Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20111204

-- he quit on someone else's terms. we will get your reaction to herman cain's announcement and where his support should go and what is next for the gop. here are the numbers to call. here is the lead item in the watch again post this sunday morning. the departure could boost newt gingrich's prospects. they say the question now is where the rest of came's backing is going to go. after an interview in iowa last week, gingrich responded, "the gingrich campaigned moved quickly to appeal to keane supporters. onto iowa where one newspaper does feel like mitt romney is the leader of the country needs. the sioux city journal has endorsed mitt romney. mitt romney stand out at the best choice, they write -- mitt romney gets the endorsement of the sioux city journal in iowa. there is more news from iowa this morning. it is actually good news for new cambridge. a new poll is out and he is on top. jennifer jacobs is a staff writer with the morning register. what do the numbers look like? >> it is all about newt gingrich. in second place is ron paul with 18%. mitt romney is in third place. there is a tie with michele bachmann and herman cain. next are the two rates -- rick santorum and rick perry. at the bottom, jon huntsman with 2%. >> give us some more of the details? >> we talked to 401 caucus goers. >> you write in the peace that gingrich's support stood at 7% in the most recent iowa poll. this fall was happening before the announcement yesterday. herman cain in the october poll had a 23% support. >> when we started polling, it was days before and he was at 12% in iowa. as we continue pulling, they really tanked. host: in the peace. with the poll, it also said there was a notable finding -- newt gingrich's ascendancy as further potential to grow. tell us more. guest: the intensity is there. they really like count on a number of different aspects. one big finding is that he has more supporters than any other candidate. he is the most reagan-like. he is the person who can turn around the economy. there are a number of the things they like about him. when you combine the first and second choice, he is actually at 43%. host: take us to the ground in iowa. how do you expect the leading candidates, beginning with newt gingrich, to approach the state in the remaining weeks before the caucuses? guest: newt gingrich says he cannot speak with his campaign donations. it looks like he will have the money to compete really well. his organization -- he has not been organizing very much for the last few months, which is a danger in iowa. this is where ron paul is very strong he could be a formidable opponent for newt gingrich. mitt romney also has an excellent organization here. his staff works very hard to get him organize. it is one to be an interesting race between now and the next lot to see who can get those people out on january 3. host: we know how important the organization is in iowa. guest: newt gingrich has not been on television at all in iowa, yet he shot up 18 points in the last month. ron paul -- newt gingrich as a seven point lead over ron paul. mitt romney started his advertising on friday. the message to try to appeal to the business-related republicans and independents. host: are there more polls coming? what are you looking for? guest: there are more coming. our last poll will be who do we think will win the iowa caucuses. host: jennifer jacobs of the "des moines register. thank you for the update this morning. newt gingrich with a "solid lead in iowa." to your calls on herrmann came in just a moment. the new york daily news as the deadline -- there is the front page of the new york times -- a photo of cornyn came with his wife, gloria. more on the papers, but first your calls. todd in michigan. what do you make of the news on herrmann came? caller: not much, just another distraction -- another candidate. as soon as the president is sworn in, all we hear about is the race to be the next president instead of concentrating on what the president is supposed to do for a living. it really is getting old. the problem with the political system today whether it is republican or democrat is that none of these random people have any courage, moral conviction, or any bases on reality of how the average american lives. host: does that mean you have no favor out there? caller: i have no favor. i stood in line for two hours to vote for zero -- to vote for barack obama. he has no courage or conviction. i would like to see him get angry once in a while to show he is a human being. host: what is to motivate you to vote and possibly for who? caller: i will probably just joined the occupied people downtown in detroit. host: david, a republican -- good morning. newt gingrich on top in the newest poll in iowa. what do you think? caller: i am a strong supporter of newt gingrich. i think he is very important. i think he would do a fine job for us. host: what did you think would you heard the herman cain announcement? caller: i am a little sorry it had to turn out this way. i think a lot of herman cain and i thought he did a fine job. to get things set to turn out the way they did. i do not think they are necessarily his fault. host: capt. from chicago on the line for democrats. herman cain is out of the race. what are your thoughts? caller: i did not think much about him when he was in the race. he was just there to entertain. he was not serious about running for president. everybody that knows that knows that. america is in dire need and in serious trouble. why are we playing with is people we know do not have our best intentions in mind? herman cain supporters -- i would not give it to michele bachmann nor huntsman because as soon as the scandal broke on herrmann kane, they came out with negative comments. now all of a sudden they are giving glowing reviews about herman cain. host: who do you think benefits most at this point? caller: he should give his support to president obama because president obama is there. if the republicans would let the debt obama do his job, he would do his job for everybody. they say he does not have a backbone. so what if he does not sit up there and cry? he is busy trying to get this country back on track. host: here is a passage from the new york times piece on herman cain -- a little bit more from the times this morning -- here is more from herman cain yesterday. >> these faults and all unproved allegations continue to be spend in the media and in the court of public opinion so as to create a cloud of doubt over me and this campaign and my family. that spin hurts. it hurts my wife, it hurts my family, it hurts me, and it hurts the american people because you are being denied solutions to our problems. host: herrmann came from yesterday in atlanta. a corresponding photograph from the new york times. "the continued distractions, the continued hurt." to maine. caller: i was a little disappointed that he bowed to the media on this. he stepped out of the raised based on accusations. they can say anything they want. i think that shows how the media screws up everything. host: why not stay in and fight it? caller: maybe he is going through more and verbal assaults and hassles than we are aware of by the media. it is becoming more of a distraction on his part, maybe. host: we appreciate your thoughts. rate from pennsylvania, republican. good morning. caller: my thoughts on her mccain are he was basically a nonstarter from the get go because his ideas concerning 9- 9-9, the 19 being a federal sales tax -- i do not think the republicans will go for a new tax from the federal government. what i think a permit -- we're acting herman cain's support should go? it should go to ron paul because he is the only one dead serious about seriously cutting the your guy? caller: probably. i think he is the best one i see although newt gingrich is very intelligent and has great ideas. i just don't know if i can trust him. but if he comes out on top i will probably vote for him. romney i can't really vote for him. host: we have larry on the line for democrats as we look at this cartoon in the "new york post" regarding herman cain. from mississippi now. caller: cain was in the race to sell a book. he was not qualified to be president. and to one caller the president does have a backbone. he is fighting for the middle class against corporations and the republicans. and the republicans said from day one their number one job is to get the president out of office and he still tried to work with them. he still tried to work with them after they said that and why should he -- if i had been here i wouldn't work with them when they said that. have a nice day, sir. host: you, too, larry. one viewer by twitter has the same point as larry. it is the best way to sell books. i'm sure he made a bundle. cain will be fine. we will take your messages by twitter and read facebook comments. cspanwj is our twitter. stanley, independent, earned, south carolina. caller: i'm disappointed that he bowed to the pressure from the media. also i was wondering why all of those allegations came when he started running for president. host: brooklyn, new york, republican. caller: i would like to say i'm disappointed by kraeup leaving the race. but being a conservative black man and i'm a black woman and the caller you had about the democrats, about obama fighting for us. he only does it when it is time to campaign. he isn't a good president and he doesn't have any backbone. host: let's go to ron in eaton, north carolina, democrat. good morning, ron. ron, are you there? ron in north carolina. how about michael in elkhart, indiana, independent. caller: good morning. i just want to say how i feel that cain's downfall is contributing to newt gingrich. i feel like all of these individuals are very similar. both of them are very much in love with themselves. and i also feel that both of womanizers. the difference there being that gingrich, when he has an affair he divorces the ex and moves on to the new one and cain leaves his wife on the back burner. host: this is the front page. "atlanta journal-constitution" where kraeup had his announcement -- cain had the announcement yesterday. pulled up in a bus, watched it on c-span. sexual allegations hurt his family and vows he will still be a force. more from herman cain from yesterday. >> but as false accusations about me continue, they have sidetracked and distracted my ability to present solutions to the american people. host: the "washington post" career marked by outsized pursuit, suspension of campaign is rare departure for a man who strove to make a name for he himself in grand fashion. he was always a man in a hurry even before his improbable and peculiar campaign. he expands five decades endlessly seeking the next big thing. he writes that in the end the allegations of sexual impropriety and campaign's muddled response forced him to do what he almost never has done in his gold-plated career, quit on someone else's terms. kensington, maryland, kimberly, democrat. >> good morning, how are you? host: i'm doing well, how are you? caller: i'm good. i'm disappointed that herman cain continues to blame the med media, it is not the media who told him to have a relationship with somebody and not tell his wife. it is not the media's fault that other allegations came out. if you can't take allegations against you how are you going to take dealing with death threats as a president? how are you going to take dealing with fortune policy issues and dealing with things like osama bin laden. dealing with the things that he was dealing with are nothing compared to things a president has to deal with on a daily basis. if he cannot deal with somebody making allegedly false allegations you can't deal with pirates in somalia or unions going on strike. i don't think he is prepared. he was dealing with is nothing compared to what any president deals with on an hourly basis. host: great. grace from long beach, new york, independent. caller: good morning. i think cain was a joke from the beginning. he kept getting things wrong. and also another thing, gingrich, i consider him to be a con man. host: how? caller: because i remember way back when he was in office. he was a con man back then. whatever went his way he took. whatever didn't go his way he threw away. he was a con man. mitt romney, i sort of like him. but he will go any way the wind blows, too. there is nobody to vote for this year. what does that mean for you when you go to the polls, grace? caller: i haven't decided yet. host: whether are you going to be looking for from the remaining folks? caller: well, i guess obama is our best bet. host: ok. another viewers writes by twitter i feel sorry for americans if all it takes to eliminate the strongest candidate is parade some woman with complaints. john from long island. what do you make of the condition of your party and the now?dates caller: i strongly believe that herman cain was a good guy, he was generous. but he has zero [inaudible]. it kind of [bleep] me off because he is a pizza guy. he is the pizza guy. he is running for president. i'm young, i worked on many campaigns. i feel like i could be herman cain if i ran for president. it is sad. host: this is e-mail. this withdrawal is interesting our hidden overloads. a way to push the framing of things so that what would look insane looks sane is to the really insane. host: francis is on the line for democrats. caller: hi. i just want to say i think it is wrong how people are cutting president obama down because look how he went after osama bin laden. he did it under cover, did it smoothly and did his job. that cain's wife is sick and he decided to bow out. that is his right. so, i hope people would wake up and see what obama has done for our country without the help of the republicans. have a good day. host: joan from nashville, tennessee. caller: hi. i want to make a couple of comments about herman cain. first of all, i think that he did america and himself a good by stopping at this point because i think that the man can't handle the three p's as i call it. he can't handle politics. he is a egotistical person that can't handle power. and he has a characteristic weak p weakness that is common to his gender. i would also like to say that it is unfortunate that so many of the republicans seem to pick such poor quality candidates. they don't really give independents much of a choice. they pick people who can't think, who are not competent and experienced to lead our nation, and people of poor character. so, again, i think like the other caller said, president obama is a man of good character, he is doing a competent job under bad circumstances and i don't see why everybody doesn't just go with him. host: joan is an independent in nashville. another independent line from new york. bernie. caller: good morning. i would like to comment. i'm an independent truly in the name that i voted for ralph nader the last few times not as a protest but leaning in that direction. as far as herman cain goes i don't condone his conduct but he had good offhand i'm sure he would have had surrounded himself with good advisors. we have forgotten the old saying anybody can be president. we seemed to look up to policeman who can lead us and i think some are being led over the cliff. i grew up in the 1950's and it wasn't the real world wasn't that way. we eventually knew that but i enjoyed growing up then and people have to realize if you want to have an ozzie and harriett candidate he probably doesn't exist so take the man for warts and all and give him a shot. host: herman cain does say he will put his support toward one of the candidates soon. here is a little bit more of what he had to say personally about his decision yesterday. >> i am at peace with my god. i am at peace with my wife. and she is at peace with me. >> moving things forward a little bit before we get back to calls here is the front cover of the new edition of "time" magazine features mitt romney, a portion of his face but why don't they like me? for republican hearts and minds by joe klein. here is c.q. weekly newt gingrich running on his record he was as partisan as he was passionate. it is a portrait that carries risks as he aims higher. you look inside they write it this way this morning. his is a campaign premised on a record of getting things done in a divided government with a nation weary of paralysis. a portion of the credit is debatable but things did happen on his watch. the budget was balanced, welfare was overhauled and taxes cut. but if he was that great a speaker why did his colleagues try to oust him and americans give him approval rating of 0% and why do so many politicians ask when politics get so poisonous he brings a history of unrelenting partisanship which americans do not like and which is not on the surface combat believe with ending gridlock. harold, a democrat now from louisiana. caller: i would like to make a comment about mr. cain and i'm a democrat. like i said, mr. cain had the m impropriety, if he had just came out and admit that he had some shortcomings in that area, he would have been fine. but the american people take that as a lie because all those women are not going to come out and make allegations that are unfounded. i think they are true and i think that he should have stayed in the race and he should have stayed in the race for one simple reason. if he really had the intention of becoming a nominee and gave clarity to the accusations made against him, you don't run from accusations if you are unfounded. you stand up and fight they will. second of all, the second thing is, they need to throw that at gingrich, too. regardless if it happened five him or 10 years ago they need to disband him also. as far as the current president, president obama, he has done a lot of things to correct the problems that were initiated or started before he became president. and they have one objective, the g.o.p. has one objective and that is to make him a one-term president. how can you get any cooperation from a party that has no intention of doing anything favorable to get this country moving? host: thanks for cualling. another caller brett from louisiana. what is your reaction to the herman cain decision and what is ne next? caller: i think they were pretty scared of herman cain. i think they were hoping that romney would be the guy. but i think newt gingrich will surprise them. i think that the president ought to be nervous about debating beginning rich because he is -- beginni gingrich is pretty smart. one thing about the country right now, i don't support the president's policies but i'm not disrespectful to the president. i think there is a lot of disrespectful things going on where people are just too negative about things. host: more e-mails. the comical diversion had no chance for serious conversation. that levers the probability of a host: another viewer writes from north carolina. the primary process this time is important in revealing the mainstream media's bias and hypocrisy in reporting on the candidates. the prime examples of this is the coverage of the bill clinton and obama campaigns. clinton had his bimbo baggage and mr. obama had his radical friends but they were glossed over by the literal press. now jack on the line from georgia for independents. caller: i was looking at it. cain wasn't going to win but i don't think that he couldn't be a good president. ut i don't believe the -- the republicans hate president obama so bad they would never let another black man run against another black man to win the presidency. host: back to newt gingrich and mitt romney. "new york post" staten island tea party think newt is a beaut. he got a heroes welcome as he and ed president obama dismissed the heady complaints of former g.o.p. colleagues in congress. he gave red meat to the conservative faithful mocking obama for action the canada to texas pipeline. mitt romney is in many different places this morning. here is the front cover of "parade" magazine. you haven't seen yet. the g.o.p. candidate talks about his family, faith and his hopes for america. here is t"new york times" this sunday morning. why mitt romney is not falling down, a piece by robert draper. inside you will see a shot of here at the peterboro townhouse in new hampshire last month. a little bit of the text they right his campaign is decided upon a rather novel approach to winning the presidency. it has taken a smart and highly qualified but largely colorless candidate and made him o one-dimensional. all businessman. the most boring super hero. in the recent past they have struggled to clear the regular guy. dukakis couldn't emote even asked what he would do if his wife were rape and murdered. george bush was befuddled by a grocery store scanner. they go on to talk more about the romney campaign and it is in "new york times" magazine today. the world's most boring super hero is one cut line. salisbury, north carolina, max, republican, organic. caller: i would like to comment on cain resigning. i was very impressed with the guy and looked at his leadership as a businessman. he screwed up, there is no question about that. and i'm sorry for him and his family. but let me say one thing about where we go as american people in selecting leaders. george bush -- i'm a republican -- he was not a leader. his brother in florida, general bush, wasn't a leader. they were elected governor of big states that would eventually help them become president if they ran because their daddy was president. obama was a student at harvard. these are not foundations to as president. we need people with proven leadership ability. if you look at what is happening to the country, every time we put a person in there that doesn't have this leadership and the weight of already behind him, the nation starts getting trouble and it is getting in deeper trouble because one person that wasn't a leader just went out and another one that was not a leader we put him in and we continue to repeat the same old problem over and over. let me say this about newt. this guy has real, real leadership. all you have to do is don't go back and try to see if he ever made a mistake or screwed up anywhere and hammer him. let's look at the guy, the weight behind him. he balanced the budget. this is what made bill clinton popular. bill clinton was another one that wasn't a leader. he almost couldn't get elected as governor of a little state of arkansas. so we go on and on and finally hit the problem and we've got solution. quit electing people that are not leaders. host: that was max from north carolina. karen is now on the democratic line from florida caller: in my opinion, cain's campaign was doomed to fail basically because he was myopic and design phonetic. he didn't include all of america campaign and i'm sure not every campaign does but with america moving toward a global pa pace, cain's campaign couldn't fit. i am democrat. on the republican side i really think that ron paul is about the best candidate because he speaks to the issues, he doesn't shy from things. but if i was republican i would be voting for ron paul. host: the cartoon in the daily news of new york newt's new york they have here the cartoonist, a shot of mr. gingrich arriving, big i love salad -- i love staten island t-shirt. he promises to earn it. his is a "washington post" piece. they write who confidently predicted with abc thursday that he would be the nominee romney's team handed out buttons that read "earn it" at an early morning rally as supporters are ready for a day of door knocking. more from the campaign trail. more calls in a moment or two. i want to tell you about a couple of upcoming programs. the next segment on this will be here to talk more about politics. if you don't get in now hang on. that will go another 45 minutes. we will go to 8:30. and there is news makers. gene spurling will be our guest with a replay. he will talk about many things economic including the drop in unemployment numbers friday. >> we have seen solid job growth over the last several months. there's been 1.7 million private sector jobs created this year. so, if this was a typicalier you might think this was not great but a satisfactory pace. when you are coming back from such a deep recession, the worst since the great depression, it is not nearly good enough. you have to have much more robust growth, much more robust job growth to get the type of job creation that will start bringing the unemployment rate down at a more serious level. host: he is director of the white house national economic council. he will be our guest after this program at 10:00 eastern with a remay 6:00 p.m. eastern time. here is an update on george mcgovern, stable condition after a fall. he fell friday in preparation for a program with us. our contenders program. here is the -- here is the cbs news write-up. he was alert, comfortable and in at a hospital n in south dakota after hitting his head during a fall. he is 89. he was taken by chopper to a sioux falls hospital friday. he family outside a library in mitchell. on the pavement about two hours before he was set to appear on a live program with us at the library. he is alert and resting comfortably but as with any head injury it is important to observe it closely says a doctor out there. he is stable after a fall. we wish him well. el paso, texas, the next call on the cain campaign. john, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what are your thoughts on herman cain pulling out? i think is he is another puppet of the new world order. host: what do you mean by that? caller: we get a lot of the same candidates -- host: john, are you still there? we lost john. let's hear from michael who is a republican from lemoyne, pennsylvan pennsylvania. what do you think about the condition of your party's candidate? who do you like? caller: i thought that newt would come out and surge ahead and it has happened and i'm very happy. one thing with cain suspending his campaign, he scared me with his 999. i think that would have been disastrous for low income and seniors. also, newt has a lot of experience and i think that he is maturing and it is time for us to put a strong candidate in there. i think that he will be best for the party. the last thing about mr. cain, the way he bowed out did give me a sigh of relief that he didn't turn in another ross perot and split the party and take away our votes. basically, i was happy with his speech yesterday. it is unfortunate to see anybody ma making that dent and have to pull out on a scam. i think that it is best for the party. host: patrick from newcastle, delaware, democratic line. patrick, are you there? caller: good morning. glad to see that cain dropped out. he was a joke as far as i could see. he had no experience and just a clown. as far as gingrich, i can't see how anybody could vote for him. he took $1.6 million from freddie mac and basically doing nothing. for amnesty for the illegals. he is a womanizer. he was fined offense $300,000 for unethical conduct when he was speaker of the house and worst of all, in he became president the republicans would control the white house and the house of representatives and they would destroy the middle class. as far as mr. obama, president obama, i wish he would stand up to the republicans and also to israel. it is time somebody stood up to them. i have a question for you guys. host: go ahead. caller: do you have a special line for black callers? it seems like half the callers are black. host: we will move on. we have within last call. i want to read this editorial from the weekly standard. they say we do not know. talking about the the republican race here. it could be someone not yet in the race. if the beginning rich summer turns in a newt bubble and if there tense to be the present level of resistance to romney anyone from mick huckabee to sarah palin, chris christie, mitch daniels, general bush or somebody else -- jeb bush could be dragged in the race the next of months. a newcomer could conceivably win. we do not know who the nominee will be nor do we know who the nominee should be. we do not know. nashville, tennessee, our last call. republican caller. go ahead, please. caller: good morning. i just want everyone to realize that this was a well orchestrated hatchet job. ing.as a high tech lynch host: go ahead and finish up, caller. caller: this started with the national restaurant association and richard bailey, who is obama's chief of staff, his former executive he was defending one of these accusers with their bankruptcy. isn't that amazing? another one works for the obama administration. isn't that amazing? this is so similar to what clarence thomas experienced. clarence thompson -- clarence thomas has served this nation well. host: i am going to let you go. as we looked at the herman cain campaign, he announced yesterday that he is spending saturday night -- here is a clip from the program. >> we are close to each other. last night, we had an intimate, productive discussion. >> that is when you told her about the affair. >> i said nothing about an affair. i am innocent until proven guilty. [laughter] >> that is definitely on libya. >> [laughter] this is an example of the media at sabotaging me. host: from last night's " saturday night live." rhodes cook will be along in a moment. a lot more politics when we return. >> we will hear a discussion of today's headlines beginning at noon when we re-air talk shows. president obama is campaign strategist david axelrod. at 1:00, "this week" with barney frank. also, a former pennsylvania senator rick santorum. also on the problem -- also on the program, angelina jolie. at 2:00, it is a fox news sunday. chris wallace talks with michele bachmann. they will discuss the congressional debate on the federal deficit. state of thecnn's " union." former white house budget director and former congressional budget office director on the november unemployment report. at 4:00, "face the nation" from cbs. it begins at noon on c-span radio. listen to them all on c-span radio on 90.1 fm in the washington, d.c., area. listen online anywhere at cspanradio.org. >> he did not have a lot of our romantic ideas. he saw it for what it was, a dirty business. >> documentary film producer examines the life of the cia spymaster, his father, william colby. >> if you watched the film closely, and steady him, he is a soldier. he took on the toughest assignments given to him by the presidents from eisenhower on. when it came time for the president to ask him to lie and mislead congress, he could not do it. >> tonight, at 8:00 on c-span. >> i look at why the country does well or why it does not, i think it is a values thing. it is not natural resources. these are to really crucial values. do you think the future can be different than the present? do you believe you can control your future? these are not universal. >> later today, your questions for david bruck said. he will take your calls, e- mails, -- david brooks. he will take your e-mails, calls, and treats. -- tweets. >> "washington journal" continues. host: at the table now for more politics is rhodes cook. he is one of the many headlines on the herman cain campaign. who benefits at this point? guest: you would have to look at newt gingrich. they seem to of had a cordial relationship. they did a forum to gather in texas -- to gather in texas. i would think that gingrich might benefit first. herman cain was a businessman and was running on economic issues. one might think that maybe a few of his voters might go to rob me -- romney. others might sprinkle out. host: one of the big news makers is the new poll that came out last night in iowa. it has newt gingrich solidly on top, leaving would be three- candidate race. the poll was taken before herman cain dropped out of the race. newt gingrich is on top. we have put on the screen the actual numbers. gingrich has support forum 25%. ron paul, 18%. mr. romney, 16%. >> newt gingrich is the front- runner in iowa right now. i am not sure i would go beyond that. i remember a panel i did in new hampshire. islam the thrust was howard dean -- the thrust was how howard dean would be against george w. bush. there is a lot that can happen in the last few weeks before the iowa vote. and usually does. if we remember back to 2003 in the democratic race, dain fell apart in the last week of the campaign. he was arguing with gephardt a lot and that allowed to carry and add words to sneak into the top two spots. -- to john kerrey and john edwards to sneak into the top two spots. i am intrigued by ron paul. he did not do well in the early stage in 2008. he only got 10% in iowa. that shows he might have a much stronger candidacy this time around. guest: looking ahead, there is this "time" magazine cover that says, "why don't they like me?' " how would you answer that question? guest: they did not like richard nixon, either. many republicans -- i do not think they'll like john mccain that much. it is more of a question of competence, and does he will lead to the issues of the day? in this case, mitt romney is pitching his campaign that way. the matter that they do not like him is not so great right at the moment. it could be a problem in the primaries. that could become a problem. if we look ahead from here, a sumi is a nominee to the general election, i think it is the republican voters who would bring the intensity. not the candidate. they're just wanting to vote for someone other than obama. host: we will keep the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen. before we do get to calls, what is the biggest difference in iowa and new hampshire? guest: and i did not know. i would have to think about that. the two states are voting about exactly the same dates. >> one week apart. >> right after the holiday season. you do not have a candidate like john mccain in new hampshire, who successfully blocked medtronic there in 2008. that is the big difference. in iowa, -- mitt romney is hedging his bets in iowa this time around. both states are going to test whether the republican party has moved further to the right. we will save. the endorsement from new hampshire should be helpful and make that state more interesting. host: first called for our guest. caller: i would like to -- i would like to say that george w. bush was a harvard mba businessman. look what's that got us. secondly, no businessman shares the government with two other equal branches. thank you. guest: george w. bush was running back in 2000, the economy was booming. it was not as great an issue as it is this time around in the middle of the economic distress we're having now. i would say that credential is more of an asset for mr. romney that it was for mr. bush 12 years ago. host: we hear from illinois right now. caller: did herman cain drop out of the race for the same reason that a poker player folds? i understand that he is at peace with his god. he probably remembers that god is all merciful. i also wonder if he remembers that god is all just. caller: i am just wondering if we should take a snapshot approach to where we are today. we have a middle-class that is faltering. it seems to be slipping more in more into poverty. we are perceived as being weak in the world's eyes. it makes me wonder, should we not look at where we are today and try to figure out, do we have true leadership available? host: true leadership, he is looking for. guest: that word seems to be coming up more and more. especially for people like newt gingrich. in these times, the leadership question will take on increasing imports. i would not be surprised if we are hearing that more and more as we get closer to the election. yes, i think it is a very good point. host: here is the front cover of "cq weekly." we also read that lawmakers or art nervous about his rise. why is that? guest: he offers great potential and great risk. he has a lot of baggage that everyone acknowledges. he is not -- he has not raised that much money yet. these are things that you would like to have a candidate have already proved. at the same time, he is a -- it is hard to see him as a washington insider in temperament. he is something of a more of the revolutionary figure. he has the personality and is credited with having innovative ideas and you put these together, it does create a lot of electricity for him. he could carry a long way. we do not know. whether he be a successful candidate or a walter mondale. host: timothy, a democrat, good morning. caller: i would like to get in on the conversation, related to ney.-rome host: what are your thoughts? caller: america has lost track of the english language. because they do not like him, it is based on the fact that he is not like them. we tend to batter back and forth on this linear dialogue of wanting someone who is like us or like me. it ends up that america is getting to a point where it is just a matter of stupidity when we tried to rationalize how we run a country on someone based on just you. "like" ear the word coming up constantly. if you look in the dictionary and analyze the terms you are using, "like me" is not the way this country should run. a great number of people who are calling in and are suffering in the nation are being moved into a category where they can analyze reality. host: before you respond, let me add to this "new york times" magazine piece. but those two pieces together, if you could. guest: that might be true. of this election as a referendum on president obama's storage shed, the economy -- stewardship and. you are describing him as good enough. on the other hand, it is interesting that the previous caller was talking about romney not being like us. us in general, i guess. there have been rich people who have been elected president. starting with fdr. he was quite rich and aristocratic, but he was able to connect with the average american. he connected so effectively, he to hislled a trade waitor class by many wealthy americans. mitt romney seems is it -- seems to not go the fdr route. corporations are people, too. it is indicating that you -- or affinities lie more in the newly found 1% them with the rest of the electorate. it could be a problem. host: you mentioned president obama. what do you think they are thinking over at the white house? guest: they seem to have gone after rodney early and often. i am not sure if it is to their advantage to do that. they come across as all two political, as opposed to being presidential. he does not have a primary to go through. the acting presidential for another six months and stayed above the fray. that would be equally effective. but they have chosen a more hardball approach. we will see if it works or not. host: moving on to frederick, maryland. caller: in my opinion, the reason why people do not like mitt romney is because he is too much like obama. heat is not your typical republican candidate. he is laid back, he is drama- free. he does have support for the poor and middle class. that is the problem when looking at to republican candidates. republican voters love a loudmouth. that is not the way you win elections. romney's demeanor is what we look for any president. when you take a look at gingrich, the reason why he is he is very different from the old gingrich. he is tall and down a little bit. he is taking things a little slow because he realizes that republican or democrat, you cannot win elections will acting that way. that is why people do not like mitt romney. his demeanor is very similar to obama. host: before we get a response, let's take a look at mitt romney's new ads in iowa. >> i spent my life in the private sector. i've competed with companies around the world. i have learned something about how it is that the economy's growth. we will have to cut spending. i am in favor of cutting spending, capping -- capping federal spending at 20% or less. the right answer for america is to stop what goes to the federal government and start the growth in the private sector. host: rhodes cook, this ad is noted for not mentioning the other candidates. guest: he is running more of and above the fray campaign. it is a classic front-runner strategy and. unfortunately, he is not the front-runner. it might be just to -- maybe you could sneak in in iowa. he probably won't. it reminds me of some of the great frontrunning campaigns in the past. sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. host: victor, republican, houston. caller: i want to thank you for appearing to be a non biased reporter, for once. i want to make a comment. i think it is sad that the american public seems to have their hands out for the government and is constantly depending on government. we are a country built by people who had to withstand challenges. the whole republican-democratic segregation of sorts really upsets me. i think our country needs to come together as a people. stop basing it on race as well. i am a high-school dropout, but to date i have a multimillion- dollar company. i never have the government tell me or anybody else. it was a lot of the uphill struggle, but i had my eyes on the prize. i never looked for somebody to give it to me. host: who is best to lead the country? caller: i just came back from three weeks of the country. i was saddened when rick perry faulted the way he did. it was obvious to me that the guy did not know what he was doing at the debate. it appears mitt romney is a man that knows what he's doing. he has the experience. his last had made an impact on me. host: thank you for your observations. guest: two things -- the division within the country these days between the two sides, to parties, -- two parties, and how they represent two totally different approaches to government. this is something that we have not had this clear-cut distinction between the parties. gov. wallacecke, was running as a third-party candidate. he would say, there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. in the last few elections, we have gotten into the opposite of that. there are clear-cut choices. if you move beyond that, elections matter, and they have high stakes. they have taken on a much more sense of urgency about them because both sides are coming from different directions. at the same time, i do not know how we get into the second part of what this person was raising about how the u.s. needs to come together. given the current environment, i am not sure how we will do that. that is frustrating. to find an answer to that basic problem of basic congeniality, you know, in politics. we seem to have misplaced that. host: new york city, manhattan, a democrat. caller: good morning, america. hopefully, you guys will be as engaging to me as you were to the last caller. the idea that you do not know why it is such a separation between the democrats and republicans today, i find kind of weird. we all know what that -- this country's economy is bad because of george bush taking as to two wars. it was his prescription drug plan. that needs to stay in the forefront. that is what president obama had to deal with. if you look at obama at the table, you had republicans on one side and democrats on the other. it was, we will destroy this man. for me personally, when i am -- what i am upset about is newt gingrich and how there is nobody talking about this man talking about kids mopping the floor is because they were poureor. how about a kid of a fluent parents mopping their flores said they would know what it means to work? it sounds to me like george wallace, what he wanted to do. guest: i did not think -- i think i was saying that i do not understand how we rage that gulf nowadays. i think he reflects the stridency -- i do not mean that negatively. the strongly held opinion on each side. if you look at polls, all the republicans would probably vote against obama and almost all democrats would vote for obama. the independents split about evenly. that is one way to get to a 50- 50 nation. there are strongly held opinions out there and it is hard to answer or to comment. at the same time, that is or politics is. it is not a totally bad place. i think people are more engaged now in politics than they have been in many years. that leads to high rates of the voting and i think that aspect is all for the good. host: an independent scholar is? . how might that independent votes move one way or the other? guest: i do not know if i could say much beyond the fact that the independent vote will be the key determiner of the election. it has been in the last few elections because you do not find many people splitting off from their own party anymore. there is a lock step for republicans behind republicans and democrats behind democrats. how they play out, i think everyone is watching that. host: christopher, new mexico. caller: i want to make a comment about why no one likes mitt romney. it is about how americans -- i think it is about trust. i do not know if you can trust a man like mitt romney, nuking bridge, herman cain. -- newt gingrich, herman cain. the man we need in the white house is ron paul. he is the man and wants to uphold the constitution. what we love about this country is our constitution. ron paul is the only one that will uphold that. i put my trust in ron paul and a lot of other americans do, too. guest: it is interesting that he called and on the independent line. as i indicated in reaction to that poll, i was impressed by how well ron paul was doing in iowa. about twice as well as he did back in 2008. that is an indication that he may be a much bigger player in the republican nominating process that the media are expecting. he tends to be overlooked because he has been zero rounds for a while. -- because he has been around for a while. second time around can be different. mitt romney, himself, is helping. -- hoping. host: explain how the primaries are laid out this year and what you will be looking for. guest: it is quite different than 2008. people have to keep that in mind. there has been a tremendous amount of entasis -- emphasis in the media put on those first court states. each is increasingly important as you go along. in 2008, florida was followed a week later by a huge super tuesday vote, which encompassed about half of the country. by the end of that day, most of the states had voted. most of the country had voted. next year, february will be an intermission. after florida votes, there is nearly a month until arizona and michigan have their primaries. super tuesday is a month later than it was last year. it is much smaller. it will be about half the size, maybe 10 or 11 states. after that, we will have about 60% of the delegates to be selected. in california, which was february fed last time, it is an early june. it is a back loaded process from what it was. it will be harder and slower to accumulate a nominating majority. there is an additional rules that republicans have that says you cannot have a winner take all primary until april. everything before that, you have to divide the delegates. that slows down the accumulation of delegates. the idea of a quick knockout -- if mitt romney won the first four events, he would be in the driver's seat, but even then, you could not say that he had a knockout. you have a possibility of a late entrant candidate. the parameters are lot different, you know, in 2012. it starts out the same for that month of january, but after that, people have to keep in mind that after that, it is not compressed. expect a much longer process for the republicans. host: just under 10 minutes left with our guest. caller: i want to make a couple of comments. ok, i was a lifelong democrat. i just switched to a republican. host: why? caller: i am 51 years old. i want to vote for ron paul. he is the only one who truly want to make drastic cuts. i would rather have a brighter future for our children. i am glad that he wants to bring the military home. and worry about america for a change. protest mentioned newt gingrich in the tea party -- your guest mentioned newt gingrich and the tea party in the same sentence. ron paul is the only true tea party. donald trump is going to be monitoring -- moderating a debate. that is going to be a circus. i was wondering how you felt about donald trump moderating something. guest: i had not given it much thought. it is another interesting event in the evolution of the presidential campaigning. i am not against things that are interesting and out of the box. i think this is one of them. mike huckabee had his own forum last night on his show. i guess heat moderated and had some questioners corestates attorneys generals for the republicans. that was a bit different. debates seem to be where the voters are getting much of their information this time around. there is less in the advertising that you show. and more emphasis on how the candidate to do in these presidential debates. the more different forms, the better. host: we have an ad from president obama. we will take a short look. >> i am barack obama and i approve this message. it starts with one person making a decision. things need to change and they will help change them. that person finds another person who shares their values. before long, a neighborhoods come together, communities organized, a move which builds. it all starts with you. making a decision to get involved. we have so much work to do. host: the approach by president obama. guest: it was not an issue ad. it was about building a campaign organization or revitalizing. trying to energize the base. that is interesting and probably smart politics. he does not have a primary of any sort. to test his organization and the like. it is probably good to remind his supporters that there is an election coming up and he is going to need their help. host: a couple of calls. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would lead people to remember -- i would like people to remember some names. the one they signed a contract with. is that not illegal? for them to do that? gaddafi, osama bin laden, and i cannot think of the third one. i am getting as stupid as the other idiot out of texas. guest: i think my thought the little further -- go a little further. regarding the importance of other players. it is not just the candidate, not the parties. you have people who are interested in particular causes who are playing an increasing role in our political campaigns. she mentioned grover norquist, an anti-tax leader you're in washington. -- here in washington. we have a different system of campaign financing now in 2012 than we did the last time. we have the super pacs in existence. groups can raise unlimited amounts of money and help candidates if they do not contact them. they are a loose cannon in the electoral process. something to be watched and something to also make this 2012 campaign different than any other one we have had before. host: one last call for our guest. caller: thank you for taking my call this morning. another caller made the comment they feel like mitt romney and president obama were very similar. to me, it is more like newt's gingrich and the president are similar. mitch romney is more of the polished politician and he is going to be the bigger player. if you look at the mitt romney campaign, -- does he think that is going to work? guest: i do not know. we are 11 months out from the next election. at this point, the one thing you can say is we do not know what is going to work and what does not plan to work. in terms of one side versus the other. we do not know where we will be economically. we do not know what will happen down the international stage. we do not know what -- we do not know who the nominees are or what the ticket will look like or how difficult the primaries will be for the republican party. it is fairly safe to say right at the moment that it has the makings of another very close election. there will be a lot of factors that will go into determining the outcome. host: our guest has been rhodes cook. we appreciate your time and your insight. in a moment, a look at bills in congress to ban insider trading. we'll be right back. >> he did not have a lot of romantic ideas about spying. he saw it for what it was. dirty business. >> documentary film producer caral colby examines the life of a spymaster, his father, william colby. >> if you watch them closely and steady him, he is a soldier. he took on the toughest, dirtiest assignments given to him by the presidents from eisenhower on. when it came time for the president to ask him to lie and to mislead congress, he could not do it. >> carl colby on his father william colby. >> i look at why a country does well or why it does not, i think it is a values thing. it is not natural resources. do you believe the future can be different than the present? do you believe you can control your future? these are not universal spirit -- these are not universally. >> your questions for david brooks. he will take your calls and e- mails on a variety of topics. live today at noon on booktv on c-span2. >> television can be a teacher. if we are going to have a debate and you do the affirmative side of the debate, you can make a positive point. >> tuesday, a subcommittee meets to discuss televising the supreme court. you can learn more about the issue online at c-span.org. see articles and editorials from across the country. argue also find a link to to play list with videos of justices and members of congress talking about cameras in the the court. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest now is robert walker. he is a former director of the senate ethics committee chief counsel and staff. insider trading by members of congress is our topic. a lot of buz on the hill -- buzz on the hill. guest: there is classic insider trading, up when there is someone who is an insider in the company, a director or an employee, when one of those insiders is in possession of material, nonpublic information about that company's securities and goes out and trades on it. we can get into the definition of nonpublic, if you want to. there is another theory on insider trading, it was endorsed by the supreme court in 1997 in a decision. insider trading approach under the misappropriation. . that is where you have an outsider from the company to use this material information to trade, but is information they had a duty to its source to keep confidential. the source does not have to be the corporation. it can be any entity to which they owe a duty of confidentiality. that would be insider-trading under the misappropriations. host: let me put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen. there is a lot of opinion out there on this topic. separate lines for republicans, democrats, and independents. our guest is robert walker. up to this point, mr. walker, how has the law or any rules or guidelines addressed this issue? guests from that is an interesting question there is -- there is no insider-trading law at all for anybody. insider-trading is an offense, it either to be enforced by the fcc or the department of justice. it is an offense that is based on the violation of an sec rule. in terms of addressing insider- trading, there is no statute addressing insider-trading on the hill. it is my view and in view of a number of scholars and that under the misappropriations periods, members of staff and congress are liable to insider- trading charges. there is no specific rule that addresses insider-trading. there are congressional ethics rules which can capture. there is the code of ethics for government service that says that no government employee you should use information coming to them confidentially in the course of their duties for personal profit. that may be used and can be used to capture insider-trading by members and staff of the house and senate. there is a general standard of conduct that members and staff should not reflect discredit on the institution. that may be used. there may be some other rules. in terms of gardens, -- guidance, there has not been recently guidance with respect to insider-trading. just a few days ago, the house ethics committee issued and advisory memorandum which addresses members and personal financial transactions. host: here is a look at the memorandum from november 29. before we get to calls, we will show a john boehner em from the "60 minutes" interview. >> i think there are plenty of rules of the house and certainly rules from being sec -- from the sec that members follow. >> you bought some insurance stocks right before you declared the public option in debt. did you make those trades based on non-public information? >> i have not made any decisions on day-to-day trading activities, and have not for years. host: we will hear from nancy pelosi as the segment goes on. guest: i think his approach is, yes, there are rules. hearings make sense. i do not know whether it is fair to characterize his position as being, let's look at it, let's be cautious and careful. caller: i was calling in to say that i think the financial crimes should carry much harsher penalties and be equated with the serious crime that it is. the fda said last year that a human life is worth $7.9 million. if an organization still is that much money, they should be found guilty of stealing one life. thank you. host: i think that is a bit of an extreme point of view, i suppose. inherent and that is the notion of penalties similar to penalties that are handed out for homicide and murder. obviously, a financial crimes are very serious matters and a lot of people are harmed by them. to equate them with taking a life, and it may not be the way to go. call come thank you for take -- caller: thank you for taking my call. if history is any guide, after much righteous indignation, the bill will be gutted and passed and made ineffective. that is the history of our congress. they are all greedy. host: our guest testified at a senate hearing this week that we will have one today at 3:55. before we talk about what the bills might result in, what exactly is being talked about on the hill in terms of legislation? guest: what is being talked about primarily is something that is called the stock act. it is a bill that has been introduced in the house for several sessions. it has been reintroduced. there are over 150 co-sponsors. it has been introduced on the senate side by scott brown. what that would do is require the securities exchange commission and the commodities futures trading commission to prohibits any person from trading while in possession of material nonpublic information gained during their service as a member or employee of congress. it would prohibit anyone else from knowingly trading on information gathered from a member or employee during the course of their service. the bill would also change the financial disclosure requirements. it would impose a requirement that within 90 days after trading in any security buying, selling, exchanging, that securities transaction would have to be disclosed publicly. i know, transactions are only closed -- are only disclosed on an annual basis. there is a third part of the bill that would amend a lobbying disclosure act to impose a lobbying disclosure act reporting and disclosure requirements on a class of individuals that the bill calls political intelligence consultants. those are the three things the act would do. the attention is on the insider- trading aspects of the bill. host: we will keep you abreast of hearings, actions, robert walker is our guest. florida, republican caller. caller: how are you doing this morning? we have seen in the recent past reports that nancy pelosi and some of the others have gotten financially well off their association of insider trading information. we have seen people like barney frank, who has benefited financially from his fannie mae and freddie mac dealings. now we have several others. do you think these investigations will go through because it seems criminal. ? ." guest: i will not comment on specific allegations regarding specific individuals on either side of the aisle. i just don't think based on news reports that any such evaluations can be made. this causes me to raise a point about the kind of context in which the stock act is raised. there have been news reports lately that have reported that insider-trading prohibitions don't apply to insiders in congress and they do. the reports have cited studies -- academic studies that show or purport to show that the stock portfolios of members and staff of congress historically outperformed the market by as much as 12%. there are also studies which are equally valid by respected scholars and more recent ones by andrew eggers that shows more recently, the portfolios at and members of congress has under- performed the market. when you look at the average portfolio of members. there is a misperception and misunderstanding of the legal context of this issue and the factual context. host: here is former speaker encourage minority leader nancy pelosi from november 3. >> do you think it is all right for a speaker to accept a very preferential and federal stock deal? >> that is not the case then i've there is major legislation affecting the company in the house. >> your premise is a false one. >> what about an ipo? there was a bill on favorable to credit card companies -- >> i will hold my record in fighting credit-card companies up against anyone's. host: that was a lot of back- and-forth. any thoughts? guest: i don't want to comment on particular allegations. one of the issues included in the question was the notion of members allegedly getting preferential treatment. i am not commenting on any particular case and certainly not be there speaker boehner or nancy pelosi. having said that, this raises the issue of another aspect of the congressional ethics rule that while it would not address insider trading per se, it would address special deals when they exist. under the gift rules, if a member or employee he of congress were to get an opportunity, an investment opportunity for which other people outside of congress had to meet certain criteria of qualifications, if those members and staff or their spouses did not meet those qualifications and the members and staff got preferential treatment, that could be a gift. you would have to look at the qualifications of the member and the spouse. sometimes a look of the qualifications of a member. if you look at the qualifications of the spouse, they often do. those are factors. the gift rule could apply the those are factors that go into the analysis. >host: independent line, athens, georgia. caller: mr. walker, are you a federal government employee or working as a private attorney? guest: i am if private attorney with the wiley-ryan law firm. i was a federal employee up until 2008. i was at the securities and exchange commission and the department of justice and in the senate but i am in the private sector. caller: i want to have his input on the report on bloomberg about the former treasury secretary giving a private audience to five or six hedge fund managers regarding where the money from the treasury and where the fed was going to go. can you comment on that? guest: i would have to know more about that particular account and a particular -- and the particular elements of what is being reported. a meeting between the treasury secretary and private hedge fund managers might not be problematic. there might be ready reasons -- many reasons why investing entities would end should have meetings with federal officials including the secretary of the treasury. i just can't comment otherwise. host: illinois, democrat, good morning. caller: mr. walker, i believe you said earlier that insider trading was not a criminal offense. guest: i did not say that. i'm sorry to interrupt. there is no specific law that makes insider trading a criminal offense. it is a criminal offense pursuant to the securities and exchange commission rules, 10b5 and a judge-made law. there is no doubt it is a criminal offense. there is not a specific anti- insider-trading statutes. caller: was under the impression that martha stewart went to prison for that. why hasn't any congressman ever brought up on charges? i would like to help out your previous guest. he did not know how he would clear up the by partisanship on both sides. the first way would be to clear out congress and the fastest way to clear out congress is to get the money out of it. let's call lobbying what it is -- guest: to the point of why have members of congress been prosecuted, a couple of things -- i understand that the director of the division of enforcement of the sec will be testifying on this issue before the house financial services committee this tuesday morning. he submitted some written testimony, a written statement to the senate homeland security governmental affairs committee last we. week. about ad six cases and why there hasn't been any, the ethics committees of the house and the senate don't have audit function. they don't have a team of investigators going from office to office on covering information which is not otherwise brought to the committee's attention either through a complex or a letter or a news report. if there were specific allegations and had been specific allegations of insider trading that are more than mere insinuations, i am confident there would have been -- they would have been pursued by the ethics committee. i am not saying this kind of conduct never occurs. members of congress and the senate are people. i'm certainly not saying they are perfect i am not saying it doesn't occur. why there hasn't been a congressional insider case, it would have to be brought over the misappropriation theory of insider trading. that is a difficult theory to proceed under in a criminal case whether you're going against a member of congress or anybody else in the outside world. it is hard to prove. in congress, perhaps even more so. you have to prove that the information is material. what an average, reasonable investor have their investment decision in fact did -- affected by that? often actions by congress to follow the outside world. is it material? is the information truly non- public. ? reporters are sitting on congressional offices to pounce on information. is that information truly non- public? another complicating factor which is unique to congress is something called the speech or debate clause of constitution. under the speech or debate clause of the constitution in article one, members of congress may not be held accountable in any other place for legislative activity. that means that there are certain actions relating to the specific legislative function in the house and senate that may not be used as proof of a criminal proceeding or a civil enforcement proceeding. that is not just with respect to insider-trading. that is with respect to any kind of allegations whatsoever whether it be a civil suit or criminal action. that makes the pursuit of corruption cases generally against congress difficult and it would also, at least as far as criminal enforcement goes by the justice department, it would make enforcement of the insider- trading prohibitions all that much more difficult. host: our guest is robert walker, an attorney specializing in government ethics and lobbying. in 2003-2008 he was the senate ethics committee counsel and staff director and work on the house side. we have about 15 or 20 minutes left with our guest. there are potential bills in congress circling to ban insider trading by members of congress. florida, john, republican, you are of. caller: i have been on wall street for over 30 years so i have a different perspective. i believe that people need to remember that information is just information. it does not mean you will always make money on it. martha stewart went to jail for selling a stock that she should have held onto and would have got more money for it. i have personally lost money trading on inside information and my wife almost killed me. i also put a kid through college, trading on insider information. i think people just open it up for everybody how let's use it as a tool and let's make some money. guest: that is an interesting perspective. that would create a free-for- all. i think are good and solid reasons behind the criminal and civil prohibitions on insider trading. maybe the playing field will never be totally level. i'm not just talking with respect to congress but everywhere. if there are those in a position with special knowledge and confidential knowledge that they owe a duty of confidentiality and a trade before the market, that is not, in my view, a victimless crime. host: senator lieberman from the hearing last week -- >> in my opinion, whether or not there is currently clear and conclusive evidence that members of congress or staff members have benefited financially from insider information and whether or not the sec believes it can act against members of congress for insider trading under its existing authority, there should be a lot that expressively deters such unethical, illegal behavior by members of congress and punishes it when it happens. it would be great if we could bring this before the committee in december before we break for the holidays. we would have tentatively scheduled a markup for december 14 or 15. host: do you expectancy a bill voted on in both bodies at some point soon? >> i really would. that is based on the comments of senator lieberman and ranking member susan collins of that committee and the other members of the committee. that is based on public reports of what is going on in the house and the increasing groundswell of support within the congress for the bill. i don't know about ultimate passage or what the bill would look like if it ultimately passes or perhaps they may proceed by amending the title roles -- internal rules bypassing the statute and changing rules but i expect -- i don't expect to see this backed off. i sit expect to see some action in the short term. that is a pretty quick turnaround. host: what ever gets passed will get gutted? tweet -- treat guest: there are cynics there. cynicism more skepticism about our elected leaders is nothing new. to a large degree, skepticism may be healthy. to say that foxes guarding the hen house, in an area, you need an internal watchdog. they don't fulfill all functions. that is why the results are criminal. that's why there are several enforcement attitudes such as insider trading. sometimes people expect the ethics committees are other than they are. they are internal ethics watchdogs disciplinary and advisory groups. they serve an important function. they pursue allegations of misconduct when they arise. many cases did not become public because the allegations do not pan out and publicity of any allegation particularly when it is unfounded, could have a very serious impact on members career. the committee's engage in a lot of activities that people do not know about. people might argue whether there should be more transparency. maybe cynicism goes too far but skepticism has a role. host: great neck, n.y., independent. caller: can you explain how we got to this level of a corrupted culture that the congress can do all of these things? they said 90% of the mta retirees disability insurance -- who can watch these? or't it a lack of the media the lack of morality? out of five water 35 members of congress, none of them could become a whistle-blower or say something? all of them were in it together. at the same time, none of the media picked up on this matter ever. host: why now? what is the history of this issue? guest: that puts an interesting perspective on this. the notion that insider trading is endemic through our congress is factually wrong. there are studies that show that members portfolios on average of under-perform the market. members do not make as good investment decisions as others. maybe that should be distressing in itself but that is a different issue. if this is all occurring all the time everywhere, why hasn't the media or anyone caught up with the stacks i think you should approach the other way. if it were occurring all the time and everywhere, the media would have caught up with it. there is media calling at these questions from all angles. a story like this would be a prime story, a career-maker, for reporters. the fact that it has not been reported, i think is not an indication that someone is sitting on it. i think it is an indication that perhaps this notion of everybody is corrupt is just wrong. the premise is incorrect. i would not say members instead of congress are perfect. they are people. there will be people who take that actions but there are also people like to take good actions. perhaps get more people in congress who are there to serve the public. i am not saying there might not be bad actions that occur. this kind of activity could not occur otherwise. the notion that everyone is in on it, i think that is a conspiracy theory. host: north carolina, a democrat. caller: good morning. in the kroft report, a number of member is used short positions. moving forward to the duck -- reduction debate over the summer, has there been an examination of what positions members took prior to that debate? there have been accusations made that certain members were trying to tank the economy for political reasons. actually they instigated those aggressive short positions in advance of the votes and that be the implications? guest: i am not in a position to know if there has been examination by federal authorities either within the congress or outside. it would be alarmist and a bit exaggerated to believe there are members of congress who would tank the economy overall for personal financial gain. i am sorry to say that i just don't buy that would occur. i hope by saying that, i am not revealing a pro-congress mentality, i just think this is an exaggerated accusation. host: california, republican line, good morning. caller: happy holidays. with all due respect, i would say that i have heard nothing but legal speak and doubletalk coming out of you since you've been on there. this sort of thing has been happening and -- in our congress before its founding. i am sure you are quite aware of the letter written by george washington at valley forge when he is talking about speculation among the colonies. it has been going on since every major war we have had. it is other people's money. when the run out of that, they can just prince on. some.y can't justprint they should go right into a federal prison. host: a lot of emotion from that caller. guest: i am here to address insider-trading primarily. i am certainly not saying there has not been members of congress who have been proven to be corrupted or that there are members of other branches of the government who have been proven to be corrupt. i am certainly not denying that. i'm not saying everyone who has ever been in congress is as clean as the driven snow. we know otherwise. you can ride the -- you can run down many different cases. corruption is not endemic in the congress. there are individuals who engage in conduct that is improper and on occasion criminal and it should be pursued fully. i understand the anger there. historically, there has always been the notion that everybody in government is corrupt. i don't and that is constructive or true. think that is constructive or true. you cannot pay date broad brush that everyone is great or everyone in government and congress is corrupt. he just can't do that. i am happy that the were pecu lation was used in the conversation. i have not heard that word for a while parent host: independent, you are up now. caller: what i found most revealing in the"60 minutes" show was that when ben bernanke and hank paulson personally profited of of the bail out to the tune of $2.3 billion got a heads up three days before they knew the economy was going to crash. they all don't the stocks they had, that they knew they would lose and basically bet on the short while everybody else out here lost their money. and you question whether corruption is endemic or not to? i would have to agree with the prior two callers. i think this whole system is rigged. it is just shameful. guest: when i was talking about using the words of non-endemic, i applied that to concur -- to congress but i will employ that government-wide. it may be useful to think that everybody that works in government is corrupt. that would explain why things go wrong and the economy is hard to fix and was social problems are hard to fix. i don't need to be patronizing but it may be more comforting to believe that because it makes life a little easier to take in hard times. the fact of the matter is, the answer to these questions of who did what and what conduct is improper is much more difficult than that. it is not quite as black and white. it is not as easy to address. i am not saying nobody does it, i am just saying you cannot pin with a broad brush. host: how do folks out there get to know what congress is doing in this particular area other than news stories? can they follow the actions of their elected leaders in this area? guest: in the area of legislation relating to approaching insider-trading? host: yes. yes they can watch these hearings on c-span and they are very instructive. as far as the trading itself, you mentioned earlier that right now there is public financial disclosure but members and senior staff of congress and more senior officials in the executive branch. . the public financial disclosure statements in congress are currently only filed once per year. they can -- the public can do those statements. for some reason, those forms are in congress and are not followed electronically on the senate side. they are dealt with publicly. the press does come and report very vigorously on what is there. at the hearing on thursday, there was a lot of talk about making these forms available much more quickly and electronically and have been filed electronically to make sure public -- to make public as much easier and that would be a real plus. the bills that have been introduced have provisions for disclosure of trades within 90 days. they talked of the hearing of -- on thursday by some members and analysts that we should do it within 10 days or shorter window of time. i think that is a good question, why not? there would be an increased burden of compliance on the members of the staff thought there would be a very substantial and that would be outweighed in my view by a substantial increase in the accessible pool of information that member constituents could use to make their judgments about whether they believe members are engaged in improper financial transactions or in conflicts of interest. ultimately, it is the constituents on these kind of issues, they are the ultimate judges their elected members conduct. that judgment is unappealable. host: caller: i was thinking that it is more than just trading in stocks. it has to do with if they have a personal interest in a company, they unaccompanied, or something like that. people have to be aware of that. in your previous statement about the constituents have to monitor this comment it is very true. the people have to be concerned. too many people, as long as they're bringing home the bacon, they do not care what else they do. guest: the caller raises an interesting point. the focus in the current legislation is on addressing trade and securities, and there is the issue, it is a member acting on legislation or about legislation would affect their personal financial interest? it has come up in the past in the context that perhaps affecting real estate or the member comes out of a background in a particular industry. does the particular legislation affect the company? there are specific rules in the senate and a specific policy in the house whereby members are prohibited, must recused themselves from voting on matters where they would be affected personally, but only if they are affected as members of the limited class. that means that they basically have to be affected as one of very few individuals benefited by legislation. if they own automobiles, stock, and they are voting on matters having to do with the transportation industry, they do not have to recuse themselves. it is true that in the the senate, the rules address this kind of conduct, the threshold is very high to reach those roles. accusal from the voting is disfavored -- at recusal from voting is disfavored. there are those that think the refusal rules have to be tightened. i am not advocating that here. that is an issue that this stock pact raises. what about issues of addressing potential conflicts in other areas? host: our guest has been robert walker. he is a former senate ethics committee chief counsel. thank you for your time this morning. we will talk about new sanctions on iran. some more news, first, from c- span radio. >> you can your discussion of the week's news beginning at noon on c-span radiogram be read error five of the network television talk shows. topics include presidential politics, the federal budget, and jobs. we begin at noon with "meet the press." at 1:00, "this week" with barney frank and rick santorum. also on the program, angelina jolie on her work as a goodwill ambassador. at 2:00, fox news sunday. michele bachmann and kent conrad and tom coburn. both are members of the gang of six. at 3:00, it is "state of the union" with ron paul and michele bachmann. and john mccain. at 4:00, "face the nation" from cbs. it all begins at noon. listen to them all on c-span radio on and 90.1 fm in the washington, d.c., area. >> he did not have a lot of romantic ideas about spying. he saw it for what it was. dirty business. >> in "the man nobody knew," carl colby examines the life of this father, william colby. >> my father changed after he was drawn out of the agency. he is a soldier. he took on the toughest, dirtiest assignments given to him by the presidents. when it came time for the president to ask him to lie and to mislead congress, he could not do it. >> tonight, at 8:00. >> when i look at why a country does well or wisely does not, i think it is a values thing. it is not natural resources. do you believe the future can be different than the present? do you believe you can control your future? these are not universal. >> later today, your questions for david brooks. he will take your calls and e- mails on a variety of topics. live today at noon on booktv. >> "washington journal" continues. >> we are talking now about iran. at the table is barbara slavin. she is a senior fellow at the south asia at center. thank you for joining us. you wrote that iran's growing isolation is a dubious win for the west. guest: i am a little bit worried about the trajectory we are on with iran. if there is not a sound diplomatic engagement strategy, you may be put in a position where iran behaves more like a pariah state because it does not see any options for itself. we have some indications of that this past week. if you treat -- i do not want to compare iran to a child. if all you do is punished, after a while, you have an object of that punishment that says, why not continue this bad behavior? host: one of the big headlines this week -- can you explain this overwhelming senate vote regarding sanctions? and some debate on whether that was the right move to make. guest: even when it is not an election year, it is hard to find anybody in the u.s. congress will ever opposed any sanctions against iran. we are in an election year and it is almost impossible to find a rational thought on capitol hill when it comes to many issues. what the senate did was devoted 100-0 for an amendment that would make it possible for the united states to sanction central banks and other banks in u.s. allies if they have the temerity to continue to do business with iran. it is a form of secondary sanctions and it is a threatening action. the amendment, as it was, had waiver provisions in it. those are extremely important. there was a lot of a waiver of 40 and it and various announce -- an ounce of time given to the administration to convince its allies. nevertheless, it is a very strong measure. the administration, which has done a very good job of building an international consensus against iran and slowly building up these layers of sanctions, did not want to be put in a position where it was forced to threaten our allies in order to get them to continue to increase the pressure on iran. host: we have the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen. our guest is barbara slavin. she has been with us many times in the past. can you explain for us the impact thus far of sanctions that are out there? guest: it has had an impact. they certainly hurt the iranian economy. first they avert the running people. they have made it difficult for the people to do -- iranian people. people are resorting to border type transactions and that includes the iranian government. we have a piece on our website on the impact of sanctions and it talks about how the government and business people in general are relying more and more on countries like china. iranian oil goes to china and in return, an account in china is credited and that money is used to purchase goods and services from the chinese. this is a way of evading all of these banking restrictions. even if the senate amendment passes, even if the whole world decides to sanction iran's such a bank, at these transactions would go forward. host: he mentioned the need for some type of diplomatic dialogue engagement. what is happening between the u.s. government and the iranian government? guest: not agreement, unfortunately. the last round of talks was in the january. this is a construct that the obama administration inherited from the bush administration. it is the five permanent members of the un security council plus germany together to meet with the iranians. i think this framework has outlived its usefulness. the iranians want to talk to the united states. that is the kind of framework that they would want. i think we should break free from that and try to organize some separate negotiations. host: one of the many headlines of -- of iran. first call, md.. caller: thank you for taking my call. i see these sanctions as enforcement of a global apartheid. if you are in the third world, you are destined to be undeveloped and indefensible. you cannot have weapons to defend yourself, you cannot have a nuclear bomb. this kind of -- this shackles people. iran is saying, we have the right to prague -- progress. in the last 30 years, they have begun to export food. they manufacture more cars than italy. they went into space a few years ago. this is why, i think, the west is worried. it gives a bad example to the third world what they can be if they get a hold of their resources. guest: there are elements in what you say that resonate very strongly with people in iran and other countries. however, the iranians find something -- signed something called the non nuclear proliferation treaty. they're not allowed to develop nuclear weapons. this is forbidden to them. unfortunately, we have seen that the iranians have done research into making nuclear weapons. they have also increased overtime a stockpile of iran eat -- uranium that could be converted into fuel. the iranians are not blameless in this. another factor is the kind of rhetoric that has been used by their leaders, including their president, ahmadinejad. he has threatened israel and if you want to be accepted as a responsible member of the international committee, these are the sorts of things that you cannot do. it is not just that iran is a third world country. it is that iran is iran. the united states and iran have had diplomatic relations for 32 years now. as a result of this estrangement, the united states does not want to see it iran develop nuclear weapons capabilities. host: our next call is from massachusetts. caller: good morning. there is some confusion going on about what sanctions are. sanctions are an act of war. call it what it is. it is kind of disturbing to me that there are people that polarized the discussion on topics like this, they polarizes with russia or with china. we have been very helpful in the united states in developing an economic policy that benefited china to the detriment of russia and a lot -- in a lot of ways. we have a strong ally in the middle east. to hear these people put on sanctions, an act of war, against a country where we metals and their politics for years and years before they cut off relations, it is disturbing to me. i do not think these people pushing this propaganda are going to succeed. i really do not. host: thank you for calling. guest: that is an interesting comment. personally, i have no problems with export controls that make it more difficult for iran to get materials for its centrifuges, for example. these have been approved by the un security council and they have shown it to have some impact in terms of slowing the iranian program down. i have no problems with sanctions against egregious abuses of human rights. i do have problems with these ever expanding financial sanctions, which do not just impact to the government. the government is better equipped to evade the sanctions than ordinary iranians are. here are the middle-class iranians that needed currency for some type of transaction and you cannot get it. is there are a limited number of banks around the world that will give you a letter of credit or handle some sort of transaction. it is having a bad effect on the overall iranian economy and that reminds me of what happens to iraq in the 1990's. i worry that we're on a slippery slope to a more overt war. at some point, something will happen in the persian gulf. perhaps there will be an incident that will spiral out of control. we have no hot line, we have nothing that prevents the two countries from getting into a horrible conflict. host: there is this a headline from the baltimore sun. they are talking about these explosions, not quite sure what has happened and where and what the cause was. some are speculating these explosions may have happened on purpose. guest: i do believe they happened on purpose. i do not know if it was the united states or the israelis. or people within iran you are participating in this. but we are in a kind of quasi-- for already. -- quasi-war already. there was a massive explosion already that killed a very prominent commander. then another explosion outside that may or may not have had something to do with the iranian facility. we have had the computer virus which crashed at least 1000 centrifuges. we have had the assassination of the keys to three iranian scientists. i understand the motivation behind it and the iranians are getting the message. host: what should we know about internal politics in iran? guest: i do not know if i have enough time. iran's internal politics have always been very divisive. it is not a totalitarian state. they fight each other. right now, there is a terrific battle going on between supreme religious leader of the country and its people and the president of the country, ahmadinejad and its people. ahmadinejad has had a severe falling out with the supreme leader over the last couple of years. he made the mistake of thinking he was really in charge of the country, which he is not. he started firing ministers who were close to the supreme leader, putting his own cronies in place. it reached a head last april when he fired the intelligence minister, who was probably reinstated by the supreme leader. my view is that he probably will survive until the end of his term in 2013. he has been very much weakened and a lot of the incidents that we see in iran, including the takeover at the british embassy, may have had something to do with this internal political fight. caller: good morning. i agree with preventing nuclear expansion, but when you have a country like pakistan and a country like india and then you have a country like israel, and you allow them to have nuclear weapons, how can you turn around and tell iran that they cannot? i think it is a double standard. why would we take the opposite approach and have the other basic is a power struggle between iran and israel. why not try to reduce the threat level by having the other countries removing the nuclear weapons? do that as the same time as preventing iran from having them. just another question about the arab spring. do you see this renewed sanctions effort against iran, do you think is because we are nervous about the arab spring? a lot of our allies and dictators we supported have been overthrown. perhaps, iran -- their organizational abilities are getting involved in those other governments. guest: excellent questions, thank you very much. the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, the bargain was that the five countries that had nuclear weapons would reduce and get rid of their arsenals. in return, the rest of the world would not go nuclear. that was the first deal. in fact, we have seen that other countries have developed nuclear weapons. india, pakistan, israel have all developed nuclear weapons outside the confines of the treaty. those three are not members and they're not legally obliged not to develop nuclear weapons. iran is the fact -- is aware of the fact that they have them. it would be great if there could be more discussions about a nuclear-free middle east. there was an interesting poll that was done suggesting that 65% of israelis would be willing to get rid of their own nuclear weapons if they could be sure that iran would not have nuclear weapons. you have to combat this problem, number of different angles. -- you have to come out this problem from a number of different angles. you have to convince the rest of the world but nuclear weapons cannot be used against anybody in this day and age. they are weapons of deterrence. weapons that prove that you have reached a certain level of scientific prowess. beyond that, they're totally away east. we should be able to find someone to convince everybody to reduce arsenals. in terms of the second question about the arab spring, you have hit on an important point. it is not so much another country developing nuclear weapons. it is iran is developing nuclear weapons. we have so many differences with the iranian government. iran has been an implacable foe of israel since this regime came to power. the support groups like hamas and hezbollah. there are a lot of concern as pro-western governments are being overthrown in the region that iran will benefit from this new islamist trend, this more anti-american trend. the next government of egypt, the next government of tunisia. that is part of the reason why we have all the sanctions against iran. it is an overall effort to contain iran, to contain its influence. much as we saw to contain the influence of the soviet union during the cold war. host: our guest is barbara slavin. she is a contributor to foreign policy and a regular commentator on npr. she has visited iran seven times and has written a book about iran in 2007. ohio, independent line. caller: thank you for helping inform the american public about this issue and so many issues. barbara, you seem so reasonable on the issue of iran. i encourage others to go to this website. recently, they wrote an article about in the most recent iaea report about iran, then you ha - the new head of the iaea of the lots of information and that report had -- that was unsubstantiated. informations about iran looking at nuclear weapons, programs. it is not against -- robert kellie, a former weapons inspector, if you could talk about that. if you could also talk about, okay, we have heard ahmadinejad threaten israel, but she never did saying "wipe israel off the map." ahmadinejad has said inflammatory things about israel, but israel persistently says inflammatory things about iran. could you talk about all of this fiery language that goes back and forth? guest: brought me start with the report -- what to restart with the report that came out last month. i think there was a lot of solid information suggesting that iran did carry out research into how to build a nuclear weapon, how to make it into a war had that could fit on a missile. they have not actually built or tested a weapon as far as we know. they did research, when a formal structured program seems to have been dismantled. since then, there have been reports of continued some of this research. those reports are less well sourced than the earlier reports. i think there is reason to be concerned. i am not one of these that dismisses everything and says, it is propaganda. we do need to worry about it. in terms of the rhetoric, though, this is a pattern that we seem to get into with every country we decide is our enemy. we demonize them, in order to justify the feelings of animosity toward that country. you are right when you say that some of the things said about iran are simply exaggeration. what ahmadinejad said was that israel would be wiped from the pages of history. he was courting ayatollah khamenei, the leader of the iranian revolution, who believe the state of israel would not survive because of internal contradictions and opposition from its neighbors. that is a little bit different than saying, we, iran, will destroy israel. also, in this country, sometimes you have people saying that the iranians are led by a bunch of crazy religious fanatics who do not care about sacrificing the lives of their countrymen in order to reach some particular goal of -- opposing the united states or israel. in fact, i have found iranian leaders not to be suicidal at all. they're willing to fight to the last -- they give money to people who are willing to sacrifice their lives, but you do not see iranian sacrificing their lives unless the country is invaded, as it was during the 1980's. there is a lot of loose talk that goes on, and it feeds a certain stereotype, a preconceived notion about the country that does not fit with reality. host: a little bit of a history lesson here. guest: there are iranians that think that britain is pulling the strings and the united states is doing britain's bidding. the british controlled iran's oil for decades. they discovered it and they had a lot of power over iranian government. iran was split between british and russian spheres of influence back at the beginning of the last century. iranians deeply resent this. in 1953, there was a coup and it was carried out from reports by the cia. the iranians had the temerity to nationalize the anglo-iranian oil company and the iranians wanted a decent amount of compensation for their oil. they were getting pennies on the barrel at the time. there is this resentment of the british. now, of course, there is no israeli embassy in iran. there is no american embassy in iran. despite what michele bachmann said last week. even before this incident, where a bunch of iranian -- there would be periodic demonstrations in front of the embassy. i remember visiting british friends there and they did not get out much. they were always treated bike -- like substitutes for the americans. they bore the brunt of a lot of possibility. host: and we have a short piece from -- on the amendment in the senate committee. >> the way this amendment would operate, mr. chairman, is that it would say to a foreign financial institution and we are talking about the largest financial institutions as well as central banks. it would say to them, if you continue to process oil transactions with the central bank of iran, their access to the united states can be terminated. it is a very, very powerful. it is a thread to -- it is a threat to the commercial banks to end their ability to transact in the dollar and their ability to function as major international financial institutions. that a threat, have been the focus on our closest allies, rest -- risks a dynamic with those governments and with these banks that i think is as likely to push them away and to impede the ability to bring together a coordinated effort against iran as to generate that. dennis grote the united states is very successful and a kind of an -- against coat there was a u.n. security council resolution monster, which was the toughest that it's ever been put in place against iran. it gave all kinds of powers to intercept shipments and various other financial powers. the europeans and other countries have scaled back in trade with iran. they have scaled back their financial dealings with iran. to then threatened with them if they do not go all the way and completely and dealings with iran, it is an extreme threats. it could not only upset this fragile coalition, but it could have an impact on oil prices. it would not be helpful. host: where are the chinese on this? guest: they are all over the map. they abide by the u.n. resolution, which they agreed to. they trade with iran. they are iran's largest trading partner. they take a lot of iranian oil. i have spoken to experts to suggest that people in china, while they did not necessarily want to see iran get nuclear weapons, they like the fact that the united states was pinned down in the persian gulf. if iran does test and develop a nuclear weapon, i do not think the chinese will be that upset. they will not be as upset as most other countries in the world. host: explain the connection from the u.s. withdrawal in iraq and the situation with iran. guest: the united states -- many suggested this before the invasion, but nobody listened. iran has a friendly government in baghdad. it does not always do what iran wants a to do, but it is very mindful of what iranian interests are. you see this in arab league of los about syria where the iraqis have voted against and abstain from putting sanctions on syria. there is a lot of concern that the influence will increase. my worry is that there will be a lot more violence. the saudis have been funding the groups and we may seek -- violence has never stopped in iraq. there have been explosions and suicide bombers, all that has continued. the question is whether the iraqi state will be strong enough to withstand these kinds of attacks and whether the iranians will exercise a somewhat lighter hand in iraq. syria is very important to this. if bashar al-assad goes down, they will need this iraq connection even more. we have given them a substitute for syria in a way by getting rid of saddam hussein. host: next call is from boca raton, florida. caller: i have the pleasure of speaking with you about a year or so ago. his calculus was that if they did develop a nuclear weapon, they would then wipe out israel. they also threatened the united states and europe. if israel did retaliate, it would bring about a dent in the great muslim demographic. if 10 million muslims or iranians were blown to smithereens, we have plenty more where they came from. i was just wondering if i could direct you to wikileaks. we have the saudi arabian and the emirates in secret diplomatic communications saying, we would just love to see iran taken out by the united states or israel. in answer to the folks that called earlier, there is an old expression that if the israelis were to disarm, there would be genocide. if the muslims were to disarm, there would be peace. kennedy issued this ultimatum to the soviets union. any attacks by cuba or on the united states or with allies, would require a retaliate -- nuclear retaliatory attack on the soviet union. guest: is there a question in there or just a series of comments? caller: why can we just say, if we attack, we will attack you. guest: i imagine we would if we could determine that the attack did have iran's fingerprints on it. it was ever mart sank, it was a theoretical. it was saying that if we dropped a bomb on israel, it would. as opposed to if israel dropped a bomb on us, it was. -- ed wood. i suppose it is -- it would. mitch gingrich just the other week said it was not sufficient to destroy the nuclear program, you have destroyed the iranian regime. if you art and iranian and you see that rich gingrich is leading the polls, what are you supposed to think? we need a ratcheting down of this rhetoric on both sides. that would help in terms of providing an atmosphere where some decent diplomacy could be done. israel does not have to worry about the united states defending its interests. our defense secretary made a very strong statement saying the united states will always be committed to israel. president obama has said that many times. iran -- i compared to a porcupine, frankly. it likes to protect this image, but it is hiding internal of vulnerabilities. caller: good morning. i am getting used to the telephone. i have been listening and falling along, how come you are not mentioning british petroleum's interest in iran. as far as that in conjunction with our oil spill in the gulf of mexico, personally, i do not think the united states really has any interest in iran. i think it is just the oil companies. host: thank you, stephen. guest: british petroleum has been out of there for a long time. that was an ancient history. the united states has an interest in protecting oil exports in general coming from that part of the world, even though we do not rely on them to the extent that we used to. it is very important that the oil keeps flowing as long as we are addicted to fossil fuels. host: our guest has been barbara slavin. we appreciate all of your calls this morning. here is a quick look at our lineup for tomorrow. we will talk with the president of the committee for responsible federal budget. we will also meet very anderson -- barry anderson. we will also talk with walton francis. we will talk about the cost of operating the federal employee health benefits program. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> up next, "newsmakers." with gene sperling. then "the contenders." today, the life of george mcgovern. mcgovern.

Related Keywords

Arkansas ,United States ,Louisiana ,Delaware ,China ,California ,Manhattan ,New York ,Arab League ,Al Qahirah ,Egypt ,Syria ,New Mexico ,Salisbury ,Mashonaland East ,Zimbabwe ,Russia ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Des Moines ,Iowa ,Mexico ,Arizona ,India ,South Carolina ,Massachusetts ,Libya ,Cambridge ,Cambridgeshire ,United Kingdom ,South Korea ,Cuba ,Chicago ,Illinois ,New Hampshire ,North Carolina ,Germany ,Texas ,Iran ,Atlanta ,Georgia ,Sioux City ,Florida ,Indiana ,Michigan ,Mississippi ,Pakistan ,Sioux Falls ,South Dakota ,Tunisia ,Athens ,Attikír ,Greece ,Maine ,Tennessee ,Iraq ,Staten Island ,Masvingo ,Baghdad ,Israel ,Saudi Arabia ,Houston ,Pennsylvania ,Prague ,Praha ,Hlavníesto ,Czech Republic ,Ohio ,Somalia ,Capitol Hill ,Elkhart ,Italy ,Americans ,America ,Soviets ,Iranians ,Iranian ,Israelis ,Iraqi ,British ,Israeli ,American ,Chosen ,Chinese ,Russian ,Iraqis ,Saudi Arabian ,Saudis ,Britain ,Soviet ,William Colby ,Joe Klein ,Jon Huntsman ,Kent Conrad ,Nancy Pelosi ,Ron Paul ,Angelina Jolie ,Andrew Eggers ,George Bush ,Clarence Thompson Thomas ,Robert Kellie ,Jennifer Jacobs ,Rick Perry ,Anderson Barry ,Ben Bernanke ,George Wallace ,Michele Bachmann ,Carl Colby ,Chris Wallace ,Chris Christie ,David Axelrod ,Clarence Thomas ,A Walter Mondale ,Boca Raton ,Richard Bailey ,Mitch Romney ,Herman Cain ,John Boehner ,Rick Santorum ,Herrmann Kane ,Hank Paulson ,Barbara Slavin ,David Bruck ,John Edwards ,Newt Gingrich ,El Paso ,John Mccain ,Freddie Mac ,Robert Walker ,Susan Collins ,Rhodes Cook ,Ralph Nader ,Scott Brown ,Ron Paul Newt Gingrich ,Jeb Bush ,Mitch Daniels ,John Kerrey ,George Mcgovern ,Barney Frank ,Tom Coburn ,Mitch Gingrich ,Barack Obama ,Robert Draper ,George W Bush ,Mike Huckabee ,Dennis Grote ,Sarah Palin ,Ross Perot ,Martha Stewart ,Richard Nixon ,Walton Francis ,