tv Washington Journal CSPAN November 28, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EST
host: the former governor of their york recently wrote that the congressional lame-duck session which begins tomorrow should be the last in history. she wrote, on november 2nd, the voters replaced the democratic majority in the house representatives with at least 61 new republican members who campaigned on lower spending and less government power, allowing members who are not reelected to legislate a national policy
or set the federal budget for 2011 is like allowing a fired employee to run the office for another two months or now in your -- or allowing your ex- spouse to write your checks. democrats -- (202)737-0002. republicans -- (202)737-0001. independents -- (202)628-0205. should the lame-duck session that starts tomorrow -- should that be the last? should there be a lame-duck session in general? if so, what should congress work on? that is the question we're asking. a little bit more from the opposite in "the wall street journal -- from the op-ed in "the wall street journal" --
that was the 18th century. in 1933, americans ratified the 20th amendment to eliminate clean tech sessions. it set january 3 as the day newly-elected members would take their seats. that still left seven weeks after the election that no one imagined the old congress would return to the capital during. for half a century, the 20th amendment worked, except during world war ii and the korean war when the congress did not reconvene -- the congress did not reconvene during those weeks. congress now hurries back to the capital to deal with controversial legislation the had deliberately avoided before the election. for the last two decades -- it is time did fix the problem. rebook the relative tom price -- representative tom price tried last summer, and successfully offering a resolution that congress not reconvene, except
in the event of an unforeseen national emergency. that is not cynical way -- that is betsy mccoy. what do you think? caller: it does not matter. nothing ever gets done. it is the same old song and dance. i would like to make a comment about a topic you had last week. "what would you sacrifice personally to help the deficit/" -- deficit?" since 2006, i have sacrificed my job, my unemployment, been evicted. what more could these top 2% people expect us to sacrifice. i do not see anything changing. a lot of people do not think it could happen in this country, but you are going to see the
national guard fighting our own citizens because of all of this agreed endospore leadership -- this greed and this poor leadership. host: this is from a newspaper in wyoming. during al samhsa and's nearly 50 years in government, he has not been able -- thousands and -- alan simpson's nearly 50 years in government, the wyoming republican has been taking an unprecedented amount of flak for the commission's draft proposals to raise the nation's $13.80 trillion debt. "i have never had nastier mail in my life. just a vicious. relative saying, you son of a
bitch, how could you? from raising the retirement age to 69 by 20752 burning and $1 trillion more in tax revenue -- by 2075 to bring in $1 trillion more in tax revenue, it has won strong opposition from liberals and democrats alike." what do you think? caller: i think the voters have spoken. they wanted change. i voted for obama when i wanted change. i was hoping he would end the wars in afghanistan and iraq. currently, the senate is pushing bill s510 which is going to control what i grow in my backyard and stuff, and i do not think that is the right direction to go in. host: linda, what do you think
about having a lame duck session? your party won. caller: yes, and my party has lost before. the journalist brings up some great points. we do not need a lame-duck session. if they need to take care of certain business manners, but certainly not legislative changes or anything along those lines. i agree with the democrat from virginia. exciting that we can agree on things. host: let's say the democrats have retained both the senate and house. with a lame-duck session then be ok with you? -- would a lame-duck session then be ok with you? caller: i would love to say yes, but, in all fairness, i have to say no. it would have to cut both ways. i do not have a lot of hope that changes would have been brought -- would have been brought about if we had lost and still have a lame-duck session. most demijohn in new york, independent line -- host: john
in new york, independent line. caller: i have to disagree with the democrat and republican that just called. one of the big problems is that these guys do not work enough. the election is in november, but there are still two months to go. use which in january. i do not care. you have a job to do. we're out here hurting and they get august off, they get this off, they get that off, they take all the money they make any way. most of us have to work everyday. we get two weeks of vacation each year. for me, it is just not fair. these guys should be working harder. if anything, during these times, they should be working really hard. i just did not think it is right to take two months off when we are sitting out here waiting for things to get done. host: mich., jennifer, a democrat. what do you think?
caller: i actually agree with the lady republican and the last independent caller. work should be done, bills should be passed, everything should be done as quickly as possible for the good of the country and people. i do not agree with changing -- trying to eliminate democratic votes before the republicans are action is sworn in. it seems like a backward -- back way of trying to eliminate the last results. i think we should have a complete overhaul of the politics -- not politics, but the government -- not the way they vote, but the way they get into office. all this money being spent. if it is government for the people, i think people should be allowed to vote for the most -- the most popular vote should get in.
we have too many ways o-- loophos for people to get in who were not voted in. host: thank you. "forget the carter comparisons. obama is following in the footsteps of harry truman, and that is a very good thing. president obama already has three major accomplishments to his credit. by pushing through his stimulus package, he kept the country from plummeting into an economic depression. he enacted financial regulatory reform, and, most importantly, after 100 years of legislative futility, he oversaw the passage of comprehensive health care reform. while this trio might not currently be seen as momentous, each will be vindicated by history, especially health care reform, which will cover more americans than ever before, and transform how we deliver care, so that keeping people becomes
-- keeping people healthy becomes a priority, not an afterthought." that is from the "huffington post." ron paul -- representative ron paul, r-texas, has called the federal reserve and "atrocious organization" and written a book that argues it should be abolished. thanks to the gop boss commanding victory in the midterm elections, paul may finally have the chance to take on the central bank from the dais of a congressional hearing room. with the power of the pulpit, he hopes to shine a light on the fed's policies, which he has long criticized as opaque and secretive, and make the case that the bank's monetary policies harmed u.s. economy. mike in butler, pa., on the republican line. should there be a lame-duck session? caller: yes, i think there should.
what i truly hope is they will go about the people's business. what i mean by that is there is a tremendous opportunity for harry and nancy to show that they actually understood what happened in the election and to help america move forward. there other option is to push the tremendously partisan agenda and to tie things up even worse. i think it is time that our politicians on both parties understand that they have to take care of the people here the people spoke rather loudly -- the people. the people spoke rather loudly. i hope they listen. my fear is that they will not. it will be more school room combat and recess kind of deal going on. much of anything of value will not be done. i hope i am wrong. host: his party suffered staggering losses. his know-from the west wing is
besieged and if you out liar democrats are even demanding the surrender to fade, as in the fetal position, and embrace a one-term presidency. but when president obama meets with the next house speaker and senate minority leader, he will walk in as the most popular politician in the room, which still accounts for something. that is one reason why, nearly a month after the why part in the midterms, democrats detect a few rays of hope. they see the makings of a potential rebound for obama if he settles on steady message, the economy finally cooperate, and sarah palin's takes the presidential plunge. that is in "politico." what do you think about the lame-duck session? caller: what are they waiting so long? wire to waiting until the middle of the month to take -- why are they waiting until the middle of the month to take their seats?
it just seems useless -- but useless waste of time -- it seems to be a useless waste of time to have the people we voted out in office until january. the caller talked about the antics we see taking place. we have threats being made on various tv programs. harry reid and nancy pelosi. it just seems ridiculous. and would like to think that, for once, if such a thing were to happen, and the school yard tactics did take place, that [unintelligible] host: let's leave it there. the 112 congress convenes on january 3, 2011. butch from iowa.
caller: i am in the middle of the state, about 9 miles from the minnesota border. host: go ahead. caller: i think there ought to be a lame duck session and i think it should get going on it right away. i do not know what the big holdup is. it is therefore reason. maybe they can get something done. republicans decided they would do no, no, no, until obama had to run again. everything is just carried out ridiculously and stupidly before the mellow out and do stuff right and i think this is part of it. host: you are on the air from the republican line. caller: good morning. god bless america. you used the term -- stock. as far as -- you use the term
lame-duck. as far as i am concerned, everything has been liame-duck. the only hope is an american military coup so that we can start over from scratch. god bless america. host: you are on "washington journal," what do you think? caller: i think they need to have it. nobody is paying attention that the bush tax cuts that expire will affect everyone of us. they need to get that over with. nobody knows what tax bracket we will be on. it will affect us all. if they're going to play a game with it, they need to get it done. host: obama nearly tied for leader of choice. the portion of voters that prefer president obama as the federal government keep policy player barely edged out those who want the tea party republicans in charge.
according to a gallup survey released this week, 28% per for obama while 27% for for the newly-elected tea party republicans. republican leaders in congress received 23% report -- support, followed by the democratic leaders who received 16% support. lake placid, new york, democrat. good morning. caller: i think they should absolutely have a lame-duck session. we elected these guys for six years and two years. i think they should work their entire term, regardless of the outcome of an election year the last three months, there is still work to be done. host: trenton, texas, republican, stephen. color been a good morning. i appreciate c-span and the ability to have -- caller: good morning. i appreciate c-span and the ability to have the common man's
voice heard. but put money in the hands of a common family. -- let's put money in the hands of the common family. we will not have the bailout unions or other entities that are trying to get into the american people's pockets. this money is hours to begin with. these men need to know that liberty is from the people and not from the government. host: thank you for calling in. this is from the "philadelphia inquirer." gop divided over leader -- phillip elliott rights that a significant block of national republican members want embattled michael steele to set aside but have failed to agree on a clear alternative. more than four dozen interviews with members of central committees found that feared that a badly-damaged steele could emerge from the wreckage to head the party.
most agree that his time has been rough and costly. members also recognize that a leadership fight could overshadow gains from the midterm elections. with the balloting set to take place in two months, many just want him to go away. you cannot keep spending the kind of money they are spending every monday just to operate the rnc, said one committee member of north carolina, i would hope he would step aside. "the question is who should be hired for the next two years. it is not a matter firing anybody," said another member from indiana. i just do not think he has performed at the level we need for the presidential cycle. in interviews with 51 committee members, 39 said they preferred steele not to be on the ballot when they meet near washington in mid-january to pick their leader. that is a little bit of the story from the associated press.
norm coleman, ceo of the american action network, will be our guest on "newsmakers," this sunday. here he talks about potentially challenging michael steele. >> i have been candid. there have been challenges. i do not think he has gotten enough credit for the things he has done to bring the tea party into the republican coalition. the bottom line is i am not going to run against michael steele. whatever decision that he makes, that is his decision to make. >> if he does not seek reelection, will you go for the chairman's position? >> the chairman have to decide. i would say, with humility, that if the opportunity were there to help my party, i would help the party. part of it is raising a significant amount of money. part of it is interacting with the senatorial committee, the
cartier, the house committee -- the rga, the house committee. that is hypothetical. the chairman have to decide what he is going to do -- has to decide what he is going to do. and not actively campaigning for anything. we will see what the future holds. host: you can see that the entire interview on "newsmakers." it is also available online and as an app on your iphone. showed a lame-duck session -- should the lame-duck session of congress happen or not? the next call is from hawaii. caller: after the recent election, if they have -- are
they going to bring in the line- item veto? host: would you like to see that happen? caller: they could get rid of all of the pork with a line-item veto. host: is president obama still pretty popular in hawaii? caller: i used to watch him play basketball. he should have gone out for the team. i think president obama is still well-liked in hawaii. host: daniel from tennessee, you are on c-span. go ahead. caller >> thank you very much. god bless america. i am disturbed about this whole lame-duck issue. they were elected for 22-year terms in the house and senate -- two-year terms in the house and,
in the senate, six-years. we should be back in washington, at work today. these issues have to be dealt with and dealt with now. it cannot wait. host: the lame duck session begins tomorrow. new congress -- the 112 congress gets sworn in january 3, 2011. here is the lead story in the baltimore sun -- jobless benefits begin to phase out. thousands of merrill lenders face being cut off from -- merrill -- marylanders base being cut off from jobless benefits. an estimated 2 million people loseonwide are slated to benefits, including 14,000 in the maryland. more than 30,000 laid-off maryland residents will exhaust their benefits early next year. the phased-out is happening because of a federally funded program that gave president payments beyond the normal 26
weeks which will lapse on tuesday. -- gave president -- gave residents payments beyond the normal 26 weeks which will lapse on tuesday. congress has let the extended benefits program expire before, only to restart it later. charlotte, bob, republican. good morning. caller: i am of the place that these people were hired on november 2. host: thank you or calling in. here is, from the new york times, the nonfiction bestsellers -- "position points -- "decision points" is number one. "broke" by glenn beck is no. 3.
the autobiography of mark twain is no. 7. this is volume one of two or three volumes. saginaw, mich., valerie, democrat -- what do you think about the lame-duck session happening? caller: i just think the whole question itself is ridiculous. when do we change the rules in the middle of the game? obama is the president. we have any elected congress and elected congress and senate and they have a job to do. if anyone else did not show up for their job, they would be fired on the spot. i do not understand why, all of a sudden -- i am sorry to say this -- we have a black president and everything is changing slowly. i know that people can tell. the expectations are higher. the economy was falling apart.
it was devastating. i lost my job after 23 years. i do have a job now. michigan is slowly picking up. nobody is reporting g.e. bringing all of their jobs back to this date. there is so much good news here and there, but nobody wants to get this president and the resident -- any credit for anything he has done. he stopped the bleeding. we need to stop asking questions like should the lame-duck congress do their job? host: what kind of work did you do for 23 years? caller: i worked at a nursing home. i did all kinds of jobs. i worked my way up and did -- pardon me? host: we are just listening. caller: i worked at a nursing
home. i work in manufacturing now. host: we will leave it there. thank you for calling in. from new hampshire, an independent. caller: i think the person -- people who were elected to end six years ago should be allowed to finish their terms -- two and six years ago should be allowed to finish their terms. i am concerned about people who are not receiving their unemployment benefits. i agree, especially with the caller from tennessee and the lady who just spoke from michigan. the only good thing that would happen if they were not to reconvene would be that these atrocious bush tax cuts would be allowed to expire. other than that, we have our bernieas independencts -- sanders independents, like i am -- we have the opportunity to
finish a commotion things that we want to have accomplished. -- to accomplish the things that we want to have accomplished. host: i think we need to keep republicans at bay for as long as possible. it will not be long before they drive the country back into the ditch with personal ambitions and greed as misinformed public -- as a misinformed public cries for even more change in 2012. you will get what you deserve. i feel that there should be a lame-duck session sense we're paying them to work. if they want to turn the money they are being paid dental january and go on, fine. otherwise, go back to work. good morning. caller: my feeling is this. in order to move in unknown
direction -- in a new direction, the country needs to prepare for the next year and the terms of the newly-elected to put the country in a positive direction. that is my feeling. host: no lame-duck is what you are saying, right? new haven, conn., chris. caller: thank you. c-span is great. i think we need a lame-duck session. it is in the constitution. the tea party seems to like the constitution until it contradicts what they want to have happen. these people do have to do their jobs and they are paid to do their jobs and we elected them for six years and two years. i really believe that the eleventy-first congress, as the
hobbits would call it, was the best congress we have seen in over a century. i do not think we will see that in the eleventy-second. host: is one more chance to force stuff americans don't want down their throats. what do you think? caller: if it gets paid for medicaid and medicare -- you could legalize marijuana and tax it, which would solve a lot of the violence lamont in mexico and across the borders. los >> -- a lot of the violence going on in mexico and across the border. host: do you think that should be the focus of a lame-duck session? caller: no, i do
not. host: "still the best congress money can buy." bloomberg news reported after election day that the u.s. chamber of commerce's anti- democratic war chest included a mind-boggling $86 million contribution from the insurance lobby to fight the health care bill. they have identified other big chamber donors as prudential financial, goldman sachs, and chevron, hardly the small businesses that the chamber's gop allies claim to champion. since the election, the obama white house has sent signals that it will make nice to these interests. while the president returns to co-ops, timothy geithner has met with the chamber's board of camera range. they also wrote of the new
democratic coalition, a group of 69 lawmakers whose close relationship with several hundred washington lobbyists makes them one of the most successful political money machine since tom delay's kasim reed project collapsed in 2007. that is just a little bit -- tom projecttaste trek street collapsed in 2007. that is just a little bit from his column. what dyou think? caller: the would have had a budget resolution, which they never did pass -- they would have had a budget resolution, which they never did pass. they need to get back and finish the work that they should have been doing all summer long. the could have extended tax cuts. no, they had to play politics. they should get back and finish
what they were supposed to do all summer long. host: in the new york times, palin signs books but sidesteps politics. "against the backdrop of unceasing speculation about her future, coming after recent interviews in which she acknowledge she was thing about running and thought she could win, her return to the state of iowa, expected to play a central role in determining the next republican nominee for president, took on, intentionally, or not, a distinctly political flavor. the line of autographed sneakers -- seekers around the bookstore buzzed with the same two questions, would sheet and should she? those expecting clarity would leave disappointed. "thank you for your encouragement," was all that she told them. she was insulated from both the crowd and the media. she arrived and departed from a
separate entrance and spend your time behind a black curtain at the back of the store, though two of her daughter's wandered freely, signing autographs. people were required to leave their cell phones and cameras before approaching sarah palin. reporters were prohibited from asking questions, the photographers were allowed to take pictures. andrew in st. paul, minn., please go ahead. caller: the lame duck session, like everybody has been saying -- we elected them. they need to go all out there. they need to make some change. that is why we voted for them. what happened to everything that was going down in 2008, you know? host: kenny on the independent line. caller: god bless america. we sure need all the blessing we
can get. they should conduct themselves as servants of the people. i think they should get together and get this country back on track, drop their ego. our national symbol is an ego, not a lame duck --n eagle, not a lame duck. host: the u.s. and south korea began naval exercises that are meant as a warning against north korea's recent provocations, including last week's deadly attack. north korean artillery was hurt sunday on the ireland, though no shells landed -- on the island, though no shells landed. the north koreans also shot off artillery after the visit of
an american general last week. it has stirred intense speculation in the south korean news media about whether the north would respond violently. china has warned against any military act in its exclusive economic zone without its permission. virtually all of the waters to the west of the korean peninsula fall within the 200 nautical mile limit. it was not immediately clear if american and south korean ship had sailed into that area. that is the new york times. the morning. caller: -- good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a 100% disabled marine. one of the this i would like to say about the lame duck -- i would love to see people get unemployment benefits extended.
i also celebrate nancy pelosi no longer being speaker. with that, have a great day. host: next call is from macon, georgia on the democrat line. caller: i want to say god bless america and those who served our country. i am a veteran. i do believe that a lame-duck session should go forward because we paid these people do these jobs. i hope that the american people do not have any. there are a lot of things that happened that we need to understand. we go from election to election, worrying about the next election. we need to worry about what the people want. we say that people spoke loudly and clearly in the election. i'm a democrat. i do tend to speak loudly and clearly. we need our politicians to stop the rhetoric and take care of america. thank you very much. have a blessed day.
all of our soldiers, and look for you to come home soon. host: if they did not do their drop in the regular session, too late, but by -- their job in the regular session, too late, could buy -- goodbye. don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. caller: good morning. i am not familiar with the lame duck. what i don't understand is the people who are handicapped -- what is going to happen to them, the medicaid or medice for them? are they going to be left on the
street or something? host: thank you for calling in. "turning his own course against prevailing winds." she writes about senator lugar. "are reliable center for decades, he nonetheless fought ronald reagan, went head-to-head with senator helms in the 1990's. now, in the heat of the post- primary blame their careers -- lame-duck congress, he is defying his party. he even declined to sign a brief supporting state lawsuits against president obama's health
care law because he saw it as political posturing. now, his willingness to buck his party is leading to talk that he will face a primary challenge from a tea party candidate when he runs for reelection in 2012. that heossibility understands clearly, even as he declines to modify his positions. "i am always optimistic friday he said in an interview in his office on wednesday," that goodwill is going to lead to constructive results, even as i described the intense polarization that i think is currently there." even after the midterm route that will remove many long serving members from congress, the idea that senator lugar would be vulnerable to a primary challenge is a chilling notion to many republicans, a symbol of symbolism gone too far.
"if dick lugar," said john danforth, a former senator from missouri, "having served five terms in the senate, being the most respected person in the senate and a leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the republican party, we have gone so far overboard but we are beyond redemption." joe, republican, what do you think about the lame-duck session? caller: to be honest with you, it really disturbs me that congress is not going to get together and resolve the issues that need to be resolved. i was a bricklayer around atomic and great falls -- the potomac and great falls area for years and years. we would break up one house after another after another -- brick up one house after another after another. the people who spend money will
let it roll if you just get out of their way and let them do what they do best. i hope they get back to work and get the bush tax cuts extended at least a couple of years until this recession is over. host: lisa, a democrat. you are on c-span. caller: my understanding of the lame-duck session -- it is very polarized. i am an unemployed citizen. i'd appreciate you listening to our regular citizens. i do not think the government is listening. you have one out of nine unemployed people with bachelor's degrees. do they want unemploymt?
no. do they need extended benefits? absolutely. it is a misconception of people who need the help. disability -- of course, health care -- of course. we should not have people suffering in america when we're fighting a drug war in afghanistan. i mean, really. as 9% of their income -- that is 9% of their income. i do not understand why the government cannot get together and do something about this. host: thank you for calling in from hunt's ago, alabama. -- funds bill -- huntsville, alabama. caller: it is very dangerous to
have a lame-duck session in congress. they are not working for the people. they are working for corporations. they have to pretend. they will not vote. right now, there is a bill in congress called s510. it is a very dangerous bill. it will not allow you to grow food. if they pass this bill, it will make it against the law to have gardens. you can only buy food from the corporations. will not be able to do any kind of personal things. if they pass this law, it is a very fascist type of law, and they will have to hide the fact that because -- they will not have to hide the fact since they do not have to worry about being reelected.
host: those who are fired by their constituents could not -- should not be allowed to vote. if my boss fired me, my past he would be revoked -- passdkey would be -- pass key would be revoked. "justice john paul stevens voted to reinstate capital punishment after a four-year moratorium. with the right procedures, it is possible to ensure evenhanded, rational, consistent imposition of death sentences under law. in 2008, before announcing his retirement, he reversed course and said that he now believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional. the reason for the change of heart, after more than three decades on the court and some 1100 executions, has remained a mystery in many ways. now, justice stevens has provided an explanation. in a detailed, candid, critical essay to be published this week
in "the new york review of books," he wrote the personnel changes on the court, coupled with regrettable judicial activism had created a system of capital punishment that is shot through with racism, skewed toward conviction, infected with politics, and tinge with hysteria. the essay is remarkable in itself. at 90, justice stevens is intent on speaking his mind and issues that may have been off limits what he was on the court. in the process, he is forging a new model of what to expect from supreme court justices after they leave the bench, including high-profile interviews and provocative speeches. he will be on "60 minute" on sunday night. back to your calls on the lame- duck session. our next caller is a republican from tennessee. caller: i am a disabled veteran.
they will not even allow me to work anymore, i am so messed up with heart problems and back problems. if i did not work -- i did not get a day off. if you're out on the road, every week you're out, you get one day off. i would stay out 3 or four months at the time, then come home and take my six days off. that was all that you had. i was also a trainer. if they cannot do their job, they need to get out. host: good morning. caller: absolutely, they should continue this lame-duck session. i think what is happening, to a large extent, most of the country is being published -- punished by the republican
party and the continuous opposition and no boats, the stalling and dragging of feet -- no votes, the stalling and dragging of feet. just to gain access to the minority, female or ethnic minority to the republican party, you have to be such an extremist. you have to be way extreme and abounds in order to be in the republican party. they have no candidates who are not white males. everything they do is a casino -- is a no -- is saying no. they do not want the country to elect a minority. host: good morning. caller: they should do their job. i'm getting tired of both
parties not doing what they were elected to do. here we are, coming to the still make for they want to set down the country -- stalemate where they want to set down the country. who will be affected? it is all of us do we do not have the chance to right along as. they let their bodies from the corporate america right belongs -- their bouddies from corporate america right along -- write the law. host: the obama administration's publicly warned the online was aboard group wikileaks that it was violating u.s. -- the online whistle- blower group wikileaks said it was violating u.s. law by holding and releasing documents,
including diplomatic cables which could endanger countless innocent individuals from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security. here are the sunday talk shows that c-span radio carries on sunday afternoons. you can listen on c-span radio on satellite or in the washington area. fox news focuses on korea with senators lindsey graham and claire mccaskill, both members of the senate armed services committee. ndc's "meet the press cos" dick durbin and jon kyl. union" closeof the
john mccain and byron dorgan and representative dave obey. george w. bush and his brother jeb bush will also be interviewed as part of the rollout of the book "decision points. ." -- of the book "decision points." fareed zakaria gps interviews admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. on "this week," bill and melinda gates, ted turner, stock -- tom stare, and warren buffett. on cbs "face the nation," ron
stern now, arianna huffington and edmund morris, and bob woodward. c-span posnerakers has norm coleman -- c-span's "newsmakers" has normm coleman. what do you think about the lame-duck session happening? caller >> it is nothing new. democrats have been in charge -- caller: it is nothing new. democrats have been in charge and they have done nothing. they have closed the doors to the republicans. they have not been a partisan at all. every campaign promise that they have made, they have not kept. for the bigger -- for the democrats to jump off the cliff is just unbelievable. they need to get to work. these are serious issues. we need unemployment benefits. they should use some of the
money from the stimulus for the unemployment benefits, but they will not do that. it is just ridiculous. caller: barber from missouri. what do you think about the lame-duck session? are you with us? caller: ion with the. thank you foresees men. i enjoyed it immensely -- i am with you. thank you or c-span. and joining -- i enjoyed it immensely. there is a dog that fell through the ice, desperately trying to get out and get to shore. at great expense to the city, they send in a helicopter and a man is lowered to help the dog. he has done everything to get a hold of the dog. when he reaches the dog, the dog bites him and goes the other direction. that has what -- that is what has happened.
we cannot go another direction. the people have spoken, listening to the wrong voices. that is pretty much all i have to say. i would take any response. host: did the dog gets saved? caller: the dog finally got to shore. i think that will happen in 2012. we will find in see what we need to do. host: where is your city? caller: we are about 40 miles from the university of missouri. host: what do you do there? we will never find out. final call on this segment comes from sean in oklahoma. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. midmorning brothers and sisters of the world -- good morning, brothers and sisters of the world. first of all, i would like to thank you for showing the world how well-dressed men wear ties.
getting you guys are tremendous passion -- i think you guys are tremendous fashion statement. we elected these people to go to washington and solve the problems of the nation. i am just a little tired and worn out with all the rhetoric. we're going to go and fight for you. i did not elect people to go fight or by -- or be eaten -- or beat each other over the head. the election is over. chief represent all of us. we should all get behind him if we want to get something of a positive nature done. thank you, again, for listening to my comments. host: you talk about tribal elections. are you on a reservation? caller: yes. if you check your maps, it is the last reservation in oklahoma, but that is being disputed in the courts.
i will leave that to the politicians. host: thank you for calling in this morning. with nancy pelosi in the mix, does anyone believe that dirty tricks are not in the playbook for this lame-duck congress? thank you to everybody who called in during this segment. coming up in just a few minutes, from the "daily kos," laura clawson will take your calls. we will be right back.
"washington journal" continues. host: what is on your mind? guest: i am nothing about unemployment. there are so many americans were struggling to make ends meet. one of the biggest issues facing us is both unemployment benefits being renewed so that people have that fragile lifeline and meaningful job creation legislation. host: what do you mean by "meaningful job creation legislation" and the mean in the lame duck or in the new congress? guest: i mean both. it is an ongoing task, given the magnitude of the problem. it will take a lot of different measures. we will have to wait and see. a stimulus obviously held off even more bleak and implement. it did not do enough -- even
more bleak unemployment. it did not do enough. host: laura clawson is currently a senior writer at working america, which is affiliated with the afl-cio. she has a ph.d. and his co- founder of new hampshire's's premier progressive -- and she is co-founder of new hampshire is premier progressive blog. what is your ph.d. in? guest: my dissertation was on a fairly obscure musical tradition. delicate the communities who engage -- i looked at the communities who engage in the sacred harp singing. host: we had to guess schedules. -- two guests scheduled.
david freddoso will not be with us. democrats -- (202)737-0002. republicans -- (202)737-0001. independents -- (202)628-0205. outside u.s. -- (202)628-0184. speaking of non-american politics, or politics that affect america, we have not spent a lot of time on this program talking about the situation in north korea. should we? guest: north korea is not my area of expertise. .
guest: to not necessarily they're better angels. i could, you know, on the one hand, i think is that she would probably run a disorganized campaign. not strong in a general election. from my partisan standpoint, that might be a good thing. i'm not sure that's where we want our politics to be. host: how is president obama doing?
guest: i wish he would stand up more firmly for values that i think we all share. i think he over emphasises bipartisanship. i think that's been to his detriment and worry it willto be. that said, he's gotten a lot done in two years. hopefully he will continue to do so. host: laura clawson, the bush tax cuts, how would you like to see that played out? guest: i would like to see the tax cuts continued. we can't continue those cuts to the wealthiest citizens host: her blog, michael,
republican line. you're first up. caller: yes, good morning. i have a comment in reference to the unemployment. i know it would sound heartless and cold. if we cut the benefits off for people, they find a way to do things to eat. you can't continually give somebody something and them not go out and try. i think a lot of what happened in our country to make it really strong and powerful was the entrepreneurial spirit of people and just getting out there and finding a way to provide themselves for them and their family. so, i think really it would be better to just kind of wing that stuff off and let people find a way to make it in this country, and bring, you know, create jobs for people. that's what i feel.
host: what's your response? guest: i think for job seekers, they are sending out hundreds of job applications for jobs at half the way they used to make. there's just nothing out there, when the economy is in the shambles it's in. we cannot afford to cut off unemployment. if they aren't getting unemployment, they aren't spending money in their local grocery stores and has a ripple effect. host: planville, illinois, you're on with laura clawson. caller: hello. okay. my biggest problem with congress is we have a brain-dead congress. they haven't come up with a bright idea in all these years. either republicans or democrats.
i should put my money where my mouth is. increase the spendable income. i can't talk to anyone. i tried newspapers, erything else and they all sluff you off. host: laura clawson, any response to the caller? guest: i guess we would have to understand what he's talking about. host: reno, nevada you're on. caller: our congress knew this unemployment issue would un out and be sitting on the table. i'm wondering if you're still going to be able to vote for it, to continue this during the lame duck session.
i also wanted to make a comment too. my mother was in politics deeply in kansas. i know it takes time for changing of the guard. they have to go through the change the office and the people in office, hiring new people and things like this. i would like to make a comment, the gentlemen from texas that says our congress should issue checking to all these companies and stuff, and i think that would help the economy and stimulate the economy. economy, sorry, i'm a little nervous. this is my first visit and i do into your show. i like to say that. the caller that called before about people cutting off unemployment, i agree with your guests, if they did that, it
would cause a ripple effect and cause deeper issues and deeper problems for the people. but i would just like to know what they're going to do about th unemployment that has run out for people. host: all right, sarah, laura clawson. guest: because republicans were reluctant to do it, that's why it's coming up again because each time they renew it it's for a few more months. if they would be able to get the votes for a full year, we wouldn't have this issue coming up. host: do you expect the unemployment issue to be addressed during the lame duck? guest: i expect them to. host: next call, wanesboro.
caller: yes, i'm a small business owner here and i have been trying to find employees to grow our business. in this economy, we are managing to grow our business. the biggest challenge is potential employees are telling me, well i have a couple more months of unemployment can i wait until then? even went so far as doing a local radio interview and gave my number out. this local radio station has 50,000 to 70,000 listeners. i got three calls total and 99 were qualified for the job.
host: what kind of business do you have? caller: we install glass. host: you find your business is growing? caller: yes, next year is booked. host: laura lawson. guest: i hope he finds the employees he's looking for. mcdonalds says they have openings and several hundred people show up. clearly, there are people up there. host: latrobe, pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: how can you feel that people who have been so misinformed about the tax cuts want to continue this tax cuts for rich? the movers and shakers so to speak have these tax cuts for quite a while because they have
not engendered any entrepreneurial spirit nor have they helped businesses. also my comment is mostly about getting out the message that the democrats have done so far as far as social security is concerned. right before that last election, they were many, many misses sent out to senior citizens who do not go on the internet. even though i'm one, i go on the internet. they were cajoled and frightened to think they want take care of social security by cutting it. which is absolutely not true. how can we get the message out, as far as the democrats are concerned, we're doing what we're supposed to be doing? guest: social security is such a tough one. there's so much money going into
trying to cut benefits. so, you know, i mean what democrats can do is stand firm and say, we will not only not cut benefits to current people, we're not going to raise the retirement age. we realize that would be disasterous to people that work with their hands. on the one hand, democrats for the most part are trying to strengthen. host: laura clawson, have you followed what the debt commission has proposed and what's your take? guest: looks like a plan from alan stinson. is proposes raising the retirementage for social security. it's one of the things that's
easy to talk about when you work behind a desk, which i do. when you're working with your hands and your back and hands hurt and you can't physically work, it's a different story. host: next call, richmond. caller: good morning. i like your name, that's the name of my oldest daughter. you're a progressive. what's the difference between a princeton progressive and a socialist? i went to the university of pennsylvania after world war ii, we didn't have progressives or socialists mostly war war two veterans. i'm a korea veteran. go ahead and speak, please. guest: it depends on the person.
i'm not sure i have a really pat answer to that question. it's -- host: well, describe yourself, what is a progressive and why you're a progressive? guest: okay. i believe government would work for working people and not business. i believe hedge fund managers should pay a higher tax rate than their secretaries. i believe that we shouldn't be leaving people hungry if they're willing to work. you know, i believe that people should not be going bankrupt because their kids get sick and this healthcare system leads people to medical bankrupts. host: where did you grow up? guest: i grew up in massachusetts.
host: when did you form your political views? were your parents on that spectrum? guest: absolutely host: edward, republican line. go ahead, you're on the air. caller: yes the first caller about unemployment they would go out and hunt for jobs, i don't go along with that because i don't believe he was ever unemployed himself. in this area where i live, it is the employee -- or the jobs put it that way is being taken over by illegals. and if a person wants a job, they have to speak spanish. they will take and manage a job.
i don't believe these people into this country and take jobs away from our citizens of this united states that want a job. host: all right. illegal to path to citizenship. guest: i believe when we talk about jobs, the employers looking for cheap labor and looking for illegal immigrants who don't ask for their rights as a way to keep wages down. host: jim e-mails in. your guest doesn't understand our country is broke. the unions are at fault for all ils of this country and the president has add to the problem
with his anti-capitalism stance. guest: that's not quite true, it's not adjusted for inflation. nonetheless, the corporate stock market has rebounded over the past couple years. host: next call for laura classon. check, democrat, hi. caller: good morning, good morning laura. guest: good morning. caller: people really don't know where to go and how to start a small business. it's like yesterday, today small businesses for your christmas shops after black friday. a lot of people don't know, do you keep working for the rich? the rich gain 25% of the stock
or markets. people ask for the stock market. people still not working with all the tax breaks that obama has set aside. my question is, how can people go to the website they need and get the help they need to start a small business? guest: you know, i'm going to guess the small business administration is a good place to start. i don't know what the website is. it's a government agency dedicated to helping small businesses. host: glen in north carolina. caller: yes, two wards, oligarchy and racism. the other one is what is too much rich?
thank you so much. guest: as far as racism, for some people who are opposing president obama a definite edge of racism. but of a little bit of extra discomfort they wouldn't feel if he were not our first black president. i think that's definitely a component. it's also something people feel defensive about and further inflames what's going on. as far as how much is too much for the rich? i would say that wall street is pretty clearly answering that with nothing is too much with with them. host: laura clawson, when you hear the word "capitalist", what do you think? guest: i have a sociology degree. capitalism is a system based on
a mart economy and the accumulation of money. host: is it a good system? guest: it has to be kept in check. the free market is actually something we don't see. there is no such thing as an absolutely free market in this county. but you know, slavery is a free market. economy in a sense. we had to say, slavery not so much. not okay with us. we're working with is a system of kind of moderated and restrained capitalism. what kind of restraints are we going to put on it? host: do you have a favorite european capitalist style you like? guest: there are countries that are doing things differently. all of them have stronger safety nets than we have. many have good economies.
you can sort of take your pick. there are a lot of good things being done. during the healthcare debate, we saw studies of how the different healthcare systems came into place. basically, every country implemented what they needed for the framework they have. with anything. that's the way to do. what do we have? what's the best way to deal with them. host: call from imanie in houston. caller: good morning. i get a chance to talk to a bonified liberal. she could give the marxist definition of capitalism. i have two comments and two short questions. the first comment, when you look at polls looking at the bush era bush rates.
there's nothing in our constitution that says taxes have to be at a certain level. we are tired for the class ware fare being espoused by the liberals, the democratic party. treat everyone equally. many of us are proponents of getting rid of income tax. my first question, let preface it. we have unemployment just under 10%. i was wondering if ms. clawson would agree with me? if economic activity is going to bring people back to work, give more business to business. wouldn't it be better to simply cut even more the bush tax rates so that there is more people, 90% that are employed that have money especially this time of
year to drive more economic activity, more demand and thus 5% is all we need for full employment. let them spend that money to drive down the 10% unemployment below 5%. i want to see if she agrees. third question, big proponent of obama care, how would she pay in this moment in history, going forward, the $106 trillion in unfunded liabilities that we owe right now from social security, from medicare, medicaid, who knows how high it's going to go with obama care. because socialism doesn't work. host: okay. we got your three questions. tell us what you do in houston?
caller: i am a political and an african-american man. host: cut more taxes and class warfare. guest: when you look at the record of what has happened with stagnating, even declining middle class over the past couple decades, i think the record is pretty clear. wealthy people are making much more and have a much bigger share of the economy than they have had for most of american history. i think we are right where we were before the great depression. actually, our income inequality is worse than south america at this point. i definitely see class warfare. but see it going in different
directions. tax cuts, you know, as i said before, right now, corporate profits are doing very well. they're just not hiring people. so if that's not working, if giving business the opportunity to make profits and to be saving money, storing it up, is not leading them to hire more people, then we need to try something else. the third one, i'm forgetting. host: he talked about the unfunded liabilities and quoted $106 trillion figure and talked about paying for entitlements. how would you do it? guest: social security is paid for. doesn't contribute to the deficit. in good shape going forward. i can't think of another program we know what it looks like for several decades and i agree, it
needs a fix. it's a pretty easy one. medicaid and medicare in part, the financial problems they face are problems with you know, our healthcare system is so expensive. so those are problems in needing to bring medical costs over all under control. host: last call, comes from manchester, england. caller: i watch your program every sunday. i really find it interesting, but today, i'm so happy to somebody like laura clawson speaking because coming rapidly to the conclusion that the whole of american politics was governored by bright young men on the program earlier. who sit there smiling and talk about reducing entitlements and medicaid and all these thing which affect so many millions of
poor people in america so they can protect the tax cuts for the very wealthy. these young men make me so angry. drawing their diagrams this way or that way. when will somebody think about what is good for the ordinary people in america? the people who do the work, create the wealth and are then treated in this way? host: dorothy, how is david cameron doing? caller: i'm afraid he's heading the same way here. host: what is the employment in manchester? caller: it's not as bad as it will be next year because next year we will start to see more cuts in public sector employment. so the moment, not as bad as
host: on your screen now, assistant secretary for start. rose gottemoeller, she's here for passing the new start treaty. rose gottemoeller, what does this new start treaty do? guest: it's in the united states security. it's our best way to predict what's going on with russian nuclear weapon. we have no arms control in place right now. it has no verification measures. it it gave us inspectors on the ground. that predictability and helped us understand what's going on with them and by the way, they
with us. host: what does this add? guest: it will bring about some reductions from 1700 to 2200 warheads down to 1550 under the new treaty. give us 18 on-sight inspections and have a great exchange of data and have a look inside russian nuclear forces. host: now john bolton wrote in the "new york times" and what they said was that senators should be in no hurry to sign this. the low limits ignore the enormous disparities of between american and russian global responsibilities and the importance of america's nuclear
umbrella. guest: the entirely leadership has been supportive of this treaty and underscored the necessity of getting it in force sooner rather than later. the argument is the defense of united states doesn't only depend on our nuclear but our defense capabilities. we are a country with worldwide reach. nobody need forget that. host: is russia an ally? guest: it's a partner. we have had a great national security partner with the russian federation. it's gotten much better since the reset button was hit after president obama came into office. we have a great partnership with them on transporting our
military material through russia to afghanistan. super partnership there. none proliferation. we have worked with us closely and particularly, i think after the new start treaty was concluded last april, we can see the affect and they agreed to strong stronger sanctions against iran. host: charles friday in the washington post columnist. president obama's idea that the great powers must reduce weapons to set a moral message to the rest of world is childish. does anyone seriously believe the thugs will in any way be deflected by their pursuit of nukes by a reduction in the u.s.
arsenal. guest: people like former secretary of defense, have made strong statements in support of this treaty. if we fail to ratify this, we are going to forfeit any leadership. i don't think these people are childish. host: what is the last time you had a conversation with john kyl? guest: we work with him from the very first time i went off and started the negotiations through the period when we concluded them, i briefed senator kyl and he was very interested in the negotiations. even came out to geneva with senator feinstein. i was appreciative he was
interested. host: a lot of print about his role and whether or not he will be supportive. guest: he has been concerned about an issue that's not directly linked to the treaty. the infrastructure over the last decade has suffered from lower budgets and so, president obama and president kyl have been working at this time on that goal. host: we would like to hear from those of you from outside the united states as well. our guest, rose gottemoeller. finally, senator richard lugear, the ranking member on the senate
side. host: is he supportive of this and has he been able to sway fellow republicans? guest: he has been really important and spoken out in recent days and weeks. they worked intensivelily through the summer. by the way, we had 18 hearings in support of this treaty and answered over 900 questions. it's been almost a thousand questions we have answered ford about the treaty. the upshot was in september, senator lugar and kerry, working together. 14 senators in favor including republicans. host: to ratify this, how many
votes? guest: 67. host: how many do you have now? the treaty should come to the floor. the second she said, she thinks we have the votes. host: host: rose gottemoeller our guest. caller: hi. thanks for taking me call. while the united states is running around and telling everybody how many nuclear weapons they canhave. how do we address the fact that the united states has nuclear weapons than any other on the planet? thank for taking my call. guest: that's a very good point. the united states and the russian federation have the
most. that's why there has been so much work. from 12,000 deployed nuclear warheads when the start treats of put in force down to 6000 and now thanks to president bush's treaty. and we hope to get to 1550. it's a very, very important question why do we have so many nuclear weapons and president obama, as you know, has spoken about that in prague in 2009 saying we need to get to a path of a world without nuclear weapons. i think it's a good question. it's one we're trying to work. host: what's the down side if this doesn't pass and tie it, should it be debated now with the lame duck or with the next congress? guest: first and foremost, it's the national security we pay.
if we don't have inspectors on the ground, we're thrown back to the cold era and think of ways to modernize. we don't want to spend money on nuclear weapons. i think also we do risk endangering our relationships. president obama laid this out as the first step in a continuing step of negotiations. if we want to go after tactical weapons, we're not going to get that unless this is ratified. those are important costs. host: on our democratic line. bob. caller: thank you for c-span.
i wish that we're probably going to abide by all agreements we have made and probably the soviets are too. trust but verify what we're leaving is the trust where he's preventing us from verifying this trust. you know, and i think that he has every right to vote against this treaty. but he's blocking any possibility of voting for this is getting close to capital treason. i'm very serious about this. he's endangering the security of this nation. host: rose gottemoeller. guest: bob, that's a really strong view, as i said earlier, we have a close and fruitful working relationship with senator kyl throughout this treat and he the negotiations as we have moved through the
ratification process. we take very seriously the senate's responsibility to give us consent of ratification of treaties. so, we feel like we have been doing our due diligence. getting them all the information they need. we will continue to do that. senator harry reid said it best. he's the leader in the senate and said he will be making the possibility for the treaty to get to the floor. i think that's the important, really important next step. host: among different jobs and titles. gottemoeller served for russian
and ukraine issues. guest: i started out with the rand corporation. i was a split next baby. i was taken out in the the yard when the sputnik went up. the soviets put up a satellite. i got interested in what the soviets were doing in science and technology. i had an early beginning with the sputnik. host: and you remember seeing it? it was something that frightened your father? guest: my dad was an interesting guy. came from a family of roosevelt democrats. his father was in politics. he was fascinated by international relations and wasn't frightened by the space race or the kind of cold war threat.
but he was fascinated by what was going on in our relationship with the soviets at the time and wanted to understand that and imparted that to the whole family. host: next call. center port, new york. caller: hi. can you hear me? host: yes we're listening. caller: these arm control have been approved by democrats and republicans alike. it's very disappointing to see this and it's all political. there's a $9 billion budget for refurbishing our nuclear arms. it appears that the republicans want to move that to 18 billion. and i don't understand why we're increasing the amount of money for nuclear arms when bob mac
namera said we probably need six not a thousand. guest: i would just like to stress once again that we are looking at shrinking the overall footprint of the nuclear infrastructure. president obama feels it's important that we improve the budget profile for the nuclear weapons infrastructure because it has suffered some fall off in recent years over the last dede. it's important to bear in mind, a lot of facilities were world war ii vintage and need to be replaced. the whole notion is we are actually shrinking the overall footprint and the overall infrastructure for supporting the nuclear weapons arsenal in a responsible way. we want to head toward a world
free of nuclear weapons. but we must have a safe, secure arsenal. that's what these figures are all about. i do think it's important to realize there was a falloff and we're trying to do mitigation of that problem overall. if i may, i wanted to comment on this bipartisanship. i serve president clinton and now president obama. it's interesting in each case, when i came into my job, i picked up on what the previous administration had been doing. president george bush, jim baker. we took those two documents and that helped after the soviet union fell apart. that was an important bipartisan
relationship there. we feel the same way now. we're taking the legacy. president george w. bush and taking it forward. host: we have heard a lot about the suitcase nukes, are they still a threat? guest: the nuclear material security. we find the new start treaty on april 8th in prague. the president was gathering a whole group of leaders here for a nuclear summit and we have to work to enhance the protection of the materials whether part of a program or peaceful program. president obama got the commitment of a whole group of international leaders,
presidents and prime ministers to enhance and improve the protection of the material in the next four years. that's a very, very intense effort of the administration. follows on great work done in the clinton administration. host: next call for rose gottemoeller, assistant secretary of state. robert, independent line. caller: hello, i just have two questions. why is it now just coming to the senate if the start treaty ended last year? and also, why do we keep hearing that it's a national security concern that it be passed, but we're not giving more information just that it's a
national security concern? host: thank you, robert. guest: great questions, robert. first i want to stress, the treaty is not just appearing now. when we got back from geneva last april, we put together a whole package. 200 plus pages that goes to the senate and describes everything about it. it went to the senate in the middle of may. we started a series the hearings. 18 over the course of the summer and used the summer all to answer the questions the senators threw our way. so the senate has had the whole summer to be looking at the treaty, and weave been working closely with them throughout that period. in september, we had the vote to
recommend the full and whether they will give the full advice. it's been six month period of intense work. on the national security. that's a good question. it's not the cold war. we don't fear a soviet strike. the russians are good partners to us on national security and other fronts as well. so what are we dealing with here? the ash and trash of the cold war. we still have to deal with the build up of the nuclear weapons that took place during the cold war. otherwise, they are just there. we may end up with loose nukes problems or problems of accidental launch of missiles. as weapons are sitting around and systems are deployed and not getting attention, over time, they may suffer problems in
terms of their maintenance, security and in terms of the way they are handled overall. so it's very, very important i think to continue to pay attention to reductions and eliminations in a responsible way with verification and compliance going along with those reductions. host: are we looking at doing treaties with china on this issue? guest: that too is a very good question. i will talk about two things. first the reamble to the start treaty. they are just a statement of policy and what our desires are for the future. we agreed with the russians that this treaty is part of a step by step approach toward further reductions in strategic nuclear
arms extending to a multilateral approach. there are five nuclear weapons states. they include uk. france, china, russia and the united states. multilateral approach, looking to the future and also of course, we have it to address the whole issue of nuclear weapons around the world. countries like india, pakistan, and of course the countries we're very concerned about on the nonproliferation. north korea and iran. host: are we still manufacturing nuclear warheads in the united states? guest: the president doesn't support the notion of having a nuclear weapons. what is going on now, we have a
very, very intense stockpile stewardship program. it does maintenance, does very significant work to ensure we're replacing components and making sure the weapons will be safe, affective and reliable. at the present time, no as far as production. host: can you tell us where these parts are made? guest: all over. we have nuclear weapons establishment. los alimos and production facilities around the world, around the country for example, the so called y-12 plant in tennessee, which is where we historically have produced the material for nuclear weapons that is one of facilities i mentioned earlier that is in the
queue for modernization because it's an old military and needs modernization. host: next call from beaver damn. caller: hi. i'm a nuclear veteran. i lived on a nuclear submarine for four years. i think one major thing you need to work out with russia, we need them as a partner to get china on this start treaty. we both need to verify china nuclear weapons. i would like to hear what you say about that. guest: could i just ask you a question first? host: he's going. i was going to ask which submarine he was on. i was out myself on the clinton administration.
i had the honor to go on the maryland. it was fascinating. let me just talk a moment more about what this treaty does. we have again, 90% of the deployed nuclear weapons in the world between the united states and russia. this treaty will help russia and the united states continue to get our numbers deployed down to 1550 wheads and 1700 deliver vehicles on each side. that's a big, big step going forward. when we look at the other countries, their numbers are as much smaller. france will be hosting in the next year, an important conference to begin to look at transparency and cooperative measures together with china, uk, france and russia. that's an important step. we had a conference back in
london in 2009, but this next conference, which france announced in september will be a big step in that direction. so we are thinking about it. we have an important bilateral task because we have such a preponderance. we need to continue with them and having a good verification regime. >> how much of your thanksgiving holiday has been taken up? guest: not very much. but north korea is not really my responsibility directly. host: next call. chris, republican. caller: hello. host: please go ahead with your question for secretary gottemoeller. caller: hi. i'm a republican all my voting life.
getting very worried with the republican party. especially john kyl. i don't understand why the republicans are not voting for this and i will fight furiously when next time to vote to vote john kyl out if he does not follow through with this. this is definitely important to our country and i am worried and i have everybody in the country does not, the republicans do not vote for this, i hope their constituency votes them out. if the tea parties are the people who are for america, then this should be voted for america. this treaty. guest: well, thank you very much. chris. i do feel strongly nuclear arms reduction and control should be a bipartisan matter.
i do think it's very important. i have been fascinated and really glad to hear the interest you have shown because i have had the opportunity over the last month while the senate and house were out, the opportunity it to travel around the country and talk to people all over the place, des moines. louisville. it did go on the back burner after the cold war. as i said earlier, i worry about things drifting if we don't pay attention. if we don't continue reducing in organized way with the russians. then we don't end up being able to verify what's going on. in that case, we're un sure what we're up to and they're un sure
they're up to. host: one of our tweeters sent this in. do they allow the right to inspect in our borders? can teams inspect on private property? guest: as far as other countries are concerned, it will really depend on the treaty. on the start treaty, this is bilateral, the united states of america so this is simply a bilateral matter. we have our teams going to russia. they have their teams coming here. and the inspections take place on military facilities. we know in advance what the list is of their facilities they can go to, and they know what facilities they can go to in our country. so there's nothing unpredictable about that. and they are not going to show up at anybody's door suddenly. in essence. it's a very, very well-organized
matter. that was so important in the care we took in these negotiations. there are hundreds of pages we negotiated. it's very clear what rights and obligations the inspectors have and what they can and cannot do in the course of an inspection. >> yes, thank you, i appreciate c-span and what you're doing. what i'm commenting about is i'm not against, i think it's everybody as far as republicans and democrats in washington d.c. are all to blame. but, it's like trying to put a finger in the dike. this lady is just representing her job. they're not going to stop us
trying to deal with the republicans is mute. the equipment like iran which north korea has. it's not a problem to us. russia feels like we do. these countries like france and all the nuclear nations. we have had more countries today with nuclear weapons than in 1960. host: leave it there, secretary. guest: i can't agree more. russia is not really our threat. the pentagon did a posture review with regard to nuclear
arms reduction. they pointed to the threat of nuclear terrorism and the threat like iran and other countries that may emerge. it's important to keep our eyes focused on those very, very important 21st century threats that are confronting us. i will say though, that as far as the leadership that our work with russia conveys to the international community, i can see the result already when we finish the negotiations in april. signed the treaty in prague. within a month, we were at the nonproliferation review. back in 2005, we had a dust up at the conference. we didn't end up with a consensus agreement at the end. this time around, coming out of those negotiations with the
russian, came to new york. got a consensus agreement and a really good action plan coming out of the nonproliferation and work hard with all the countries around the world on confronting those important problems you're talking about. irans and north koreas of the world. the leadership we have shown really helps us with the problems we have in strengthening the nonproliferation. host: silvia. you're on. caller: i think the focus on john kyl is only the mouthpiece. i think the directives are coming. >> mitch mcconnell who sees the
ratification for the accomplishment of president obama. that would be a loss for the republicans. i wish we would speak frankly and openly about that aspect of it. guest: i mentioned i was in leona lewis -- lewisville, i had the opportunity to see the legacy of senator mcconnell how he handled domestic policy. it's clear he's a leader that
believes in consensus. it will play out in the up-coming work on the senate floor for the new start treaty. you're right, he will play a very important role has the republican leader. he is a very, very experienced hand and somebody that has been working these issues. host: that's a very diplomatic answer. guest: it was quite a coincidence, i didn't have a chance to visit that center. i had a spare hour and it was very, very interesting. host: host: madam secretary. have you had a chance to speak to senator mcconnell? guest: on the on this issue. host: will you be spending time on the hill this week? guest: i have been spending a lot of time on the hill. host: raphael on our independent
line. caller: i was really amazed you never bit on any of these attacks. i was a young kid during the iranian revolution. i am afraid of war by proxy. russia helps these countries build bombs. what about the star wars or missile defense system? i would rather invest in nuclear bombs. guest: one of the interesting things about our work with russia is how they stepped up to tackle problems with iran overall. in particular, as you know, the moment up of our cooperation picked up through the negotiations, through other activities taking place on the re-set button, the russians have
been willing to sign up for stronger sanctions against iran and cancelled the aircraft system. i can see that the russians are working with us as good partners here. frankly, they are doing important steps to strengthen their exports and controls. you're right, there has been a problem in the past. i worked during the clinton administration. they were selling technologies to the iranians. we are seeing improvement on export controls. it's important to stay linked up with them and have them be a
partner. on the missile defense side. in lisbon. we have a summit and we agreed to cooperate on building affective missiles in europe and will work with the russians to develop a partner relationship to cooperate in missile defense in europe. we would like to be doing more of that on a bilateral basis. there's a lot going on in developing affective missile defense against regional missile threats. we are concerned about iran developing a missile threat in the next five years. we want to get that capability on the ground sooner than later.
overall, president obama is very committed to missile defenses and the phased adaptive approach. host: madam secretary, what's the process on the russian side? has it been signed by president in russia? guest: they signed it and it was absolutely terrific experience. they did agree at that time, the process of ratification, we will try to coordinate between moscow and russia. they did vote it out of their international affairs committee in july. we voted it out in september. now they're kind of, i think watching and waiting to see what happens with our floor action. i don't believe they will act on the duma floor.
and their upper house. they will be waiting and watching to see what happens. host: let's say it pass here, is there any doubt it will pass in russian? guest: i have been talking to my counterparts, i think there's a lot of support for the treaty. i don't expect there's a problem. one never knows. host: a few seconds left with our guest, re gottemoeller. caller: yeah, good morning yes. question to assistant secretary. we were drilling constantly about missiles. do you see the capability of iran to strike it out at our navy sitting out over the coast? guest: well, that is a good
question. how much iran and north korea have worked together on developing technologies. to be honest, it's not my real area of expertise. we are trying to ensure they cannot develop those systems. to our deployed capabilities to our allies and the united states itself. i think that we will have to continue to do everything we can to ensure export control. it sounds boring. as a matter of fact, when countries pay attention to what companies are doing and regulating commerce in these technologies, it can make a difference. we are continuing to push that
rock uphill because it's very important. we're looking at two state who is haven't been working cooperatively with the international system. that's an especially hard rock to push up hill. we are applying sanctions and ratcheting up pressure so they know how serious it is. and they should respond to their international commitments. host: rose gottemoeller worked as deputy of secretary of energy. when was that? guest: that was in the latter years of clinton administration. from 1997 to 2000. host: how much over lap? guest: a lot. i am all responsible for new technologies for verification. where we go in the future for
arms reduction and control of nuclear and chemical and biological weapons. the work i did with the department of energy and our national nuclear and science labs very important work with what i am doing now. host: prospect heights, illinois. caller: i want to say the public is playing with our national security can. kissinger, baker. all supported the start treaty. they are endangering our national security. not to give obama credit for our symbol of success. guest: well, thank you for your comment. i want to stress again how important by partisanship has been historically in this arena. and it has paid off for this
country's national security to have the two parties join arms and work on these problems of nuclear arms control. it's really made a difference both in security policy and in the broader area of working with other countries on a national security problem. i said again and again, how much success we have had. they are willing to be our partners in the arms arena. the way we have been able to extend our cooperation so we are transporting military materials through russia to our troops has about because of our relationship with russia. it's good for whether you're red, blue or in the middle as an independent.
>> madam secretary. if it doesn't happen during this lame duck session? guest: we're looking at delay. we go back to the committee again, the senate foreign relations committee and start over. if it fails and just takes a couple months it will be the spring. no. could be as much as another year or 18 months. we will be 2-1/2 years potentially without a verification regime on the ground. that does not serve our interest. host: the cynic in me says if you give them lead time, they will hide illegal operations. guest: that's a great question. one the things we have learned, we have 15 years of implementing
and the immediate range nuclear forces treaty. yes. you're absolutely right, if you give them an inch, they take a mile. so, and this is something of course that is on us as well. we have to ensure that we have the same procedures because it's a bilateral deal. what happens essentially, these are sort notice, no warning inspections. our inspectors fly into russia. they don't this will them where they're going. they know they're going for an inspection. they say, okay. we're going to go there and within a very short period of time, the russians have to fly them to the base. until the last minute, they don't know which base they're going to or which missile they want to look at.
it's very, very important principle, one we have learned through the school of hard knocks. you have got to have no notice short notice. no notice kinds of inspections. >> last call from ports smith, virginia, go ahead. mike. republican line. caller: yes. good morning. i would like to say, is there anything in the new start deal that affects, mentions like -- [inaudible] they eventually affect our amendment rights. if you decide to sign the treaty so in the un. guest: no, there's noast on the
second amendment. this is a treaty that affects our strategic nuclear arsenal. we are talking about putting limits on missiles, submarine launched missiles. these are national assets under the control of the government. it's the kind of, again. the arms control treaty we first start negotiating. it was signed and brought into force in the early 1970's. so many, many years of going about this. there's never been an impact on the second amendment. host: madam, what is your week looking like? guest: working hard to get all the final questions from the hill answered.
>> this week march the 47th anniversary of the assassination of president kennedy. this weekend we will talk to former secret service agents whose job was to protect the president on the events of that day, the conspiracy theories about the assassination, and mr. blaine's new book, tonight on "q&a". with polling data from eight arab countries, james zogby questions arabs about the war on terror. he discusses his findings with our reporter for usa today and "the new york times."
>> what would be your first lecture to this didn't sit your teaching this class? >> it has to be addressed at the most fundamental levels. the military increasingly is becoming defensive in its attitude towards the civilian world. understandon't we each other? guest: we have what i call military metaphysics. after the second world war, the military and civilian world had a great relation with each
other. they understood what was going on in the military. now we have an all volunteer force. the military doesn't really understand why it does what -- what it does. host: you write in your book that the military in the u.s., and i want to say civilians, the military and civilians are more and more like partners in a bad marriage, stuck together in a house they develop so long ago they don't even remember why. with no love lost and no real understanding of each other. how do we get from that, which you say is the current situation, to a better situation?
guest: the subtitle of my book is, what each side has to understand about each other. let's start with the civilian world. the civilian world has to understand what the nature of the military is. to break it down schematically, the civilian world is divided into liberals and conservatives. they do not understand the function in the larger scheme of things. conservatives, if possible, love the military too much. they will give the military a blank check and anything they do is good. both sides of the civilian world have to either warmup for cool off, depending on where you are in the political spectrum. there are a couple of other things that have to understand about the military. i will come back to that. the military has to tell them
that they are held to a higher standard. the bottom line, the military increasingly feels itself superior to the civilian world with its mission to defend. that is a potentially toxic situation. the military is tell the civilians are soft, and the military is hard, and so on. my theory is, the conclusions i have reached our that there is a reason why the military has taken on this bad terminology. you have to understand that the military works with the civilian or a, not the reverse. the military is to defend american interests abroad and so on. the analogy i come up with is the military is the hammer and the civilian world is the hand. we have to have an end about this -- to this talk about we are actually better than the
ones we defend. that leaves the people in military clueless as to why they are doing what they are doing. at the naval academy -- the military has to have a new conception of itself, which i call the military metaphysic. after the second world war, u.n. into the military and did your duty. if you survive, you can add, you were reintegrated. the other possibility is the career military. the hindus had the notion of a military caste. neither of those is the case in the united states right now. we have an all volunteer force, as everyone knows.
how the explain to the people that they are potentially out there getting there behind shot off to people who are not a self sacrificing as they are? i have an answer to that. i would not be do my job if i did not propose an answer. the military has to understand that whether the civilian world is currently responding to them, they have a job to do. the civilian world has to learn to appreciate the military more than it is. the military has to stop thinking it is better than the world in defense. that is the issue, each side has to understand more about how the other side functions. the military has got to know that civilians are never going to be like the military, and civilians have to understand the nature of the military.
the want to know what lector no. 2 is going to be? host: go for it. guest: lecture to is how the civilian world has to change. i want the president of harvard thinking a little more kindly about rotc. that is what secretary gates was talking about several months ago. we need a recommitment by the coastal establishment in this country for the military. that means things like rotc at universities and so on. i need the president of princeton saying loud and clear, the military is an honorable thing to do. it is a necessary part of our society. nobody likes of war, and what
you do when you go in the military is potentially kill people. i don't want that shellac or varnished. i need the civilian world to be more on board. the military world has got to start changing. here is the change. has to make itself more attractive to all those nice boys and girls. what is the problem with the military? the problem is it is a monopoly. i was a fulbright scholar in west berlin, so i got all the stuff that came from the east side of the wall. the military is a hierarchy, based on getting people to do what you say just because you say it. it does not tolerate dissent well. it is used to getting its own way. the military is big and loud. so the military has to start reforming itself to a greater degree from within and is currently doing.
has to encourage reasonable dissent up the chain of command and has to become too much greater degree than it is an institution not of doing what i said because i told you to do it, but do what i say because i can explain, when the bullet stop flying, why i took this course of action. that is what i do at annapolis. i am a civilian professor. i work for the military for 24 years, and my job is to make thinking officers. the military has to recommit itself to the kind of rational justification for what it does, and back off on just do what i say because i told you to do it. >> our guest is a professor at the military naval academy in annapolis and arthur of a new book. you heard his synopsis of the book and his views. we would like to hear from you. members of the military, you can call in on any of our political lines, but we have set aside a
fourth line just for members of the active-duty military. let's begin with joyce, a democrat in missouri. caller: good morning. i have just a couple of questions, but first a comment. the first thing that struck me was this painted a picture of liberals versus conservatives and how they support the military. being a progressive liberal, i don't share that opinion, and i converse nomination nine that net -- nationwide network with a bunch of other liberals and don't ever express the kind of opinions york tochis allow.
-- the kind of opinions you talked about. i think that on the other end of the spectrum with conservatives, where you find a much more hawkish population about go to war, kill the enemy at any cost, that part is most importantly the blood of our soldiers and military service people. so i have a real problem with where you draw that from where you sit in your job at annapolis, maybe you are too far removed from the population that would be able to answer those questions for you truthfully. so i would like to know where you got that information. host: thank you, joyce. guest: the blood of our soldiers is obviously a big
cost. it is not just the men and women who come back and boxes that we need to consider. this question of liberal and conservative stuff is not something i am coming up with. many studies have shown the military has become much more conservative, overwhelmingly republican. that was not true after the second world war, for example. individuals are statistically meaningless, and individual liberals can be very pro- military, so i am making sweeping generalizations here. if you look at the voting record in congress, obviously everybody supports the military, but the issue that sticks in the craw of the military, for example, the
overwhelmingly liberal educational institutions that have banned rotc. that is where a lot of that is coming from. you look at the voting records in congress and you will see that instinctively, the republicans seem to be a little bit more on board with them. host: detroit, on the independent line. caller: this subject strikes particularly close to home to me because i am the father of a son who is serving in the service. this is a complete change in my son when he joined the military, before and after he got through basic training. coming from an area that has been financially hard hit, there were really no opportunities for him up here. he is soon what is called military bearing, and your guest will know what i mean when i say
that. he was kind of smart aleck and got into a couple of times in basic, but he made it through with great skills and is now a fire control officer on a nuclear submarine, having passed criminal background checks and all that. if he would have stayed here in detroit, he would not have, as they say, assumed military bearing. that is an out for a lot of people, especially in this economy. and there is a military-civilian divide, but not so much. i would like to add to the creek -- thoughts of the previous caller saying that liberals are not in the military. i am a " progressive liberal myself, and i obviously support the military. host: we got the point.
bruce fleming. guest: my point is to get people in the military to be justifiably proud of what they do without doing it at the cost of denigrating the people they do it for. i am completely on board with this notion of military bearing. you are talking about something more general, being locked on and so on. all that is a great thing, and the military can get that young men and women, but i don't want their superior officers to tell them as a result that they are better than the people they are defending. the liberal attitude towards the military is not really what sticks in the craw of the military when we talk about the military-civilian divide. it is even worse than that. it is indifference. it is the fact that we are out there getting our behinds shot off, and the folks back home
just don't care. there is something actually worse than dislike for disapproval. i don't think too many people who actively this press the g8 express disapproval -- i don't think too many people actively express disapproval. the perfect storm is not in itself a bad thing. this topic needs to be brought a little more front and center than it actually is. it is an all volunteer force. they do not have to join. is not wrong to eep do not want it to. by the same token, -- is not going to hit you if you do not want it to. if it were the early years, we would not have this problem because people would still be
all fired up. but the military is beginning to fill ground down. it is a lot less clear to them what they are doing it for. that is the reason why the military has to understand itself better. i am not sure i have said it as clearly as i need to say it. the military needs to we embrace the conception of itself as the profession of arms. i go back to the hindu sense of a cast. for them is something you are born into, and for us is not. the military has to stop asking for justification, for people hugging them on the street. the point of the war as they are involved in is a little bit murky to people at home. they are just not going to get that more fuzzy output, the ticker-tape parades. host: what kind of dissent is
allowed at the naval academy? guest: the last time i was on c- span was to talk about an op ed of mine that was then "the new york times." professors are allowed to say what they want, but they pay a price. for example, last year at the civilian been attempted to adopt my pay and slap a letter of caution as a disciplinary measure on me. i protested boast but -- both of those things and that is now being wrapped up. i do have ways to protest, but the short version is, you can say what you want to say, so long as it does not actually question of the basis of what is going on. host: calling on the republican
line, good morning to you. you are on the air. caller: i am just confused, and i always wonder what part of the country you get your surveys from, writing your books and that. i am a republican, but i know democrats and i do not know anyone around who does not respect the army. i could run up and hug them, and that is the way everyone feels about it. i am really confused, and i think there should be at distinguish men between older and younger people. maybe the older people who have been there and seen that in world war ii and the korean war and others have a different take on the service. even the younger people in there, i think i have more respect for. host: take what she said, and take some more divides, male-
female, read state, blue state. guest: people do not like to hear generalizations, but they are a good way to start conversations. i am not the one who invented this feeling of being neglected. it is the military itself. people are calling in saying i like the military. fine, great, that is wonderful news to hear. but that is not the sense inside the military. obviously this conservative- liberal stuff is the latest in the red state-blue state thing. i like to say i am the guy in the middle. there is an op ed in today's " washington post" calling for eight centrist party, and i kind of like that. i take the hit from both sides.
sure, there is a correlation between your basic political outlook and how you feel about the military. men and women, that is a pandora's box. gay and'll ask about straight and "don't ask, don't tell". it would be nice to pretend that we all work together in perfect harmony, and we do not. there are clashes between liberal and conservative, between men and women with respect to the military. tell" seemsdon't like it's days are numbered or at least it's months are numbered. i wrote an op ed where i said it is going to be repealed, but i predict it will not go smoothly, either. the military is not good at dealing with dissent. you ask me about women. the short version here is, just
take the naval academy for example. until 1976 they said no way, we are not going to have women at the naval academy, absolutely not. the people at the building right down the road here said yes, you are. so they had women and they declared the problem solved and they moved on. only it was toxic. they treated women -- it was horrible. the military does not do a pendulum in the middle. that is why they need me, frankly. they do one extreme or the other. it is no way on women, or yes, we love women. now many people feel that women are being promoted just because they are women, just as a number of people feel that race is
being promoted in the military, so there are tensions there. we are not doing anybody a favor by pretending they are not there. host: hugh is calling from new jersey. caller: i was just calling as far as gays in the military. we have to spend tax dollars to build separate showers and barracks? host: the thing that should happen? caller: i do not want a man looking at me as if i was a female. if that is the case, white not just make everything coed? guest: let me go ahead and try. i have written a whole book about this one called "sexual
ethics." the figures i saw work that 30% thought there would be problems. obviously there are differentiation between individual service at the marine corps, which is the most recalcitrant to change. the fact is that most of what we do in the military is very much like an office situation, and there'll be no problems whatsoever. it does not matter to me who you go home to or who you see after hours. the military's response to that is, things like what we are not talking about, sharing living quarters. in the marine corps, it is a 24/7 kind of thing. there are aspects of the service
where there will be potential problems. submarines. these are not problems that cannot be solved. it is going to happen. i wish i could turn the clock back and do the integration of women better. we are looking at a situation where we have the opportunity to do the integration of openly great big openly gay -- of openly gay service members. if of mail does not want to show with an openly gay guy, he is the one who has an issue. the fact of the matter is, we have segregated bathrooms for reason. your caller has a valid point here. it is not going to be without
problems. are they deal breaker problems? nope. canada has no issue with the, for example. i was just up at a conference in canada, and their armed forces do not seem to be falling apart. no big deal, people say, except when it is, and then you have to talk about it. host: doug from detroit, your honor with bruce fleming. caller: i am an ex-marine, 1977- 1981. there were people in there who were gay. i did not have a problem with it. my biggest problem was in competency of other people. if you look at the foreign relations in it, taking for example open gallop. it seems a lot of the problem come from straight, heterosexual people who are just off the leash -- for example, nookinawa.
we had a separate shower. the only time i was subjected to barracks showers was when i was at okinawa. i do not have a problem with that so much as i do with the people in the air force. i understand they are now requiring people to go to church. that is my problem, there are conservative viewpoints that are being pushed that are not being commented on by your book that i think are just as destructive as any kind of liberal agenda. host: thank you very much. guest: people are going to have problems to a greater or lesser extent. i had a gay brother who died of aids.
i have many gay friends. it is not an issue. the fact of the matter is, once again, i am not making this up. there are many people for whom it is an issue. my job is to articulate their point of view as well, because i don't think the military, once it turns the corner, is going to deal with them very well. i think is going to happen. of course there are worse things, but right now, everyone is interested in "don't ask, don't tell". maybe in 10 years we will look back and say i cannot believe we spent all that time on it. host: another member of the military calling in from fayetteville, north carolina. caller: [unintelligible]
we talked about the issue of civilianand military and affairs. i think one of the primary differences between this war and world war ii was that the entire country was involved. people working in the factories. now have of america is out shopping and enjoying the christmas season in america. that makes it difficult from that point of view. you made a remark about being in the military being an honorable
profession. [unintelligible] host: thank you very much. guest: you have done a great job of summarizing the point. the military is out there putting his life at risk, and the people here are going shopping. that is one of the major departure points of my book, that we do have this sense that the war is for somebody else. it is not helping things that the particular war we are looking at now is one we are not sure we see the point of. so absolutely, practically everybody sees the second world war correctly as a just war and this war is a filthy, horrible war. now these are wars of choice. that is the reason why i think this book is frankly necessary.
the military has to have a new understanding of itself. it is not the world against adolf hitler. that is not the issue. it has to be comfortable being less than 1% of the population that basically does not care about it. >> you have been teaching at the academy since 1987. have you seen a change in attitudes over some of these issues we have talked about? females, gays in the military, or just in general, what trends have you seen? guest: yes, i have seen trends. insofar as it would seem ethical to do so, i take will in formal polls -- you cannot ask students how they are going to vote, but 24 years ago, it was extremely republican. it is much less so now.
i am just as convinced that the military is the cat's meow, the sense of entitlement is very bothersome to me. this is paid for by the taxpayers for the purpose of producing people who will defend the taxpayers, but midshipmen are being told daily they are the best and brightest. there is still a sense of entitlement, but more of a drift towards the political center. on the gay issue, you can still be thrown out of annapolis for being gay. i know a gay midshipman who have come to me and asked if this is going to be the week they will be thrown out. the military in general and the service academies in specific are always going to attract a certain type of person. as little as people like to hear generalizations, they are going to be more right wing and left ring. that will become -- people who are more comfortable with
authority. a lot of them went to catholic schools. there may be some correlation there. the basic structure of what i am talking about has not changed, which is that the military attracts a certain type of person. i would like to see more people who turned down -- there are a handful. host: punta gorda of florida, go ahead. caller: i am a vietnam veteran. when i returned in 1966, i did not get a very good welcome. i had one more year of duty to do in california, and the base commander put out an order that the military was not to go on liberty in their uniforms. that was in california. i guess that is where most of
the liberals are now. now that i live in florida, i have got more respect and recognition for my service in vietnam. one question for you, mr. fleming, were you in the military? guest: yes and no. i have never worn a uniform, but i have worked for the military for 24 years. if you want to accept that as military, that is what i have to offer. i put my name in the draft in 1972 when i was 18. my number was not called. bus service has been what i am doing now. you are making a great point. there are parts of the country where you will get a more congenial welcome. when things are not going well, when the war has no purpose, military service members will not be cut in airports. you all have to be told, you cannot make yourself image depends on whether you get a hug on the street.
what you are doing is an honorable thing, it is the profession of arms, something the society has decided it apparently needs. part of me is a pacifist at heart. i always think we should give peace a chance and then another chance and then another chance. but there comes a point when you have to stop giving peace a chance. but we have decided we need a military, and we do. host: how and why did you start working at the naval academy in 1987? guest: i am from the eastern shore of maryland. annapolis has always figured on my radar. i went there when i was a kid. they put on a show. a lot of people do not believe me when i say we have serious issues at annapolis. they say it looks so nice. you know what that does to a 10- year-old. i got my ph.d. in 1982 and i
taught for two years in west germany and also taught in rwanda before the civil war, before they started killing people. in my early 30's, i said it was time for me to go back home, so this was the job i got. i have been very happy there. host: or you tenured? guest: that is a great question. that is why i can write things saying the army has a serious problem. i will get flak for what i am about to say, because we are coming up to the army-navy week. the military academies are not doing themselves a favor by engaging in division 1 football. it has been an interesting factor and it lowers high standards. another thing that is problematic is how we have gone full war behind getting and non- white students, but that is a subject for another
conversation. tenure is what allows me to say things like that. host: pd is in the military and is calling from killing, texas. -- killeen, texas. caller: sometimes i feel like a victim of "don't ask, don't tell", but it is because i am a liberal. andrew cuomo is quoted as saying that having a meltdown has a greater effect than the twin towers coming down. i ask myself, what am i doing in iraq protecting us from terrorist if the terrorists are at home raping and pillaging the american citizen?
in a lot of respects, i feel that we are fighting the wrong war, from the folks for the lead that are tearing down america and making money -- for the elite that are tearing down american and making money. china has it right. they are making deals instead of fighting wars overseas to develop the world and develop the natural resources where we have problems and enemies. host: we are going to leave it there. thank you for calling in this morning. guest: that is exactly what the book is about. the military goes over there. you just summarize it, you and one of the previous callers. we have a problem here. the military put this behind on the line and makes great personal sacrifices, and for what? it's what they do seems
irrelevant to what is going on at home. it is not the main issue when you poll americans on what their biggest concerns are. it is not the war in iraq. the big clashes between the incredible self sacrifice of the people in the military and the fact that in the larger scheme of things, it does not seem to matter. the only way to fix that is by talking to it to the military. you are not going to fix that by getting everybody in uniform. it is horrendously expensive, and god forbid we should have world war iii. it is a minority force, sometimes working to uncertain purpose. you need guys and gals in uniform to be clear about who they are and why they are doing it, without demanding that that be the major issue.
as far as being a liberal in the military, you need to talk to the caller from earlier who said there was no problem. host: we have about 30 seconds left. john is in mississippi. go ahead, john. caller: i am a soldier in hattiesburg, mississippi. i have to disagree with my friend on tv who says we are fighting a war with the purpose. as a soldier who was wounded in iraq, and as a muslim soldier, we are fighting people who would impose their beliefs on the world. i just want to say that i would be willing to go on-site again