tv Washington Journal CSPAN May 2, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EDT
indiana republican party discusses the indiana republican primary and the transpacific alliance. "washington journal" is next. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] host: good morning, it's monday, may 2, 2016. the house is currently away from washington on a district work peered and isn't scheduled to return for legislative business until may 10. and the senate won't be back until sunday, may fein. and with congress away, we're turning our attention this morning on the "washington journal" to the supreme court as the fight over president obama's nominee gets set to intensify this week, our viewers consider who you trust the most. would it be a potential president trump, cruz or kasich?
or do you think hillary clinton or bernie sanders would make a pick that would best serve the interest of the person sneem our phone lines are open. democrats can call in at 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can also catch up with us on cial media, on twitter and facebook. a very good monday morning to you. our question, who supreme court nominee would you trust the most? we're asking that question during a week in which president obama's nominee is getting renewed attention. president obama himself thought to kick off that effort in his weekly radio address this weekend. here's what he had to say about garland. e, merrick this - president obama:
refusal to treat our nomination the seriousness it deserves is one reason why people are so cynical in washington. give judge garland a hearing and give judge garland a vote. for all of our political differences, americans understand that what unites us is far greater than what divides us. in the mill middle of a volatile season, we need to fulfill our duties in good faith as public servants. the supreme court must remain above partisan politics. i've done my job. i nominated someone as qualified as merck garland. now it's time for the senate to do their job. give judge garland a hearing. give judge garland an up or down vote. treat him and our democracy with the respect they deserve.
host: democrats are calling this the nine, nine, nine campaign and amid that push the president's comments, this story from the "washington times" this morning. anti-garland ad set to air in key states noting the judicial crisis network is highlighting what it calls judge garland's iberal record. here's one of the latest ads from the judicial crisis network. we'll show you that in just a second. since president obama nominated judge garland nearly seven weeks ago, only two senate republicans
have come out in support of holding a confirmation hearing for merrick garland, fewer than 54 republican senators have agreed to hold courtesy meetings with the nominee. there's a picture of circuit court chief justice merrick garland in today's "washington examiner." we're asking our viewers to weigh in. we want to hear your thoughts on who do you trust the most when it comes to the president's supreme court pick. would it be this president or the future president that's running for the office today? kathy is up first in cleveland, ohio, a democrat. good morning. caller: yes, i would like to say that i think we should consider judge garland as being the judge for the supreme court. president obama should select the judge simply because he is our president and we cannot afford to have someone be our president when we want him to be and not be our president when we don't want him to be. i think he should make the
selection. thank you. host: kathy, before you go, if it's not president obama, if the senate doesn't hold a hearing on his nominee, if a republican wins, who would you trust the most of the current slate of republicans? would it be a president trump, a president cruz, a president kasich? caller: no, i would choose -- well, i would think none of the above simply because i listen to all of the speaking engagements that they have televised and it was said upon the republicans that our economy was doing very well in the 1990's. the republicans came into office which was a surprise to me that he said it, but when the republicans got into office, they spent all the money. so then -- now we have a democrat in office and he's trying to help us out.
so why would i choose someone to go back in the office and make a selection for me when they can't even control their own budget? they spent all the money that was previously put in place in the 1990's? so no, i do not trust them to make a judge appointment for me. host: jacob is waiting, baltimore, maryland. good morning. who would you trust the most when it comes to this decision? caller: good morning, thank you, c-span. the sitting president should be the person who chooses the nomination and then the senate should advise and content. if they wanted for the people to have a say and the supreme court choices, then they would have written that into the constitution. and it's not -- it's been like that for a very good reason. host: the "washington examiner" noted that donald trump is going
to debut a list of 10 to 12 supreme court nominees very soon quoting donald trump's appearance on fox news's "hannity" program. he said i'm going to name 10 or 12 judges that i would name to put on the supreme court and i'm only going to take the judges out of that pool of judges because i want people to understand that -- understand that i want the values in terms of the republican party and conservatives. we're asking this morning who would you trust the most? is it a current president? is it a potential future president that's running right now? want to hear your thoughts this morning. republican, carl is in westfield, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. you know, when i see president obama talk about the rule of
law, i laugh. i'm telling you, it's a joke. you see what the democratic for using ion done the better government to punish the federal fellow citizens of the united states. this is outrageous. and now he's telling everybody, u know, don't worry about -- we won't let him go any farther. when they talk about the rule of law, man, it's a joke. it's turned into an absolute joke. i'm 78 years old and i've been around here a long time. and i look at this kind of stuff and i think my lord. and the way they went after that woman in texas, they sent four different branches of government down there to harass her, for
starting that true vote. all she wanted to do was educate people on poll watching to make sure that the elections were not being stolen. host: so who would you trust when it comes to that ninth seat on the supreme court? who do you want to see make that decision? caller: i would rather see kasich make that decision but that's not going to happen. so that would be my opinion. host: oh, carl, as we said, there are several efforts going on this week both pro and against merrick garland, the circuit court judge that president obama has nominated. we mentioned the judicial crisis network that's running a slate of ads this weekend. here's one of the latest ads from the judicial crisis network about merrick garland. >> the n.r.a. opposes him because the second amendment is
at stake. small business leaders oppose him because he would harm our fragile economy. liberals agree he would be the deciding vote for partial-abortion. he's no moderate. america me, obama's supreme court nominee. even the "new york times" says garland would create the most liberal supreme court in 50 years. merrick garland, a liberal judge from a liberal president. host: on the issue of guns and how a potential justice garland would vote, there's a column in "u.s.a. today" from michael hammond of gun owners of america . he talks about this issue. he says merrick garland has -- the simple truth about merrick garland is firearms have come before him at least four times and he votes against them each time.
host: and in 2012, he voted to allow prosecution for fireman -- firearm offenses that they knew the gun was automatic. we're talking about the vacancy on the supreme court and who you would trust the most. josh this williamsburg, virginia, a republican. josh, good morning. josh, you with us? caller: hi, good morning. yeah, sorry about that. good morning. i would trust any republican to make a good supreme court nomination. as you've suggested, the stakes
are incredibly high. we've had 5-4 decisions. you mentioned heller. we have had 5-4 decisions in that, with that issue as well. t i don't think if any -- if hillary clinton appoints someone, i don't think the senate has another option, as long as the senate is under republican control, i don't think they really have a legitimate option other than testing the limits of the -- of their consent power under the constitution. i really don't. because the stakes are incredibly high with this supreme court nomination. host: when you talk about the stakes being high, the supreme court doing its best to perhaps keep the stakes from being too high when it comes to case that they're going to be hearing among a split court with just eight justices on it, "the washington post" noted that they
accepted six cases since scalia died. the number is low compared to the average. none of these cases that the court has accepted for the term that begins in october approach the level of controversy that has marked the drama rulings of recent years. the story noting that the reluctance boils down to a reluctance of a divided eight-member court to take on an issue that it might not be able to provide a clear answer on. the story noting it's easy to detect a slowdown but it's difficult to identify which cases which they will be taken. there only speculation of which cases has been skipped. if you want to read more about that, it's in "the washington post." let's go to lydia, upper marlboro, democratic. good morning. caller: i'm just beyond angry. because the republicans always
talk about constitution. they talk about the constitution. this has turned the constitution on its head. i am 79 years old. in my lifetime, when the supreme court nominee become a political ootball? republicans, democratic administration, this has never been an issue. and if this points out anything, the importance of this election, it points out the blacks, the hispanic, women, independents, everybody that have any common sense to register and get out to vote to make sure that the democrat president in the white house and the republicans could never again get a chance to appoint a supreme court justice. thank you. host: lydia -- we've lost lydia. she hung up. we will go to steve in indianapolis, indiana, also a democrat. steve, good morning. caller: yeah, good morning.
i think obama, he nominated somebody that was more of a moderate. they're calling him a liberal, but i think even the republican -- the republicans know he's more of a moderate and that's why they've indicated that they thought they would lose this election, that they would go ahead and try to give him a vote. but if hillary or somebody gets in, i hope they nominate somebody that's even more liberal because they've blocked his vote. so they thought to get what they get. and also trump, i think he's disqualified himself by nominating somebody like clarence thomas. i mean, he's a supreme court judge that has no writing. he has no -- he just sits back and votes and lets everybody else do all the work. why would you nominate somebody like that? host: when you talk about a more liberal justice, what issues would you like to see a justice
be more liberal on than what you've heard about merrick garland's record? caller: well, i think he's really fair. i like a moderate person. i don't really like somebody that's too far to the left. i like somebody that's like mr. garland. but, you know, they ought to get what they get. i'm just saying that it ought to serve him right for not giving him the courtesy of a vote. so if hillary or somebody gets in they would want somebody more liberal, then they ought to do that. teach them a lesson, maybe. host: let's head back to our line for republicans. tom is up next from florida. chris is waiting. you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. i want to say as usual, the ignorance of the democrats that call in here is just -- it's incredible. e democrats, first of all, blocked ford. they gave him a hearing and they
sent him down and it took two more nominations before reagan could get him into office. the democrats said bush did not nominate and i'm not saying to confirm, i'm saying nominate someone last year. but when it's obama, obama nominated it without a problem. biden himself said that he should not nominate. schumer said he should not nominate. reese came out against it. and it's all locks step. and the shoe is on the other foot. and of course they should consider the nomination. they've got obama nominated a person. they want the walk -- to walk and talk the talk, people would give them respect. bit all the democrats that call up are hypocrites oratory ignorance and they believe whatever they're told even they're told the entirely opposite story from one time to the next. host: williams' on our line for independents.
william, good morning. caller: good morning. yes, thanks for taking my call. yes, i agree but i feel we should not even nominate because of our corrupted political system led by two individuals who want to become queen and king of u.s.a. namely chuck grassley and mitch mcconnell from kentucky. with them and norquist and the round man, bush's big backer, they should all be tried for treason. host: so you want to see a slit court? you think a 4-4 split court, an eight-justice court would work for the country? caller: our political system is so corrupt it doesn't matter. and as long as they keep letting all these guys like the ones that i said and a bunch of the
democratic party also, they shouldn't even have a government. we got a givement. i'm 81 years old and it is a disgrace for our country. host: seems like you're criticizing both sides on this. how long have you had -- caller: yes, i'm criticizing both sides. host: did you ever think our government was not corrupt? was there ever a time when it was functioning correctly? caller: when harry truman, john f. kennedy. i have never voted a republican in my life, but i sure intend to this time. if it comes down to where they try to take it away from trump, i will definitely vote republican. because we got an illegal immigrate or illegal alien running, namely ted cruz who shut the government down how many times?
because he's such a smart individual, he outsmarted himself. ost: that's william in miamisburg, ohio. julie said if the president twooned pick his successor, he should retire the bush administration and edwin christian writes if the court set aside personal politics as they were sworn to do, it wouldn't matter which party appointed a justice. for about the next 25 minutes, we're asking who supreme court nominee would you trust the most? is it a current president? a potential future president that's running in the primaries right now? give us a call. phone lines are open. lines for democrats, lines for republicans, lines for independents. one other story i want to show you some recent comments about this. a house lawmaker suggested tedy tedy was a possible -- ted cruz was a possible pick.
saying if he's not our nominee, i think he would be a great eplacement for scalia. cruz insisted during a cbs news interview earlier in march that becoming a supreme court justice is not a job he's interested in it and saying he was more focused on nominating a justice through the court. that story in thehill newspaper if you want to check it out. tony is from texas, a democrat. caller: i'm looking at the three possible groups that can be picked. president obama, hillary clinton and possibly donald trump. of those three, i trust president obama's pick more than the other two. host: and why is that, tony? caller: because, you know, hillary clinton, i really don't trust her. i'm a democrat, but i don't trust hillary. and donald trump, i don't know
hat he will put in office. it amazes me ike the previous caller said, as long as the constitution is in there, this is as prescribed by the constitution, the president picks the supreme court justices put in a nate vote -- vote. yes or no. it's as simple as that. when the constitution this their favor, they're all for it, you know. host: when you talk about trusting the president and not trusting hillary clinton and not trusting donald trump, trust about what? about finding somebody who can be a fair arbiter of justice? about finding somebody who leans a certain way? caller: when i'm talking about trust for hillary clinton, i'm talking about trust across the board for her. i don't believe much that she
says. i really don't. i've been a lifelong democrat but i just do not trust that woman. and if john kasich ran against hillary clinton, he would draw a lot of democratic voters like me to vote republican. and i've been voting republican all my life. but i can't trust hillary and i won't. but between hillary and trump, i would have to vote for hillary. but i don't trust either one of them and trust as far as donald trump goes, i just think he's a big gangster. i really do. i may be wrong but that's my feeling about him. host: let's go to lynn, indiana, where john is waiting, a republican. john works do you trust the most? caller: i think they should wait for the new president before they nominate a supreme court justice because i just don't feel that obama has the capacity to suggest because, you know, all the stuff that he's done to this country, i just don't
appreciate what he's dean to this country. host: so john, which of the potential new presidents would you trust the most on this issue, finding somebody to fill that all-important ninth vacancy on the supreme court? ninth seat, not vacancy. caller: i would definitely trust donald trump for sure because he seems lick a very smart man and he wants to make this country strong again, bring jobs back to this country, make it economically strong again, and only thing that obama's done is destroyed all of our jobs. host: so john, let's try this hypothetical again. if a democrat is going to win in november, would you prefer the pick come from hillary clinton or from a bernie sanders? caller: no, i would not. no, i don't trust either one of them. host: you would hope it just wouldn't be filled? caller: i just hope it wouldn't be filled. i just foe a republican is going to win. there's not going to be a
democrat again. donald trump will definitely be president this year. this coming year. host: all right. that's john in indiana. speaking of indiana, indiana, the site for that important primary that's happening this week. primary that is getting a lot of attention, including the lead story in today's "new york times." cruz's bid faces crucial moments as indiana votes. the story talking about the latest polling on that indiana primary. a new "nbc news" "wall street journal" poll released sunday shows cruz trailing trump by 15 points --
host: we're going to talking more about the indiana primary later in today's show. we're going to be joined by craig dunn, a columnist with how he politics indiana and also a local party chairman out there in indiana. he's going to be joining us from indianapolis and the 8:30-9:15 brock of today's show. we're going to be talking more about that for indiana callers and voters as well. but let's go to darrell in dallas, texas. a line for independents. darrell, good morning. who do you trust most in the supreme court nomination? caller: well, good morning. one thing that i believe is that democratic republicans. they're expressing the desires of a party. a person in the position of no. ent such as that any time that you have to refer to a party, you're referring to
the party desires. i think that those people should be independent and free from any bias opinions. and i'm sorry if you keep going democratic republicans. you're going to continuously have party feeds being met. instead of the needs of the united states of america. those are my personal feelings. host: so darrell, who -- right now in your mind, who is best able to address the needs of the united states of america? accordancemy mind in to all things that i know and e've been growing up with is the president -- isn't the president of the united states the one we elected by majority put in? host: darrell, is than independent out there that you think could step up and step in and address the needs of the country? caller: at this time no, really
haven't seen anybody make that appearance because they're all concentrated on democratic or republican person, ok? no one's actually saying maybe we need to throw another party in there because this has got to e broken up. even here in dallas, texas, there's a few things that's fallen behind, it's starting to pick back up. but we've always had a progressive fight here. host: all right, that's darrell in dallas, texas. shreveport, louisiana is next. homer is a democrat. homer, good morning. caller: how are you doing? and thanks for taking my call. host: good, sir. go ahead. caller: well, if the supreme fulfilled, whybe don't they go ahead and do it?
it's going to be a democrat anyway. and it's like we're just spinning our wheels, and fight among one another. we need to replace the whole setup up there. they need a clean house, period. and thank you for taking my call. host: homer, on the issue of why don't they just do it and not wait, there's some polling on that. should the senate vote on a supreme court nominee kick or should they wait was the question that has been posed in april, in march and february by the nbc "wall street journal" survey back in february. 43% said that the fat would vote this year on the president's nominee. we'll keep watching those
numbers. a lot of polling on that as the discussion happens amid the presidential campaign that we're watching. let's go to rob in louisville, kentucky, an independent. rob, good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. well, the one that i would believe that would be the better person would be donald trump. in my opinion, he's the only patriot running and the rest of them are politicians that's looking out for their wallets. and that's all i got to say. host: rob, stick around for a second. i want to bounce this column by george will off you. it's his latest column in the "national review." he writes donald trump's damage to the republican party has arely begun. if clinton is inaug rated next january 20, merrick garland probably will already be on the
court at that point confirmed in a lame duck session and justices ginsburg, kennedy and briar will be 83, 80 and 78 respectively. george will with a lot of concern about what a donald trump nomination would do, not just in the near term, but in the long term. what do you think about that, rob? caller: well, the way i look at, if george will is expressing that opinion, and i feel like my opinion is just as good as him. he's getting paid to say a lot of stuff. and i'm getting paid nothing as far as i'm concerned. i'll telling the truth. and that's my opinion is on that. host: rob, thanks for calling in with your opinion. brenda this st. louis, missouri, a democrat. brenda, good morning. caller: good morning. i feel that we voted in 2012 for a president. the president that we voted for should be the one to make the nominee. i mean, they keep saying what
schumer said back when he was saying that a last year's president should not make a nominee, but what's this other guy's name? mcconnell stood up and say that they should make a nominee because the republicans were in office at that time. you can't have it both ways. we voted for a president. our vote should count. host: if it's a republican that's elected in the fall, if it has to be a republican that gets elected -- caller: it would be kasich. he's the one that seems ike the most rachelle person that they have out there -- rational person that's out there. now the rest of us has to pay the price. we voted in 2012. host: all right, that's brenda in st. louis, missouri. a few comments from our facebook page. tom commenting about that article that said possibly a
republican picking ted cruz for the court as his presidential campaign is unsuccessful. he writes cruz for court? not another justice scalia who ruled by the bible instead of the constitution. and richard smith says it's a stupid question we're asking this morning. only obama can form fate now. would you trust obama's supreme court nominee? want to hear your thought this morning. have about 10 minutes left in this segment on the "washington journal." sam is in oklahoma city for line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. the reason i'm calling in is, you know, i listen to you every morning and i keep hearing these republicans call in and they're blaming obama for the economy. it goes on and on about that sort of stuff, losing jobs. well, they have amnesia. do they realize from bush, they're the ones who put us in this situation.
they released 800,000 jobs a month, obama came in turned that around. now we're looking at our employment's much better. we're looking at all the -- i think they keep saying that it's obama's fault. it's not his fault. and i just don't understand how they can continue to blame obama for these things. as far as the supreme court's concerned, you know, i thought the supreme court is supposed to be an independent body that our government has. it don't seem like to me that's what it is. and if i had a choice for president, it would be joe biden. thank you for taking my call. host: when you say it doesn't mean like it's independent, what do you mean by that? caller: well, you know, it's the same thing. just like right now, if the democrats get in they're going to make it a democrat supreme
court. if the republicans have it on their favor, because they're going to get the people that's on there. i don't understand -- how can you be independent when you're so one-sided, you know, about things? whoever's for the democrat or the democrat supreme court, they vote for them and the republicans. they're going to vote for republicans. that don't seem -- i don't know how we do it. but somehow, the supreme court needs to change. host: all right. sam in oklahoma. danys boston this morning, a republican. dan, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, sir. caller: well, i was just comment on the supreme court choice which president should choose it. well, obviously, it's a very important situation because the
supreme court decides many things that affect our country. i just wish there was a better choice of presidential andidates this time. and consequently, probably a better choice of supreme court justices. but, you know, i would think that -- i would hope that the next president makes a good choice no matter who it is. you know what i'm saying? it's at this point, you look at our country and you hope that the next president will do what's right and then things will get better. but the way it looks now, i mean, if you compare the choices we have for presidents who say like our founding fathers or these people who started the
country or we revered throughout the history like abraham lincoln, it's pretty sad. host: dan, you're calling in on our line for republican. hillary clinton is leading the race for the democratic nomination. if she goes on to win that race, if she were to win the general election, would you trust her pick more than the pick that president obama's put on the table, the merrick garland pick? caller: yeah. you know, that's interesting. ut it's because of the age and justice as well. the next president could possibly pick two oar even three. that's a big deal. court is hink the going towards liberal leaning anyways. you just had the passage of the gay marriage and, obviously, people consider that a liberal
leaning. and, you know, seems like the whole country is going that way too, most likely, they're going to be deciding like legalizing marijuana. i mean, there's a lot of things hat are going to be decided. you know, hillary clinton, i'm not obviously she's got her problems like everybody else and as i just said before, the choices are not really as great as you would think -- well, you would hope. but she did some time in the senate. she has some respect in the senate. and i think she's moderate nough that -- and, you know, that's another thing too that we were talking about is depending on the makeup of the senate. if the senate stays republican, then possibly it would be a more moderate. obviously, if the senate goes to democrat, then it might be a little more liberal. but i would probably trust
clinton in that way too because then thankfully, we do have a free press and that there's some kind of public pressure that the vetting of the supreme court justice is usually threat thorough. but the country is going towards a liberal slant. so there's not a whole lot you can do anyway. so hey, hopefully, things will turn out for that and the whole country. host: dan, you're right. the confirmation process going through the senate, the all-important process and the vetting that happens there, it changes after the 2016 election. if democrats take over the senate, they bullish about a map hat favors them. democrats more bullish with a donald trump campaign.
he's going to be holding a campaign rally in indiana ahead of the indiana primary. tomorrow, that's going to happen at p. you can watch it here on c-span2. and one other programming note that ted cruz will be holding a campaign rally today at 7:30. that's happening in indianapolis. you can see that on c-span. speaking of indianapolis, larry is in indianapolis, an independent. good morning. who do you trust the most on this supreme court nominee pick? caller: you know, i'm in favor of garland and i respect president obama's selection. and number one -- number two also, president obama is still president. it is his job, not the newly elected one, but who is sitting in office now. and as far as jobs, president obama brought jobs back. and when you look at the republican party, the republicans is why we have such
corruption now in the house of senate and the representatives because of the supreme court who is favorable for republicans, who openness gave ways where it gave all kinds of mundo nations from millionaires who are controlling our country. so i'm very in favor of garland and i hope that he has put in office before the president steps down. but that is president obama's constitutional duty. to select a supreme court justice. we do need a change. host: all right. a few more 2003s on this topic. thanks for the comments. bernie sanders, because we got to get the cash out of politics
is what bernie sanders writes. b. whalen says obama for sure. he has already met conservatives halfway. -- host: brenda is in houston, texas, a democrat. brenda, what do you think? caller: hi, john, and thanks for taking my call. host: yam, go ahead. -- yes, ma'am, go ahead. caller: oh, i'm sorry. thanks for taking my call. of course it's the president's duty. of course, garland should be given a hearing or whatever it is, the process that they fortunately go through. it's just amazing to me. you know, every day, i watch your channel and i'm in awe of how the republican party and besides the fact that trust a republican. who towards don't really go together. the republican party have set out to destroy this president.
and look who's being destroyed. they're being destroyed. because god is against them. and they're going to lose in this situation with the supreme court. they're going to lose the presidency. they're going to lose to the senate. and they're going to be once again, fighting -- and making idiotic statements. they're a bunch of mindless people. i don't get them. i don't get them. and i guess i never will. host: all right. let's go to gordon in ithaca, new york, a democrat. gordon, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. the constitution says that nothing about the size of the supreme court or whether it can be changed. the article 3 section i established the judiciary and -- in 1789, i think it was, the judiciary act, and at various times since, the size has been changed. one time the supreme court was seven. and it was 10.
the president has nine or eight members now. and the supreme court itself has made no ruling on the subject. we have it at 4-4 now and it's been that way, i think 1968 was the last time they changed it to be nine members. host: what is the optimal size in your mind? caller: i would -- at six went they dominated. -- nominated when it first started. host: we read a story earlier about how the court is taking less cases and less high-profile cases as a eight-member court right now, perhaps because it is divided 4-4. do you think a six-member court would impede the functioning of the court or do you think it's a good thing about the court taking less cases and making less rulings? caller: maybe leave it at eight. host: you think an even number?
caller: yes. i don't see any conflict on it if they're ruling like their conscience made and it's not as political as it is today. they could nominate a judgment i think they should do it right away with mr. garland. and i'm just trying to throw a little light on to the fact that the supreme court has always not been fine members. host: so gordon on the topic and i'm glad you bring it up. the federal election commission gets a lot of criticism for being an even-member chairmanship that it dead locks and can't do much because it gets brought to a standstill because the idea splits evenly and they can't make decisions and there's been a whole lot of criticism on that. do you think we would start hearing more about the supreme court or do you think the country one ok with the court only being able to make decisions if it was an 8-le
court or a split with a larger majority? caller: like their justice, perhaps they won't vote on ideology. it won't always end 4-4. it might end up 5-3. and the person that appoints the cases that the supreme court is going to review, i know during the bush administration, i think he's called the -- i don't know the name of the person that decides what cases the supreme court is going to review but i noticed that in the news a lot too, which -- host: the supreme court votes on taking up their cases. it's a lower threshold. only four members are to vote to accept a case for it to be ccepted. host: we're going to have a
supreme court reporter on the program very soon. we can go through some of this process because it's an interesting process talk about, to go through how you submit your cases to court and how they get brought up. we're going to be talking about this, especially in light of all the attention around supreme courts. i appreciate you bringing up the topic. and gordon is our last caller in this segment of "washington journal." do i have to end this segment of open phones. up next, mara keisling will join us. she will be here to discuss transgender rights and the controversial "bathroom law" in north carolina. and later, craig dunn, the chairman of the howard county indiana republican party will join us to talk about tomorrow's republican primary and what it could mean for trump, cruz and the kasich campaigns. that's all coming up in a few minutes on the "washington ournal."
>> tonight on the "communicators," tim winter, amid reports of the tv rating system. the system intended to protect children from violence, sex and profanity on tv has failed. he is joined by a reporter. >> there is actually no show on broadcast television, no series on broadcast television today. it is rated appropriate for anything older than children. tv 14 is the oldest rating. even the most explicit content is rated as appropriate for children to watch.
we learn that the tv networks themselves rate the shows and we learned that tv advertise others who pay the bills for the networks rely on the ratings just like parents do and there's conflict of -- interest. there are the tv networks don't rate anything and the system is incapable. >> watch "the communicators" tonight on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: mara keisling joins us once game seven she's the executive director of the national center for transgender equality. she joins us to talk about the recent debate over state and local "bathroom law" transgender rights. you give the definition of transgender and how many transgender people are there in the united states today? guest: a transgender person is
somebody whose internal sense of their gender or the way they express that gender is different from what people expect based on what the doctor said when you were born. that is a simple version of it. there's a more technical definition i could give you. and we don't know exactly how many people are. the federal government have never counted transgender people. we estimated .3% of the population in the united states is transgender but we're now seeing studies showing people under 25 are more likely -- five times more likely to identify transgender or maybe as high as 1.5% of the population. host: do we know how much of these "bathroom law"s that have gained so much attention in the united states? they happen on the oak level as ell. guest: there are another 200
anti-lbgt laws in general. and of those 50 "bathroom laws," 39 of them are enacted because the session has been -- leaving just 11 of them plus north carolina, which passed this law. and then we're just about to see , i think we have one city so far, oxford, alabama, that passed a local ordinance and we're going to see a bunch more in the coming weeks. there's a real sort of copycat tone to it. host: why is the north carolina law the one to gain so much attention with all these in the pipeline and the other ones that you've just discussed? guest: north carolina was the first state legislature to consider the legislation and then decide it was still a good idea. the reason they did that was because they took about four hours instead of days like in the other state or weeks in some of the states.
so in all of the places where they really carefully considered this, they realized it doesn't make any sense. it doesn't do any good. and all it's going to do is get people in trouble. in north carolina, they jammed it through political purposes and they're paying a significant price for it. host: what do you mean political purpose? guest: it was pretty apparent that the governor and the speaker of the house had some sort of political agenda. i wasn't about bathrooms or transgender people. in this particular law, they also stripped the ability of anybody who faces discrimination based on race, nationalty, religion and sex. there's essentially no anti-discrimination protections in north carolina right now. and additionally, they took away the ability of state and local governments to pass minimum wage laws and working -- living wage laws. so there was -- there was a real political thing. the governor thought in his
re-election campaign. i think he's not thinking that anymore. host: so you don't buy the argument among the supporters that say this is about safety, about giving sexual predators out of bathrooms? guest: no. host: why? guest: there's no evidence for it. you know, john kennedy once said that sometimes, the enemy of truth isn't a lie, it's a myth. and that people run these things through these filters that they already have and that we're more comfortable in our opinions than in our thinking. and this is one of those clear ases where there's no evidence that trans premium predators. and in north carolina, they're calling first and second graders sexual predators. it just doesn't make any sense. there's no evidence for it. it's counterinterview. and it's wrong. host: we invite our viewers to call in with your questions and
comments about this topic. special line in this segment for transgender viewers, 202-748-8003 this that number. otherwise, democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. speaking of this north carolina law, you are down in north carolina law, made a point down there to protest this and we're arrest -- were arrested in the process. guest: yeah. there were thousands of people down last monday, a week ago today. and it was also the third anniversary of the moral mondays movement to commemorate and to protest when the state legislature, which is in -- and north carolina has become an extremist legislature. they passed redistributing laws nd voter suppression laws.
and i was down for that and ended up being arrested in the speaker of the house's office. host: and made a point to use women's restroom while you were there. guest: i did. i was in the capital just outside of the governor's office looking to deliver a bill to the governor and some of our party did get to deliver the bill. but i asked where the women's room was. they told me. i used it. there were people in it. nobody cares. because for 15 years or almost 20 years, i've been publicly using the women's room. never an issue because do my business, mind my own business and i go about my business. host: mara keisling, the executive center for for transgender equality. you can call in this morning with questions or comments.
a special line for transgender viewers, 202-748-8003. we'll start with k.j. in florida, a republican. k.j., good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good, k.j. go ahead. caller: i have two points. first of all, it's not discrimination when it comes to transgenders and the reason why it's not discrimination is because there is -- boys and girls bathrooms or men's and women's bathrooms weren't create specifically to keep out transgender people. we go back to slavery laws and anti-marriage laws. people are marrying whoever they wanted before. but in order to keep slavery strong and in order to keep a system, they created laws that says you can't marry a person of the black race and they made -- created this to prevent something that was happening prior to that. there's no discrimination when
it comes to bathrooms. the bathrooms weren't segregated by sex. the purpose of discriminating against transgender people, ok? now my second point is, my second point is is the problem with transgender people is if they really basically want to make people act in their mind, basically be players, unpaid players on top of that. because now, you're doing stuff to yourself and forcing people to play along. there's a difference. when it comes to traditional discriminations for race, sex, there's nothing that that person is doing. for instance, a female doesn't do anything to be a female. a black person doesn't do anything to be a black person. but a transgender voluntarily does something and then tells society hey, you have to play along of what i do. you know, it's like if i were to be disabled.
no, i work for wal-mart, let's say. then all of a sudden, you know, i say you know what, i think disabled people gets sued. i'm going to pretend like i'm disabled -- host: k.j., got your point. i want to let mara keisling respond to your two points. guest: ok, let me do them in the order that you gave them to me. number one, you're absolutely correct in one very limited sense and that is nobody thinks that gender bathrooms were created in order to hurt transgender people. in fact, most transgender people are fine with gender bathrooms and always have been. there are a lot of transgender people and a lot of non-transgender people for whom gendered bathrooms are a real problem. we are hearing more and more that this has become an issue. women who have always identified as women, when the doctor slapped them on the butts and say you're a girl, these are people who everybody would agree went as women. but they pay not look exactly as
you would expect a woman in your mind to look. and so people are bothering these people in bathrooms and always have. but nobody is saying that gendered bathrooms were set up to hurt transgender people. in fact, like i said, i've been using the women's room for 20 years and nobody cared until there were some extremist organizations that decided to make this an issue. now as for the second part of your thing -- host: before you get to that, have you ever had an incident in the bathroom since these incidents? guest: i have not. host: where somebody has come up to you -- guest: no, i haven't. in north carolina, the governor's office and the late legislative building, later that night, i used it in the wake county jail. you know, my staff was down there too and they were using the bathroom and there were no problems. nobody's asking anybody to pretend. the second part of your thing, i think you just need to learn a little bit more about transgender people. i would recommend two websites for you. wins our website,
transequality.org. and the second where there is a lot of information so you can understand that you may not be thinking about this quite right, is google.com. a lot of great information host: bethlehem, pennsylvania. tony is a democrat. caller: good morning, johnny. i have a comment about large public restrooms like a bus terminal. if you stand outside the hallway, you will see most men make up the line in, spent about a minute, and come right back out, but women are different. they like to freshen up a bit. they will brush their hair, do they make up, and fix their close. when you have men going into the ladies room, you will have homeless men going into the ladies room.
men have never seen what a woman's room really looks like. bathingy see three guys out of the sink and doing their laundry, they are going to find it -- and talking to themselves and throwing things -- they are going to find it a little difficult to step in there and freshen up o a bit. host: are there any stats to back up what tony is same? ying? guest: absolutely not. he brings up an important point about how we treat homeless people in united states, but this has nothing to do with the issue. i spent years going to men's rooms in the last 20 years, i've spent going to women's rooms. there is not nearly that much difference as you would imagine between the two. i do not think there is anything to that. a lot of discussion about perhaps rethinking restrooms in the united states and the labeling of restrooms.
there's a column by rick jarvis who proposes a solution -- gender-neutral restrooms. genalling single der-neutral restrooms near the front of restaurant and hotel ro lobbies. what you make of all that? guest: i do not think we will be getting rid of gendered restrooms in the near future. gender-neutral restrooms are ready really good important thing for a lot of folks. helpful, notvery just for transgender people, but gender nonconforming people who never fit in perfectly in either bathroom. they are also good for people who have certain disabilities and have to have a caregiver with them. they are really good with people with small children.
when ever possible, i think it is a good idea to build gender-neutral bathrooms. this will come as a shock to you , but at my home, and we have gender-neutral bathrooms. they are single use bathrooms and that is why they are gender-neutral. colleges a seeing at lot of multi use bathrooms. that is bathrooms with more than one toilet that are gender-neutral. and they are still stalls. the more privacy we create, the happier everybody is. i think we agree with that. i think we all agree with that. i think gender-neutral bathrooms are great and we are seeing more and more of them all the time. host: let's go to danielle in williamsburg, virginia, line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. this has been a pretty touchy topic on social media that i've been noticing within the last month.
the point of what the gentleman was saying with the gender-neutral bathrooms, i think that would honestly create more issues because you are singling out the transgender community. you are singling them out by saying this is a gender-neutral bathroom when we already have in a lot of places family restrooms, which in turn as ausly would double trance gender-neutral bathrooms, whatever you want to call it. for familieshroom who do not want to take their kids into a woman's or men's restroom or a man who has to change a baby's diaper because they do not have changing tables in the men's restroom. my husband and i talked briefly on the subject and i asked him, what would you do if we had a daughter and you are out at the grocery store and she had to pee? said, i would take her
to the bathroom with me. to the point the gentleman was making earlier, i think that is really gas station bathrooms at 12:00 in the morning. that is not your grocery store bathroom. that is not your small bathroom. those are actually kept pretty clean. to be honest, the women's restrooms are quite disgusting in comparison to the men's restrooms. they get it and they get up women are i out. women are in there for a while . i think by making the transgender bathroom an issue you are just creating more problems for them. for thousands of years, there have been transgender is. there have been gays. is never been an issue until now. i think it is a distraction from the political party running to
disturb conservative voters because the liberals do not care about it. they are all for it. the only people who live issues are the republican voters. and agree withe everything you just said except for one thing. i think what has been very concerning to transgender people over the past couple of months is that nobody has cared about this before. we always used the restroom that created the least amount of ruckus for everybody. people have not been coming home from work and saying, oh goodness, there is transgender people filling up the bathroom doing bad things. this issue was entirely made up by somebody or another who probably was trying to raise money or trying to prove their relevance after they lost the marriage equality fight. an agenda problem that has transgender people baffled.
we did not do anything to anybody and now we are being bullied. host: on the north carolina law, what was the underlying charlotte ordinance that this law superseded? guest: charlotte just passed an antidiscrimination ordinance that was like the ordinances in 200 plus cities and i think 17 states. those.no broader than some of these are 30 years old. the governor and his folks in the legislature just decided to use that to take away the ability for localities to raise minimum wage, to do lgbt antidiscrimination laws, but there was nothing in that lot that was anything different that we have here in d.c. or pre a, oria,ois -- pe illinois. host: what is that ordinance say
about the use of public locker rooms and showers or, for example, public pool showers? there is a part in a lot antidiscrimination laws, including the charlotte law, around public accommodations. that is places of business that are open to the public. they do not have to be businesses. sometimes they are government offices and in some states, schools are public accommodations. they are things open to the public. those would have, under that law, it would've been illegal to this terminate in a public accommodation based on sexual orientation against gay or bisexual people or by gender identity. includedd have discrimination and locker rooms, discrimination and things like that. it was this tiny part of it. that is what is happening in charlotte anyway.
that is what is happening in all the cities in north carolina anyway. it is just a question of whether or not it would be illegal to discriminate. discrimination happens with or without the law sometimes, but this gives people discourse when they are getting discriminated. host: we have a line for transgender viewers. the other hand, the lines for the democrats and republicans and independents as usual. donna's on the line. caller: it is me again. i'm looking at this guy here trying -- host: let me just stop you right there. on the terms that people use, guy versus girl. on your website, you actually
was the pronouns that people should use. explain why. guest: it is really to make it easier for people to be polite to people, make it easier for people to be polite. i think all of us want to live in a society where we are polite to other people and we respect people. i know that when i come on television, because it is a transgender topic, they are people that will score political points by calling me sir or ma'am and i could brush that off. that is just petty name-calling. my name is mara. i think everybody who is watching knows what they are doing. host: do you want to go ahead with your question? don hung up. stand in maryland, good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say that this
bathroom topic is pretty immature. i did not think this was an issue before this so-called solution was created. i do not know a transgender or gender nonconforming, i hope i said that correct. i remember when my grandmother used to tell me about the days when as an african-american that she cannot use certain facilities or access certain stores like a tech company that used to be in baltimore maryland. the sounds quite familiar if you ask me from that perspective. with all due respect, i do not know what you look like, but you should not have someone call you man. oir or in my opinion, they should apologize and move forward. guest: thank you so much.
i agree with what you said. this is not the first time a group of people has been used used to scarebeen people by saying that we need to protect our women and children from the. m. we saw earlier this year when donald trump said that mexican immigrants are rapists. we saw in the black civil rights movement, the gay civil rights movement, and lots of ways of immigration in our country. when people try to exclude people, they say they are coming for our women and children whether there is evidence or not. in this case, there's absolutely not evidence. i do not think there is evidence in any of the other cases either. i do not like to compare the struggles of different kinds of people. i think that is really never exactly accurate. we have seen this before. host: you mentioned donald
trump. the viewer said this is a non-issue, yet it has become an issue in the presence of where tedo the point cruz put
out an ad recently about the north carolina bathroom laws. let me show it to our viewers. [video clip] >> people go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. host: can you talk about how you think the presidential candidates have handled this issue? it is absolutely ridiculous that the presidential candidates are talking about this issue. donald trump is right.
this is something that happens a million times every day. tedink it is obvious that cruz is desperate. if ted cruz is talking about transgender people and it happened, he understands his campaign is in trouble. it does not making me cents. any sense. shame on ted cruz for bring this up. i appreciate how donald trump -- it is not like he came down on our side of it. he basically said, why is this an issue? he is right. it should not be an issue in the presence of race. idential race. host: bernie sanders saying, "in many states, it is legal to fire someone for being gay or to deny them rights for being transgender. that has to change." guest: i think transgender
rights should be a campaign issue that is important to transgender people. is just this issue agenda thing by a couple of extremist organizations who are trying to make hay. host: let's go to the line for transgender people. stephanie is waiting. caller: i would like to go ahead and say that i was in tampa in the greater city area. i probably know about a different girls that are living within a 10 mile radius around me. us thane a lot more of people realize our living amongst them. we like to say we are everywhere. we use the bathrooms of people do not even realize they were in the bathroom with another transgender person. it has just been blown out of proportion. people do not realize they have argued in there.
it's not like were leading sticker saying thanks for sharing the bathroom with us. it is really terrible what they are trying to make this into, but thank you. mara on that recommendation? guest: when arizona was looking at passing these laws, i did make up little cars that says a transgender person has used the bathroom and nothing bad has happened f. my friend and i put them in the phoenix airport when we were flying through. host: how did that go over? guest: we thought it was great and people on facebook thought it was great and nobody in phoenix care because they were busy travelers kind to get to where they were going. that is what i think is stephanie's point. the reason i use the bathroom at the airport is because i have to use the bathroom at the airport. the reason i use the bathroom and the governor's office in north carolina is because i had to use the bathroom.
as long as trans people are doing their business and going about their business like everybody else, i think we should all leave each other alone. host: let's go to daniel in baltimore, maryland. you are on with mara keisling. caller: thank you very much for taking my call. i think we make it bigger than it really is. one of the points i wanted to make is that i've been to several concerts. i like going to concerts. you know the restrooms on both sides get pretty busy, especially the ladies. women go into the men's restrooms not thinking twice about it and men do not care. no one is jumping up, looking at anyone. they are doing what mara said, using the restroom and leaving,
to. to call anyone a predator is bad,ly tha . if there is an assault on the bathroom, it does not matter if they are gay or hetero they are ssaulters. to say one person is bad, i disagree. people need to chill. host: a question from twitter. "'s gender nonconforming and new category? -- is gender nonconforming and new category? please it's plain the difference. -- explain the difference." guest: when our mothers are carrying us, they are always asked what is it even before they are asked what's its name going to be. we are taught right away that their mommies and daddies and
boys and girls. for most people, that makes total sense. i think most people do not complain about that. they feel like that suits them. the truth is a very big chunk of society does not fit perfectly into the masculine man and feminine woman categories. most of us are sort of on a spectrum in between. gender nonconforming people, it sounds like an aggressive term like your purs purposefully not conforming, but for many people, basically cannot conform to the stereotypes we have built as a society. gender nonconforming is a category of people in that sense. it just means that some people do not fit into our stereotypes. for some people, it is a category and their other terms that people use like gender binary or gender queer. everything changes all the time these days. host: if someone is trying to
navigate this and be polite, what is the proper way to refer to a gender nonconforming person? guest: the only real important role you need to know is the golden rule -- treat other people like you would like to be treated. get to know people. introduce yourself to somebody. if somebody says, my pronouns are -- the pronouns i prefer you to use our she and her, then use that. if they tell you they are not comfortable with she or her or him, they prefer maybe they. we use they pronoun all the time. john asked me to pick up his friend, but they do not tell me what they looked like. we do gender neutral all the time and for some people that is preferred. it is actually a little tricky the first couple times, but then you get it. host: let's go to gary in wisconsin, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning.
tv.: just turned on your we can hear you. caller: if it's not an issue, why do you not just use your natural born gender restroom? my second question is what is your litmus test to determine your gender? is it physical or emotional? in either case, you still are what you were when you are born regardless of any surgery or any emotional change of mind. why the big upset on your side and insistence that you use what you want to use? guest: there has never been a big upset or insistence until the last couple of months. everybody i think has always tried to use the restroom that caused them the least amount of ruckus. i simply cannot use the men's room. if i use the men's room, there would be all sorts of upr oar.
i know folks who look like john who had beards and a suit and tie who these laws would make using the women's restroom. when we are in the bathrooms with people, we do not know what is on these people's birth certificates. we do not know what is in people's anatomy. i've been using restrooms for 56 years now and i've never seen that part of people's anatomy in the restroom. there are privacy stalls and sliders between urinals. a agenda problem. transgender people of always try to do the best they could. all of these gender nonconforming people who do not fit perfectly into either stereotype have been doing the best they can for so long. we are in a position now where we look at the two bathrooms and instead of seeing men and women, we see get beat up or get arrested. and that is not ok. we need to learn to leave each other alone and respect each
other at least in that way. in the bathroom, mind our own business. that is really what i do. i just mind my own business. so to use a public restroom in north carolina, must i use my birth certificate? guest: no. it is a dumb law. host: how is it enforced? guest: it is unenforceable. if they enforced a, they would be in violation of dozens of federal laws. what is happening is that individuals are taking upon themselves. these folks are going to start getting arrested themselves, but there are people standing in front of restaurants and taking who gets to go in. these are not law enforcement officers. these are just people who feel like they have a political point to make. it cannot be enforced. but people are going to be
harassed, they're going to be arrested, and that is when they're going to have to show their person to get. birth certificate. when we were going down last monday to the state capitol, we sent a letter to every state legislator in north carolina telling them to bring their birth certificates because laws of the united states should be enforced uniformly. none of us want cops out from the bathrooms. if there are cops in front of the bathroom, they better be asking for everyone's birth certificate not just transgender people's birth certificate. almost nobody carries them with them. host: same as a democrat. good morning. caller: it seems to me that the only people having any real problem with this issue is men and they are the ones least affected by it. mara made one good point that if she went into a men's bathroom, there would be a big ruckus, but it would not be against having a
woman in the bathroom. just a men's problem i think. is in louisville, kentucky. go ahead. caller: first of all, i would like to say that earlier when you talked about predators in the areas and worrying about children being molested or women in these public restrooms, i do not think everybody believes that the transgender community is going to be the ones who are perpetrating these crimes. what i think people's fear is that at the door is going to be open that people can come in there under the guise of being a transgender person, the ones who are truly the predators. having said that, the point i really would like to make is that we keep talking about this as if it is just restrooms. of course the north carolina says, as you pointed out
earlier, it is an changing areas as well. just to illustrate my point in my concern, my daughter was on a swim team here in louisville, kentucky. to facilities that they used practice and was indeed a public facility, meaning they would practice during al hours of operation. the public would use part of the pool and they would use the other part of the pool. age six tos range in 18 and they would go to the public shower areas to get the glory and often chlorine off of. what kind of affect what it have on a six-year-old child to see a grown man's body parts in a shower? you might say that this is not going to happen, but yes it will happen because that is the direction we are moving in. if it is not a true transgender say it who is it to
is not a child predator that wants to prey on children to take an opportunity because of these laws to prey upon children? it is not transgenders that are the predators. it is the one to a really child predators taking the opportunity to do this. guest: there is no reason to think child predators would not currently do that. there's nothing in any of the laws that we are talking about that would allow anybody to be a peeping tom, a rapist, a child molester. none of that would become legal. it is not legal anywhere now. it would not be legal under any law i've seen. just saying you cannot discriminate against trans people does not mean anybody cannot do anything bad in the locker room, but it does not happen and it has not happened. can i tell you what will never happen? no, because everything happens eventually and that would happen with or without these laws.
the other thing i would point out really quickly is that over the last few weeks, 300 -- now more than 300 anti-sexual assault organizations have issued a joint letter saying these laws are nonsense. it is really important. the topics you are talking about here are so important. sexual assault is a serious problem in the united states . child molestation is a serious problem. they need to be discussed seriously. we cannot just say the problem is transgendered people or the problem will because because of transgender people. it is a really serious problem. if we start making up anti-trans solutions to that problem, all we are going to do is make life bad for transgender people and not helped the real significant problems. i've no idea how many anti-sexual assault organizations there are in the world, but there has to be more
than that. this is a unified letter saying that all of cities and states, knock it off. this is not helping with the real problems. host: on the line for transgender people is renee in new york. eisling.on with mara k caller: ivan watching this and i have been living as a woman full-time since 2004. just by pointing out that we are there and you do not even realize it, so for example, i serve on juries. in one instance, i asked the attorneys to step outside in the hallway because they were asking me a question about my spouse. in order to answer it the way they wanted, i would have been lying. when i got out in the hallway, i told them i was not exactly what i appeared to be and i was a transgender person. all they wanted to know was whether or not i thought that i could render a decision, a fair
decision. i said, of course. i ended up on the jury. we are in the grocery lines with you. going to the bathrooms. i'm just living my life and i do not care about any of this other stuff. i think the law is nothing more than a red herring type situation, politicized by people looking for political gain out of it in terms of their base. that is what i wanted to say. thank you again for being on the show. host: thanks for the call. anything to add? guest: i think she is just trying to live her life. host: rich is in tennessee, an independent. good morning. caller: good morning, john. good morning, guest. let's get our to the public changing room areas. the restroom situation should not be a problem because if you have someone going into a male
restroom, they are going to be using the stall. if you have someone going into the female restroom, they're going to be using the stall. whether there is any reassignment surgery, no one should be seeing anything coul, . in the case of a public changing room, let's take a high school. those familiar with high school locker rooms and sports and so forth, if the law says that someone is to use the facility which they identify with regardless of their anatomy, and i think the guest would acknowledge that there are people who identify as a gender that does not match their biology who do not want to go through reassignment surgery, and they will retain the
physical anatomy that is on birthersatilit certificate. according to what i've heard this morning, it would be called discrimination if you did not allow someone with male body parts who identifies as a female to go into the shower facility and shower alongside the other females. that 99% of think the american population are really considering tha that. i do not think that is what they want -- to have their adolescent daughters alongside someone else who is identifying as someone's adolescent daughter but otherwise looks exactly like a male. been: i think you have not
in high school for a long time. schools, health clubs, everywhere are now being built and retrofitted not because of transgender people at all to have a lot more privacy than they used to have. nobody likes being in big joint showers with 15 other people as it was when i was in high school. nobody ever is in a situation where they are naked in front of other people unwillingly anymore. , butes occasionally happen there are accommodations that trans people make. there are accommodations that facilities make sometimes for trans people and sometimes for other people. haveand more schools private changing rooms, private shower and. by the way, most schools now or more and more schools now do not
have kids chanting for things like gym class and do not have people showering. there are a lot of reasons for that. more and more schools cannot afford to have physical education. this is not as big of a problem as it sounds. i challenge you to find an instance where there has been a brouhaha over it actually happening. it is always over this hypothetical young girl. even your language when you're talking about a high school or a middle school, you're talking about a young girl and a grown man and that does not happen. this should be a more serious topic. or not a topic at all. host: when you say there are accommodations that trans people make, what do you mean? guest: i know trans people who have not gone to the gym, who have stopped working out when they transitioned.
--re are a lot of people there are a couple of stores that people know about that have wide-open changing rooms. nobody likes that. there is nobody who likes that, i think. so people for lots of different reasons, including trans people, say i'm not going to shop there because i cannot get the privacy i feel like i need. trans people are looking for opportunities to be naked in front of other people. we do not hear about trans people being naked in front of other people. what is weird about that is that it is not weird. most people are trying not to be naked in front of strangers. it is not a thing in america that we do a lot of. we all avoided at all costs. all of us avoid being naked in front of other people. i transitioned 20 years ago.
i am somebody who works out at the gym all the time. i do use a locker room. nobody has seen me naked publicly in 20 years. it's just not a thing. not a thing. host: if you want to learn more about the national center for transgender equality, you can go to their website at trans equality.org. thanks for joining us on our program. up next, we are going to be joined by craig dunn. he will join us to talk about tomorrow's gop primary in the user state -- hoosier state and what that can mean for the trump, cruz, and kasich campaigns. we will be right back. ♪
county republican party in the hoosier state. he is also a columnist and joins us now to talk about the primary in the state. when was the last time that indiana actually had a primary on the republican side that made a difference? reagan and -- ronald gerald ford. host: how are you or how are republicans preparing in indiana this time around? are there a lot of mechanics this time that have moved into operation that have not happened in past primaries? guest: frankly, we have had to learn the whole process over again. peoplere not a lot of around at that time that are still real active in politics. there are a few, but that is the real great thing about the union in indiana right -- being in indiana right now. we are loving it from the political junkies to the average person. and there is a
presidential candidate standing there. is a most -- it's an experience that most have not had and they are enjoying it. host: this is an open primary. explain that. guest: the person declares the ballot they want to receive at the polling place. you can be a democrat and if you decide you want to vote for donald trump, for example, you say i want a republican ballot. now you get a republican ballot. it's as open as it can possibly be. we do see some of that from primary to primary. host: can voters go in and register to vote tomorrow and do that or has registration ended? guest: no, registration is -- we have had it up until recently here, but tomorrow will be a little too late. host: expectations for turnout tomorrow in the first meaningful primary on the gop side in over 40 years? guest: if i can use the early voting and the absentee
balloting as any kind of guidance point, i say we will have a record primary voting. i talked to our secretary of state 10 days ago and she told me we were running well ahead of our record pace in the past. i would expect that to be the case. i voted last monday. voting was brisk at the absentee voting center. host: we are talking with craig dunn this morning about the indiana primary tomorrow, that closely watched primary c. craig dunn is the chairman of the howard county republican party there. we have online's for democrats, republicans, and independents as usual. there's also the special one for indiana voters at (202) 748-8003 . we want to hear your stories in the segment of "washington journal." want to get your thought about this ted cruz-john kasich
alliance. some calling it a short-lived alliance in the hoosier state and other states coming up. guest: i think it will go down in history as a nonevent. if it will too late. -- it's a little too late. it's estimated that 30% of our voters have voted early. because of that, the impact of a potential alliances probably for not. do not know if i can say necessarily that we are different breed than other states, but i do know the average hoosier does not take kindly to somebody telling them how to vote. that is one of those situations where you say it is interesting. i do not think it will matter at all to the people going in to vote. i think most will vote the way they originally intended to. that a lion's is nothing more than just a gesture that was going to pretty obvious by the fact that campaigns have limited resources relative to money and
manpower. more important than anything is just time. i think that is what this is all about. john kasich is spending his money and time and resources in states that could be more productive to them. it probably could have been done without announcing a formal alliance, but i do not think it will impact the final results. host: donald trump brushing off this alliance between ted cruz and john kasich as a desperate move by campaigns that are close to dropping out of the race. news sunday yesterday, ted cruz was asked about this sort of last stand in indiana storyline. here's the exchange. [video clip] >> i agree that indiana is incredibly important. regardless of what happens in indiana, donald trump is not getting to 1237. we are heading to a contested convention. i will have a ton of delegates. donald trump has a ton of
delegates. it's going to be a battle to see who can earn a majority of the delegates elected by the people at the convention. the reason donald is so frantic to say the race is over and trying to get his media acolytes to say the race is over is because donald knows he cannot earn a majority of the delegates that were elected by the people. if you cannot win a majority, it means you cannot unite the party. and you can't win. host: if donald trump does win tomorrow, what are your thoughts? is it over for the ted cruz campaign? guest: there are a lot of working part in the process that still have not unfolded. i do not think it automatically trump as te donald the winner, but there is this drip effect of every vote in every state that goes for trump. it makes it more difficult with the less votes he needs to pick
up in the remaining primary states in order to win. certainly indiana is a very important state. i would say that it is either trumps win or his waterloo. host: the latest polls published in "the wall street journal" today has donald trump at 49% and ted cruz at 34% and john kasich at 13%. craig dunn, you are a guy who noted on your blog that you had a john kasich sign in your yard. talk about the path ahead for john kasich. guest: john kasich strategy from the very beginning when he started with a 17 candidate field and we went through that mockery of televised debates that degenerated into sophomoric name-calling and bullying, john kasich most of that time was down on the end in the debates.
he would find himself being outnumbered many times in terms of the amount of time he received at the debate. he decided early on in the that acquiring delegates during the primary process was not the target for him and you do to wage a 1237 campaign of hoping for a contested convention and hoping that it goes to a second ballot, which will give him a greater chance. i think that is consistent. isfact, the indiana strategy such that i think part of why he felt comfortable about leaving indiana and going on to oregon in new mexico was that i would feel comfortable that a majority of the delegates in indiana, if things would go to the second ballot, would probably back john kasich. i think that is what his strategy is. i am disappointed that he was
not here going door-to-door and attending on lincoln day events in those type of things, but i understand the 1237 strategy. every candidate has to run their own race. i think that is his strategy. ultimately, if it is a contested convention, i think it will be successful for him. host: we have a special line for indiana voters in the segment at (202) 748-8003 as we talked to craig dunn. rick is in marion, indiana. good morning. you are on with craig dunn. caller: how're you doing? i want to ask what do you think about donald trump's for bringing manufacturing jobs back to indiana because we have lost a lot of jobs in my county. from my understanding, we lost over 10,000 manufacturing jobs in our county. guest: i certainly admire anybody whose goal is to
increase manufacturing jobs in the state of indiana or in the united states for that matter. of course, the rub is how you go about doing it. if you talk about unilateral abrogation of previously negotiated trade agreements, i think you are potentially opening a can of worms there and could cause some serious problems. largely is the law of unintended consequences. to assume automatically that our tode partners will allow us act solely in our economic self-interest without any sort of corresponding response on their part is maybe a little naive. i think we need to focus perhaps more on retraining our workforce and looking for areas that are particular unique to the united states manufacturing process to bring those jobs back. at to mention the fact that total restructuring of our tax
code, perfectly relative to corporate tax rates that reward corporations frankly for keeping their process offshore, if we can repatriate those that to the united states, i think you'll see unprecedented job creation. host: we are talking with craig dunn, in indiana columnist. howiepolitics.com. we are focusing on the republican side because craig dunn is a gop party chair in howard county. anthony, good morning. caller: how're you gentlemen? host: go ahead. caller: i will vote republican just to continue this parties viability in the future. is -- i'my question still undecided. which candidate on the republican side is able to perhaps have a victory over the
democrats? secondly, does donald trump's favorability exceed both john kasich and ted cruz? host: craig dunn? guest: we have two issues there. , which isctability largely at the republican convention, if i get an opportunity to vote on a second ballot, i will make my decision based on electability in november. if you believe the polls as they are today, and i am very mindful of the fact that pulls can change and candidate strategy can move forward, but essentially today in a head-to-head contest with hillary clinton, donald trump is trailing hilly clinton by eight percentage points. ted cruz is behind the lakeland by proximately three percentage points. john kasich is leading by eight percentage points. it is very difficult to average that, but i can tell you
in 16 consecutive national polls, john kasich has shown that he would be ahead of hillary clinton in each one of those polls. as far as your second point is ask that question again if you would please. host: it was about electability and talking about favorability. guest: on the favorability issue, i do not think there would be any doubt right now in the republican party that donald trump, out of the people who ,ave voted in the primaries that his favorability would be higher than the other candidates. what we have to look at is the net favorability because he is off the charts on the negative. so is hillary clinton from that standpoint. we are looking at a person that is popular in a segment of the republican party, but yet, the
net unfavorables are just off of the chart. for instance, seven out of 10 women are telling us as they leave the polls that they will not vote for donald trump. i think hispanics are running north of 70% that will not vote for donald trump. you get to the point in time where mathematics start piling up against you. it is going to be very difficult to cobble together a coalition that can win in the fall when your net negatives are so high. host: let us go to ohio where mary is waiting peri. caller: i have two points. the first one is it donald trump is such a great negotiator, why didn't he go to indiana or tried to save the carrier jobs? why did he not try to make one of his great deals? my second point is why is the mainstream media afraid to talk about his association with epstein and orangey island?
dunn on the carrier plant, remind our viewers what that was. guest: that as a manufacturing plant engaged in the heating and manufacturingss, heating and cooling products. they announced that they would ship a sizable number of jobs to mexico to be manufactured. i do not know if it was donald trump's place to come in and try to negotiate from moving there, but i do know that in indiana, both republicans and democrats exercise a lot of pressure and were able to get carrier to reduce the number of jobs. originally it was close to 2000 jobs that would be outsourced to mexico. now it is going to be little north of a thousand jobs. governor pence played a very strong role in that in keeping and i sure thousand jobs here in indiana. as far as the other question is
concerned, i would not have an opinion on that. host: you bring up governor pence, indiana governor mike pence. cruziday, he endorsed ted in his appearance on w ibc radio in indianapolis. [video clip] >> choose the man who are shown courage and his convictions. it is not a popular thing and washington, d.c. to take on the leadership of your own party. i know that. i did it when i was there. i opposed runaway spending whether it was republican administration and congress or a democratic administration. let me be very clear. i respect the right and the views of every hoosier in making their the termination in the upcoming primary election. i urge every hoosier to make up their own mind. for me, to lead is to choose.
choosinghis time of when people all across america are looking to indiana to make a decision, i just wanted to make my decision known. let me be very clear on this. whoever wins the republican nomination for president of the united states, i'm going to work my heart out to get elected this fall. pence'saig dunn on mike endorsement of ted cruz -- your thoughts? guest: it struck me as somewhat of a tepid endorsement frankly. he preceded the comments that with being very complementary to donald trump for bringing in millions of new voters into the republican primary process before he got around to endorsing ted cruz. march, it the long
probably will not have tremendous bearing on this. i think a lot of people's minds were made up. frankly i was surprised that he did the endorsement. he has a pretty tough race coming up this fall. there is no particular reason to irritate either side going into the fall. he expressed himself what he was going to support. he was encouraging people to vote either way. he just wanted to let people know how he was going to vote. that is about as mild and endorsement as you can give. host: in terms of moving people to the ballot box, do you think coach bobby knight's endorsement of donald trump was perhaps a better get in the state? guest: bobby knight is at one point in time was fairly reviewed in the state of indiana. it has been about 20 years since he has had any real impact on the state. at that point in time, we have
gotten tired of his holy and behavior -- bullying behavior with the press and the fans. i guess i would say it's absolutely no surprise to me that he would support comes from. they -- that he would support donald trump. they are two peas in a pod when it comes to boorish behavior. i do not think his endorsement will have any impact in the state of indiana. host: let's go to our line for democrats. melvin is on the line in fort lauderdale, florida. caller: when you are talking about industry and all the jobs lost in indiana, how come that no one brings up the fact that donald trump from the new york clothing district since all his clothing lines overseas? he is talking about how he's going to bring back in industry from china and mexico and whatever. he actually sent his clothing line over there for them to actually perform the tasks of making the product.
i really do not understand why forget that when they talk about trump and the rhetoric. host: craig dunn? guest: sometimes good politicians make good magicians. of every magician is to get you looking at one hand while the other hand is making things disappear or ap or. -- appear. that is largely the case with donald trump. he has made statements that i do not believe can be supported with fact. rationalnal and -- a and positions that i do not think it ever be borne out in the united states c. and yet, unless the press will hold his feet to the fire and ask for specific details, such as this gentleman is suggesting, i think you may get away with it.
it is very important to ask questions such as, how are you going to afford a 50 foot wall across the united states border? we do not have the money to pay for that. are you really going to deport 11 million immigrants here in the united states, round them up door-to-door? i do not think we are going to do that in the united states. are we going to abrogate our treaties with our trading partners? i do not think that is going to happen. if you want to see the discomfort and anger of the voters like we saw was some of the unfulfilled promises that the tea party made back in 2010 and a lot of the candidates who pandered to the tea party in 2010, i think you'll see even greater anger when they realized that the president is somewhat limited in what he can do and he still has that pesky congress to deal with. i think point like this are very valid. there are inconsistencies in donald trump's record.
--ther it's gone on her show gun ownership or right to life, he is waffled quite a few times to that. media holdnational his feet to the fire, i will hold fox news to that. they're pretty much given him a past to his inconsistencies. when they ask him a question, he is totally vilify them to be point where they are coward bed by it. host: let's go to frank in new jersey. caller: good morning. how are you today? i have a question on cruz. five no problem with the press theing trump's feet to fire, but as for ted cruz abolishing the internal revenue service, how can he possibly abolish the irs? you have corporations like ibm and at&t and such that file
corporate tax returns. you have partnerships and trust and the like. you have employers who pay payroll taxes, file hundreds of millions of you have brokerage forms that one and 90 nines -- 1099 stocks and bonds. my question is, why hasn't the press put cruz's feet to the fire on a statement that he is going to abolish the internal revenue service? host: who are you supporting a republican primary? caller: i don't know yeah. host: craig dunn, go ahead. guest: this is another one of those issues that campaign -- that candidates make on the
campaign trail that the reality may be greater than the campaign. that 30 years from now, we will have the irs no matter who is elected president. you are going to be around. -- they are going to be around. i don't think we have to have revenue. there will be those who always try to avoid that revenue collection. just for that reason alone, you will need the irs. the size might be arguable. here we go with a simple filing status that would require a flat rate tax that you could file on the proverbial -- certainly, and enforcement in fancifulhose areas is to think that can't be done. host: mary, good morning.
you're on with craig dunn. caller: i was going to ask, if bernie sanders happens to be the nominee for the democrat, how many points ahead or behind other republican candidate? you that it was during president clinton's time that china was brought into the wbo. it took a lot of jobs from united states to china. ison't think hillary clinton going to be any different. i think bernie sanders is the only one who is really willing to fight for old and young, and the common man. , you know, that is not being brought out. host: craig dunn. same: i would say on that
-- polling head-to-head, bernie sanders would be all three public and candidates -- beat all three rick public and -- all three republican candidates. when a sharp contrast is made between capitalistic approaches to running our economy and socialistic methods of running our economy, i think you would see a clear diversions and the american public. when those -- clear diversions in the american public. everyone knows nothing is free. you would see which candidate which -- that bernie sanders went up against. bill is in lansing, michigan. bill, good morning. i would like the gentleman to tell me, the
republican party has spent $70 million running negative as against donald trump. what do you expect his negatives to be? he is in your party. what kind of crazy people are you anyway? run by ahe country is bunch of communists. the only difference between our , theyment and russia's have a one headed monster, and we have a two headed monster. the republican party has not spent a single dime against any candidate or for any candidate. our party does not do that. we have a bottom-up, grassroots republican party, both on the state level and on a national level, and our parties are neutral from that standpoint and
haven't spent a single dime. now the gentleman saying there have been republicans, particularly some of the wealthy ones that have funded special pa cks. he has a valid point. they have. that is not the republican party. the republican party just does not do that. that is a huge mess -- myth. there is no republican party establishment that is planning the outcome of this presidential race. if we had, -- if we had that kind of a powerful organization, do you really think we would allow to start off with 17 candidates and turned into the circus that it has? i don't think so. there is no doubt that there are people that have used their financial resources against donald trump. by the same token, or are people who user financial resources to remove donald trump.
i don't see any problems with it. but i promise him, the republican party itself, nowhere has used its financial resources or against any candidate. host: first donald trump ready for the republican primary to be over with him as a nominee. he started targeting hillary clinton in comments he has made. he was on fox news yesterday as well. here is an exchange with chris wallace about some of the comments felt up made about hillary clinton. [video clip] >> to say -- it was a senator, secretary of state four years. to say if she was a man she would not run. isn't that dismissive? said worseanders than that. that she is not qualified to run. that she is not capable. bernie sanders, what he said was a lot worse than what i said. i am going to use that.
bernie sanders said she should not be allowed to run. that she is not capable. and what he said is incredible. it is a sound bite. as soon as he said it, they broke in and said, i can just imagine donald trump watch these remarks that bernie sanders is making about clinton. she is a strong person. she should be able to take it. the only card she has is a woman's card. she has done a lousy job. even women don't like her. it is a woman's card and she plays it. i will let you know in six months if she plays it well. i don't think she will play it well at all. it is true, if she weren't a woman, she would not be in this race. thoughtsig dunn, your on donald trump saying clinton is find the woman lost -- the woman's card. doing a verynot good job of keeping her from playing the woman's card.
some of the things he is saying is unprofessional. you couldn't expect hillary clinton not to take advantage. you play the hand you're dealt. qualifications, i would say she has a resume of jobs she has done. that does not necessarily say she has done those jobs well. fact, if she would happen to be elected president, it would be the classic, quintessential of the peter principle of rising to your level of incompetence. she is there. have the job titles along the way, but her levels of accomplishment, each of those steps have been fraught with continuous, liberal spending, gun-control advocacy, every liberal policy you can possibly .ush, she has done that secretary of state was one disaster after another.
i think donald trump is right for not respect, but, it is probably a good strategy to focus on women. they represent over 50% of our voting base. he has created a fertile environment to try to take those voters away from the republican party. host: back to the phones. tom is in virginia. caller: good morning. i want to make a comment on illegal immigrants. somehow, likeas , [indiscernible]
i am against donald trump. i don't know why he is so against john kasich, because he is one of the best candidates. in differentence areas. he would be the one who can take us to win in november. i am a woman. but i don't vote for hillary. i agree with the gas. -- i agree with the guest. host: all right. issue ofn, on the illegal immigration and how it is playing in the primary, particularly in indiana? --st: i don't really think it is a safe issue for both cruz and trump to express their opinions on.
their view is not too terribly different -- donald trump is putting a lot of his efforts into the construction of a wall to wall people out. walls don't really do that. that is without consideration of the financial implications of it. but ted cruz has made no secret of the fact that he believes we need -- before we look at any pathway to legal residency in the united states, we need to tie illegal immigrants to united states and step up border enforcement and reverse the obama policy, that has made an open door to the southern border. on the subject of a wall, and who is going to pay for the wall . the whole issue of are we really going to deport 11 million people from united states? control, we can't drugs.
we couldn't control illegal imports of alcohol and we will not be able to control 11 million people, round them up, and ship them out. i know that is a concern of people who are living here in the united states without proper documentation. i think there is a copper path for us -- i think there is a proper path for us to advocate and hopefully after this election is over, we will arrive at some conclusion. it is serving a divisive issue. this has been donald trump's entire strategy from the very beginning. the illegal immigrants offer a group of people that he can anyck and beat on without real, strong ramifications at the polls in the republican primary. he can vilify them and make them the ones that are taking the jobs away from us and take on the chinese and the mexican, .ight on down the line and they don't have those voting rights in our primary, so it is a safe issue for him.
it becomes a little more problematic in the fall and i think that is what we are going to be dealing with. one of my great concerns is chairman ryan's, did an extensive look at what our party needed to do to expand itself, to appeal to the majority of the voters in the united states, and donald trump has taken every single point of that and has done everything he could to destroy that ability to do it. , notis my major concern only just the electability in november, but the long-term, by ability of the republican party. it host: a reminder to our viewers, if you want to hear from the candidates themselves, we are covering a couple of campaign rallies ahead of indiana's primary tomorrow at tonight, -- at 7:00 tonight, donald trump will be in south bend, indiana. ted cruz will be holding a campaign rally in indianapolis. we will be airing that live at
7:30 here on c-span. we had a few more minutes with craig dunn as we talk about indiana politics looking ahead to tomorrow's gop primary. .pecial line for indiana we will head to joan from rockville, maryland. good morning. guest i don't think your has been fair to ted cruz's flat tax. -- 10% non endorsed payroll taxes. felt that this will encourage the economy to a great point like it did with reagan. cruz is the only viable conservative since ronald reagan. he is not going to be a big spender. we need him because this debt is going to destroy america. we are all going to wind up paying a 90% -- all wind up
paying 90% of our income to pay for the debt. thank you. host: craig dunn. guest: i agree wholeheartedly with your caller. my point was even if we do have a flat tax, i don't think it is very viable that we will completely be able to eliminate the internal revenue service. you still have to have a collection efforts, but her comments relative to the debt and spending and the unfairness and multiple layers of the united states tax code are valid. we do need a dramatic restructuring of our tax code. host: curtis is waiting in new hampshire, and republican. good morning. you're on with craig dunn. caller: good morning. i would like to speak on an issue that i think is important and i think it is obvious, but i don't think -- i don't see anyone speaking on it. -- it seems like the
neoconservative movement is to back hillary. wrecked the republican party and destabilize the middle east, now they are going to switch back to democrat, which is their natural home. thank you. host: any thoughts? see the "neocon" moving to hillary clinton. in fact, i think the republican party will be like many large families. you have different beliefs inside a large family. fussing, andpping, fighting. when it comes down to some other family in the neighborhood taking on one of your siblings, you are going to band together and go to war together. i think that is what we are going to see in the fall. whoever emerges from the republican party as our candidate, i believe we will support them and we will put
great effort in. i know there is a lot of talk -- theirs group publican party and one poorly, it doesn'tstates, benefit of settlor betake our marbles and go home and don't dissipate in the process. i will support whoever our candidate is in the fall and do what i can do to pick the best candidate to win in november and to influence our candidates as much as possible to expand their publican party to make sure that all americans are included -- that all republicans are included and americans are included. writes in --cks just curious, what is a hoosier? guest: the etymology of that word goes back into the early 1800s and it seems that the common consensus is as people
would be migrating to indiana heading west, in the middle of the night, as wagons would approach each other, you would approach a house along the road, someone would call out, who is is there>- who was ? it kind of got slurred to hoosier. it is a term of in german. endearment.erm of hoosieraig dunn, is a with the -- with how it takes politics -- howey politics. if you want to visit his website, it is at howeypolitics.com. and he for being here.
for a last 40 minutes, we are going to discuss with her democratic colors only whether the next president continue president obama's policies or go when a new direction? this is democrats only. we have been discussing republican politics in our last segment. we have done questions with just republicans only. just democrats this time only. 202-748-8000 if the candidate should continue with policies. if they -- if using basic on a different direction, call www.c-span.org. -- call 202-748-8001. you can start calling in now. are doing this stems from an article in the if hillary post,"
clinton is running for obama's or term she faces these challenges. is the author of the piece. he is a professor at grand valley state university in michigan and author of the air apparent presidency. challenge, the next would have to relate to her predecessors. clinton would promise a great deal of continuity in the general election and in the campaign, but if she reaches the white house, she would alternate between three approaches -- continuity, expansion, and correction. the author goes into each one of those things. when it comes to continuity, clinton will promise, preserve, and protect with her needle pen. when it comes to expansion, all presidents want to have their own achievements, however,
clinton is likely to finish obama's goals like copper fence and -- like comprehensive immigration. helped millions not you covered , republicanlation opposition to all these is likely very strong forcing president clinton to make many compromises and choose her battles accordingly. when it comes to the issue of heirction, sometimes an has to take a new direction. elected, clinton will have to correct something in obama's legacy because either it is not functioning or unpopular. the affordable care act contains the deeply unpopular cadillac tax scheduled to go into effect in 2020. future president clinton would
force -- would face enormous pressure to repeal the tax. how which make it up? article, it is by donald zinman. we are asking just her democratic callers in this class segment of the washington journal, what you think the next president should do? should they continue obama's policies, or go in a new direction? harry is up first from lafayette, indiana. how do you feel? i feel they should taser policies. marijuana should be legalized. it would break of 99% of your drug gains right there in d.c. host: what other issues are important to you? where do you think president
obama has gone in the wrong direction? uhler: . that is the one i am concerned about the most. in this town right here, it is getting worse. it is more gangs, shootings, and robberies and things like that. school man in a high robbed a village pantry. they asked him what he was going to do with the money, and he said, by marijuana. it the number one selling illegal drug. host: that is terry in indiana. fill believes that the next president should continue president obama's policies. why do you think so? , you hungjust wanted up on me. host: no i didn't, fill. you wanted to tell us what? caller: i wanted to tell the voters out there what's going on
in this nation right now is i think hillary will follow cedence.pre she thinks a lot like obama. what is going on in the whole jobs leavingthe the country and stuff are talking about the national debt is so bad. the reason it is so bad is jobs leaving, so there are no taxes coming in from there. forwages have been stagnant how many years jacs? there is no jobs bill that is ever come out of republican congress or senate. what's goingalize
, and that nation republicans have destroyed hillary because they know she would get elected. host: when you say clinton think a lot like obama, would do you mean? because, you know, because she's a democrat, obama is a democrat. obama would have been so far if there wasn't so much discrimination against mcconnell and the whole republican party. , the thingt, hillary she is saying is true. come on. because ofr just what the republican party has done to her. and that is all planned. they planned that from day one
because she knew in the next election, i mean, the republicans do in the next election that she would get elected and they went after her manyon as, you know, how years ago? as soon as obama come into office, they have been after her. the stuff they go after her about is nothing but rhetoric. question for just him only in our last 35 minutes today, the next president should continue president obama's policies --202-748-8000. or the new president should go into a new direction from president obama's policies -- 202-748-8001 if you feel that way. on that line, the next person who thinks the president should go into a new direction is tay
von. caller: we have to go in a different direction. in terms of obama's operating style as a president, we cannot negotiate with a corrupt campaign politics that we have. we have lobbyists in the heirs of politicians, buying them off, and hillary clinton is a prime example number one. we cannot negotiate with republicans and democrats. i support about bernie sanders, instead of closing the inaugurated, is the same way obama did who turned his back and started negotiating, bernie sanders is for the american people and tell american people, hey, get involved. big moneyed to get out of politics, number one, so republicans and democrats can
have the debates we want to have. whether you support conservative liberal policies, right now, nothing is getting , bigbecause big pharma wall street, those are the people creating legislation and the politicians are listening to it. i support bernie sanders because he does not take any of that money. i can see why some people would want donald trump as president because he is self financed. but again, you don't get a briber to come in and take care of the bride. that is donald trump, he buys politicians himself. i don't think he is a person to do it. voting rights is an issue also. it should be an opt out instead of an opt in. americano reinvigorate
democracy so we can have the debates you want to have. republicans and democrats are a part of that revolving door of wall street and washington. host: when you talk about opting in or opting out to vote when you turn 18, you should automatically be registered. how old are you? caller: i'm 24 years old. i'm so happy to hit the other millennials like myself are engaged. i cannot stand it when older folks look at our generation as the selfie generation and that we are out of touch. we are more informed and engaged than one might think. host: one of the ways you youged -- what is one way you stay engaged? caller: i do plan to vote.
i just like to have conversations about this whenever i can. i don't shy away from political conversations. i don't change the subject to kim kardashian. i'm ready to talk about what folkses are going to help outside of myself. even myself, i am not afraid to have these conversations. i think people in my generation are apt to read these conversations on social media and face-to-face. host: pat smith writes on would like to see the democratic candidate not follow obama's action, but 2008ad, live up to obama's campaign promises. tony is in kansas city on the line that thinks the next president should continue president obama's policies.
he is a progressive. is that the supporters of sanders and trump are not -- job back? bring the [indiscernible] socialist -- as a when they tagged him as a socialist, he will lose by a landslide. hillary clinton is in the middle. host: did you hear that last caller with concerns about all the money in politics, and his concern that president obama played into the system as soon as he got into office? do you think that is a place
where the next president needs to change what president obama has done on money in politics? can't tie your house behind yourself. you can't do that. republicans are in a bunch of money. when they are ready to take care of that, the republicans and and bets will sit down united. that is where it starts. host: can you unilaterally disarm if you are president? [indiscernible] time, the senate and the congress --
it will be a landslide. look at his moralities. he is 100% white. [indiscernible] those people are people who believe they have the power. elected, he has to have some hispanic, black and muslim votes. michigan and he will lose new york. host: all right. ,hat is tony kansas city missouri. some stats on president obama's current approval rating as we are talking about the president who should follow president obama. currently, the most recent has 51% approving
the president's job he is doing in office. to break that out -- it is only 13% to approve of the job he is doing on the republican side. on average, over the course of the entire presidency, his approval has been 47%. his high point came in at 67% just after taking office. low point happened 12 different times. .e was at 40% his highest three-day average, weekly average are shown as well by the tracking poll, the weekly job approvals, you can check it out. we are talking to just them a crack about who -- about him what you think the next president should do? should they continue president
obama's policies, or go in a different direction? martinez, california. ellen, why do you feel that way? caller: good morning. i am very fond of president obama and i like most of his programs. me the two that really upset , citizens united, that no candidate talks about. that scares me about hillary. i am a set about that. and the new direction i think they should go is enforcing immigration law. i think that obama has misused policy,utive order with which is a policy, which is a privilege. and start enforcing immigration law. there is and what easy way to do that besides building a wall, and that is clean up social security that the social security numbers can't be forced , stolen, or used for dead
people. last year in one of your programs, someone was on, i do not recall whom. tweeted,f your guests the irs has 37,000 euros if i will social security numbers from two corporations. and the irs, would not allow the government, i believe social security, to go in and find out what is going on with this. that needs to be cleaned up. that is all i have to say. host: ellen, if you want to research it, you can go to our website at www.c-span.org. all of our segments are available to rewatch. tom is in virginia. says the next president should go in a new direction. good morning. caller: good morning.
about the last few decades, the federal government has tried to get people to retire early by offering them and incentive -- an incentives. it is a big failure mainly because it is not a lot of money as far as the benefit is concerned. what happens is you have these employees that stay on because it increases their retirement, and i wonder if somebody like trump, who is a business person, that in their and would say, we got to make this worth people's wild. because there is a lot of ways in the federal government. it seems to me that there has got to be a better way of doing it compared to offering people incentives to retire that are based on a 1990's formula. host: are you supporting donald trump? caller: i am on the fence. i voted in the primary for kasich. i am -- someone said the other
day, you know, if someone held a gun to your head today, who would you vote for? looking at the candidates right now, i may take the gun option right now. primary.t's a horrible i think it is awful across the board. whould support bob gates knows government who can get in there and do something. virginia has an open primary. you can take a democratic ballot as a republican or take a republican ballot as a democrat. you voted for this primary? iffy init has been real virginia because they wanted you to sign a loyalty oath that in the primary if you voted for a republican, you were somehow bound to vote for whoever the republican nominee is in the general. the problem with that is there are people -- there are 17 running in the republican
cruz,y including literally scare the hell out of me. hope't think there is any that we are going to be able to solve problems if you get people that extreme in there. we got to get somebody willing to roll up their sleeves and get to work and make it work. i am not seeing that. i had hoped for kasich, then i heard he cut the deal with cruz that made zero cents. cruz would not be in new mexico, which are be a perfect primary for him. kasich would be in indiana. never made that decision should be fired. whoever made that decision should be fired. it just seems like a take mess. i am not on the hillary bandwagon. bernie is great, but when you say the word socialist, people's chairs turned to the right. it is a poor selection in a country this many people. host: we are talking to just them are cracked only in this last segment today on the
"washington journal." to the next president continue president obama's policies, or go in a new direction tha? christine is in florida on the line for people who think the next president should continue. what policies, christina? caller: pretty much the health care program, obamacare. i think hillary will tweak it and make it better. it still has a lot of issues, but i think she will fix it. will getat hillary most of obama's policies through and make them better. i think she will stabilize the middle east and keep us safe. will get along in congress. to get he will be able all of these policies through, and also give us more than what control,obs, more gun
women's rights, everybody's writes. she will convince them. host: why do you think hillary clinton would be able to get gun control through it president obama tried that effort and has run into such a tough time trying to move anything on that issue? i don't understand how all of these democrats and republicans don't understand obama has been fighting a losing battle since the day he was elected. they already knew they were going to do to him -- the already new what they were going to do to him. host: do you think it will be different for hillary clinton? caller: no. she gets along with everyone and i reached you will be able to get through. that is why they don't want her
to win. they are fighting her so bad. i and she will get through. she gets along with everybody. she is very intelligent and has a lot of experience. and i think she will get it through. policies, have these all the shooting, all the bad guns getting into the wrong hands, that has to stop. too many innocent people are getting killed. it is really, really important with americans. i think she will do it. i think she is going to be our next president. but because she is a woman, but because she is intelligent, experienced, and will be able to get it done. florida.istine and bill is a democrat and kansas city, missouri. bill, what do you think the next president should do? caller: go in a new direction. the less caller touched on it a
little bit. hillary is a very convincing person. she is part of a family that is very convincing. there was a big mistake made by obama. he did not spend enough time in his first two years developing new congress because we got beat real bad and nothing has been done. hillary has touched on this a little bit that she wants to send more time, because we don't have anybody, governors, -- governors and state offices. you have to develop this before you can do anything else. host: you mean campaigning with some of these folks on the state and local level to make sure they are elected to do more campaigning? caller: well, i don't know. the details is really somebody else's deal. whatever it takes.
them,ose campaigning with and in a lot of cases, it wouldn't. would be kind -- showing up would be kind of a negative. obama certainly could have done more of that. the fox -- and former president clinton. they seemed to let the first two years just drift, they were so happy they got elected, that the kind of let it go a little bit. is, don't let it go. republicans won seats they never should have won. if there was more effort put in from the top like that -- there is a lot of things to do. as soon as a new president gets expectations and
the demands, and everything comes at them and they are expected to do a lot of things. is that one should be, that to me very important. about the newlk occupant of the west wing, news out of the east wing of the white house yesterday of the , president'soffice oldest daughter, melia obama, has opted to attend harvard university beginning in the fall of 2017. the white house announced the choice that she made to take a gap. she will become the latest in the long line of presidential children to attend the ivy league university noting that daughter ofis the two academic overachievers who both attended law school at harvard. harvard only except 5.2% of applicants making it the second
most selective college in the country after stanford. it is also one of the most expensive costing more than $60,000 a year for tuition for room, board, and other fees. we are asking our viewers, what you think the next president should do? democrats only. should the next president continue president obama's policies, or go in a different direction? is in the soto, texas. what you think? caller: i think they should continue president obama's strategy. there are two people, bill and tayvon. they said president obama should have done more. you know what, get more people out to vote in your state. i have four grandchildren who are 20 years and they go to college. their parents are still able to keep them on health care. we talk about small children with health needs.
that is great for the parents. dear pain reform -- campaign reform, they forgot that president obama tried to do that and joe wilson said to him, you lied. immigration reform, i am 67 years old and i remember when said to us when we were little, we are going to send you back to africa. these kids need education. also, people's rights. raise the limit on that. people can make it off at $7.50 seminars $.50 an hour. hillary clinton has been in politics longer left to know that she could do some lyndon whaton tactics and that is you have to do with some of these congressmen and senators, not just the white ones, but the black ones, too.
the democratic party has laid down and done nothing to help president obama. harddent obama tried very to campaign for some of those people and that is where we lost it. you get out and you vote local government and everybody have a great day. host: before you go, do you thank democrats -- do you think democrats and the next congress will the more inclined to support whoever comes after president obama? is,er: i don't care who it if they are republican, if they are for people. party, they have laid back. rode on president obama's back. on the second term, they said, i don't want him to come because of gun control.
bernie sanders have been in their 25 years. i told my grandchildren, you have to get out in work because my mom had three jobs that barely equaled one job. if people want change, go to your poll and it starts in your county, city, and local and state government. ted cruz, the poor man, you know what, donald trump has ripped him up, but he has done nothing in texas but eat green eggs and ham and shut down the government. people have to remember, they lost a lot of money. host: rose in michigan. you think the president should go in a new direction, why? caller: the president we get in office should go in another policies,doing bills,
doing bills with iran knowing they are our arch enemy and sucking money out of the military. i hope obama gets this because the military was built, since my father and all of my relatives, worked in the army. my father was a sergeant. he was in the army. he fought in world war i and world war ii. like he said, that army, that military is supposed to protect and defend this country. there likeing out ducks. i don't care for bernie sanders. i don't care for this free stuff. it there is nothing in this world that is free. we worked our whole lives. we were for everything we get. nobody gives us anything. host: ok. caller: he's got a career that caused -- he's got a career that
goes all the way back to who knows when. he's talking about people in panama and uruguay, but when it comes to the american people -- i voted for reagan. i voted for reagan. now i am crossing over the line and voting for a republican. and i am voting for donald trump because i believe he represents this country. a strong military. that is what we need. we need people that can get the job done. robert is next, a democrat thehe line who think president should continue president obama's policies. which ones in particular, robert? caller: she should continue president obama's a la takes because he started something, even though the republican party fought tooth and nail from day one, and he is still getting a
lot of things accomplished. --eel like the marijuana law if they were to stop discriminating against young people getting jobs when it comes down -- you know they smoke marijuana. if they stop discriminating them , it would be a lot less crime on the street. hillary clinton will be president, but she will finish the job that president obama started. it will take more -- it took more than eight years to get in trouble. it will take more than than eight years to get out of trouble. host: all right, chris is in los angeles, california, a democrat on the line for those who think the president to go in a new direction. caller: thank you. good morning. i think everyone should read, especially middle-class republicans. it is called "all the
president's bankers." this one lays it out. i am one of those democrats that even if bernie sanders doesn't get the nomination, i will not vote for hillary. i don't know who that woman was, she was always a not a democrat if she will vote for trump. i will both the green party. it is absolutely insane the banking community. they go through our political system. i can't even describe it. bernie is the only hope we even have at this point, and he has never said anything is free ever. he is not promising anything. elected, ice i get will need everybody behind me. it has to be a group effort. we have to gang up on these guys. he's right. it has to be some bloodless revolution. we have to start from scratch. if it's bernie
sanders, do you think you will have the support from congress to enact those efforts? or are you saying if there are enough people behind him, congress will have to follow him? yes, we have to get all those guys out of there. extremely steep hill to climb. but you can't do it incrementally. i'm sorry. it is like tapering off smoking, you have to go cold turkey, you know? and i am not in bad shape, but i got daughters. i don't know even -- i don't even of how kids get started nowadays. i'm just speechless after reading this book. bankers,"resident's and goes back 100 years and shows a secret alliance is between the bankers and politicians. it's crazy! host: thomas on twitter says the
next president should follow his own agenda. finance criminal justice reform and trillion dollar infrastructure program which is what thomas lewis is pushing for. time for a few more calls and wanted to show you one more story making headlines today this from the "washington times." puerto rican government will not make $370 million in bond payments after a failure to restructure or find a political solution to the u.s. territories spiraling debt crisis noting that i went spent the weekend trying to negotiate a settlement that would have avoided the default, but came up short. the development comes as congress has been unable to pass a debt restructuring bill for puerto rico. back to the calls. democrats only here for the last five minutes or so on today's program. ryan is up next in houston, texas. brian, what you think the next president should do? caller: good morning.
thank you for having me on the show this morning. host: go ahead, brian, what do you think? caller: whoever we put in that seat, it's not going to have that much of an impact on change as long as congress has the power of the purse. obama is a most optimistic that i have ever met, the things he set forth and in place aren't any good. for properly structured. however, from the inception of his presidency, not only did congress continuously block and law, if they opened up and started those infrastructure deals and all those things, we could have had americans working all this time.
to make certain he was as great as he is. are in thiswe predicament as far as the money. now, the jobs they are going to make themselves, once he is out, they will allow us to make the money we are supposed to be making. they will allow these things to flourish again. just to make sure that this black president didn't shine. that is the problem we are facing unfortunately. host: are you saying it is a racial thing as opposed to the president's policies and division for what direction the country should go? caller: his policies are excellent. his optimism for all people -- he is not trying to help blacks more than he is trying to help whites. he is trying to help america. you understand?
as far as the policies, they are great. host: all right. mike is waiting in cleveland, georgia. once you get mike in as well. what you think the next president should do? caller: uh. we got to, uh. miscommunication it seems like in the states. i am partially for burning, but -- our schools, roads, military, biggest socialist organization in the world. obama, he folded to the banks. when it came time to deal with them, he folded and went right along with them. when it comes time to stand up against killing without this extra judicial killing mess, he caved in. , i don't know what
we're going to do. if we don't make a paradigm shift here, i just, i can't honestly see how we go forward. host: all right, mike is our last caller on today's program, but we will be right back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. in the meantime, have a great monday. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>>today and republican front-runner donald trump also in the hoosier state campaigning in south bend, indiana. c-span2 will have live coverage starting at 7:00 p.m. a poll has in leading senator cruz. a real politics poll has that lead at four points. >> this editorial in the indianapolis star. a president trunk would -- president trump would be -- joining us on the phone is matthew tully, political columnist for the indianapolis star. thank you for being with us. how does the newspaper really feel about these republican candidates?