tv Washington Journal CSPAN April 30, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EDT
candidacy means for the progressive movement. you can join the conversation on facebook. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning. today's "washington journal and coat -- journal" we are talking about the white house correspondents dinner. we will take your calls about the dinner. this will be the last of president obama's tenure. we will ask you if it's gotten too big. you can watch the event live tonight on a c-span starting at 6:00. we begin with the plan to close guantanamo bay. of it drew fire this week from
the south carolina governor. detainees would be dangerous and costly to the state. that brings us to our question, be helditmo detainees in the united states? host: good morning. we will begin our discussion about whether the gitmo facility to be closed by looking at president obama's plan to close the facility back in february. >> when something is not working as intended, but it does not
advance our security we have to change course. many years it's been clear that the detention facility at guantanamo bay does not advance our national security. it undermines it. this is not just my opinion. this is the opinion of many in the military. it's counterproductive to our fight against terrorists because they use it as propaganda to recruit. it drains military resources with nearly $450 million spent last year to keep it running. there are additional cost to for it open going forward less than 100 detainees. withrms our partnership allies and other countries whose help we need.
other world leaders bring up guantanamo bay not need resolved. moreover, keeping this facility open is contrary to our values. it undermines our standing in the world. it is viewed as a stain on our record of upholding the highest standards of rule of law. as americans we pride ourselves on being a begin to other nations, a model of the rule of law. 9/11, we arer still having to defend the existence of a facility and a process where not a single verdict has been reached in those attacks. not a single one. let's take a look at the miami herald breaking down
guantanamo bay by the numbers. there are 80 captives from 15 countries being held. the youngest is 30 years old and the oldest is 68-year-old. he is one of the detainees deemed too dangerous to release. costs to house one detainee per year, that has climbed. it was initially 800,000. based on department of defense numbers, $2.7 million. it is now $5.56 million per prisoner each year.
republicans continue to oppose the plan to close the facility, including nikki haley who is the governor of south carolina. that is on the sides sites were the detainees could be transferred. look at some of her testimony thursday before congress. the president claims that guantanamo bay serves as propaganda and a recruitment tool for terrorists. of course it does. our publicments by statements. when a similar facility in south carolina, kansas, colorado. terrorists wage war on the united states based on ideological hatred toward the american way of life and the fundamental freedoms on which we pride ourselves. the september 11 attacks occurred before there was ever a
guantanamo bay facility. moving detention operations from thecure facility outside continental united states and into charleston will not stop the propaganda. this line of thinking is giving the terrorists too much credit and too much validity. terrorists do not need a jail to hate us. they hate us on their own. the president contends that the presence of the facility is a major impediment to our relationships with foreign nations. as a governor, my principal engagement is admitted me -- admittedly attracting foreign investment to my state and
assuming the president's assertions are true, the question that comes to my mind is what about the tension and damaging our relations with foreign leaders and nations? whether they are pacened on a military and in cuban, they will be held on the same legal authority by the same country in the same manner for the same duration for the same reasons. why does the zip code matter? this true for page coverage in her home state. we are talking to you about the detention center. be held in the united states. our first call is from wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning.
closed andshould be should have been a long time ago. the reason why, i cannot understand or fathom for the life of me republicans calling themselves conservatives. they will spend the so much to keep these men in prison without ever giving them a trial. rate that is so much higher than what they put in our prisons here where they would never see daylight again. host: one argument by the republicans is by bringing them to the united states, it would scare away local businesses. it would cost money to the state.
is that a concern? caller: are the prisons going to be famous for who they hold or for what they accomplish? that is to incarcerate people. several of the super max prisons would never see daylight again. host: that was ron calling in from wisconsin. let's look at some numbers in terms of the closing of guantanamo bay. ofecent poll finds that 56% americans oppose shutting the center down. 40% supported. for keeping it open is driven largely by republicans with 83% saying it should not the closed, up from 76% in august. up next on the and line we have built calling in from florida.
caller: good morning. i would like to remind the president the truth is not propaganda. we have been indifferent to human beings who have not had trials. we have treated them inhumanely. we have force-fed them. we've just destroyed their minds completely. you, dot me just ask you have concerns in terms of safety bringing the 56 prisoners? caller: not at all. they take these prisoners from their cells in wheelchairs escorted by three or four guards. come on. we should be passed this.
the hospitals we've been bombing, it's just a terrible thing. host: that was built calling from florida. he was mentioning a story that is in the headlines today. the pentagon detailed errors made in a strike on an afghan hospital. committed, 16 people will be punished. there was faulty information. times, in the new york 16 personnel have been punished for their role in the strike on that hospital.
that's on our headlines today as we continue our discussion about the guantanamo bay facility. sherman oaks, california. personally do not think it should be closed. obamas -- i find his proposal very disingenuous. he wasen saying before president that he wants it closed. he knows it never will be. i believe the speech he gave was very disingenuous. i think he just wants to be able to say that he tried it. host: let me ask you this, what about the fact that facility itself was only meant to be temporary?
it was not meant to be a permanent place for them to be housed. should they be there indefinitely? caller: i think they should be there indefinitely. nine people have already died there. you won't give anyone in the congress to vote for this. allowed the president that after he leaves office, maybe then i would support it. that is keith calling in from michigan. it should bethe closed. caller: i think it's a embarrassment. we are violating our very own principles.
the government has the death penalty for certain crimes. try them and convict them, sentenced him to death. are guilty of nothing, send them on their way and close the place. i wonder how the government would feel if iqs are of un-american activities and she were locked up without trial for the rest of her life. would you feel comfortable if some of these detainees deemed too dangerous to release percent to a prison in michigan? with that the concerning to you? caller: not at all. we have mass murderers and her into's people behind bars in the united states. if we are afraid to stand up for our principles, we don't really have principles. have louisiana. good morning. caller: good morning.
host: what do you think about the guantanamo bay facility? caller: i say leave it open. ok.: up next on the republican line we have david in texas. what do you think about the facility? caller: it's a prison for prisoners of war. i cannot recall in the history of the world where countries at war with each other tried their prisoners during the conflict. we are at war with them. they know they are waging war on us. they need to stay prisoners until the war is over.
if they want to choose a war to fight and that is generational, that is their problem. warre not fighting this like a war. we have tremendous rules of engagement. at whatback and look happened during the civil war. i thought that was an internet hoax when i first read it. atesearched it and looked different historical sites. googlerage everyone to 1864. host: can i just ask you a question. the way the's democrats want to fight a war. they want to turn it into a legal matter. the president change the way he
changed prisoners. he changed the rules in dealing with prisoners. he said were not going to do anything but use the army manual. tell thet have to folks we will be in conflict with what were going to do. host: that is david calling in from texas. the pentagon says they would save money. submitted on deadline. ndaas mandated by the eight. moving on releasable detainees into a single existing state or federal prison would save the government $85 million each year. that is a big basis of the plan that president obama unveiled to close the facility.
we have jack calling in from pennsylvania. should they be held in the united states? for having meyou on. that how doto me the cuban people feel? it's not our country. aredo they feel since we trying to establish relations with them? who thought of this in the first place? apply rule of law doesn't , i don't know. this, if me ask you the detainees were brought to pennsylvania, with that concern you? caller: if they are brought to ,ennsylvania and given a trial
they rounded these people up. we know what happened. mind if they bring them to pennsylvania. that's up to the people of pennsylvania under democratic law. we need democracy in this country. ouridea that these men in -- power, the people have no say. on the point of cost, let's look at governor haley committee.before the to the impact on foreign relations in south carolina, i can tell you i am concerned. hascharleston area alone international manufacturing giants boeing, mercedes.
we have one of the most important deep water ports. we are home to the largest bmw plant in the world. we have five international tire companies. dupont, google. how might to tell these companies that they will be sharing an address with the most heinous and dangerous terrorists on earth? the city they chose to call home is now going to be one of the most high profile terrorist targets in the world. i can't and i won't. the president wants to talk about. if there is one thing we can all agree, the government is absolutely responsible for defending the people of the united states. running a military prison to
detain terrorist during an ongoing armed conflict should not be high on the list of cost saving measures. i come from a state where we balance our budget. $85 millionyou find somewhere else to cut. cost simply doesn't matter to me. you could play the state to host these terrorists. we wouldn't take them. there is no price worth the fear this idea would strike in the hearts of the people. there is no price worth the inevitable economic downturn it would cause. there is no price worth watching terrorists celebrate victory and claim they can dictate the military posture of what should be the most powerful nation in the world. asking you if gitmo detainee should be held in the united states.
we have valerie calling in from texas. caller: absolutely not. no. if theyem with it is want to do a trial over there, that's fine. i have family in the military. give them a trial over there. why would you bring people who want our country destroyed to this country. wide of a house them in the backyard of the white house. i don't think obama would want that. money,ants to talk about why doesn't he give up some of his vacations were he uses u.s. funding to do that. byt: what about the argument
those who propose closing the detention facility that it encourages the terrorists and feeds to the propaganda that the united states -- the anti-united states propaganda that helps recruit? caller: they will find other things. i have seen what they do. i worked in an operating room. they are going to find it no matter what you do. why would we let the worst of overorst out or bring them to where they are in one facility in the united states. cuba has their own things going on. that would just open it up.
that's just a little bit of the reaction. we're asking you if you think they should be brought here. we have make from new jersey. good morning. caller: i think a lot of the problem that has been making a push to shut down it melt a medias is a result of the and the way they have covered gitmo for years. it's constantly used as a focal point to demonize american military personnel and the military and there hasn't been onal time spent on focusing 9/11 families or veterans who
have been affected by terrorism. the amount of time the media spends is almost like a conditioning that takes place. this,let me just ask you but do you think should happen to these 56th 1880's have been deemed too dangerous to release? i think there are issues in terms of treating them as prisoners of war. to bring themason to the united states. i think gitmo is legal. i think the issue has stemmed out of this demonization from the left which has not been balanced i reported on the victims of terrorism or the fact that we are still in a war against terrorism.
host: that snake calling in from new jersey. we have a lot of calls on this. we are calling in from ohio. a the you think they should be brought here? i believe gitmo should stay open. now, the detainees are not in solitary confinement. if we were to bring them here, we would have to put them in solitary confinement. i would like to think we have a refugee crisis with syria. is it gitmo a good place for that? instead of bringing them here, we could spend the money and house them in gitmo.
we can send them back. host: let me ask you this question, do you think the security at maximum-security would be strong enough to hold? if it strong enough for dangerous why is that strong of the hold guantanamo bay detainees? much they's not so are going to be able to house jail.afely, keep them in that's not the issue. the issue is how much are they going to be able to talk with the other inmates and possibly sway other inmates who can't possibly be released in the future.
host: up next on the independent line we have new jersey. good morning. it's crazy listening to these people calling in with their reasoning. it's crazy to me. i want to respond to the last caller. it's like they are going to infiltrate our prisons and start talking to the inmates and they will want to go out and kill people. then why lock anybody up? you're locking up skinheads and gang bangers. are not making other people do other things. host: me ask you a question. if some of these prisoners were transferred to a facility in new jersey, with that concern you?
caller: absolutely not. we already have so-called terrorists. x, what aboutour the newburgh four? hes is what they do it talked about how the media is the media is doing what everybody wants it to do. if they knew the real story and understood who was in there unjustly, nobody wants to hear about that. host: a little bit more about one of the 56 detainees that has been deemed too dangerous to release. it includes the oldest detainee, 68-year-old pakistani usiness man.
one of the people too dangerous to release. he went before the national security board on march 8th saying his preference was to rejoin his family in pack stap or come to the united states -- pakistan or the united states where he lived. instead the board cited his refusal to take responsibility for his involvement with al qaeda and his refusal to distinguish between legitimate and nefarious business ontacts. according to this miami herald report. up next we have on our democratic line peter from west palm beach florida.
caller: i think this is more political than it is reasonable because if this was a republican president i don't think there would be half the fight from the republicans to close it. these people some of them we don't even know if they're guilty. we never gave them a trial, never had evidence, witnesses to say they are terrorists. and we have some of the best prisons in the world in our country. you're talking about so many 60 maybe prisoners that are bad. we could put ten in each prison that we have and what could ten prisoners do at each prison? they would be safer there than they are in guantanamo. some day we could have terrorists come into terrorists -- guantanamo and have a war with the soldiers that we have down there. we have soldiers stationed down there. i wouldn't want to be stationed down there. >> let me ask you this. if they are brought to the u.s. where do you think they should go? >> to the federal prisons that we have the most dangerous
criminals in the world here. we have people killed on sight will kill you. we have them in prison. here. and no problems. we have no problem with them. with them getting out or infiltrating other prisoners. we have a good prison system. and i think we should bring them here and take -- we have people in the other part of the world think we're crazy keeping these people in guantanamo base under army control with -- they on't even speak english. these people. host: ok. up next, we have diana calling in from wisconsin. do you think that the detainees should be brought into the united states? caller: i think that they should close this. it is costing a lot of money. i think the governor in south carolina she says second think
of ways to cut money to come up with $80 million a day or whatever it is a month that it is costing to keep that going. why should she cut money from people in the united states just to keep that alive? number one. number two, it wasn't under this administration that was even created nor under this president. he last caller, i agree with 100%. a lot of these people were rounded up. if anybody should be talking about what was going on, it should be the people who are behind this to begin with. host: ok. we are talking about whether gitmo detainees should be held in the united states. a little later we will be talking about tonight's white house correspondents dinner. if you would like to see that live tune in here starting at
it just shows the g.o.p. opposition to the president's plan to close the facility is remaining. p next on our independent line . nick do you think that the prisoners should be brought to the united states? caller: no, i don't. whether you bring them to the united states or keep them there, you're essentially creating another guantanamo bay. if we brought it to kentucky, everybody's focus will say hey they've got gitmo or they've got a prison holding detainees in kentucky. just keep it in cuba. it's safe there. plus, all these people that's calling for the prisoner's guantanamo to release their prisoners to the united states let them put it in their backyard. host: do you think that it should remain open
indefinitely? we noted that the youngest detainee is just 030 years old. he could live for a long time. how long do you think the facility should remain? caller: i think it's a deterrent as far as it is a threat to say hey if you commit these crimes you will go here. but as far as the money and everything, i could honestly go either way on that. host: ok. up next new york on our republican line. do you think that guantanamo detainees should be brought into the u.s.? caller:. host: ok. -- r: because if they can take cazz inski, he's housed in colorado. he was a threat to the united states. he blew up people. so if these people are that dangerous, i mean, i don't
understand it. i don't understand it. one person more dangerous than the other. they both did damage to the united states or are trying to do damage to the united states. so the same people who are out there saying that we've got to how's them there, they are the worst people in the world, are the same people who don't want to see anybody have any rights in this country except them. host: getting to the question i was going to ask you. why you're calling in on our republican line. why do you think so many republicans are opposing this plan? caller: well, ask them why they are so in tune with the clan. they were terrorists. where are they housed? are they housed at guantanamo? i don't think so. host: up next we have on our dependent line we have
janell. are you on line? ok. up next we have on our ndependent line joe calling in from arkansas. caller: alaska. host: sorry i saw the state wrong. thank you for joining us so early in the morning. what do you think about gitmo detainees? should they be held in the united states? caller: that would be fine. i'm actually an exconvict myself, five years in texas. they have triple max, double max. they have places where you can only be get outside one hour a day. believe me they can hold those guys. host: what about the arguments from some like governor hailey who said that it could cost businesses in some of the
states that are being proposed some of the proposed facilities include lenchworth in kansas as well as facilities in south carolina and in colorado. should business leaders should business owners be concerned that having gitmo detainees there might scare people away? caller: i think -- i don't think that's a viable argument. i really don't. we have people like timothy mcvay that blew up the federal building and killed all those children. we have our own terrorists here in this country. nobody had any problem about keeping them here in our own prisons. our prisons are fine. the thing is what my question was why is it costing $56 million to hold 48 guys? what are we doing paying the cuban government $20 million a year? i thought that was our own military installation. why would it be $56 million for 48 guys? i don't understand.
host: all right. taking another look at this miami herald breakdown of gitmo by the numbers. it talks a little bit about some of the staffing that they have there as well. the total number of residents at guantanamo is estimated to e about 5,778 incheweding 12 graduating seniors at the base's high school graduating class of 2015. there's a large contingency there of folks working and living at this base where these detainees are being housed. from t, we have billy ohio on our democratic line. do you think that detainees should be held in the united states? caller: absolutely not. host: why not? caller: let me say this is refreshing to see you hosting the show. but absolute -- apparently the
people who are saying yes bring them to the united states, they have not visited a prison and seen the inmates walking around with the kkk's on their foreheppeds, the skin heads, the mexican gangs in the prison. do you thot think that 50 detainees won't end up being a hundred people who hate the united states? host: do you worry about the argument that guantanamo bay is being used as a recruiting tool for terrorists abroad? caller: you are only going to get -- how many do they have? 50? that's the maximum you're going to get down there. they're not influencing anybody else to blow up the united states up here. and let me say this. ask the people who call in that say they don't mind. do they want to pass an increased taxes to feed them? this has to ask them that.
host: up next on our republican line don calling in from south carolina. do you think that gitmo detainees should be brought to the united states or you would agree with your governor? caller: i don't think they should be brought in. host: why not? caller: well, i think it was just a campaign promise by the obama administration. we just don't need them. i think now they've been there for years and they can be there for years longer. 85 million. host: up next we have elaine from washington. do you think that guantanamo detainees should be brought to the united states? caller: no, i don't. it sounds to me like none of the people who are calling in listened to the hearing or a word of it. t my concern is we know that there are terrorist cells in the united states. we know that. there's about 500 of them they
say. now, if we move them to the states what do you think is going to happen? who -- it would bequeath them if they didn't go to these prisons and blow themselves up just to make a point. that's what concerns me. they're not thinking ahead add to how this is going to affect the cells that are here and how they're going to respond, and now they can get to some place that they can actually make a point. host: what about the argument that the obama administration made that this works actually as a recruiting tool abroad, that it's already being used its existence is being used to recruit more people? caller: prove it. prove it. that's all i'm saying. there's no evidence. and unless there is, it has no
validity at all. host: ok. up next we will be talking to lisa, research fellow with the heritage foundation will join us to talk about the administration's strategy toward isis and the role of u.s. allies in the region. a little later we will talk to the host of the young turks as well as founder and ceo of tyt network who will be here to talk about campaign 2016 and the progressive movement. but first starting tonight and over the course of the next five weeks, american history tv on c-span-3 is marking the 40th anniversary of the 1976 release of the church committee's final report on government intelligence activities.
>> does this fire in the dark? >> yes, it does. the round thing at the top is the sight. the rest is what is exactically a normal 45 although it's special. it works by electricity. there's a battery in the handle and it fires a small dart. >> so that when it fires it fires silently? >> almost silently. yes. very little. >> what range does it have? >> 100 meters i believe. about 100 yards. >> about 100 meters range. and the dart itself when it the s the target, does target know that he has been hit and is about to die? >> that depends on the particular dart used. there are different kinds of these that are used in various
weapons systems and a special one was developed which potentially would be able to eepter the target without perception. >> is it true too that -- but also the process itself would not appear in the autopsy? >> well -- >> or the dart. >> yes. so that there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit. >> as a murder instrument that's about as efficient as you can get. isn't it? >> it is a weapon, a very serious weapon. >> this record seems to disclose an additional concession, namely the lack of accountability. so that we not only have a secret agency but we have an agency about which there is some question as to its accountability to the authority of the president or the authority of the national ecurity council.
host: joining us now is lisa curtis, the south asia senior research fellow at the heritage foundation. and she is joining us to discuss the administration's strategy toward isis and the role of allies in the region. good morning. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> so on monday president obama announced that 250 more u.s. special operators will be sent to syria. what do you think about that move? >> well, i think the administration has been slow to develop a comprehensive strategy towards isis. for months we saw that restrictions on u.s. air power were really hobbling our effort. now things are beginning to change. we are seeing some signs of progress. and certainly this is a positive step sending 200 more forces to syria to train the southeastern rebels. in addition the administration has announced it is increasing
the effort in iraq and will be ending 200 more forces to iraq bringing that level of u.s. forces up to about 4,000. so we are beginning to see steps in the right direction. but frankly i think the effort has been too limited and it has been a piece heel strategy. so we need to build on some of the positive momentum that we have seen the most noteable sign of progress was in december when iraqi forces were able to retain ramadi the city of ramadi and iraq. we now see that the iraqi forces with the kurdish mesh merga are putting pressure on mosul. this is the second largest iraqi city from which isis declared a califate back in 2014. so we are seeing effort move in the right direction but again it's been very limited. >> what else would you like to see? what other steps would you like
to see the administration take to move in what your view would be a better direction? >> well, i think building on this momentum, inserting more advisers into both fronts, putting those advisers closer to the front lines. increasing the military support. now, the administration also announced that they were sending apatchie attack helicopters to support the effort to retake mosul. this is positive. so i would say just doing more of the kind of things they're doing now. i think these steps should have been taken 18 months ago. but i think they just need to build on the thing that is are happening u now. another positive thing that's been happening are the increased strikes against the oil facilities in syria. the increased attacks on the oil trucks and oil installations has really put a dent in isis' financing.
so i think all of these efforts are good. we just need more of them. because, frankly, the only way to really get a handle on the isis threat is to deny isis ideology legitimacy and the way you do that is by denying them the ability to hold territory from which to declare an islamic califate. host: we're here talking about president obama's isis strategy with lisa curtis of the heritage foundation. to join this conversation democrats can call in. republicans can call the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. talking about the role of troops in syria. an article from this week.
guest: this is nothing like the surge in iraq that we saw in 2007 to 2008. under the bush administration. it is not that level of activity. but like i said, i would argue that our forces mead to be closer to the front lines embedd with not only iraqi security forces but the kurdish peshmerga as well as supporting the sunni tribes. if we're really going to win the fight against isis, we need to bring in the moderate sunni tribes and assure them that the iraqi government is going to
protect their interests and meet their needs. so that's also got to be part of the effort. so i'm not calling for a major surge like we've had in the past. but we can do a lot by enabling the iraqi troops providing training, providing mobility, providing more fire power. so i think that if we are moving in that direction, i would support that because i think that is what we need to do in order to deny isis the ability to hold territory. > defense secretary ash carter and general joseph durnford were on the hill this week talking about the effort their beliefs -- sorry. that they need to talk more about the cyber funds against isis. et's take a look at that
hearing. >> admiral rogers our cyber come commander to take on the war against isil essentially the first magecommr bat operation of cybercome. he has done that. he objectives there are to interrupt isil command and control, interrupt its ability to move money around, interrupt its ability to tirnize and control population, interrupt its ability to recruit externally. all of that it does in a cyber enabled way. and so we're talking about cyber operations in syria and iraq. and my feeling about that was and is very direct, which is we're bombing them. we're going to take out their internet and so forth as well. in the modern world that's necessary to defeat an enemy we have to use every tool that we
have. the first big test of cybercome. let me ask if there is anything. >> add to what the secretary said. the overall effect we're trying to achieve is virtual isolation. and this complements very much our physical actions on the ground and particular focus is external operations that might be conducted by isil. host: what's your reaction to that testimony? guest: well, i think this is a multifaceted fight we've talked about the military effort but we haven't even talked about isis recruitment. and the fact that 36,000 foreign fighters have flocked to iraq and syria from all over the world to fight with isis. so we need an effort to counter that recruitment effort. isis has shown itself to be very adept at using the internet, using social media to recruit. and whereas initially the motivation was to counter assad's atrocities towards the
syrian people now the motivations are more varied. isis is able to convince young muslims that it is their religious duty to come and join the califate. so we need to have an effort that counters that recruitment effort. so i think this is an important effort. now, in addition, we need more efforts to disrupt the terrorist travel. the ability of these foreign fighters to both go in and out of iraq and syria. the house ar homeland security committee e released a report on the ways we can do this. they emphasized the importance of information sharing with our allies, of local law enforcement bolstering our law enforcement efforts. nd also countering and raising awareness about youth radicalization. we find that the recruits and
people who are getting radicalized are younger and younger. in australia, just this week a 16-year-old was arrested for attempting a terrorist attack. what the australian police chief said was the way that the extremists are recruiting is very similar to how sexual predators go after youth over the internet. are very local efforts. the effort is fight isis is very multifaceted. there's a global effort that's needed, global efforts needed. local efforts needed. we've been talking a lot about the military effort but it's the whole range of thing that is we need to be doing. host: we are talking to lisa curtis, a senior research fellow at the heritage foundation about the administration's isis strategy. on our independent line we have a call from buyian who is
calling in from michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. concerning our military. now, what we need to do is in the rules of engagement we need o release any type of guilt on our generals or our admirals. we need to get the lawyers out of the field. we need to turn them over to the people that know about war. it wouldn't be president obama. it wouldn't be president bush. they don't really have any training in this. bush was in the national guard. but not to knock him but that's not where their strength is at as far as the military. so this is silly. and the arrogance of how we have it, where we basically have a civilian with no training is going to micromanage what shush a war machine. it's silly. >> let's give lisa a chance to
respond. >> well, i think the caller raises an important point. and i think there has been criticisms of the white house for trying to micromanage this fight. and that's why made the point that for the first 15, 16 months there were restrictions on u.s. use of air power that really hobbled the fight. so i think the caller is right. we need to give the commanders on the ground the ability to arry out the war and drive the strategy. and i think we should also be clear that had we kept a residual force presence in iraq, we might not have seen this rise of isis that we have seen. and we know that the white house unfortunately was unable to negotiate a status of forces agreement with the iraqi government in 2011. which precipitated our full withdrawal. so i think yes there are criticisms to be made against
the white house. i think there's been a motivation by president obama to be the president that ended two wars. i think that was his goal. but unfortunately what we've seen over the last couple of years is it is just not possible to turn our backs on this region. and that we need to remain gaged and we need to not ignore the threat that isis poses. and unfortunately i think the u.s. has to lead this fight. we have seen that we can't really rely on our arab allies to step up to the plate and send forces. they are supporting us in certain ways but they are not going to be in there fighting helping the iraqi forces. that responsibility is falling to the u.s. >> let me ask you about the policy with respect to arab power -- air power.
there was a piece this week on cnn's website that noted that the u.s. has adopted a battlefield tactic exploding the missile above the building to warn civilians inside that it's about to be bombed. guest: well, i think there has o be every effort made t avoid civilian casualties. oovesly this is a major challenge. this is why this is an iraqi-led effort. the u.s. is there to support. the u.s. can't do anything without being invited by the iraqi forces. so they are meeting the effort -- leading the effort. there has to be every effort
made to avoid civilian casualties. and that -- there is a balance there that has to be made. but this is why the iraqi forces are in the lead. if u.s. is not going to be taking the lead. our assistance has to be accepted. in fact for several months the iraqis were reluctant to accept the apatchie helicopter support that we were offering. more recently they have accepted that as pressure builds to take back mosul. obviously there has to be every effort made to avoid civilian casualties. and that will be first and foremost in the minds of the commanders. host: our next caller on our republican line from indiana. bill, you are on. caller: thank you. i was curious how many of you ladies would like to send your 8-year-old son over there.
host: do you have a response? guest: i think the point is, sir, isis is a global threat and the u.s. needs to help the iraqi forces in pushing them back. we know if we try to ignore this threat it's going to come up on our own shores in fact it already has. we've already seen the attacks in paris and brussels. we have had radicals here in the u.s. motivated by isis ideology. so i think that none of us want to see war but the facts remain this is a threat to national security interests so it is something that i think does deserve our military's efforts. and i think it is a fight that e need to be engaged in. host: we are talking about the obama administration's isis strategy with lisa curtis, the
south asia senior research fellow at the heritage foundation as well as a former staffer on the senate foreign relations committee where she was in charge of south asia issues for then chairman senator richard lugor. and up on our independent line next we have tommy from tennessee. caller: good morning. i believe that we should use the superior intellect of women who live in the middle east to say we are not going to send our children to war any more. we are not going to send our children to kill any more. because if we do that, if we can get the women of the middle east to use their superior intellect to stop this, then isis will run out of people to kill with and hopefully we can bring this situation in control and thank you very much and ave a blessed day.
guest: i'm glad you raised the issue of women because isis has been particularly oppressive particularly toward women from a minorities and here i'm yidsie women. he we've heard about institutionalizing race and having them as sex slaves. i think the administration did the right thing by declaring genocide against these religious minority communities and condemning the isis activities. so i think you're right. i think that the way that women are treated in these societies is really important to be overall efforts to make sure that these extremist ideologies don't take hold. and so educating providing education for girls, bringing women through the social economic and political lives of
these countries is absolutely essential. things aren't going to change overnight. but i think you're absolutely right to focus on women and the u.s. doing what it can to empower the women in these regions. and i think we have seen the kurdish peshmerga takeack sin ar which had the area that the yidszis have been driven from. and this is a positive step. these are the things that are important and frankly why we are there supporting the iraqis in this effort to push back isis. host: talk about the other countries in the middle east and what their role is. should they be doing more in the fight against isis? >> certainly i think that they could be doing more. but i think we also have to acknowledge what is happening. look at the refugee issue. turkey and jordan have millions of refugees that they are supporting. of f you look at it 50%
syria's pre-war population are either refugees in foreign countries or internally displaced in their own country. so this is a major crisis. and we do see the other middle east countries bearing the costs of this refugee crisis. hen it comes to the military fight i think there is desire particularly on capitol hill you can hear calls for why aren't our arab neighbors stepping up into the military fight? it's very complicated because there are different interests, different conversations, you have the sunni shia sectarians issues. so troops on the ground from our arab neighbors is probably a bridge too far for them. but we certainly should be
seeing more support financial humanitarian support. and i think we're moving in that direction. and the coalition is starting to come together and we're even seeing our european partners stepping up more particularly the u.k. that has started air strikes in syria. france. which has stepped up its involvement particularly after the 35eurice attacks last november. so i think there's what 66 countries involved providing different levels of support. and we need to maintain that momentum. host: up next on our democratic ine arthur from tennessee. caller: i want to ask this lady who created isis? wasn't it george bush, dick cheney?
>> well, isis came from al qaeda in iraq. if you remember al qaeda in iraq was ruthless trearts organizations led by a man zarqawi. ho was massacring the shias in iraq, commiting brutalities. so this organization evolved from al qaeda. now they are competing with al qaeda. they have different goals and they're competing for ideological influence for resources for recruits. we see this happening all over the world even in places like afghanistan where isis is trying to enbroach in areas where al qaeda has traditionally been strong. so i don't buy into the argument that the u.s. somehow created isis which came from al
qaeda in iraq. but certainly it stems from the fighting. it goes -- you can go back to 9/11. the attacks on 9/11 by al qaeda. and then al qaeda and iraq developed and so now we have these two competing islamist extremists groups. host: up next on our independent line we have mure yell from maryland. good morning. aller: good morning. i think that one of the most important weapons that we have here in this country against isis is christianity. and that christianity has been preached out and i think it's a mistake on the part of our country to do that.
host: a mistake to do what? ller: it's a mistake to push out christianity. and to try to destroy christianity in this country. i think it is a big mistake on our part. host: let's gev her a chance to respond. guest: i think that you said something about pushing christianity. obviously the u.s. cannot do that. the -- but i think the important point here is that the problem is an islamist extremist ideology. the vast majority of muslims in the world do not adhere to that kind of ideology that we are seeing coming from isis in al qaeda. and i think that's critical to remember. this is not about the religion of islam. this is about people who are commiting acts of terrorism and
violence in the name of the religion. but the human beings are commiting these actions. it is not the religion itself that is causing these problems. it's the religion that is being exploited by these extremist elements which really are seeking political power. that is what it is all about. so i think this is important to keep in mind, particularly as we look at thwarting the development of raidcal cells here in the u.s. we have to raise awareness about youth radicalization which i was talking about before, working with communities, making sure there are good relations between law enforcement and all of the communities. and but making sure that we are aking steps to thwart this extremist radicalization. but without trampling on civil liberties of our muslim communities.
host: the fight against isis in syria is taking place simultaneously as the unrest in that country continues. in today's "washington post" there's a piece about the u.s. and russia trying again to forge a ceasefire in some parts of syria. how does this affect the fight against isis? guest: this is why the battle
is so much more complicated than iraq. i would argue both efforts are important because isis has a stronghold in ralka in syria as well as mosul and iraq, and the two having the two strongholds if a silt tate each other so we have to be fighting on both fronts. but the situation in syria is extremely complicated. 250,000 civilian casualties since the war broke out there five years ago. the situation in alepo is devastating. looks like assad's forces perhaps deliberatively targeted hospitals in this area. civilians are deliberatively being targeted. and that is frankly what helps drive isis recruitment. so the u.s. has to fight isis on the one hand but we also have to have a diplomatic effort to move assad out to
bring in a new government that will be supported by the vast majority of syrians. and now we have russia more involved. but supporting different forces than the u.s. so the ceasefire they need to work toward the ceasefires. we did have a couple of months of relative calm. but the situation in alepo over the last week shows that the ceasefire really is not being effective. and that we need to rethink our strategy and we need to find ways to work with other our rs and not put confidence in the russians. they have completely different goals in syria than the u.s. so we should not be led down the garden path of thinking the russians are going to somehow save the situation in syria or
we can somehow hand the job over to them. that's not going to help. host: we're talking about the administration's strategy on to fight isis. up next on our pipeline line we have mike calling in from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning young lady. i just want to say this. i'm a world war ii veteran and i want to ask you people one question. who was it that executed the person who was in charge of iraq? was it not his own people? was it not his own people? u guest: yes. saddam hussein was put to death by his own people. he was despised in iraq. he had really put pressure on e shia population and he had killed shia women, children, and he was despised by the
iraqi people. so yes when our troops were able to remove his regime from power there were celebrations in the streets of iraq. and eventually the u.s. helped in tracking him down and finding him. he was put on trial by his own government. and put to death by his own government. host: up next on our democratic line, we have danny calling in from alabama. caller: thanks for take mig call. i would like one -- the biggest problem it seems that we have with prosecuting this war here is congress, the g.o.p. you were speaking about sullivan charging obama with not -- with the troops not doing what they're supposed to do. i have never seen any -- anything that they said that
they were assisting the president. can you name one that they have done where they were assisting the president instead of fighting him all the time? guest: well, i think that there have been a series of congressional hearings on the strategy toward isis. one was held on thursday. u hear both democratic and republican leaders stating their positions. we know people like senator mccain, senator lindsey graham have been repeatedly pushing for a more robust military effort. among ink there's some both parties. so you're going to have criticism i think on both sides. the democratic leaders are very reluctant to move forward with the military effort. would like to turn their attention toward other things
happening in the world. not focusing on isis. so i think you see a distance on both sides of the aisle in terms of what is being called for. but i think the administration is starting to take steps in the light direction. it's too limited in my opinion. and we need to build on some of the positive momentum that we have seen over the last couple of months. and hopefully that will happen. but i think there has been some atlanta criticisms of the white house approach -- legitimate chrisims. that we did not leave a force in iraq in 2007. that we were slow to meet the threat from isis. so i think there are legitimate criticisms on both sides of the aisle. host: and we have some news this morning coming out of bagdad according to the "washington post." protesters have stormed the iraqi parliament in baghdad.
guest: this is exactly what people have feared that we were approaching a political crisis in iraq. and this will have an impact because this is an iraqi-led effort and as i indicated before, the sunni tribes need to have confidence in their government in order to fully break from isis. so this is something that will complicated the u.s. effort and i think there is nervousness because we have been able to work with prime minister abadie fairly closely and there's concern that if he is replaced he might be replaced by a more
pro iranian leader and frankly we don't have the same goals as iran. and that could definitely complicated our efforts and reduce our ability to work effectively with the government. so not only do we have the complication of the unrest and just the uncertainty, but then we have the real possibility that the successor to abadie is going to be somebody that we may not be able to work with. so, yes, this will prove a complicating factor. host: talking about the administration's isis strategy. up next on our independent line we have matt from new hampshire. good morning. caller: i have a brother who serves overseas and he is -- has been in the middle east every single year he has been in the military. two years ago the president
asked for an authorized use of military force. congress has done nothing. congress' duty according to the constitution is to declare war. not the president. not the president. we hear all this he's an illegal president. he doesn't follow the constitution. what has congress done? i have sat and watched the hearings. i've heard them say we're going to come up with one. we're going to come up with one. i watched lindsey graham promise he would have one in three months. host: let's give lisa a chance to respond. guest: i think i can sympathize with the caller's frustration. the war authorization does need to be updated. it's a complicated process. but i think it's another example of our dysfunctional congress, the fact that they can't get this issue dealt with. so i think i would have to sympathize with the caller's frustration. host: can you talk a little bit more about the authorization and what powers that we are
operation?n this we've had a couple tweets come in asking that question specifically. what is the legal authority that the united states has? guest: the war authorization is the same one we invoked right after the attacks of 9/11. so it has to do with attacking al qaeda and its affiliate organizations. so it really is al qaeda focused. but this is an offshoot. but you can certainly make the argument that the authorization spans that. so i think that there is a need to update it. but that doesn't mean that we are illegally fighting in iraq or syria. i think you can still definitely make the case that the 2011 authorization covers in legal terms what we are doing in both these countries. host: up next jerry from baltimore.
caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to make two points. i would like to double down on what matt just said. and i would like the c-span audience to highly question what is coming from the heritage foundation and lisa here. you are not willing to sepped your 18-year-old son or daughter to go over there and fight for this cause. you are the same organization that came up with obamacare. so those of you that don't like it look to these people. why is it that you guys say one thing but run away from a fight when it's time to stand up? host: let's give her a chance to respond. guest: i know that many people who work at the heritage foundation have sonses and daughters who are in the military who are fighting who are overseas. so yonchings there's any kind of hypocracy here of calling for increased military action and being willing to send their
sons and daughters to this fight. so i will leave it at that. host: good morning, patrick. caller: good morning. a couple of times people talk about sending sons and daughters over. that's not the issue. the son or daughter that chooses to go or not go but the real issue is the complexity that lisa talks about relative to syria. i don't see it that way. i see it actually fairly simple. my belief is that those people have the wrong god. there's one true god. and they don't have is the right one. host: let's give her a chance to respond. guest: i think i would just come back to this is a very dangerous ideology, an
extremist ideology but it's a political ideology. it is people who are exploiting their religion quickly have 1.59 billion muslims. the vast majority do not subscribe to isis or al qaeda ideology. and this is about political power. and the uprising in syria of course has followed the other revolutions, the democratic revolutions which have been happening over the last 5 years. and what we saw is brutal repression by the assad regime. chemical attacks against its own civilians, 250,000 civilians casualties in the last 5 years. so this is a political fight. now, unfortunately, you have al qaeda who is exploiting the situation. and who is pushing this
barbaric ideology claiming that it somehow has roots in the religion of islam when most muslims do not subscribe to that and have condemned isis. so i think we need to keep that in mind. host: up next on our republican ine we have ted from oregon. caller: that's the democrat line. i'm puzzled about her timeline of 011 for the withdrawal american troops. this was in 2007. when maliki made it that american troops would not be i guess you would call it being able not to be prosecuted for crimes. went on news that
with the iraqi that threw the shoes. that was the day that all happened. so i'm just wondering about the ime lines. guest: what happened is yes there was the beginning of the drawdown under the bush administration. but it was on obama's watch where they were trying to negotiate a residual force presence to stay in iraq to sort of help keep the peace. not a combat force but just a residual force presence. but you are right, they were unable to come to an agreement. the iraqi government did not agree to provide immunity for u.s. soldiers so they could not be tried in iraqi courts which is something the u.s. needs if it is going to maintain presence called the stattuss of forces agreement. but there is some speculation that the white house did not
handle these negotiations correctly. and that had they been more committed to keeping a residual force presence there in iraq they would have been able to come to some agreement with abadie. so i don't know the details of that those negotiations. i was not involved in those. but there is definitely the feeling that the obama administration could have done more to make those negotiations work and to ensure that there was a troupe prebs left. host: -- troop presence left. thank you so much for joining us this morning. guest: thank you. host: up next we will be talking to the host of the young turks as well as the founder and ceo of tyt network. he will be here to talk about campaign 2016 and the rogressive movement. then patrick he will be
previewing tonight's dinner and how it became such a major media event. but first tonight is the tonight is the white house correspondents dinner. coverage begins at 6:00 on c-span. entertainment will be provided by larry wilmore from comedy central. earlier this week, larry talked about preparations for tonight's dinner. [video clip] host: what is this week like? doinghas been surreal interviews, realizing its happening. of me, part of the history this is overwhelming. this is the first black president. we are the same age. where race has gone in our lifetime and everything. when i was a kid, the thought of a black man even being a quarterback was a huge deal, let alone be president. for that to happen in my lifetime, being the sage a --
same age as him, is pretty awesome. all those historical implications are very cool. host: what is the secret to playing a big room like this? guest: you know what? it is the audio. you cannot worry about how the jokes are rolling because they roll up in different areas. the reaction you get coming have to pretend as if you are killing it. your light, i'm glad you liked that one because you cannot really hear. the audio is terrible from your point of view. for everyone else, it is good. it is a wide room. it is hard to gauge in that sense, so you have to ignore it. here is what you want to do. you want to check and see if the president is laughing. that is the most important thing. if he is laughing, you are doing ok. >> it is known as one of washington's premier events bringing together government officials, members of the press, and hollywood stars. c-span has live coverage of the white house correspondents
dinner today at 6:00 eastern. our coverage includes red carpet arrivals, background on the dinner, and award presentations. 2700 people are expected to attend the sold-out dinner. andy wilmore will headline this year, president obama will give his final speech as commander-in-chief. join us to watch the dinner today at 6:00 eastern live on c-span. continues. journal" host: we are joined by cenk ofur, the founder and c.e.o. tyt network. he will be here to discuss his support for bernie sanders and senator sanders'future following a loss in four out of five states earlier this week and what his candidacy means to the progressive movement. good morning. thank you for joining us. let's kick it off by talking
about donald trump yesterday. yesterday, there was a high-profile clash before the g.o.p. convention in california. what is your reaction to that? clown look, we have a for one of the nominees for president. has atublican nominee least a 40% chance of winning normally. i know i am being harsh, but not nearly harsh enough. the other day, he said we live in an evil world. the most evil world. are there other worlds that are evil but we live in the most evil world? when a preposterous guy. he never makes sense. every clash is by design. he has roger stone going around saying if we go to the california commission and delegates don't vote with us, i will give up their hotel room
number. then he says i'm not encouraging violence, but if they do, i understand. i am paraphrasing but not by much. he would be amusing if you were not important. but now dangerous. -- he hass often often cited these protesters as bernie supporters. do you think that is the case? guest: bernie has enough trouble on the democratic side to be worried about sending people to donald trump rallies, etc. can anyone trust anything donald trump says? how would he know? did he investigate it? did he talk to those guys? if it is bernie supporters, god bless. host: we are talking to cenk uygur about senator sanders' campaign. he is a supporter of the senator for president as well as the progressive movement. you can join the conversation. democrats can call in.
republicans -- independents -- and if you are outside the country -- let's talk about senator sanders' campaign. he has downsized it. it has been widely reported. what does this mean in terms of this race and moving forward to the future beyond that? guest: in terms of this race, it is a logical move. dispiriting when you hear the word "downsizing." but honestly, i don't know why he has staff in states that have already voted. bless his heart for having those staff. i have met with some. they are wonderful people. but should you marshal your forces toward states that have not voted yet in the primary? of course! of course you should. this is the most logical move you could ever do. i am not saying he is likely to win at this point. i just wrote an op-ed saying it
is improbable but definitely possible. we can get into that if you want. from terms of what it means for the future, that is even more important. host: let's get into that a little bit. looking at the delegate numbers, how can center strangers -- senator sanders still win? guest: there are still about 1200 delegates they can get in voting. bernie sanders is behind about 300 delegates. if anybody counts the is already voted, they are bad journalists. they are either purposely misleading their audience or they don't know politics. the superdelegates have not voted. they vote later. and they always switch. not all of them, but a lot of the. into thousand eight, they switched from hillary clinton to barack obama when he won more delegates. ironically, bernie sanders leads in superdelegates. -- needs superdelegates.
he will not make up a 300-point lead with 1200 to go. that is very improbable. but is hillary clinton going to win the election without superdelegates? no. everybody is talking about a contested convention on the republican side. it looks like donald trump may flat out when the majority and not have any interest in a contested convention. but on the democratic side you could easily have a contested convention when neither has enough pledged delegates. then we are having a conversation. everybody in this town is convinced she will not be indicted, that she is above the law. but if you had a dozen f.b.i. agents investigating you, you know what would happen? he would get indicted. if i had a dozen agents investigating me, i would get indicted. they are not investigating for their health. people in this town know something i don't know, which is entirely possible. the powerful are above the law. she will never be indicted
because she is too powerful and connected to the government. maybe they are right about that. but maybe if you have a dozen agents on you, you will get indicted. can that happen in the next six weeks before the convention? yes. host: we have a lot of calls lighting up to chime in on this. on the republican line, we have david calling from orange park, florida. david, you're on with cenk uygur . caller: thank you. i have been watching the primaries and what have you. it puzzles me that so many young people are following bernie sanders because for the most part, they're going to want jobs. he stands for taxes, high changeion,, this climate -- open borders, this climate change nonsense which is more hindrance on business. industry, the only they care about is the trial lawyer industry which hurts jobs.
how does that help young people find jobs, those aspects? host: let's give him a chance to answer. guest: david, i am glad you brought those things up. number one, bernie has a plan to do free education. what does that mean? my dad had a free education in turkey. he was in all of farmer -- olive farmer. if he had not gotten that free education, i would be a farmer in turkey. education,got that he wound up becoming a mechanical engineer, starting his own company, and hiring 100 people. that helped the economy. came over to the u.s. and started his own company and hired dozens of people. that helped the economy. free education liberates us also the rich don't have exclusive opportunities, so your kids can have the same opportunity. not only is it the more moral thing to do, but is the smartest thing to do for the economy.
in terms of raising taxes on the rich as opposed to the middle class and poor, if you have more money for the poor and middle class they spend it and it circulates in the economy quicker. if you give tax cuts to the rich, i know you want to help the rich and think they will decades later give you a job? they are never going to give you a job. you know what they do? they keep a great percentage of the money. if you are giving a tax cut to a millionaire, he usually keeps 95% of the savings in his pocket. he does not circulate it in the economy. the more money circulated in the economy, the better it is and the more jobs we have. , who wason gecko modeled after for "wall street," came out and said bernie has the better plan. host: next on the democratic line, we have brian calling in from fayetteville, north carolina. you are on with cenk uygur.
caller: like the presentations you give. i'm a bernie sanders supporter. i am dismayed because i criticized hillary for taking the $600,000 from goldman sachs for speeches and she has taken millions from corporations. i have gotten a lot of pushback for this. hillary supporters say it cannot show quid pro quo. you cannot show she has done anything with this money. i would like you to answer this. you don't have to show anything. if you are taking money from corporations or wall street, shouldn't that be illegal? shouldn't that by itself be wrong? could you please comment on the air. we don't have to show any connection. host: let's give him a chance to answer. guest: it was not $600,000 she took from goldman sachs. it was $675,000. regular americans know if somebody gives you $675,000, here is what you are going to be doing for them -- listening to
them. if they give you millions in campaign contributions, and she has received untold millions from the banks, tens of millions of dollars, they directly give it to your pocket. that is just three speeches for goldman sachs, at 607 $5,000. for the banks, it is millions of dollars. we used to have a word for this in america. it was called bribery. now, that is very impolite to say. but in reality, they made bribery legal. if they are giving you millions of dollars, you are very likely to do it they ask you to do. i know a lot of people that work at goldman sachs. they are not stupid. they are not giving millions away for nothing. they are expecting something in return. you could say they made a mistake once. but to give money to hillary clinton over and over, that means they got a good return on investment. and yes, she has changed her votes.
now it is at the point where she agrees with the banks so much she does not have to change her votes. anyway.s are probank the question about it. fighting against big banks is a big part of the progressive platform. we have a tweet that asks how the progressive movement can keep the new voters sanders has gotten involved in politics in the future. byt plays into a piece "salon." host: do you agree with that assessment? and if so, how do you do it?
guest: more than you could imagine, kimberly. the revolution has begun, ok? in the past, yes. part of the reason hillary clinton has the older voters in the democratic party is there used to losing. there used to incrementalism, gradualism. we cannot get anything done. republicans always win. we are done with that talk. the money has drowned our democracy. we are going to get that money out of politics. when we did not have money in politics, and people think that time did not exist in america, but it did. for about 40 golden years from roosevelt to 1978, money was not a wash in politics. there was always around the edges and there was illegal bribery. but in 1976 and 1978, we made bribery legal. corporations now can give unlimited money to politicians.
money, get unlimited shockingly enough, the politicians work for them of course. disobedience,vil democracy spring. at the capitol, the most amount of people arrested in u.s. history at the capital. now we are in the streets. we will be in the streets, in the voting booths, in there grill. bernieablishment things sanders is almost done, thank god. they cannot stand bernie sanders 1000 times more than they can't stand donald trump because bernie sanders what happened -- upend the system and they own the system. but we will upend the system no matter what. we will get the 20th amendment. our show has 86 million unique viewers last month. there is a revolution a foot. we did not start it. bernie did not start it, but he has marshaled those forces. whether he wins or loses, we will use those forces to get change in the capital. host: we are talking to "young turks" host cenk uygur.
next on the republican line, we have joe calling in from annapolis, maryland. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i do live in annapolis. i am a retired naval officer. i took a road trip down to norfolk on highway 301. i was listening to c-span and enjoying a program in your current guest came on and i got enraged. .e called donald trump a clown please let me make my two points. he called him a clown and denigrated him. donald trump is prophetic. he criticized the mexican illegal immigration and talked about the criminality. we saw that criminality yesterday and the day before in the protests where people in california were protesting his appearance at the republican convention, overturning barricades, stomping on cars,
assaulting donald trump supporters. your guest should understand donald trump is speaking the truth. that is my first point. my second point is your guest said the revolution is beginning, and bernie sanders is apparently leading it. i hope for this country's safe there will be a revolution but it includes the people richard nixon called the silent majority and the reagan democrats, working class, middle-class people tired of paying for other people's stuff and want to keep more than 50% of their tax dollars. i will conclude by saying i have a modest pension from the navy. i work as a lawyer. my wife works as a nurse. we enter the tax tables at 35% with various other taxes and property taxes, and i am not a rich man -- host: we have a lot of calls. i want to give cenk uygur a chance to address the points you made. i am againstink
you. i'm trying to help you. let me explain. republicans trick you into thinking it is the mexicans that are so powerful. are you kidding me? undocumented immigrants are the most powerless people in the country. you think they crossed the border and caused the 2000 a crash? the crash cost 8 million jobs in this country. it was not undocumented workers. it was the bankers. bribed themerica has politicians and they have shifted the tax burden onto you. in 1952, corporations used to pay about 35% of all taxes. you know what they pay now? 10%. in taxok trillions burdens and redistributed the wealth so they got to keep the money and put the tax burden on you, joe. that is why your taxes are high. you think your taxes are high because of a teachers union or undocumented workers or the powerless? no, your taxes are high, and not
their taxes, because the powerful did that. joe, i'm tried to do that revolution and so is sanders, not to hurt you but to help you. you have to get that new way of thinking in your head. you want to talk about violence? were you complaining when donald trump and his supporters were assaulted protesters at almost every rally he had and the cops would not arrest anyone as they saw one person after another assaulted? all of a sudden one summary is protesting on the left, violence! where were you when they were doing it? you were not anywhere. you think donald trump was prophetic? the guy can barely speak english. to senator get back sanders' chances in the race. side, ted cruz named a running mate in an effort to jumpstart his campaign. i want to ask you about the prospect senator sanders might take that same approach. columnist suggested
that running mate might be elizabeth warren. would you think about a sanders-warned ticket? guest: brent is about three or four months behind me. normally, i would love to make fun of ted cruz. he is losing and is likely to lose over all. a names avp at this point -- v.p. at this point. ted cruz might be the only guy i dislike more than donald trump, but i will not make fun of him. he grabbed the headlines. he needs to after the losses in the northeast. i understand why he did it. is carly fiorina light anyone up? no. she is a three-time loser. lost to barbara boxer, donald trump, hewlett-packard. warren, he elizabeth should have named her before the iowa caucuses. of course, she would be the v.p.. she would have energized people. he did not need much in iowa.
.2% loss. that could have put him over the top. it could have put him over the top in massachusetts. he should have named elizabeth warren from day one whether she wanted it or not. the reality is she would have taken it. he should have done that a long time ago. host: guest: she is reportedly being looked at by secretary clinton. elizabeths take warren as a running mate, do you think that will help her bring progressives on board should she win the nomination? guest: yes. whether people will vote for hillary clinton or not is up to them. that is a tough an open question. in terms of picking elizabeth warren, it would be a genius move. if you are going to unify the party and are looking for a progressive, elizabeth warren is a great way to go. just like bill clinton picked somebody demographically similar she could pick, a woman and it would be a powerful ticket. donald trump cannot help but attacked them over and over again in the worst ways galvanizing all the women in the
country to say i am not voting for donald trump. elizabeth warren is clearly the correct v.p. picked for hillary clinton or bernie sanders. host: we are talking with cenk "ygur, the host of "young turks on the tyt t network. we have tony calling in from south carolina. good morning. the are all fired up this morning. a couple of quick questions. give me one-word answers on these. you are pro bernie sanders i assume. do you think hillary clinton is an honest person? yes or no. guest: there is no yes or no. i am tempted to say no, but who is an honest person? i am being serious. caller: i don't want to vote for her. look at what we are being presented with. look at the dichotomy we are being presented with. guest: real quick.
almost none of the politicians are honest. they take money. they do what the donors tell them to do, including at least 80% of democrats. by the way, none of us are honest. were you honest to your parents all the time growing up? i don't think so. are you honest to your wife every time? i hope, but not necessarily every time. i get that she is not the most honest person. you're right to be concerned about that. you are right to be concerned about all politicians except bernie. host: i have a programming note. "newsmakers,"0 on the arizona congressman talks about the 2016 presidential campaign, arizona voting, immigration, puerto rico debt, and other issues. that is sunday at 10:00 and 6:00 eastern on c-span. stay tuned for that.
i want to talk to you more about bernie sanders. today in the "washington journal," peter nicholson puts four questions to bernie sanders. as a supporter, i will put them to you. guest: i'm not technically a surrogate. on air, it is obvious where my proclivities are. why did he take so long to take on the e-mail issue on the debate? and why did he wait so long to build ties with african american voters? guest: because he was wrong on both counts. on the e-mail issue, their two separate things. i get it. yes, people have used private e-mails before in government. t a private server in their house. is that a possible criminal violation? unfortunately, it is.
whether you think that is an important issue or not, the fact he might get indicted is relevant. as much as it might dry democrats crazy, it is relevant. if bernie sanders had a chance of being indicted, had a dozen f.b.i. investigators looking into him, every democrat in this town would be screaming, "get out of the race! this guy might be a criminal." the establishment hates him because he will upturn the system. it is relevant. in that sense. the real relevance of the e-mails is the clinton foundation does favors for people to get a lot of money to the clinton foundation. if they did, that is deplorable. should he have focused on the clinton foundation earlier? yes. in terms of african americans, huge mistake. he has such a great record. he was chained to an african american woman protesting civil rights, and he is too hobble to
bring it up -- humble to bring it up. like george mcgovern. if that was hillary clinton change to an african american woman, she would have brought it up in every single ad and debate. he fought for civil rights for 40 years. host: let's get back to our calls. we have a lot of them. on our democratic line, from new york, you are on with cenk uygur . caller: how are you guys doing this morning? host: good morning. guest: good. caller: good to talk to you. i have been following you a long time. i am on tyt on a daily basis along with your buddy kyle from "secular." you guys do a great job. about this progressive movement, ok? what i see is a lack of cohesion between different groups.
it could get this country on track in a short time. republicans have a way of coalescing, you know what i mean? i'm not saying go into zombie lies or anything, but if you have progressive movement people or coalitions come together, i'm talking like ronald reagan, jr. the southern poverty law center -- host: do you have a question? we have a lot of callers. i want. to make sure you state your question clearly. people can we get more in one group instead of these different circles that are hard to get together? guest: i love your idea. tyt andor watching "secular talk." the problem is there two different kinds of so-called
progressives. there are people that believe in the sanders revolution and are sick of the system and understand the rules have been rigged against us. and then there are the groups in washington. i don't want to say every group, but there are a lot of groups in washington that pretend to be progressive but have the same donors as everybody else. and they don't want change. they tap the brakes, they slow you down. amendment? i'm not going to do anything about it. money out of politics, i'm theoretically in favor but i will not do anything about it. oftentimes, behind-the-scenes we have to fight those guys to try to get them on board and actually do something. those are the two different kinds of what i called "so-called progressives." one is the real kind that once change. the other kind likes the way washington runs and does not want change because they are comfortable. it is hard to unite those two because they will not come along with us. host: next on our democratic
line, we have audrey from tampa, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what is your question for cenk uygur? caller: you are my favorite [indiscernible] host: audrey, you are breaking up a little bit. can you talk more clearly into the front? is one i am saying cenk of my favorite blue dog democrats. i love you. i follow you. i want to let you know there is no way bernie is going to get the nomination. you are saying bernie does not take contributions. they all take money for speeches. i'm sure bernie has been paid at some point. guest: know, he has not. caller: come on, cenk. host: let's let him respond. guest: i appreciate your nice words about the show, but you are so used to the corruption that you think it has to apply to everybody. i don't blame you. like diogenes, we found the one
honest man. is the perfect? nobody is perfect. but i would rather have a man taking $27 at a time and beholden to millions of voters then someone taking bernielity is no, sanders has not given speeches. you know, hillary clinton has made as much as bernie sanders in one speech as bernie sanders and his wife in one year. no, he does not take the money. my job is to be honest to you guys whether it is democrats or republicans. i got kicked off msnbc piping to them. about bernie is not in that crowd. speech money, i would be heard telling you he is the same as everyone else.
is a fair not he wins question. even i say it is improbable, but don't get discouraged. you have to vote, wherever you are because the number of delegates he picks up can be enormously relevant. host: we can talk a little more about his impact on the race. one is, as he has said, to push secretary clinton further to the left. in today's "washington post" it points out where secretary clinton has shifted closer to sanders. it says clinton appears to have anceded to the senator on couple of major economic policy issues, abandoning positions she previously held on trade and social security and taking closer tolosest to -- sanders. have you found that on the issues of trade and social security? do you think the impact will be
lasting on the party? : yes, she has taken those new positions. now, they talk about how she will pivot back to the center. in washington, pivoting is seen as savvy. in the rest of the country, it is seen as lying. that means you don't really have a position. or, if you do, you are keeping it from us. what she says right now about it,"about, "i am against no, she isn't. i will bet any amount of money if she hase number -- the opportunity as president to it, on tpp, she will back put it down in stone. st is a right wing corporativ
position. she is central right. she has gone liberal on gay marriage. in 2012, she said, i don't know about gay marriage. on economic issues, she is center-right and will do every deal that corporations want. calling inve mike from houston, texas. you are on. caller: thank you. i want to thank c-span because they have a forum that used to exist on college campuses. it used to be a time when, on college campuses, conservatives were allowed to speech. freedom of speech is very controlled on college campuses by bullies. if they get their feelings hurt, that is apparently intimidating. words come house -- somehow are being controlled by the politically correct. thank you, c-span, for allowing
conservatives a place to speak where they can't on college campuses. secondly, government is the bully, the one that regulates the winners and the losers. they have the money. areof these positions centralized and washington, d.c.. i have one question specifically on immigration. quickly. with the menlo park allow in and sitto come next to a stanford bound fourth-grader? guest: two things. i will start with the last thing. to what you are trying to get odd, yes. in fact, a lot of the top private schools have scholarship programs to bring the most
disadvantaged kids, including from both economic backgrounds, to give them an opportunity. you think these guys are limousine liberals. no, no. do they exist? yes, overall, they are trying to ine sure diversity exists their schools. you are worried about limousines? you know who are in limousines? the corporate executives who are misdirecting you, thinking that tried to get a child a good education is the bad guy. you are against crony capitalism? i could not agree with you more. i cannot stand crony capitalism. i will give you an example. the tween 2012 and 2015, the top corporations gave $5.8 billion. you know what they got in return? $4.4 trillion from the government. next time you thing about a
corrupt government, i want you to think about who corrupted them? the ones who corrupted them gave them donations. these government officials, they takers, kratz, order waiters. the question is who is their boss. the bosses are giving the private financing for elections. we have public financing so that you and i can from the country. i love the debate. i was a republican back on campus when i was on campus. i hated when people shouted me down. we have to get back to a democracy where we have real debates between liberals and conservatives, and not the government that is bought. don callingwe have from maryland. you are on. caller: thank you.
i would just like to complement to you and ask you a question. where are you getting your funding to run your network? somebody ing that against corporate media is able to have a voice and built a very large organization. guest: great. let me correct one thing, and then i will correct what is a very fair question. not i was at msnbc, i was fired. they offered to double my salary. they did basically demote me. i was on the 6:00 program and got the highest ratings. he wanted to move me to the weekends and double my salary. it did not make much sense. they wanted to say, we are still progressive, we have cenk uygur,
on the weekends. they said i was too much against the establishment. they are right about that. i do not begrudge them. they have a corporate parent, they don't want to rock the boat. they made the decision that was wise for them. don't worry about any of that. had when i was on msnbc, i 600,000 people who watch me. you know how many watch me today? 7 billion people today. this town has not caught on yet, but online is real. it is a heart attack for tv. our audience is 86 million unique viewers last month. where is the funding coming from? the investment is coming from a hodgepodge of people. i did not do things the right way. selld not sell like it -- to a corporate parent, like i
was supposed to. i called to people who likes the idea, and thought they would make money, we are a company. take advertiser money, but we also take subscription money. if we do something that the audience does not like, we lose money. that is how you align interests so that you served the audience. clinton winsetary the nomination, would you support her? guest: it depends on what you mean by support. i'm not one of the regular talkshow hosts. rush limbaugh literally said, i'm tired of carrying the water
republican party. then, why do you do it? the heritage foundation, and of money.ve him " so, he carries the water. that is not what we would do. if you would ask, would i vote for donald trump? no.uld say, hell, i will be honest with the audience. the upsides and downsides of hillary clinton. ofan think of a couple abstracts for, chunk, but not downsides. no, i will not vote for donald trump. if people think that means that you go out and campaign for hillary clinton, that will not happen. : brian, you are on with
cenk uygur. bernie sanders has been in government his whole life. socialism leads to communism. wait andves, they will take the time. young turksre the came from -- ast: let's give cenk uygur chance to chime in. guest: let's take the point tout how progressives lead marxism. it is absurd. socialism is what we have today in this country. don't have your head explode. socialism means the government does some things and private industry does some things. , makes issues. the government does other things department, fire
to permit military. you like the military? what a socialist you are! does it need to communism? no. western europe is all socialist. we are essentially socialist. does socialism lead to communism? no. communism does not work at all. human nature does not work the s won it to work. communism is usually leads to dictatorships because it is not a good fit for human nature, so some strongman comes in and takes over the process. it is true we have never really had communism. the so-called communism in china is capitalism on steroids.
understand what is going on. you are not remotely right thinking the progressives want to make this country marxist. why would we want that? we don't want that. we want equality of opportunity. fair elections, the most american think you could ask for. tommy, you are on. good morning. caller: how are you? a and tired of all of this , doressive nonsense, saying they know that the democrats, all they do is tax and tax the working man. that is all they do so they could fund progressive programs. i have to work two jobs. i was never of rich my whole life. don't say i am a corporate
puppet because i'm not. i was never rich. all i see is more and more taxes. host: i want to give cenk uygur a chance to guest: respond. you would be surprised how much i am on your side. romney hiding his money in the cayman islands, which we know for a fact he did. why did they get to hide their money in panama, the cayman islands, and other places? they are putting the tax burden on you. not paying the taxes. gged the rules. they pay almost no taxes. so many try corporations -- i like apple a lot, i have an iphone, but i don't like that they don't pay taxes.
they are the most profitable company in the world. why don't they pay taxes. when they pay 0%, you pay more. they have shifted the tax burden on you. they did not redistribute it to the most powerless people, they mosttributed it to the powerful. colorado.ave kitty in caller: iwatch you regularly, and i like all the personalities. i also watch c-span regularly. how wewanted to discuss are supposed to figure out what is going on. host: we only have a few seconds left, do you have a specific question? caller: here is the thing.
i was watching "west wing" and a character was talking about politics. he said that if you cannot drink their booze, and take their money," against them, you do not belong in politics. .uest: thanks for watching got is the old-school way of thinking -- no, we are not influenced by their money we will vote against them -- no, then you would not get the money. the reality is not every politician is corrupted, but about 99% of the republican party and 80% of the democratic party is corrupted. not because they are bad people, but because of the system. corruption is systemic. you do private financing of
elections, and the private financiers will rule the government. that is what we are trying to host: fix. for:cenk uygur, thank you joining us this morning. up next, we will talk to patrick gavin, the director and producer d whiteerd prom" on house correspondents dinner. he will preview tonight's dinner, its history, and how it became such a media event. if you would like to watch it, be sure to tune into c-span at 6:00. if you have watched before, you know the marine and plays an important role in the event. the band's director talked to us about the long-standing relationship between the band and the dinner. [video clip] theur records indicate that first performance was 1931, about 10 years after the dinner
started. we have a log that says we performed at the dinner. we performed relatively sporadically after that. for the last 30 years or so we have had a regular appearance at the dinner each and every year. music has played a very important role at the correspondents dinner. there to their being -- being a comedian, music was the central entertainment. there has always been a strong military music component as well. in addition to the marine band, several other service bands have performed at the dinner. it has always been a central part of the tradition to have military music as well. it is known as one of
washington's premier events, bringing together government officials, members of the press, and hollywood stars. c-span has coverage of the 2016 white house correspondents dinner today at 6:00 eastern. divide coverage includes red carpet arrivals, akron on the dinner, and award ceremonies. wilmore will headline. this year, president obama will give his final speech as commander in speech. join us today at 6:00 eastern live on seas and -- live on c-span. >> independent media is the oxygen of democracy. it is essential, holding those in power accountable. we are not there to serve some kind of corporate agenda. when we cover war and peace, we are not brought to by the weapons manufacturers.
>> sunday night, amy goodman, host and producer of "moxie now" talks about her book, "democracy now! idea really has not changed. wringing out the voices of people at the grassroots in the united states and around the world. they very much represent the majority of people. people who are concerned deeply about war and peace, growing inequality in this country, about climate change, the fate fringeplanet are not a minority. not even assignment majority. the corporateby media, which is why we have to take it back. >> sunday on "q&a."
>> "washington journal" continues. host: we are now joined by patrick gavin via skype. we are talking -- about the white house correspondents dinner. he is the -- he produced the film, "nerd prom." thank you for joining us this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: tonight is the big party. can you tell us a little about what this event is about and how it started? guest: sure. the association that throws it started 101 years ago, in response to some policies by woodrow wilson that correspondents did not like. the sinners themselves started 89-90 years ago. in deer he, what it is supposed
to be is a night for reporters and the president to let their hair down, for things to be off the record, have a good time, get to know one another. in the 1990's, they started doing a scholarship program in part because the dinner was so flush with cash, they had to do something with all that money. that is when they became a nonprofit and started the scholarship program. this year, i think they give out $90,000 in scholarships. what it has become now is much different. it has really become a big celebrity affair, a business event.nity, a marketing there are about two dozen parties throughout the week that onrt on thursday and wrap of sunday. the dinner is still at dinner, but in d.c., it has taken on a life of its own. host: can you tell us a little
about who attends the dinner, and how much it costs. guest: the white house correspondents association decides who gets what table. a lot of people request tables and bi tables. you have to be a member of the association to buy a table. it is up to the news organizations who they bring. it is not as if when lindsay lohan comes, lindsay lohan but a ticket. it is more so that nbc bought a table and invited lindsay lohan as their guest. each.ckets run about $300 that probably sounds cheap, given what you are getting and charge.er gambler
that is the case so that government leaders can be invited without reaching the cant of gifts that they receive. host: patrick, can you tell the little bit about how this plays into the perception that the media and the white house may be withtle too cozy to begin guest:. as someone mentioned in my movie, it is not that the dinner contributes to the coziness, but it reveals it. people inside the beltway look at what they see as, this is how business gets done in this town, and to a certain extent, that is true. outside the beltway, people look at the dinner and see everybody patting themselves on their backs, having drinks, taking selfies, and it looks very cluby
. i think tom brokaw, in 2011, was one of the first prominent people to sit, look, if you are somebody outside of the beltway, and you look at the red carpet, and cd ice sculptures at the time and the sea, and s, thistion for guest town is supposed to be about much more than that. it is supposed to be about other people, not ourselves. especially when you couple that rsth the idea that reporte have low approval ratings, in washington at large is kind of like the laughingstock in a lot of ways. people outside the beltway might look at it and say, i'm not quite sure why you think you deserve celebration when people
outside the beltway don't look too favorably on our town. that contributes to the idea of it being a very insider event. host: we are talking with patrick gavin, the director and producer of "nerd prom." we will talk about the white house correspondents dinner, and your thoughts on it. you can call in on the democratic line, (202) 748-8000 . republicans can call (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 745-8002 outside the country, (202) 748-8003. you can also watch the event tonight at 6:00 on c-span. ofrick, we see a lot hollywood celebrities at the dinner. why do you think hollywood celebrities are the folks who get the invitations from media organizations? guest: hollywood has been in the dna of this dinner for a long
time, but not to the extent it is now. level now,n on a new starting with the clinton administration. clinton was very popular with hollywood. things died down during the bush and administration. obama has taken it to a new level. there is no admiration between hollywood and washington. hollywood finds it very interesting -- perhaps they can feel they can chime in on weighty issues, participate in the legislative process. hand, you see all the shows coming out of hollywood on washington life. there is that connection there. when you throw in money, in many cases, hollywood is the atm for a lot of political candidates.
it makes sense that the two would be as close as they are. host: tell us a little bit about your film, "nerd prom." tell us what it is about, and the reaction it has received. guest: i have been a reporter for about 10 years. one of my beats was the white house correspondents dinner. becameter or worse, i expert at it and the various things about it. sum, ibeginning of the approach it in a very shallow, superficial way. questionst ask tough -- it was somewhat embarrassing coverage, in a lot of ways. in 2014, i was working at" and the dinner had become our super bowl, and i felt it deserved a closer look.
i quit the job to make the documentary. i started taking, i will do this interesting portrait of the event. the more i talked to people and more i worked on the film, the more i realize there was a much more meaningful story to be told . everything the weekend is supposed to be about, the celebratingprogram, access for journalist, sometimes the notion of it being fun -- none of these things held up. the film is critical of what the dinner and weekend has become. it is not critical of white house correspondent. host: what has been reaction
been? guest: outside the beltway, people enjoy it. they don't know what it has juste, how do it has become a marketing opportunity. inside the beltway, you have a bag. some people saying, everything is true, but that is healthy town works, you are being naive, or unrealistic. who you talk to. association itself, i'm not in good standing with. they take a lot of exceptions to the criticisms i make and some of the perspectives i share in the film. that is ok, the prerogatives. i stand by the film. it depends on who you talk to.
host: one last question before i turn this to the viewers. there was a piece in the washington post yesterday that talked about whether the white house correspondents dinner has gotten too big for its own good among the things it talks about the hollywood people who come, and how it is all within the hands of the white house correspondents association to decide who comes, and down to sit.e people it says, the association sport and present have turned into powerful gatekeepers over of room filled with outsized egos and deep pockets. to think that is fair -- do you think that is fair? guest: i do. one of their biggest claims is that they support transparency and access. there's probably a handful of people who find the dinner worth
reporting on every year. i am one of them, for better or worse. trying to get access to all sorts of things is very difficult. the board minutes are not made public. program couldp raise a lot more money than they do. they do not make much of an effort to bolster the scholarship program in a way that would eat easy. i think their mission statement is great, but they need to live up to it. they need to be more you go tot, more open the website, there's very little information about what they do each year. i think they should open up. theve some big critiques of
organization. they don't agree with a lot of them, but hopefully over time, some big changes can be made. host: thank you for joining us this morning. we are now going to our viewers, giving their thoughts about the big washington nerd prom, as it is known. we have though calling in from mobile, alabama. good morning. guessed expressed some surprise on how approval ratings for politicians are at historic lows. why they would want to have a celebratingnner themselves. they are celebrating the fact that they have been able to keep the game going. they managed to keep those politicians in office, keep
everything covered up. they use raw terms instead of exact terms, when it comes to corruption. we don't know exactly who is eating what. host: when you are saying they, are you talking about the reporters? caller: the reporters are part of the system. they are very good at keeping everything exactly the way it is . my great-grandfather was the head of the alabama delegation was the1880, when grant nominee. at that time, of course, most white people were not allowed to vote, but those that were had the control of the republican party. they were required to appoint so many black people to post office positions, which my great-grandfather was in charge of your they made all these appointments. that was part of the deal.
made now? are being host: we are talking about the white house correspondents dinner, which takes place tonight in washington, d.c., and will be shown here on c-span, starting at 6:00 this evening. wednesday, this past wednesday, "for theattended the press, by the press" event and spoke with a reporter about what she will be looking for on saturday night. let's take a look. [video clip] what i really interested in, and i think it makes the "washington post" coverage of little different than the "us not thatcoverage -- there's anything wrong with their coverage, i want to know wearing, what you are
oo. i want to watch the glittery folks interact with the beltway types. i'm looking at someone who engages with washington and does not just hold up with their castmate from whatever sitcom they are on in the back of the room. , and watchee someone their conversation. criticisms of any this week and in washington? toi think there is something be said. i can understand how certain news organizations think it feels unseemly. i think it gets taken out of context. i think there is a place for those criticisms, but as long as i am here, i will cover it. host: we are taking your calls
about the event, whether it has gotten too big, or whether some of the criticisms are warranted. we have lynn calling in from utah. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. lovemment is that i president obama. i think he has been one of the greatest presidents. whenever he is in the situation to be humorous, i think he's one of the greatest comedians. that is why i tuned into the to see hisnts dinner perfect delivery and humor. i heard seth meyers say that president obama's delivery is on par with some of our best comedians. he has even gotten respect from comedians as being really one of the funniest people. i think it is great that he can do both things so well, be great
president and great comedic challenge. host: all right. point, in today's "new york times" it has a piece from a former obama speechwriter talking about the process of writing jokes for the president to deliver at the white house correspondents dinner, and how sometimes it even affects policy. he pointed to the health care changes for the federal health care law that the president helped implement, and said, even though the changes were working, people were not signing up on the exchange website. he writes, by 2014, the exchanges were finally working, but most young people did not know that. one solution, at least in part, was for president obama to plug online talk show.
listened,ent sat and when the comedian asked what it was like to be the last black president? it was viewed by 11 million people, and traffic to health care. go despite 40%. next, we have, on the independent line, nick calling in from chicago. what you think about the dinner? caller: i think it is obscene. host: why is that? caller: number one, i don't like obama. i did not like bush. i generally don't like establishment politicians. this affair is disgusting and it seemed to me. it shows me how out of touch politicians are. it is narcissistic.
remember bush, they were talking about death and destruction -- not funny. host: do you think there is any room for humor in politics? does it depend on the time? what is your thought on the use of humor at all in politics? caller: it probably does depend on the circumstances. some things are not funny, like death and destruction. host: we have frank calling in from pennsylvania. what are you thoughts about the correspondents dinner? caller: i'm thinking about all the stars there. they are just lobbying for copyright protection for overseas films in china. they want to have china protect their products overseas. lobbyingt a
operation. all of those people are out for something, and he is lending himself to their lobby. thank you. frank calling in from pennsylvania. next, we have nancy on the democratic line. what to think about the white house correspondents dinner? very entertaining. iton't find any problem with . we make jokes at our own president. i am a californian, but yours, and will always be a californian . i grew up in the industry. as far as hollywood, even though we had the correspondents , weer's back at the time
were raising money for the u.s. , we were trying the effort.ey for hollywood, especially the reagan air, he had more actors coming to the white house and the clinton era. host: let me ask about this, one major criticism is that it is too cozy of an affair between the press that covers the president, and the president himself. do you have a concern about the coziness of the relationship? caller: no, because i'm not paranoid. they are having fun, make jokes at each other. they are poking fun at their own stuff, the president even pokes
fun at himself sometime. greatest one was about boehner. i find it humorous. it is ok. it is a special club host:. ok. is nancy colligan. we are talking about the white house correspondents dinner, which takes place tonight in washington. the event, which you can watch on c-span. we are getting your thoughts on whether you think the dinner has changed too much, or strayed from its original event. you can call in, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 745-8002.
caller: i enjoy watching it. i wonder what is the best table in the house, and who sits there and who assigns people to sit there? where is the proverbial kids table? host: these are all decisions that are made by the white house correspondents association. looking again at this article, a point out, unbeknownst to much of the public, virtually every detail of the soiree is determined by the white house correspondents association, board, and officers. they choose the comic who orreillyhether bill wolf blitzer sits closest. they are also the ones who decided to install a red carpet
at the hilton. next, talking about the white house correspondents dinner, we have lloyd, calling in from miami on the republican line. what you think of the correspondents dinner? i watch the program every year. i have to say, i have watched it ever since it has been on c-span. i love watching it. it reflects what is wrong with our country, to watch the pure cuts -- the bureaucrats, the lobbyists, the power of people in washington. they don't get it in washington. they don't understand what is wrong and what is happening in the country. it is funny to watch these people, how self-important they think they are. it is amazing to watch. host: let me ask you this.
you say you watch every year and the people who go to the event are self-important. why do you keep watching? caller: iwatch to observe the individuals, and watched it through the clinton years -- i think with george the first, c-span covered it. i enjoy watching it not for the fashion, but to see the observation on the tables. i remember the one year wendy comedian product to lobbyist, or the advisor for george bush, -- people feel so important. it is amazing for regular folks like me to see this. they don't get what is wrong with this country. host: would you like to see the event continue, or do you think it has run its course? run as i think it should
ever, as long as we continue this. i think the american people need to see this, and they will say, no, i get it. theou go to washington and budget paltrow area, there is no recession there. there is a recession and derail cindy country except for washington and parts of new york. they don't get it. they live in insular lifestyle don't understand what is happening in america. washingtonian" wrote a piece ahead of this year's event pointed to the fact that white house correspondence association, which has raised money for scholarships, is raising -- giving less money for
scholarships based on what they raise. the article goes on to state, as the events profile has risen, contributions to the association 2 2013.ped from 2009 tohas increased by 162% but scholarship payout has only inched by 10% according to the tax filing. put another way, the association spent almost the percent of its 2009,e on scholarships in but only twice 6% of that revenue on scholarships in 2013. we're talking to you about this event, getting here thoughts on it. we have joan calling in from toledo, ohio. what you think about the dinner? caller: i think it is a good
idea. andle have very tough jobs a tremendous amount of stress. this is simply a stress-free moment for those folks so that and dressave dinner, up. the previous caller, he was talking about regular people. i live in a town in ohio that personifies regular people. on any given weekend, especially when the weather is good, you can find people here doing the same thing. youis just our society -- have people who gather and like to dress up. even the fundraisers are almost n exact duplicate of the correspondents dinner. i don't see anything wrong with it. i love the jokes, and especially
president obama, for the past seven years, has been absolutely great. host: that is joan calling in from ohio. in the past, president obama has directed his jokes and a number of people, including donald trump in the past. "the washington examiner" is announcing that donald trump will not be attending. by everyi was asked single group of media known to mankind to attend this year, but i have decided not to go. you know why? i would have a good time, and i was notwould report having a good time. from hot springs, arkansas
on the democratic line. what you think about the correspondents dinner? caller: for the last two days now on social media, i have seen up close, the affinity of on aleppo.rrel bombs the media does not cover that at all. to then fix it on this frivolous extravaganza of the white house correspondents dinner, it just you know,e -- correspondents of america is dead. host: let me ask you this to a do you think the dinner itself should not be held or depends on what the situation is in terms of world events at the time? think when there is something as dire as what is going on, this is a complete sham to have an extravaganza like this.
host: ok. up next on the independent line, we have lance calling in from new hampshire. what you think of the "nerd prom" here in washington? caller: i'm not going to say it is about a deal, but it is a waste of time. in a nutshell, the mainstream media is not a news agency, they ae an advertising agency with status quo, which is disastrous, and cannot continue. host: ok. the fact that this is a fundraiser, and amount to go to scholarships, does that affect your opinion of the event at all? caller: not at all. host: ok. share ande have calling in from maryland.
what you think of the white house correspondents dinner? do you think it is a good idea or has it run its course? caller: i think it is a great idea. a wonderful idea. i am born and raised in washington, d.c., and when i travel to other places, people have a hatred for those from washington, d.c.. like a said, i am born and raised in washington, d.c. a wonderful place to be. i'm not a billionaire or millionaire. i love it. fun.nk it is president obama, just like a lot he not onlyve said, makes fun of people, he makes fun of himself too. it is a place for people who are
working hard to come and lighten up, to have a sense of humor, to not take life so seriously all the time. it is $300. it is not like they're asking $1000.,000 or even it is a good benefit, a good fundraiser. lighten up. have fun. last year laughing is good for the soul. host: ok. that is sharon, giving her support for the event. at real clear politics was a guest earlier this week on "washington journal." it reminds reporters, editors, and producers, at least for one evening, that politicians we cover our actual
human beings. it reminds white house gatekeepers of their own amendment obligations, and gets democrats and republicans talking together in the same room, which is increasingly rare in the nation's capital, but utterly necessary for democracy to function. we go next to the independent line. don calling in from massachusetts. what you think? caller: there are so many things i would like to say that i don't really have time to say. it is really crucial for democracy -- the news people, real journalists. are you still there? host: i am here. who do -- rnalists news organizations like "the new york times" which has bureaus
all over the world. then, there is tv news like fox news has -- i think last i looked for bureaus, and a our the oil belt -- in belt, one of them is in china. that is so important to democracy. there are a lot of critiques they can have, but the other thing is, in order for democracy to happen, these people have to work together. humor for some people is sacred. host: ok. dawn giving her support for the event. cincinnati.a from what you think? veryr: i think it is a
good idea. from school like 45 years ago, but if they understood the pressure of coming up with stories, they could understand it. at lawyers, and they hav go across the street and haa drink together. i find no problem with it and i hope they keep doing it. host: thank you for your call. on the, we had joe republican line. what you think of the white house correspondents dinner? caller: i think the dinner has this is thewell -- first president to participate in the correspondents dinner.
ony give us a long speech powers -- itn of is time to laugh a bit. we have ever since. i think it is a great thing. watchagain, you can tonight's white house correspondents dinner right here on c-span. .ut coverage begins at 6:00 that is where you can catch all of the developments. also, tomorrow, we will have a .reat "washington journal" show will be joining us to discuss campaign 2016 and the future of the republican party. we will also have nick penniman of "issue one." he will discuss his concerns on
the amount of money in the political process. that is all for today's "washington journal." thank you for joining us. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> next, a look at some of the whiteations for tonight's house correspondents dinner with the executive chef of the washington hilton. then, senator ted cruz of texas and announcing his vice-president jewel choice. then, a speech by donald trump. >>