Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20120319

the house and senate are here in washington this week. house republicans, led by paul ryan, plan to release a gop budget tomorrow. meanwhile, the race for the republican presidential nominations marches on. the candidates are preparing for the illinois primary, which take place tomorrow. candidates, including president obama, make their case for elections and we would like to hear your thoughts on the primary and the women's vote. what must they do to appeal to women voters? are they doing it successfully this year? what are your thoughts on this? host: you can also e-mail us or send us a tweet. we can get that and share it on the air, or look for us on facebook. "the washington post" has this headline this morning. ashley parker writes in "the new york times" -- host: let's go to our first caller this morning. joan, a democrat in california. good morning. caller: good morning to you. thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you. host: what do you think, joan? caller: well, i think that -- first of all, i am 67 years old. i am from an era where it woman had to go to a back street abortionist or somewhere in tijuana. when the republican party is so radical about wanting to put something into a woman's vagina to test how pregnant she is -- i think that the road to complete disaster for republicans. this is so ugly. host: let's hear what senator john mccain had to say about this yesterday on "meet the press." [video clip] >> the way this whole contraception issue played a note -- we need to get off that issue. we need to get back onto what the american people really care about, jobs and the economy. host: that was senator john mccain yesterday on "meet the press." he has 60 appearances on that program, the most of any guest so far. our question this morning, what do you think about the republican party in the woman's votes? do you think one candidate is appealing to women? do you think it will be a crucial segment of the population this year? on thisdallas' take from tuesday, march 13. you can see mitt romney's support minus rick santorum's support. we talk about puerto rico and what happened there yesterday. mitt romney prevail easily. that's the headline in "the new york times" and says he was thrilled with that victory. the campaign pointed to puerto rico as the latest sign of strength over rick santorum. he soundly defeated mr santorum in the u.s. territory, which has 20 delegates let's hear what jeffrey on the line for independents has to say. go ahead. caller: i think the main contender with the republicans, the best person to support women is ron paul. he has the best record of any of them. that comes to his voting record and what he has done. some women are kind of sensitive on the abortion issue. i understand that. i think his stance is to leave it to the states. host: how do you think this will play out? a lot of the polls are matching up rick santorum versus mitt romney. ron paul orattackintaking newt gingrich into account. caller: i do not think it has to do with the polls. if you look at the videos and pictures of the ron paul supporters, they are a lot of room -- supporters, there are a lot of them. barbarat's look at what has to say on facebook. another commenter, keith. gayle joins us from cleveland on the line for independents. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i want to kind of make it personal. host: ok. caller: one of out of three american women will be the victim of domestic violence, raped, or stalked. that is the statistic. throughout the country, we have the suppression of domestic violence laws. we have this violence against women that has been passing -- a partisan vote since 1994. it is stuck in congress. the republicans do not want to pass it. now we have this new definition of rape. if you have been raped, it is not something you plan. it islike a plane crash. you do not plan to be in a plane crash. you have to come up with a new definition of rape. you have to come up with a couple of thousand dollars for this abdominal ultrasound. if you do not have this monday, it is -- this money, you have what ever punishment the government has for you. say you have twins. it is horrible. host: you sound like this is an issue you are passionate about. is this a deciding issue for you when you go to the polls? caller: absolutely. i have been the victim of rape. i have a couple of children i had to take care of. i was so broken, my body, my mind, my children. if it was not for my children, i would have jumped out of a window. if i had to deal with what this republican legislators -- they're going throughout the country and they are making a joke about it. host: thank you for sharing your personal story. i'm sorry you had that experience. let's hear from mary, a republican in washington, d.c. we are talking about republicans and women's vote. what do you think? caller: it seems ridiculous to lump together all women and say what all of them think. i happen to be a pro-life woman and i stand for the right to life of all human beings. host: let's talk about the candidates and your stance as a republican woman. are any of these candidates appealing to you? caller: yes. rick santorum is very appealing to me. he is doing a fine job of allowing us, the public, to see his wonderful family. i am all for rick santorum. i am a pro-life woman. host: hal about mr. romney -- how about mr romney. does mitt romney appeal to you? caller: if he ends up being the candidate, i will surely vote for him. host: let's look at this "the new york times" article by ashley parker. bobbie, independent caller. miami, florida. what do you think? please go ahead. caller: republican -- no good on the contraception issue. host: is that the most important issue? caller: it is very important. you see people like rush limbaugh. he calls women bad names. he does not understand the women. host: let's hear more of the story. host: democratic color and deerfield, illinois -- democratic caller in deerfield, illinois. caller: i am 68 and i figured out how the republicans try to gather votes. they demonize segments of our population. i will give you examples. women are the latest casualty. any woman who wants contraception is now demonized. they are evil. who else have the republicans demonized? blue-collar workers who want reuniounion protection. government workers who make our lives better. they have demonize people of different sexual orientations. people who want protections from laws -- they advocate right to work. then they demonize poor people who want health care. you have to understand. what they are doing to women is what they do to everybody in our culture. host: let's talk about economic issues. we are hearing an appeal from romney and santorum to talk about pocketbook issues. here is a story from "the washington post" which says romney is hoping a pocketbook pitch will pull female voters toward him. senator lee some rakowski -- senator lisa murkowski yesterday on "state of the union." yesterday on cnn's "state of the union." on twitter -- all are talking about gas prices and what they mean for america and families. johnnie, independent caller in massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. talking about the government telling them what they can do and cannot do -- it is different when the government says to a company, you're going to pay insurance for them. you are going to pay their birth control. it is ok then. ,t's a two-way street here women. i believe women have lost their way in this country. they want to be like the guys. it is a shame the way this country is. thank you very much. host: tonya is an independent schol caller. caller: good morning. i don't know what's going on lately. i do not really blame the candidates running right now. it is more the governors of the states that are bringing up these ludicrous, crazy bills and sucking the republican party into this weird -- what people are calling the anti-woman debate. it is kind of sad. i want them to talk about how i'm going to pay for dinner. however going to pull up my gas tank. how i am going to send my daughter to college. i want the candidates to discuss the issues i am concerned about. i'm not concerned about contraception. i'm not concerned about abortion. these are things that have nothing to do with my everyday normal life. i just wish they would kind of get back to the message. thank you for taking my call. vince, republican. what do you think? with the ladyee who was on there, too. i think women -- they have been living there online for all their lives. nobody has control. why should women be controlled now? i do not think they should be getting control. none of us should be controlled. this is what's happening. we are all being controlled. i am elderly. i am handicapped. i am getting hurt by the issident's way of -- what he doing to us. hurting our social security, hurting our health care, and the gasoline. this is ridiculous. i remember back when bush went into iraq. all the money we have put into the country -- it was supposed to come back to us in oil. i have not seen one bit of it. host: you are not alone in talking about oil and gas as issues. mitt romney is talking about that a lot on the campaign trail. romney is repeating his calls on president obama to fire what he calls the gas hike trio. this is from "the washington post." "national journal" has a piece that looks at the role of ann romney. on sunday, she made a specific pitch to women voters. georgia, jimmy on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: yeah, good morning. mitt romney, he is not going to do what he says he's going to do. you never know what he is going to do. rick santorum would be a better president than mere romney what, if i was going to vote for the republicans. mitt romney, there's no telling what he will do. he will flip-flop. he will say one thing and do another. the republicans, when they were in the white house, they messed up. when the president needed them, they were nowhere to be found. all they want to do is get back in the white house and mess it back up again. host: this morning, we're talking about women's vote and how the republican party is tailoring their message to appeal to republican women. writes in on twitter. anite dunn, democratic party member, was on "state of the union" yesterday talking about these issues of concern. [video clip] >> there's a good reason for that. barack obama agrees with epilepsy on this. he does not leave religious institutions should be forced to do something. when they originally proposed the rule, they had a one-year period where they were going to look at ways to make sure. host: she was talking about contraception and issue, which john mccain and others have said the republican party has taken a little bit of a public relations hit on. they're trying to appeal to women. one of the ways they're doing it is by talking about the economy. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: we are talking about women's voting. anyone over the age of 18 ought to be able to vote. if you walk around the street and ask questions to the younger generation, you find that most of them do not even know who the president is, and he is the first black president we've ever had. i think the schools need to do more to educate the children in politics. science and math, yes, but you also need to get them to understand the history of the country and pay attention. [inaudible] people are voting -- who looks the best, who sounds the best. politicians, and they were not, they would not be able to make it up there. host: we are talking about women in the republican party. here's a piece that looks at the economic battle going on at suntimes.com. especially women as they tried to seal the deal and get their votes. in illinois tomorrow and in other upcoming states. "the chicago tribune" frontpage. mitt romney posing mittevans c- with evans.osing richard, republican, you are on the program. caller: i was on the planned parenthood board for several years. i got completely out of it with the national executive officer, who felt that planned parenthood should jump into the political arena. an organization that depends upon public funding and private fund-raising should not be jumping into this whole political mess. it is pretty much destroying the beautiful organization. host: as a republican, what can it do you think are trying to appeal to women? caller: this whole abortion issue has gone totally out of perspective. thee never been opposed to woman's rights to save her life -- rape, incest, these things have never been on the table. host: do you think one can it it is appealing to women voters? richard, is one candidate appealing to others? caller: it's not even about the right thing. host: lisa, good morning. caller: hi. this whole war on women. ing a woman my daughter's age during reagan. they have no accomplishments to run on. any woman who can stand by this and say it's a justifiable -- i cannot imagine where their minds are. the articles you are reading on the cost of gas, amazing. under the last administration, gas went up well over $4 per hour. fox news, they were saying the president has no control over the price of gas. the truth is, he does not. we do not own the oil. we own the land and our government leases the land the oil is on. that oil belongs to them. a goes to opec. first of all, opec defines what the price is going to be. 60% of the cost of a barrel of oil is based upon speculation, because we changed our law in 1999 about allowing people or hedge funds -- host: we are focusing right now on the republican party and women's vote. what do you think is the biggest issue? you mentioned a few things you are concerned about, contraception, the economy. caller: for one thing, the economy is major. host: would go to larry, an in macon,t scholacaller georgia. caller: [inaudible] ship is going to throw the mother for the democrats to tell them anything. women should think about their vagina -- host: you do not need to go there. ke on twitter.mi "illinois revels in the financial race spot light" from "the financial times." host:. some polling data. 35% support for mitt romney. 31% support rick santorum. more statistics. the unemployment rate in illinois is 9.4%, the eighth highest among u.s. states. here is what rick santorum said. mitt romney says -- let's go to our next call from johnny, a democrat in albany, georgia. it good morning. caller: good morning. i think women are learning the same thing that blacks and hispanics and other minorities learn about the republican party. the republican party wants your boat, but they do not want to give you a voice in the party. secondly, c-span, why are we hearing so much republican shatter on c-span now. it is kind of like fox. we hear the same things on c- span that we used to hear on fox. i used to watch you every day. 'm turning to other programs because i'm tired of hearing republican shatter on c- span. host: i'm sorry you feel that way. johnny, a republican in california. caller: good morning. i've got to disagree with johnny in georgia. i think you guys are much better than fox. host: what do you think about the republican party and the women's vote? caller: speaking for myself in sacramento, california -- forget about it. the women's vote is nothing else here. it is completely marginalized. we all came from a woman. we all or given birth by a woman. we have to respect the women. we have to understand what their needs are. contraception. rush limbaugh is a fool. the things he says are ridiculous, you know? we've got to get women contraceptions. we've got to have them secure for our future, for america. host: what do you think about the economic issues? do you think the candidates are appealing to families pocketbooks? caller: all the candidates out there are just garbage. host: let's look at what sue has to say. she is from new jersey. she says -- millicent, a democrat in nashville, tenn.. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a democrat, but i have crossed lines before and voted republican when i thought that the person running when along with what i thought it should be. i think that it is important for us to know what the republicans think concerning women. i think that we as women -- we can take them talking about the economy and other things that are important to us, as well as hearing how they view women and what they want to do to women and what they want to take from women. i am unlike some of the callers who say they want to get back to the republican party talking about the issues of the economy or anything else. i want to hear what they say about women. i think it is important. as for johnny, who spoke earlier about c-span can you guys having a lot of republican people who are talking, i agree with him. i do not agree that you guys are worse than fox. i would like to hear more -- i would like to see more of a balanced, if you could. thank you. host: thank you for your feedback. let's look at some other stories in the news right now. "the new york times" continues their coverage looking at staff sergeant robertbales, who is accused of killing afghan civilians. they look back at his childhood growing up and where he came from. the story in "the new york times" here. "drones at issue." "the difference could come down to a few drones." it talks about the role that drones are playing literally and also in the relationship of the u.s. versus pakistan. "the wall street journal" on landlord business. looking at more politics around the country. going to maine. maine democrats are struggling to find a strong contender to challenge for the senate seat being vacated by olympia snowe. host: we are looking at the republican primary and the battle for illinois, which happens tomorrow. c-span will be covering that. we will be watching how that battle unfolds. here is a little bit more about election 2012 from "the wall street journal." we will be watching this tomorrow. c-span will be broadcasting later on today a couple of events. on c-span, mitt romney, university of chicago speech he is doing about the economy. this is this afternoon at 1:15 p.m. on c-span2 at 1:00, rick santorum campaign rally. we will bring that to you, also from illinois. bobby joins us on the line for independents from ardmore, oklahoma. good morning. caller: good morning. i have not heard anything about sarah palin in the last two months in the media. i have also not heard anything about the impeachment going on against obama and leon panetta. i am just curious why nothing is being said in the media. i am just wondering if they did not pay sarah palin to stay out. thank you. host: barbara, democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. excuse me. i think -- my personal opinion is -- the republican people are not picking on the women any more -- it boils down to the responsibility. the republicans are using this as a smokescreen. this has been an issue for years. you know, nowadays, i believe the woman who need help, medical, and rape, or something of that nature, yes, the government needs to help with these kinds of situations. personal responsibility should be a big part of that. the republicans smokescreen for the democrats, we need to get back to some of the responsibilities. host: richard on twitter thinks republicans are appealing to women. he says women will elect the next president. he says they are being lied to every day. the credit caller in new jersey, good morning -- a democratic caller in new jersey, good morning. caller: you had a caller who opined that women do not want to cook and clean the way they used to and that somehow that's what's wrong with our society. to be honest with you, i was surprised that you listened to that call and did not even flinch. maybe that is a sign of your professionalism. i'm not suggesting that all republicans think this way, but i think there's a fairly large swath of the republican party who actually feel that way. quite honestly, you can sort of tell by looking at the kinds of women to put up for office. sarah palin is notoriously un school politically. she was foisted among the american people as if she was a serious candidate. you have people like jan brewer, who do not know much about the issues, and proved they did not know much about the issues. i think there's some misogyny in the republican party. i think we play this politically correct game where we do not want to talk about it in the same way we do not want to talk about the fact that there's a white supremacist elements in the republican party. if we're going to be honest about these issues, we have to be honest about who is supporting the republican party and the profile of their voters. host: rachel rights in -- rachel writes in on facebook. we did have a call earlier on our show this morning who said he also believes ron paul can appeal to women. what do you think? caller: we have a saying. brown made very clear that this is a man's world, but it would not be nothing without a woman or girl. women need all the respect and need the help that they can get with their bodies. some of them cannot even pay for a lot of the tests they need done. i want people to understand, just like james brown said, it would not be nothing without a woman or a girl. thank you. host: other stories in the news. the supreme court takes on health care law next week. c-span will be covering that as best we can. we'll be talking about that during washington -- we'll talk about that during "washington journal" next week. the audio will be released the day up. you can hear that on c-span3. here is a story in "the washington post" looking ahead to next week. host: there's more coverage of the health-care battle. "new on the job and trusted, and facing an emissary even he described as one of the best in the business -- facing an adversary even he describes as one of the best in the business." "as you get closer to the argument, the tension rises." he said this in a recent interview. two other notes. a commentary in "the washington times" this morning. one last news story in "the new york times" that says -- coming up this morning on "washington journal" we will be talking more politics as we head into the illinois primary tomorrow. we will also take a look at fema relief and how we pay for that in our "your money" segment." we will also check in with the no labels. ♪ >> the strong support we have in our country gives us an excellent base. in my judgment, we will go forward in the beginning with at least a 107-7 electoral votes. when you couple that with just a few other states and the union, you have the electoral votes. >> we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our c-span.org website. go to our website, c- span.org/thecontenders. >> and i believe, considerable arguments. do not let anybody be misled by that. you have given eight moving and dramatic boost of how americans who honestly differ close ranks and move forward. >> in march 1979, c-span began televising the u.s. house of representatives to households nationwide. today, are content of politics and public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history is available on tv, radio, and online. >> we have even had advice that we do not do as i do today and come in with a plain old white shirt and a summer tie -- heaven forbid. i don't know if my colleagues feel this would be a better decorum for the senate. i see the distinguished senator stafford nodding no. perhaps the people of ohio would like to make a judgment. mr. president, these are just a few of our concerns in the senate. i'm sure that none of us will do a thing differently in the senate of the united states now that we are on television. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: ken blackwell is joining us from cincinnati, ohio. he is the platform committee vice chairman of the republican national committee. good morning and thank you for joining us. guest: good morning. good to be with you. host: as we look for the race for the republican presidential nomination, two candidates are rising in the polls, mitt romney and rick santorum. which one of them has a better shot when it comes to really appealing to the conservative vote? mitt romney says, in the end, republicans will support him. how does conservatism play into this race? guest: conservatives want economic growth and job creation. this comes down to a debate about the size of government, its intrusion, and i think the candidate who can best articulate not only platform but a vision to getting back to constitutional governments, is going to be the one that picks up the lion's share of the conservative vote out there. this is a horse race. people talk about momentum. they talk about a delicate -- about a delegate count. at the end of the day, it's about who can hit a 1144. it is a horse race right now. illinois this week is going to be a major prize for a candidate, although, it proportional allocation of the delegates, based on the performance within the state. host: ken blackwell is also with the family research council. if you would like to join the conversation, here are the numbers to call. a story recently in "the washington post" says more in the gop wants newt gingrich to step aside for the party's state. he just said friday morning, "i will be with you in tampa." ken blackwell, is this good for the party? guest: it is part of the process. those who talk about muscling people out of the race are a little bit naive. at the end of the day, the voters speak. right now, there's no clear path for santorum or romney to the 1144. newt understands the process. if he stays in, he can be a major influence. he has to be realistic. this chorus of "step aside" will expand rapidly, if he does not have a substantially better showing in some of the upcoming primaries. host: at what point is it time for a candidate to get out? guest: when that candidate and his followers decide he should get out. sometimes they say this is for the good of the party and this is not about me pursuing my ambitions, no matter how fleeting those ambitions seem to be. this is a matter of what is good for the party. each individual candidate has to come to that decision point in his or her own given time. i do not think people are going to be able to push newt gingrich out of this race. he is a veteran of a lot of political wars. he is a standard bearer. his only when he perceives this advantages outweigh his advantages of staying in. primaries are a dialogue among the party faithful. they are speaking to each one of these candidates. nobody has blocked this down. nobody is the runaway favorite. as a consequence, santorum, romney, and gingrich are still in the hunt. if this goes to tampa, i do not anticipate you'll see ron paul get out. his collection of delegates can be pivotal an influential in tampa. host: ken blackwell, a couple of things have changed since the last time there was a presidential election. the citizens united. do you think that has changed this scenario? we've heard from presidential candidates in past years that when the money runs out, that when you get out. newt gingrich is not facing that yet. guest: he is not facing that yet. i am a big believer in -- money is a political speech in our political process. what i push for is absolute and complete transparency and a very timely fashion so we know who is speaking in any political debate. i think there are people who will allow their voices to speak through their dollars, but they are not stupid. at a certain point, people will stop speaking through their dollars, through candidates that to not stand a chance. that will have an impact on the individual candidate's decision to stay in or get out. host: bolivia joins us from birmingham, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: first, i want to make a suggestion to c-span before i move on to what i need to say about the republican candidates. why you all didn't have a line for just women to call in this morning to talk about the republicans issue on women -- you should just have a line for women. give us a voice of our own. thank you. about the gop candidates -- being a an african-american and a woman, the republicans are not speaking to my issues. santorum is the only candidate -- maybe newt gingrich some time -- that i see, on all the stations. msnbc, cnn. mitt romney only speaks to be worse on fox news. what is this with newt gingrich? all this -- [inaudible] come on. let's get real. i'm so sick and tired of this anti-american. i feel bad because i went out and voted. my vote counts. we came up trying to vote. do not talk down our boats. i voted for president obama. i am not anti-american. i'm an american black woman. thank you. have a nice day. guest: thank you very much. you have a blessed day, also. this election is about which direction america will go and the balance of it. will it be a government driven by big, central government? will it be a country that is totally dependent on the federal government to manage its economic affairs? will it return to the original notion of limited government and optimum individual liberty, driven by an understanding that in america, are limited government works best when we have strong families. centuries and centuries of authoritarian government -- when you see them concentrate power is when they do two things. either destroy the family and silence the church. we get the family research council believe that religious liberty is essential to a limited government model. secondly and primarily economically, we believe the strong families are important to economic success and economic growth. human capital generated by young people getting married, saying married, and having children, and educating those children are hallmarks to our economic prosperity in the future. host: a caller does not believe they are killing two women. a story in "the washington post" -- they are appealing to women. guest: i think you speak to those needs and the issues and visions of women. you know, sometimes we partition the american aspiration along gender lines and racial lines too finely. most people want the opportunity to make a better life. as a consequence, i think those candidates that are talking about how to keep families together, how to grow this economy, create jobs and opportunity, and speak to the issue that every mother, grandmother, aunt want. that is to create educational environment where their children can have a better -- can have a chance at a better life through a quality education. all you have to do is look across this country and see that women are in the forefront of the movement. they are basically saying, we want to create an educational system that expands choice, empowers parents, and provides the opportunity for children to have a quality education and a better life. host: ken blackwell is with the family research council and the platform committee vice chairman with the rnc. he was the republican nominee for the governor of ohio in 2006. he served as the let's hear from howard, an independent caller from alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. host: please go ahead. guest: good morning caller: what i want to talk about is we need in this country a big thinker running our country. no cooperation corporation that wants to grow and move upward to hire a small thinker. we have a small thinker running this country now as approximately. we need somebody that thinks big and not put a tin can and put a motor in and it an automobile. and i like to say something about the oil. that oil and gas under the ground in the united states belongs to the american people. and who -- our government signs the leapers given that oil to the oil company where they can refind it and sell it back to us. they need that have in those leases that they will supply the needs of the american people and sell the surplus wherever they please. they can do the same to fuel in this country if the foreign countries will pay more for the food where manufacturers are producing, it will go overseas too and we will starve. host: go ahead. guest: thank you, caller. what we have here is a classic clash as the caller outlined between two models of government. let me use this example. there are those who see government as the mc. -- mechanic. government can fix every problem that we have and in order for government to be a better mechanic, it has to get larger and larger and more intrusive. then you have government as the gardener. the government just nurtures freedom. it neurchus opportunity. it lets -- nurtures opportunity and it lets free markets create a better life. there is a fundamental clash that will be played out in this -- in this race. the president given to his activists instincts wants a larger more scholar muscular. so if you begin look at his policies, government is the mechanic. and so government tries to run through central golf policies energy production and that doesn't work. it puts us at a competitive disadvantage. we in fact have the resources in this country and the individual and collective genius to be -- energy independent as we go forth. that's the big vision that the caller's talking about and there will be a clash of these two models. the tinker vs. the gardener. and i think it's going to be a turning point in how we finish out america's third century. host: joseph, republican in albany, georgia, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. guest: good morning. caller: on the gas issue, four years ago, they say it's bush fault, bush fault, now it's obama's president, now they say it's not the president's fault. i mean, they have not been drilling as much as they could like other places off the gulf coast and all. if they could get more crude out of the ground, you have the gas prices go down. and to me, it just -- i'm tired of hearing them saying it's not obama's fault but it's policy making the fault and same thing with the pipeline. he's not allowing -- there could be a lot of jobs in this country if he let that pipeline go through. host: let's get a response. guest: look, again, it goes back to the clash that i just talked about. ever since the 2008 convention when the republican platform pushed, you know, the all of the above strategy in terms of energy production in this country, that has been the clash. the president has basically seen a path towards alternative energy sources by penalizing those who produce energy and gas in this country. as a consequence, we see gas prices at the pump going up and up and up. and that impacts all classes of voters. let's go back to a previous caller, whim -- women who in fact drive to the soccer games, drive the kids to the schools, drive to the grocery stores. they see that pump price going up and up and up and that is something that is on the minds of women across the board. so everybody is -- has to understand that the vote of women is in play for both sides. if you look at the president's popularity in 2003 suppose yum, it's not going up. -- symposium, a lot of people are saying this is a weak republican candidate and they're going to hand the president a walk to re-election. well, the recent polls are not saying that. his numbers are going back down. they are moving in the wrong direction and that's because at the end of the day, people want to see gas prices come down. they want to see job opportunities expand. and they want to see a smaller less interview government in their lives. -- intrusive government in their lives. host: gallup did a poll that said romney and sandusky are stirring less -- santorum are stirring less enthusiasm. among those polls, 35% said yes, rick santorum, 34%. newt gingrich, 28%. and the enthusiastic category. john mccain, four years ago, it was 47%. does that concern you? guest: it doesn't at the end of the day, there's a different mix of candidates and at this point in thy the competition, john mccain was clearly the preferred candidate. that's not the case now. competition whether it's economic competition or political competition is good. and this is a vetting process. this is the opportunity for those who aspire to be the standard bearer to speak to the grassroots across this nation -- at the end of the day, if you begin to look at the top line numbers, the republican candidates are actually starting to do better in the competition against president obama and so as a result, this whole notion that there is a devastating impact on the candidate's -- on the republican's side of the consequence of the competition, i think is misleading. we will see a stronger republican candidate as we get to -- as we get to tampa. now while i told you earlier that right now, there's no clear winner before tampa, i actually happen to believe that there will be a clear winner before tampa and i doubt that we will have a managed convention and a competitive convention on the floor when we get to tampa as republicans. but right now, there's no clear path and nobody should be muscled out of this race. host: phyllis is in nashville, tennessee, democrats line. welcome. caller: thank you. for the good of our country, first, i have two points. it is incumbent upon the american people to allow reason to prevail over prejudice in their decisions concerning the election that is coming up for the president. and as far as limited government is concerned, mr. blackwell, your argument, since 195 4, it has been -- 195 4, it has been irrational for any african-american to be concerned in support of limited government because it was government that allowed us to be able to vote without being suppressed, having our votes suppressed. and as far as the clash of ideas in terms of the economy, there is no question but everybody in america is in favor of -- most everybody is in favor of capitalism and of the free market but had it not been government for government intervention with the automobile industry, so many millions of people who are now working would be out of work and our automobile industry would have gone down the tubes with respect to the republican laissez faire philosophy. but it seems to me pathological for any african-american to be talking about limited government in view of the civil rights act that had to be pushed through over states rights advocates. guest: thank you very much for your point of view and i respectfully disagree. look, we have a mounting debt problem as a consequence of a government that is larger, more sklar -- muscular and more intrusive in our lives. and right now, our debt is over $15 trillion. and as a consequence, we've seen our debt as a percentage of our gross domestic product increase substantially, so much so that the united states of america's almost indistinguishable from european socialistic countries. look, at the end of the day, we need to get the country growing again because the debt problem is a three-dimensional monster. right now, china holds 47% of our debt. so we have a national security problem as a consequence of big government and lig government spending. -- big government spending. we are mortgaging our children's future. we're saddling them at the point of birth with a humongous debt so what we have is intergenerational theft going on that we must stop. and as a consequence -- as a consequence of big debt, we have anorth east -- anemic growth. so we need to understand the key to that is one, not big muscular government sponsored schools but school choice and they understand that they must get back to limited government, we must get to a balanced budget inside of, you know, five years, i think, in order to get our economy growing again so that we maintain our premier position as the most prosperous democratic republic in world history. host: ken blackwell is with the family research county. he's joining us from cincinnati this morning. james is our next caller on the independent line in marion springs, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. yes. i just wanted to say that the -- if we think about why china is so wealthy and why they own so much of our wealth, if we go back to the mid 1990's, to the trade agreements that were primarily push thud by the republicans signed on when democrats thought where the money was, since then, 52,000 manufacturing operations, six and a half million manufacturing jobs, the collateral number of equal jobs, i think republicans are whistling by the graveyard as they created when it comes to jobs. i would like to know back the republicans told us about the great prosperity as that was going to happen as we sign these trade agreements, bush made china a most favored nation partner. you imagine that? they're a enemy and idea cal of the united states and i like to let the listeners know these loss of jobs should be laid at the doorstep of republicans and democrats and that's the reason why i'm an independent. caller: i think any time the federal -- guest: any time the federal government have chosen big central government or federal government in our case, that's been a loser for us. let's look at the decade of the noiblets where not only were we for free trade, we should have been pressing for fair trade. we had an expansion of growth and job expansion. free and fair trade did actually create wealth and create jobs and opportunities. i think the caller would agree that with 9/11, we in fact started to spend more and more of our resources not on domestic production and economic expansion and job creation, but in defending our interest around the world. and i'm not sure that i would be right to say that the caller would have had sort of cower in a corner and not go out and do what we had to do to make the world safer and to advance american interest globally. host: let's go to a comment on twitter. mr. blackwell, how would you encourage more citizens to turn out to vote and participate fully in our democracy? guest: well, i'm a big believer in neighborhood by neighborhood sort of expansion of participation. that means that there is nothing that -- no forum that is unimportant whether it's a school board meeting or a township meeting, going down to your county commissioner's meeting, understanding that this is an election where we can't sit on the sidelines at any level and particularly at the presidential level. we have to increase voter participation. that means that more americans have to speak to those folks who are seeking to lead us so that they know where we want to go as a country. voting is both a right and a duty. and i think it's every american's duty to engage in this debate and this dialogue about america's future. and so we have made it relatively easy to register the vote. there's unintrusive, unblocked access to polls. there's no excuse for folks not voting. -- in this upcoming election. host: where was the first office that you ran for? guest: i ran for the school board in the 1990's in the early 70's. went from there to running for city council. became mayor of the city and then went into the bush administration as an underexactly at the u.s. department of housing and urban development with my good friend jack kemp. and then made a pivot and went over to the state department to work with jim bakker as the u.s. -- when i was the u.s. bam bass deer to the -- ambassador and then came back to ohio and became treasure and then exactly of say it and then ran for governor. host: and now he is the platform key for vice chairman and he's walls the family research council. taking your calls this morning until 8:30 eastern time. ken join us in michigan. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to ask the gentleman i appreciate what he does and if he could speak a little bit on the administration being against texas' right, the voter registration and trying to suppress the vote by -- or trying to increase the same acorn or people who are registered to vote illegal and about texas wanting to get a voter registration card with a photo i.d. and that's all. thank you for your time. guest: well, thank you for the call. for 40 years, emphasis and voting -- in voting rights was placed on making sure that folks had access to the ballot and that they could have uninhibited access to exercising the franchise. over the last maybe decade, there's been an emphasis placed on not only access to the ballot box, but protecting the integrity of the ballot box. and one of the things that has been done is that now some 30 states have required a photo i.d. to make sure that a voter is who he or she claims to be. in 2008, the supreme court found that indiana's voter i.d. law was constitutional. and there were many other states that started to pattern their requirements after the indiana law. texas, south dakota, and others are -- excuse me, south carolina and others did that, but were stopped by the justice and challenged by the justice department. the justice department could do this with about 15 states under section five of the voting rights act. and we now probably would have anywhere from two to three cases that were probably make their way to the supreme court and we will see whether states within the purview of the justice department under section five of the voting rights act will have their photo i.d. requirements upheld by the court. look, photo i.d.'s are pretty common occurrence in american life. you need it if you're going to buy alcohol or tobacco. you need it for a marriage license. you need it to get on the plane. you need it to check out a library book. so having the voting -- the duty of voting require one to show a photo i.d. as long as it is not burdensome -- a burdensome task to get that photo i.d., i think will probably be upheld by the court and is consistent with the modern day concerns of voting -- or election practitioners whether they be lawyers or election officials at the state and local level. host: ken blackwell. bill asks on twitter about the race of the republican nomination. he said rick santorum is trying for the v.p. slot by carrying over a vote to romney just before the convention. bill says it won't flifmente what do you think? is this part of the rick santorum strategy? guest: i think rick santorum, if you were to ask rick is running to be the party's nominee. and, you know, if you look at how far he's come since hour, you have to say one, he's determined and two, he's articulating a vision that has made him very competitive as we move forward in this process. so i don't think he's running to be number two. number two might be offered to him somewhere if he's not nominated as the leader of the ticket. but i don't think he's playing that game right now to be number two. i think he actually believes that he has a vision and a set of leadership skills that could lead this country into a very successful third century. his challenge is as governor romney has vision and a set of leadership skills that he thinks are better suited to take us into the balance of our third century as an exceptional nation in the world and we all know that newt thinks he has the ideas and the proven leadership skills to do the same thing. and god bless him. ron paul is a scrapper and will have an impact on the policy direction of this country, particularly on economic matters. host: what if you read into the win by mitt romney's team in puerto rico? i have a recent story prior to the race that said that rick santorum is trying to camp down a firestorm over remarks he made about the use of english vs. spanish. what do you think about the romney win? guest: well, i think if you look at their position, that's romney and santorum, as they've campaigned over the course of this primary season, there's probably not a dime's bit of a deference between the two. when they got to puerto rico, rick santorum spoke out consistent with his english first position and romney chose not to discuss it. but at the end of the day, i don't think that that was -- i don't think that was the pivotal issue. romney has been organizing and spent a lot of money in puerto rico at a time probably when rick santorum-a-is fond of saying was driving across iowa in a pickup truck trying to make sure he got to that early primary in order to live again, live to fight again in these later primaries. host: let's hear from it leon in glendale, arizona, democrats line. caller: good morning, mr. blackwell. guest: good morning. caller: i live in the greater phoenix area of glendale, arizona. i'm 70 years old, african-american decent but -- dessent but originally from cleveland, ohio. i understand you're from the cincinnati area. first of all, i am sure you will join with me to congratulate the fact that we have four ohio universities in the sweet 16. xavier and -- guest: absolutely. i was hoping that somebody would bring that up and create that opening. you're right. xavier university which is my alma mater. the university of cincinnati where you've i've taught on the faculty for human rights and then you have ohio university and the ohio state university. all there. but let me just say within 150-mile radius, we also have kentucky. and so this area is -- our cup is running over with basketball talent. but back to your question. caller: and my graduating class was 1964 and this is the for it time ohio university bobcats have made to it the sweet 16 since the year -- guest: oh, absolutely. caller: but that's all i want to talk about, sports. i called because you have only repeated of and over -- over and over republican conservative boilerplate talking points. you know, sir, i respect you. you have accomplished a lot. i would much rather talk hear you talk about original thoughtses to answer these caller's questions. it's almost like i'm listening to fox news. for example, you talked about that the democrats [laughter] are up for big intrusive government. yet, santorum and the republicans and the conservatives want to insert trophies into women's body parts almost as if they've been abducted by aliens from the mother ship. they want to make us have more religious -- in the passing of our laws base on medieval religious mysticism and sexism and racism. they're anti-game. all these phobias. your vice people too long different lines based on general deb, ethnicity and color and half of the people in the world are women, for goodness' sakes. you put up these candidates like -- host: leon, let's leave it there. you've brought up a lot of point and get a response doctor ken. what -- from ken. what do you think? guest: well, i guess he didn't catch it. i'm pretty long in the tooth. so i've been around at various levels of political activity and in 2008, i was a vice chairman of the republican national committee and conventions platform. so it shouldn't surprise me that my point of view is conservative. and my point of view is republican. and my point of view supports limited government. and religious liberty. you know, his question sounded as if they came right out of james carwell's playbook in terms of saying this issue around contraception was about, you know, controlling women when he knows because -- i could tell not only is he a learned man, he's an engaged political thinker. he knows the issue was about a religious liberty and government actually putting the strong grip hold, a chokehold, on the church. i want to go back to what i said. government grows and this has been the case and authoritarian governments throughout human history when you silence the church and you destroy the family. and so it shouldn't surprise him that i'm going to be articulating a point of view that champions religious liberty, champions life, because i do believe that our human capital challenge in this country really does turn on our being able to have strong family that nurtured children and educate them that will drive our economic growth in the future. so he can call them boilerplate. they are original thoughts on my part because i was, you know, part of shaping those platform planks as we move forward and i hope to be part of the dialogue and the discussion about those issues that are important as we go forward. i would agree with i would agree with you. at the end of the day, this is about economic growth. the misnomer is that to talk about economic growth, it cannot talk about the pro life ethic or strengthening traditional marriage in this country. to talk about economic growth, you cannot talk about giving parental choice for school choice. and i know how to talk about the big economic issues of the day without abandoning the social issues that are so important to the future quality of life in our country. i welcome the opportunity to debate at our level these issues back and forth. at the presidential level, i hope the candidates understand there is a way to talk about government as the gardener that nurtures economic freedom and individual liberty without shortchanging the values that have made us an exceptional nation in all of human history. host: john is in fort lauderdale, fla., an independent scholar. caller: i am wondering about the republican field this year. i believe obama is going to wipe the floor with these guys. i am wondering if the field is so wak because republicans feel like they will not when or if this is not a strong enough leader in the party who wants to run or if nobody wants the job. it is an invasion of privacy and all that. i know you feel they can be home, but let's be real. it is a competitive field. it will produce a candidate that will challenge this president. as long as the candidate can talk about what i have outlined. , the clash between the president's enthusiasm between government intervention and allies -- in our lives that has given us an anemic economic growth as a contrast with that which will help us to reduce the debt and put a spot on the path of job creation and economic growth, i think the president and his people know this is going to be a close race. it is probably going to come down to maybe 12 pivotal states. within that 12, i believe virginia, north carolina, ohio, and florida will be the four most crucial states. if you look at the polling data coming out of those states, this is a very competitive race. that means the president is losing ground in those pivotal states. if you widen its out to the next circle of eight, the president and his people know he is in a competitive race. the polling numbers that came out last week should not be encouraging to him and alive with the caller just said, that the american people have already marginalized and pushed aside the eventual republican candidate. host: ken blackwell is a senior fellow. he is also the national republican committee platform vice chairman. thank you so much. next we will talk to one of the co-founders of the group "no labels," and hear about their plan to fix congress. >> a new report by the center for public integrity and pri finds eight state governments got a failing grade on transparency, accountability, and anti-corruption efforts. not a single state earned an a. five states earned a b, including new jersey became in first. he confided the investigation report on line. the u.s. soldier being held in the shootings in afghanistan last week meets today with his lawyer, john henry browne. he spoke to the press last night ahead of his meeting with staff sergeant robert bale. on politics, the wife of mitt romney says it is time to unite behind one presidential nominee -- her husband. ann romney told a rally last night that we need to send a message that it is time to coalesce. mr. romney's latest victory was yesterday in puerto rico. you can hear him today at the university of chicago after 1:00 eastern here on c-span radio. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the strong support we have in our country gives us an excellent base to go forth with. with at least 177 editorial votes that comprise the states of the south and florida. when you look around at just a few other states of the union, you have the electoral votes necessary to win the presidency. >> as the canada campaign this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> there have been spirited disagreements, and i believe considerable hot arguments. do not let anybody be misled by that. you have given here in this hall a moving and erratic look at americans who honestly differ move forward for the nation's well-being shoulder to shoulder. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. host: the nonpartisan group has a new plant out called "make congress work!". one of your key areas is the budgeting process. no labels says the process is not working correctly. how would you like to change it? guest: the first thing is to get the trains moving on time. the budget process was laid down by the 1974 congressional budget act. the idea is to have a framework for the budget and then well before the beginning of the fiscal year that starts on october 1, all the appropriation bills are to be done so government agencies know what they're supposed to be doing for the next year and how much time they have to do it. the last time that happened on time was in 1996. we have been running the government with a series of short-term budget resolutions for most of the fiscal years. it is extremely inefficient, wasteful, and confusing for everybody. our idea simply is to link the self-interest of members of congress to the budget process. we called it no budget, no pay. if you do not finish it on time, your pace stops. it does not start again until you submit the completed budget to the president. host: you have steps of how the process should go and to be done more efficiently. take us through the process. guest: the theory of the process is the president submits his budget. there is an analysis of the budget. the congress gets together. they come up with their own budgets. they get together and come up with the budget resolution. that is the way it is supposed to work. that is supposed to happen by april 15. it has been some years since there has even been a budget resolution. once there is a budget resolution, the appropriators are supposed to get to work. that has not been happening either. in theory, there are 12 appropriations bills. they are all supposed to be signed, sealed, and delivered to the president for his signature or veto well before september 30. it does not happen. host: is the no, budget, no pay plan constitutional? guest: it is definitely constitutional. we have done careful research on this. the operative provision is the 27th amendment to the constitution. it makes it clear congress is not allowed to vary its own pay while is sitting. we're working on a law that would take effect in the next congress that would link congressional pay to performance. that is indeed constitutional. host: the act would block all lawmakers' pay if no budget resolution is reached by october 1. no back pay if the deal is reached after october 1. the senate and house do have bills that have found interest. tell us about the support of your efforts. guest: the lead sponsor and the senate is dean heller, a senator from nevada. the lead sponsor in the house is jim cooper, a veteran legislator from tennessee. in the house of representatives, there have been a number of co- sponsors, something like three dozen at last count i believe. in the senate, we're gathering steam. we had a hearing in the senate committee on homeland security and government affairs chaired by senator lieberman and the senior republican member is susan collins of maine. we had a hearing last wednesday. a lot of energy in the hearing and a lot of good ideas. host: on the senate side, co- sponsors include chambliss, snowe, and vitter. here is a list of the house co- sponsors, to many to name. -- too many to name. you can see the list. 33 co-sponsors signed on to that so far. let's get to the phones. liz joins us from texas. caller: i am proud you are making this effort. thank you so much. i noticed there was a bi- partisan list. i wanted to suggest, i have been in the senate with a filibuster. it has to be in constitutional when laws are supposed to be passed with a simple majority in the senate, at least certain laws. it seems to me this abuse of the filibuster, there has got to be a stop to that. that is one of the reforms that should take place. to take what should be and is constitutionally possible majority -- a simple majority in just by the threat of a filibuster, it suddenly becomes a 2/3 vote. to me it is unconstitutional. there has to be something that can be done about that. i wondered what you would say on that matter. guest: you made a number of good points. let me run through them quickly. your note to the bipartisanship of our sponsors. we're proud of that. that is part of our mission. no labels is a citizens organization made up of democrats, republicans, and independents. we started 15 months ago. we're now about to 500,000 members across the country. we of leadership teams in all states and congressional districts. they are bipartisan. that is our mission. we understand nothing will work in congress or the country unless we can get the two parties to cooperate more. on filibuster reform, we totally agree. that is one of our 12 proposals. we do not eliminate the filibuster entirely. we do propose to trim it, the number of instances where it can be applied, and requires senators who are interested in filibuster in to do it the old- fashioned way. remember "mr. smith goes to washington"? we propose to go back to that. i dislike the filibuster as much as you do, but the constitution allows the senate and house to make their own rules. they do not need the president's permission. they do not need the supreme court's commission the permission to do that. people have never argued the filibuster is flatly unconstitutional, but it is contrary to the spirit of the constitution in many of respects. there i can agree with you. host: mike tweets this. the regular types quit congress because they cannot afford to not get paid. guest: that is one of the frequent objections to this proposal. we have done a lot of research on that. two point. first of all, a lot of people who are wealthy on paper and have their money tied up in stocks, bonds, real estates, other types of balloons. even wealthy people need cash flow. relatively few people can get by without their checks for very long. when a house member said that to me a couple of months ago, i smiled. may be a poor people's caucus in congress will form to put pressure on some of the richer folks to get with the pressure -- to do with the program. we think the pressure from the rank-and-file in congress would become overwhelming quickly. host: william galston is a senior fellow at the brookings institution. he is the editor and senior fellow in government studies there. past experience includes time spent as a deputy assistant for domestic policy to president bill clinton from 1993 until 1995. he also has experience as a director of the institute for philosophy and public policy at the university of maryland he also was a sergeant in the u.s. marine corps. , a's hear from jermaine democratic caller in new york. caller: how can anybody believe anything politicians say when they are so wrapped up in money from big corporations? that is on both sides and the democrats and republicans. how can we believe what a politician ever says when nothing they say it happens the way they say? it is always watered down or we have to make special concessions for this big corporation or industry. how come i cannot ever be straight forward? let's get it done. how come we always we have politicians say one thing but deals?ake back doors an it is about the citizens. we put you in office. it is disgusting. congress is disgusting right now. guest: you are with the vast american majority in the sentiments you just voiced. the reputation of the congress in the eyes of the american people has never been lower. recent surveys put it around 10%. i suspect used car dealers do a little bit better. having said that, the point is to try to fix the institution. no labels does not believe members of congress are bad and corrupt for the most part. we believe they are good people trapped in a failed and obsolete system of rules and procedures. what we're trying to do is that a citizen's voice to encourage them to do with they know is the right thing. let me make one other point. there is too much money in politics, but we also have to recognize this is a very large, diverse country. many people campaign for office on the basis of platforms in which they sincerely believe and push for when they get to the house or senate. if you are in the house, there are 434 other people whose opinions and constituencies you have to contend with. in the senate, 99 other people. compromise is the name of the game in washington. there is a difference between compromise and corruption. we would like to persuade the american people compromise can be honorable when it represents the search for common ground. host: let's talk about bipartisanship and your goals to encourage bipartisanship. you would like to see the threshold changes to encourage that. is that the matter of forcing changes in behavior? guest: to some extent, it is a matter of forcing a change in behavior. in senate testimony last week, the question arose of why we were pushing so hard on these rules changes. why could we not simply appeal to members of congress to do the right thing? a senior senator said that to me. it was very sincere and heartfelt. i smiled and said, i wish things work that way. i do not think they do. neither did the father of our constitution, james madison, who talked at length in the federalist papers about the necessity to used what he called auxiliary precautions to bolster legislators and push them in the right direction. we do believe in a number of reforms to force the two parties to get together, talk of a bipartisan basis, put together a bipartisan leadership teams. we appeal to them to sit together. we thought that was a good idea of the state of union address a few months ago. in our judgment, it becomes much harder to breed the conditions for compromise when the members of the to the parties do not even know each other. it is so easy to demonize people when you have never sought a fifth -- never sat down of the same table with them. for most members of congress, that is now the case. there are very few bi-partisan meetings. we have a series of proposals designed to change that. host: they include having monthly bipartisan gatherings, having bipartisan seating, also creating a bipartisan leadership committee. guest: this would be a committee made up of senior leaders on both sides. the effort would be to work out on a monthly basis some sense of what the agenda is going to be for the next month. the congress spends an enormous amount of time bickering about what they're going to talk about. they disagree on what they will talk about even before they get around to disagreeing on the substance of the matter. if you have some agreement between harry reid and mitch mcconnell on what we're going to try to get done in the next month and how we can organize the scheduled to do that, that would be fabulous. hal on the hear from independent line in michigan. caller: revenue is such an integral part of any budget agreement and compromise. how realistic is that congress can reach an agreement when the new trend of signing pledges with lobbyists -- i am referring to 95% of congress on the republican side that's just signed a pledge with grover norquist to never increase revenues. as long as congress is giving away votes from how can they expect to reach agreements -- as long as congress is giving away votes, how can they expect to reach agreements? guest: that is a terrific question. we spent a lot of time thinking about that. one of our 12 "make congress work!" proposals is what we think of as the no pledge proposal. the proposal is simple. we urge members of congress to make no pledges and take no oaths except the oath of office to protect the constitution. in our judgment, the responsibility of members of congress as defenders of the constitution, which means voting to promote the common defense and general welfare, overrides any special interest pledges anyone makes. we believe members of congress ought to discipline themselves not to make those pledges to anybody, not to grover norquist, to no special interest group, and to come to washington and do their level best to make the right decisions for their constituents. host: let's put up some other details of the "make congress work!" plan. it includes an up or down vote on presidential appointments and empowering the sensible majority. we will get into that in a moment. it includes making members come to work and a question time for the president. what is the sensible majority? guest: frequently there is a bipartisan majority that wants to bring a bill to the floor, but there is objection from the leadership or the chairman of the committee. there is a procedure in the house called the discharge petition. if you can get a majority to sign a petition saying this bill ought to be allowed to proceed to consideration on the floor, you can do that. because members have to do this on a public basis as opposed to anonymously, the leadership can bring a lot of pressure on them not to sign such a petition or to remove their signature if they have signed. our proposal is to allow members to proceed and ominously. to proceed anonymously until they have received a majority. we're urging the senate to adopt such a procedure. if you have democrats and republicans who would like a bill to get to the floor for debate and have a stubborn committee chair or some objection from the leadership, the majority can work its way. host: bill galston is the co- founder of no, labels -- no labels. cindy tweets in and asks why we let congress have so much time off. guest: we have a situation where we are talking about a 2.5 day work week. we're also talking about a situation in which the house and senate are not in session at the same time. they do not coordinate schedules. we believe congress ought to adopt the three weeks on-one week off schedule, a five-day workweek, and the house and senate ought to coordinate schedules. that is one of our 12 agenda items. host: folks would argue members of congress need to get back to their home districts to be in touch with the constituents they serve. that is what many members of congress say. instead of calling it vacation time, they call it the constituents workweek. what is your take on that? guest: we absolutely agree. that is why we are proposing the three weeks on, one week of schedule. you can go back on a friday afternoon or evening at the end of the third week. you then have nine solid days at home to do your constituents work before you get back on the plane on sunday evening and fly back to washington. that combination, we believe, would make legislation and the legislative process work better. it would also allow members to spend concentrated time with their constituents. right now, if you get on the plane, you do a fundraiser or two, meet with various groups, and five black -- flyback. it is frenetic. we believe our proposal would work better for everybody. host: the next caller is from oklahoma city, oklahoma. caller: i was wondering if you have any plans to fix the national deficit. if so, what would that be? i understand you are trying to do some good things with this here deal you got going on. i think it will get bogged down in the senate like everything else. i do not want to be pessimistic, but it seems like everything is bi-partisan in the house and when it hits the senate floor, everything gets shovel bought -- shovelled back. i think you will have a heck of a time. guest: we're not anticipating an easy time in the house or senate. senator lieberman remarked last wednesday that the no, budget, no pay proposal was the most popular with the general public, a 88% supported. but the least popular with his colleagues is that it is not easy for members of congress to vote for something that might interrupt their pay. thatwe will do everything in our power to move this legislation forward. there are people with experience working with and on behalf of no labels to try to deal with individual members of the house and senate. as for the broader question, the debt and the deficit, we think our proposal is a good start. recognize it is not enough. there have been in number of commissions in the past two year s king on budget and fiscal reform. no labels may come to grips with some of those proposals in the months and years to come. we're focusing on procedural changes to get congress working. host: pat in north carolina. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have been trying to get through it through the -- as the republican convention when it was in florida. it seems as if my questions have been answered. i was calling in reference to the constitution, compared to grover norquist. you have answered about why they are taking so many days and weeks off. guest: it is not often that somebody calls in and says that i have satisfactorily answered any questions rather than two questions. host: let's hear from matthew in phoenix, arizona. what do think about their efforts? caller: i wanted to thank you for the work you're doing. it seems be apathetic to our congressmen in the house and the senate. giving them nine months to put together a budget seems generous. for the work that has to be done, i would think the proposal should be worked on much earlier in the year and perhaps so that they can discuss the matters and work of the details. i saw the house last year hold everything up. that is the reason for the disapproval rating. i could not believe what they did by shutting everything down. maybe we can push that timetable up a little bit. right,i think you're we're being generous. if you look at the actual letter of the 1974 congressional budget act, the bills are suppose to be done well before the beginning of the next fiscal year. we think it would be a huge step forward if the appropriations bills were actually finished and sent to the president even one or two days before the beginning of the fiscal year. that has not happened since 1996. we would be delighted if members of congress complied with the letter of the law. we would be satisfied if they try to comply with the spirit of the law. host: we have a comment on twitter. what makes your proposal different? guest: i am glad you asked. no labels is not a third party. we are not backing independent candidates or democratic candidates or republican candidates, for that matter. we are trying to bring together democrats, republicans, an independents around a reform agenda that would make the congress work better and enable it to do the people's business better. other people may be proposing independent or third-party candidacies. that is their right. we are choosing to pursue a different course. host: one of the items that no labels is recommending is creating a question time for the president. guest: this is an idea drawn from the british parliament and probably many c-span viewers have tune in and of listened to or have watched question time in the british parliament. it happens on a weekly basis for the prime minister. we're proposing that once a month, the president of the united states appear before the orse and the senate's for 60 90 minutes to answer questions from members on both sides of the aisle. there would be a lot more communication between the president and congress. the president would have to be on top of his government. he will not know in advance what the questions are going to be about. we think this will be of aid to the president. it is possible that during this question and answer period some areas of possible common ground and compromise might emerge. there is nothing like face-to- face dialogue. host: janet in west virginia, welcome. caller: he mentioned the laws. i don't know if obama has gone to any laws but his own. there are too many friends and relatives in congress. i could go on for two hours. obama expects us to tighten our belts but he is having a ball. i don't know who is doing anything in there, really. he has his friends and cronies. you cannot carry of -- he should retire. he is going on vacations or parties. he is president. host: what do you think about the no labels efforts/ caller: explain that to me. what is that? host: it is a group that has a plan called make congress work it callsld make thi-- for a filibuster reform. it says members of congress cannot take any other pledges other than to uphold the constitution. caller: absolutely. i would go for that. the country is in a mess. guest: we are glad that our agenda strikes you as a step in the right direction. you are among the many americans who are dissatisfied with the way things are going in washington these days. the nice thing about our country is that there are mechanisms to insure the rule of law. i'm have a different position on the question of whether the administration is complying with the law and the constitution. there is going to be a major hearing before the supreme court next week, six full hours on the constitutionality of the president's health care law. we are a government of laws, and i expect us to remain that way. host: suit is in illinois on our democrats line -- sue in illinois. caller: i just heard mr. santorum and mr. romney are both going to be here and not 5 miles from my home town today. i've heard that and i commend the man from bringing this issue up. isn't it under the constitution that congress should be working for the people and by the people? who fires congress if they are not doing their job? guest: well, we do have a constitution. the constitution proscribes the mode of the election for members of the house and the senate. ultimately, it is the american people who hire members of congress and fire members of congress. there's nobody else that can do that. this is a citizen's responsibility. it is the way our constitution was designed to work. the constitution with only 27 amendments has been around for more than 200 years. my advice for people is to look in the mirror and say, it has to be me and people like me. host: a follower on twitter wrote in -- this was a package enacted. guest: many of the provisions of the proposals enacted during the 1990's have lapsed. they are not part of the constitution. there are many people who believe the only way to secure a balanced budget is to put it in the constitution, the so-called balanced budget amendment. there's an argument as to whether that would be a good thing, but many people have reached the conclusion that that may be a better way to go. host: new york on are independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: please go ahead. caller: i am hearing about this budget cut. i thought congress was supposed to work for us and everything as far as under the constitution. i keep hearing about respecting the constitution. patriot ax does regarding the patriotution -- - acts. who is really working for who? it has been so many years. they have their hand at running through the federal reserve. they say one thing when they are on the platform. next thing you know, look what we get. guest: well, the congress of the united states is elected by the people and represents many, many different points of view. i will repeat what i said earlier. i would caution people against rushing from the sense that congress is not working the way they wanted to to the conclusion that it reflects corruption or self interest, people out for themselves. i know a lot of members of congress. they are as unhappy about the way congress is working as any of their constituents are. this gridlock, this collapse of reasonable and productive dialogue across party lines is not why they came to washington and why they got into public service. our belief is if we bring together and represent an focus the discontented people, we can help members of congress do what they want to do but are not able to persuade some of their leaders and some of the fellow members of their own party as the right thing to do. host: members of congress should not engage in negative campaigns against fellow members. guest: absolutely. you need cooperation across party lines to get something done in washington. if you campaigned against somebody and then next week you approach the person and say, i would like your support on a piece of legislation, and it is human nature the person you campaigned against will say, are you crazy? you just try to get kicked out of congress. forget about it. going back to the norm of note negative campaigning against incumbent members of congress would be a big step in the right direction. host: bill galston is the co- founder of no labels and we have been talking about their make congress work plan. you can find it on their website, nolabels.org. up next, we'll take a look get your money and this week we will check out fema's disaster plan. >> 9:15. the third motorcycle gunmen attacked in a week has left an adult and three children dead outside a jewish school in france. three of the victims were a father and his sons. said he prime minister has asked for all schools and religious buildings to be secured saying the entire nation was the target of that shooting. eight europeans are being questioned after they were caught with 100 million dollars in fake u.s. treasury bonds. the suspects were taken by surprise in the raid yesterday. they faced counterfeiting charges. in the report says young people are doing slightly better at staying in school. the graduation rate increase by 3.5 percentage points to a level 75%.even i those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] >> c-span began televising the house of representatives. our content is available on tv, radio, and online. >> we have had advice that we do not come in with a plain old white shirt and a summer tie. heaven forbid. i don't know if my colleagues feel this would be a better decorum. i see that he is nodding no. perhaps the people of ohio would be happy to make a judgment about my attire in the united states senate. these are just a few of our concerns in the senate. i'm sure none of us will do anything different in the senate now that we are on television. >> c-span. a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we focus on your money, how federal dollars are spent and what purpose programs serve. this morning we're looking at the fema emergency management system. our guest is francis mccarthy. thank you for being here this morning. what led to the program? guest: this goes back to at least 1974. the disaster relief fund is an account within the budget. it is nearly a program. it was set up by the appropriations committee. i think when they set it up, they realized several things. disasters can ocher at any time and they have a long life predict disasters can ochcur at any time. there's a lot of repair work this stretches out on and on. this is a no-year fund and helps communities to recover. it is also dues for current events. host: let's look at some of the money when it comes to the fema's disaster relief fund. host: we're seeing a difference in monetary numbers. why? guest: that is a good question. that figure is a rolling average over five years of how much fema is spending. they are doing a rolling average. for the regular disasters that occur. there is a rolling average of 2.5 billion dollars. part of this goes into how much the legislature or administration wants to tie up for disasters that may or may not occur. you could budget the amount that could cover any event, whether it is hurricane katrina or a massive earthquake. it tends to want the amount of money needed immediately and then to add the rest of the money that might be necessary. the $2.5 billion is a rolling average. congress is making a real attempt to not just put it $2.5 billion and say we'll get to six months. they say we're catching up with old costs that may be were not anticipated. you could have costs such as hurricane katrina. we knew it would be very expensive. you might remember that there was some concerns about some of the decisions on some of the larger projects such as charity hospital. congress put in place an arbitration system. on some of those cases, people appealing won their cases and fema was looking at a larger payout then they were anticipating. the disaster itself could wind up costing more than anticipated. they look at the damage and sometimes the cost increases. those costs are raising behind the front. the average might not reflect all of that. we're seeing congress and the administration trying to catch up and bring it back to balance. host: journal@c-span.org francis mccarthy -- francis mccarthy works with the congressional research service. here are the numbers to call -- democrats, 202-737-0001. republicans come 202-737-0002. independent callers, 202-628- 0205. john in virginia, a republican. caller: hi. i had a comment and a question. i have been doing research on some previous disasters and how they were handled by fema. i have learned a lot. the comment is, is you don't hear about everything that happens during these disasters in the media. i found out about it on inforwars.com. my question is, our troops during disasters -- are they going to be part of the theme of budget -- fema budget? can you speak to the troop issue/ host: why were you so interested in this issue? caller: i started questioning the way that the federal government is handling a lot of things. i moved away from traditional media and started looking at alternative media. it is amazing what i have learned that you did not learn on traditional media. host: let's get a comment from our guest. guest: i am not aware of any troops being used. i'm not aware of troops being used. the troops that are used in disaster situations are went governor's activate their own national guard and they performed valiantly in the early days of the disasters. in some cases, the national guard -- i am not aware of any plans to use troops in a disasters. fema does have committee relations that they call up to go from house to house to explain how the programs work and how the eligibility works on programs. i'm not aware of using troops in disasters. host: talk about disaster aid and emergencies. guest: under the president's declaration of party, there are party,two categories -- two categories. helping states with evacuation costs. emergencies are intended to perhaps prevent the disaster from occurring. they are smaller and not contain the same programs. a major disaster is declared and has greater authority and has more eligible costs covered to reimburse state and local governments. kind of two types of decoration and it does get confusing. before a governor will request, he will declare a state of the emergency in their state as a preamble to requesting federal assistance. host: a democratic caller from florida. caller: good morning. eventually it will have to balance the budget. when i put every dollar spent on fema put on line for us to see how it is spend. guest: some of that is available on fema.gov. if you go to fema.gov, keep clicking on disaster operations. there's a box on the side where you can click on and find out the amount that has been spent on individual assistance and public assistance, which is the repair the goes on. a lot of the information is there. some time to to not ever get it in a way for people to understand it right away or it may take some looking to find all of it. the amounts are listed in the budget and the appropriations bill. you'll be able to find a lot about spending on each individual disaster on fema.gov. host: our guest serves as a policy analyst. he did have a 25-year career at fema. blair from michigan. are you still with us? josh from illinois. caller: hi. i was calling earlier in regards to a comment that johnnie from virginia. -- a, that john made from virginia. a comment on the actual military going in in times of emergency. i had a buddy who was driving a truck for walmart and he did bring water and supplies to the superdome. he got there and he was turned around by several military personnel trying to cross the bridge into town. host: what does the story tell you? caller: i'm worried about giving more money to fema. that's kind of scary. i do not know what the money is going. host: josh brings up the idea about who is in control and about accountability and chain of command. guest: i think that is a true story because some of that did occur. army advisers that were in charge and i have for stories about trucks being turned away or people being turned away. in part that was people trying to take control of the situation. it is difficult when everybody decides to show up at the same time to offer help or to bring in different types of material that is already there. the case of louisiana is different than anything we can think of in the past 30 years in terms of the amount of devastation and the amount of this organization in their response. i do not think that is representative of how things are usually handled. there is legislation introduced since that time to ensure that there will be access by everybody that needs to get it to a disaster area, to be able to deliver help and to make sure that communications are intact. host: take us to the process. a turnip comes to your town and devastates the area-- a tornado comes to your town. guest: it begins with some type of a huge event such as a tornado. you have the first line of defense, the local government, to see how much assistance they can provide. then the state comes in. there are state emergency management agencies in each state to up families and individuals and to do repair. there is the judgment by the state in which they think to themselves that this is something they can handle their cells or beyond our capacity to help -- they can handle themselves. a preliminary damage assessment. a couple of fema representatives and state and local people go out and look to the damage together. we used to get separate reports from the federal folks, stay focused and non-profit folks. now this is a consensus among the federal, state, and folks as to the amount of damage. they look at how many houses have been affected and how many roads have been damaged, public buildings. what kind of public services may be stopped. they filed that report. they present their report to the governor. that helps the covert to decide whether to ask for federal help. if you decide to do that, he will send his request to the president -- if he decides to do that. it goes up to fema headquarters which then makes a recommendation to the president's. . the request could be turned down if it is not at that level to warrant more help, or it will be declared a disaster and they will contact the governmeor. if families are being aided, the 800 phone number will be turned on. host: we have a question on twitter. when does fema make loans versus outright payments? guest: unlike some of the threats come up with an oil spill, congress had passed legislation that covered it. there was already a fund that have been created in response to oil spills. you have the coast guard that was ready to go and the funding was available. disaster relief fund was not tapped for that. there was some controversy on that. some thought in may been helpful to the states to get funding to them quicker. it was not used because there was legislation passed by congress to relate to that. almost all of what fema does it take the form of grants. the grants are cost shared. it is usually 75% federal and 245% state and local. the loan can go to that committee to keep local services going. the other major loan program -- most of us associate sba with small businesses. homeowners can receive disaster loans. if fema does not declare a disaster or the president does not declare a disaster oftentimes the minister will declare and loans will be available to repair their homes. host: john is a republican court in maryland. -- a republican caller. caller: i have about 25 ideas for fema. i have seen all these different contracts that were awarded. i thought, oh, my goodness. i have about 25 different ideas for fema. i have been trying to get through. i have not had too much success to get these ideas through fema. i see mr. fugate is in charge of fema. how can i get in touch with him? two ofive uson one or your ideas. caller: different color-coded signs. that would be specified with hospitals, police, fire departments, which roads are good roads to go, which roads are bad roads to go through. it could be changed and switched over accordingly. that's one of the ideas i had. i have some many ideas. host: thank you for sharing them. guest: that does sound like an interesting idea. host: he is talking about color coded arrows to figure out the best way to go to a hospital or in case of an emergency. guest: that is another example of an agency that has its own emergency program. fema does not repair federal highways. i will mention this, john. on the fema website, they have a suggestion system. i'm not sure if they are called a fema think tank. you send in your suggestions. fema and other people in the community will comment on them and they vote on some of them. some ideas get a few yes votes. other suggestions may be made to refine the idea. you can check with fema. they have set up the system within the last year. it gets the idea out there in the public with a chance for comment and with the chance for acceptance. once something is out there, the getting a more positive reception are there. host: francis mccarthy spent 25 years working with fema. he also worked in and led the disaster declarations unit. he did congressional and legislative affairs. we are talking about your money, how taxpayer dollars are spent and we are focusing on fema's disaster relief fund. we have a comment on twitter. who calls the shots? .uest: fema doesn't takeover what fema does after a declaration is they signed an agreement with the state. the coordinating officer for fema and the officer for the state will be making judgments in tandem and they will be looking at the applications that, come in, what areas need special attention, etc. i understand your question about who is really in charge. fema doesn't supersede local laws. there is no martial law imposed. it is a partnership between fema and the state about the recovery. you can get people back to work. fema tries to spend the money locally. for people offering to send things into a disaster area, one of the preferences is that the material the purchased locally to get that devastated economy back up on its feet. overall it is a partnership to the federal and state governments. the people in charge are the people in charge. fema has a field office that is bringing the federal family in and trying to orchestrate the help that is needed. when that is done, they leave and the people in charge are still in charge. host: sheila is a democrat in virginia. caller: hi. host: go ahead. caller: as far as fema, i am concerned about when the funds come to fema/ how you doing/ host: please turn down your tv. caller: i'm concerned like when the funds, into fema -- like when the funds come into fema. they receive funds and signed papers and stuff. they took the people through a lot of problems. at the same time, when they have the 18-month process and provided the money, then some people, they got what they needed and then some still did not get their homes built. i know for a fact was one of my family members. up to this day, that person has been out of her home. i started an investigation about it, but nobody really gave me any answers of what happened with his funds and stuff like that. host: we are sorry to hear about what your relative is facing. talk to us about her concerns. personal aide and community aid. atst: i think we'll look disaster aid and occasion it will be portrayed as people doing quite well based on the disaster and all the help that fema can give. the best protection against a flood is flood insurance and not assistance from fema. the best protection is insurance in general. fema helps about $3,000 maximum -- $30,000, and that includes rental assistance and it can pay for funeral assistance or emergency medical. the total amount is $30,000 for a household. that only goes so far. i am familiar with hurricane floyd. huge amount of damage. at the time of hurricane floyd, the maximum amount of money that could be spent repairing a home was $5,000. after that, people have to go to sba for a loan. that was adjusted after hurricane katrina. now a larger amount can be spend, within the $30,000 range. that is a big help but it is not a panacea from bringing somebody back from a huge disaster. that's what their roles from nonprofits and charities. as for public assistance, it is interesting -- that is the majority of the spending. that includes repairs to roads, bridges, public buildings, recreation services, rebuilding public schools that are damaged. does that -- that does not really have a cap on it. it can be eligible for disaster assistance. what may be held back is whether the state and local government can pay their 25% share of it. make sure what they are rebuilding is related to the disaster and not something that happened a few years before or lack of maintenance for certain roads or ditches. there is a lot of bureaucracy involved. we want to make sure where being a good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. host: what should somebody like sheila do it if they think a relative or if they themselves have not gone the money they thought they would get/ ? guest: they can contact fema to get an explanation of what was provided. and also there is other that is kind of a coalition of nonprofits and charitable groups and may be contacting your state emergency management office and also finding out from them for any degree of help the might still be available. host: fred in connecticut. caller: good morning. you're the perfect person to speak to on this issue. i have done a lot of reading in the past and try to research this end i was going to call my congressman to try to get a printout of the information. if you try to research how long the united states has been in a declared state of emergency for one reason or another -- i don't mean declaring an emergency because of a storm. we have been for the most part in a continuous state of emergency for me there truman or roosevelt times. i have not been able to find out exactly when we were in a state of emergency and giving all these extra constitutional powers to the executives or when we were not. seeing how you were in the congressional research department and u.s. that research -- you of that experience for many years. i would like you to shed some light on this fact. c-span is amazing. they cover the house from gavel- to-gavel. this was declared under clinton when somebody ready message from the president that said, we have a state of emergency because of panama. does the white house still have to re-notify congress or is that noo conta, longer the fact? guest: i am not the perfect person to enter this. my area of expertise tends to be on the domestic declarations. i am familiar with some of what you're discuss it but i cannot help on that. host: we are talking about your money and looking at the funding for fema's disaster relief fund. let's talk about how fema determines states and communities getting disaster relief. --e's a story host: this is a story from last week's. who made the decisions? an explanation is needed for people that lost everything they own. guest: that is a wonderful question. lester was the biggest ever, 99 major disasters declared. there were also 14 disaster requests turned down last year. fema publishes what they're looking at -- how severe the damage is and considering whether it should be in the capacity of the states to respond. they look at the per capita amount of damage. this is something that fema instituted back to the 1990 's. they are looking at the broad amount of damage and wondering if this is an error that has absorbed a number of disasters. do they have insurance? the number of homeowner policies will cover tornadoes. they are looking to see if it is an elderly population. what kind of assistance is available from the state. as to who is making the decision -- the president receives the recommendation from fema. it is hard to know each decision along the way. they do not want to pass along all the deliberations that are done at each level before that decision is made. this is something that happens from time to time. fema now prints this in all of their considerations. it means that people read those considerations and decide that, i think we have qualified. you have a situation with more transparency. "we deserve to get that disaster declaration because we think we checked each of the boxes and will qualify for it." that was at the urging of congress. congress felt there were too many decorations and we find ourselves in a situation where states feel entitled to a declaration when they looked at the factors and feel they have met each of them. it is a backhanded compliment when local government can take care of their own right away. they are the first responders. after that, it is a judgment call as to whether the needs can be met by local and state governments. host: we have a comment on twitter by freelancer. that is her opinion. there is a piece recently in "the new york times." host: the state questions whether fema should have a role. what if your mayor or governor does not think that fema should be called in but you do? guest: it is a partnership between fema and the state government. sometimes i hear from local governments and i tell them you need to go through the state. that is to fema is working with. i am from ohio. ohio does have a good emergency management agency. whether they are successful when they request or turn down and whether or not the governor decides a request is the advice they are receiving at the state level. this has become a profession of folks that have learned it on the ground in disasters and the study did and no doubt much better at their jobs and i think the offer good jobs -- good advice to their governors about whether it is a disaster situation are something that might not meet the criteria that fema has saet. the emergency management office probably felt capable of responding. there was more damage that's existed as you learn more about it and perhaps you feel you may qualify for disaster or you may not. in this case, they did not, apparently. host: an independent caller, good morning. caller: good morning. i have been volunteering all my life. i'm 60 years old. 18 years on the town council. last year our floods in northeast arkansas. we had a bad ice storm two years ago. we helped everybody when we were called. a good example because i think we're overloaded from the top to bottom. the mayors in the county judges -- my example is that in an ice storm, you get electricity back on. our chain saws and back hoes, we cleared the roads and we piled up down on the farmers' fields, with his permission, to burn it. all the hoops we had to jump through to do it. then the ash, it had to be hauled to a landfill. fema should take the local and for things rkd instead of coming in with all the regulations. it may take a year and a half to get money. thank you. guest: that is a wonderful comment. folks got into what they believe is the right thing and they run into regulations. some of that is difficult because of the way the law is written. you made a key point and that is fema does take a look at this stuff themselves. they want to be good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. on the other hand, you sometimes feel you're doing double duty. take the word of state and locals, like the caller said. i do not know how much is affected in the policies. the director said that he wants to start doing that and he wants to start taking the word of the state and locals. let's take their work and go forward. host: francis mccarthy spent 25 years working at fema. we've been looking at fema's disaster relief fund. that is offered today. we'll have more of your money next monday. thank you for joining us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

Related Keywords

Arkansas ,United States ,Louisiana ,Alabama ,Nevada ,China ,California ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Connecticut ,West Virginia ,Mexico ,Arizona ,Xavier University ,Ohio ,South Carolina ,Massachusetts ,Iowa ,Sacramento ,Ireland ,Panama ,Spain ,Chicago ,Illinois ,Miami ,Florida ,New York ,Canada ,North Carolina ,Texas ,Afghanistan ,Bolivia ,Ohio State University ,Cleveland ,Kentucky ,Indiana ,Virginia ,Georgia ,Deerfield ,Oklahoma City ,Oklahoma ,Cincinnati ,Ohio University ,Michigan ,Pakistan ,United Kingdom ,Puerto Rico ,Fort Lauderdale ,Maine ,Iraq ,Tennessee ,New Jersey ,South Dakota ,Ardmore ,Tijuana ,Baja California ,Phoenix ,Jewish School ,Maryland ,France ,Marion Springs ,Americans ,America ,Afghan ,Spanish ,British ,Irish ,American ,Susan Collins ,Ashley Parker ,Jack Kemp ,Ken Blackwell ,William Galston ,James Brown ,Grover Norquist ,Ron Paul ,Jim Cooper ,Tampa Ken Blackwell ,Olympia Snowe ,Harry Reid ,Chambliss Snowe ,Anite Dunn ,Barack Obama ,Francis Mccarthy ,Sarah Palin ,Rick Santorum ,Anne Romney ,Mitch Mcconnell ,James Madison ,Newt Gingrich ,Lisa Murkowski ,Ann Romney ,Hillary Clinton ,Paul Ryan ,John Mccain ,John Henry Browne ,