♪ host: times square in new york city is evacuated as a suspicious package was found in and as suv. we will have more details. today the president heads to the gulf coast to look at some of the efforts being made to save the coastline from an onslaught of oil as a slick. for most of the first part of the program we will talk about the president and his commencement address yesterday at the university of michigan. in it he talks about the role of government in your life. we want to find out what you think about the particular segment of the speech, and where you feel the role of government is in your life. give us a call. you also send us a message by twitter or any nr an e-mail. c-span.org -- journal-c span.org. we want to talk about the president's trip to the gulf coast. mark ballard joins us from that in rouge, louisiana -- from baton rouge, and is a reporter for "the advocate." what is the latest and where will the president go? guest: as near as we can tell looks like the oil plume is said not to be about the size of puerto rico, and is heading over to the inland waters on the east side of the mississippi river. it is just huge. we expected to hit the marshes some time by the end of the day or tomorrow, by earliest. the president is coming down and he will be meeting a lot with the local people down in the parishes near the gulf of mexico and near the mann center is to the east here tobaton rouge. he will be on the ground. many people are saying that this is allowed like hurricane katrina in terms of the scope of catastrophe an impact on individual lives and livelihood s. you are seeing the government react. from what we have been told the president will be on the ground talking with people. there will not be any low pass over, and over it, although apparently will go take oua look at the size of the plume. we have also seen a number of cabinet officials here in the last few days. host: the the people in it possibly affected areas feel like the response from the white house has been quicker, slower, or as fast as from the previous administration to hurricane katrina? guest: i think initially there was what took them so long to understand the scope of the problem. however, within the last few days there has been a bigger, better response. you see it on the state level as well. we're talking about -- these people for the most part have been hit hard by hurricane katrina. there have been four hurricanes, rather 3 cents hurricane katrina that have bhit us. this marks the end of the way of life for fishermen, shrimpmen -- two were already getting better economically from the asian imports. this could spell the end of generational businesses. they are more concerned about that right now than stopping this oil. host: the lead story this morning in "the philadelphia inquirer" has the seven -- rebukes for bp over spill response. how much to the people there in the gulf coast region blame bp on this? how which will they be held responsible for the state of louisiana? guest: the governor yesterday is also reacting to the responses for katrina, but he also sees himself on the national stage. he learned lessons. he firmly blamed bp. he has loudly demanded cleanup and mitigation plans. he says we expect bp to pay. if bp does not, he has also ask for aid from the federal government under the oil pollution act -- things like suspending payment for hurricane loans, and opening up the small business administration loans for this new disaster, wants to mobilize national boaguard, food assistance, and other things. he has also ordered local forces to go out and try to stop the oil themselves. we also hear a lot of asking why the coast guard was not on top of this? i do not think that the federal government will skate out of this so easy. host: one more question. the state legislature is in session in louisiana. will they provide funds, put together a special packages or legislation to help? guest: as of thursday, their last day in session for last week, it was just emerging as to how big of a problem this would be. they were talking about -- what do we need to do at this point? during this next week we will see packages, aid packages going to those affected areas. the state is under kind of a budget problem now. we're having to cut the budget by about $320 million for the next seven weeks, then $1 billion for the the rest of the year after that. there will have to be a lot of rearranging. we have been assured that it will happen by legislative leaders once again handle on what is needed. host: all right, mark ballad. thank you very much for updating us on the situation there from baton rouge, louisiana. guest: thanks for taking an interest. host: we are talking about the role of government in ouris is l marriages graduates to be open, and defends government. r-- obama's urges the graduates to be open. we'll hold off for second on the club from obama. in ann arbor, mich., the president saturday confronted the sharpening political rancor both on the airwaves and on the internet, telling the graduating class that the country needs a basic level of civility in public discourse. protesters shouted outside. many carried signs decrying the president as a socialist. the president goes on to say that throwing around phrases like socialist and soviet-style takeover, fascist, and right- wing nut may grab headlines, but has the effect of comparing our government to our political opponents, even murderous regimes. president obama says such rhetoric closes the door to political compromise. let's go to the phones. florida, republican. caller: the government is getting into our business too much, like it to cover the automobile industries, banks, now the financial and all kinds of stuff. they need to protect our borders. a couple of days ago you had a thing on. it should have been americans calling in against illegal aliens for breaking laws in this country. the governor of arizona needs to get the congressional medal of honor for signing the bill. we're sick of paying for these illegals in this country. they need to put a stop to it and arrest these people. host: david, mich., an independent. caller: well, i am all for mr. obama is good speech at an order yesterday because my feeling is, sure we do not want government, but where would we be without government today in our lives? who would be watching over us as far as the meatpacking industry, all the other stuff. as far as that last caller talking about illegal aliens, if the american investor people would pay our people in this country to do that work, good wages and health care, there would be no reason to bring these people over across from the borders. it is agreed that keeps bringing people over here. they say they are doing our jobs that we as americans will not do. when was the last time the americans i know of worked in the fields? we have meatpacking plants appear in wisconsin and if it were not for them coming over to work here -- the meatpacking plants the one to pay good wages americans are accustomed to. host: thanks, dave. we now have a portion of the president's speech from his commencement address yesterday. >> the government should not try to dictate your lives, but it should give you the tools you need to succeed. government should not try to guarantee results, but should guarantee a shot, and opportunity for every american willing to work hard. [applause] so, yes, we can and should debate the role of government in our lives, but remember as your us to meet challenges of our love, the ability to have the government meet the needs of the age have helped democracy works since the ages. host: back to the phones, the president's commencement address, and hithe question of e role of government in our lives. good morning. caller: thank you, i was very pleased -- i did not watch the entirety of president obama's commencement address. however, this has been a question of what is the role of government in sort of a macro way. it has gotten the political debate of kilter -- off kilter decades ago. when it was the icon governor of new york, mario cuomo, during the ronald reagan years say that we need government. ronald reagan was so anti-the road. as a liberal-minded democrat, i will tell you that this is a complicated question to answer. we have hypocrisy on all sides. if we're going to address issues that face our country and world, with the question for in that way -- because if you take people on the other side of the aisle, and they want government in the bedroom. they want government to tell a woman whether or not she will have an abortion. host: what is the most significant role of the government in your life? caller: if i had to say, the fact that we have a government, period. we were thinking that it would be like hobbes, and just british. we do need government to take care of those less fortunate. it is the first thing that comes to mind. health care and all those things are very important. it's like before the healthcare was passed -- we do not want the socialist regime to take control of our health care, too much big government, then the same who are protesting -- but don't you take away my medicare. hello. it is a double-edged sword for us all in this country. host: we will leave it there. more from the president's speech, this reported in "the washington post." he says would troublesome as when he hears people said that all government is inherently bad. back to the phones, john on the line for republicans from waterford, michigan. did you go to the commissioand commencement yesterday? caller: i went to the tea party. host: so what you feel is the role of government in your life? caller: if you voted for a democrat in the last election you gave obama the power to appoint certain things. all these czars. lisa as the power to control of forms of energy because the epa has proclaimed that co2, nitrogen, methane are pollutants and must be controlled. she published this and the federal register in 2001. it now has the power of federal law. this was confirmed by the previous decision of the supreme court on leaded gasoline. to did not have to prove that anyone was ever hurt. we're now controlled by the huge assumption that is it possible to control with policies, decisions by her alone. she can, well, and has issued regulations on all aspects of human activity, including sources of energy, and results of the usage of that energy. she wants to dictate how things are made, such as cars. she promises to be benevolent and give manufacturers time. host: tell me how the decision of the epa and mr. has had a direct effect on your life? caller: it has not, but it is sure coming. there is no denying that when they regulate every aspect, at they can tax my reading because i produce carbon dioxide. host: ellie, queens, new york. caller: yes, i would like to make three points. first of all, i did watch the president's speech on tv yesterday. i have always tried to listen to the president my whole life whenever that offices speaking. i enjoyed it. the point was that we need to respect humanity of our fellow citizens. that is when it comes to disagreements. i was fortunate when i was growing up that i had two sisters both 15 and 10 years of the myself. they studied civics in school. i was constantly picking up books that were lying around. i was influenced by what they were taught. by the time i went to school they discontinued six classes. i would really like to see that come back. you learn what a person's responsibility is in terms of giving back, not just receiving. the third point i wanted to make -- still, between being angry and upset yesterday -- going back and forth. people talking about the responsibility of the government, the coast guard, and bp, but my question is, is there a difference and the regulation in terms of requirements of drilling off american shores as opposed to the regulation of like the countries in the north atlantic? i do not think it is the same. when did it change? host: we will leave it there. more from the article regarding the commencement address of president obama. columbus, ohio, john, on the line for democrats. caller: i did watch the whole speech. as the earlier caller said, i watched all of president bush's speech is as well -- although it was sometimes frustrating to do. i think it is important that we do pay attention and that is one of the points the president made. to one of the earlier callers, lisa jackson is no czar. that is the invention of the press and of earlier presidents. she is the same thing as the epa administrator under the bush administration. nothing has changed. we are the government -- demonizing the government is doing nothing but demonizing one another. as for your direct question, when i got up this morning are brushed my teeth. my toothpaste i was confident was free of contaminants because of the food and drug give ministers to bring up the coffee bit and then had come the same thing. the car drove to buy those things, the kirch restore is safer than it would be without the government. the ntsb investigates airplane accidents after they happen and pass those along to the faa to make sure inspections happened regularly. something that did not used to happen. we have seen with the mining disasters, the increase in food- borne illnesses, what we saw happen in the gulf -- what happens when government does not play this kind of roles in a strong and a dependable way in our lives. so, i'm happy that the railroads do not operate in the way they did in the last century, that i can drive on safe roads, drive it six cars, eat safe foods, and takes a drug. i'm glad the government is there. host: thank you. thomas, brooklyn, what is the role of government in our lives? caller: i'm 68 years old. i would like to live to be 168. since the healthcare bill has been passed that will help me to live that long. additionally, with respect to preventing bonds from going off in new york where i live, that is a good thing. we have to make sure that jay leno is kept away from these presidential press celebrations because he laid a bomb last night. host: we will talk a little about jay leno later in this segment. more from the president's speech yesterday in an arbor at the university. he spoke up for government say that there are some things "we can only do together, as one nation." atlanta, ga., steve, on the line for independents. caller: hi. the first thing i think we need to get back to is the government for the people, not for the corporations. away from these presidents who are for corporations, not the people. i voted for president obama and was very hopeful for things. this health care bill blows my mind. we need to get away from the racism going on with the tea party. many people are very upset the we have an african-american president. that is what the whole the tea party thing is about. we need to get away from that kind of nonsense. calling us socialist? this health care bill is a little bit of nothing, like dipping of them all into the ocean. it's still caters to the insurance companies, and so on. president obama just can not to say we will open all of offshore drilling off the coast. even some of the things the bush could not do. his getting his strings pulled by these oil companies just as well. within a couple of days we had this oil rig blowout in the gulf of mexico. guess who is behind it? halliburton should have been responsible for plugging that and they did not. it is all about big cheney's war in iraq, the legal and vision of a sovereign nation. the bush administration should have been impeached. host: sword to cut you off. we will move on. you talk about money and the oil spill. in the paper this morning -- the reporter writes that the federal government has a large rainy day fund on hand to help mitigate the expanding damage on the gulf coast. back to the phones. ann arbor, mich., on the line for democrats, emmett -- caller: the role of the government is to aid and assist the american people for things they cannot provide themselves. the discourse comes because the president happens to be a black man. it has everybody of the norms. he has not done anything other than what he is supposed to for all the american people. -- it has everybody up in arms. if anybody has a reason to be mad it is black people. but we are very tolerant and understanding is doing what he can. host: why would you say the black people should be mad at president obama? caller: he is not doing what he is supposed to be note their shelters with no place to put people. the food pantries have no food. that is the job of government. they're supposed to help all the people. host: but for all people, not just black people? caller: exactly. the miserable human condition of black people, he should be doing a little more. but black people do not get excited about that because eventually will get what we need. the role of government is to provide. there should be no food pantry without food, no homeless shelter without beds for people. that sort of thing, that is government's role. now, about the discourse -- bobby jindal and several other people did not want to take the stimulus money, but as soon as the coastal threatened, the first thing they say is that government needs to step in. host: we will move onto scott in georgia. caller: good morning. i'm glad i came in after that call because i could not be more opposite of what he said. it has nothing to do with race. the whole idea -- and i do think he reflects mr. obama is a perspective -- he thinks that government is supposed to provide. if government could provide, then they should, but the government is limited. the government only has the resources that we give them. it is our job to provide for selves. we disable ourselves when we tell ourselves and let the government tell us that they're supposed to take care of us. because they cannot. it is a cold, hard reality. i wish it were not true, but that is the situation. we cannot rely on government to meet our needs. we have to be able to meet our own needs through local communities, churches, schools, and homes, families. you do not really hear that from the government. they want you to rely on them so you yield all power to them. host: scott -- i thought you have finished your thoughts? caller: [silence] host: are you done? let's move on. first, your thoughts about what the role of government is in your life? caller: in my opinion, the role of government as will understand here in the united states is incorrect, currently. what the government was to have been for americans, supposed to be for the people, by the people. we were supposed to be in charge of government, and government was supposed to take care of the people. the biggest thing i understand it to be right now is bathat -- when i talk to people in europe, the european governments, people who live in france, italy, and wherever in europe, the government is afraid of the people. the problem here in the united states, we are afraid of the government. that is a problem. the government is dictating to the people when they should be representing the people. that is not happening. this government we have right now is totally of representative of big money, wall street -- you know, the wrong things. our government is no longer representative of us. host: we will leave it there. this morning in "the new york post" this of bed. he writes this strange mission, this aim to bring to heel the nation's engine of wealth creation -- is a strange mission. georgia, jack on the line for republicans. go ahead. sorry, he is not fair. are you there, jack? -- sorry, he is not there. caller: i was tried to call the washington journal. this is virginia from wisconsin. host: what is your thought about the role of government in your life? caller: that is what i went to respond to because my thought is that we are government. people are trying to separate it. as if government is some alien that has landed on the planet and founded the u.s. and is running our covenant. no, we are government. the people we choose of the people in our government, and if we have a problem with them, it is the party that is in the government dealing with markets and forces. yes, the government is responsible, and it is a social organization. if we did not need government, we would never have initiated the government when we got here. host: next up, eustice, new orleans. caller: we have agreed as government in the world. number one, because most americans who are complaining have not traveled anywhere. let them go to budapest, belgrade, yugoslavia -- south american. if you go to school, take care of your health, irresponsible with yourself. you will not then worry about the government. you'll be proud of our progress. most people, when trouble, who do they look for? the government. all these dissatisfied people are spoiled and expect the government to do something for them. so, america has the greatest government. believe me, we have more consumer goods than anyone else in the world. host: in the philadelphia paper, supreme court city calls for filibusters to restore proper role and keep away obama nominees. . gop centers can try democrats' tactics. -- the gop senators can try the democrats' tactics. he goes on to say that over the years of the senate democrats have it destroyed the confirmation process by turning it away from qualifications to a guessing game over issues. host: back to the phones, dmitrius, on the line for independents. caller: this is the first, have gotten through in six years of college. host: congratulations on your perseverance. caller: i think the role of the federal government is to protect people from things we cannot protect ourselves from. in the world today the biggest things are protection from some industries like insurance, pharmaceuticals, and banking in the way of interest rates. the government is not supposed to take care of the people, but the government should give the people of push one is really needed. society is measured by how its poor people are cared for. let's be honest, there are a lot of people in this country who actually cannot take care of themselves. and there are a lot of people who can take care of themselves if given the proper help. from time to time in this country is done, and it is not always done right. host: we will leave it there and give a programming note on "newsmakers" this week -- senator mark warner will be our guest and talk about financial work regarding regulations going on. in this particular part of the interview he will talk about whether the reaction for wall street is overheated, and whether wall street has sufficiently acknowledged what taxpayers did for it. >> some of the rhetoric has been a little over you. we won. we want to make sure that if you are a startup entrepreneur as i was 30 years ago, whether a small business that needs the loan, you need the flow of capital. we can sometimes demonize wall street which is the center of our capital markets, but at the same time part of that has come about because -- i have to tell you, i have been so frustrated that there has not been a level of recognition that almost all of these firms were in jeopardy of going out of business in the fall of 2008, and if the taxpayer had not put up $700 billion, to help get them through the crisis, the taxpayers did not greet this crisis -- now you have there certaithe firms said they did nt renew the bill. that is baloney. i have been frustrated that they have not been want to save the taxpayer of. thank you. -- but they have not been willing to say to the taxpayer "thank you." you can watch it in various ways to not. back to the regular phones, talking about whether or what the responsibility of the pro- government is in your life based on a presidential speech yesterday at the university of michigan. the next phone caller is from alexandria, va., from the line for democrats. caller: [inaudible] the preamble to the constitution of the u.s. if i remember correctly it basically says that we the people of the u.s. in order to perform a more perfect union to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for common defense, and promote the general welfare, to ourselves and our prosperity do ordain and establish this constitution of the united states of america. i remember that from school. americans will have to realize that we have a position to play. if we are to americans, and believe in the constitution, that is where we stand. host: the next phone call comes from atlanta, georgia. maddie? caller: yes, like to say it does not really -- we have had a lot of people call in and indicate that the government role is to help certain people, but actually it does not matter your economic status, creed, color or whatever. anyone living in the united states benefits. i want to put an accent on that -- benefits from the role of the government. we'll utilize the services the government provides. someone calling earlier when they said something regarding the protection of drugs, safe cars, safe roads, and whatever -- we all benefit. it does not matter if you are rich, poor, or whatever -- we all benefit from the role of government even though people do not want to acknowledge that. host: lyy, line for independents, out of sarasota, fla. caller: i think the government forgets it was created by the states. the things most affecting lives are the taxes that will be imposed -- and they seem limitless like the spending from this administration. it is not the government's right to bankrupt us. i wonder if anyone in the administration has ever looked at a macro economic algorithm. it does not seem like it. the thing i fear is the lack of representation from the real american people. i look at the process for the healthcare bill. if is the sum of evil the way it was rammed down our throats and no one has read the bill. how can the government represent us without reading the bill? host: we will move on. we will talk for the next couple of minutes with patrick gavin of politico about what they called on the special edition on friday "d.c's big night." it was the washington correspondents' dinner last night. the headliner for the evening was jay leno. what are your thoughts about last night's program? patrick, was its a big night? guest: certainly, and it has only gotten bigger over the years. there were more celebrities, parties, buzz. the get the impression that for better or worse it will continue as years go one. in terms of this year's entertainment, jay leno did what he was supposed to, which is to live up to his bllilling as a vy the president i lar think bested jay leno in terms of laughs and a crowd responds in a room that is difficult to play too. host: there were some reports in various publications in the hill luster. he was the sudden -- party- crusher crackdown for this weekend's gala. what can you tell me about the level of security last night? but it seemed there were more people in security positions than in years past? guest: i'm not sure there were more security, although there are always many of these events. some people waited 45 minutes in line to get inside. i do believe it was a reaction to party-crashers at the white house a few months back. now they really require more credentials to attend a series of pre-parties of the washington hilton before him. they have always been whispered as the most crashable parties in the washington where few gesture was looking, wearing formal where you could largely have your run. this year if you want to do to the bottom, concourse level you would have to have a ticket. i think they're trying to keep out the party-crushers, but also handle crowd management. it is no doubt of fire hazard. host: in years past they have had a section where civilians can stand in the washington hilton toward celebrities as they walked on the red carpet. they did not do it that this year? guest: no, but part of it is they are still undergoing construction. on top of that, it is part of an effort to make it slightly less chaotic. part of the chaos is the typical throng of screaming teenagers whenever a new celebrity heartthrob comes through. they think the throng of teenagers is one of the cool things about the event, and that is the fact that many of these parties were possible to crash. it was one of the rear democratic moments in a the d.c. party life. some people like it, some do not. host: tummy which after party she went to, and have you gotten any sleep? guest: i did manage to get a little sleep. the big three last night was one held jointly by vanity fair in bloomberg, one held by msnbc, and one by capital file magazine. one of the order tickets to get -- it getan a-list crowd -- you saw michael douglas and others -- it is a very ritzy location -- usually held in some ballroom or auditorium. it has the air of sophistication that some others do not. msnbc gets a much different crowd, younger, more fun. rahm emmanuel made an appearance. then at the capital filed party, the big eye-turner was kim kardashian. the party is even younger, a little easier to get into. i would say the a-list power was less, but the party power was more. host: how much information was put out of the party regarding the situation in new york city? when did you become aware that there was a situation taking away from some of the attention of the president and from mayor bloomberg? guest: toward the end. the hotel had a very bad cell phone and blackberry access in the main ballroom. toward the end be so many people from the mayor's office and from the white house heading to the exits to get better cell phone reception. that was interesting. towards the end the use of people having to put away the cocktail glass and get back to their day job when news of the situation host: broke patrick gavin of politico, thanks for being on the program and telling us about last night's correspondents dinner. we will take a short break, and when we return we'll talk about politics in the roundtable format. first, a little about what is coming up later on the sunday shows. >> the louisiana oil spill -- and potential regulatory reform, and elections. the gas on "meet the press" it will include hillary clinton, janet now be, and ken salazar. also, governor charlie crist, running out of an independent for the senate seat in florida. this week, jake tupper will speak with guests including napolitano, and slazar, and abp president. on the fox news sunday, secretaries napolitano, slazar, and rubio. you your bob schieffer with mary landrieu the democratic senator been also the floor debt senator, ill. a senator, and the senate candidate. on cnn, the guests will include a common security secretary napolitano, slazaro, rubio, crist. you can listen to all five talk shows beginning at noon. you can also listen to was on the web. follow us on facebook and on twitter. >> what a think is vital is that americans agree to talk to the taliban and leadership. >> in 2000,. the author wrote about the taliban. with the 10th anniversary of his book he looks at what is next. it is tonight. >> today, tv analyst, author, columnist, and three-time presidential candidate, pat buchanan on conservative ideologies. >> president ahmadinejad is scheduled to speak on monday at the un. one key moments from his past speeches online at the c-span video library. "washington journal" continues. host: we'll be talking in a roundtable format about the 2010 midterm politics with the house editor, and rhodes cook. david, tellus from your perspective have different the house will look after the 2010 elections? guest: i have been covering the house for the cook letter for 10 years and it has pretty much been whiplash. the breadth of races on the table is challenging for any armchair pendant. we currently rate about 70 congressional elections as competitive. 90% of those are currently held by democrats. our current outlook is a republican gain of 30 or 46. the republicans need to net 40 seats to take back control. there are many more seats than that on the democratic side we see in putting of the direction of the movement of the house plainfield is what is troubling for democrats here. there are two things going on for 2010. the media only does a mediocre job of the french and -- differentiating that. we have to distinguish the two things and watch them over the next six months. host: rhodes cook, author of the rhodes cook letter, tell us your perspective on how the change the how the house will change? and what will cause it? guest: i would defer to david on the race by race analysis. i do not try to predict. he and his group were experts at that. i have more of a historical been. -- bent. it seems that all the previous midterms this one is being compared to were like 1994, 1982 when there was a big recession, 1966 after lyndon johnson's great society initiatives. they all resulted in big gains for the out party, but of varying sizes. some years as in 1982 there would not have been enough to bring republicans back into power say, this year. sometimes there were huge as in 1994. but at this point, a lot will depend on the array of issues we have on the table, and which ones are front and center when we hit the fall. if you looked one month ago, it was health care. now it is energy and the environment with the gulf oil spill, or immigration reform with the new arizona law. it is like a carousel with the issues are going around. i think we will always have the economy with us, and to a degree the wars in the middle east. but other than that, which ones are up, which down in november, and where the economy stands -- and whether any national security problems that come up in the fall, that will probably decide how the election goes. in a way, i think we will have to wait until october to get a firm grasp. host: we're talking about the 2010 midterm politics with david wasserman and rhodes cook. give us a call. if you have called within the last 30 days, this would be your day to send us an e-mail or message by twitter. in "the washington post" there was this abc news poll let's talk about some signs of improvement for the democrats and four republicans in the house. one of the question they asked was overall which party the you trust to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years? over about one year's time you can see where the democrats began at 56, went down, bounced back up to 46. the republicans began at 23, and are now up to 32. neither is kind of a hovering around 15, now at 18. what does this say to you, david, about the turnout we might expect at the polls in november? guest: that is a fascinating question and turnout is always the key to midterm elections. back in the 1990's we were talking about the gender gap. how democrats were doing so much better among women, republicans among men. we called 1992 the year of the women. i would argue in this decade the generation gap has supplanted that. if king had his magic wall and the 1990's we would have been talking about the gender gap first. we have never seen in the history of exit polling where the president does 21 points better among the younger age group. it gave him 45% of the vote. what is a matter for the midterm? who comes out to vote? rhodes cook can tell you better than anyone else that the seniors make up a disproportionate number. that is a built-in advantage for republicans. host: rhodes cook, is that correct? should we look for a large turnout from older voters? will it contribute to some sort of historical shift in the house? guest: um, midterm elections you can say simply that turnout is smaller, whiter, and older than for a presidential election. smaller generally by 30 or 40 million people. probably only two-thirds as large as the presidential election turnout. you generally shed in large numbers of minorities and the younger voters who turned out in such massive numbers in 2008 to elect obama and democrats. . . guest: well, that's a good question. i guess it will depend on how much their antipathy to the health care reform continues. you know, by and large the polls seem to show they weren't too thrilled with the passage of the democratic measure last month. but the older voters, i mean, if you look at them historically, back in the 1980s they were very democratic and the younger voters were republican. you know, now you have the reverse. it's not that this is necessarily a nailed in republican part of the electorate. i think they're there at the time being, and i think probably when we get to election day you'll find that the plurality of them will vote republican. but it's whether the democrats can cut down the margin there. cut down their losses among the older voters and get a bigger turnout among the younger ones. host: first call. go ahead. caller: yes. they can't stand the -- democrat is not going to win this year. people are not stupid. the republican and democrats are not doing nothing. and the tea party speakers are the republicans. thank you. host: david. guest: well, we have a number of competitive house races in indiana and several feature these tea party type of canned gates. the indiana primary is coming up. we were talking about this, of an incumbent republican congressman perhaps losing a primary for reelection not necessarily to a tea party candidate but perhaps to a candidate who runs against washington, against the status quo. to a lot of the past year the attention in indiana as far as the republican primary has been on dan burton from indianapolis and he represents a very republican district on the exurban indianapolis front. and he is facing three or four challengers. he has been sort of combative with the pharmaceutical industry and they have a lot of employees in the district. but he may still win because his opposition is split. the congressman who i think could lose is mark saweder from fort wayne who is facing a couple challengers. and just the other day he said that going through this campaign has convinced him not to run for reelection in 2012. that's not exactly the kind of tone we hear from most successful republican congressmen seeking renomination in a primary. he very well could lose to an auto dealer who souder is accusing of taking cash for clunkers money. meanwhile, souder voted for tarp. so this is the first election where republicans have to defend their vote on tarp if they voted for that back in 2008. then we also have some competitive races in southern indiana. brad else worth, a democrat w40 picks up a republican seat now running for senate. that seat may fall to the republicans. in southeastern indiana bare ronhill, a democratic congressman came back to the house in 2006, he is running in what we consider a toss-up race. we don't know who the republican nominee will be, but it's one of the seats the democrats could very easily lose given its composition and his risky votes on health care, cap and trade and the stimulus. host: we're going to ask our callers, identify the congressional district that you're in and the member who is up for reelection and whether or not you're going to support them or whether you're looking at his or her opposition. new york, al on our line for independence. go ahead. caller: good morning. how you doing? well, i'm in upstate new york and right now it's jill brand and murphy in the house. and gilbrand in the senate. but before i answer who i'm going to vote for, let me just say this. one, i don't trust any of these bums because they're all subject to money and influence. and they're too cow towing to the party as opposed to what my needs are. but i think there's a national move mood, a very undercurrent, i think, and i think the american voter is going to try and rebalance both the house and the senate as best we can to get these all one-party influence over our needs, the economy and so on, because, quite frankly, all one party, we learned that with the republicans under bush for eight years, and we've learned it so far under obama, that all one-party majority just doesn't work for main street. and i think that we as the american voter are going to try to balance out both the senate and the house as best we can, and i think that as far as in my district, as much as i hate to say it i'm probably going to vote republican this year only because, like i say, i want to try and balance out the house and the senate and as soon as the republican gets too cocky, i'm going to vote that bum out, too. host: thanks for your call. rhodes. guest: well, that is a very interesting call. that doesn't sound good news for the democrats listening to him talk. though maybe for 2012. but it doesn't sound like they're going to lose him in 2010. it's interesting to hear the balance argument brought up because that's often more of a theatrical political scientists argument that's made, the need for balance and voters doing this. but that was a very inttreeging to hear. and also, as this moving along, we might discuss the increasing power of the independents. not only are they a growth stock in american politics. more people identifying themselves as independent. but democrats tending to vote democratic, republicans tending to vote republican, that means the independents are the balance of power. in our modern elections, and particularly this one. so democrats better get this guy's phone number or something. guest: that's absolutely right. and i think the key to watch over the next six months is really the republican message. and do they go too far or do they keep it simple? and republicans ought to know that over the next six months they would be best served perhaps by keeping their message simple like democrats did in 2006. do they argue for checks and balances. notice how he mentioned rebalancing government. that's a message that tends to resonate with a lot of independents, having to convince i understandents that democrats are drunk on power or thwarting the will of the people. so can they keep the message simple? and the caller is from an intriguing district, new york's 20th which had a special election. and over the next month will see two house elections in which a republican could take a seat. democrats were able to hold that seat in kendra in new york in 2009 but republicans have some good opportunities in pennsylvania's 12nd and in hawaii's first district in may. host: next, john from michigan on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: that's incorrect. i'm actually a conservative. host: ok. caller: i dialed in the 02 number . host: you're a conservative democrat? caller: no. you host: you called in on the democrat line. caller: well, ok. i'm a conservative. i did vote for obama. you know, it's been a very confusing couple of years with mr. bush and what i will say is i'm from the 13th district, representative capitol hill patrick is somebody that i would not vote for again. i don't think she is running. i don't wish to vote against somebody. i would rather vote for -- what i mean is vote for somebody. the proto type for me of somebody that i think, i hope everybody would vote for is somebody like secretary gates who has determined that something that is built in every state in the country is something he doesn't want, and that sort of thinking. and i hope that at least two-thirds of the people on both sides of the aisle are shown the exit and that we have a younger -- i'm going to turn 62. our generation has messed things up a bit. it's time for the younger generation to begin to take on the problems, set the table to begin to correct the problems that they're going to have to -- they're going to face in the coming years. to that's my sentiment. and i would be glad to hear your point of view. and mr. rhodes, fascinating first name. i wonder where you got it from. guest: actually, it's my middle name. and it's my mother's maiden name. and my first name is franklin but it was also my father's first name and he had it first, so i from the very beginning, i was called rhodes. that was the one name available at the time. host: now, his point about older voters versus younger voters. not necessarily versus, but the influence of one and the other. guest: i think about having a younger generation of politicians now, i assume in congress is what he is talking about but it could be across the board. and i was just reading something this morning. it kind of clicks in my mind about how this is the oldest congress that we have now. i think it averaging 57 years old at the beginning of the congress, 63 years old in the senate. i was counting up the number of senate incumbents whose seats are up this time, and i think it's a dozen or 70 or older. so he makes a point here about it's time, could make a case it's time for generational change in congress. and every few elections you have that. but i also might add and that kind of dove talse with david's point about messaging and the last two callers have mentioned things like rebalancing congress and a younger generation in congress, which are really -- those aren't part of anybody's message, really. these are things they're just kind of basic things that they're bringing up on their own. host: do you think that these are things that may come more to the fore, as we get closer to november, when congress takes its recess over the summer and is back in the district that they will focus on those things like age and gender and those kind of things? guest: well, it seems like it looks like they're already focusing on it. you know, that at least some articulate people who have called in here are. and i assume they're speaking for, you know, they're a microcosm of something broader. and so i assume this is on people's minds no matter what the messaging is going to be. host: my question is, will the messaging be directed to those groups by the people who are running for office as we get into july and august? guest: well, i could see the republicans easily making an issue of the need for rebalancing. so they say that occasionally. but you know, in the sniping of politics, it's not a point that's repeated over and over again. like you're bad, we're good type of thing. host: let's go to texas. go ahead. caller: yes. good morning. i'm a senior citizen, and first i would like to apologize for some of the stupid thing that is have gone on in texas. but i would like for everyone that's a senior citizen to be reminded that social security, medicare, social security disability, v.a. benefits, were pushed through by democrats. and when i see the so-called tea party rallies, by older people and then they say keep your hands -- government, keep your hands off my medicare, it does make me wonder. so fi were a senior citizen, which i am by the way, i would be very careful to get in line with some of these hypocrites who although they voted against obama's stimulus will go back to their districts and brag about how this money has helped their districts. host: who is your representative? caller: kay granger. host: andrew going to vote to send her back? caller: oh, no. i never vote for her. but there's so few of us left. you know, there are not many of us left. host: who are you going to be supporting in the election? caller: well, i will support democrats. host: whoever the democrat is? caller: down the line. yeah. and not so much because of the individuals. i think that's another mistake people make. party philosophy, the basic philosophy -- host: sorry, annie, to have cut you off. david, go ahead and answer her question. guest: well, texas' 12th district is not competitive at this point and part of the reason is redistricting. many viewers will recall tom delay and the republicans in texas in 2004 embraced a mid-decade redistricting that created a lot of safe seats for republicans and for a smaller number of democrats. but there will be at least two competitive house races in texas to the south of the caller's district, which is kind of near fort worth. there's a district in waco that's represented by democrat chet edwards, who has been around in the house for almost two decades. if not more. and chet edwards is facing his toughest reelection in a long time. republicans made his district even more republican than it was in 2004, mid-decade redistricting. so he is a guy who survived tough years like 1994 and survived in a tough district since 2004 but he has never had that combination of both. and chet edwards represents the most republican district in the house. he is facing a republican oil businessman and so this will be a very, very contentious race. we're seeing it become a little bit snippy already. and chet edwards is one of the best campaigners in the house democratic caucus. he needs to be in order to hold this kind of district. host: next up, sandy in massachusetts. on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: i'm sorry, i got paul in hills borrow, ohio. caller: hello. it's great to talk to you gentlemen. it's kind of rainy here in ohio but i enjoy a chance to talk to you guys. my question would be, with the cleaning up i guess of republicans where i guess they're not per seed as being leaning right enough, they're kind of cleaning house. and i'm curious what the host opinion is on where we're going to be at in the future if per se things work out the way they predict and the republicans pick up a lot of house and then they have to maybe, if they get control, have to dictate with this right-leaning republican party. are they going to pass, are they kind of a black eye trying to reach too far? is the house, the budget is being shut down with bill clinton veto and that kind of stuff. is there a possibility of them going too far right and not governing more of a centrist? host: thanks for your call. are we headed towards 1994? is this back to the future? guest: well, that's what's first comes to mind. is the situation he was expectinging to happen with republicans taking over control of congress, then our previous model is 1995. and actually bill clinton using the republicans very skillfully as his foil. and coming up with the famed triangulation strategy and kind of putting himself above the fray in the middle and let the congressional democrats and republicans kind of go out on the limb and by 1996, he was running about 15% of bob dole in the polls most of the year, easily won reelection. unfortunately, his democratic colleagues never made a come-back after that. but we'll have to see. history repeets itself to a degree. but republicans know this history as well. so i would assume that it would spin out a little differently in 2011 than 1995 in way that is we can't predict. host: sandra in massachusetts, thank you very much for waiting. sorry about the confusion. caller: that's all right. thank you. the thing of it is, last year we didn't get a cost of living. we're 67 and things you know, senior citizens, that would leave a bitter taste in our mouth because we look forward to that. however, we're not bird brains. we know what the republican party has destroyed. we know how they took us apart. i'm an independent. and believe me, i'm sickened by what they did, and i just say, hey, go ahead and -- democrat party, make a few marks. at least you're doing something. when the republican party did nothing but to crush our hopes and our dreams and everything and get us into a war that we didn't ask for or anything else. now we've got nonstop war, and everything to take and build our economy and it's just destroying the heck out of all of us. host: why do you identify yourself as an independent rather than a democrat? caller: because i'm an independent thinker. i go for the best human being possible. and i've watched what they've done and i've examined each and every little thing. and, believe me, goodness is what i look for. host: who is your represent ti? caller: right now my representative is -- what's his name. mcgovern. i turn to him a lot and he is good. host: thanks for your call. david. guest: well, the caller would be happy to know that jim mcgovern, who defeated a republican incumbent in 1996, and has been there ever since, is pretty much safe for reelection, his district includes worcester and extends into some of southeastern massachusetts where the caller lives. there may be a competitive race in massachusetts after all for the seat that includes cape cod all along the south shore to quincy, and that seat is bill delahunt. he has been in congress since 1996 and is retiring this year. and that race features several candidates on either side but it's the least democratic seat in massachusetts so scott brown won the seat with 60% of the vote. we currently have that in our toss-up column. but we see jim mcgon's race as solid democratic. host: next call out of new york on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: i'm calling from brooklyn. i vote upstate. i'm, -- there's a gentleman who called from kinder hook. wever murphy and guild ebrand come up. i think the thing of the swing voter is truly asinine to me. if you don't know who you're voting for by now, it blows my mind. i hear the word socialism used all the time. i don't think anybody can -- has ever read dot capital. i don't think anybody can explain what it is. i've lived in three different country and i think the american voter is the most uninformed voter in the world. and it scares me. people voting on personality and not on platform, not understanding the plamplets of a party, not understanding cainsism, not understanding what a single payer means. if anything is going to bring us down is the lack of knowledge out there of what is true and real and important in the process. i miss al gore. i miss a number of guys. another guy running on philosophy. host: if the person hasn't made up their mind by this point but the election is six motses out. there's nothing that could happen that could change your mind? caller: i think that the parties are well defined by now. we're talking about a hundred years of american politics. if you don't know the difference between fdr and herbert hoover and obama and bush. they're human beings but they're politicians first. and they're coming up there and representing the party and the party platforms while they may swing back and forth somewhat, they're well defined. if you're a corporate c.e.o., vote for the republicans. if you're a union member or union center like my grandfather was in brooklyn, vote for the democrats. the people that are going back and forth so much it shows people don't have an academic understanding of the process. host: thanks for your call. rhodes cook. guest: boy, that sets the mind running in a lot of different directions. you know what line he was calling in on? host: i believe he was calling in on the democratic line. guest: that's interesting. because i think he was raising the point that the woman from texas was beginning to raise before she got cut off, which was there is a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. you know, back when george wallace ran in the late 60s he said there wasn't a dime's worth of difference. you elect a democrat, you elect a republican. you know, you get the same thing. now, i think certainly over the last decade or so or since the 2000 election, everyone has seen there is much more than a dime's worth of difference. there is a big difference between the two parties, and elections matter. you know, the -- and i think people haven't pretty much internalized what the differences are. everything comes down to the democrats feeling that government basically has a purpose. government is basically good. it's to be used. it has a purpose for the common good. host: so do you see the outcome of the election or the shift in the number of seats occupied by democrats and republicans as a result of people voting for parties more than people voting for individuals? guest: i think this time around we might have more of kind of a european or british parliamentry election where it is more for the parties because the parties are clear cut what they stand for. smaller government, more government. it's very well defined. health care kind of brought it out. host: next up, sj from birmingham, alabama on our line for independents. good morning. caller: how are you doing. that brian before me, he is right on the money, in my opinion. i believe if we put the republicans back in power, we're going to see free trade agreements start popping up again, more jobs going overseas. i just -- i'm an independent. i voted both ways but i'm going to vote democrat until i can see these republicans doing better. but i wanted to ask mr. cook, i've noticed in the older voters they may not like their representative but they vote for them because they're scared of the new guy, more scared of him, in other words. well thanks. and i'll listen off air. host: rhodes cook. guest: that's an interesting point that sj brought up. generally, incumbents can count on a fairly large vote just to start out because of familiarity. and people may not like the representatives in general up in washington, but they like their own. but it seems to be showing this year that that is cracking a bit. it will be interesting to see particularly in the -- we weent have to wait until november. we'll know in may just because there's so many primaries starting may 4th. but there's going to be a number of senators who are up. well, may 18 we have spector and lincoln, and then robert bennett, the utah conservative senator who has to get by a state convention may 8, a week from yesterday. he may be knocked out right there. so, and then there are a couple other senators and house members down the line that normally the primaries are a pretty easy hurdle for incumbents. this year may not be the case, and if so you may see some signs that old familiarity, the old shoe is not working. but we should have some good clues in the next few weeks. host: david, you wanted to jump in? guest: sure. over the course of the next month we'll be watching two special elections, and this is going to be a good test case whether republicans can actually motivate independents to their side. in pennsylvania's 12 district on may 18, the special election for jack murtha's seat couldn't be happening in a worse district for democrats or at a better time for republicans. republicans need a shot in the arm to prove that they can actually win these special elections after losing two very close ones last year. but those two elections last year in upstate new york where several callers have called from were in district that were carried in 2004 by george bush and 2008 by barack obama, so they're moving in a pro-democratic direction. it's heading in the total wrong direction for democrats. democrats have nominated a gentleman by the name of mark who is on john murtha's district staff. republicans have nominated a first-time candidate and a complete outsider who is the first candidate of the cycle that i met last year named tim burn. and polls show the race close but i think the democrats have a tougher route to 50%. this is a cold district, a gun-owning district. and right now democrats are sending a bit of a mixed message by nominating a candidate who has to take positions against the health care bill and take socially conservative positions but also do fund raisers with speaker pelosi. host: our next call from texas. civil va. caller: good morning. there's so many myths that we've heard about democrats and republicans it's just unbelievable. and we heard them from the last few callers that are typical brain deds. 57% of the millionaires and above income bracket voted for obama and the democrats last time. you know, the republican party believes in life. and to prove that, the obama voters, the clinton voters, the gore and kerry voters of the last nine years have tortured and murdered more american babies here in america than the iraq war, the afghan war, and the war on terrorism on all sides added together. and they try to tell us that they're for people's lives and freedom. and then they talk about immigration. well, they're going to use the bigotry and the racism crap like they did against the white people that are at the tea parties because they don't see black people there. and if they do see black people they don't count because democrats only count big mobs of people. and the problems with obama is he's a hypocrite. he says one thing one time and one thing another time. he loves our troops now but before he hated our troops and told that they were all terrorists. terrorizing people in iraq. you know, it's a typical democrat obama ploy. it's everything out of both sides of your mouth and whatever sticks with the media that love you they use against the people of america. it doesn't matter if the people are white or black, just as long as they're against him then they're bigots and racists. host: thank you for your call. david, go ahead. guest: well, i want to go over another special election in may. on may 22, we're going to reveal the results of president obama's native congress yag district of his birth, honlu lieu and its outskirts. and actually the election is taking place all by mail. this is the first time hawaii has conducted an all-mail election. so voters are getting their ballots in the mail now and republicans and democrats in d.c. are walking on eggshells. they don't want to have an outside influence on mainland election. and the candidates, there are three major candidates and democrats just can't catch a break these days because there are two major democrats running and only one republican running because it's a free for all general election where the person with the most votes regardless of party wins the election. so the vote on the democratic side is split. the republican honolulu councilman named charles, who is probably one of the best republican candidates i've had the chance to meet is running a pitch perfect campaign may only need 40% of the vote to win if the democratic vote is split between stat senate member colleen hanbusea and ed pace, former congressman from the state's other district who has rubbed a lot of folks in the democratic establishment in hawaii the wrong way. so this is going to be a another good test case of whether republicans can excute these kinds of races and pick up these seats that are on the democratic side right now. and this is a very, very heavily democratic district. but we could see a scenario where republicans kind of pull out a once in a lifetime opportunity to pick up this kind of seat. and so i think we'll see some high drama. it's one way that republicans could sort of take the house, which everyone thinks is on a nice edge and kind of twist that knife by winning president obama's native district. host: the gentleman mentioned the new law in arizona and also the effect of the tea parties. is that going to be a key factor even though thes in arizona, if people perceive if you are of like mind srks that going to be a plus or minus for you as you're running for office or running for reelection or running to try to unseat an incumbent? guest: well, it's interesting. the last caller brought up some hot button issues. i think the first time we've heard them this morning. immigration. abortion. i would think that these will probably affect the primaries more than anything else. i mean, who knows what the issue agenda will be like in september. but we have primaries from here until september practically every week, and i think particularly on the republican side of the ballot you're going to see this immigration issue argued out in a fair number of districts, i would think, particularly based on the difference of opinion you see among republicans nationally already on this issue. and the abortion issue, too. probably will be more significant in the primaries than in the general election. and on the republican side who is the most anti abortion. but what is interesting in listening to the caller, you get this seemed more personal to him. you know, than to many other people who called in. so he did see the big distinction between the parties. i mean, you've got the impression of republicans being the party of the individual, democrats being the party of the masses type of thing. but you see it expressed in a more personal fashion. host: rhodes cook, and david wasserman, thank you gentlemen for being on the program. guest: thank you. host: in just a few minutes arks discussion on defense spending, and another roundtable format. but first, a look at the past week through the eyes of the nation's editorial cartoonists. topics will include the attempted car bombing in new york city times square, and let us hasten to say this is the first you're hearing, then that car that bomb did not detonate. and no injuries, and no damage. also on the sunday shows, the louisiana oil spill. immigration, financial regulatory reform legislation, and the mid-term elections. meet the press, hosted by david gregory will include an interview with hillary clinton, janet napolitano and ken sals czar, and governor crist who is running as an independent for that seat in florida. jake tapper will talk with guests including secretaries sals czar and napolitano. and lamar mckay, president of bp america. the guests on fox news sunday hosted by chris wallace will include secretaries napolitano and salazar and marco rubio. obface the nation, bob shafere will speak with louisiana democratic mary land are you. and florida democratic senator bill nelson. illinois democratic congressman lewis gutierrez and senate canned day jd hayworth. and on cnn state of the union, candy crowlly will be speaking with secretaries, and marco rubio and charlie crist. you can listen to all five of the sunday morning talk shows starting at noon eastern on c-span radio. nationwide on xm satellite radio, and also on the web at c-span radio.org. and you can follow us on facebook and on twitter. host: we're talking about defense spending particularly defense spending in the face of the deficit and ramifications to national security, if that defense spending is cut. our guests are james karafano of the heritage foundation and bernardfenell, with the american security project and a senior fellow there. welcome to the program. tell us about the deficit and from your perspective if the deficit continues, how is it going to affect national security? guest: certainly the deficit is a real problem, especially next decade. and the interest payment is going to raise and you get a squeeze on social programs and how much are willing to tax. and unfortunately when you look at discretionary spending, defense makes up a decent chunk of that. so it's hard to see how without major changes there is going to be a squeeze on defense budget. host: james, your thoughts. guest: well, he raises a great point. there's a bigger elephant in the room and that is entitlement spending, social security, medicare, and medicaid. if you run that out 30 years, thrtsdz there's nothing left in the budget. all discretionary spending disappears. so there are the twin elephants in the room and i would argue entitlement is the bigger one. we've got to be responsible. but we've got to get our priorities in order. providing for the defense is a fundamental argument. sometimes it sounds you get the family around the table and say times are tough. and they're like, well, dude, we need our cable subscription. you have to cut the mortgage. i don't see it that way. i see we ought to fund defense first. we have lots of bad things we're doing in our fiscal policy and we should fix them. but cutting defense like not paying your mortgage is just not a smart way to run your federal budget. host: so in order to pay for the guns, james, how much of the butter are you going to have to cut? guest: i think that's a bad argument too. we want economic growth or security? and the answer as americans we want both. and let's be honest, we can do this. over the course of the cold war we spend 8% of the gdp and our economy grew. and when it ended it doubled. so sound fiscal policy allows you to spend for defense but opens up for economic growth as well. host: burn ard, in order to pay for the guns, how much butter do you cut? guest: i agree with jim on this point. there's not really a trade-off. i think the more interesting issue is do we need to be spending as much as we're spending. defense increased by 250% since the bush administration began. and that only covers part of our defense cost. and the question is, given the threats we face in the world, is it sufficient or too much or too little. i think we have to have a debate on that. but ultimately we can find the money to pay for legitimate security threats. i just will argue at this point we haven't had a process which is disciplined and serious about assessing what threats are and how large a budget we have have to have in response. host: talking about defense spending, deficit spending and national security ramifications from trying to mix the two. our guests, james of the heritage foundation and bernnard of the american security project. if you want to get involved, give us a call. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. so, you have a chance to go in and meet with the president tomorrow. what is your plan? what are you going to tell him either needs to be cut or where does the spending need to be cut? guest: i think you have to start with strategy. and here's the challenge. at the end of the cold war we adopted a hedging strategy. we don't know what the world is going to look like, let's cut our budget 30%, but maintain it roughly as it is now. and we've maintain that for 20 years now. when bush came into office he began a real disciplined process of trying to review and reassess. it was cut short by 9/11. we have had a cold war looking defense budget, smaller than the cold war but sort of allocating the same way. on top of that we're laden with the wars we're fighting now. but there's been no attempt to step back and say, what commitments to say, south korea. should we be spending as much as we're spending on say defense of taiwan given the fact that there's no cold war to justify that. i would argue that once we begin to step back there are cuts we can make, and some would be precisely an issue like taiwan where we spend billions of dollars in terms of bidding capacity to fight this probably unlikely scenario when we probably wouldn't want to fight anyway. and as a result, if you look at that kind of logic, it talks about the carrier size, size of the navy, some air spear yort assets that you might be able to cut. there's a lot of things that flow out of a discipline strategic review. host: james. guest: i agree it ought to be based on strategy but you need a long-term view. everything you buy in the military is a 25, 30 year investment. i was in the military, they bought me in 1973 and i left 30 years later. so you have to think far term. and what that suggests is you really can't cut this too closely. things don't really radically change from one year to the next. we spend about 1% or 2% over the life of the nation basically from the american revolution up to world war ii, except when we're fighting wars. during world war ii, we spent 45%. after, we spent about 8%. that was the era of the cold war but that was the era when american became a different country. we became a global power and had global responsibilitieses. so when the cold war ended how much of that had to be there. and take the cold war out of the picture and what's left for requiring for percentage of defense, for defendsing u.s. interests around the world, for defending ourselves from threats around the world. and he is right we never had that big debate. we were about 3% of gdp and going down when 9/11 happens. we go back up to 4% but largely because of paying for the wars. baseline spending is still not much different. and i think about 4% of gdp, we've done the analysis siss from both ends and we come to the same spot. you needs about 4% of gdp day in and day out to kind of pay the mortgage on national security. so i don't really see the cuts that he is talking about because i see those requirements 10, 20, 30 years down the road across the spectrum of needs. host: our first call from pennsylvania, on our line for independents. caller: good morning. wow, with all due respect there, james, you know, really, the real picture i've seen recent reports is over half is what we really spend on the military. and do we need 700 bases around this world? this is ridiculous. this is empire. and what are we protecting? mainly capitalism. and is that in the best interests of people? we have to ask that to ourselves as a people now. but, i mean, this growing -- what about the kind of injuries we're having now? what about the kind of policies, the -- should we really occupy these nations that have al qaeda? do we go into yemen? do we go into some alia, do we ok -- occupy these nation sns we need to be like israel, have one hundred to one thousand man strike forces and let's be smart. we'll be respected. we'll save money. we'll have all the entitlement money in the world. listen to this tea party people, we'll have all the money in the world and be safer. all the reports are we've been a failure. all our efforts so far as increased al qaeda. this is leading to war. we need to get out of afghanistan, we need to stop these wars of occupation and we need to go after our enemies directly and smartly. host: james. guest: well, it's a great question. it's a point i hear a lot and it's just wrong. america has always had the responsibility, which it says in the constitution, to provide for the common defense. part of providing for the common defense is sometimes leaving your shores and going out defending yourself. the founding fathers knew this. we create add fleet and sent it to the mediterranean and kept it there for almost half a century to combat pirates because it was in america's interest. those bases are there for one reason, which is to defend our interests. and when we walk away from our global responsibility, and the best example is afghanistan. we walked away in the 1990s and what happened? we got attacked. and you have to go forth and defend ourselves. and al qaeda is a good example. al qaeda is not stronger. al qaeda has been the injured. as a matter of fact, burnard, we're going to do a joint event on this tomorrow. there have been 30 attempted terrorist attacks on the united states, we argue the number is 31, 32, have been foiled in large part because we were stopping them. and that's just part of what you have to do. america has always done that. host: quickly. guest: we don't have to have quite a large footprint. that's the argument. we have to make a clear assessment of what the threats really are. and i think there are places where you could say a smaller footprint abroad, lesser finger prints on the foreign policy lives of other people would be better. guest: it's a footprint you need for your national interests. absolutely. host: back to the lines. ohio, go ahead. caller: yeah. what i would like to say is we're so concerned about these entitlements and how these entitlements have to be cut and republicans just hate entitlements. and what's the definition? is it an entitlement for bp to contact the american military when it's oil wells are leaking? is it bp's policy to take american's children to war so they can get their contract? i'm wondering what a real entitlement is. host: bernyard, american security project. guest: i raise it for an important issue. how do we define our national interests? and when you begin to think about what in fact we are defending abroad, in some cases it isn't so what the american public thinks is worthwhile. considering how much money we have to maintain, we have to spend to maintain the capacity to defend access to persian gulf oil. most doesn't come to us anyway. most is on behalf of our allies. but it's a major capacity to keep a fleet in the persian gulf or around the persian gulf, paying for stability in countries throughout the middle east. these are very high costs. and i think we need to have some debate about are we willing to pay these kinds of costs for oil. we are. and i'm not sure that we shouldn't be. in fact, if you say shouldn't we be spending money to say protecting oil? that's the life blood of our economy, as a result it's probably a good idea to spend significantly. but it's once of the things we ignore. there's an interest there. and then it gets beyond the debate. on the other hand, we talk about things of health care, we're putting dollars. we have to figure out how to make health care revenue neutral. no one says how do we make additional spending on defense or meeting new threats revenue neutral and they should all be put in the same kind of box. they're all interests to be paid for and discussing the costs and benefits is part of what politics ought to be about. host: next up, connecticut, john on our line for caller: i have a friend for my paysen mr. karafano. they never seem to mention welfare, which is the biggest waste and fraud in our country. if we didn't have so much fraud in that, maybe we would have money in our military. and with the military, i think we could probably pull back some of our bases from europe which is pretty safe now, and maybe place them on our borders where we are being invaded and overrun. that's our our attention should be in the military. and we would have more money to spend on military if we didn't have all these wastes programs like welfare. we're always attacking social security where people tend to pay money into. and it's not entitle quamt when the government takes money from your pay check and force us to contribute. but i wish you would mention welfare as an entitlement. guest: this is a great point not just for italian americans but for all americans. which is to put defense spending in perspective. and i think this is the most important issue. people talk about defense spending as if this is the main driver of what we're doing with our tax dollars and it's simply not. 40 years ago, defense spending was 50%. today it's less than a fifth. today, it's programs like medicare, medicaid, and social security. but if you add in like means tested welfare and education, those are bigger than defense. the financial bailout package, you add all those things together. so defense, even though it's the single largest item in discretionary budget. and for folks who don't understand that. that's the part where you don't have -- the government doesn't have an obligation, you have to budget for that. but it's a very small thing that's not driving the train. kind of look at defense spending the reason why we have a huge deficit, the reason why taxes are going up. that's not it. defense spending is there for one reason, to protect us. host: next call from arizona. greg. caller: good morning. how are you gentlemen doing this morning? my question is how do you justify the fact that we're in afghanistan and iraq, and we have triple canopy in the same people as blackwater, all these private contractors defending supposedly defending our -- let me ask those guys right there. when they walk outside from the studio today, do they feel threatened and if they don't do they feel that they're not being threatened because of the money that we're -- being spent on private contractors and our military? do they feel our world is safer because of that? do they honestly feel we should be where we're at doing what we're doing with our military killing people and continuing this nonsense? guest: well, there's a lot of issues there. do i feel safer when i walk out the door because we have our military protecting us? absolutely. i'm skeptical about the mission in afghanistan. i think on the whole we're not going to get much out of that mission in the long run. as a result the investment is probably not going to pay for itself. but on the whole i think we do have an effective national security apparatus. and even though it isn't as big a budget item as other things including social security, medicare and medicaid, it's a lot of money. and we tend to lose that in washington. we get used to throwing around billions of dollars here, you add those up and it's real money after a while. and here, if you could cut a billion out of defense budget, brick it down to what it was in the year 2000 i think you would have significant savings. it would be over $2 trillion in a decade. but that's not the issue in that sense. the bigger issue is that we need to figure out what do we really need to spend? let me talk about the issue of contractors for just a second. the real problem with contractors, and part of the issue is we're trying to do some interventions on the cheap. we have an unsustainable defense policy where we're trying to do too much with too little. the issues isn't to spend more. i think the issue is maybe we should try to cut back on our missions, have more limited modest kinds of goals in terms of our national security policy abroad and then we could fund it properly with lower risk, less reliance on contractors and probably a better chance of success across the board. host: next up, new york, new york, john on our line for republicans. i'm sorry, for democrats. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. al qaeda in my opinion was nothing more than a rag tag group of bed oins that we overreacted to after 9/11. i'm sure you can pick apart my words in one or both of your guests, -- one will bick apart those words. but president bush overreacted and brought us into the wars. we need to be out of south korea, germany, two rich countries that can pay for their own defense. and to really come up with solutions for problems poignantly, i don't hear the many -- your guests are not poignantly coming up with problems. you know, you can decriminalize drugs. not that i'm in such total favor of drugs as a way to fight the war on drugs. and as a way to fight the war on illegal immigration, if you make it impossible for there to be insurance coverage for workers compensation and for businesses, and for business liability insurance that excludes coverage for illegals, then the employers would be forced to only hire legal workers. thank you for c-span. host: james. he talked about how much money was spent versus what is spent in over other countries. and according to a chart we have gotten from global issues.org, the united states in 2008 paid for 41% of the world's military. the next five countries, china, france, the uk and russia, don't even come close to half of that. are we spending too much of the -- more than what we need to be spending as u.s.? guest: that's a great question. and i would lo to have these debates. i would love to debate what are we doing with regards to other people. this is a terrific issue. is that the right metric, what other people doing. we have the world's largest economy. we have 300 million people. we've got one of the largest countries in the world that's interconnected with every country in the world. so do you really want to compare our defense requirements, our national security requirements with some of these other countries? i'm not sure that makes a lot of sense. people go, well, it's like if you had, i don't know what kind of car, so you've got a pinto and bernard's got a mazz rati. wulled it -- would it be reasonable that bernard should pay the same for insurance as you do? you pay what's appropriate to defend what you have at risk. we're a huge country. we've got a lot of things to take care of to protect. our investments should be appropriate to that. that's all. . . guest: so, the defense budget drop significantly. the issue with bush in iraq and alpha it was not that he did not have enough forces available, but chose not to send a sufficient number of forces in both cases. it is not that we did not have meant to send. we have 100,000 in afghanistan. but when we're fighting elsewhere and trying to shut off the skate for osama bin laden, widowrecounted off on local, tribal people who allowed him to escape. the issue was a deliberate choice. why? maybe it was easier to sell to the american public, or was it because there were over- confident in the ability of the forces? there was much debate. it was not the issue that the force was not capable. it was large and capable. it was a matter of how to use the force. that is where bush and rumsfeld have come in for legitimate criticism. host: texas. caller: i'm in the district of ron paul. he says we're spending all this money on wars going broke and these are not for america, but for israel. host: we will leave it there. guest: it raises a great point --defense is not what is draining the federal economy, at less than one-fifth of the economy. the argument that somehow defenses bankrupt in america is simply not true. host: james, the heritage foundation, a defense expert. he is also director of the center for foreign and policy studies. bernard is a senior fellow at the american security project, and was previously professor of military strategy at the u.s. national war college. he has held positions at both georgetown university as well. the line for democrats, from missouri. caller: i have a brief comment about domestic spending. then i will ask a question about defense. the tea partiers are always talking about entitlements, but should be in favor of means testing all of social security and medicare. on defense i cannot see us keeping troops overseas like we do. they are everywhere, japan, germany, and all kinds of places. we should bring those tow. then again, we do need defense spending -- of the question -- are we still in the star wars thing? we have no defense against an accidental launching of russian missiles. will we be spending money on defensive star wars? guest: we have a significant program and it has been surprisingly successful. many were skeptical. but in fact, we were able over time to hit missiles launched. our capabilities especially of the theater level against ballistic missiles are significant. even on the national level there are progressing. there is no real challenge there. there is broad consensus on the capacity to shoot down accidental launches against the u.s. the bigger question is how much you want to extend that to allies, but interceptors in europe, and what are the consequences? but we're making progress in defending the homeland from the ballistic missile attacks. host: next, okla. -- i'm sorry, oregon. caller: yes, i'm calling -- i love my phone on recall and the boys pushed in 002 for the democrats' one. this is the second time i was told was on a republican line and i got cut off. host: ok. [laughter] while we wait for more calls to come in, how much, james, is congress going to be taxed? maybe that's not the right word, but how much responsibility is it for the congress to try not only to figure out a way to pay the defense, the top opprobriums, and to get the point across to the american public that the defense spending is a smaller part of the budget? guest: now is the right time to look at that great question. congress those two things yearly. a budget for the defense department. that is called an appropriations bill. then another bill called the of the rescission bill which is basically guidelines to the defense a permit -- called teh appropriations bill. this is a month all americans ought to focus on these issues, and we're calling it protect america month. we have that information on a on our website. this is a good month to talk about these issues. take them seriously. let your congressional members know. the congress needs to know citizens are informed, have an opinion. both bernard and i prefer if people got educated and informed, and then let their leaders in washington know what they think about that. host: jennie, sugarland, texas. caller: i'm also a democrat and have also called on -0002. today she hung up on me and i told her the website says -0002. i wish you would have the numbers on the screen for the entire program. they were not on there before. in john dean's book from 2004, he said the bush administration had a plan to get the country in such a financial condition that there would have to get rid of social security and medicare. but it would not happen when george bush was president, but after he left. as far as the iraq war, dearlove in the british record and a book by suskinid says that dick cheney without a doubt that there were no weapons of mass direction. yet look at all the money in halliburton who got rich. what have they done to the country? they gave part of their offices over to the uae they will have to pay money on taxes for many we're gettingiving to the war. guest: the lobbyist decisions are very complicated. the notion that big to any new there were no wmd's in iraq is principal. it did he exercise due diligence? probably not. but look, that happens all the time. i do not see the evidence of conspiracy. i would not want to argue that conservatives have a conspiracy about how to use defense money to bankrupt the country. the tax cuts are another issue. host: we want to let viewers and listeners know we changed the order of the phones every month to, mix things to make sure people are honest calling. to make sure you cannot program the number into the speed dubbing of this being the beginning of the month, the numbers have changed. sorry for the confusion. tampa, fla. caller: good morning. what kind of studies are you doing in terms of troop quality? i have spent time in active navy and navy reserve. it seems like we spend more time try to get people on and off the fat boys list. any studies or analysis on troops to be out there? guest: we have looked a lot at manpower costs. it raises a good issue. the manpower costs of the largest portion of defense spending, and fastest rising portion of its --within the defense to permit we have a mini storm that mirrors the larger budget. the health care, retirement, benefits cost a lot more. we do all we can to take care of the troops. i was in the army for 25 years. these people really are selfless service. but the problem is -- when you squished down on the defense budget, you are not going to take that part out. what falls out? buy new equipment, making sure troops are adequately trained, have ammunition. you have to get the issue right. the manpower costs will continue to grow. if you're budgets are flatter smaller, they will eat the whole budget. we just cannot afford to sit back, and back osay -- ok. the lives of men and women are on the line. when people went to korea there were wearing sneakers without boots. we need to make sure they have with the need. they are looking after national security. we have to blame ourselves for 9/11 and part harbor and for other areas at the end of the day. people fought they could take on america. part of having a strong defense is to let people know we're not, an not, but also when people take us on to make sure we look after our interests. host: in equipping the military in particular, is it necessary for them to have the f-35 fighter jet, or could some of the budget because there? guest: you are asking an old army guy for should have more planes. the answer is yes. many people ask when was the last time someone shot down an american plane, or an american got killed by an enemy fighter? the answer is a long time. air superiority is going into an area you were fighting. other guys cannot fly to challenge you. the f-22 is a big part of that, so is the f-35. caller: mr. carafano, we may be a large super power and have it 50 times bigger of the economy, but are we that much bigger than the next biggest economy? what ever happened to the idea of zero-based budgeting? that would certainly clean out a helluva mess. guest: the issue is not how big our economy is and can we afford -- we certainly can afford our current budget, and could spend more -- but should we? our current investment -- is inappropriate? there more sailors than there are diplomats in the entire foreign service. there more musicians in the u.s. military ban foreign service diplomat. is that an appropriate balance? i think we need to step back and recovery. we need a sufficiently large military to perform, but need to examine alternatives. are there other ways to leverage national power to make us safer and more secure, and perhaps been less? host: this message by twitter -- james? guest: that is exactly right, but i would say it is both. obviously, it is a percentage of our wealth -- you do not want to have too much defense. you do not want to strangle the economy. you want guns and butter. i'm not for massive defense spending, but for defense spending as part of a vital national interests. we're spending half of what we did during the cold war in an economy twice as big. the other point is bought on. if i could go back to the previous caller, there is an issue called the zero-is budgeting where every year you begin with a blank slate and unjustified all costs. that makes no sense for defense. it takes several years just to build a carrier. i was it in there for 25 years. you mean every year he would decide whether to keep me or not? defense is long term. you are defending national, vital interest. it should not change that much year in and year out. you need to make a budget, and be consistent over time. what has gotten soldiers killed it is this whipsaw. we spend a lot when we are word, then cut back. then the next thing comes up and we are worried. if you read did george washington letter to congress it is please, give me when you second take care of my troops and by this. we went into world war i, ii, korea ill-prepared. the reason is we whipsaw back and forth. we must be consistent. we pay our mortgage every month because we want our house for 30 or 40 years. host: richard, in furness, fla. -- inverness, florida. caller: i have to repeat what a previous caller said -- it was eisenhower who said we wear the pentagon. look at vice-president dick cheney who resigned his position to run for vice president -- was a big war hawk, pushed it, went to the pentagon about 10 tons. we began the war in iraq needlessly. he gave his ex-co. a $2 billion no-bid contract. war is big business. there are times we need to go to war, but not to make money. thank you very much. host: bernard? guest: the challenge is this. i don't think dick cheney pushed the nation to war to make money for halliburton. he thought it would make america safer. he was not wrong because he had a profit motive, but the cabecae had this notion to demonstrate strength. the fact is, most understand we are powerful. they are not attacking as because they think we are weak. if you look get poll after poll of why we are so hated in parts of the world is because they think we're big bullies. we have these massive embassies in their countries, the troops deployed on their soil. it is not that we are too weak, but too on the present around the world. we could improve national security by reducing visibility abroad. by being less involved in regional disputes and a base where there are no winners. if you get involved and the israeli-palestinian dispute, you cannot win that. someone will hate you at the end. there is no way to make everyone happy. is there a real benefit for the u.s. to be so heavily involved around the world and inserting how powerful we are? i would say no. the national strategy based on restraint, have been a narrow set of vital interests, and being more careful about the rest is a much more sure and affordable path towards national security. host: next, brian from sunrise, michigan. caller: i think you're getting off point a little. the violation of 17 resolutions --[unintelligible] i want to get to the real point concerning money in the defense. part of problem i face when i served in the navy was that you had to spend what you did the previous year. so, you come to the fall and if you had money in your budget for the department -- and i witnessed this. i still think about it. i happened to be the one to supply our division. here i thought i would get a medal because i was $280,000 under budget come the fall. i took it to the office and was told in no uncertain terms to spend. the reason i found out later and from others as they were afraid the following year you would not get the same budget. you need to clear the part up. those small potatoes and add up to billions. host: before i let you go, what did you end up spending the money on? caller: i had to buy a safe -- well i don't talk about top- secret, but what i had to do, let me finish -- it seems funny, but it really was not. i asked what it would me to do with the old safe? my chief told me to take it somewhere and it was so heavy we would all had hernias. so, i threw it over the port side. host: brian, we will leave it there. in the military you hear that a lot, but if you do not spend it you will not get it next year. guest: i was a second lieutenant in korea, the supply officer, ordered a bunch, and got and the back from seoul to say you cannot order this because congress has not yet passed the budget. it was an opposite story. i wrote a letter to mother and told her that my actions must be very important because they're tied to congress. there must be lots of stories that cut both ways. it is not about having restraint -- we walked away from afghanistan in a direct result was 9/11. it is not that we should go fourth to beat people up and make them think we are a bullet. we should defend national by to interests, period. if we will do that, we must have the right instruments. but so that we can get it right, and so we can look after the men and women in the military. there is no pat answer here. if you could write simple strategy, people would have already figured it out. do the right thing at the right time. if you do not have the right military instruments, you are sending soldiers into battle with sneakers and weapons that do not work. host: julie. caller: good morning. mr. carafano, maybe people do not have the intent to go out and conquer the world, but they want to have enough military might to do it if they choose. i will not even college defense spending. who are we defending ourselves against? i do not understand. -- i will not even call it defense spending. maybe the government wants it, but the population does not. we need to get out of afghanistan. we need to cut the budgets of the military. a previous caller referenced eisenhower. he then referred to the military industrial complex. it is huge business. host: putting aside iraq and afghanistan, where would you suggest that the american military could be pared back or bases could be closed? caller: germany, as they do not want us there, japan, as i read that people were protesting and want the base closed. we do not need all the weapons we have. host: we will leave it there. james, you have experience in south korea. why do we need to keep the bases in japan? guest: those are the platform from which we can project influence throughout the region. you have north korea with military weapons, china arising power. the reason we have not had a problem is that it is very influencing for stabilization. an enormous public has never happened with china and i argue it is because of u.s. military presence. host: bernard, do we still need ofthe bases in the places mentioned? guest: we could reduce some. the presence for japan and germany is no wonder necessary as it was in the 1960's and 1970's. hosguest: this is the debate we should be having. why are we doing this? that is the debate. if we walked away from afghanistan today many agree that about 1 million there would die. it would be horrible. is it ok to let 1 million people die? or you can debate that they would die. we have to have an honest debate with all the facts on the table. we to understand the consequences. then reach reasonable conclusion. guest: you cannot explain things only in support of crises. yes, 1 million may die in afghanistan, but i don't see us pulling to darfur other places where people are also dying. host: this phone call comes from matt, in wales, the u.k. caller: as far as i'm concerned, i think he was definitely needs to maintain their projection of power abroad with bases throughout the world. it would be a disaster to pull them out, not only for america, but for allies. one question -- is it true that no foreign country can have the military base set up in the u.s., such as if the british government wanted to put one there for training exercises? and why is that? host: we're getting a little off track, but i will let them answer. before you go, are there any basis near where you live? caller: yes, about 45 miles away. i come from south wales. there is a base in the southwest of england, 45 minutes away. it is an air base. host: how different for you would things be if the base went away? caller: it would create problems. my part of britain is used as the west approach into britain. we also have our r.a.f. they have always acted so that if you need help, we will be there and send jets with you, especially during terrorist threats. also, from the local economic perspective, the u.s. military personnel have spent a lot in our businesses. it would be a shame to see them go. from the power base, and also considering that they are supply points, even for countries like israel. you have to look at the global picture. guest: the caller brings up a good point, that may cost against what he would like to do. our military presence benefits allies economically. they are able to cut back on their own defense spending. they are essentially free-riding on the american defense expenditures. that is the real question to ask. if we were to pull out of different places, would it make those places less secure, or encourage allies to spend more to safeguard themselves? i think it would be the latter. i think that a lot of our defense spending allows countries just to spend things on they would like to you. host: vince? he is gone. guest: it is too bad. he is probably an italian, too. [laughter] host: i will let you make a last statement. guest: this has been break. i hope over the next few months when there's a lot in the news over the bills, americans will take time to look of them. do you really understand the issues? i don't care whether or not you agree with me. but take time to read, go online, find out something about defense spending, and look at both sides. make up your own mind and be informed citizen. host: you can find of permission at the heritage foundation for james, and bernard from the american security project also has a website. thank you for being on the program. we will take a short break and have an open phones when we return. ♪ >> what i think is vital now is that americans agree to talk to the taliban leadership. this author wrote about the rise of the taliban and a summer and autumn. with the 10th anniversary of his book he looks at what is next. that is tonight. >> today on "in-depth" the tv analyst, author, columnist, patrick buchanan on conservative ideology and today's political climate. three hours with pat buchanan live at noon eastern on c-span2. >> the iranian leader president ahmadinejad is scheduled to speak on monday at the conference on nuclear non- proliferation. find moments from his key speeches at the c-span video library. watch what you want, when you want. "washington journal" continues. host: we will open phones for the remainder of the program, about another 25 minutes. give us a call to let us know what you are thinking about various items in the news. and keep in mind that it is, a is, so the order of the phones, the numbers have changed. an update regarding thebp action out in the gulf and a presidential visit later today. the ap reports that the chairman of bp that his company's secure complete a role in the drilling rig explosion and spill. he is putting the blame on a build piece of equipment. he says he does not know how much oil is flowing from the well off the louisiana coast. he says estimates of five dozen girls per day are not certain. also, this morning from the ap, regarding the situation in new york city. mayor bloomberg says the city has escaped with could have been a very deadly event. police say that and amateurish, but potentially powerful car bomb left in times square did not explode, but had begun the definition process. thousands were cleared from the streets for hours while it was dismantled. this is california on the line for republicans. caller: hello. yes, i am a member of the u.s. navy reserve. they are telling women to join the submarine force. i was wondering why they would want to let women in that? it is full of men. i'm in the navy. it is a distraction. host: what kind of weapons system were you working with? were you stationed on the submarine or on a surface ship? caller: no, i am a sea bee. i've nothing against women in the u.s. forces, but think it would be a distraction for men under the sea for 60 days or more with a woman there in general. host: thanks for your call. first before taking your calls, we would check in with a staff writer. there will be a debate between two republican candidates running for the california governor position. june 8 is the primary. the insurance commissioner steve and a former ebay ceo are seeking to replace ardor schwarzenegger. c-span will cover this debate. ken, good morning. what should californians and people watching on c-span expect to see in the debate? what will some highlights it be? guest: this race has been about money, money, money. very unusual situation. you have two what the silicon valley people running for the gop nomination to contend against jerry brown, the former governor, the presumed democratic nominee. the race has been very unusual because meg whitman has spent $59 million of her own money, and steve has also spent about $19 million. meg began advertising very, very early -- 14 months before the general election. she began an aggressive radio campaign, was on tv. in february she pulled ahead with an enormous lead of about 50 points. everyone expected that once steve was the state insurance commissioner started spinning, those rates would close up. it has. he was about 50 points down, and is not only down about half that. tonight he will be waging an aggressive attack against whitman. as you can imagine, with the much money, pretty much what californians here on tv these days is either a poizner ad attacking whitman, or vice versa. host: you were talking about the numbers and we have two sets of polling data to show the audience. the first comes from mclaughline and associates -- any relation? guest: none at all. host: this one shows whitman with 55%, poinzner with 24%. the second set of figures, done about one month ago back on march 23, it has kind of flip flopped -- i'm sorry. the numbers are still similar. so, what has changed over the last month or so? guest: steve is now spending about $2 million per week. most of it for tv. most of it attacks whitman. the biggest issue has been the goldman sachs issue in the past week. whitman had ties years ago with goldman sachs, on the board for 15 months, was involved in the controversy called "spinning" which allows you to get hot public offering shares before the public does, and turn a quick profit. much controversy had been whether she got the shares of of the private banking client of goldman, or whether it was done to encourage e-bay to stick with goldman sachs. it has been pretty damaging. this week in particular it was the major controversy on capitol hill. host: very well aware of it to. what has been the support of the establishment in the republican party? has it been itwhitman, or poizner? does it really mattered to california republicans? guest: the california republican establishment tries not to get involved in choosing a winner. some parts are for her, some for him. probably at this time i would say if you had to ask who is getting more endorsements, probably meg whitman. he has also picked up some important endorsements including some alter-conservative -- one who was very well-known as a congressman, tommy. and there have been ads in recent days where tom has recently said, do not vote for her because all you have to do is get another arnold schwarzenegger republican. schwarzenegger is a pariah among many red meat conservatives, some of which are backing steve poizner. host: has arnold schwarzenegger offered support to either? guest: no, and i don't think either would want his support. schwarzenegger has become a tainted name and the republican party of california because there are many, particularly those who vote in the primary intent to be more conservative, but he came in billed as a republican, then it ended up backing taxes, past the global warming law. host: who among republicans you talk to do they feel will be the best opposition against the democratic candidate? guest: the meg whitman forces will say if you look at any poll, that steve poizner this is doubly against brown. some polls a few weeks ago showed meg whitman ahead of jerry brown. that has changed a little of the last few weeks. all of that is because the meg whitman campaign, even though they seem a little nervous, one reason -- it is not because they think it will lose, but that she will come out of the primary so bloodied that it will be hard to pick up momentum and beat jerry brown and in november. there are three independent expenditure groups that a lot of ways do the dirty work for jerry brown. they have vowed to raise more than $40 million. just basically to bash meg whitman. the amount of money spent in the race is unbelievable. i have heard as much as a half a billion dollars. host: give us details about tonight's debate. where, what time? guest: it begins at 5:00 p.m. downtown in a museum. there will be about 200 invited guests, as well as reporters. it is an hour-long debate. most people probably expect steve poizner to come of swinging at the beginning. it is his last chance to get some media exposure. the first debate was a month ago on a lousy video stream, and not many saw it. this debate will be picked up around the state, being run on comcast. host: one last question. there has been a lot of news regarding the law in arizona just passed, tightening up on immigrants coming across the border. has that issue crossed the border into california? will it be something that is part of the election debate? guest: yes. meg whitman has come out against the law. she has taken a more moderate stance. steve poizner has tried to capture the righter part of the base. he has said the law should be able to play out, not for or against it. i am sure the issue will come up tonight. host: all right, ken mclaughlin, staff writer. thanks. for those who want to listen or watch, the debate will air sunday night only live on c- span.org, but then replayed on c-span and c-span radio at 9:00 p.m. eastern. back to the phones, open phones, mark on the line for democrats from oregon. caller: good morning,rob. first of all, buddy, getting the thing with the phone numbers straightened out. it is ok. in reference to the next, to this call -- if there were ever an example of to what is wrong with the american politics -- we have two individual spending millions of dollars for a job that at last count pays something like $170,000 per year. here we have individual spending millions. something is definitely wrong. it is all about the money. it is all about the military- industrial complex. the dead bodies make more money than live wednesday. just keep the population down. it sounds rather crass, but it does seem to be that way. host: we will leave it there. jim, phoenix, ariz. caller: you read something from a journal -- i forget which one. it said the federal government says we have $1 billion or so for oil spills. i feel like not one penny of the taxpayers' dollars could be used to pay for this. i would like to demand our government free any governmentbp's assets to use that money directly to pay for this. that way we do not have to accept anything less. i do not trust them. i have not heard one big wig from bp come not to say anything about this. if our federal government does not confiscate the money, then i say to the people, let's shut down from mines in washington, d.c. demanding this. host: next, a phone call from queens, new york, republican line. caller: i would like to comment on the immigration issue. language is very important. people are not illegal aliens. actions are illegal, not people. no one here is from mars or venus. calling brothers, sisters, little children illegal aliens is disrespectful and inappropriate. look at the issue as people coming in here working hard. these people do not want to commit crimes. 95% are good, hard-working people who should have the opportunity to become citizens and continue to work hard. people are people, human beings. additionally, minority is a bad word. to call black people a minority as wrong as there are millions more of black people than anyone else on earth. host: next call, on the line for democrats. caller: yes. i don't think it is fair [unintelligible] host: should do something about the taxes? caller: a think it is very unfair the way the president has passed taxes. host: the next phone call comes on the line for independents from new jersey. caller: if we are supposed to go online and look at the budget for the defense department, a great deal of it is not accounted for. it is of black budget. much of the money we're giving to train forces is not accounted for. they have lost billions in afghanistan. there is nothing wrong with fortress america. we need to come back to being an independent, self-sufficient country. it is a contest between the citizens of this country and the globalists. there are gangs that are international money lenders and do not care about the people. we should urge the president to abrogate all the international trade riemann's and bring troops home immediately. people should consider the constitution party. host: next, california, randy. caller: thanks for keeping the train on the tracks. my comment is on the arizona law. i will be traveling to europe this summer and visit my mother- in-law for her birthday party. i will carry my passport. when it asked to see it i will show it. i don't think my civil rights are being violated at that time. so, what happens if there's a mexican-american caught in arizona who pulls over a white person? they have an eastern-european, or british accent? we got pulled over for speeding -- if he asks them for their driver's license or something to prove who they are, is that some kind of civil rights violation? i do not think so. by the way, i like meg whitman -- she has her own money. the unions will spend millions to keep the status quo. we cannot afford it. we do not need another schwarzenegger. we need a chris christie or somebody who will say enough is enough. host: tom, missouri. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about the oil spill. i do not believe the american taxpayer should bailout british petroleum. it is not bp, but british petroleum. look at their history -- a blasted pipeline. they put no money into maintenance or of keep. it was spilling oil in alaska. the refinery fire and explosion in houston that british petroleum owned, killing many workers there and injuring many others. now this spill in the gulf. the american taxpayer should not pay for this. the british petroleum assets should be frozen, and they should be made to pay. tourism is a big income for the gulf coastline. the fishing industries, all of them. just last week i heard it come now that exxonmobil -- 38% profit margin this last quarter. they did not give billions -- but 30%? in the business in the u.s. would love to make a 38% profit every quarter. -- but 38% you're lucky to make 10%. but exxonmobil makes 38%? oil of nearly $4 per gallon? they're making obscene profits. they are gouging american people. do you think british petroleum will cut the price of oil and gasoline, but we will build a mountain pay for all of this is in the gulf? absolutely not. host: lee, fort worth, texas. caller: good morning. listen, about a year-and-a-half ago do you remember -- host: yes? i'm trying to hear you. caller: do you remember about a year-and-a-half ago? host: ok. guy on the line for republicans from illinois. caller: good morning. this arizona thing, stopping people, i don't know if this is at random, but they have been doing this in illinois for the past few years. they have set up roadblocks and will stop -- usually not in black or hispanic areas, but white areas. the put roadblocks up and stop cars at random and ask for a driver's license, insurance cards, then if they can search your car. if they say yes, they will search. host: what happens if you say no? caller: i understand them they would not. but i don't know if you can refuse to give your driver's license, or insurance card. host: where is prospect heights? caller: the northwest, a suburban area of chicago. host: describe for me the mix in ethnicity of their backs caller: where they stop -- and definitely over the holidays. one area is 99areawhite. one roadblock began from the city limits all the way of to the wisconsin state line running through five or six different towns. host: i don't want to speak for the police, but it sounds like they might be looking for people who are driving while impaired?

Related Keywords

Alabama , United States , Plainfield , Florida , Sugarland , Texas , Connecticut , Mexico , Worcester , Massachusetts , Arizona , Chicago , Illinois , Japan , Mississippi River , Louisiana , Germany , Missouri , Afghanistan , Atlanta , Georgia , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Indiana , Virginia , Oregon , Cape Cod , Michigan , Puerto Rico , Seoul , Soul T Ukpyolsi , South Korea , Budapest , Hungary , Iraq , New Jersey , Capitol Hill , North Korea , France , Hawaii , Ann Arbor , Alexandria , Al Iskandariyah , Egypt , Alaska , China , California , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , New Orleans , , Georgetown University , New York , Tampa , Iran , Honolulu , Wisconsin , Taiwan , United Kingdom , Fort Wayne , Israel , Phoenix , Houston , Ohio , Yemen , Italy , South Wales , Utah , Italian , Americans , America , Yugoslavia , Mexican , Californians , Iranian , Afghan , French , British , Israeli , American , Russian , Britain , Soviet , Palestinian , Wever Murphy , Herbert Hoover , Marco Rubio , Lisa Jackson , Bobby Jindal , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Jack Murtha , Dan Burton , Ron Paul , Ronald Reagan , Mary Landrieu , George Bush , Charlie Crist , Jerry Brown , George Wallace , Ken Salazar , David Gregory , Rubio Crist , Chris Wallace , David Wasserman , Al Qaeda , Michael Douglas , Dick Cheney , Al Gore , Jay Leno , Kay Granger , Meg Whitman , Lyndon Johnson , Rhodes Cook , Chet Edwards , Hillary Clinton Janet , Scott Brown , Lamar Mckay , Robert Bennett , Bob Dole , Pat Buchanan , Patrick Buchanan , Bob Schieffer , Hillary Clinton Janet Napolitano , Rahm Emmanuel , Barack Obama , Jim Mcgovern , Thomas Brooklyn , Ken Mclaughlin , Kim Kardashian , Mario Cuomo , Patrick Gavin , Jake Tupper ,