tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN April 28, 2011 1:00pm-4:59pm EDT
united states and from jumping sides as egypt had done with the camp david accords, jumping from the soviet side to the u.s. side, this is what the u.s. meant to do with the syrians. what we have seen over the last month and half, since the middle of march, what we have known all along is that this regime has very significant strategic interests of its own regarding the peace process and regarding its alliance with the iranians. its alliance with the iranians. we saw this during the entirety of the bush administration. people within the beltway. people within -- europeans, arab officials were warning the bush administration, you need to bring in the syrians. why are you isolating the syrians? engaging the syrians is a bad idea. someone needs to show the syrians what they can have. they need to be persuaded that it is their best interest to
jump sides. the fact that the bush administration is not doing that is a major flaw. that is what the obama administration came to office to do -- to show the syrians it was in their interest to jump sides. what we've seen over the last month and a half, again, is that this regime will not reform. regimes whose snipers are packing off -- picking off its own children are not apt to make peace with the wrong populations, never mind the state of israel. it is preposterous that this administration is still looking at this regime as capable of reform. the reason they are is because there is no other middle east strategy. there is nothing else that they have going on. there is nothing moving on the palestinian track, aside from a hamas-fatah unity deal, which is also bad for the administration and very bad for the peace process. when that happened, you could
see this area track become even more important. -- the syria track become even more important. the administration needs to cut the syrians loose. there is still an infatuation with assad. what are we going to do with this guy shooting his own people in the street? we cannot really do business with them anymore. it is a serious conflict for the administration. i want to say that the same thing happened in june, 2009, after the iranian elections, when the green movement took to the streets and the administration was very slow to react. as someone explained in this the reason yorker," that the administration was so slow to react was because they still wanted to engage the
iranians. that is exactly what is going on today with the administration's relationship with damascus. it is still looking for ways to engage the iranians. it is not about -- it is about the administration's middle east strategy. that is all they have right now. at that company i will conclude -- at that, i will conclude an open it up for questions. >> i will make a couple of observations and pose a couple of questions. and our panelists can feel free to poke each other a little bit if they would like. i will maybe start with this last point raised by hanin -- to understand american policy. it is a great mystery, but i would hope that people in lebanon and syria and elsewhere might be persuaded that it is a
mystery. it requires an understanding which we do not exactly have. there are two aspects. one, there has been this extraordinarily long indulgence over many administrations in the notion that syria was, a, very important, and, b, a good and useful and productive relationship with them and for the region as a whole was just around the corner. this predates any apropos views -- it predates any serious expression of the hope to deal with these things. back to the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, the number of u.s.
secretaries of state who stood on the tarmac at damascus airport, in between visits to one or another, it probably sets up kind of a u.s. diplomatic record. it looks at the syrian regime managed -- as if the syrian regime managed to be which a whole generation or two generations -- bewitch a whole generation of are two generations -- or two generations of american politicians and analysts. this is not a new thing. it's somehow shows, perhaps either our particular credibility or some very great skill on the part of the syrians. i would also say that it has
been heightened under this administration for the reason that lee says, "plus." the cairo speech was remarkable, because it was not about the middle east at all, except incidentally. it was really about our relations with the muslim world as a whole, all 1.3 billion muslims. a clear admission of that speech is somehow to restore relationship -- the clear intention of that speech is somehow to restore relationship or create a relationship between us and all the world's muslims. somehow, everything else hands on that or derives from that -- hangs on that or derives from that. the notion that all the world's
tuslims really care abou that. that may seem far too global for people living in downtown beirut, but i think there is a very powerful aside to that. the other thing i want to say, centrality of syria is a claim to dogma in almost every account of events in the middle east, and it is repeated endlessly in the newspaper accounts. the centrality of syria, the importance of stability in syria, so forth. if you open the pages of the papers today, you will see those phrases used. the question of would pose is, how central is syria? if it is so central to the
region, what is the region going to do with regard to syria? their are two large players in the region, besides outside -- there are two aren't players in the region, besides outside forces -- there are two large players in the region, besides outside forces. let me start from one particular situation. the situation in daraa. over the past -- that is where it began. that is where the regime seems to think it could end it. daraa is not a village, but it's only 75,000 people. it is not that far from damascus, but it is not -- it is on the border. it is not in the heartland of syria.
white a jazz is taken on so much importance -- why has this taken on so much importance? why have they decided to bring in tanks? it is horrible enough when they're shooting people with rifles and machine guns, but tanks? why? what is their thinking and what is the thinking of the neighbors? >> i will attempt to answer that question about daraa. it is really heartbreaking to watch the situation unfold in daraa, and to watch the international community failed to come up with a condemnation of the events there. years ago, on a small tv program, i was interviewed about syria and the change and whether it would happen or not. i said that one day, we will be able to take to the streets and
by peacefully for our freedom. the main goal be for us to shed light on the development so that we can prevent another hamas. hamas is a city in 1982 that was destroyed by assad forces because they tried to crush a rebellion in the city. there were about 200 armed people. they ended up destroying about half of the city and killing 30,000 people. we agree that these are terrorists. no one argued that at the time and no one disputed that at the time. killing 30,000 people to stop 200 terrorists is really not what the situation would warrant. it is the recipe the regime has been using from the beginning.
when bashar al-assad spoke about infiltrators, to us, it immediately ran all sorts of alarm bells. this is exactly what he was afraid of -- throwing this accusation, ending up with a situation like this, the government moving full force against the resistance, justifying it like this again. we're clear from the beginning to try to document the type of movement on the streets to show that they are unarmed protesters and to show that they come from different backgrounds, and to be very clear about getting the information out as quickly as possible, so that the international community realized what was happening and realised the true nature of the movement, and not fall into the trap of regime rhetoric. of course, we cannot make the blind see.
there are some people who want to see assad as a reformer. i do not think we can make them see. this is a situation that is behind us. >> since -- they may not be willingly blind. they mean just need an ophthalmologist. >> unfortunately, the ophthalmologist seems to need an ophthalmologist at this stage. we're talking about the serious situation in daraa, a humanitarian situation. the city has been under siege for several weeks. over the last week, the siege was complete -- no electricity, no food or water, no medical supplies. tanks invading. artillery shells. gunfire. bodies in the streets. we can no longer get videos out of this city. when there is no electricity, you cannot charge your cameras
or your cell phones, which were used to take many of these images we have seen. there are logistic problems along these lines, but we still get some images now and then, and we can still communicate sometimes with some eyewitnesses on the ground. we get really horrifying tales. it is very difficult to corroborate everything. on the basis of what has happened before, we can say that the situation definitely is scary. the fact that you might be witnessing an massacre -- a massacre while we continue debating the fine points of what american ideological interests are is somewhat disturbing. >> the proper reference point here is nearly 30 years ago. they are preparing another hamas
as a demonstration lesson. >> i think they chose daraa because it could be isolated easily they want to send a message to the rest of the syrian population. it is interesting to see the videos where the protesters are throwing stones and rocks at the tanks. they're not exactly being cowed. it is interesting to realize that, even as this intervention has taken place and hundreds of arrests have happened in the suburbs of damascus, the protest moment continues. people are protesting in other suburbs where the security presence is lightened because of over commitment elsewhere. people are still willing to defy
him. even when besieged by the army, they say, if the army wants to come, we will present our best. the majority of the population are extremely young. this movement is based on youth. the young people, when they break the barrier of fear, they can be irrational about it. they will not be afraid of martyrdom, basically. martyrdom is a very emotional part of our culture. once it gets endorsed, everybody has a certain detachment, emotional thing for martyrdom. we are tired of being lied to. when a syrian official comes out and says there are infiltrators and armed gangs, the position
deepens and hardens. our demands as the late. you are more people added to the blacklist -- our demands escalate. you have more people added to the blacklist. we cannot stand it. it will not be contained. it is quite did for a few weeks or days, it will be inflamed again -- quieted down for a few weeks or days, it will be inflamed again. this will end the way you wanted to end, with the regime toppled, with bashar al-assad in prison or in london, in a flat, attending royal weddings. there is no other solution. bashar al-assad asked to go. -- has to go. that is it. >> thank you. this is great. i would like to go back to the
first question. why is serious central -- syria central? there is something everyone should take into consideration and actively considered. you are talking about the peace process and why the u.s. wants or might be expecting syria to be part of the peace process. i do not think syria would be interested in peace for a very obvious reason for me. i do not know if you will agree with me. i think conflict is very important in projecting the regime -- protecting and maintaining the regime. they survive on conflict. the emergency law allowed the regime to arrest people, to create a state of fear where everyone was not allowed to act freely -- is not allowed to act freely. the state emergency is based on
complex. that is why they support costs -- hamas. that is why they support the iranians. i do not think the regime is interested in peace. this is someone that everyone should reconsider. think about whether syria is tea or not. it is keep it is, -- it is key to islam. it is definitely important as an ally. we either want to play a major role in the region, and they have -- they either want to play a major role in the region, and they have, but they are not now, or they are just wanting to keep some bargaining chips for negotiation. that is it. i do not think they can actually use these chips anymore. that is my point of view. >> i think that is probably true. it is actually forgotten that
there was a deal proposed between israel and syria, from which the assad's with true -- assad's withdrew. they never wanted to settle because of the advantages of having the conflict continue. >> i entirely agree with you, hanin. it is one of the problems that neither this administration or many before it, who have tried to drag syria into the process, understood. bring syria to the table only strengthens their hand -- bringing syria to the table only strengthens their hand. it gives them prestige. we have been talking about this a lot. ammar and hillel, maybe someone in the audience bono -- my
question over the last few weeks has been, why do we continue to talk about what happens after this? there are people in this city who should contemplate this. the syrian regime, the assad regime has painted itself as an adversary of the united states. it helps to facilitate the flow of islamist fighters into iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of u.s. troops -- killing hundreds, thousands of u.s. troops and killing allies. this is clearly an enemy of the united states. why do we care what happens after? it is not clear to me when people say -- of course, i believe it is true that things can always be worse. no one has made a good case to me what can be worse than this particular regime.
at least two more secret nuclear facilities with chemical warheads pointed at tel aviv, with its support for hezbollah, hamas, and other terrorist outfits, with its alliance with iran, what could possibly look worse? a regime that really gets to the nuclear bomb? that actually fires those warheads on israel? the only thing that has restrained the mask is has been outside pressure on damascus -- has restrained damascus is outside pressure on damascus. >> this is one of the problems. for a long time, asked about the alternatives, people were paintings and areas that the situation would be worse and worse -- people were painting scenarios that the situation
would be worse and worse. i have been working in syria for many years as an activist. among my colleagues, i am not going to necessarily be elected, but i am a voice. [unintelligible] you know, considering his background. it is really -- they seem to identify as a christian syrian -- me as a christian syrian. it is really ridiculous to have to defend ourselves at this stage. what is more ridiculous is that about thee ask me, protests.
civil society has been decimated. the only place we can breathe freely, relatively, it is the mosque. all imams are appointed by the state and they have to sort of total line of the state. those who do not our immediate a removed or go through the security hell that -- are immediately removed or go through a security hell. we -- it seems there is a kind of craziness going around that, if you are religious in any way, shape, or form, you are an extremist, especially if you are islam. the majority of the people are religious, with their christian, muslim, sunni, shia -- thyey are
christian, muslim, sunni, shia. a liberal like me would wish the situation otherwise. religiosity is still an important part of the fabric of arab societies. let us not conclude religiosity is extremist. this is something people have to really understand. if you're looking for alternatives to assad, the alternatives have been staring in your face for years -- the dissidents, the opposition, the moderates, the liberals -- they have a very rational tone that is pro-peace, pro-west. many people say this is tactical and will change once
someone comes to power. for 10 years, we have been consistent in our message. our own vested interest lies in developing our country and building universities, not to get into war with israel. we are not capable of waging that kind of a war at the risk of the future of our country and at the risk of more and more destruction to the next generation. we're not interested in that. there are diplomatic means for getting this done. syrian diplomacy can work. at a last-minute, they balked. we won't balk. we want -- we are committed to the diplomatic process. we want to get this. we have support in the international community.
we know a lot of israelis want to get us back. we are not worried about that. what we're worried about is developing our country. we're worried about getting rid of the only obstacle in our path towards a better future, which is this small slice of people that use a sectarianism, conflict -- uses sectarianism and conflict to keep themselves in power. the days of assad are numbered. people need to snap out of it. i do not know how delusional they will continue to be after all these attempts to make them see the light. you have people being killed in cold blood in the streets. they are killing children, for crying out loud, openly. that has been recorded very clearly for everyone to see. no one is disputing the veracity of these individuals.
everybody says this is true. we know it is happening. we are sorry. well, snap out of it. we wanted to go beyond sorry. we want you to embrace the alternative. >> what to the people in the administration speak to you? >> i have not had a single meeting with an administration official since obama came to office. there were some people who did. the language so far has been consistent with what you have seen with the statements out of the white house. we are aware of the situation. we condemn violence. we hope assad will reform. it is annoying. >> we have a technical definition for american action, greeted largely through the libyan crisis, which is it -- created largely through the libyan crisis, which is a
humanitarian crisis. it is killing children ordinarily an element of that -- i am wondering, is killing children ordinarily an element of that? >> i would interpret that as a green light to avoid using fixed-winged aircraft. if use around towns with tanks, then that is fine -- you surround towns with tanks, then that is fine. >> they used shoppers already in the conflict in -- choppers already in the conflict in daraa. we have had reports of bombardments. i would not put it past them. they got into a situation where the international community,
especially after the failure to issue a clear indictment, that they feel encouraged, they feel empowered to do anything they want. unless the international community adopts a language of sanctions and implements sanctions against by charles ko'd and his regime -- against bashar al-assad and his regime -- >> we hear that there will be another -- that there will be sanctions that will focus not on assad. >> i would not agree. i also do not see the u.s. having much impact by itself at this stage. the eu is important. here is where the money is, --
europe is where the money is, the bank accounts, deutsche bank, whatever. we have been investigating that for a while. an asset freeze by europeans and sanctions by europeans would definitely have an impact on the situation. >> to you guys know exactly where the money is? -- and do you guys know exactly where the money is? >> we have a lot of information. >> have you published that information? >> no. >> would you? [laughter] >> i'm game. >> show people what is going on. show them where the money is. >> i am ok with the idea. [laughter] >> let me return a little bit to the subject of lebanon. on the issue of what might
succeed, as a person known to worry about the influence of the muslim brotherhood in various places, i must confess one place i do not is in syria. that is for relish -- a rather cruel reason. what happened 30 years ago was that the regime suppressed islam. far more effectively than anyone else has ever done, certainly more effectively than the egyptians. therefore, if one does not have to worry about that, one has assad to thank. it is not a current issue. the issue on lebanon -- if i understood you, in a different context, you had suggested that lebanon is the bellwether for syria and that signs were
promising for syria. is this because hezbollah is frightened? well-known scout leaders -- calculators oflat interest are withdrawing their support from syria. that is a promising sign. as far as lebanon itself is concerned, should there be a regime change in syria, assad falls, let's say there is a regime which is broadly representative of the divisions within the country, whciich ammar described, important
communities of various religions, what blessings or curses might that bring to lebanon, in your opinion? >> let me start with the bad news, then i will get to the good news. in my opinion, many people in lebanon are concerned about the reaction if this regime reaches the threshold or is about to fall, when it becomes a matter of existence for the regime and for hezbollah. there are many concerns that something might happen in lebanon in order to divert attention or to link lebanon to syria, and some people also are afraid that the front between hezbollah and israel might be opened. i think it is too early for this
to happen, because, so far, it is not necessary. has a lot does not want to initiate a war with israel now -- hezbollah does not want to initiate a war with israel now for the simple reason that they cannot -- they can maintain their support base as long as they are protecting their community. protect their y -- a war does not protect their community. their communities do not want another war. they might accept another war if israel started it. it has a law initiates -- if hezbollah and she is, that is the end of all community support -- if hezbollah initiates it, that is the end of all community support. there are very aware of that. many people do not want another
-- they are very aware of that. many people do not want another war. i do not think the conflict would actually divert attention. a clash between hezbollah and other factions -- there is no equal rights. this is far fetched. theirthey have to weigh existence, hezbollah, vis a vis their community support, they might actually do something dangerous. they would have to be pushed to the extreme to do that. so far, i do not think that is the situation. also, something happened with hamas, a very similar scenario when they launched rockets and bombs to the -- and bombed the bus. this was also an attempt to
divert attention from syria. it did not work. israel did not react the way they were probably expected to react. this is another reason i do not think it will happen in lebanon. the good -- we'll go now to the good news. i really believe that a chance within -- a change within the syrian regime, a weakened regime, or the fall of the regime, would weaken hezbollah, would weaken its allies, and that would be a boost for others who have not interfered in other ways. they are getting a lot of accusations by the regime and by hezbollah of funding and sending arms to others. i think it is a good idea not to do anything right now.
this is dangerous. you cannot make strong statements unless you are a journalist. and it is ok. [laughter] >> i'm not sure it is safe for journalists, either. >> it is not. but journalists are expressing opinions. as a politician, it is very critical. i think that it is good for some not to make strong statements. they are aware that any regime change will definitely be a boost. the ideal scenario would be a liberal government with liberal intellectual activists. even if that is not the case. even if it is more sunni, not necessarily muslim brotherhood
-- i do not believe that the muslim brotherhood will be the alternative. no matter what, it is better than this regime for anyone in lebanon. >> right here? by the way, please identify yourself. >> thank you to our panelists. this is very interesting. i am from the lebanon foundation. i want to bring you back to the administration and its policy. i want to say that i agree with a lot of what has been described here. you do not need to take my word for it. you simply need to read the front page of "the new york times" and "the washington post." do any of you believe that -- last week, there was a different tipping point.an
there is the announcement of possible designation by the administration, more willingness to see this go to the u.n. security council in geneva. have we reached the point where the administration is getting on board and head of the game, or at least catching up -- getting onboard ahead of the game or at hing up?tcin there are some who have been relatively quiet on what is happening. has that changed since the start? >> that is a great question. have we gone through a tipping point? it is hard to say.
one thing that we keep seeing coming out in comments from the administration -- and they say, we do not know how much leverage we have. we feel our leverage is limited. i think that is less representative of how much leverage the administration really has, than how much the administration has already limited itself. if you read this article in the "new yorker" about leading from behind, if the government perceives its role, its international role as leading from behind, it is, by definition, going to perceive itself as limited in the amount of leverage it can exercise. i would like to think it is otherwise. i do not know exactly how it plays out. i am not sure how much the administration is responding to what is actually happening in syria from day to day or how much it is responding to
domestic criticism, or how the the rest of the international community -- or how the rest of the international community is moving. these sanctions were supposed to come up before tomorrow, before friday, but, as far as i know, they have not been announced yet. >> if there was going to be a turning public that would lead to something very powerful -- turning point that would lead to something very powerful, the clearest sign would be for us to go to the europeans and say, we need you -- that would be leading from behind, but it would be leading. the leverage that can be supplied by sanctions seems to be more concentrated in the hands of the europeans. >> i agree. what i want to see from his
administration is a clear criticism of assad's own handling of the situation. do not keep him above the fray. he is the problem. he is the heart of the problem. i want to see a clear description of the regime as being family based, rather than tiptoeing around it. >> whether it is the regime itself, whether it is the syrian ambassador to washington -- everyone should get the idea that the united states is no longer going to goingthat -- going to lend that regime prestige. canink the more clear thit be and the more clearly the regime gets the picture, this is where the united states is -- >> once that is formulated by the united states, that the problem is with assad and the
way he is handling this, that this is no longer acceptable, that this kind of violence is not acceptable at all, and not be equitable -- equivocable about this -- we need to have that kind of clarity on this situation. frankly, i do not think assad gets how much trouble he is in . -- in. until you have clear sanctions, -- you can implement sanctions that could really hurt the assad's, without having to go to the un. the u.n. might be a tough nut to crack because of the syrian centrality and whatever, which
still plays in the minds of many politicians around the world. they will not taken issue on the position. it is really -- i think the united nations security council is aware of the situation. there will have irresolution at -- they will have a resolution at some point. the european union, in cooperation with the united states, could do a lot of damage to the assad's. >> i would like to answer. >> doug, hold on to your question. >> quickly, about lebanese newspapers and media outlets -- a lot of lebanese media outlets are owned and funded by politicians. they are being very quiet.
those who are affiliated with a party or politician. there are others, especially independent websites like ours, and regional papers and tv who are takin ga -- who are taking a stand. we are writing a lot about syria. >> why don't you talk about the now syria site? >> we have written editorials and pieces. the main thing on the web site is a -- website is a live blog on syria, constant, minute-by- minute news in english. we translate everything.
most of the youtube videos and twitter coming from syria. writing opinions is one thing. coverage is something else. you have different news. when it comes to news, tv is politically-affiliated -- the tv that is politically-affiliated is not doing the coverage. there are others providing more coverage. there are some who are not providing as much as regional tv, like bbc arabic and al jazeera. these regional and international
channels, sometimes newspapers, are doing the coverage. it is interesting to watch. 1- days -- only 10 days ago, al jazeera changed its views. people were very upset with al jazeera. it was all over facebook. they were calling for al jazeera to do the coverage, because they know they are aware, like everyone else in the region, when al jazeera decides to criticize the regime, the regime will be toppled. whether we like it or agree with thit, it is true. it is very popular. it is the most popular media outlet in the region. when al jazeera picks up the uprising, it is a huge help. it is funny.
at the beginning, for four weeks, almost impotent. something changed. they moved to the other side. i am sure you realize. it is interesting to watch out jazeera. >> what is the website again? >> nowlebanon.com. >> revealing how the regime actually works -- of jazeera has been accused of smuggling hallucinogens to the -- to syria. there are major reports of crackdowns with of jazeera logos -- with bags and al jazeera logos on them. there was a cop attacked by protesters. he said bbc arabic was there and
urged the protesters on. apparently bbc arabic has taken an active part in this. this is showing the kind of coverage that we get, the kind of propaganda that is being put out. >> so, despite -- i am a senior fellow here at the hudson institute. there were clear divisions within europe on attitudes toward intervention. i would be interested in whatever like you could shed -- thet you could shed ion attitudes in europe right now toward syria. are any of the officials in
europe inclined to take the a device that -- the advice that ammar abdulhamid offered about ways to pressure the syrian government? >> i am here in the united states. i am more engaged with the europeans than i am with the administration on this issue. there seems to be a lot of interest. we have had several phone chats and conversations with officials in the european countries who are interested in knowing what we advise and what we suggest. >> are there some countries -- some countries who are very sympathetic to intervention in libya. others are not. some are entirely opposed. >> the french and the chairman have been very critical -- german have been very critical,
and clearly so. we have placed importance sanctions -- they should place important sanctions on the regime. we will see if they can get a consensus. there has been soft language coming out of the german, french, and dutch officials. i know that sanctions are being seriously considered. if we can add the wake of the united states, process -- the process will move more quickly and the sanctions will be tougher. >> yes? >> thank you. joe with the lebanese formation center. i think, to what lee said about understanding that our interest
is in the removal of the assad regime, the fact is that this administration [unintelligible] it is important to the president and administration to have multilateral action. the doctor out multilateral sanctions -- they talk about multilateral sanctions. multilateralism would involve the arab regime. where tdo the arab states, like qatar and turkey, stand? >> hanin, do you want to -- >> sure. it is a great question. nobody knows, actually, where these countries stand now. qatar -- you can sense a change
when you look at al jazeera. they're more proactive. turkey has just been advising the regime, bringing them books on reform. [laughter] what about our great ideas on how to run a country? that is it so far. saudi arabia is also quiet so far. i think they might take a different stance if they see the u.s. taking a different stance. they do not want to be alone on this. if you are in saudi arabia, you do not want to lead on this. syria is more nearby than anyone else. you have iraq between syria and saudi arabia. they do not want to complicate things, but they might follow the lead. i am sure another regime would
benefit saudi arabia. the rest of the gulf states are in the same position. lebanon is in a very vulnerable position. no one can say or do anything. >> if turkey took a vigorous role, it might actually be able to do something. >> i believe so. >> qatar's position is more like neutrality at this stage. you can feel, in the coverage, a sense of aloofness. when you look at the egyptian situation, they were part of the revolution. here they are trying to be "objective." of talking about how th
jazeera threw them out of syria -- -- talking about how al jazeera threw them out of at must have they come from the top. >> the situation with al jazeera is related to [unintelligible] as a result, assad demanded an apology from the emir. it was insulting in the way he handled it, even though the government was willing to sell mi-apologize. he tells us what to do. i think the [unintelligible]
yesterday, there was a statement by a qatar official saying, we are ok with the regime, but we are neutral. >> this should be a syrian solution. >> it is the neutron eddy. saudi arabia -- i do not think they want to see change. they prefer the status quo. the saudis are difficult to theonbo -- to get onboard for any kind of change. if the u.s. was onboard, they might realize they should get onboard. turkey's role is important. this is the case for erdogan and
his party to show their regional productivity. for a long time, there were trying to be moderator's -- they were trying to be moderators. now they are being tested. there was a conference held in istanbul a couple of days ago by turkish parties. there was a lot of opposition. there was kurdish and libearl ral opposition. the event was given a lot of noise. for now, turkey is hedging its bets as assad emerging as some kind of reformer.
they seem to be under the same delusion that the obama administration is under. i do not think they will stay under that delusion. what happens then? will they stand by? if the reports -- this could become a chaotic situation. turkey's position on this will be very important. to me, it seem slike er -- seems like erdogan has committed himself to be so much on the side of reform and change, that for him to backpedal will be a defeat in turkish political terms. that might impact his own party in upcoming elections. he is on the spot right now as
far as the syrian situation is concerned, unless he takes a clear line that is commensurate with the stations -- statements he is making. >> thank you very much. i think we're almost out of time. i want to thank you for this very interesting discussion of an extremely dangerous and sad situation. i invite everyone here to thank our guests for this discussion. [applause]
>> the associated press reports that more than 450 people have been killed by syrian security forces during the weeks of anti- government demonstrations. this afternoon, politico is reporting that three senators have called on president obama to demand the resignation of >> coming up on c-span, we will continue to look at presidential politics in iowa. we have eight 3.5 hour program getting under way at 3:00 p.m. eastern. the president will make national security announcements this afternoon.
we expect him to name cia director leon panetta to replace robert gates as the defense secretary. he is retiring at the end of june. david petraeus will take leon panetta's place as the head of the cia. that will be on c-span 2. >> on saturday, the white house correspondents dinner. our coverage includes highlights of past dinners and your comments from facebook and twitter. it will be live on c-span. the c-span networks. we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and history. we take c-span.org on the road
with our digital bus and local content vehicle. it is washington your way. the c-span network. available in more than 1 million homes. created by cable and provided as a public service. >> lisa jackson said u.s. economic recovery is in jeopardy. she spoke at an annual energy conference in washington.
>> communication must be a two- way street if we are to fulfill our mission, which is to analyze, collect, and disseminate impartial energy information to promote sound policy making and public understanding of energy and its interactions with the economy and the environment. it is exciting for us to be here with you, the people who build on the eia data and analysis. it is pivotal in improving the products we produce. i have been the administrator for nearly two years. i continue to find the role
extremely rewarding. we have achieved many milestones to strengthen our organization and our products. i will go into more detail about the changes we are pursuing act eia. we have invited colleagues from outside eia to bring their views on a host of topics. i would like to thank our speakers and moderators for being here with us as they shared their in size and expertise on important energy issues. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] this morning's opening session is the first of two sessions today. the second will take place at 1:00 p.m. during lunch. it will feature the director of the national economic council. please note the change in the
printed agenda. we will look at energy issues in the broader national economy and discuss president obama's energy plan. lisa jackson will speak about the questions -- the connections between clean energy, health, and the environment. she will then welcomed the president of shell oil, marvin odum. he will address meeting future energy demands. he will talk about taking a global view on energy challenges we face given the interconnectedness of markets and the county. they will answer questions from the audience -- interconnectedness of markets and the economy. they will answer questions from the audience after the speeches.
you can fill out a card and bring it up to me. there are some concurrent sessions. we plan on making presentations and transcripts of the sessions available on the eia website. at this time, it is my profound honor to introduce lisa jackson of the u.s. environmental protection agency. she leads the department's effort to protect the health department of all americans. she made her mission to protect members of boat groups that are particularly susceptible -- members of vulnerable groups that are particularly susceptible to environmental issues. when nominated for the role as epa minister ander, she was no stranger to the organization.
-- as epa administrator, she was no stranger to the organization. she is a graduate of tulane university. she has an m.s. i ms. jackson, the floor is yours. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. what a time the conference. we are not having many conversations that do not revolve around energy and prices. i always remind people when i speak publicly that i am 8 shell o -- a shell oil creation. i am a shell oil scholar.
>> obviously a successful program. >> i have to apologize in advance. because of scheduling, i cannot stay and listen to the q&a. thank you for having me. you are the nation's energy thinkers and leaders. i will try to be brief to save as much time as i can for q&a. my time at the epa is spent on pollution and the impact on our health and environment. i will say a little bit more about our work, especially with regard to clean air. i want to begin with a topic i know is on everyone's mind. that is the price of gasoline. you do not have to look far to read an article come to hear an article in your own lives to seeing the effects of the spike in gasoline prices.
-- to see the effectws of the spike in gasoline prices. american families are struggling. they recognize that the situation we are in is not sustainable over the long term. the thing that is driving up those prices at this particular moment is not that our competitor nations like china and india are increasing demands. at least that is not the primary driver of cost increases yet. i also feel compelled to note that upward pressure is not coming from any environmental or health regulation. the standards we set to protect our health are often an inaccurately blamed on increasing prices and economic challenges. that is not what is happening right now. what appears to be the most important factor at work is our dependence on imported energy.
this is what leads us boat -- i. president obama has strongly supported a cleaner, safer, and more secure energy future, one that breaks our dependence on foreign oil. it is something we have been talking about changing our years. it generates imported talking points -- about changing for years. we believe it is time for results. when the president took office, america import 11 million barrels per day. by 2025, we will reduce our net imports by 1/3. that encourages greater efficiently all around and supports the development of innovative, cleaner fuel. we are already making progress. last year, america produced more
well at home than we had in the past seven years. as someone who grew up in new orleans and attended school there, on the gulf coast, i do not take safe and responsible production lightly. neither does secretary of the interior ken salazar. neither does president obama. neither do the american people who watch the blown oil well spilled millions of barrels of oil into their waters. we have to recognize that increasing offshore oil production is not a viable long- term solution. we can still produce about 25%
of the world's oil. we need to come up with better ways to use and produce energy, better ways to power our economy. that means bringing energy costs down and investing in energy efficiency for residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. we have a number of successful programs on which to build. the energy star program, an epa program, helped americans reduce their energy use it and save $18 billion on their bills. there is the clean cars program that the president set in motion in 2009. by bringing together all the companies and environmental groups, they came to an agreement that will result in savings at the pump for american drivers by ensuring that our
vehicles are more energy- efficient than ever before. drivers of cars that meet these standards are expected to save $3,000 over the life of their vehicle. in addition to saving money for american drivers, the clean car program provide certainty for american car companies and sets the stage for them to create new american jobs. chrysler committed to adding 1000 new -- new engineers and technicians. 2000 of our fellow americans have new opportunities because of the certainty of regulations that are built on the simple premise up in the efficiency and the importance of it to our nation's feature. to thousand jobs that help meet environmental standards that we set in motion with the clean cars program. along with promoting energy efficiency, the president has called on us to innovate our way
to a clean energy future. our best opportunities rely on what president obama called our one critical renewable resource, american ingenuity. to tap into that ingenuity, it is critical that we remain -- maintain our innovation. the president has called for setting the goal of generating 80% of the electric supply from renewable sources by 2025. we want to shake the field that will capture wind energy. -- shapign the field that will capture wind energy. it is only -- shaping the field that will capture wind energy.
that will be beneficial to our health and our environment. by reducing mercury and acid gases and carbon and other pollution's that are the byproducts of -- pollutions that are the byproducts of fuel. it is important to do what we can to make our current supplies cleaner and healthier for the american people. epa is building on a history of success. we have been able to cut air pollution in the air we breathe by more than half. it is down more than 90% from one generation ago. since 1990, the clean air act has helped remove 1.7 tons of
pollution from our skies. it prevented 170,000 trips to the hospital. it is a success story. when the american people look for a law that works for them, i point to the clean air act. even still, there are still millions of americans with asthma in our country today. our work is not done. not long ago, epa proposed the first ever national mercury and air toxic standards for power plants. these proposed standards will require american power plants to utilize widely available pollution-control technologies to cut emissions of mercury and acid gases. balloons -- politicians are
linked to respiratory illnesses and other debilitating and fatal health challenges. we are initiating an effort that will reduce harmful pollutants in the air we breathe and save lives. widespread adoption of these standards will prevent 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks. for our kids, it will prevent 120,000 cases of asthma. for utilities, this will do what the car rule did for all to workers. it will provide certainty after 20 years of anticipating the standards and clarify where investment needs to be made to reduce pollution and modify our
energy grid. the things i talked about are the things we must accomplish by working together. the depth and breadth of the energy challenges means we have an important role to play. we are eager to work in good faith with all parties. the path of our experience has taught us the value of hearing every viewpoint. when epa first proposed renewable fuel production standards, we heard from public comment and direct conversations about the concerns with our analysis about greenhouse gas impact. we relied on the best science and we have a rule that encourages innovation. it respects the needs of agricultural communities and is expected to increase farmers'
incomes. when we updated our standards for toxic emissions, we considered the input of utilities and workers during the public comment process. they had good ideas. we took their advice. we cut compliance costs in half. that meant reducing compliance costs by $1.80 billion without sacrificing the health benefits of the rule. that is the kind of collaboration that makes for environmental progress. we are deeply concerned about americans' health. we are concerned about gas prices that threaten to break budgets. we all it to them to be pushing in the same direction. given those -- we owe to them to be pushing in the same direction. this is one of the most
important times we can be gathering. i am glad to be with you and i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> as you can see if you have been witnessing the number of questions i have gotten from the audience, we need to establish a common response. period for questions or the administrator. there are some things that have emerged. let's get going. there have been a number of things that have come up related to the epa also worked in the area of hydraulic fracturing as it applies to natural gas. what is the epa doing to protect the environment? when you comment on hydraulic fracturing -? - would you comment on hydraulic
fracturing? would you comment on hydraulic fracturing? >> we are not the only entity doing things in the area of hydraulic fracturing. the area has been regulated by the states. the epa has a number of exemptions for oil and gas production. there was not a need to necessarily have us in that space. hydraulic fracturing is different on the scale we are seeing it. not only do you inject -- which normally we would regulate under our underground injection control regulation -- but you also have produced water that comes back from a restructuring process. dealing with that water can be
as much of an issue as water safety. on a grand scale, we are doing a two-year study. that study has a grand scope. the goal is to look at the impact of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. it takes a life cycle approach of the hydraulic fracking process. epa is also looking at its regulatory authority to -- i would not always say backstop -- but to find the places where epa needs to provide guidance or direction as far as the injection of fracking fluids. the place we do have a gap is on diesel injection.
companies are using diesel as part of their fracking process. we need to put some guidance out. we are reaching out to industry, to states, and to the department of interior. the departments of interior and agriculture have a huge stake. other fluids, other hydraulic fracking fluids are not regulated under the states drinking water act by law. but that the regulation says these zero is not exempt. i heard a quick question on pennsylvania. we are handling issues in the state out of our regional office. we have no concerns as they are brought to us. we would prefer to allow the states to be the first level of response. with the recent blog in pennsylvania, the one place we thought we could add value to
get a handle on what is in the fracturing fluid -- the recent blow out in pennsylvania, the one place we thought we could add value to get a handle on what is in the factory fluid is there. we have a regulatory role to play and we are interested in the study. >> we have questions about fuel economy standards. what do you see happening with the cafe standards in the future? there have been some administration proposals and a specific proposal for heavy duty trucks. it looks like the final roll for have the duty trucks will be similar to what was proposed. >> let me answer that. that is an easy one. i do not know. we will follow science and the law. i do not have a meeting and tell them what the final standards
will be. it is the opposite. our staff brief us on the comments they have received. i do not believe i have had that briefing yet. what i can promise you is that the final standard will comply with the law. we will take comments and now we need to review the comments and make revisions. i have to give a shout out to my staff who worked on mobile forces. that that is here and in ann arbor, michigan. when you want to talk about policy and technology, you do not find a better example of that than what is going on in the mobile sources. on cafe standards for light duty vehicles, we have standards in place that cover model years from 2012 to 2016. we know they will save consumers money and they will save
billions of gallons of gasoline that we will not have to use. the president likes that program and has called on us and the department of transportation and the national highway safety transportation administration to come up with the next round of car standards for 2017 to 2025. we have a proposal coming out later this summer based on technical work. what we set in scoping this is that we can look at increasing fuel economy every year by a range of 2% per year to 6% per year. we are not in a position to go further until we get the results of a lot of testing and studies back from safeties and cost. cost is a huge factor.
>> a few questions on biofuels. what do you see happening with e-15? a number of things need to happen to make e-15 a reality. is there a plan to revise the biofuels standards? >> we have been working closely with the u.s. department of agriculture to ensure that the estimates we did when we look at the life cycle of ethanol -- that is probably the genesis of your question -- is not impacted by the current situation in the commodities market. current prices are high. everything we know and everything usda knows does not blame a large percentage of
that. some amount of corn is being used for stock or ethanol. yet the thing about biofuels that is fascinating to me as an engineer is that it is about innovation. i just got back from iowa last week. i saw a couple of plants. i was at a traditional by a diesel plant. i met with representatives from various by a few industries. it is about getting to the next generation of energy fuels. it is about feed stocks. they are as interested in moving to other feed stocks. the other thing i learned was even though you use the corn or traditional corn at the top, that can come back and be used as feed. you do not get all of the energy
out if you use the corn directly. we are monitoring the situation. do not feel like it is going to change our regulations on biofuels. we at epa had a narrow role to play. we were asked to look at the life cycle of various fuels and determined if they qualify for renewable fuels or advanced tools under the law. that has to do with their greenhouse gas savings over traditional gasoline. we have done that analysis. we did the best job we could. we are working with the national academy of science for analysis going forward. the marketing will depend on several other issues. we are working to do that shortly. we have already put out guidance for tanks there are different issues with regard to tanks.
>> we've said, if we're going to start, that that's where it should start. the clean air act is a technology law. it is often thought of as a public health law, and it is. you've heard the liveds they have saved and the hospital zations and the rucks in health care costs. but the writers of the law were relying on technology to move us forward. the technology for moving to a pipe is not there. the technology that is there is energy eefficiency. in the work we've done to date, whether it be on mobile sources like cars and trucks or the best available controlled technology, the guidance we put out in
january for large sources, it is all about energy eefficiency. it is about squeezing as much energy as possible out of whatever fossil fuel you are using. that certainly includes coal and oil. that means as a country we should allow the clean air act to get us started, and i believe at some point we'll move forward with legislation. thank you very much. >> administrator jackson has to go to something else, but let's give her a huge round of applause for her thoughtful comments. [applause] >> i'd like to extend a warm welcome to the president of shell oil company and director of upstream america's
businesses. mr. odom began his career at shell in 1982. as he moved up the corporate ladder with the company, he served in a number of management positions of increasing management capabilities, including the aspects of energy. he became chairman of the executive committee of the adabasco oil project in 2009, and in addition to his speciality, he holds board of the board of trustees of the national urban league, the dean's council of harvard kennedy school, the kennedy advisory board, and the board of director of the council of the americas. mr. odom received a bachelor of engineering and m.b.a. from university of houston. mr. odom, we are thrilled to have you here. we're looking forward to your thoughts on critical energy as we have today.
so please join me in welcoming mr. odom to the conference. [applause] >> it is a pleasure to be here with what is likely the most energy-informed audience in washington, or i think it is fair to say, the most energy-informed audience anywhere. i would like to begin with what might seem like the obvious. i want to do that because i think it establishes right up front what has to be the starting point of any conversation about energy, whether you are in the u.s. or anywhere else. the statement i'll start with is simply this one. there are things we know and things we don't. and what we know and what we don't and the decisions we make
as a result have global impacts. we know for example the demand for energy and the number of people expressing that demand will continue to grow. we don't know when or where the next natural disaster will occur or where the next political instability will come from. we also know, largely because of e.i.a. data what energy sources we have domestically. we have some idea where those resources are and how much is there. and we have a workforce that can go get it. too often we don't know what the regulatory picture will look like for the long term. that uncertainty sends job-creating opportunities to other posts within other borders. of course we see that happening to a degree already in the gulf of mexico. now, we know that reducing demand and increasing supply is the sureest way to build a stable energy future. our political climate doesn't aled always make that easy.
neither do the decisions made by a few but far too often made to deal in rhetoric and hyperbole rather than in facts. i would like for us to deal in facts. i would like sernts. i want what we know to help safeguard what we don't. from my perspective and the perspective of shell it shouldn't be difficult to create a rationale, pursuedent energy policy. one that enshures both future and present demands are met. the slate of options is limited and we do need to pursue them all. i don't actually think there is a lot of debate about that. the divisiveness begins when people start talking about bringing new resources into the mix. one is pitted against the other, people pick winners and losers, and some are less than honest
about the trade-offs. that relegates compromise to the back row. it is one of the reasons people are so disappointed in their leaders right now. there is no reason why the u.s. should be one of the late-comers in figuring this out. but you can't force the energy challenges to fit neatly within borders. our interconnected markets and economies demand that we take a local view. the world's instability, uncertainty, and volatility requires we take a global view. because right now like never before what we know can innoculate us against what we don't. for today i would like to focus on what we know in three areas where i think this is particularly the case. by definition i think we could spend just as much time talking about eefficiency and other energies, so please, with your questions take me to the other topics if you would like to talk about those in more detail. the first area, given the
question, is biofuels. we know today's biofuels are likely the most practical commercial solution for reducing carbon emissions in the transport sector over the next 20 years. we know that the international market for biofuels is growing. we know that with the right policies in place, they could grow even faster. at shell we know their delivery system is the most similar to our core hydrocarbon business. this is all part of why shell continues to build in biofuels for the sustainable food stocks. we need to go beyond corneth knowledge to a -- to beyond corn ethynol. shell has been one of the largest biofuel distribute tores for a number of -- distributeors of biofuels in 2010 alone. in brazil we are working with the largest ethynol producers
for the production of ethynol, sugar, and power. this joint venture will be one of the largest ever. two billion liters is the starting point. we have considerable as prayings -- aspirations for growth. this will depend on developing new technologies and advanced biofuels, produce from new feed stocks and new conversion processes. working with a number of partners, among them iogen energy, environt. we are working from commercial phases. from a practical and commercial standpoint, advanced biofuels will only emerge in commercial quantities in 2020 and beyond.
it will take considerable time and investment to get these to full-scale commercial refineries. government policies that incinerate help create conditions necessary to build successful biofuels market. a lot of good work has been done whether you are talking about the u.s. or europe or other places. there is a temptation to believe that that is enough. that assumption would be wrong. there is much more that could be done. this includes rewarding sustainable low carbon fuel. creating a regulatory framework that stimulates market-driven regulation or providing the kind of regulatory certainty that encourages long-term l imports. and creating a level playing field for low co-2 biofuels. can we knows these imperatives will materialize?
no. we know staggering demand will. we know new technology is making advanced biofuels more and more viable. for our part at shell we know that right now we are standing with a long line of people and enterprises who want to make that happen. the second area is natural gas. here's what we know about natural gas. we know there is a lot of it. we know it is a cleaner burning fuel. we know capturing it and using it is easier than ever. a few months ago, north america's natural gas production was believed to be in decline. everyone in this room knows this story as much as i do. application of this energy has made gas more accessible. 32,000 cubic feet of natural gas are available world-wide.
over 2,500 feet are available here. at current production levels there is enough global supply to meet world demand for 250 years. we have enough just in the us for 100 years. by 2012, next year, shell will produce more natural gas than oil. that's not an accident. it's worth pursuing, and it will be a preferred fuel. it is worth it to the people around the world who are emerging from poverty and ascending to the level of becoming energy consumers like so much of us. now oil companies were the second largest world-wide, the largest l.n.g. producer, the leader in gas production. in the last 10 years we've invested over 17 billion in north american natural gas exploration and development. we are active in six key gas plays in north america.
about 4.8 million net acres with resource potential. now, beyond the economic and environmental benefits of natural gas, we're seeing other benefits as well. specifically in the petrochemicals industry. low costs have been associated with natural gas production and is create -- creating a competitive advantage to petrochemical makers. the american chemistry council says a 25% increase in methane production would create around 17,000 new high-paying jobs in the chemical industry and about 400,000 jobs outside of it. it would do all of this while creating over $130 billion in economic output at an annual increase of $4.4 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenues. the policymakers are looking for new ways to spur job growth and lower the deficit. it is hard to imagine why a
responsible energy policy with more natural gas, exploration, isn't sailing through congress. i realize part of the hesitation to embrace natural gas has to do with what i believe are at best incomplete and at worst irresponsible reports around hydraulic practices. make no mistake, it can be done without harming the environment. anything less is unacceptable. shell supports regulations that require companies to disclose the chemicals they use in the process. as a matter of fact, we do that now. and adhere to the highest safety standards. responsible operators should have no problem complage. -- com plying. the best should work to improve the process. new technologies and procedures will reduce the amount of fresh water drawn from local sources and new water in storage recycling innovations will minimize the footprint of natural gas developments. now, our goal is to get to the
point where we effectively recycle 100% of the water that we use. we are confident we will get there. here's what we know. we know there is a lot of supply there. we know people need it. we know producing it creates jobs. we know at the current phase we are losing daylight relative to our own supply needs and relative to other countries. i hear and i understand why one year after the disaster in the gulf there are some who remain critical of deep-water drilling. let me be clear. our industry in many respects is only as good as the worst operator, whether that's in the gulf or anywhere else. shell is strongly in favor of new, appropriate regulations that request make our people
safer and can make our industry stronger. now, beyond new government regulations, we support and we worked to create industry-leading global safety standards. we have worked to build an industry task force to share and enhance these standards. i'm proud of the fact that when we operate off-shore we often employ standards that go above and beyond what the local government require. let me also be clear that i believe there is a role for government to play that goes beyond oversight. that role is one of enabling and encouraging private-sector growth and development through -- though permitting is beginning to ramp back up in the gulf, getting u.s. production levels back on track will require a lot more work. it will require it in at least two areas. restoring the projects in the gulf and opening new areas in the eastern gulf of alaska for exploration. we were glad to see the permits.
that's a shell discovery. this was the first deep-water approved permit by the d.o.e. and the first to make a full sweep of regulatory requirements of preparedness, prevention, and response. so that's encouraging. i'm cautiously optimistic that that marks a turning point in the gulf. but the alaska story is much different. since 2005, the federal government has held new sales off the coast of that state. we participated in these sales, and we paid more than $2 billion for hundreds of leases. we have invested an additional $1.5 billion to prepare an exploration program that meets and exceeds current regulatory requirements. despite our most intense efforts, we have yet to drill a single well. as you all are aware, the government does analysis before providing a lease sale.
a lease sale is an invitation from the government. it says the government wants oil and gas development. shell has been repeatedly blocked by regulatory and legal boundaries and some of our leases are now within four years of expiring. the most serious of these barriers has to deal with obtaining a useable air permit for use of our temporary exploration operations. these operations are miles from shore. the e.p.a. has publicly stated these operations will not have an impact on public health. the delay is frustrated and undermines confidence in the american regulatory sfim. beyond that, you might call it irresponsible. thousands of men and women who are counting on those jobs, local businesses were counting on the revenue, and communities were counting on the tax boost. we hope to see the situation resolved quickly, and i want to say very clearly, that i appreciate the openness that
administrator jackson has devoted to this issue. she is paying quite a bit of attention to this. red tape and permitting slowdowns are not limited to areas like the gulf in alaska. they are impacting the many development of a keystone pipeline that mixes oil sales with refineries. the state department has postponed its decision on whether the pipeline can move forward until late this year while it conducts environmental reviews. this is on top of the greater than 20 public meetings that the agency has conducted. completion of the pipeline would move more than a million barrels each day to refineries in the gulf and create over 3,000 jobs in the u.s. over the next four years. i've taken -- taken together, oil supplies the largest crude to the u.s. more than any other single country. the technology to develop oil sand didn't exist 30 years ago. now, this is another year why it is so important for the u.s. to
invest in energy innovation, to encourage exploration, and secure a table -- and secure stable sources of energy p whether we are talking about oil sands, deep-water drilling, the urgency and the impact are similar. and the bottom line is this -- if we don't develop secure energy sources, we will have to report from places less secure, less stable, and less environmently secure. at a time when we can't be certain where or when the next volatile situation in politics will arise, we want to -- why would we want to add another layer of uncertainty to the mix? one important final thing to call out, as we talk about what we know and what we don't, i've tried very hard not to use the word solution. there's a reason for that. solution implies the challenge is gone, over, done, finished. too often people use that word to imply that one energy source or a couple energy sources will
fix everything. we know that our energy challenges will never be, quote, unquote, solved. figuring out how to make the most of what we have, how best to use it, and how to develop new sources will always be something to aspire to. that's why we need an approach to energy that is as dynamic as it is a challenge. we need an approach that whose only constant evolution and improvement. our elected leaders in washington have difficult, important work. getting it right is critical. it will take a sustained, long-term commitment. the policymakers are not alone. the way we see it at shell, it is our job to work collaboratively with regulators to adopt the outlook that reasonable regulations are what pave the way for us to do what we need to do. it is our spoble responsibility to be open -- it is our responsibility to be open and honest about what we know and don't know and justify the faith
policymakers put in us when they seek our input. it is our job to demonstrate that we can be trusted to do the right thing and then to do it. living up to this charge is something we take very seriously. because in a complex global world, complex global clengs, we believe the best approach is a simple one. meeting our energy needs in a simple and responsible way should not be all that hard. not if we deal in facts, trust in certainty, and let what we know safeguard against what we don't know. thank you. [applause] >> we're going to reverse. he will sfay at the pode -- stay at podium as i go through questions. i assume the industry would like to increase public awareness for
onshore natural gas production. what do you think needs to help in the industry to bring that about in terms of addressing the environment? >> i think it is a great question. actually it's phrased as an industry question, which i think is the right way to phrase it. let me answer it in terms of what we will do as a company and i hope is representative of what the industry will do. when you look at the challenges around natural gas development, whether that is baracking, water disposal, fugitive emissions and so forth, i believe all of those have good answers and some impact and measurable impacts. i think what we haven't done, unfortunately, as an industry, and what we will do as a company and what we are working on as we speak, is how to be completely transparent about that throughout our actual operation. so how to measure those impacts, how to share that in a very transparent fashion, how to partner with someone in that process that helps provide that entire data with some credibility that may not come
from the company alone. that's something that we're working on right now. i would expect to us to get to an end point of that. transparancy, i think, is the answer to address that concern. >> there's a number of questions related to oil and gas. some of it comes in the form of price differentials. what are the business opportunities that might take advantage of oil and gas? some relate today gas and liquids came up. using gas and transportation came up as another option and some of the other questions. another related question, are you and other majors over-emphasizing gas to oil given the gas differential? >> let me start with the last question. if you are a financial analyst, that is the question i get every day. are you emphasizing something that is a low price, and i'd rather be focused on oil or something with more value to it. i think it is instructive that something we as a company and the industry in a broader sense
have to take a broad view of energy opportunities out there. this is not what the price is next week or what the price is next year. it is about a 10, 20, 30 or 40 year forecast because what we put in place will last for that period of time. i do think the whole area of, you know, what are the opportunities to monetize gas, especially in terms of the typical uses, is a fascinating area. you mentioned, i think, basically all of the ones that have been working on. the ones that are interesting hold some promise. we discuss turning that gas into a permanent liquid fuel that can be used as diesel or other transportation fuels in the market. moving gas into transportation is something we're exploring and acting on to both understand the cost associated with that and also the public uptake, potential uptake on that type of option.
>> there's a lot of talk about gas export. i give you my personal opinion about gas exports from the u.s., and that's a whole political dwray that hasn't begun to happen yet. because i think we're still waking up to the fact that we have this enormous energy resource in our back yard that can completely change the way we look at energy as a country going forward. i think we need to finish that process and then have a political debate about whether exporting that energy is something we would allow to happen or p. i think if you look at it from a pure commercial gas perspective, it can make good sense. i just recognize we haven't had the debate yet. so lots of good uses for gas. >> in some other regions of the world, what do you see as the most promising in terms of gas production outside of the u.s.? >> well, i think -- the diesel
way to answer that question is to think about the way we're working around the world. that's probably on the order of 25 countries around the world. from an up-stream production standpoint, the list is long. the list is vast. there are a lot of energy resources out there. i think you can't discount what's happening in north america. looking at the gas that's been developed, we may have something on the barrel of 1200 trillion barrels of oil in the arctic off-shore of alaska. there are tremendous resources here at home. we see the same thing in brazil, australia, and obviously in the middle east and there is more development potential there. it is a widespread base overall. i would be remisif i forgot to mention the scale of the heavy oil resources that exist in canada.
>> what happened to hide row fuel is one question. what happened on the projects of hydro-oil? we can talk a little about both of those. >> we are extending that into biofuels which you heard me make a lot of comments about because it fits well with our skills and it fits into being one of the near-term options that have the biggest impact. you might actually get to something that starts to make a difference in the total system. that's why we focus there. we are also players in the wind business. we have a fairly substantial wind business in north america.
it is interesting. we don't see it growing rapidly. we look at it in a commercial sense. also the environmental aspect of wind. we are not in solar. i know there is a lot of innovation happening in solar, but i won't embark on that discussion because there are probably others better here to talk about that. hydro is something that may ultimately be part of the mix. we do research and development in hydrogen. we have demonstration filling stations spread out across the country, mostly in california now. but we continue to see that as a potential source two or three or four. another near-term resource.
>> here's a direct one. will the alaskaian natural gaspipeline be built? >> i'm going to stick to the commercial side of this, which is that you need a strong commercial driver to connect that gas resource with the lower 48. you know, the way the gaspipeline is proposed. with the number of resources that have been discovered recently in north america. .
you have all share -- offshore areas that have not been explored and you have on shore. where do you see the biggest increase beyond where people think things might happen? >> there are other places to look. you were focusing on north america. there were other places you could explore. the thing that strikes me about the question is how significant those really are. i am not one who uses the term energy independence at all because i do not think that is the right goal. secure supplies of energy are the right to goal and the degree to which we can impact our own supply is so much greater than what i sense the general public understands. and certainly greater than the
rhetoric out there. >> thank you for your answers to questions as well as your comments. [applause] >> next up, our coverage on iowa radio programs conclude with the jim fischer show. -- dan kedy hills i nnedy fills in for jim fischer. woc is the radio station where ronald reagan got his start recreating play-by-play. now our coverage here on c-span. >> good afternoon c-span.org
fans. welcome to davenport, iowa. i will be the host of the jim fischer showed today. jim is under the weather. we will talk a little iowa politics. john is from the eye with dispatch. a little about woc, the first radio home of ronald reagan. he dedicated the building that we are in right here in davenport, iowa. >> i believe you were there that day. >> no, i was not there that day. the history of this facility is that it was part of who out of cedar rapids. everybody -- everything was owned by the palm family. everybody thinks woc stands for
world of chiropractic. >> i tend to believe it has something to do with their relationship with the doctor who formed the chiropractic operation. >> the family says they do not have anything to do with it. >> i thought that was what it was. >> good afternoon. i know you may be expecting jim fisher. i will be filling in with him -- for him today. >> we have already talked this morning. >> i also want to say hi to all of the people from c-span. this is one of those special days where the folks have come in. we have the crew in. if you turn to media com number
2, you can witness what is going on here today. we will be talking about iowa politics and presidential politics. the number for everybody watching and listening is 5633441420. you can e-mail us at firstname.lastname@example.org. if you have a question or comment, you can feel free to tell us what is going on. let's talk about what is going on with the release of the birth to a ticket for president barack obama. are you surprised? >> very much so. whynow? why does it take -- why now? why did the president of the
united states take time from $4 a gallon gas prices to produce such a document now. i am still in treat. i do not know why someone step forward now. is donald trump that much of a bother to the president? i do not know. why all of the sudden? >> do you know what i think donald trump did that a lot of people could not do and why he finally had to respond? this is my opinion. donald trump brought it out to be mainstream, the independent voters. it turned up on internal polls that showed internal voters, not just republicans, say, maybe there is something to this. donald trump is saying, i am cannot find this thing. i am having problems with this. they said, we have to do something about this.
>> now trump has become a factor. when our cover -- now our competition has gone to that level. when you are a factor, you become a contender. sarah palin is not a contender, but a factor. they go hand in hand. >> we have steve from florida. good morning. i am used to doing the morning show. >> i will make it quick. i just recently started studying this whole political process because of the upcoming elections and because of our economy and because i viewed on netflix the movie, "media
malpractice." iowans do not seem to have that kind of coverage in the media. i would like to hear your comments about what was reported about how the liberal media is so bias for democrats and, more specifically, how they treated the 2008 elections. i hope sarah palin runs just our principal because of what i learned about the liberal media and the baez and the whole shebang. -- bias and the whole shebang. >> thank you for the call. >> i like the fact that someone is involved and he is taking the time to be part of the process.
you and i can relate to this. a few weeks ago, we had countywide elections and city elections. voter turnout -- it did my heart good to hear someone involved in the process. you have to split media between groups? >> you start getting a pack mentality with the media. something i have noticed with new reporters. they are spoonfed the information. they do not dig it up themselves. if you are going to take whatever someone passes out, you will lean one way or another. everyone is going to put their own slant on news releases. >> but if you say reports are, that should be straight down the middle.
i understand the spoonfed into of things. you said reported. you actually report the facts in front of you. >> depending on how they are tilted. >> one of his other questions was -- i do not think this state mrs. too much. >> we are astute in iowa. jim joins us from michigan. good afternoon. >> am i on the air? >> you are on the air. >> i am a liberal. i am for the unions. i notice you have ronald reagan's picture up there. i will tell you a few things you probably do not know. you have a totally different education than me. i was a toolmaker apprentice before going to the vietnam war.
they had world war ii veterans serving in the atlantic and the pacific. he was all over indonesia and the philippines. there is going to be no nominal -- no domino. here you have regin's picture back there, who helped -- ronald reagan's picture, who helps to topple the unions. >> hang on. alcoa remains one of the foremost union manufacturers in the world. this is the world headquarters of the john deere union. you are talking to the hotbed. >> talk to a lot of people
around here and drive around and look at some of the plants that have been closed. the strong arm of the union demanded more and more and the company shut down. >> if you are talking about middle america, you land in a union hotbed. >> thomasina in florida. >> i have no doubt the republicans are going to let this burglar -- birther eshissue die down. senator orrin hatch tried to pass legislation to allow someone like arnold schwarzenegger to run for president. it did not get passed. when it is one of their own, they are ready to throw the
constitution under the bus. >> i differ politically from our liberals out there. what a great point. >> one of the things we have seen, it does not matter which party. they both talked out of both sides of their mouth. that is one thing that frustrates me about politics. if you talk about what obama said during his campaign and what he is saying now, totally different. if it is somebody of your political persuasion, it is not so bad anymore. i do not care which party you are. that is just wrong. brian is in indiana. good afternoon. >> how are you today? >> i am doing well. >> you were talking about donald trump and getting into the political run. we are smarter than they think
we are. have they even broken into donald trump's records. ? he works for nbc. if he worked for fox, i would be scared. >> he is the executive producer of his show. he represents the company. >> we are going to get into donald trump. personally, i do not think the man will play here in iowa. i do not see him going out to these little firm communities sitting there and eating what i used to call -- farm communities and sitting there and eating what i used to call chicken surprise.
i just do not see him playing to that crowned. thanks for the call. we need to take a quick break. we will be back for more. >> today's fuel can degrade over time. >> we have been coming in from everywhere, don't we? the beauty of this is when we get c-span callers, they are and forms. they have done their research. they understand the concepts of all of this. we have not been able to get anybody from i want to just talk politics. >> i love the gentleman who picked up on the ronald reagan shot in the background. >> if you would like to call
us, 5633441420. you can also send us an e-mail. i heard donald trump was in the hospital. he tore a rotator cuff. >> you would say that. >> i understand why people really like donald trump. it is because he speaks his mind. he says what a lot of people would like to say. the problem is, with our politics, he cannot go into congress. >> why can he stand up to people and say, you are messing with the strongest nation in the
world? >> when he was to get something it is not congress stumb, like a board room. you are a dictator. despite what rush may think about obama, he is not a dictator. >> how did we get to rush? >> for those of us to listen to rush. >> welcome back to the jim fisher show. i am dan kennedy. we are overlooking the flooding mississippi. we are not as bad as a lot of
places. a tornado ran through. we know how to deal with a flood. a 200 year flood comes every three years. we are prepared. they have taken steps over the years. one side is a river. the iowa side has neglected to build the flood wall. the people of our community have weathered every flood and storm. we have not been hit by a tornado. we have not had anything leveled. >> the folks from c-span are here. we say welcome to all of the viewers out there. the phone number is 563-344- 1420. you can also reach us at our website -- our emai.
. >> i think it's going to cause him a lot of problems now. >> i don't disagree with that. he should take some flack. all the sudden, here it is. why didn't you show it two years ago? >> or four years ago. whenever you started fund raising. it should have been the first day he wrote his name. right there. showed the folks. if you want to run for office, show your birth certificate.
you have to get one if you want to get a passport. >> debra joins us from beverly hills, california. >> this is deborah from beverly hills, florida. >> sorry. >> my comment is about donald trump. he is smoke and mirrors. we all know he is a democrat. instead of this man bragging about how he was able to take himself out of $5 billion in debt in five years, he goes off on a tangent to dispel everybody in the tea party and tried to turn obama into and the legitimate president. that would be too simple. >> are you talking about smoke and mirrors politically or as a
business person? >> donald trump as a business person or political contender. i do believe he is a full-blown democrat. >> i do not disagree with you. i do not think he is going to run. donald trump is having fun. he is jerking people's chain. >> it is revenue generating. i hearken back to "celebrity apprentice," which i watched for the first time ever last sunday. >> shelly, good afternoon. >> hello. thank you for taking my call. i heard you talking about gas prices and blaming it on president obama. >> i do not think we have done that yet, but we will if you like. >> i said he should address the
issue a little more than he did. >> i heard one of you say that. ok. listen, we could control all of the oil we have in this country and it would not make the gas prices go down at all. >> why would that be? >> it is the wall street speculators who have gas prices up. everyone in this country should tell the truth, like you two. >> all right. hang on. if you are right, if it is the speculator is, if we said, okay, we are going to drill and bring more oil into the market, that kills the speculator. >> it has nothing to do with supply and demand. it is the speculator is betting. >> if you increase the amount of
oil, they could not that anymore. >> we could bring all the oil we have into the market and it would not make a difference. the birther thing you were talking about a minute ago and why he didn't show it when he was elected, why would he have to? >> when we go for a job, we have to show a resume and a birth certificate, some form of identification. >> it is the law. arthur from new york. >> hi. how are you doing? >> i will be brief. everybody is raising sand about social security and medicaid. war andt they stop the
bring the troops home and save the money for medicaid and they will not be arguing about that? >> you are going to have to turn down your television. >> why don't they do that? let the people voted the way they do in elections for medicaid and social security? >> as someone who is not a political strategist or a wartime strategist, are we ready to take everybody out? are we not going to have a presence in afghanistan? i do not think that is going to change. are we working toward cutting back on that? i believe so. i do not know if that will solve the expenditures you are looking for. >> you have got to have a presence.
are we overextend it? probably. are we going to succeed? i do not think so. nobody else has been successful there. >> we are not getting anything from afghanistan or iraq. >> thank you for the call. it is 344-1/4 to 0. that is our number here -- . it is 344-1420. that is our number here. >> the reason i was calling today is, i am a business student at marshall university. after the financial crisis we have been in, why not have someone with a great business background such as donald trump
, run for office? what would be the negativity of that? >> the point you just made is why all three of us are having this discussion about donald trump. the financial condition our country has been in is why we are looking for someone with a business or entrepreneurial style. your point is terrific. that is why donald trump is in the news today. he is that type of person. as americans, we are looking for someone who can grab us by the bootstraps. we want a quick fix rather than a slow fix. that is what we are looking for. >> i completely agree. i feel like the nation should see that. he needs to do something different. our economy is trash right now. we need to take action and do something as soon as possible.
also, i had another thing i wanted to ask you about. what do you think about deregulating some of the regulations we have on fracking? >> on what? >> hydraulic fracking. >> not familiar. >> it is the process of putting water into the ground. >> we should look at all those options. we should explore everything we have. you want to bring prices down, put more oil on the market. we need to take a break. we will be back in just a moment with more.
>> we get a wide range. donald trump has gone bankrupt how many times? twice that we know of. he said that if barack obama made his but civic public, -- birth certificate public, he would make his tax returns public. he is backpedaling on that. >> you make a great point. he is a figurehead. >> donald trump is used to going into this business and saying, this is what is going to be done. he is going to walk into
congress and they are going to laugh. do i think he could do a good job? there are a lot of people who could do a good job. the problem is, what can he do while he is there? he cannot say, you are fired. he cannot do that. >> he would run through chiefs of staff like he is changing his socks. >> the phone number is 563-344- 1420. these guys are hard working. they have been on the road. >> they went outside iowa. >> hopefully, they are having a little fun. hopefully, they will be back. we could do a whole show on the
caucus process. there is a difference between republicans and the democrats. they put you in a corner and if you are not viable, they make you go to another one. >> i love the fact that that is the neat thing about the caucuses. it is an a side and a b side. they try to talk you into doing something their way. i have only seen them in action once and shook my head as i walked away. we talked about who is liable as a candidate. we talked about pretender contenders. >> right now, donald trump is
not playing that great in iowa. >> there is a serious political atmosphere here. >> we are getting some e-mails. donald trump will probably run for president. he is bringing more people into the national debate. the more people start paying attention to the issues, the better. i love that in talk radio. >> i was believe that -- iowans believe in registering and voting. >> people become talk radio listeners when they are more concerned about property taxes, gas taxes, how much it is costing you at the grocery store. >> of it is centered around a
gallon of gas and the cost of it -- all of it is centered around a gallon of gas and the cost of it. >> welcome back to the jim fisher show. i am dan kennedy. we are answering some questions on politics with and i was slant. let's get back to the phones. who is next? tim.lieve intit is >> good afternoon. when obama and mccain were running, they both said the same thing. only boys.
going on in this country. this country was founded on the principles of freedom, the liberty to pursue your happiness. what really gets me is, ass isinine -- which is assinine, is that we are so rich in technological advances and things of that nature. there is more than enough for everybody to have enough to be comfortable. >> that is a great argument. to me, that is what you strive for. everybody wants a job should have that opportunity. when you cannot do that, you have a problem. >> i am african american. i do not believe i am african first. i believe i am american first.
whether my defendants -- whether my descendants were slave or free, everybody is something. there are a lot of misnomers about slavery in the first place. the majority of the people who owned slaves -- i am going to offend some people. i apologize in advance. this is my personal opinion. the majority of people who owned slaves did not abuse them. think about it. if you greeted -- breed dogs or horses, there will be times when your family does not get the things they need. you will start today and eat tomorrow. >> you protect your own assets. >> exactly. at times, you have to sacrifice yourself to do that.
what i first saw a movie, i had a problem. the media does not portray it the way it should be. if you go through your history, when slavery actually happened ad when people woere freed, lot of our ancestors died free. take chicago, for instance. a whole community died. >> i want to move you along a little bit. i understand where you are coming from. is there a point you want to make. >> we talk about equality and things of that nature. maybe and african american -- i
am american first -- when people looked at me and hear me spe ak, i go out there and work and i am either terminated and somebody comes in and is paid more. nobody is right all the time. they want to blame everything that happens on his predecessor. it was already set up with ronald reagan and the war on drugs. i will use that as an example. i feel like we are in a martial law state. the police are coming in and they are kicking your door down and beating you up and violating the civil rights. that is not entertainment. >> thank you for the call. i appreciate it. >> i got lost on the entitlement and people seeking justice. i think everybody wants justice.
where are the text books written 80 years ago? >> linda in florida. good afternoon? linda? okay. darlene, from maryland. >> hi. i know we are sick of hearing about the subject, but one more comment about the birther issue. until we are able of getting to the bottom of where this whole idea originated and why there has been so much talk and so much innuendo about the subject, we as a country are not going to move forward. during the time president obama was running for president, i live in the south. i had been there for five years. trust me when i say, racism is
alive and well in this country. people were up in arms over the fact that an african american could possibly be running for president of the united states. it is still out there. people cannot want to talk about it. no one wants to amend it. they want to hide it under a blanket of some other reason. that is the bottom line. >> you can stop people from hating people or disliking people for whatever reason. whether he is too that our too short or his religion. >> all of those things that you mentioned are not racism. racism is a ugly face to this country. it really is. as your friend mentioned, you do not have to show your but it did it when applying for a job.
i never had to show my birth certificate when applying for a job. where was clinton's? where was bush's? i never heard any talk of where his birth certificate was. >> why did he produce it from the beginning? >> why should he have to? >> thank you. come on. if he had it, why has he jerked our change for two here's? from kansas. >> i had two comments. what about oil drilling in the united states. it we drill oil and we use united states oil, we will save money. that is just common sense.
the other comment i had. i am disabled. i get money for social security. people say they are going to try to take away social security. i say to money for my old age. i reached the cap because i became sick. with insurance, you have caps. people do not realize that. they think, a $1 billion cap, you will never reach it. $1 million cap, you will never reach it. i would like to see these politicians live on $850 per month. >> thank you for the call.
if they want to pass health care, they should be on the same health care. a little accountability. >> we need to take a break. i am dan kennedy. we will take a break and be back in just a moment. >> what a great exchange. >> we have another e-mail. drilling oil in the gulf of mexico beyond the 12 mile limit does not belong to the united states. i don't get it. there are oil fields in alaska. there is 200 years worth of supplies. our president says he cannot do
anything about it. what surprises me is the fact that he said it. if i am a republican strategist, i have that tape of obamas say, i cannot do anything about the oil prices. >> everything is predicate it on right now -- predicated on right now. by the way, you can reach us by e-mail at email@example.com -- firstname.lastname@example.org.
our iowa political listeners are watching on c-span. we will keep trying to get you in here, but the bonds have been busy. everybody has an opinion. sometimes we can follow -- the telephones have been busy. everybody has an opinion. sometimes we can follow along. sometimes we cannot. >> i had to show my birth certificate 25 years ago. >> i just got a passport and i had to show my birth certificate. welcome back to the jim fischer show.
i am filling in. i am dan kennedy. c-span is here. media com number 2. who has been here the longest? i think it is agnes from florida. >> this is in regard to the issue about the birth certificate. i have been curious why nobody has asked to see his mother's passport during the time she was pregnant with him. if she had left the country -- >> if she was out of the country, her passport would have shown that. that is a good point. if they still have that. if you have gone through
passports, how long do you have to keep those? >> i believe the states keep those. >> i think you get stamped and move on. >> it was barack obama's grandmother said she watched him being born in kenya. she has retracted that saying, that is not what i meant. you put on top of that the fact that he would not produce the birth certificate. that is what has prompted the goofy birther thing. >> that statement was -- statement was manufactured by the same element that has been trying to make a big deal out of this whole thing. >> it seems obvious you are never going to prove he was not born here. why waste your time with this?
there are lots of different ways you can go after him. why waste your time with this birther issue? i do not get it? . >> hi. i am calling from new york. this whole birther issue and now he is trying to find out obama a 'sgrade -- try to find out obama's grades. we went through this episode and we are trying to do better as a nation. let him alone and let him do his job. we did not have george bush's grades from high school. >> yellow and what about the
party records -- . yes, and what about the party records? and bill as well. >> we need to find out how we can be a power like we used to be rather than other countries making more money than us. enough is enough. do what we need to do so we can be the united states of america and the the country we need to be. >> thank you. i appreciate your call. >> i wanted to stand up. talk about enthusiasm. >> woody joins us from minnesota. how are you >>? ? >> great. i will make a quick comment. the states have too much power.
i want get on to donald trump. he has sensationalized a lot of things. he is not a sensation candidate. i think ron paul and gary johnson from new mexico are serious candidates and they have solutions. ron paul has had a lot of foresight. i use the voted for the right. not for social issues -- i usually vote for the right. i did not voted or obama. why don't we give some credibility to ron paul and gary johnson. >> i will quiz you for a second.
the fine mainstream media for me. -- define mainstream media for me. >> your major outlets and "the washington post." >> television and newsprint and radio? >> yes. i will not say it is so much radio as much as television and newspapers. the second part of your question, why do i like ron paul. he never seems to get excited on television. he never goes over the top. he is articulate. he seems to have some real answers. >> what are those answers? >> we are spilling -- spending
too much on military. we cannot be the world's police. ron paul knows it is about spending. >> we also wants to be fiscally responsible. >> sometimes candidates come out to have a good message. they get lost as a one issue kind of guy. they get pigeonholed. ron paul it is looked at as a one issue extremists. that hurts him when he tries to get mass appeal. can he overcome that? it will be tough. maybe he can make an impact. >> i disagree with you. he is a more well-rounded candidate than that. >> i am not saying he is not. that is how he has been pigeonholed. >> that is the perception and
the problem of ron paul. >> i had a radio partner who worked for the previous governor. she was in his public relations department. she said it was bizarre. the two men who were the frontrunners were beating each other up so bad that nobody paid attention to jesse ventura until a week before the election and people said, i am tired of this. let's do something different. 344-1420. we have john from ohio. >> thanks for taking my call. about the burch attended, we have to realize realize-- about the birth certificate, we have to realize that politicians go
through campaigns. any politician that goes to an american campaign -- let me tell you something. they get their lives turned upside down. you can bet john mccain's campaign turned his life upside- down before he got to the point he was elected. there was no way that obama -- this is ridiculous what they are doing to our president. his life was turned inside out before he got to that point. >> we have to go. we have a hard time. i do not disagree with you at all. one of the things -- he could
have solved the whole thing. just put it out. he let it drag on. apparently, his strategists felt there was something there he could use down the line. when it got to the point it was impacting the independent voters -- look at it. we are still talking about it. >> john, you have to run. ed will be jumping in here in just a moment. thank you for coming by and getting a chance to talk to folks from c-span. >> i love it. that is the fun part. >> don't go anywhere. we will be back in just a couple of moments with more of the jim fischer show. jim is a little under the weather. he is going to the doctor and he
will be back tomorrow morning. he will be in good shape. 563-344-1420 if you want to reach us by telephone. you can also e-mail us. thanks. wave bye to everybody. >> talk to you soon. >> there we go. i do not think there is any work getting done at the radio station. they are all watching c-span. there has been lots of fodder back and forth. everything okay? they have not fallen asleep. that is good. ed tibbets is producing in
there. i am getting a call. ed, thanks for coming by. we are live for the c-span folks. ed is a public -- political writer. do not mess up the camera shot. we have about five minutes or so before we go back on the air. we are kind of talking. the birther issue will not go away. that is amazing. i thought maybe with the president actually putting it out, that would be it.
it would be over. it seems to be hotter than before. >> maybe we will have a new batch of callers next hour. >> we will talk about donald trump and the impact he has. i am sure you can probably speak better to this. that is the impact he has with the voters in iowa. he does not seem to be registering with them, does he? >> he has not shown up yet. i think to have an impact on the caucuses, one of the main requirements is that you show up. you cannot generally run a television campaign and do well in the iowa caucuses. you have to put your feet on the ground to register with voters. i do think some people are probably interested in seeing him, if for no other reason than -- >> status, he has got it right now. huckabee seems to be the
favorite on the republican side. >> the polls have shown him to be doing well nationwide. i believe the iowa polls have shown him to be doing well. nobody knows if he will run. it is very early. a lot of what you are seeing are people talking about, expecting preferences along the lines of name recognition. for celebrityg status as opposed to the inmates support in february. >> do you think some of the guys that ran before understand that they came out too quickly? they may be sitting back and waiting a bit now? you do not want to be leading the pack coming out of date. >> generally, and iraq, you do not want -- generally in iowa, you do not want to have the expectations set too high. a good deal of iowa is beating
expectations. coming out ahead of the pack make sure a target. at the same time, by what is an organizational state. you need to be here to do well in the two main event for caucus season. that is the straw poll in august. >> we will get it closer there. >> then there are the caucuses of course next year. you need to start putting the organization in place. reading too long can be a detriment -- waiting too long can be a detriment. >> the strategy of politics is what i enjoyed so much. >> i think a lot of people do. a lot of people want to hear about the issues, but there are lot of political junkies out there. there are a lot of opportunities
that come iowa's way that the prize and do not want to lose. >> tell us about your background. >> i have been with "the times" since 1989. i have covered every caucus since 1996. i have been a reporter in eastern iowa since 1984. >> you have been here as long as i have. [laughter] >> id just seems like it. >> we were talking about the caucus itself. a find it intriguing, especially on the democratic side with a brief you into little groups. it feels like study groups. >> there is the threshold you have to meet. theory is the apportionment of delegates. on the republican side, they do a straw poll of people who show up.
they do not have a complicated structure. the organizational requirements are still there. >> to break off into groups based on delegates, if you do not have a, you have to go home. >> that is the way it works in the democratic primary. it takes a great deal of strategizing in the democratic primary -- the democratic caucus that is not present in the republican. there's obviously strategy at work in the republican caucus, but it is a different kind. >> it makes it interesting. i hope we will get a chance to talk about some of these people who may or may not be viable when it comes to the republicans. i do not think anybody will rise up on the democrat side to unseat the president. but you never know. >> there was a small bit of conversation about that when
president obama agreed to extend the bush tax cuts in the lame- duck session, but nothing really amounted to it. i do not think anyone seriously thought it would be a possibility. >> you may call me crazy, but i still think newt gingrich will be the man. >> he is certainly putting the pieces in place to run. he has not announced he will run. i would steer clear of making predictions of this far out. i would not make any predictions. it changes to fast. " no. >> if you do not mind being wrong -- >> by and in radio. when you look at what the man has done, all the books he has written, all the speeches he has given, he has thought of every political question that will come up. he has thoroughly researched it and will be well spoken on it. not many candidates will be able
to do that. i know he has personal baggage, but in this day and age, i do not know if that will hold him back. >> i do not know. >> i am making my prediction now. >> i am not saying that he will not be the nominee, to say i do not have a clue of who will be the nominee. >> we all like to guess and make our prediction. >> politics is a great parlor game as well as being serious, too. >> the phone number is available. we can also be reached by e- mail. we will be going back live -- somebody from davenport, iowa,
got through. o- somebody from davenport, hio, got through. we even have someone coming up from hawaii. [whistling] this is the "jim fisher show. " we're getting some feedback. [whistling] we will see if we can get that corrected. i do not know if that is your headphones. >> i do not know. that was loud in my year. >> let's go back to the phones. ed tibbets is here. he is a political writer. europe followed politics in the
area for a long time. -- he has followed politics in the area for a long time. he will bring new insight into what we have been talking about. michael, from davenport, iowa, you got through. >> i want to make a point. when you look back at history, it teaches a lesson. when you go all the way back to jefferson and bring it up to our time with the ruling bangladesh american world power, then you look at jeremiah where it says it does not belong to man to direct a step. thus putting our hope and trust in man that is in perfect, we can see our mistake. the fact is we have alienated
ourselves from the wisdom of god. >> all right. michael, we appreciate the call. joshua, from hawaii. good afternoon. hello? >> yes. >> what is on your mind? >> i want to make a global, political statement. another definition of politics prevents people from taking part in issues that properly concerned them. >> i have not heard that definition. have you? >> it is possible, perhaps. a part of politics has at times been trying to turn out the people you want and working at times to try to make people who
may not vote away not turn out. >> david from indiana. good afternoon. >> i have a comment. >> you are breaking up. >> i believe america is going to conquer and abide politics. both parties are trying to divide us. i was wondering why ron paul is not involved in most of the polls in mainstream media. >> that is a good question. i want to get ed's take on that. why is it that mr. paul has not gotten the same coverage as other candidates? >> i think coverage from any
news organization is determined by perceived liability -- viability. if the candidate is not perceived as competitive, they may get less coverage. one of the great things about are what is that even a candidate that may not be high up in the polls can recover. pat robertson in 1988, i do not recall how he was security in the national polls, but he did well in iowa because he got coverage. pat buchanan in 1996, a lot of coverage there. one of the things about iowa is that candidates who might not be able to afford it will get the attention of the national media can come to iowa and meet with the activists here and get that kind of attention.
they can leverage that. i love becomes -- iowa becomes somewhat of a mechanism to level the playing field. that is one of the selling points. >> you do have the opportunity to press the flesh and do a grass-roots campaign. you do not have to have a lot of money if you are willing to go out and meet people. parts ron paul announce his exploratory committee and i look the other day. i think he did that for a reason. >> let's go to joe in ohio. good afternoon. >> good afternoon, jim. how is everybody doing? >> we are doing good. it is dan and ed.
jim is under the weather. >> when mr. obama won the election, even in europe everybody was crying. like martin luther king, they said that history was finally coming true. i cried. i thought it was beautiful how the world is. when he and his wife and children, people of color, walked up the white house steps, the republicans were so upset about that. he said he wanted change deep down in the bottom of my heart, i know he wanted the democrats and republicans to come together and be as one. he wanted to change our country to be better, help other countries to be better. it has all backfired.
>> sometimes you get people who are idealistic. you want to do these things for your country, but then reality sets in. when you get there and see how the process is, if your vision of america is not exactly the same as the guy sitting across the aisle. that is where the problem comes in. >> i am really scared that somebody is going to harm that man. i cried -- >> i truly hope that you are wrong. i am not privy to all the mail that comes in, but every president it's hate mail and threats. i would hope that is not the case. whether you agree with him or not, you have the process to vote him out. >> the caller is right. when the president was
inaugurated, the first african- american elected president of the united states -- that was a history-making event that people around the world and in this country noticed. our politics are divided. we have vast differences of opinion on the right and left about what role government should play. i do not think is terribly surprising that over the last two years the dream and hope of bringing the parties together has been difficult and has not been achievable. that is just a country divided along a philosophical lines. >> it is 3:15 here at woc 1420. this is "the jim fisher show." jim is under the weather. i am dan kennedy filling in for him. we're going to take a break.
we will be back after these very important messages. [unintelligible] all right. i do not know about the part where he said the republicans hated -- you made it sound like it was because he was a black man that got elected president. >> i try not to assign motives. >> it reminded me so much of jimmy carter. he came in with hope and change. i was a big carter fan. you are was something different for the country. once he got in, it was not working. at that point, my brother-in-law was a farmer. there were the embargoes and so
forth. he trashed them, the boycotts, the world stage. somebody asked when i became more conservative. i said it was after jimmy carter. maybe not as much as people think. if you work at a talk-radio station, you have to be conservative. it is not on every issue, but that is when things to a little bit for me. i was still young enough and hopeful enough, and was not sure how everything worked in the world. i thought jimmy carter would be a major change. it was, but it was not for the better. >> one of the great things about my job is i do not have to take a side, and i do not. >> the phones have been busy.
just hang in there. there is still time. >> i turned off my cell phone. >> i have not been able to master about. there we go. welcome back to "the jim fisher show. -- "the jim fisher show." i am dan kennedy filling in. the folks from c-span are here. you can watch what is going on here. call us. you can also e-mail us. kira is manning the phones and computers. we're keeping her busy.
ed tibbets is here to answer questions. bob, go ahead. >> i am sick and tired of the arrogance and stupidity of our so-called leaders. you made a good point as to why obama did not show the birth certificate early on. what about the point that nobody is making? >> are you going to make it? i am waiting. >> i had a senior moment. the point is, why in the world of our so-called leaders not passed a law that when you file for the office of presidency, for god's sake is in the constitution that you have to be a natural born citizen -- why have they not passed a law that you show your birth certificate at that time? >> i did not know there was.
that is how my youth i was. i thought you had to show you were a citizen when you file. >> if that were true, we would not be having this discussion. >> that is a point. ed? " i do not know the laws in all 50 states. i know in iowa, you are not required to show your birth certificate. there was a bill introduced to the state senate last month that would have required that. it has not gone anywhere. there is a requirement that you have a certain number of signatures and file and affidavits of candidacy. but there is not a requirement to show the birth certificate. i believe that is probably the case in most states. >> bob, thank you for the call. we appreciate it.
>> would you get on this? >> i am surprised we do not have legislatures start in the process. if i have to get a passport, i have to have my birth certificate with me. i just got one. >> the constitution requires someone be a natural born citizen. what does that mean? do you have to have a birth certificate? there have been people that disagree with what that means. >> fred joins us from the middle east. is that true? what is on your mind today? >> first of all, the president is the leader of the countries of the world. if you go to work in mcdonald's, they do background checks.
i think the main reason for the source of the news is that americans got used to hot news. one day it is egypt, the other day is iran, the next day it is afghanistan. a small problem is very simple. it is not bad -- >> so you think -- thank you for being so patient. >> i gather he said it is because we were tired of the other news and brought that back out. >> maybe the news media jumps
around from issue to issue and is rather schizophrenic. he may be right about that. i suppose that is the nature of news. >> why do you think he waited so long to put it out? >> it is one of those situations, i think back to win the swift boat veterans came out. there was a great debate in the kerry campaign about whether to tackle the allegations had on to given credence or whether they just hoped they went away. some of the reporting i have seen since yesterday, there has been a debate going on within the obama administration. we have seen on this show, the release of the long form of the
birth certificate has not made that issue go away with some of the public. >> but it could have been nipped in the blood so quickly -- nick in the -- it could have been nipped in the bud so quickly. what fueled this is they could not bring it out. that is what fueled the conversation i was surprised. i am not sure that is what you did. i think there have been any number of things that kept it going. it is difficult for a political campaign to make these judgments. they are dealing with a lot of potential birther-type controversies. which ones do you justify and which ones do you not? >> sarah palin has 3 million supporters on the facebook page
weaken to vote for her. >> a great question we have as political writers is whether she will run. >> norman joined us from florida. good afternoon. >> good afternoon. how are you? >> we are doing well. we have the flooded mississippi river out here, but other than that we're doing well. >> maybe it is global warming. >> what is on your mind? >> money and the media, that is what i think is going on with democracy. all the money going into campaigns, we just elected a governor in florida who spent $70 million. he is now the governor. he has run roughshod on everything here prior to. he has the legislature in his pocket. they are addressing social issues, but they're not addressing the issue that everybody ran on.
everybody ran on jobs. jobs -- they are not addressing the jobs. republicans that came into washington said it was jobs. they are not addressing it. religion, guns, abortion -- they address all of the french issues -- fringe issues but they do not address the real issues. i do not see the light at the end of the tunnel. all of these issues are killing our country. fox news is the number one network. it is not news. it is opinion. watch c-span. that is live. that is news. watch pbs. that is live. that is news. there is no spin. is what is killing our country.
"american idol" is a talk show in this country. our democracy is going to implode. i am sorry to say that because i am a proud american. when we went to work, everybody should share the sacrifice. who is sacrificing? the majority do not know what or care. i am sitting here watching you. god bless you all. i hope we do the right thing for our children and grandchildren. >> you bring up some good points. i think what has blurred lines for the media -- you can say they are biased this week or this week. do not confuse the newscast with the entertainment portion of it. that is somebody they're
commenting on the news. the commentator is going to have an opinion one way or the other. cnn, the actual newscast, i think they're fair. most of them are. you can make the argument of what gets censored about or get chosen for the news. maybe that can have a slant to it. i watch fox news and do not see anything there if i watch the actual newscast. if i watch the commentators, yes, you can pick which side you want. >> it is more true in broadcast media then print, i think. there is a place for people on the right and left to go to find people who will voice opinions that affirm their beliefs. it is because of the proliferation of the media. they did not have got a long time ago. there are those types of outlets
on the internet. maybe i am giving a plug for my own industry. in print, we have tried to play it down the middle. i am very cognizant that it is a belief there is a love poured bias in the mainstream print media by the right. the media culture today is such that if you want to find an organization or broadcast that affirms your side, you do not have to look very far. >> it is 3 crop 29 here at -- it is 3:29 at woc. this is dan kennedy filling in for jim fisher. >> you did a show earlier today.
are you tired? >> a little bit. >> you have to speak and keep things going. i usually ask questions and listen. >> you bring up the point that if you do not agree with them, you will be perceived one where the other. newspapers are thought did it could -- did a good job of leading on the editorial page. >> that seemed to be the problem when it comes to the tv show. they say biased news. the news is not biased. the commentary is biased. that is the way it is supposed to be. that is why people want to tune
in to somebody that agrees with them. that is unless you are a rush limbaugh or somebody who's people will listen to just because they want to disagree. >> there are prominent opinion journalists today and folks who do what i do. that may drive the idea that all media is biased. there are any number of reasons. >> with the proliferation of all of these outlets and 24 hour news, you will put on different shows. >> in some ways, is a good thing. there is a lot of information out there. people have to learn to find the out with the trust -- to find outlets theys -- trust.
>> that is true with the birther issue. if people keep talking about it, it seems true. >> one of the more interesting observations of the last day or so is from the pew center for journalistic excellence. they looked at the amount of coverage going to the birther controversy and the economy. the amount of attention for the economy was more. >> you can tell that it runs people the wrong way. we have a problem with jobs, oil prices, gasoline prices. we're arguing over a stinking birse certificate. >> the last caller was talking about how the government should be doing more about the economy and jobs. one of the questions i have is,
what? [commercials] ♪ >> welcome back to "the jim fisher show." we are expecting jim back tomorrow. i am dan kennedy, filling in. we're talking politics, iowa- style. iowa has always had a good reputation that the voters are levelheaded. >> clean politics, people who pay attention. it has been in the lead spot for 30 years. >> for a long time, you had such a mix. the farming community, manufacturing with john deere, caterpillar, all the factories
here. you had a wide range of people in this area that blended together with your own political outlook. >> there are limitations to ireland -- iowa been in the lead spot. there is the lack of racial diversity and lack of major urban areas. iowa is a fairly homogenous place. it is not exactly a snapshot of america. a nominating calendar is the product of a political process. iowa has been able to master that and stay in the league. >> peoria is just down the road. this is from emailed. why can we not focus on more important issues like the food we are feeding our children? there is high fructose syrup. could there be a link from the heeating habits to health care?
that is another point. >> what are the elements of the health care reform bill. one of the elements of the health care reform bill was to put in place a social critic certain number of initiatives. i do not think the wellness initiatives are that controversy. it has to do with the individual mandate and the regulations that go along with this. those are issues that economists tackle and that the media deals with as well. >> ed joins us. you can call or e-mail us. ed is from joliet. good afternoon. >> i wanted to say a couple of things. i heard a lot of people talking about medicare and medicaid. i never heard them say that we have to pay in to medicare.
where is all of this money going if people have to pay in? >> i can take a crack at that. there are payroll taxes the people pay for medicare. that is a good part of the funding source. i do not know all of it. the cost of health care is getting more expensive. the american public is getting older. when you look in the future, the amount of money coming in is not keeping up with the amount of money going out. it is that simple. they are talking about ways to try to make that sustainable. republicans are talking about going with a voucher system that would give people the ability to shop for medicare-like insurance in the private market. democrats are talking about keeping the system the way it is looking for ways to make it financially sustainable. that is the challenge on both
sides. there are competing philosophical differences. the public is and will continue to have to pay into medicare to make it sustainable. they will probably have to pay more. >> some where there have got to be cut. are you going to pay doctors less for services or charges more to be part of it? there are different ways you can create or get over the shortfall we're on the way towards. they all have consequences. >> one of the difficulties of cutting payments to providers is that in places like iowa, you have the potential to limit availability. that is particularly an issue in rural areas. we've seen that with medicaid. medicaid is a federal/state program.
in illinois, it does not pay very well for providers. a lot of providers are not taking patients. that has an impact. >> does that answer your question? >> yes, that was real good. with obama and his birth certificate, i would probably not have released it soon either. here is somebody telling you you need your birth certificate and you already know you have it. now they are saying maybe it is not authentic. they want to look at it closely. now they are saying that hawaii may be in conspiracy. >> let it go, folks. even if it is absolutely true, they will not be able to prove it. look at all the people who have
tried. you are not going to prove it. why fight the battle? [laughter] mike, how are you? >> you are doing a fine job filling in for jim this afternoon. about the birth certificate thing, i have had a theory about it since it came up. i have not been on the web to see the whole certificate. i know when they started showing it on the news, they wear only showing the top portion of it. i am suspicious that maybe there is a spot on the certificate. lists religion. if it did, i am sure it would have been listed as muslim since his father was a muslim. i assume his wife might have been, if not, she was probably agnostic or something. he would be embarrassed by the fact it would say muslim on there and would have hurt his
chances to be elected in the first place. >> there are all kinds of theories about this. they just keep getting deeper. >> i have not looked at my birth certificate in a long time. there is a spot on there where it lists religion. >> i am going to go home and look at mine. thank you for the call. folks are watching on c-span. let's go to california, bill. >> the issue of the birth certificate, and i am appalled by an even speaking on this subject. that shows the scholastic abilities of the public at large and how far they have descended.
it is like carnival barking. do you think he could have passed the state bar without it? do you think hillary clinton would have missed something as important as that? >> that is a great point. as vicious as the clintons are, if they thought they had grounds, you do not think there would have gone after that? >> they would have gone for the jugular. >> absolutely. thank you for the call. >> it never came up during the nomination. >> i am just thinking of the way the clintons were and how aggressive their campaigns were. if they have wind there was going to be something there, i think they would have gone for it. alexis is from new york. good afternoon. >> on the topic of how people
hear what they want to hear on news programs, i am sorry to say and have not exercised my voting rights for the last to the elections. i am really into politics now. it gives voice to my anxieties. no one is paying attention to it. if we do not pay attention to things and get upset by them, things will move ahead without us. the other day, i saw a clip of rush limbaugh telling us what jesus would think about the budget cuts and social programs. he said he would not be interested in making sure they stayed up. it was blasphemy from the bible. it outraged me. two-state someone on a program -- to see someone on a program
saying things that go unchecked. >> we carried rush limbaugh at this station. having listened to him for years, he has his little shtick that he does. i would say was probably taken out of context knowing what i have heard of rush limbaugh. i say that is probably what has happened in this case. >> i watched the whole thing. i was aghast. i was despondent about the word of god being is portrayed -- being misportrayed. he quoted the bible. >> we appreciate the call. >> he makes a good point.
earlier, i talked about how people can go to places where they can find their beliefs affirmed. that is not diminish what people like rush limbaugh do. there is a place in the media for the opinion journalism. i think that is a good thing. sometimes, it's problematic when people stop being fair minded. i think we see a lot of that. ,> let's head out to colorado goldie. what is on your mind? >> i live in colorado. my husband was born in 1923. he was born on the border of kansas and nebraska. after he was born in a little soddy out in the middle of
nowhere, the doctor died before he put out a burst certificate. -- before you put out a person to fit. my husband went to the cc camps because his mother said he was old enough. he went to world war ii and did not have a birth certificate. when he came back, they said he would have to have a birth certificate. we petitioned the state of nebraska and got him a birth certificate saying he was born in nebraska. >> thank you so much for the call. >> you are not letting me say -- >> go ahead. >> if they petitioned or did something, children, perhaps their parents were not married.
both names were on their but they did not have to be married. where he was born is important. why he says he was born in hawaii. they're claiming now that his father was a student. they may or may not have been married. that is beside the point. the point is if ye said he was born in hawaii and a certified to it and he became president of the united states, why are they blowing smoke? it makes no difference. >> i have no idea. i think it is a battle not worth fighting. i do not understand why people are getting caught up in it. >> i think it is a smokescreen to cover all the other bad things. perhaps it might be. thank you so much. a good friend of mine is a political writer.
his son was a very good friend of mine and born on the centennial bridge in a traffic jam. for a while, he did not have a birth certificate because they could not determine which side of the river he was born on. we need to take a break for some business. we will be back here on woc 1423 >> did he have to pay a toll? >> he loves to tell the story. i think they determined it was illinois because they were headed to the side of the river, i think. he was actually born on the bridge. >> that must have been before my time. >> you went to springfield and was the statehouse reporter in springfield for "the times democrat."
he went on to run the senator's campaign for years. well, having some fun? >> sure, held by and living up to my end of the bargain. we appreciate all the calls. lots of good points. keep the calls coming. you can also e-mail us. if you were not here for the beginning of the show, this was where ronald reagan got his start in radio. this was his first radio job. he went from here to our sister station in des moines. this is where ronald got his first job. he came back and dedicated the building we are in. i think that was 1986.
he came back and dedicated this building. they said security was unbelievable with bomb-sniffing dogs. mark did the interview with him and said he was so genuine. the president came back to tell more stories about being in radio here. >> i have heard people talk about how he came directly here. there was not any sort of motorcade that drew a crowd on the street. it was almost as if he was not here. >> we are just chatting away
here on woc. by and dan kennedy in for jim fisher. -- i am dan kennedy in for jim fisher. ed tibbets is here. thank you for all of the calls. we have had fun this afternoon. i did the morning show and am still here. i keep saying good morning to people. that might have been prudent with the caller from hawaii. mickey is from connecticut. good afternoon. what is on your mind? >> my wife's relatives are down in davenport, iowa. i went down there. i think it is pretty cool. it is the first time i saw one of the planes with the propellers. we had to go to st. louis and
into the molene airport. >> we have graduated to jets now. >> there was something on the plane that was not going to work. they gave us a check. anyway, i want to bring up the point that there are a lot of theories about the obama controversy. i am a 40-year registered democrat. i am in the tea party in connecticut. i wanted to say that. there are a lot of democrats that probably feel they do not have the support of the democratic party. i do not often do that. i have been in the democratic party for 40 years. by point is that i do not care about the birth certificate so
much as i care about the record. the information i was given was that he had no grades in occidental college. then he went to harvard law school. the reason he got to go into the law journal, my niece was in law journal at louisiana. the reason he went to harvard law school was supposedly because he told the saudi family that he was fighting with the taliban in afghanistan against the russians. they donated $22 million to harvard law school. that is how he died in to the law journal. the last point i want to make he did get a job with michelle's law firm.
he never tried a case. this is what i have heard. those things can be researched. you do know this. he did give up his law license. why? that would be my question. i feel some research needs to be done. the people he hangs around with are questionable as he is. tony from chicago. i am from chicago. my birth certificate is from 1954. i had my birth to do it signed by mayor richard daley. he was the town clerk at the time. it was like a little diploma. i question the hawaiian birth certificate. find somebody else who had a birth certificate around the
same time of the year in that hospital and see if it looks like that. that is pretty much what i am saying. >> we appreciate the call. thank you. comment on that? >> i think it was richard j. daley. andrew joins us from new york. hello? going, going, gone. byron from california. >> ronald reagan had a lot of good points. he strengthened america in several fashions. however, he did lie under congressional investigation concerning iran-contra. if you look to the white house documents and documents released
from the time, you will see a completely new what happened and he lied about it. he should have been impeached. he directly lied to congress. his proteges lied to congress. the entire birther issue concerning president obama's records in college is driven by racism. it is a racist argument. " going to disagree with you. they did the same things to president bush. they talked about his grades and service record. i think they are just grasping at straws. i do not know why they are fighting the battle. i do not think there's anything to it. you are just wasting your time. >> did not president bush
received heritage points for entering you? >> probably. >> how is that different from affirmative action? >> it is not. they went after him for his grade records. thank you for the call. we will have to take a break. they go after every candidate. i do not know. i just do not think they are doing innane things just because he is an african-american. >> president bush faced questions about his military records and academic record. president obama is facing records. but he is an african-american. that certainly raises questions in some people's minds. i will not pass judgment. there are a large number of people in this country believe that is the case. as a news reporter, it is something we pay attention to. >> call if you want to join us.
we've had some callers who have gotten in. if we cannot squeeze one more in. drew, what is on your mind? >> i have been thinking a lot about the economy. i do not know how it is escaping people. when giving tax breaks to the so-called jobs creators, we remove the incentive. they are already getting paid before the job is done. the best way to stimulate the economy is to put more money in the pockets of the average americans. the only thing that really stimulates jobs is demand. when there is more money being spent on goods and services, a demand becomes greater. when demand becomes greater, they're going to make more products. when they make more products, they make more jobs.
>> i have to cut you off there. we're up against hard time. i agree with you. >> i would much rather talk about the debate on supply and demand than the birther issue. >> we're going to have to take a break. i agree with you. i would much rather talk about that. >> that is a central part of the differences. >> do you have to go? can you stick around for a bit? >> i can stick around. >> whether you like ronald reagan or not, he cut taxes. people started spending money. the economy started turning around. >> the difficulty in all of this is to try to zero in on what caused changes in the economy. the stimulus is a perfect example.
the congressional budget office said it created 3 million jobs. at the same time, republicans will say unemployment is still above 8%. the obama administration said it would be below 8%. they created an expectation they did not live up to. democrats will say it would have been a lot worse. which one of the arguments stands question that is what determines whether a particular policy or politician will be successful. >> that is going to be the key point of view can spin the job situation the best at election time. >> to some extent, the economy is insulated from whatever government does. to what extent that is is for an economist to answer and not me. economist to answer and not me.