Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20100124

about guantanamo detention. we will also take your e-mails and phone calls. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning, new developments overnight. the christmas day bombing attempt in detroit, osama bin laden issued a new audio message planning a al qaeda responsibility for that. the white house said this morning that they are confident about the confirmation of ben bernanke for his second term. the newly appointed political adviser to the national committee -- democratic committee has an article today about the road ahead. "the year of big obama is over." the goal of cutting the deficit in the bipartisan budget committee proceeds the state of the union address. it is in that venue that we would like to open the phones this morning. how would you describe the state of the union in the year ahead? if you are optimistic, to 0 2/7 -- 202-737-0001. if you are pessimistic, 202- 737-0002. "the president is reconstituting the themes that helped him to win the white house to help and to counter the republicans in the midterm election after political setbacks. from the jump page of the piece this morning is also the point that rohm emmanuel, meeting with senior staff of the white house, that this was part of the cycle of politics. counterparts in sight of the white house will continue to be [unintelligible] , the twin head of the operations. after managing the obama election races, unlike many of the camping colleagues, let's return to the private sector. his book was released in november. there is this from the front page of "washington post." the story as the date line "nursing the financial system back to health." "stabilizing and revising battered markets, wall street's political fortunes have suffered as well. eroding the very financial stability that they claimed to champion. moves to bring in the country's biggest banks and talk of blocking the reappointment of federal reserve board chairman ben bernanke torpedoed confidence in the stock market last week, sending share prices in the steepest decline in nearly a year." david is joining us from massachusetts, go ahead. caller: good morning. as far as the state of the union, i call it the state of this function. -- this function -- disfunction. he is going to blame bush, blaming massachusetts, the right wing. we are tired of the liberal mantra and we proved it in massachusetts. thank you. host: thank you. dominating the political discussion in "cq weekly" is an article about scott brown. jonathan, kansas. you are optimistic. why? caller: i believe that everyone has their chance. i believe that everyone can drue their own conversations. host: that is it? caller: that is it. host: darien, pessimistic from pennsylvania. why? caller: because of the way that c-span is setting up our president to fail, just like rush limbaugh and everyone else. host: what you say that? caller: did you ask these kinds of questions when bush was in office? host: absolutely. caller: i am i getting my money was worth. -- money's worth. nancy pelosi, she has never been on "meet the press." new gingrich was on 18 times. tell me you are about bias. host: first of all, we have nothing to do with "meet the press." we have a standing invitation for nancy pelosi and harry reid to come onto this network. we are not nbc, we cannot take any blame for what you are watching on that network. caller: cable is paying your bills. host: actually, the money comes from you. caller: the public, you are not being fair with the public. you are putting on people that you should not put on. host: like to? caller: you have all of these radio talk show host on one year ago. everyone but rush limbaugh. why did you not have a mind? host: we have asked him, he will not come on. caller: isn't that nice, thank you, sir. host: "the year of big obama is over." our next caller come from brooklyn, new york. caller: i am optimistic about the 2010 year. frankly, i have a brother that lives in north carolina, called me the other day after two years of having very little work at his job, a company that is spin- off of georgia-pacific, and now he told me how much work they have. working overtime, lots of new materials, all of the work that he has got -- they are doing like five truckloads every night. he has over time. i am thinking that the recovery act has begun to hit. even for myself, he lives in brooklyn, there are not a lot of the jobs but there are many little small jobs springing up right now. frankly, i have three jobs. host: speaking of brooklyn, new york, the cover of "the new york daily news," andrew cuomo is going to run for governor. they pointed out that andrew cuomo has $16 million in the bank. gov. paterson currently has $3 million. cheers and gillibrand, first appointed -- kristin gillibrand, first appointed by gov. paterson, will also be running for her seat. the question this morning, are you optimistic or pessimistic about the year ahead? the president is delivering the state of the union on wednesday evening. coverage given under way at 8:00 eastern time, 5:00 for those of you on the west coast. robert mcdonald will deliver his remarks at about 6:15. michigan, why are you pessimistic? caller: as a business owner, we are not hiring anybody. host: what is your business? caller: textiles. we are not hiring anyone. i do not trust this administration. they are anti-business. b. lee, liberal media is carrying him every day. -- the elite, liberal media is carrying him every day. virtually every cable station instead of fox is all liberal. no one tried to tell me that the media is not a broad. they carry the water for the democrats every day. their message gets out there every day. it was stymied in massachusetts and that is why a republican had a chance to win. if you vote democrat, you vote for the elite liberal media's values. you better know what those values are. look into where they stand on the issues. they believe in more bureaucrats and higher taxes. burke is pointing out -- host: which is what dirk is falling out on twitter. you can send us a twitter or an e-mail at journal@c-span.org. "i am not optimistic about 2010 until obama realizes that we need less government, not more, we will continue to drive the dead." from "the washington post" the article points out that wielding a large majorities, they relied on their expert vote-counting skills to send obama 13 major bills and read over alterations health care system. then the bullet train screeched to a halt. scott brown's victory in massachusetts cause the democrats their filibuster-proof senate majority. obama's biggest priorities, for use in climate change -- reducing climate change, overhauling health care, expanding college aid, are now in limbo. our question this morning, optimistic or pessimistic about the year ahead? roger is our next caller. caller: i am very optimistic. host: turn the volume down on your television, we will hear you much better. caller: ok. host: still with us? caller: i feel optimistic. i feel that obama just got in with one year. he is doing the best that he can with what he has got. he has got conservative democrats that are only worried about reelection and making obama look bad. host: clam sorry, we are getting some feedback on you. -- i am sorry, we're getting some feedback on you. this editorial, "liberals blame the economy for the public's mood, but is it really high unemployment that moves the public against gun-control and abortion legislation? the massachusetts race was a as close to a referendum on that legislation as can be reasonably imagined, and it lost." brown ran on tax cuts, it tougher interrogation for terrorists, and a health care and bank tax cut." this from a frequent guest on this network, "contractual obligations. political obligations coming back to the winds of 1994, those elections for a referendum on the first two years of bill clinton's presidency. the contract serve several functions, even if it was not in the front of the minds of voters. the republican candidates' policy issues that they could talk about. also in view of the party with being forward-looking -- it also in view that the party with being forward-looking -- in viewed -- imbued a party with being forward-looking." next caller, optimistic or pessimistic? caller: pessimistic. in a handyman. i use the $2,500 every week. are -- i use to get $2,500 every week. now i am lucky the a $500. hopefully massachusetts tells the country that we need work. believe the obama administration will listen. -- hopefully the obama administration will listen. part of what i think should be done, like here, they have over 5000 houses in one area that were being built that were not even being looked at by anyone. part of the problem back and, if you have a house company, they should be able to build so many houses. the city should take care of that. do you understand what i am saying? there are so many houses being built in florida that are being killed for nothing. big companies are able to write them off, making a profit on them, doing whatever they do. it is crazy that the permit offices do not have a limit on how many places should be built. that is part of the problem, i believe. host: thank you for the call, chris. joseph clark has this comment. he is pessimistic, "having alvaro way too much individually and as a country -- have we not borrowed wait too much individually and as a country"? in this article, "the first off- year election has led to big gains in the minority party, which was true of many other presidents in election cycles where democrats won most of the big races. they had much more fragile turf to defend this year. added to the economic crisis, they both insisted that there would be a white knuckle ride for many of the candidates. we heard some of that outside of cleveland on friday as the president made a campaign stop in ohio. here is part of what he had to say with regards to the economy. >> i will not walk away because of ta divorcerp. we -- we will not walk away because awof tarp. we are not going to walk away and watch people get crushed by insurance company bureaucrats. i will love -- got a lot watch this skyrocket because there -- i will not watch their stock skyrocket because there is no control on what they do. as long as i have a breath in me, as long as i have the privilege of serving as your president, i will not stop fighting for you. i will take my lumps, but i will not stop fighting to take jobs back. i will not stop fighting for an economy where hard work is rewarded. i will not stop fighting to make sure that there is accountability in our financial system. i will not stop fighting until we have jobs for everyone. >> part of the president on friday in ohio. dave, baltimore, calling on the optimist lines. caller: i just want to say that i am very optimistic, the president's speech really showed how the banks and corporate interests have been running this country. they will not even say that it is a democracy. the decision on friday, there is great capacity to recognize individuals the need to speak out. we really need to bring the cause to hope. as for the elections, i have never seen in my life where a special election was used in this way. it is important that the democrats get a wake-up call, but at the same time, you cannot read too much into it. the banks, oil companies, insurance companies in this country, why can we not lower the medicare age. the president and nancy pelosi, harry reid, wire they doing backroom deals? i am not saying that all of the ideas on one side or the other are correct, they are not. but there are incremental things that to be done. if the democrats continue to do backroom deals, how will we ever get anything done? i am optimistic that the president finally got out there on friday. if he can do that, nancy pelosi -- whose family is from maryland -- host: father was the mayor of baltimore. caller: there is no working together. there's a lack of bipartisanship. host: "i am positive that wall street will steal more money from the workers and that obama will do nothing about it. our next caller is calling on the pessimistic line. caller: he sounded very pessimistic recently. there are many, as it was told in massachusetts. 150,000 people were on the rolls. my mother lived in tucson, ariz., and moved to california, now working in nevada. i received an early ballot like my niece, and she voted in nevada. everyone that says that the dallas cowboys were registered here or there, they cannot possibly vote everywhere, yes. everywhere that you have family, everywhere that you have a residence, you can get early ballots. there is no check on the citizens at the polls. nothing about being able to vote more than one time. as long as we have places like acorn, elections will never, ever before sure as long as people can vote more than one time. even senator schuler said that he could vote 10 times. the early ballot is a big problem because you can vote many times. host: thank you for the call. "pessimism, the supreme court will corrupt money in politics even more. and jon cohencohenis with us this morning. -- jon cohen is with us this morning. caller: thank you for having me. so evident in this massachusetts election, this was a powerful force, one that we needed to take note of. evident in massachusetts, there were candidate-specific things going on as well played a factor. host: what do you think that the republican party will take away from this as they look at the political landscape? caller: in one sense they can be lifted by the fact that they are benefit -- benefiting from this widespread dissatisfaction. what health care means is not so simple. 30% of brown voters actually mentioned things about the political process in washington and how it is being handled. dealmaking, things being pushed down our throats, that was frequently mentioned. rather than specific opposition. host: i want you to respond to what the president said in ohio. it seems to be that the newly appointed czar in the house and senate, what is going on there? of caller: in terms of david thoughts? host: and the white house in general. host: -- caller: obama himself is popular in the massachusetts polls. but the policies of his administration seem far less positive. it is not just about health care or the economy. there is a growing sense of government overreach. the 63% of voters in massachusetts said the government should be doing more. obama overwhelmingly won those voters. copley got them this past tuesday, but far fewer people were saying that government should be doing more. in terms of a democratic agenda and thinking about what they should be doing going forward, health care is emblematic, but they need to know that there is something else going on out there that might be measurable. host: in his speech he talked about how being president you are often isolated. here is part of what he said. i want your reaction after we listened to this. >> is it harder for me to do this nowadays? it is harder to get out of the bubble. do not get me wrong, the white house is a wonderful place to work. i have a very short commute. i see my daughters before i go to school and i see that night for dinner, which makes everything so much better. but the truth is that this job is a little confining. that is frustrating. i cannot just go to the barber shop. i cannot always visit people directly. host: your reaction -- why do you think that the president made a specific comment on that kind of isolation? caller: one of the things that drove his victory in 2008 was his perceived ability to connect with people on the problems they're facing. the people were seeking someone that understood what they were going through. he had a wide advantage over senator mccain on that specific issue. i know that he feels strongly that it helped to fuel his victory and he understands the connection that he had with the american people. full may feel that with the ring in office. host: that was jon cohen of "the washington post." his pieces on line, a survey of washington -- massachusetts -- his peace is online, a survey of massachusetts voters. we asked earlier about what it means for the gop in general, what can the candidates take away from massachusetts? what are the pitfalls that can be made? caller: a great -- a great question, answered in some ways by the republican pollster in this campaign, bob mcdonnell, va., talking about what it means to the gop -- in a way they are optimistic, but they also guard against irrational exuberance. what we saw just last week was that three-quarters of americans have little to no confidence in the republicans in congress to make the right decisions before the country's future. that is a problem in terms of the issues for the republican plan. many of those elements are still there. dissatisfaction has now turned towards the democrats as well, but the republicans need to be wary, as the pollsters are saying, about this force and how it can be used to their advantage. host: jon cohen, thank you very much. we will be talking with byron york and christopher hayes in about 20 minutes. as we mentioned in the piece about -- the piece from "the washington post," "the party has been reinvigorated and democratic you risk has been restated. the senate seat, the majority house seat, of and the legislative chambers, democrats thought that people voted for them because of their agenda. an agenda that they had not bothered to share with the electorate in the first place. and now the party's bungling has resulted in the highest disapproval rating in a gallup polls in history for president after his first year." caller: i am cop -- cautiously optimistic. before i get into why i am cautiously optimistic, i would like to say that i love c-span, i think you for the equal and balanced portrayal of the issues. the collar that was likening it to blend back and everyone else obviously got their channels mixed up. the reason i am cautiously optimistic is what has occurred in massachusetts was a good thing. i am a democrat, but i still think that it is a good thing, it is letting our party note to get rid of the hubris thinking. another reason for my optimism is what we have to do in the congress and the senate is remember that we are americans first. if we can manage to go through the resolution to become a country, a civil war to remain a country, two world wars and depression, we can do anything. first we have to do the job and be americans first. that is the problem in washington, d.c.. , the gridlock. we should be trying to find sensible solutions at times like this, solutions that will help the whole country. host: thank you for that call from kentucky. this comment from twitter -- optimistic. "there are opportunities through green jobs and education." "there is a piece from inside of washington, what ever happened to mary hart"? the 1994 presidential candidate. "he thought better on returning, the need over, saying that it was not the same senate anymore." mulally is joining us. pessimistic line? caller: i am pessimistic. i worked at the general motors plant where we build the suvs, making general motors millions of dollars. we took concessions and work strange shifts. we bent over backwards to maintain those vehicles. we spoke to the upper echelon continually about how to make improvements. there was $4 billion every year being thrown away. we tried to prevent it, stop trying to maintain good vehicles to work reasonably, the reason i am pessimistic is that suvs were no longer selling at the same rate, they took away our contractual negotiated health care benefits for our retirees. the reason this is significant, in 1981 the contract read that the individual had to be 55. therefore, we had it -- we had with those. the only thing you would keep his your health care. after that, absolutely nothing. individuals that have been forced into retirement -- understand, when you come into a plant like this, 30 years i felt like this, your body will be gone. your body wears out. god did not design our bodies to do that, but you knowingly make that choice, knowing it could be the result, knowing that you have a contract that is going to take care of you when you retire. host: what are you going to do, personally? caller: i am bringing as much attention to it as i know how to do. host: thank you for the call from ohio. this comment is from twitter. "obama is a 0-5. but the liberals keep blaming bush. deranged." "the public seems to approve, and the brown seems to be carrying republicans for the next 30 days. republicans will need more than just momentum in santa myth, they will need policy proposals ." optimistic, joining us from clark's well, virginia. caller: i am very optimistic. we need to go as low as we can. the one thing we must become as citizens is more fair. more aware of the economy and the situation we are in. as far as health care, i think we are paying. we need some kind of program. many of our citizens are listening to special interest groups and not getting information from the right places. we were covered in 1980 under most of the same status. rather than bickering between republicans and democrats. host: thank you for the call. suzy defrancis will be joining us later in the program. where is your money going in haiti? she will be with us in about an hour and 15 minutes. this twitter comment, "be lead are going to screw the working class -- but the leaks -- the elite are going to screw the working-class." this is from the washington post "this will be a tough election for our party and republican incumbents as well. let's prove that we can have more than the brains to govern, but that we have the guts to govern. to many everyday americans will continue to lose to the special interests. did make sure that voters understand with the american recovery and reinvestment act did for the economy. we need to show that we are more than just jobs. john is joining us from madison, wisconsin. caller: good morning. there are so many issues, i am confused as to where to start. if i could use between pessimistic and optimistic, i would have to go with pessimistic, based on the events of almost the last decade. at this point in time, the younger people are apathetic because they are sick and tired of everything that has gone on in washington. from the bush cheney regime to the present day. in congress we have elected a group of people that are idealistic and far reaching, who are there to do the good for the people, by the people, etc.. in the last bush/cheney regime, it was the good of the corporation's. there has not been much change with the incoming obama presidency. if you look at all of the things that president obama has actually done, there seems to be a big hoopla in the media coverage of change and a grass- roots overthrow of the status quo of governments. yet it is business as usual. given the health care reform act, everything fell like a push from the democrats for change, so many people being out of health care coverage, costs out of control, but nothing changes at all. it goes back and forth, back and forth. no one is really paying attention or has the courage to stand up and said look, we have had enough. host: we appreciate the call. last week the president said that with george stephanopoulos and charlie gibson. randy has this twitter comment, saying that independent and moderate democrats, talking about market corrections, obama had better listen." pessimistic, why? caller: the government is out of control. we gave them a wake-up call in virginia. i thank god for massachusetts. i think that the federal government is destroying this country and they need a big wake-up call. that is my comment for the day. host: another comment from twitter -- they are coming in fast and furious -- "how much are you under water? from the current section comes this from national politics -- "chris matthews was happy about barack obama, saying that he felt a thrill going up his leg. last week scott brown told the the obama and chris matthews was like a puppy on uppers. does he have a hot hand to run politically for the president next time"? ronald is killing us from atlanta. our phone lines just went down, we will try to fix it if we can. let's go to another twitter comment. for those of you watching, let's take a short break and get back in just a moment. first, a look at the issues and topics dominating the conversation from martha jackson. >> as you can imagine, the massachusetts republican senate win is a major issue of all of the sunday shows to date. going along with that, the future of health care and other red lustration priorities. terry moran will be talking with david axelrod of "meet the press." robert menendez. the guests on "fox news sunday" include the white house press secretary, robert gibbs. as well as john cornyn. we know that he is also the guest of seized and hostile and " newsmakers -- he will also be the guest on c-span's "newsmakers pures." "state of the union" will include orrin hatch, david axelrod, and robert menendez. you can listen to all five of the sunday morning talk shows starting at noon eastern on c- span radio. you can follow us on facebook in an twitter furious -- facebook and twitter. >> this week, gordon smith on the fcc plan to expand the broadband spectrum and what it might mean for broadcasters. >> dolly madison had to encourage her shy husband. this week, on "after words," the wives of the founding fathers. >> each year, the washington center brings thousands of students to washington, d.c., to experience the workings of our government firsthand. they will experience politics, government, and the future. wednesday, chris -- president obama delivers his first state of the union. wednesday night, our coverage starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you can listen to the president's address live on your iphone with the c-span radio application. >> "washington journal" continues. host: gentlemen, thank you for being with us and thank you for being a part of our sunday round table. guest: the supreme court, a terrible week for obama and not such a bad week for republicans. guest: it was a terrible week for progress in the country. host: this book, coming back as a part of the team, what does this signal? guest: that they are very worried. there's a chance that republicans could retake one of the houses of congress, which would be astonishing, given the fact that the voters killed them in 2006, then did it again in 2008. the republican party at the end of the 2008 elections was completely obliterated. because of the missteps by the party, they are doing far, far better. it appears that they could gain a lot of seats. this is a huge a mission that there is a problem. guest: that is just about right. you are seeing more of a focus on the election. but there was for the first part of the administration was a tremendously inside focus on trying to get health care through, which essentially meant, in their minds, taking the fight to anyone. you cannot win in politics unless there's a fight. they are understanding that, more and more. host: they had a super majority in the house and still could like it through. guest: there are a lot of reasons that that is the case. this is, increasingly, a parliamentary system. the degree to which filibuster has been implemented is a recent innovation. you also have a party in opposition with a smart political strategy, total opposition, viewing health care as his waterloo. at the same time that you have this opposition, you have a strategy that took three months to bring republicans on board. if you get rid of those three months, we could pass health care and move on to something else. guest: that explanation leaves out the voters. we had a situation where the majority party in congress was representing a minority position in favor of the democratic health care plan. of all likens were representing the majority opinion, opposition. look at the polls if starting in august. -- republicans for representing the majority opinion, opposition. look at the polls starting in august. de 55% nationally, you had some bipartisan support in the senate. -- 55% nationally, you that some bipartisan support in the san teh. guest: people that is approved of the president's handling or because the bill does not go far enough. there are people that believe in single payer. when you look at disapproval, you have to break out. what has happened this time has gone on, i agree, there is a chicken and egg question. when you talk to the people and look at the polling, what angered people more than anything is the process. people were not saying that they thought that some of this should be 300% -- guest: resumption on the bill was so difficult. it would have been easier if there was major public approval on this. the problem is that people in their states opposed it and had to try to figure out some way to get to the party leadership, which can be hard to do. host: the day after the election last week, we have these comments from john boehner. >> the people from massachusetts -- these comments from president obama. >> the people from massachusetts spoke, that is the first point. no. 2, it is important to look at the substance of this package. for the american people to understand that a lot of the fear mongering around this bill is not true. i would advise attempting to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package the parts that they refund. i will not get into legislative strategy. my job as president is to send a message in terms of where we need to go, not to navigate congress. identifying those core elements in this package, getting that done. host: when this administration for not to make the mistakes of the clinton administration, they may have made different mistakes but bigger ones? guest: the short answer is yes, right. there's this whole history of the clinton brand and his staff, a widely understood failure, they wrote this plan in secrecy and drought that on congress. so, the approach here was the exact opposite. they are seeing some backlash against that. that being said, at a certain point you have to say to you could go back and say that certain strategies were not right, but in terms of what happened legislatively in this country, at a certain point second-guessing political strategy only takes you so far. guest: when hillary clinton talked about the democratic chairman of the finance committee speaking wisely, saying if you are going to do something this huge to the budget, it has got to be pretty big. she told him to shut up and get out of the way. which is true. >> this bill was signed in by mitt romney, the hero of the conservative movement, scott brown. he refused to repudiate it at the state level, and forced it, and all he could come up with was a parochial concern that there was no reason to duplicated on another level. there was substantive policy of reach to the right, but a political refusal to go along. what do you do with that kind of opposition bella what does the republican party what? do they not care that health care is going up 10% every year? i do know >> you are nodding your head -- i do not know. guest: you are nodding your head, suggesting that this could not be possible. guest: i would love to see everyone boating -- i would love to see everyone vote on banning preconditions. host: is that where we are heading? guest: here is why we are not. no one can vote on it individually, you would destroy the private health insurance industry. i am for a refund with that, there were the being destroyed. -- they are worthy of being destroyed. there's all of this head shaking on the right, saying that we need to break it down into small parts. let's see how many republicans vote to destroy administration's. the point being that people want to say that this is complicated and the reason is because we're not just doing single payer, because the road -- the right would vote against that, but once you have this policy structure in place, you can add the attached. guest: you cannot do it without a mandate, without forcing people to purchase insurance, which is the crux of that. people do not like that idea. use all the polls from nevada -- use of calls from nevada. -- use all preview -- you solve the polls from nevada. host: our conversation, reminding our audience, we are joined here at the table by byron york and christopher hayes. we will get to your phone calls in a moment. send us your twitter comments at twitter.com/c-spanwj as well. let me get back to another issue and we will continue this conversation. you had the vote in massachusetts. guest: not a good week. i am of two minds about this. i think that in the interim, it is disastrous. our ability to see independent expenditures, i think that long- term my hope is that it spurns us to think in a different way about how to deal with the obvious problem of money in politics. that is a move towards citizen- funded elections, subsidizing more speech rather than trying to restrict. guest: i am not an expert on this, but i do listen to some of them. 28 states holding 60% of the population already allow corporate and union expenditures in state races. . caller: what they - one of the key is. we have to have tort reform. we've had it in two states. that really makes a difference in healthcare in those states. i've heard them say things about jobs. we have to have business tax cuts, business tax cuts. republicans did that under george bush and jobs didn't come, but this past time it didn't happen. a lot that republicans want to offer are things that were tried and didn't work. the only ideal is to look beyond or just pretend - well these things didn't happen. i look at this president and we just going to make it and not offer anything but guard this. this is what this is. >> thanks karl, we'll get a respond. >> i think has far as healthcare is concerned, the important thing is to try and make things better as apposed to fixing the whole thing. the republican plan - i think is analyzed by the cb o - the verdict is it could reduce healthcare costs for people currently insured. it would increase coverage by a tiny amount. i forget, like 3 million people. small number of people. and that it would make some things easier like healthcare more portable when you lose your job. as far as i understand. people are worried about three things. it's costing too much. they're worried they're not getting that there's a pre-existing condition or they're worried thought of not getting it if they lose their job. can you make those better without blowing up the system and the answer i think is yes. >> i don't want to be purchased to purchase bad coverage. rather the government get me a job than healthcare. >> what byron said about the mandate. it's not a particularly popular idea and again, i don't like this device that's been instructed precise of not to blow up the system. everything was constructed around not blowing up the system so. you have widen bennett in the system. there's ways that people think it could have been superior. just have medicare for all which would be most simple. the bill you could probably write on one page. gn afraid of blowing up the system. so the catch-22 is in order not to blow up the system you create a con structure that - well, 85 percent of them have healthcare now which they're reasonably satisfied with. >> that's the problem. same way if you came to me and said are you happy with the fire insurance on your house? >> i don't have a fire. i don't know. >> right. so your satisfied. >> the elderly are most apposed to this and they're actually the ones that have used it a most. >> but that's - who covers the elderly byron? >> medicare. >> yes! >> they all have supplemental. >> but the reason, what weaver seen with the remarkable dynamic is that the people that have government healthcare, the elderly are most concerned about the reform precise because they're happy. >> because the president proposed to cut 1/2 billion dollars. it was the only way he could pay for example tending the coverage to people that don't want it. >> and individualism and freedom demagogues the cuts the heck out of melt care. they stood up and said read the republican party. our state ronald reagan said it would usher in the error of med sane. >> it was voted on with bipartisan support. i think there were only 30 democrats in the senate. >> tell me this. would you tell me today's republican party would vote for medicare would it not be in place right now. >> you honestly think it would get that many votes right now? >> but it also got a large number of votes in the house. >> the idea the republican party somehow put through it's body in front of healthcare is not true. large numbers of republicans voted for it. >> but the conservative movement hated it. host: good morning on the republican line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. relation to your earlier question. pessimist or optimist. i'd like to say i'm extremely pessimistic and that has to do with both parties. although, i must admit the healthcare thing has made me more pest missic is if it ever passes. i think all the current problems will be solved one way or another. but what annoys me more than anything else and really depressed me is neither party will take up the two major things that will destroy the country if something isn't done about it. and that is the social security and the medicare, which are both in hock for trillions of dollar overtime, and neither party will really turn around and - well what they consider to be any kind of a solution. one attempt was made in - not the last administration but the one before that. on social security and it was virtually ignored by everybody. and i'd like to know what these two people happen to think about this from both sides of the argument. because some things got to be done or 50 years from now we'll be a third rate country. >> byron york? >> i think he was referring to the bush social security plan. which the president pushed 2005. and de voi devoted an enormous of time to it. some people think he was not paying attention to iraq enough at time because he was so obsessed with getting social security passed and never got to a vowel. democrats were absolutely apposed to it, and just - just wasn't going to happen. um... social security still is a problem, but i think in our system, it's very difficult to convince people that a problem is coming 30-years from now and we really have to act right now. it just never works out. >> hmm... i think chris hayes just handed byron york his walking papers. would republicans vote for medicare. hell no. >> look. if there's an enormous public approval for it. a party if it's not suicidal a party is not going to appose it over time. if there's overwhelming public approval for a specific measure i don't republicans will be against it. >> we have that. public option has polled consistently and reliable as the most popular point of healthcare. guest: why do people not like this bill? you keep getting hung on people apposing the bill. guest: let's talk about it's a specific individual measure. in fact, there's a pole recently done. guest: you need to write a bill and debate it and see where the public is. the opposition was not all that big in april and march of last year. it got bigger after democrats finally wrote a bill - it's two thousand pages long and you can read it if you think the public option is great. write a bill and debate it and see where we stand. guest: we passed a a bill in the public option. it's actually in the letter- >> the members of the house are running way from it now. host: chris hayes i want to get your reaction to the piece at the "washington post". it's on-line by the way. quote democratic cooners will say that martha coppely was a terrible candidate that even managed to disher chilling. true. but had obama and beats the seal of a man swooning only a year ago, something is going on beyond personality. your reaction? guest: that's right. she was a terrible candidate. it was. one way to think about this raise is that scott brown got - i think 50,000 more votes in massachusetts than john mccain got and martha cokely got 800 thousand than barack obama got. what happened is a tremendous number of people that came out and voted for obama in 2008 stayed at home and didn't vote for martha. guest: and a significant number of people that voted for obama voted for brown. guest: there's 800,000 people and so some are sitting at home. the issue is there's tremendous frustration and discontent in the country. it's generalized and focused on the economy as it should be and there's a tremendous distrust of the country's elite. this i think is actually the core issue. we've witnessed in the last decade almost epidemic of elite failure. everyone running anything that is screwed up and it eroded the public's trust that the people who are a top the commanding heights of the order to make the good decisions, are going to make decisions in their interest and that deep distrust is what we're seeing broadly across the country. guest: there's an effort now to explain the election in massachusetts as a vote on the economy. you said something like that and there's a front page story in the "washington post" saying cokelys lost contributes that administration was not focused enough on the country's economic woes. the countries own pole done by kaiser. how much of a factor was blank. extremely important or less important. and the number one issue was, healthcare reform. this was a largely about healthcare reform. there were voters that wanted to go in the democratic - now every election now is to some degree about the economy and jobs. that was number two. number three was the way washington is working and number five the candidates leadership in personal quality and policies on terrorism and number 7 the government's handling of banks which the president thinks was the big deal. as far as failures of elite are concerned, the most recent failures are the most important to the voters. guest: maybe bush screwed up kak katrina and now you have the union deal which is the only way healthcare can be revived which is the situation about cadillac healthcare plans where democrats propose to say if you have an expensive healthcare plan you will pay more in taxes unless your in a union, in which case you won't. host: i was in massachusetts for a few days covering this and people were upset about the process and they felt the process reflected the content of the problem itself. they wouldn't have to cheat like this if there were not a problem with bill itself. >> maria from newport news with byron york of the washington exam peer in and your on the air. caller: i would just like to ask him about the supreme court decision. the way i see is that, i heard them say that there's been no change in states when corporations could donate to campaigns. on a state and local level it is very different. they can go straight to the candidate. they can go straight to the local government. they can go straight to the state house. and make deals and get the legislation that they want for their corp. it wouldn't be in they - their best interest at that point. >> let me take her point. host: what does thursdays ruling mean for the political parties? guest: there have been rulings in the past in legislation in the past. various people including republicans predictd to kill the parties and the parties are not dead. i don't think it mean as huge amount for the parties. host: but if your running for office and you're not getting support and you have outside interest groups contributing or putting in advertising doesn't that adda whole new dynamic? guest: when you have two parties competing for the same votes. >> you have anyone else? guest: it could happen but i think those are fairly unusual situations. you hey may have one in florida now when you have a sharply divided primary coming up. i think in general election, not that big of a deal. guest: i think you'll see an increase in independent expenditures and you'll see the balance tip towards republicans. what's interesting about this is we're essentially running a national percentage. one thing the caller made is a smart point. her point was. really, they're already so bought and sold at the local level. they don't need these corporation independent expenditures and i think one of the points to make here, the effect of the ruling the possibility has kind of an effect even if no money is spent if your sitting across from the head of goldman and sachs and you're talking about some policy he doesn't like, the threat he can throw 2,000,000 dollars into ads late in the cycle hangs over the conversation now. guest: didn't he give a huge amount of money to obama. the strike to democrats strikes me unfounded. tim carnegie looks at shuck schumers campaign contributions and all of these big industries, shumer is either the leading or next leading recipient. guest: i don't want to partisanize about it. but in the aggregate yes. guest: corporations seem to spread they're money around and most don't want to place all of their chips on one number. so the idea that this some how could be a gold rush for republicans and disaster for democrats even putting a side the fact this effects unions as well strikes me as not true. guest: i think it will be win intresting to say. country is good at purchases of democrating nominees if you did a pole of corporate titans, who they would rather see running the country it's going to be republicans pore often than not. whether that manifests in a tilt of money rule or not, but again we'll have to say. host: cq weekly. national journal all with mr. brown goes to washington writes about swearing in expected this week and then the "new york times" reporting ben bernanke. the white house is more confident now he'll be reconfirmed. what's happening. guest: there was this enormous scare thrown into ben bernanke and the white house when a couple of democratic senators said that they wouldn't support him and there's been a couple of other - am i right? guest: and bernie sanders. >> right and there's a few republicans apposed to him. white house, this is basically seen as residual angl anger at bernanke's failure to see the financial crisis coming and spending too much attention on the banks and also to pooring billions of dollars in the economy. guest: market had it's biggest loss in a year. guest: facing this the market had a terrible week. if ben bernanke were not reconfirmed, what effect would that have? i think it would be a terrible effect and i think republicans are thinking, they appointed ben bernanke and he's probably better than what republicans would get if obama were allowed to a point a new one. why not stick with him? host: jackie combs has a story in the "new york times" that there's been a lot of talk back and forth about the bipartisan commission to reduce the deficit. meeting last week to talk about this. senator supports the idea, white house saying there will be a vote on tuesday. if it doesn't pass then the president will a point a commission on it's own. guest: commission to deal with the budget deficit right now is like - you know - buying flood insurance when your house is on fire. the notion that the problem the country is facing right now is a deficit, is draft and of course there's an ideological agenda to this to gut entitlement. the whole thing that's driving this train is that there's a certain vested interest inside washington. not out in the country that want to cut entitlements and pair back government and redistribute money from people that are - working people paying taxes into the hands of - you know wall street essentially. that's what the ideological agenda is here. >> this is a plan to set up a doom's day machine to do what congress won't do. they won't cut spending and they have a constitutional duty to collect money and spend money and they're trying get out of it. host: there's a difference what the senate would vote on verses the presidential commission which has no authority whatsoever. guest: that's right. under the senate plan under conrad gray, the commission would come up with this budget measures of cuts and the congress would have an up or down vote on it. don't play it with, don't mess with any of the things. it's based on what they did with the military paces where they were having trouble, because they all have military bases in the districts and were having the trouble cutting them. so let's put the responsibility elsewhere where we don't have to do this. i don't know if it's constitutional but it's not in the spirit of what congress is supposed to do. host: mary from pine bluff, arkansas. byron york and chris hayes of the nation magazine. you're on the air. caller: yes, i think it's too much hoopla about that massachusetts election. that was just one seat. and democrats still have the majority. and what they do with it is the most important thing. we all just need to forget that we're republicans and democrats. i'm saying we're all human beings. and we need to care about each other and pull together. to make this a better country and the republicans keep saying, if they care about the grandchildren and children, but they don't act like it because what happens effects their family members and friends also. because all of them don't have good health insurance and good jobs. they all need for what millions of people need. good health insurance and good jobs. host: thank you, mary. we'll get a response. guest: lot of hoop louisiana caller makes a good point. democrats still have 59 votes. the thing that blew washington away was, combined the republican victories in the governors raises in virginia and new jersey this is a big deal and fact it happened in massachusetts which could be expected to re-elect a democrat, i think shocked everybody. they had only seen it coming for a few days and they they if it can happen in massachusetts it can happen anywhere. democrats again. all 435 members of the house have to be re-elected and a third of the senate has to be re-elected and they became extremely worried about the re-election process. >> your boss says if the democrats don't deliver the 2010 elections may snuff out any chance of reform. >> yeah, i think ultimately the state of the nation will be what drives the results this fall. and there's going to be changes on the margin. in some ways what's frustrateing is that ship has sailed. and that - that would be what would be playing out in the economy through this fall so. any hopes of - you know, a huge spike in jobs, short of getting jobs package passed through congress which i think is absolutely necessary. but at this point, republicans have every incentive to not sign on. you know, it's much better for the republican party if unemployment is 12 percent than it is at 8%. i can't see republicans wanting to do anything to bring down unemployment. guest: based on an earlier comment. host: all the t.v. networks lean to the left except for fox and liberals complain. amazing. reaction to that? guest: what's the question. host: bias in the media. guest: certainly i think it's there but there seems the public seems to be getting it about the obama program, so if every single member of the media including fox were dedicated to protecting obama the substance of what he's trying to do is the problem. the people do not like the healthcare plan, i think they were scared by the cap and trade plan passed by the house and not the senate and i think that they got a sense there was a sense of over reach on the part of the democrats and they could be concerned no matter what the media supports. host: part of the problem is they said they didn't effectively get the message out and mark nolen counted 158 interviews in his time in office. five formal news conferences. what is it that he didn't do that he should have done? guest: i think there was too much focus. one, there was too much focus on the internal dynamics of the beltway jest to give this one passed. the president gave one speech on healthcare. host: townhall meetings. guest: yeah, but he had a year of this process playing out and then there's also a network devoted to - you know - destroying the president's agenda. god bless him for it but so there's a certain degree to which he's rolling a rock up a hill coming to getting message out. but frankly the problem is washington is broken. the government institutions are broken. instead of attempting to revise the rules of the game, they try to play in the rules of the game. the game is dysfunction. >> they into office wanting to do too too much. they passed this enormous stimulus. guest: it's not enormous. guest: it was. he came with this enormous mandate. remember the fear that existing in 2009 january. he does the stimulus, takes over general motors, chris ler and takes over aig. he proposes cap and trade plan and he appears to be moving so fast on so many fronts because he has these enormous democratic majorities that got elected. this is what the public wanted. a large majority in the senate and house. and a democratic president. but i think what he created in the public was a sense that he was moving too fast on too many fronts and public message i think in terms of poles and three elections we've had has been slow down. it's not stop, it's not leave office. it's just slow down. don't do everything. >> which is what curt victor writes about. out of work, out of sorts. he says high unemployment rates has angered the public and president. the new agenda is jobs, jobs, jobs. byron york of the washington examiner. chris hayes we welcome our audience watching overseas and the radio audience of xm channel 130 and our c-span audience as well. good morning. caller: good morning. as a republican, i certainly didn't support barack obama during the election but i understand and was hopeful about the message he talked about - the potent for reform and especially within the healthcare environment. represented some opportunity to improve things greatly, and fact of the matter is that in the last year we've had to move from hope to reality. i'm kind of shocked that mr. hayes has said this is a center right plan. the public perception of a 2000 page bill is we do here about the louis vuit louisiana bills excessive focus on public and government run option components to this plan. and this is an environment that's spending trillions of dollars on numerous other politically motivated and - i think that congressional leadership has been able to spend the money of the people on these other important but extremely expensive plans. reality in healthcare is we're now talking about more money. trillions more than that spent on product that many of us are not certain what we'll get. the reality is we need to cover more people and i think for the public to support that people say, well, i might be willing to get a little less healthcare myself if it's a more efficient product and we help people out. if we have to carry and cover more people and everyone that can pay will pay more and people that have current healthcare they're happy with may get a little less and congressional leadership is putting in for their interest of course this plan has no support. host: thank you. chris? guest: think the caller does a good job expressing the opposition to it. it sort of shows the opposition to it is a mixed bag. i think there's obviously a lot of that sort of special deal stuff. i'm not going to defend and i think is understandable as next person. there's a talk about excessive focus on government run take over. of course the senate bill has nothing that's government run and the house bill has a public option where estimates are between 3 and 5 and 6 billion people. there's a tremendous amount of propaganda about this being government run take over of healthcare when it never really was and there's a sense, and i understand this sense. i have health insurance right now. what am i going to get out of? the two big things one would hope to get out of a plan is you won't ever have to worry about your health insurance being revokeed if you get sick. you get rid of lifetime caps and the cost will go down overtime. right? whether the plans would accomplish that the ones on the table right now is anyone's guess. but i think a lot of the substance will go a long way towards doing both. >> special dealing reflected the problems with the plan. they wouldn't have to cheat if they didn't have problem with the plan but there's two things opposition in this bill. public spirit of rationing. when the caller says maybe i'll get less. people don't do that when it comes to themselves. fear of rationing and two, people to not believe the idea that you can cover millions of currently undercovered americans and save money. they don't believe it. i don't believe it. guest: it's true. guest: it's not true. guest: let's talk for a second here. you grasp healthcare spending per capita of the countries and they're all around here and then there's one crazy out liar that spends per capita twice as much as anybody else for. instance we spend twice as much as canada. so the idea that you could not cover everyone and spend less money is just be line by the fact that's what i'm saying. we ration right now by price, so you know? we're already rationing things on a market system but the second idea is important. i think you're right. the idea that we can cover everyone and caught costs, together i totally agree the public says how's that possible? because people don't appreciate how screwed up our current system is and what kind of waist there is. >> former writer in these times. contributor to the nation's magazine. among his books the left wing conspiracy. he's now chief correspondent for the washington. why do people believe spin instead of fact? julie from richmond, virginia. you're on the air. caller: good morning. i wanted to say when obama ran for president, he run first when he first came out, he was more on the left. as he came on out and seen how america was really feeling he came to the right. and he told everybody, he said he could be our president too, but he hasn't tried to be our president on the right. it just forced us through no matter how we felt and it's turned people off. because he told us - when he was running that he would run and help us and run in the middle but he hasn't. he turned all the way to the left. put special deals in and all those dollars in which he has no business doing. and he's down lot of stuff to harm our country stins since the day he walked. democrats shut their eyes and think e we can do what we want because we have the power. host: did you vote? who did you support. caller: obama. host: who did you vote in the election this year? guest: the guy that won. for people to get jobs back they shut their eyes to everything and said we got the power so we're going to push what we want. host: julie, what would you like to see them do? caller: well he don't have to stand up there every day and cuss the banks and talk about all the stuff that's - anybody that makes any money or anything he puts them down. nobody is suppose to make any money but if you don't make any money you can't give a person a job. that's why. just like the gentlemen before. no one is going to give a person a job when they don't know what he's going to bottom or the next day. it has to be something to give these people an ease of mind to go on. guest: i think what she's saying is - there's a growing feeling that obama and democrats miss read the results of their spectacular election success. clearly, they had a huge mandate to do things for the economy. remember how panicked people were in 2009. may they had a mandate. the president then tried to execute a rhetorical pivot saying we can't have true economic recovery without healthcare. we can't have it without a cap and trade system. he tried to redefine recovery into something that resembled the 2008 election platform. guest: the one that won him the victory? guest: people didn't buy it. guest: first of all - guest: he must have miss reed something because he's trying do what his flat performance was and it's not working. host: politics. story in the new york daily news this morning. speculation that andrews comb o would run in a primary confirming this morning he will challenge governor patterson. guest: worst kept secret. passer son's approval ratings are low. andrews has had his eyes on reclaiming for thrown for a long time. i'm not surprises. he'll probably have a good shot if you look at incumbent as cross the country regardless of parties right now. incumbent governors, they're not very popular. things are not going well. so you know it's a good time to be a challenger. in this upcoming election. >> next call is melvin joining us from baltimore on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just had a couple of points to point out. that's fact that if we don't pass healthcare - and if there's no bipartisan ship the republicans refuse to out right try to get people help when they're being kicked off or not even accepted for pre-existing conditions, then i think that begs the question, how many people have to die before republicans will sign on? and the other point i want to make, is the fact about the supreme court decision of corporations can vote, then that means opinion maybe if they had the vote and right to vote, we have to see who the corporations are. let's open up the books and see who is its on the boards and on the trustees because as we all know. dubai and kuwait and saudi arabians are all on these boards of corporations and so therefore h we might just be giving bin lad in a vote. guest: run - one of the interesting wrinkles of the united rule. a company like sitc o could run 2 or 3 million dollars against a candidate they felt was going to hurt their national agenda. they're no, ma genuinely having concern. guest: if sits o does do you think members of the public will know it's been financed by them? i think we'll have a better chance of knowing where it comes from than in the past. host: mark has a new book called game change. the new york daily news called the flaws come home to roost. here's his point. i'm just reading headline here. obama's flaws come home to roost. a year after inauguration. many americans still complain they find him, the president too remote. too removed they want to see him show anger and passion talking about lost jobs. limping economy and terrorist threats. guest: well, he's try to do that now. his town hall in ohio, he said, you know i'm a fighter. fighting the good fight for you, and he's kind of taken this rhetorical turn. now it's my feeling that we saw an awful lot of the president in his first year. you're talking about mark knoller that keeps track of the appearances. and there were hundreds that the president made. it was hard toest scrape the president if you were watching news television much. maybe he gave out the wrong image but the president who's said to have great communication skills was out there talking to the american people a lot. host: and david placid wrote quote, we began with the belief we needed a clear message as well as a single strategy. the message would capsule the emotion and substance offered voters and strategy for how they would succeed. there was no guarantee our strategy would work but we needed to committee to one path and base every decision on that single paths. that what the democrats need to do in 2010? >> i g guess so. i'm a skeptic to the degree of how messaging ends up determining elections. i think actually the underlying conditions of the country are the thing that's going to determine the elections. around the margins they have to have a clear message. i do think a message more populus. i think the countries in a fighting move but at the same time. mark notwithstanding, the one thing president is doing well is personal like built. >> falling but still. guest: but the highest of everything else. so when people say, his problem is personal aspect, it doesn't square with the data that we have. guest: i think as far as election is concerned i think unemployment barring events that we don't know about unemployment will be the biggest thing. if it's not showing signs not doing down that's huge problems for democrats but if it's falling and people have a sense that it's on a town ward trend, i think that'll be much better for him. but messaging is the first excuse of a party in trouble. you have heard democrats say people just don't know what's in the healthcare plan and if we did a better job communicating that hit would be more popular. that's usually not the case. host: vicki watching on-line from the greek islands saying president obama is calm, articulate. do we need more drama especially from the white house? karl, republican line. good morning. caller: hey good morning. yeah, i just wanted to talk about haiti and you know, it's a horrible, horrible thing obviously, but i like how we're - i read that we're sending over troops is amazing to me. we have priorities and a war we're in ourselves and you know the budget deficit and i like- >> i apologize for the last very inappropriate comment in light of the tragedy and that jerk of a caller that would say something like that. we turn to haiti the house of cards the death toll expected to reach 200,000. what do you think the large u.s. term commitment would be there? >> u.s. has had an intimate not particularly stellar record of involvement with haiti. i think there will be a long term commitment. there has to be. at this point, a literally fiscal collapsed state in haiti. i think there's going to hopefully be an international commitment to restore that sort of governing apparatus but i think we have to committee resources for a long time. guest: in bill clinton's speech on the campaign. he said he thought given even in light of all the tragedy, haiti has the best chance toest scrape it's history in my lifetime. clinton measures things in terms of himself and his lifetime. but i think that indicates in clinton with an enormous global foundation is you're going to see a huge effort. from nongovernment organizations to rebuild haiti. one thing the caller mentioned was u.s. military. obviously bipartisan. i think you're going to see. now where it's going to result in a better haiti. >> our apologies. lea from georgia. caller: good morning. yes, sir i would like to comment on this whole healthcare discussion. i'm really disappointed to hear that the propaganda is still being put out here for the public. this issue unlike other issues involved in politics really shouldn't be politicized. you're talking about the difference of people having a quality of life or no life at all. that should not be politicized. it's not a left or right issue. whatever reforms will not able only be enacted for current administration but for all of the american people. guest: i disagree. that it shouldn't be split sized. guest: i'm with you on that. guest: that's how we make policy decisions. i do think there's a certain kind of glib on some opponents on what the stakes are. it is the case that - somewhere around 40,000 people a year die from lack of health insurance. it imposed tremendous amounts of human suffering. guest: he's in trouble and could have big losses like reagan in 1982 and then back to the re-election landslide. that's entirely possible but it's also possible that history will not repeat it's self in the case of obama. >> washington examiner and chris hayes. gentlemen, thanks for being with us. >> appreciate it. coming up in a couple of minutes we'll turn our attention to the american red cross. how much money has that organization raised and specifically in regard to the haiti funds and later the u.s. military court system. ten o'clock our news makers program two the senate committee. that's all ahead on "washington journal" and news makers later on this journal. first take a look back at some of event office this last week viewed by the editorial cartoonist from around the country. >> plan to the deal with issues such as unemployment. health care and the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the state of the union address. wednesday night our coverage starts at 8 profit margins on c-span. you can listen to the president live on the c span radio ad. >> "washington journal" continues. host: chief public affairs officer for the american red cross. thanks for joining us. texting ten dollars people have been contributing to your organization. how much have you raised? guest: 30 million so far just through texting alone. we launchd with the state department and cell-phone carriers and many are already sending the money so you don't have to wait for it to come through in the bill. it's the democracy of giving, i'll call it. almost everyone has a cell phone and almost everyone is willing to give $10.00. guest: is it what you expected? we tried a texting program about a year or so again but it didn't have result this one had. host: how much of it goes to the people of haiti and how much is used for example sensed by the american red cross. guest: about nine cents goes to help run the red cross so we can be there when situations like this arise. the money that's going to haiti is really going in three different areas. food and water. most importantly. we've distributed about a millionly tears of water. we've also found that haiti has a lot of water so it just needs to be purified so we're trying provide water purification tablets and bladders to provide much more capacity for people. food? we're sending 3,000,000 meals ready to eat for the people of haiti through the world food program. other needs that we're using that money for include, tents and tarps. this is going to be a big issue now that people are beginning to get food and water. how do they - how do they live in the tents so. we'll provide more permanent tarps and hammers and things to put them up with and also cooking kits. when your house is destroyed you lose all your cooking tools, but we're providing them with pots and things to help them provide for shem themselves and families. and supplies. first-aid supplies. we have people out there providing that and getting people to hospitals that need to be. this, unlike some disasters. in tsunami there was tremendous loss of life but there were not as many injuries in haiti there's so many injuries that need to be tended. we have a hospital set up. and 30 red cross societies around the world that have come to haiti and we're all working together in our different areas of expertise. host: how do you coordinate with all the different efforts? israel government trying to set up the makeshift governments? who's coordinating all of this? >> the un is typically the coordinating body in an instance like this and they have their offices of relief is coordinating this. we also have u.s. aid that's our government that's providing a lot of aid and coordination. then,ng o such as american red cross and others and finally the haitian government and people there are heavily involved and that answer important part of the recovery to make sure we're involved with them in meeting their needs. host: in the history of the red cross there's been issues and controversy. after 9/11 people concerned the money they contributed to the victims did not go and that resulted in changes in red cross leadership. how do you guarantee the money will in fact go to the people of haiti and not be used for other administration or things down the road? guest: we set up financial controls and have an audit trail. we're audited and produce reports. stewardship reports for donors so they can see where the money is going. every disaster posts new scha lengths and we learn from everyone and certainly we're not perfect, but i'd also think the american red cross should be evaluated on the tremendous good work it does in helping millions of people being on the ground to do that. host: let me get your opinion on apply a my herald comment. they refer the c span comment with mr. josephs. going to rebuilding country. he said there is a silver lining. what was not politically possible, after the earthquake we'll rebuild differently. did you look what that country needs down the road? what would you and others advise? >> i think there is hope it can be rebuilt better than it was. what we'll be turning our attention to after we get through the immediate needs is housing and certainly we want to make sure when they rebuild housing that they rebuild it in a way not so susceptible to an earthquake. we'll look at water and sans tax systems. haiti is a very poor country and didn't have a very good water and sanitation system before and be maybe it can be rebuilt better now. look at getting people with they've livelihoods back. one thing following the tsunami is people getting mental health and lives back is to involve them in the recovery. pay them to build the homes and sanitation systems and that not only gives them a purpose but helps them get past their grief. host: relief effort for the people of haiti and be forts by the american red cross and your contributions to that organizations. our phone lines are open for. democrats, (202) 737-0002. republicans, (202) 737-0001. send an e-mail at journal at c-span.org. phyllis, your on the air. caller: i wanted to say that i don't think enough can be heaped on the american red cross for all that they do for haiti and everyone else. i would like to ask all c-span viewers to donate to the red cross. i want all democrats and independents to listen to. what the five republican justices on the supreme court is legalize treason. they have legalize all the lice, miss information and distortions on fox news, talk radio and c-span and to all you republicans, your suckers. your leading us there. host: little bit off topic but earlier point? guest: well thanks phyllis for that support and just assure people that have chosen the american red cross that we appreciate the support and we'll use it well. host: steve from new york. defrancis from the american red cross. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i want to say the red cross has been a wonderful institution for years but i'd like to segway by asking and saying with unemployment in america, with people without homes - people without food. the fact that hurricane katrina, rita and even hurricane andrews have never been fully restored, i just don't understand why we don't do tele thans for the deficit here in america. and try to help our own. it's great to send relief to haiti but a lot of americans need relief here. that's my comment and that is my point. guest: steve, thank you. i think many americans may not know as we're sitting here talking about haiti there's probably about 300 people in american in red cross shelters today. tonight. either because of severe weather conditions and or merge situations around the country so we can continue to provide that relief here at home. we're grateful that the american people have opened up their hearts for the people of haiti. but we also need that support, as you say, the emergencies that go on every day here. we literally respond to 70 thousand disaster as year. they could be a house fire down the street. somebody loses they're home. it could be you know, a tanker. red cross is always there in about 2000 locations throughout the country. . .no carrierringconnect 1200 >> people try to go down and help individuals. host: we'll get a response. guest: we'll had a tremendous offering of support from black organizations such as the naacp. when we needed to come up quickly with about 70 creole speaking vol untiers, these organizations came together and did it in record time. we are making a very big effort at the american red cross to reach out to organizations like that, not only for international relief in haiti but here as well. host: next in brooklyn. go ahead. caller: susie, i bet -- host: ok. right behind you is union station. guest: as you know, the american red cross was founded by clara barton who brought together women from the north and south. we have a long history we have a long line of women in the battlefields during the civil war. obama noted that the first winner of the nobel peace prize was the found shall of the red cross. host: and your mother? guest: my mother was a vol untier during world war ii. she drove the ambulance and took soldiers to the various hospitals. host: this twitter question. how slt red cross helping in haiti prior to the earth earthquake? guest: that's a good question. we had workers there prior to the earth earthquake doing hiv and aides work. many are there who have left their homes still working and helping the people of haiti. host: next from chicago. caller: good morning. listen, my understanding of people's aggression toward the lady here, people don't understand the anger towards washington is about money never getting where it needs to go. you have a nice lady sitting there looking all wonderful and talking about how she's going to provide all this support. the other issue here is unfortunately, we live in a system where brothels are illegal. do not prosecute the young man. he doesn't need it. host: not sure where that's going but moving on. this picture is looking at the tents going up around the country. guest: yes. this is not the ideal way to live but will be the means of cover for a while. we'll look no permanent housing solutions. if a hurricane comes to haiti and people are in tents, that's another disaster waiting to happen. host: going to the phone. caller: i realize she just told all of the viewers that 91 cents of every dollar goes to the relief effort, can you explain how that breaks down to the salary of the ceo. guest: that is a public figure. we try to be very transparent in our operations. we believe to much is given, much is expected. we will live up to that. host: but if you have large salaries, they will view it as being large for a non-profit, does that keep people from giving. guest: our ceo's salary is very competitive. when you consider the blood division, the red cross is over a $3 million enterprise. we have a budget over all of about $3 billion. host: from for the worth. caller: you are talking about how israeli is going over there for medical treatment to treat them medically. you didn't mention it was under the conditions we pay them for. guest: i can only dress the red cross, the red cross of israeli is there providing relief in hospital there's with their people. they are very much part of the efforts along with other red cross societies from around the world. host: thank you for being with us back to the phone. good morning. caller: good morning. you mentioned hiv earlier. i know from hurk katrina, one of the things that happened was -- host: we'll lose that call but what about that treatment of long-term care sfl guest: one of the long-term efforts will be to take these hospitals, many working with very make shift facilities to make them more permanent. hiv aides education needs to continue. host: have you ever been to haiti? guest: i have not. our ceo just got back from there. host: how do you thit countier will look a year or five years from now? guest: the situation is dire. these people have lost their loved ones and homes and livelihoods, their churches and government, their culture. it is a very dire situation. the hatian people are incredibly patient and calm and resiliant. with the out powering of support coming from the american people and all overtime world, we are hopeful they will get back on their feet. we were in tsunami recovery for five years. i can show you stories and people who have come through that experience and are now getting on with their lives and able to feed and care for their families and take care of that. host: jackie from texas. good morning. caller: i want to say i think the red cross is doing a wonderful job. so are others from other countries. i want to say to our people here we can't allow our countier to languish in poverty and poor health conditions, but for the grace of god, that could be us. when we fight over healthcare and basic thing that's people need, we have to realize where it could all go. the people of haiti could be helping themselves even more if they weren't poor and run down and without the kind of care they have needed for decades. we need to be very careful. i want to say congratulations. keep up the good work. guest: thank you. host: i'll follow up with the twitter comment that asks, what are you doing with the ongoing blood need? guest: at the current time, we are not needing extra blood for haiti. we have sent 300 units of blood to haiti at the question of the pan american medical association. at this point, they don't need anymore. host: to elaborate on the red cross and their role, the twitter comment asks, does the red cross assist in infrastructure and disaster planning after an event like this? guest: yes. there are so many needs once you get past stabilizing people and going forward. the american red cross will be helping with water and san iation and with housing and livelihood and trying to get people to participate in their own recovery, which will help them with their mental recovery. how does your teamwork in terms of an earth earthquake in haiti, how quickly do you get on the ground? if another disaster were to hit around the world? guest: as i mentioned, we had workers there already. we send in emergency response units, usually a team of about five people. these are experienced disaster workers who know what to do and how to start setting up the distribution of aid. a lot is pry or tiesing where the need is greatest and the coordination and with other societies from around the world. host: thank you, lake wood, florida. caller: i want to say thank you. i am a haitian american. i didn't think everybody would get together to join heads and raise so much money for haiti. there's going to be a lot of negative people out there. we have to be prepared for that. keep up the good work. guest: thank you. host: have you been in touch with any family in haiti? caller: right now, the line is really bad. i have been in touch with some of them. but it's hard to get through. guest: we have been walking around with satellite phones and have covered about 1,000 hatians having them call home. we have the minutes donated so that they can get in touch with people. the out powering of the public, particularly in a time when america is in a recession, it's heart warming. not only the great job from the celebrities but yesterday, there were these little kids at the grocery store doing a bake sale for the haiti relief. host: twitter comment now, i hope in rebuilding haiti the people benefit with a stronger people oriented government and government services and not scattered services. guest: right. we need to see what they think is best for the recovery of their country. we cannot dictate how they should set up their society right now. host: do you have a sense of what the price tag would be for all of this? guest: it's too early to tell. it's going to be a long-term recovery. with the tsunami, can i tell you the american red cross, we raised and spent about $100 million in the first six month ps but $500 million over the next five years. that will give you an idea. >> if people contribute to the clinton -- bush haiti fund, do you receive any of that money? >> yes. that fund will give money to other ngo's. >> i should also mention that the american red cross works with partners. if we see a group that's working faster and better, we work with others to do that. during the tsunami, about 43% were doing other things that we contributed to. host: thank you. please come back to see us again. guest: thank you. host: we'll turn our attention to guantanamo bay and the situation there. at the top of the hour, we'll talk about the mid-term elections and the senate. first, a look at some other topics and the guests on sunday morning c-span on c-span radio. >> we'll see what things mean for the elections. on nbc's meet the press, guests white house senior advisor and senate republican leader. on abc's this week, talking about white house senior advisor, republican senator, jim demint and robert mend easy. guests on fox news sunday, white house press secretary robert gibbs and republican committee chair the senator will be our guest on c-span's news maker this morning live at 10:00. on face the nation, arizona republican senator john mccain. cnn's state of the union hosted by john king will include utah senator orin hatch and robert mend easy. can you hear all five on c-span radio. nationwide on xm satellite on channel 132. you can follow us on facebook and twitter. >> wens, president obama delivers his first state of the union address to congress >> thanks for joining us here. let me begin with what is going on in guantanamo bay. how many detainees are housesed there? >> 35 will be tried in military commissions or civilian courts 110 will be repatriated and a plan to hold another 50. it's been an interesting week and the two camps seem to be divided >> a writing saying president obama has failed to fulfill his promise. some prisoners there are being charged with crimes, host: can you explain that? guest: that wasn't me. i apologize. that was scott's comment. the president has done a great job thus far. we have to stop and recognize three major facts that have come to light. one is that the eight years since the facility is open, we are still divided on what to do. >> this new war we are fighting and new regime we are tangling with we are still dealing with the negative ads. both sides of the debates are patriots. both thinking we should use military or tribunal courts are figuring out the best way to move ahead. national security should never be a part of an issue. it's an american issue. which system do you think works better? guest: what we have is the real problem. the president was afforded opportunities to use civilian courts or this law of origin. he's employing all aspects of it. i think the right way to go is to have one system. it seems that guantanamo is isn't closing on time. taking a hard look at one system of justice, a mixture and hybrid of systems and military courts. the reality is both don't fit neatly on the scene and holding some indefinitely on the regime. it seems one stop shopping but now we have the time to sit down and hash out a high brid system. we are fighting a mixture of international criminal and warrior, the war is a mixture of law enforcement and warfare. this best meets the needs of securing our national security but also supporting the longstanding commitment to the homeland security rights. host: the next point comes up is military or civilian court, and that's the constitutional issues. that's the same if you are a citizen or not. guest: that triggers constitutional protections doesn't have a jury of their peers. things are modified. we have a separate system of justice not such that would alarm people, still, the rights afforded in this system is better than what the detainees have. it's important to note that the military commission act as it stands right now offers more protection and due process than most of the countries, it seems logical that we would pursue something like this. this balances both sides. we have folks. it's really not a political issue. the sides need to work with congress for not just guantanamo but looking towards afghanistan and other captures, what process are we going to afford them? this is a unique war and conflict and opportunity for us to meet the challenge of the 21st century warfare. host: was the president wrong a year ago to say guantanamo would be shutdown by now? guest: no. he was on the right line. president obama wanted to close it since 2006. the secretary of state is in favor of closing it. i think the president sent a signal to the world there have been task forces related with the detailed efforts. guantanamo bay, i think most people would say, the conditionings right now are very, very good. they are quite good and quite favor able for the detainees, but per seppingses matter. we are sending the right signal that we would close the facility. there's tremendous progress being made while trying to figure out the best way to move ahead. host: we have twitter comments and email questions or comments. our phone lines are open. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i don't understand why people want guantanamo closed yet, they will not allow the president to house these criminals. i remember we have tried so many in new york already with no hassle. there's not going to be a thing that goes on in the city? >> we'll get a response. thanks for the call. guest: you raise an excellent voice. the president had to deploy what was the best available to him, which was the civilian courts. he has military commission for others he's decided to detain some for the duration of the hostilities. all three are different avenues of approach. some of what you say is true that the courts might work very well. i would suggest that -- as you said, you are correct -- it is better to have one system overseeing the process. rather than having the concerns about the situations, have the trials different from some national security courts. from capture to initiation of trial, we would have one year period. many have taken place as a result of the plea bargain. we've had time to digest the mixture. we need to best answer that call. we have strategically and tactically. we must implement these host: the author of a new book, our focus is guantanamo bay. a question, has the military stopped taking prisoners? guest: that's a good question. there have not been additional detainees. the highest was 775. the bush administration started lowering numbers. we are down to 196 now. others being captured would be in afghanistan to the best of anyone's knowledge. there are certainlyly going to be additionals as we apply the surge in afghanistan. >> the headline is the guantanamo panel offers a plan. "at least 80 guantanamo bay detainees will be brought to the u.s. to face trial without argue under the recommendations of the presidential task force. those officials saying the task force recommended 35 of the detainees either in civilian or military court settings. it's zoided five of those will be tried in the american courts for their alleged role in the 2001 terror attack." can you elaborate on that? guest: that's right. 196 detainees left. 35 to be tried in the united states, 50 to be held under a law of war regime. and another 10 to be repatroted. what i 0 would suggest is from those comments, we look to see different options available. i would suggest that the detention facility is not closing in the time anticipated but now is the fresh opportunity for us to look at providing the president with additional solutions. you have civilian law enforcement model and a law of war model. it seems a great time for policy makers to look at the national security court system. they are trying to follow the recommendations of the task forces for what's available. after the supreme court decision in late 2008, june, i believe. they offered very little guidance on what to do. they said yes, they could bring the detainees into the united states. they didn't give any guidance on how to determine they could come into the united states. there is no guidance given caller: what exactly is the cost per an inmate in the long term in trying these people. i know each individual is different, but what is the long-term cost? each one will vary obviously whether they plead guilty, there's a presudges that they will. obviously the costs are lower. you have certainlyly more defense. it's a guilty plea that is quicker. the cost is determined by what each person does. you would be presumed that the detainees would be held under the law of war regime it would be the cost of any citizen that would be incarcerated for life. host: we have a twitter question asking has any quit mow detainee escaped? guest: no. we have had several go back to the battlefield. to this detail in that some countries like yemin, they may be set or scheduled to go back but until the country is ready to assure the united states that they won't reengage, they are not allowed to go back. there aren't very many escapees from high security prisons even in the united states. i understand the concern. in the book, i talk about that. one of my items and what i try to do throughout the national security court system is to show that we are evolving. one of the best ways to do that, to balance the needs being legitimate is to bring them to the military basis. that is what i recommend in the book. host: going to the air. caller: you spoke about due process earlier. to what ex-tent will due process be given to these detainees and what do you see should be done as far as due process when people are held in some international location? thank you guest: sure. to your first question. this is all fresh. under the law, it would be understanding that it would be a periodic review. some sort of oversight of the detention by the detainees it would be quite the right to have. secondly, the due process would be the oversight panel. one way to balance is the option there which they are doing it. i plaud them for it. the next step for folks to provide. a look to say how do we really, really best balance the due process concern. that is distinct that nirgee are tainted by it but best fits where engaged in combat by the al qaeda fighter. >> what is the biggest difference or should be the biggest twreen the military system and civilian. guest: the military is being used as the direct attack if in a combat zone, that is what would take place. part is the decision making by the prosecutor for where to house detainees or provide justice is based on many factors they have a lot more intelligence to these accesses. there's a variety of issues. to a large degree, neither fits neatly they have been around since the founding of the country. we took them from the british model. those are important to preserve for traditional armed conflict. when the minority of folks violate the laws of war, they are brought before a commission. there were two in 1945 that lewis fisher talks about. what we have now is every fighter involved in the fight against the united states >> we flip that presumption on its head. that's why we think this presumption is faulty. similarly, when the civilian courts are the ideal situation, we have to be conscious that we have an incredible justice system sthafment the right place to have folks that we are engaged in war against. in some cases of what is available but seems appropriate, let's provide another opportunity to grab and wrestle with as the best way to balance these needs in a difficult task of closing guantanamo while fighting the war againstal al qaeda. caller: i am a korean veteran. i went through and saw what military courts do to different people. it's really a farce. one example in vietnam. they were ordered to get a higher body count, he dug a big ditch and his company put 300 civilian men, women, children, babies in arm and murdered them. they had two u.s. helicopter pilots that landed and stopped it but they were reprimanded until they found out that this little fella had a 16 millimeter gun and took the whole shooting match and sent it home to his parents. when they tried the captain, they put him in prison and in three months, he was out completely. that's the military justice. thank you very much. one of the items i go to great lengths to say it's a matter of the policy that we want to close guantanamo. it's a matter of policy how do we best do that? some folks deem the one that we can close as proceedings. there are ways to do that. this begs the need, why not pursue this system? we have to be concerned in the war we are fighting? we don't have a traditional war? we don't have the country. there's no diplomatic ties or the treaty signing. we don't have that. we don't have mobilized tanks coming across the border. it could be three people operating as a cell we should afford the proper resources from other news organizations. they have the opportunity to sit and listen to ensure there isn't something going on that would be inaprorpte. these folks are spread across 50 countries. we have the detainees from different countries of origins, 50 at least. it's an international arms conflict on multiple levels. even if we have to close, we have to ensure those from the united nations or from the media have appropriate clearances to make sure there is no kangaroo court system going on. host: joining us from new york. this twitter comment saying military courts and justice, they aren't trials for the enemy. joining us on the republican line from michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is regarding the upcoming trial in new york of the number one terrorist. i've heard the mayor being interviewed. he has said hundreds of millions will be involved in securing the court area. my concern is how much is going to be lost in tax revenues and revenues in businesses that will be ultimately because of security, their traffic is going to be lost. how much is going to be lost to new york and to the united states in revenue because of that? host: maybe you've heard something guest: i have to say i know most of the issues around new york today is about the jets. i wish them luck today. to your question in michigan. it's not my area of expert he's. i do recognize that from the business perspective working wall street. they are concerned. there is concerns from people i know about those issues there's probably a likelihood or maybe a strong possibility they are going to plead guilty. it will be a quick preceding that will move forward. the goal is to put these behind us and ensure the justice is received. host: good morning to you from new york city on the democrat line. go ahead. there caller: putting this a side to the clarifier. host: he meant after 9/11. caller: why don't we relook at the whole situation. these people should be classified as prisoners of war? was that from beforehand. we have a 65% return rate. host: thank you, ed. guest: thank you. i do think we have to be sincere about looking at new options and opportunities. your points are we will taken. host: on the republican line. good morning to you. caller: i wasn't calling in to talk about the jets this morning. i'm a new england fan. guest: it's going to be a tough day. caller: i see guantanamo as a relevantic in an administration that was really a bunch of whoremongers. i'm surprised this is still something we are talking about. there's a reason that whole facility hasn't been shutdown is because of obama being perceived as soft on terrorism. the idea that these people can't be tried in the united states because they might bend a bar or jump a fence and go hurt some people. and another thing, holding people without showing them their charges is something that is so unamerican. we want to turn enemy combatants, which could include americans. the whole think stinks. host: i'll have to stop you there and get a response. guest: what we are talking about, eight years ago. i wouldn't refer to this administration, we have to get away from that. i go to great length to show, we were attacked and involved in combat at the time. . . guest: a detention facility was being used to determine the immigration status in the 1990's. during franklin delano -- franklin roosevelt's term, the german, 6 of the 8 was 42 days. i think president bush thought it was going to be more military justice. host: our guest is joining us from new york. the book is available on-line at amazon. appreciate your time this sunday morning. tomorrow morning we will continue the conversation on health care with a round table of reporters to talk about what is next for the president's agenda. tomorrow on "washington journal", brian quinn will be joining us. he is the president of that this decision to talk about new forms of energy, including a fuel-cell vehicles. it gets under date -- underway at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. "newsmakers" is up next. our guest is the republican from texas, senator john cornyn. we want to share some of the comments from the new senator- elect from massachusetts and talked about what is next from massachusetts and republican party. >> i will work with the senate with the democrats and republicans to reform health care in an open and honest way. no more closed-door meetings, back room deals. [applause] backroom deals with an out of touch party leadership. no collaborating with special interests and leaving more trillions in debt for our children to pay. in health care, we need to start fresh. work together to do the job right. and i hate to sound repetitive but once again we can do better. [applause] xdççi will work in the senatet government back on the side of the people who create jobs and the millions of people who need jobs. and remember, as president john f. kennedy stated, let's start with across-the-board tax cuts for businesses and families to create jobs. [applause] put more money in people's pockets and stimulate the economy. it is that simple. i will work with the said. i will work with the senators in the senate to defend our nation's interest and to keep our military second to none. [applause] if and as a lieutenant -- as a lieutenant colonel and member of the massachusetts army national guard, i will absolutely keep faith with all those who have served and get our veterans of the benefits they deserve. -- all of the benefits they deserve. [applause]

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Arkansas , United States , Louisiana , Nevada , Dubai , Dubayy , United Arab Emirates , California , Washington , District Of Columbia , Point New , Massachusetts , Greece , Chicago , Illinois , Haiti , New York , Canada , Brooklyn , North Carolina , Germany , Texas , Afghanistan , Kentucky , Florida , Town Hall , Virginia , Wisconsin , Georgia , Michigan , Washington Center , United Kingdom , Clark Well , Iraq , New Jersey , Israel , Saudi Arabia , Pennsylvania , Maryland , Kansas , Ohio , Dallas , Kuwait , Utah , Americans , America , Greek , British , German , Israeli , Saudi Arabians , American , Haitian , Kristin Gillibrand , Robert Gibbs , Nancy Pelosi , Ronald Reagan , Chris Hayes , Christopher Hayes , George Bush , Charlie Gibson , Robert Menendez , Joseph Clark , Dolly Madison , Andrew Cuomo , Ben Bernanke , David Axelrod , Jon Cohen , Al Qaeda , Gordon Smith , John Boehner , Rohm Emmanuel , Tim Carnegie , Chris Matthews , Clara Barton , Dave Baltimore , Terry Moran , George Stephanopoulos , John Mccain , Robert Mcdonald , Bernie Sanders , Curt Victor , Mary Hart , Scott Brown , Harry Reid , Martha Jackson , Barack Obama , John King , Franklin Delano Roosevelt , Bush Cheney , John F Kennedy , Jim Demint , Hillary Clinton , Brian Quinn , John Cornyn ,