
whether we're on the ballot there. but we hope to remain on the ballot in enough states and i think we will be. host: we will expect another tweet to is from. in the meantime, new jersey. caller: thank you so much for opening the conversation. i just wanted to make a comment and a question. my comment is essentially, i feel that jefferson said that the tree of liberty has to be refreshed from time to time, but the blood of tyrants and patriots. if everything is founded on we the people, what is our duty as citizens to effectively monitor washington and arrest the people who have violated us? and i guess the other thing i wanted to know, if the gentleman could go into particulars about having an import tariff replace the i.r.s., and with the amendment that let people automatically become citizens. and steve, could you have somebody on from the american citizens party?
thank you so much. host: thank you. by the way, we're covering all the third parties, not only here on the "washington journal," a chance to introduce you to the nominees, but also their party's convention, their party convention will be the libertarians. they gather in orlando, florida, memorial day weekend. your response? guest: i'm going to try to answer as many of those comments as i can remember. first of all, mass action and the march on washington, as the lady put it, i think, is certainly a ride. i mean, i'm a candidate for public office and for national office, so i'm pledged to not propose to overthrow the u.s. government by force, so i certainly don't advocate anything like violence or anything like that, but i think people expressing their opinions through mass action and so forth is certainly a political ride and is justified.
the rest of her question, i kind of -- i think i remember a question about taxes and what would we do about it. yes, i mean, i'm an advocate of the constitutional tax set out in article one, section nine, paragraph four, which essentially puts the taxing authority in the hands of the states. it says that tax should be collected through a portion in the states. the send suns -- as the census is apportioned. they would take it away from washington, as far as taxes on imports and things like that, yes, that is one of the planks in the constitution party platform that we would do that. i personally have no problem with free trade. i'm opposed to the various free trade agreements for many reasons, but if the united states wants to work out a deal with mexico, for example, where it says that, you know, you
don't charge us for trade, we won't charge you for trade, i mean, i see nothing wrong with that. i'm not a person who wants to go in front of the american people and say, look, if you elect me president, everything you buy is going to cost more, so we have to be careful about too much tax on imports. it could provoke trade wars with other countries, damage the economy, so other than that type of fear, we certainly support it. scommoip our friend in jody, who has tweeted back, jody is from arkansas. are you on the ballot in arkansas? guest: yes, i'm on the ballot in arkansas, yes. jody would be free to vote for me, and i would appreciate it if you would. host: another viewer saying what's the difference between the constitution party and the libertarian party? could there be a merger between them? guest: well, there are many differences. i can give you a couple of primary differences.
the libertarian party in general supports open borders. we don't. we support secure borders. i read the other day where their most likely candidate, gary johnson, he identified himself ads an economic conservative, but he said that he was in favor of open borders, and he's in favor of abortion, which he preferred to refer to as pro-choice. we're neither one of those things. so those are two primary differences. we do have some similarities. i mean, he said he was an economic conservative. so am i. i try not to label myself with the terms conservative or liberal or whatever they might be. i don't like to wear those labels, but there are some differences like that. host: back to your phone calls. robert is next, joining us from south carolina, independent line.
caller: yes, i hear over and over that we don't have a right to vote for president, but according to the 24th amendment, i believe we do. would you clare that, please? guest: i'm sorry, are you talking about the electoral college? caller: bush v. gore decision. host: robert -- go ahead. clarify your question a little bit more for mr. castle. caller: ok, let me read the 24th amendment. the right of citizens of the united states to vote in any primary or other election for president or vice president are for senator or representative in congress shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or any state by reason of failure to pay full tax or any other tax. tax is not the issue. the issue is voting for president and vice president. guest: i mean, i don't understand the problem. that's what the amendment says.
i mean, why would you be denied the right to vote? caller: if i read it correctly, chief justice rehnquist makes his opinion on gore v. bush that people did not have a right to vote for president. but then by back to the 24th amendment and said it shall not be abridged, which is correct. guest: yes, that's what it says for sure. host: robert, thank you for the call. this is from another robert, robert simpson, mr. castle, saying ask your guest to comment on road blocks, if any, by the democrats and the republicans to nullify third parties. you touched on this earlier, but if you could elaborate any further. guest: well, i don't know about the term nullify, but they keep the third parties from becoming a much louder voice by denying us access to the ballot. it takes millions of dollars,
which quite often third-party people do not have to gain access to the ballot. and that is because the requirements to get signatures in so many states are so scommy so egregious that you actually have to -- are so high and so egregious that you actually have to collect the signatures for you. that makes it very difficult. there are other ways, shut out from the media, except for programs like this and so forth. those are all ways. refusing to allow us into the debates and marginalizing the third parties in many other ways. so those are all ways that we are, i suppose you could say, nullified, but marginalized would be a better word, i think. host: this program is carried live on the bbc parliament channel. you can also listen to us on c-span radio, and our conversation with darrell castle, the newly minted constitution party nominee. some background, autos a graduate of east tennessee state university and earned his
law degree from what was known as memphis state university, now university of memphis. he is a retired u.s. marine corps officer, and he's a lawyer in private practice. mike from tampa, florida, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question regarding the constitution party, the efforts that you make to try to get a presence in the congress of the united states. i'm not very well versed on constitution party, but i don't believe there are any members in the congress that are members of the constitution party. so are you not just spinning your wheels? guest: well, that's -- that might be your opinion. but it's not my opinion. you're right, we have no members of congress or in the u.s. senate, but we don't think it's spinning our wheels. we object to the two parties that have led the country for 160 years. we think it's the wrong
direction. and we offer people a return to constitutional government and a return to the rule of law. and we believe that sooner or later we're going to be successful. the system as it continues down the same road, sooner or later people are going to start going back to the charter of liberty, and that's the constitution. when they do, we're here. host: another viewer saying i had expected a third party to be very popular following the anti-government sentiment out there, and certainly in both parties with the rise of donald trump on the republican party and senator sanders on the democratic side feeding into this anti-establishment fervor. have you sensed that with your own party, and do you sense an area that you can grow to tap into that sentiment? guest: yes, absolutely i do. i've only been the nominee for one week now, but here i am on national television, and that hasn't happened in a while. so, yes, i do sense that
sentiment. we've had a tremendous response to my speech at the convention hat c-span did for and he that jaguars covered, and, you know, our emails, our web responses are all growing, so we sense it and we're going to try to take advantage of it. host: from arkansas, james is next, republican line. good morning. caller: yes, the question i've got, i want somebody to get this law enforcement back to and the itution laws party of obama, don't believe in the constitution. the judges don't believe in the constitution. it says in the constitution if they cannot come on private property at any time to arrest anybody, and this is my question to you, darrell
castle. guest: well, it says that they can't come on private property to arrest without a legitimate warrant, but there are certain acts now that have given them authority over that, like the patriot act and n.s.a. security and such things, but in general, i certainly agree with you, and i respect the constitution. that's why i'm here. and what i would say to people such as yourself is that if you want things to be different, you're going to have to elect different people you're going to have to choose something different besides democrats and republicans, because for 1 0 years, -- 160 years, they've led the country, exchanging power back and forth. each time it gets worse and so forth. so we're here, and we do represent a return to the constitutional values. host: our guest is joining us from memphis, tennessee, and that's where our next caller comes from. tony, good morning, independent line.
caller: good morning. my question is really a comment in regards to the constitution as a whole. i'd like to hear your viewpoints on this, and that is the misleading word that is ways been present in the constitution, we the people. we the people. there's not been properly defined, because the reality is ar to come increase in order to form a more perfect union, provide for the common defense, provide the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity in this constitution, for the slaves without rights under our federal government. the reality is that the united
states people are really slaves to a document that was rmulated by a handful of powerful men for the purposes of maintaining a status quo in this country. host: tony, thank you for the call. we'll get a response. darrell castle? guest: well, thank you for your comment, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. the constitution does provide under article five an avenue for amendment, so if at any time we think it's outdated or it's not valid law, we can always amend it and change it. but to ignore it is to ignore the rule of law and elevate people in positions of public trust beyond what they have a right to have. host: the website is constitutionparty.com, and they list seven fundamental principles that make up the constitution party, including life, liberty, family, property, the bill of rights,
states rights, and american sovereignty. again, full details at constitutionparty.com. chester, dayton, ohio, good morning, democrats line. caller: good morning. my question is about the 10th amendment. the last part of it says for the will of the people. people keep saying, like the democrats have all these programs, social security, and now obamacare. we're violating the constitution, but the will of the people counts also. what is your comment on that? guest: well, as i told the last gentleman, if you want to amend the constitution, there's an avenue for doing that. it is what it is, and it says what it says. now, you paint it with a broad brush, a lot of the things, social security and many other things, but things are either constitutional or they're not.
as i said, there are delegated powers, and everything else is reserved to the states or the people. the people and the federal government are two different things. if the people in the states want to do something or have this program or that program, that's their business and their right. the constitution limits the federal government. scommoip darrell moore says the constitution is a living, breathing document. you have to amend it. darrell castle? guest: well, yes, living, breathing document, i mean, that's some people's opinion. but what you find is when it says what you want it to say, then it's dead as fried chicken. otherwise it's living and breathing. host: john is joining us from new jersey, our line for independents, with the nominee of the constitution party, darrell castle. good morning, john. caller: thank you so much for c-span. how about bringing a very public lawsuit against both parties?
and nobody should be afraid of competition. a party or a candidate who is afraid of competition means they don't have confidence in their own ideas or solutions, so their solutions are inferior in the first place, and they don't deserve to exclude people in that fashion. host: john, thank you. guest: well, thank you. as i said earlier, there are many lawsuits around the country, including ours here in tennessee, against the state of tennessee for access to the ballot. we've several times have gotten a federal judge and clinton appointee judge, by the way, to rule that the tennessee ballot access laws are unconstitutional, but as far as the other thing, yes, i mean, it's hard when you control the entire system and you have the ability to eliminate competition. they give us the illusion of
competition by the base between their candidates and so forth, but when you get right down to it, so many times they're exactly the same and they serve the same interest. once near office, nothing ever changes. it continues in the same course of action. it reminds me of the old -- the way they used to do it in the old soviet union. you know, they tell the people this is a free election, here are your candidates, choose either one you want. but keeping out competition is certainly what they do, and, you know, we're trying our best to overcome that by presenting ourselves to the people and letting them decide. host: from your standpoint, does the president have the right to sign executive orders? guest: no. the constitution, article one, section one, the most important provision in my view says that all legislative power here invested -- herein granted is vested in the congress. so congress has all legislative
power. the president does not have the authority to issue an executive order. he can only issue that makes law. he can only issue executive orders to enforce a law legitimately passed by congress. host: which cabinet defendants, which agencies would you eliminate? guest: a lot of them, but i'm not -- i'm not ready to say that yet. you know, there are a lot of people i would have to consult with, assembling a team around me and so forth. but there's certainly a lot of government that needs to go. host: jesse from michigan, good morning, democrats line. caller: good morning, steve. host: good morning. caller: i listen to this gentleman talk, and he sound just like right-wing republican. asked him -- you
uh -- because you 90% about abortion, and of people who talk about abortion are men, and you brought the question up to him about abortion. i'm going ask either one of you all, would you want your wife to have 18 babies? men don't have babies. host: we'll get a response. again, do you want to clarify or elaborate your view on abortion, mr. castle? guest: well, the gentleman is absolutely right in that men don't have babies, and that some women have a lot of them. u know, that is inargable -- inarguable. but i still think that each one of those babies, once it's conceived, has the right to
live. god grants life. he gives us life. there are ways to prevent having babies. there are such things as birth control. you know, some people might want to consider using it sometime. but, you know, killing babies in the womb is not the answer. host: tom is joining us, our line for independents from pennsylvania. good morning, tom. caller: good morning. my number one key point is that there are faults in the constitution, and the number one most obvious one is the anchor babies clause. the constitution has to be a living, breathing document for the simple fact that times to e, and we elect people make good decisions, and i want to hear how mr. castle feels about the anchor baby clause, because it's ridiculous that it
has provided this situation where people sneak into the united states just to have a baby so they can stay here. our borders can't be totally open, because then we'd have everybody in the world in here, and we don't have the capacity for it. and because of things like that, situations like the anchor baby clause, that the constitution has to be reviewed and it has to be reviewed from moral, political, noble viewpoint, not the whatever is the convenience of the moment. thank you. host: thank you, sir. guest: i certainly agree with the gentleman. i point out before, and i'll point out again, the constitution has a provision for amendment. if we don't like what it says, but it is inconceivable that at the time the constitution was written, the anchor baby clause would have been interpreted by
those gentlemen the way it's being interpreted today. they meant that clause to mean people here living in the united states, when they have children, those children were automatically citizens. it did not mean, in my view, that people who come to the united states illegally, then bear children, even though they are illegal, or undocumented, the term many people use today, their children would not be. so, you know, i agree with him in concept, but i still think it's very dangerous to routinely ignore the law and say it's a living document, we can change it any time we want to. we can amend it any time we want to. host: we've had a number of tweets from james dealing with your tax plan, the flat tax. let my take one of basic questions. what is your tax plan? guest: well, as i pointed out
earlier, i favor the tax system that's set out in article one, section nine, paragraph four, and that is that the tax would be apportioned among the states. in other words, if you have 1% of the nation's population, you would be responsible for collecting 1% of the people, a portion by census, in the same manner that we elect representatives. that would take power away from washington and return it to the people and the states where it belongs, and it would eliminate some of the concepts of washington funneling money to the states and saying if you don't do this or that or you don't pass this or that, we're going to cut off your money. so it would solve a lot of those problems, and anyway, that's my tax plan. host: what about the flat tax? guest: well, if you look at our platform, you'll see that we're opposed to it because, i mean, it certainly would be an improvement over what we have now. but there are dangers in it.
and i don't concede the right of the federal government to take my tax my income. if you pass the flat tax now and say serve taxed at 15%, let's say, next year it will be 16%, and then 20, and then 25, and it's down a dangerous road. host: the green party, by the way, will hold its national convention in early august, and we will be in dallas, texas, for that as well. we cover the third parties, as well as the two leading parties, the democrats and republicans, all part of our white house coverage. darrell castle is joining us from memphis, tennessee, the nominee for the constitution party. randy is on the phone from warsaw, virginia, on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. my great-great-grandfather fought in the civil war, and my other grandfather fought in the american revolution. i'm afraid that many of the things they fought for we're
losing today, and it's just because of fear. and a lack of knowledge of the constitution. ien courage all our viewers out there to read the constitution. if you don't feel empowered when you read the constitution, it will empower you. thank you. host: randy, more of a comment rather than a question. darrell castle, did you want to elaborate? guest: thank you for your comment. and as people read it, sometimes they need to try to understand that the constitution is there as a protection for the people against the government, against growing government power. the constitution, the bill of rights and the constitution itself is all for our protection. host: did the founding fathers get anything wrong? guest: i'm sure they got a lot
of things wrong. they weren't perfect men. none of us are perfect. 1789 s hard to see from to 2016. they did establish it for our -- for us and our prosperity. and i will point out that they believed something that's written right in the declaration of independence, and that is that rights come from god, and the purpose of government, mr. jefferson told us, the reason governments are substituted among men is to protect those god-given rights. i mean, they believe that it's obvious, it's what they wrote. but i'm sure they got a lot of things wrong. host: joe is joining from us texas, good morning. caller: good morning. an earlier caller said that hmb the right to vote. -- said that hmb the right to vote. what he was talking about was the restrictions based on prior license and law, and y'all did not address his question.
thank you very much. host: thank you. guest: well, i'm not sure i know how to address it. i would certainly -- i mean, i'm opposed to denying legitimate citizens the right to vote, and long lines and so forth in most states now we have early voting. i know that in 2008 when i was a candidate for vice president, i did a vice-presidential debate in las vegas. i was invited there to debate the vice-presidential candidates from the other third parties, and that debate was held, i believe the last weekend in october, just before he election, and while we were debating, the state of nevada had announced that barack obama had already won through early voting. they decided through early voting that he had already won the election before we had the debate. o early voting exists now, and
there are ways to reduce those lines if we really work at it. scommoip our last caller -- host: and our last caller is from south carolina on the third party line. joe, good morning. caller: good morning, mr. castle. steve, how you doing? thanks for having darrell on there. i remember four years ago i got a chance to chat with virgil good on your show. stoip that's right. i remember that. caller: yes, that's right. he had tried republican. he had tried democrat. he got fed one the whole mess and went with the constitution party. and in fact, i voted for him, and so mr. castle, i know you'll be on the ballot in south carolina. so anyway, i'm happy about that. i'm a strict constitutionalist. what i tell my liberal friends that, they panic, and they don't understand it's a flexible document. if it wasn't, people of color wouldn't be voting. we wouldn't have suffrage. pricks would still be here. -- prohibition would still be here. people need to understand it is flexible.
you stated that. we feel like -- a lot of people feel like we've len ruled instead of governed for the last several years through executive orders. now, you know, my biggest problem with executive orders, i don't mind the president says, hey, we need to send -- this country had a big earthquake, we need to send them some money. we need to send them aid. but when you circumvent law, especially laws like immigration with executive orders, we've got a major problem in the presidency. now, you know, i think you would agree with that. and i applaud that. now, i would like to know what field of law you're in, and one more final question, i'm really going to put you on the spot. constitutionally, according to natural born citizenship, in your opinion, is ted cruz qualified to run for president? i'll hang up and let you laugh about that and then chat about it a minute. thank you very much. host: joe, thank you for the call. there are two questions. senator cruz, is he eligible if he were elected?
guest: well, i'm going to evade that question and not answer it, because i don't know the answer to it. i mean, i really don't. i mean, i know mr. cruz's background. i've looked at where he came from, where he was born, who his parents were, who his wife is, those types of things like anyone else has. but, you know, i'm not going to say yes or no on that. but as for what law i practice, my law firm specializes in personal injury and consumer bankruptcy. host: darrell castle, who this past week in salt lake city, became the constitution party presidential nominee. he is joining us from memphis. his speech, by the way, his acceptance speech is on our website at c-span.org. thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. guest: thank you very much for having me. i've enjoyed it. host: and on c-span3's american history tv, if you love
politics, we take you back with a look back at some past campaigns. we'll have more on that in just a moment, but we also want to let you know that coming up next, the author of a new book is here to talk about let the people rule, the election of teddy roosevelt back in 1912 and the birth of the presidential primary. 1988 was the year in which former senator gary hart was running for president a second time. of course, his candidacy derailed because of this picture with donna rice near the boat monkey business. and on c-span 3's american history tv, we rewind and look back at gary hart. you can watch the full program at 10:00 eastern time, also 6:45 eastern time, 3:45 for those on the west coast. senator hart was asked about the miami woman named donna rice and addresses the charges in a news conference in anover, new hampshire. reporter: in your remarks yesterday, you raised the issue of morality and you raised the
issue of truthfulness. let me ask what you you mean when you talked about morality, and let me be very specific, and i have a series of questions about it. when you said you did nothing immoral, did you mean that you had no sexual relationship with donna rice last weekend or any other time you were with her? senator hart: that is correct. reporter: do you believe that adultery is immoral? have you ever committed adultery? senator hart: i do not have to answer that question. reporter: it seems to me that the question of morality -- it was raised -- was introduced by you in the discussion. senator hart: that's right. reporter: it's incumbent upon us to know what your definition of morality is. senator hart: that includes adultery. reporter: you believe it's law. have you ever committed adultery? senator hart: i'm not going into the theological definition of what constitutes adultery. in some people's minds, it's people being married and having relationships with other people.
reporter: can i ask you whether or not you and your wife have an understanding about whether or not you can have relations with -- you can have sexual -- senator hart: no but the answer is no, we don't have that. we have an understanding of faithfulness and loyalty. reporter: senator, donna rice's mother in carolina said today that she can't go out of her house, she can't go to work, that her daughter is devastated and it may ruin her life. have you called donna rice or her mother, or are you planning to apologize? senator hart: no, i think for obvious reasons. i think that just raises all kinds of other questions. i haven't talked to her since. i will do so publicly and say i would very much -- the events have negatively affected her life and all the others i mentioned earlier. i have stated that i made mistakes, probably made serious
mistakes, but i happen to believe that everybody has made mistakes, none of us would be in this circumstance today. so there's plenty of responsibility to go around. host: a couple of days after that news conference, gary hart dropping out of the 1988 presidential race. after two bids for the white house. you can watch it as part of c-span3's american history tv. we call it "road to the white house rewind," a look back at gary hart and that news conference in hanover, new hampshire. we hope you tune in. geoffrey cowan is here at the table, the author of "let the people rule." teddy roosevelt and the birth of the presidential primary. good sunday morning. thank you very much for being with us. guest: great to be with you. i feel like i grew up with you. host: thank you. it's a fun book. it really is a fun book. why did you write it? guest: you probably know this, but in 1968, when hubert humphrey became the democratic
nominee, not having won a single primary, many of us involved in the kennedy and mccarthy campaign felt it wasn't fair, that there were some people selected without public participation. so i actually put the commission together that led the democratic convention to require that all delegates, and my hero was theodore roosevelt in 1912 when the primary system first begun. i really wanted to find that story out. host: we talked to the nominee of the constitution party earlier. it's very difficult to get on the ballot, because democrats and the republicans have basically set up the system to benefit each respective party. guest: well, it's true. ballot access is so many issues, just like voter access is. every system is designed really to benefit, i think, the incumbents. it's true, the two parties don't want a third party. host: let's read excerpts. "let the people rule," you say the following -- the rules that control participation vary from state to state.
americans are committed to democracy, but like t.r., we often define democracy in ways that suit our own desired outcome. guest: exactly. i think that's exactly what you're saying about ballot access, how hard it is to create a third party. there's so many different elements of democracy. yesterday, the day before yesterday in virginia, i personally agree with this decision, but the governor designed to let felons vote. that was a specific decision that may have political motives. decision after decision is made that way. host: where roosevelt was a politician, an activist and a warrior, cap was an executive, a mediator and a judge. nevertheless, roosevelt was convinced that taft would be a wonderful successor, almost as soon as he left, friends started to send roosevelt letters suggesting he might find it necessary to run again in 1912. talk about this relationship between theodore roosevelt and william howard taft. guest: roosevelt actually loved william howard taft. and i think anybody who reads about him has to love him. he was a wonderful guy.
so when roosevelt -- roosevelt served for two terms, almost two full terms as president and felt he shouldn't succeed himself, so he really picked taft as his successor, and taft was the man he once called the most lovable man he knew. but taft was not the activist that roosevelt had been. and one of the issues was the environment. your last guest who talked about executive orders, well, he thought the government could do whatever he wanted to in terms of preserving environment. taft thought, well, no, we've got to go through a process that involves congress. that was one of many things that was different between them. t.r. began to get these calls, we need you back in office. host: why was the promise that roosevelt made in 1904, after he was elected to his own full term, such a driving force for him not to run in 1908? because he could have. guest: he could have. in fact, we know with his cousin, franklin delano roosevelt, he could run any number of times. you wouldn't be bound by two terms anyway. but he had become president, as
you know, shortly after the election of 1900. mckinley was elected and roosevelt was the vice president, and took office when mckinley was assassinated. he served almost a full eight years. he thought the precedent started by george washington of no president serving a third term should prevail. by 1912, he had decided, well, maybe the president didn't apply to coming back to office after having gone for a term. host: the man in the arena, is that really defining roosevelt? guest: i think he's a man of action. that's exactly right. in a way, roosevelt ran in part not just because of these political issues that i mentioned, but in part because he felt like he was no longer at the center of action. you know, we all know him as a roughrider and police commissioner of new york, a total activist. as the president, he could no longer be an activist, he wanted to be back in the center of things. host: his imprint is felt at the white house every single
day. guest: i think so. the parties are very different now than then. so much of the notion of an activist government goes back to theodore roosevelt, and so many of the laws we have today go back to theodore roosevelt. host: let's talk about another excerpt from the book. you say the following -- for better or worse, primaries have reduced the power of traditional political leaders. they have produced a new class of insiders who are not necessarily representative of the general public or or even of the party. guest: i think that's true. i suggested that i have something to do with that. if that's the bad thing, i'm partly to blame. but the more that we let the people decide directly who the nominees are going to be of the parties, the more difficult it is for the party leaders to play a role, and the more that we rely on money for people to run those campaigns and more powerful the money interests used to be. used to be you dent have citizens united has made it easier, for example, for people to just contribute directly to campaigns rather than through parties.
i think the power of the parties have been drastically reduced. host: we're seeing a distant headline from the jarbt post for trump's rivals, indiana may be the final line in the sand, the one state that will be l hold a primary next week. we have five states this week in the northeast pennsylvania, connecticut, rhode island, delaware and pennsylvania. but what are you sensing in terms of how the anti-trump movement is coalescing around one or two candidates and whether it is effective or ineffective? guest: steve, one thing we both know is, if there's one thing that's been consistent this year, it's been the pundits have been wrong. the last thing i want to be is an instigator. but i think that -- i personally believe trump will be the nominee of the party. i think the reason he'll be the nominee is that there is not a really good reason to not have him be the nominee. it's true that the rules could work against him. but let's say he wins in pennsylvania, gets the -- gets a substantial majority of the
public vote there, a substantial plurality. but he doesn't really control the delegates because of the way the rules work. well, those delegates could support somebody else. but would it be legitimate in any public view for them to support somebody else? you know, the republican party bound itself with some rules the democratic party doesn't have. one of those rules is that you've got to have a majority of the delegates in eight states, even have your name put to nomination. well, there will only be two candidates who have the support of eight states. so then they have to move around. i think it's very complicated to not have trump be on it. host: in fact, they held its meeting, and basically the story was nothing changed. guest: it's just too hard to change it. whether those are good rules or not, they are the rules that apply now. it's true rules can be changed. you saw this -- it's true in 1912, and my book talks a lot about that, rules keep changing. the convention has the power to be a rule unto itself.
it could be a rule this year. if a majority of the delegates -- let's say some scandal came out, let's assume that donald trump is the leading candidate, and let's say that some horrible thing happened, hit by a truck, let's say, so trump can't be the nominee. well, there's got to be some system by which you can name somebody else at that stage. things could happen that are different. but i think for the moment it's very difficult, i believe, even though the republican party rules allow it, not to pick the news conference. host: when you teach students at the university of southern california, what are the questions they ask you about, or about the current political environment? guest: you see one of the things in this book, that they seem so much the same. it's kind of like the more things change, the more that they stay the same. i mean, roosevelt was a figure with a lot of qualities that trump doesn't have, but the craziness of the campaign, the anger of the electorate, the volatility of the candidates
are things that are surprisingly similar back then. host: our guest is geoffrey cowan. we're going to get to your phone calls. we also welcome our listeners and viewers on the bbc parliament channel in great britain. i want to ask you about your other title, the recent passing of nancy reagan, a reminder of how important that venue was to the reagans during their eight years in the white house. guest: it's true. the reagans spent 18 new year's eves there, including every new year's eve when he was the president of the united states. and if you read his diaries, the ones that were so wonderfully edited by douglas brinkley, you see reference after reference to the importance of sunny land. the connection between the reagans is a part of d.n.a., and actually important decisions were made by president reagan at sunny land. it's what we now think of as the nafta, the precurse or, he
signed it there. host: and the current president, barack obama, he loves it. guest: the funny thing is that, really, it's a spectacular place. there's 82,000 visitors a year there. it's wonderful. and he loves the desert. he loves the heat. of course, he comes from hawaii. he loves the fact that there's a golf course. the only place that reagan used to play golf was that golf course, and nixon, as you know, played golf there, too. and gerald ford played golf there. but obama loves to play golf there. but i also think he finds it a place that has a kind of serenity that works for him. host: the book is called "let the people rule," and peter is our first caller from london, england. go ahead. good afternoon. caller: good afternoon. i want your guest -- actually america doesn't have anybody, as it is recognized out the united states. there's no membership, for
-- le, other than a loose other than -- in other countries, you find that the leader of the nominees are actually elected by the members to be members of that party. rather than anybody who comes off and decides that they may be democrat or republican. i wondered why that system doesn't work, won't work in the nited states, and it also goes to the question of the party platforms where elsewhere they raise -- they come out naturally from the party rather than just from the leadership. guest: well, to take your last point first because it undermines the point, we see the speaker of the house speak
for the republican party in a certain perspective saying he wants the platform to go in one direction, which may be very different than the direction of the person i think will be their ultimate nominee. but maybe we tell your viewers this, remind them, there have been four stages in the nomination process for party candidates. at the very beginning, the nominees were made by the members of congress meeting in a caucus of that party. so that might be something that's closer to what -- certainly closer to what the caller is talking about. then in 1832, in a reform largely adescribed to andrew jackson, there's conventions, and the conventions were largely party leaders coming from their own states and so forth. and the first time there were primaries, what my book is about, 1812, largely due to theodore roosevelt, but they
were only a part behalf controlled the nominating process. the party leaders remained important until 1968 when these reforms took place, which now mean that really the public gets to choose pretty much in every state. scommoip that, of course, was the mcgovern condition. guest: right, which grew out of the hughes commission. host: this is a what if question and hard to answer, i realize, but as somebody who lived through 1968, had robert f. kennedy, the senator from new york, lived, would he have been in serious contention for the nomination based on winning the california primary, winning some of the earlier primaries and hubert humphrey not in any of the primaries? he also, of course, had mccarthy. guest: i think in the end, probably robert kennedy would have been nominated. all speculation about whether that preceded california, because he was killed then in california, assassinated tragically. i think he probably would have been nominated, but it wasn't clear. a lot of the people who were the party leaders at that time, including many who loved kennedy really didn't -- they
weren't sure they wanted kennedy. and probably -- or at least one key thing what richard daley would have done, who really controlled -- the mayor of chicago really controlled the chicago delegates, it's hard for me to believe in the end he wouldn't have supported robert condition de. of course, if robert condition dehad been nominated, we wouldn't have had the reforms that i was associated with and we might not have parties being quite as open to primaries as they are today. host: a caller from great britain, david from liverpool, england, being carried live on the bbc parliament channel. what's on your mind? caller: i'd like to challenge mr. cowan's assertion that donald trump he thinks would be the g.o.p. nominee. it seems to be part of a general sort of media -- not just the guess in the media, but people in the media pushing this, without actually accepting the facts. the facts are that 37% of
g.o.p. voters are voting for trump, which means 60% plus have voted against him, and once it gets to the actual nominating process in cleveland, mr. trump will not have enough delegates, and therefore, mr. trump will be -- the vote will not receive the nomination, because most voters look. and the actual mechanics of the system will play out and probably, you know, cruz and mr. kasich will be the nominee, because they are the choice of the majority of people who were against trump. guest: first of all, as i said, we've all been wrong in our predictions, so i'm not asserting that i'd be any different from anybody else on this. but how many people pie your analysis going against mr. cruz? host: he's not on the phone anymore. guest: by that analysis, a much larger percentage voted against senator cruz, and a much larger
percentage voted against senator kasich. i do think the argument for the caller is that the process does call for the purpose of a convention is probably to gather round one person the party can agree on, and there used to be conventions that went for as many as 100 ballots. the democrats used to require 2/3 of the delegates, not just a simple majority. and so -- wilson in the year we're talking about here, took almost 50 ballots for him to be nominated. so i think it is possible, and it's certainly arguable that the party ought to try to buy a person that can build that consensus. and if somebody can emerge that was a consensus candidate, i think he could find somebody other than mr. trump. i'm only saying i think, in the end, i think it's likely that trump will be the nominee. i'm not arguing that's how the process ought to be. i'm not arguing he's the best nominee, but my own guess today is he will be. host: our guest is geoffrey cowan, a graduate from harvard, earned his law degree from yale
law school. he's the author of "see no evil." he is the former dean at the university of southern california anneberg school, also appointed by president clinton as the voice of america, and currently the president of the anneberg foundation trust at sunny lands. and his new book qurkt let the people rule." kay is joining us from missouri, democrats line. good morning. caller: i'm afraid i'm a little off the point now at this point from what you've been discussing, but i was wanting to ask mr. cowan what he thinks of the british. i feel americans are quite limited in their choices by ving the two parties dominate, and what he thinks of electing system of people. host: thank you.
guest: well, it's a parliamentary democracy is something all countries have. we've just seen a very dynamic election in canada, which led to a very exciting outcome for the moment. but we didn't -- the founders decided to go in different directions, and they decided to have a president who was elected. we talked at the beginning of the conversation about the fact that it's very hard for third or fourth parties to merge, but the person many of us consider to be the greatest president in american history, abraham lincoln, was the third party. maybe it would happen again in the future. theodore roosevelt, i think my book exposes a lot of things about roosevelt that are rather astonishing, including what happened at the democratic -- at the republican convention, the progressive party convention once he walked out and started his own third party, but i think nevertheless he would have been a wonderful president had he won the third party. so you can make the case that it ought to be easier to have a third party and at some point, some wonderful person and party could emerge.
whip roosevelt have been welcome in the current republican party? guest: the only way in which i could imagine that happening is you sort of wonder, why is trump welcomed in the current republican party? his policy politicians are so different from the policy positions that have been republican doctrine the last several years, which is i think the reason he's having so much trouble, or one of the major reasons. it's the reason today the koch brothers say they're not going to cleveland, but they can't imagine supporting a democrat, because they are so fundamentally opposed to position. well, roosevelt was such a dynamic force that maybe with primaries everywhere, even though his own positions were different from the dogma of the party, he might have brought the party to another position. of course, when he was running in that republican party -- the primaries of 1912, which were so die natural and i can exciting, he was presenting philosophy that was very different from william howard taft. so you had that clash taking
place in 1912. if he ran, i think he'd have a true clash of ideas today. host: we're looking at old film of teddy roosevelt and that historic election of 1912. our guest is geoffrey cowan, the author of a new book, and in it you say the following -- from 1912 to 1968, starting with taft's defeat of t.r., the parties were able to ignore or overcome the results of the primaries, and yet without primaries, several candidates selected in the past 60 years might not have been chosen. guest: that's true. i think the most clear example is john f. kennedy. john f. kennedy, interesting, a lot of catholic leaders were scared of kennedy ark lot of people you thought might have been for him. they thought after the catholic he defeated, but he won in west virginia, which was a heavily protestant state, beat hubert humphrey, and convinced people that he could become the nominee and did, in fact. but i also list barack obama. i think if it had not been for
the open system caucuses in that case in iowa, in a white state, it's unlikely obama would have been the nominee. host: you brought along a couple of campaign buttons. we don't see these anymore, do we? guest: not like that. host: let's go to kay in missouri, democrats line with geoffrey cowan, good morning. caller: i was just on. i'm sorry. host: you were just on. did you want to follow up? caller: well, i just feel that the american people -- i've said, as i've said, that this limits the choices the american people have. the two-party system. at least the dominance of the two parties. host: thank you, kay. guest: well, there's no reason you can't have third and fourth parties. for a while, michael bloomberg was considering running. remember ross perot ran and got 19%. at this time in 1992, it seemed like ross perot and his party
actually could possibly win the presidency. so i think that we should keep a process that's open to the possibility of a third party winning. host: kevin in london, england, good afternoon. caller: good afternoon. i'd like ask you a question. i am 70 years of age, and i've been following the democratic party for as long as i can remember, and, of course, canned indicate john f. kennedy was my hero. and the argument between the two parties, they were firm and they were strong and etc. but there was still some debate that went on. now i watched the internet, and i'm on facebook and everything like that. i see comments about the president, mr. clinton, etc., that are just, quite frankly, violent and zpwussing. they're talking about charges for treason, shooting, killing. i mean, the hatred for the president and the hatred for mrs. clinton is so vile.
this is not party politics. this is a cult thing. it's just disgusting. and these are coming out of every internet you put on. you just get this vile hate. is that something new now in america where no longer reasonable -- i was in the states 10 years ago, and i was in georgia, and i was warned by my neighbor, my friends, not to talk politics, because americans can't talk politics reasonably anymore. is that true? host: thank you, kevin. guest: let me first of all talk for a moment about what it was like in 1912. there have been many times in american history anyway when things have been very vicious. they were vicious in the early part of the republic when you had -- you had jefferson and you had adams and so forth, and you had aaron burr, you had duels. in my book, you have conventions where people -- there's gun play at the conventions. roosevelt wanted to win the convention in 1912 by -- there was actually a plan to start a
riot at the convention to sort of terrorize the delegates. but i think what you're talking about is what the clintons refer to in the 1990's as the politics of personal destruction. and it seems to be sort of an ongoing -- it's not just during political campaigns. you find it in the book "game change," that when barack obama was elected, that same night that -- the night of the inauguration, a group of republicans were planning his destruction, the political destruction. i don't know that that's always been true, and i think that we have a press, c-span being a notable exception to this, which is almost devoted to finding the most sensational things that can be said about candidates. but even with all that, it's pretty amazing to me, barack obama today has an approval rating of close to or above 50%. and so for all of the hatred and the vitriol and so forth, we still manage -- the system manages, i think, to work.
and i hope it will in the next administration as well. host: do you blame, though, either fox news or rush limbaugh on the right or on the left, bill press or rachel maddow? are they responsible for the polarization in our media? guest: well, i think it's even gotten worse with some of the internet things that we're talking about, so with what people can say on twitter and comments and news fields. tell you the story i heard the other day. one of my friends, a top reporter for one of the major dailies, told me that whenever she writes an article, all of her friends, this is true, which has a taint of being critical of one side or the other, particularly critical of trump, she gets the most vicious emails. but it people start to write horrible
and personal e-mails to her. to get those e-mails? host: all the time. guest: when did that start happening? host: i think you always have people with strong points of view and they look at it to their own person. guest: has it changed over time? host: i think it has. guest: and what do you do? host: i will ask you that question. [laughter] might have the third-party, the tweeps, is after cleveland it is not trump, the donald will go broke. guest: i think it is absolutely terrific that you had the constitution party and the libertarian party appeals to a lot, but i think it will be hard for to to take over one of those parties, in which case you would have to get qualified in the states, and close to 50 states, and that would be hard to do. of thethe things
campaign, however you feel about trends, he does not appear to have grassroots organizing, and to put together a 50 state strategy would require that organization. .ost: let's go to vermont good morning on the independent line. caller: i don't understand what everybody is getting so nervous about donald trump. i think the republican party should stand behind him. it is obvious a of the people want him, and we always have engagement. crazy, theynything will impeach him in an instant. host: thank you, tom. guest: the caller points out that it is not a majority of republican party, but my role is the republicans in cleveland will nominate him because will be hard not to in cleveland. i do not think that impeachment -- we also have an election, so
i don't think that the fact that he is nominated means he would win. i think the republican party is concerned because then he will control the machinery of the republican party. my book is mainly about the republican nomination that year thethe convention and not third-party, and what happened that year that the republicans knew that if theodore roosevelt could be the republican nominee once again, he would probably win. didn't the leaders of the party turn to roosevelt, who they knew would win, rather than statement tap, who they knew would lose? in my book, it is clear that they decided to stay with taft because they want to control the party, and they would rather control the party then lose the presidency then when the presidency and control the party.
host: are there parallels to this piece this morning by craig shirley, who takes a look at 40 years ago, the last time there was a question mark in their public in convention, ronald reagan and gerald ford, it says, ronald reagan and gerald ford came to a show down in the republican presidential convention in kansas city. since 1949first time that no one knew who would win in the convention and who the president would be. guest: by the way, craig primaries,lk about it changed things. he talks about the fact that was considered too old.
at that point, he seemed old. i think it is possible that what he is talking about, he says the closest president we have, but that year, we had two candidates that spoke for two rings of the republican party's, the incompetent leaned, the general josh the gerald ford more moderate and the more conservative. trump comes from someplace else in those days, it was easier for someone to get nominated. it restricts things a lot more now, so we could go back to the old decree. host: our next caller from kansas city, missouri. city, kansas, actually. go ahead, lisa. weler: my opinion is that
have a democratic party that is so far to the last and the republican party so far to the right, whatever happened to the presidential nominees like harry truman and john f. kennedy and ronald reagan and ike eisenhower? whatever happened to those types of presidential nominees? now we have both on the left, far to the left and on the right, far to the right. host: thank you. guest: primaries have something to do with that. with roosevelt, he was way to the left in his campaign because he had a candidate to his left. i think that hillary clinton's positions are further to the left because of sanders in the race. reallyt sure that it is a fair characterization. ronald reagan was there a much and goldwater was
probably the furthest extreme candidate than anybody we have ever had. people likeave had this before. i think what the caller feels is missing is somebody she can see is down the center. i'm not sure i agree with her perspective. i think many people who -- one thing that is interesting to me, you have a republican, democratic and independent line. i always thought the independents were something moderate between the republicans and democrats, but they seem further to extremist. bernie sanders does better with independent voters than the left of the democratic party. it is a little bit different, but donald trump does better with the independent vote because they are not necessarily more moderate. the independent line, i think the notion has changed. host: it has.
we also hear from a diverse group of people, but it gives them a voice they were not normally have. to diane in minnesota, republican line for geoffrey cowan. a look at the historic election of 1912. the election of woodrow wilson. good morning. "let the people r ule," i think that is not true. i have sat here and listened to not ad trump is republican. he is a democrat. he has always been a democrat. is they areening not letting the people role. people.s ruling the and youo is opposite
are condemning it. you said there was no one on that condemned or is mean and vicious is what they have been to bernie sanders and clinton, but you never brought up the nixon and clinton. what they have done is similar. and how about george w. bush? we set for eight years and listened to vicious, cruel, horrible, horrible things come out of the mouths of people on c-span. who is there and he was running the people? i would like to ask you there was running the people? guest: first, i do think the primary system -- my own view is they ought to make things easier for the fall. everyone in the public can vote and i think the delegates ought to support the people elected and that is not happening under the present system. we talk about the fact that there has been viciousness since
the 1800s at least in the fact is that that has been a part of american politics and it goes back some time. one point you make other think is important is that the media is becoming increasingly important. lessthough there are people with political parties, in a way, it is in the media and that includes tickets to be on the debate. the media decides and the networks decide to can be on the debates and you have to have a certain percentage and they get to decide where they standthe questions, so i think there is a it has grown and honestly. one of the points in my book is that one of the first primaries after world war i was in april of 1912 in illinois. it was a primary that did not exist until this "chicago tribune," which supported roosevelt, ran a campaign in illinois that forced the
legislators to be putting him on the ballot and the financially paper's campaign in the state. it was unethical then, but the legal today. the media has had a huge role forever. book, teddyr roosevelt really regretted the decision not to run the moment he made the announcement. guest: he did regret it. i don't even know if it was fully planned. he didn't on election night in 1904, said he would follow that tradition and not run again. i think he also didn't understand how much you would miss power. before, heed about wanted to being the center of the action. host: and he was only 50. guest: i know, incredible. even at the time, it was younger. there were five presidents at
that time. i think he would have become the president in the 1920's if he had lived. host: 1920? guest: 1920, i think you would it did not 1920, but turn out that way and he died in 1919. host: why did he leave the country? guest: roosevelt had this way of doing that. his wife and mother died in the same day and he went to north dakota and became the cowboy we and after he lost the election in 1912, he goes on a tour in the amazon. it was kind of an escape for him . a way of getting away and being his own man. also, he wanted to give tax the chance to sig -- taft a chance to shine. he goes on a lion hunting safari
, into nature which he loves, and almost an entire year. he disappeared from public view. host: how did he pass away? guest: he died of the disease at the time that it was not fully diagnosed. probably when he was on the river tour, he contracted an infection that was responsible for his death. when he died in 1919, he was so robust and people could hardly believe he had died. host: this is a tweet to the earlier caller, saying, tv does not rule you unless you give it that power. guest: i think that is true, but going to the earlier caller's point of view, they did decide in the debate who gets to be on the debate stage, for example. one could demonstrate this that a tremendous amount of tv time was given to donald trump. host: almost $2 billion in tv
time. guest: he made himself available and he deserves credit or that, but they did give him so much time. they did a study about how much time on tv was made available. we look at the on screen shots of the webpages for one week of major publications in america, and he overwhelmingly got covered there, too. trump has been covered in honestly by the press. that helps him. on the democratic side, bernie werers and hillary clinton covered almost exactly the same, but trump dominated that. host: next caller from virginia, democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? guest: i am doing great. caller: some of the points you have made remind me of what i
read years ago, the consent of the government, the government and other disputes. anyway,be wrong, but first of all, i wanted to call and get your feeling about how citizens united and the ruling has skewed political power to and how mr.h roosevelt would have felt about that? he came from a rich party, the political class, but i think he , a lot less tied into the power, you know, the .uper rich positions secondly, you made the point,
and i agree with it, that the press has smeared donald trump a given them some much airtime, and he was smart enough to have this press conferences ready at 6:00 when the major news shows were going on and they could put it up on screen spouting off his nonsense, at least what i consider nonsense, so if you could answer. host: david, to a. guest: thank you. let me talk about one of the assume and i don't roosevelt was not in the hands of the rich. when he ran in 1904, he had huge campaign contributions from rich corporations and he was criticized so much, including by press, that after being reelected, he was responsible for a law being passed that prohibited corporations have contributed to candidates, which
remains in effect. when he ran himself in 1912, really two men finance this campaign. it was widely believed that his campaign was being run by u.s. steel because william howard taft, who turned out to be more than one might imagine of the er, he filed a trust case against u.s. steel, and it was the case that roosevelt decided not to file one month he was president. roosevelt was. about this, but so were the leaders of u.s. steel, and the two men who wind up financing has campaign were both leaders of the u.s. steel, george w. bush can's and frank munsey -- george w perkins and frank munsey, they funded the campaign, but i think citizens united has make a difference. why did it matter? iny had the common cause
california, the city of los angeles, so i feel strongly about the issue, but it is partly because people -- i don't think people necessarily do something illegal because of where the are getting the money, but all the time is being spent with rich people raising money, and that has a huge impact on what happened. the interesting thing in this campaign is that bernie sanders has maybe demonstrated another way of raising money. in 1904, in 2004, your listeners will remember, they began to raise money. host: it changed the way campaigns are funded. guest: totally. 2008, for the first time, barack obama said he would not take public money because i can raise money, but he took money both and fromm the internet raising large amounts are people. this campaign that bernie sanders is the first campaign i know of where it has been one
way, which is raising money from the internet. he has over two main contributors at this stage. barack obama did not get 2 million and two august 2008. hillary clinton has over one million contributors. she is raising money both ways like obama. i do not like the citizens united. i think it is a mistake for many reasons, but if there is any hope for an alternative, it may be the internet where people can contribute that way. host: i will ask you in a moment quite teddy roosevelt and william howard taft went from friendship to bitter enemies. let's go to david in illinois, independent line. good morning with geoffrey cowan , the author of the book "let the people rule: theodore roosevelt and the birth of the presidential primary." caller: good morning. i have two points. the first point is i do not know that the primary system has led to the people rolling. --ruling.
it seems to have stressed out the campaign to ridiculous lengths. it is now 2.5 years. it feels like 10 years. they are spending $1 billion and most of that is spent on media to try to reach the people, and i'm not sure that leads to a better outcome than the convention system. my second point is that i do not know if our republican or democratic system requires having a direct sitting in the primary system because -- hang on, i'm beginning my point -- i am forgetting my point. host: we will come back with the follow-up. guest: i think the topic you're raising is one that needs to be debated. one thing you are raising is about how long the campaign should be. i think that is true. campaigns are much longer, not just those of the primary system that they become extremely long.
the doer 25 -- this year, people started more than a year earlier. that has become the system and it is partly to raise money and support grassroots, partly so that the people of medical consultants will, that candidate and no other candidate, but the role of money is probably more important. a local race it is rather than national race because you are able to get a lot of attention if you are a certain kind of candidate with a , $2of media attention billion of airtime, that is much harder at local races and state races. i think the question of whether it is a better system is a perfectly fine thing to debate. the convention system did give us abraham lincoln. the convention system did give us the man the convention system
gave us franklin delano roosevelt. i do think some of our greatest presidents went through that , item, but i also believe concept ofieve in my democracy, which is people should be able to vote. we do not fully have that today. on the democratic side, there is a requirement that every delegate have the approval of the candidate, so you could have the situation you are having, whether we are having it in several states, where cruz has a majority of the delegates although they have been elected for trump. i do not like caucuses, to get the debate going, but caucuses are not really open in my view. they are not really democratic. ballot. no secret
you can be intimate with your employer, spouse, and they can be awkward and maybe don't feel free to vote the way you would like. they take place in short periods of time. firefighters, police, nurses have trouble in participating in caucuses, so i don't like caucuses, but i think we are trying to get closer to the idea of everybody being able to pick a nominee. there is one other question that your listeners might think about, which is how about closed primaries are still open primaries? host: like new york. host:guest: right, you have to be a member of the political party to vote. host: and you have to sign up in october. guest: is that really fair? every role benefits somebody -- overbenefits somebody, but 40% of the public are not fully
affiliated with one party or the other, and thus people in those states have no ability to participate it will be the nominee. they could join one party or the other, but often, they don't like either party. i think there are a lot of things about the system that continue to deserve criticism and improvement. i still feel pretty good about the system. it does allow the people to participate. as long as it has been, i don't think you can really say that any voter is incapable of having some say the system. host: michael with a tweet saying, campaigning is a perpetual thing for politicians. money talks. here is the trivia question -- when did c-span begin road to the white house coverage? first, may 2013 and the handed it recovered was senator ted cruz. david, did you think of your second question? caller: yes, sir. it seems to me that the nature
of political parties are private clubs. to me, private organizations have the right of association and have the right to pick their members choose the representatives however they want. what upsets me as an independent is that they have their hands on this date and they have established it lawfully. i would like to take down the protection that they had given themselves and allow multiplicity parties and voices. to me, that allows freedom of association, freedom of choice, and then they can choose the candidates however they would like to pick them, out of the hat, in the meaning mining low, it does not -- eeni meeni minie moe, it is not really matter to me. freedom of choice is more important in participating the primary system. host: thank you, david. like: first of all, it is the private football club,
private clubs, and they do have the power to change the rules at the last minute. showlked earlier in the about the importance. my view is that it should be easier for third parties to get on the ballot. host: this is from a bureau, -- did is from a viewer, why george wallace received 46 electoral votes in 1968, while the ross perot received none when he received less than 19 million? guest: george wallace and strom thurmond, basically regional party candidates, so they won states in the south that were affiliated from the other political parties. ross perot was a national candidate and not regional. i think this is part of what people of their parties must realize, michael bloomberg probably realized as he looked at it, he may have gotten a vote, but would there have been a state he would have won?
that is the question for people like david. i have to say, sometimes it is not only winning but changing the debate. host: matthew is next in new jersey. caller: good morning and thank you for being an outstanding moderator. host: thank you. thank you for being a great viewer and listener. you guys make it happen. caller: thank you. i hope my friends from england are still listening. i just want to tell them that this failed president is disliked by the majority of us, americans, because of his arrogant actions, which disregard the will of the majority of us speaking of the title of the gentleman's book. theifically, his directing department of education to threaten expensive lawsuits against our public schools unless they allowed young man who claim to be transsexuals to
walk into the girls bathrooms and the girls locker rooms. ofs is denying the rights the majority of us parents, who have daughters, who do not want their daughters subjected to this. by the way, obama's great crookedthe corrupt, hillary clinton is chairing this on. speaking of letting the people rule. thank you. host: thank you. guest: i just want to make one point. the president is not disapproved by the majority of americans. if you believe the poll, which many people do not, but if you believe upholding, he either has the majority with him still or close to the majority. i think what matthew is talking about is pretty complicated. minutes,ouple of [indiscernible] host: front page story on the
president. it is online. the couple minutes left with our guest, geoffrey cowan. from florida, good morning. caller: good morning. peoplet is that if the are counting the votes, i agree thatwhat people who talk it is wonderful about how things can be done, but if people are counting the votes [indiscernible] and they filled the votes in the it is aand then mystery. for the call.u donald trump has been saying that both should count. guest: they should count.
i want to make a point that i think it is exciting this year. a lot find it an exciting year. there are many people who work engaged and enraged. more people are going out to vote than ever have before. more people are showing up to rallies than ever before. there is a lot about this year to be depressed about, but a lot to be excited about. it would not be happening if we did not have the primaries. host: let's go back to the relationship between howitt freight between taft and roosevelt. -- and how it frayed between taft and is about. guest: it is a sad story. taft goes on to become the chief justice of the united states supreme court and that is what he wanted to be all along. a man, weosevelt was talk about the fact that he believed in fighting, once he
was in a fight, you would use every tool possible. he became so aggressive in this by taft's view, dishonest, and taft had the view of power on his side, and they were pretty unpleasant, and you see any have read a lot of the state primaries and caucuses and conventions, and you see people stage ise, thrown off deliberately, the anger and the viciousness between these men and their supporters. i think it is one of the are twos that these wonderful man in many ways and it makes you wonder about that element of politics. we have talked a lot about the bitterness of politics and how it has changed over times. i personally do not think it about support but it
should be about arguing about ideas, what is important, but i don't think we should have the hatred rehab and that has happened in 1912 and it seems to be happening today. host: if you could go to one place in the u.s. or maybe africa to best understand teddy roosevelt, where would you go? guest: i think you could go to almost any national park. i think the greatest legacy of theodore roosevelt was the american wilderness, protecting it, and today, if you want to you see not only what he believed in and what energized him, but something that he left all of us. it is a true and enduring legacy. host: geoffrey cowan, the book is called "let the people rule: theodore roosevelt and the birth of the presidential primary." thank you. the 100ould pick among most influential people in the
world, who would be on your list? think about it for a moment. we want to hear from our audience as well. our phone lines will be open. for republicans, (202)-748-8001. for democrats, (202)-748-8000. for independents, (202)-748-8002 . this is what the cover of "time" magazine looks like. the most one hundred influential people and leonardo dicaprio is ,mong the list, secretary kerry including vladimir putin, angela merkel. guest: you cannot fail to put those leaders. you would have to put the president obama on the list and putin, but i would probably put the leadership of isis because they are really redefining the way we see american policy. host: always a pleasure. come back again. we will take a short break.
"washington journal" continues on this sunday morning. we are back in a minute. ♪ >> tonight on "q and a," talking about the hit broadway musical theilton," based on biography of alexander hamilton and the musical. it, hip-hopreading songs started rising out the page and then i started parodies it waslton's life and stupid hip-hop narrative. i thought, what on earth is this guy talking about? he had picked up the fact that he had arrangements of hip-hop and he said to me on the spot because my first question to him was, can hip-hop be the vehicle for telling this large and complex story? educate i am going to
you about hip-hop. he did on the spot. he started pointing out that hip-hop can have miracle -- and he information started talking about the fact that hip-hop not only has rhymes, but it has internal rhymes, and he started educating me in all these different directions that are important to the success of the show. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's " tom hart ." -- "q and a." with time magazine out their 100 most influential and we want to find out who would be your pick. you can send us the tweet @c spanwj or join us on facebook. let's take a look at some of the names on the list. beginning with president barack obama, and the chinese
president, on: quote, but -- angela merkel, the german chancellor, christine lagarde, and secretary of state john kerry. donald trump is on the list of time's 100 and the chair of the national republican committee and former secretary of state, democratic candidate hillary clinton. senator bernie sanders is on the list. ted cruz.ican senator finally, lester holt of nbc news, congressman paul ryan, the speaker of the house, kim , vladimir putin, and tim cook, the ceo of apple. 15 of the 100 most influential people. let me share with you what nancy says in the beginning of "time" magazine as an editor's note. listyear, our "time" 100
looks back at the forces that moves us. which is more powerful, hope our proof? the lessons of the past or the lure of the future? each in their own way, the --ple on the list of left have lessons to teach. we can debate those lessons, we don't have to endorse the margaret them, that they have the power to make us think very tell us who would be your pick among the time 100 most influential people in the world. william is on the phone from arkansas. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. like to say then i pick newton of the black panther party. host: why is that? caller: i believe that he was a very influential guy because at that time, there was a lot of corruption in our society. he was one of the few that stood and used hisnst it
college education to help better the society of the black that wey, and i believe had the ability to understand and we actually had a way to stand up together and come together to do something for the entire country as a whole uplifting a group of our people and uplifting the entirety of our people. host: thank you. this is what one of the "time" magazine covers look like. they had different covers around the country, but one of them is mark zuckerberg and his wife, facebook founders. eric is joining us. who would be on your list? caller: bernie sanders, of course, but i would like to make the comments.
everyone seems to ignore this big gorilla in the room. host: that is? caller: our national debt. no one is talking about it. it is a huge monster and we keep doing this, we are heading for bankruptcy. host: thank you. nicki minaj also on a different cover of "time." we go to louise from maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. he would be on your list? -- host: who would be on your list? caller: i think barack obama and donald trump. host: they are both on the list. caller: may i say something about mr. [indiscernible] host: sure. caller: i think the american people need to wake up and see how dangerous that man is. i am an independent and i have been watching this for years. the last two years and mr. putin
keeps telling stories and jumping back and forth. i did -- and mr. cruz keeps telling stories and jumping back and forth. mr. trump seems to be getting his sea legs but i am scared of mr. cruz. the republicans realized that boy is crazy and all of a sudden, they are supporting him. they know he is dangerous. in maryland, one of the number of states of primaries on tuesday. the tweet, who spoke to his bill gates. al joins us from new york. good morning. caller: good morning. host: turn the volume down if you will and you will come through better. caller: come again? host: turn the volume down. caller: thank you.
i went to agree with what someone said earlier, quite the great moderator. host: thank you. caller: you there? host: yes, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i know what to reiterate what someone said earlier, you are one of the best moderators i have seen in my time. host: we thank you. who is on your topic? caller: i don't have a personal pick, but i cannot understand how senator cruz could reach this. . host: who would you put on the list? caller: bernie sanders, of course. i don't see anybody else at this point in time. host: thank you from yonkers, new york. josh joins us from north carolina. good morning. caller: i don't agree with idolizing people like that.
i would think that people need to start believing in themselves. host: so you would not put anyone on the list? caller: no. host: ok, next from eagle river, alaska. good morning. caller: good morning. this is my first time on c-span. host: where is eagle river? caller: fairly close to anchorage and not too far from sarah palin. [laughter] anyway, i want to thank c-span for all you do in trying to show both sides. i am not sure if you guys have ever looked into the leadership of the gentleman named robbie anharias and he is apologist. an incredible debater and he would be wonderful on c-span to three some light to book -- to bring some light to both sides
rather than heaps. he speaks all over the world. host: tell us a little bit about him because i am not familiar. caller: he is an author, he has authored about 25 bucks. he has an organization called r zim.org oxfordspeaks at harvard, , yale, he does a lot of key when day. india.riginally from became a christian when he was 17, and he is now 70, and he was just up here. he is an incredible speaker, so diplomatic, so at this country needs to hear, and so genuine. zacharias andvi it would be great if you could look into having him on your
show to just tried to bring some light to both sides of the country. elaine, thank you from eagle river, alaska. another buick saying among my 100 most influential, edward snowden, bernie sanders, elizabeth ward and the 18 to 30 year old generation. this is what it looks like inside, christine lagarde, angela merkel and samantha power. individuals writing an essay about those on the list and moving to the following page, donald trump and nikki haley and senator lindsey graham and potential running mate for one of the republican candidates, and speaking of the republican the speaker of the house paul ryan. linda from florida. welcome. caller: hi. host: good morning. caller: i wonder why bill
clinton is not on their? i think he still comes across in a way that people relate and i just think he should be on the list. host: he might be. maybe when hillary clinton is elected president. caller: i would vote for him again. [laughter] host: thank you. front page of "the washington post," looking at potential running mates for hillary clinton and if bill will play a factor in her decision. we will go to charlie in new york. welcome. caller: hi, everybody. and amyedward snowden goodman should be on. i don't know if they are on, but one thing i want to make a "time" is corporate media and all the studies have shown that they are really extremely conservative when it people'sthe american
views and i don't think they reflect the american people. host: thank you for the call. and it was "the new york times" and not "the washington post." campaign starting to ponder names for her running mate." andary clinton's advisers allies have begun discussions about who should be her running a listeeking to compile of 15 to 20 potential picks for her . host: let's go to roger from clayton, missouri. actually, john from new york city. you with us? caller: yes. hello? host: yes, go ahead. caller: [indiscernible]
about your ability as a host. you're probably one of the most neutral that i have seen, but i that presidents obama should be on the top 100 list. host: he is on the list. caller: yes, that is great. because dr. martin luther king hasn't been subjected to a lot of negative publicity that he did not deserve. and had to affected psychologically, but he still kind of maintained his professionalism. i know he deserves to be on the 100 list. thank you. host: thank you for the call. the content of the presidency, the cover story by david marinus looking at the obama presidency. this is a look at his tenure in the white house. i want to share one of two videos from the hillary clinton
campaign taking aim at donald trump. it was released over the weekend. [video clip] ♪ i will be changing very rapidly. i am very capable of changing to anything i want to change too. the right time, i will be so presidential, you will be so bored. , theyre bringing drugs are bringing crime, they are rapists. where we speakry english, not spanish. we are to have a deportation force. day, it gets signed. i want surveillance on certain mosques, ok? total and complete shutdown. of what is entering the united states. if we want to go stronger, i would go stronger. when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. >> did you mock the reporter with a disability? >> i do not remember.
there has to be some form of punishment. aboutot know anything white supremacists. i do not know. in the like to punch him face. i could stand in the middle of this avenue and i would not lose any votes. this avenueddle of and shoot somebody, and i would not lose any votes. angelouclinton: maya said, when someone shows you who they are, believe them. [applause] host: that was from the hillary clinton campaign. this morning inside "the new york times," debunking the crooked hillary myth saying the following, sure, clinton is calculating, all politicians are. the cover story of "national review," hillary clinton is all calculation and maneuver. this from the trump campaign,
part of a $20 million investment by the trump organization moving into the late april and through the month of may, a new ad featuring [indiscernible] [video clip] >> people think of my father as a tough guy and in many respects, he is. growing up, my sister and i had to know what we're talking about before bringing proposals. he may be less tough on his grandchildren, but it is that toughness that i want you negotiating trade deals with china and mexico. it is that toughness i want to be me, my family and your family safe. my father would make an incredible president. donald trump: i am donald trump and i approve this message. host: that from the trump campaign and a couple of headlines before the primaries theive states, including new haven register. in pennsylvania, "readying for the battleground." donald trump, ted cruz, bernie
sanders, hillary clinton and john kasich. a couple of key primaries, including the house and senate primary for the seat held by chris van hollen. finally, "the providence sunday journal," hillary clinton blasting donald trump on the campaign trail. california. our question, "time" magazine's 100 most influential, who is your pick? good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i thank you for your show. television.st, best however, [indiscernible] i will say it is ted cruz and i want to warn america that he is not the most dangerous man in the world. i want to tell you one thing about donald trump.
i think he is bipolar and the media and fox news, i do not want to see this. remember, he had [indiscernible] he blackmails everybody. he probably does because look what fox news is doing. they literally campaign for him, shame for the nation, the international world, he is a con artist. use the rubio praise, but he is, he is a dangerous man. he has lying. look at his mimics. this man is a danger for the united states, and i am so happy . i am an immigrant and i came to this country in 1992 and i have never watched an election so close like i did this time.
host: where are you from? caller: romania. for calling from california. donna says the founding fathers of this once great nation, the , antonin scalia. from pennsylvania, good morning. caller: bernie sanders has definitely made the most impact of people on this society. when he first announced his intention to run for president, they said he was a joke. well, guess what? he had more votes in new york than donald trump. how many people know that? it is not publicized. i looked for it every day, but all they talk about is hillary. more than donald trump and bernie sanders had one quarter of a million more than donald trump. guy, he was in the
church, a huge church in texas where the minister was screaming -- [indiscernible] exterminate and kill them. this proves that if you vote for that man, you are insane. thank you very much. host: thank you. "bedtime" -- you can read more with the "time" 100 poll. suzie graham hawaii, republican line -- susie from hawaii, republican line. caller: good morning. list, that isthe wonderful. when they talk about 100 most influential people, they need to actually take positive people that have done good and go back and see who their teachers were and find out if they can find 100 most influential teachers. i am not talking about the
little ones. i am talking about [indiscernible] the movies that they shall about the teachers that really made a difference, the ones that are positive, that actually do make a difference in the world. i believe life donald trump and all of these kids, go back and see who their main teachers were because they happily done so much good tha -- they have really done so much good. host: thank you. we are asking you, who is your pick? john from new york, republican line. good morning. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. find this. trump, i guy very strong on issues, especially immigration. also, corruption and inequality, i think he really touches on what people try to say for years
and we really want him to be president. he is a strong person. i think may be the strongest guy in the race, and he may be the man of the century. he really raised some of the points of the issues. not of his fellow republican candidates that try to mention or tried to say anything about immigration. host: thank you. the five close in states at 8:00 eastern time on tuesday evening. our live coverage will get underway at eight: 30 this tuesday night eastern time. the results and speeches from the candidates and what it means moving ahead as we go into another key primary in early may in indiana. "the washington post" and it could be a potential fire wall for the trump movement. next from kentucky, welcome. caller: i am actually
[indiscernible] i wanted to contribute something to what was being said. trump, i think he is manipulating the media and maximizing airtime and at his rallies, he is part lion tamer, ringmaster, and [indiscernible] host: good right to put it. caller: if he gets in the white house, either way, i think it will be dangerous. i think for my perspective, [indiscernible] games and howhe we are influenced into thinking that we are thinking and acting independently but it is by the mainstream media.
and the author of "without conscience," which discusses sociopaths. thanks and have a good day. host: thank you. let me go back to nancy because it she poses the question "time" magazine with the decision to post the top 100 and she writes -- "each year, our time 100 list lets us step back and much of the forces that move us. which is more powerful, hope for proof? the lessons of the past or the leader of the future -- lure of the future? next. caller: the last little community in south carolina -- host: you are not that old. caller: i have been on here couple of times. host: i know. caller: the blueberries are doing good. they survived a 20 degree global warming. host: send some our way.
we love them. caller: they are looking pretty good. hopefully, we can survive this global warming. 40's at 2100high feet elevation. my pick would be a group, if that is all right. it is the american soldier veteran. i'm going all the way back to ,orld war ii, korea, vietnam the current mess we have got right now. the american soldier would be my pick, not anyone in particular, but the group as a whole. number two, the american small .usiness person entrepreneur, the small business person and another, i have to get this in there, being a farmer most of my life, the american farmer. that is about it great idea went to waste anymore of your time and thank you. host: walter, thank you from
north carolina. we will continue our conversation tomorrow morning on "washington journal." among our guests, michael party to talk about the rules and what to expect in cleveland in mid, and ron standk, where things after the affordable care act. the reminder, we will have live coverage of the white house responded dinner next saturday evening. your place to watch the event in the entirety. "newsmakers" is next. "washington journal" back tomorrow morning. thank you for being with us on this sunday. we hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> next, "newsmakers" with veterans affairs secretary robert mcdonald. then president obama and chancellor angela merkel told a joint news conference following their bilateral meetings in hanover, germany. our guest is veterans affairs secretary robert mcdonald. secretary mcdonald came to this job almost three years ago and his background includes the military academy at west point and he is an army veteran himself. he came from private industry and served as ceo at procter & gamble. let me introduce the reporters -- leo shane of "military times" and david wood is the senior military correspondent for the "huffington post." i want to start with the wait times issue. we had a new