leaders for the nato summit. we will begin this morning to talk about an issue which came about with the president's comments this week with regard to the marriage and whether it is a flip-flop or an evolving point of view. >> there are a number of related stories on this. our discussion with you begins like this. is there a romney doctrine? david sanders coming up with a new book -- when mint romney was still trying to maneuver the challenges, he made a declaration about afghanistan that lady fraction of his foreign policy to shake their heads. and then there is this in "the chicago tribune," looking at his use back in the 1990's. barack obama responded to a gay magazine issue survey saying if he favored a marriage. he initially said he supported civil unions, but he had not gone so far to say that he supported gay marriage. and now he has come out in support of gay marriage. this is a way to set up our questionnaire and our discussion with your issue of involving vs flip-floping. >> back in january, in my state of the union address, i warned about the danger of a supreme court ruling called citizens united big it would allow corporations use an unlimited amount of money to influence our elections. you have seen them, and a time of such challenges in america, we cannot afford these political games. what is at stake is no less the integrity of our democracy. because of our democracy, powerful interest may not be allowed to drown out the voices of the money. i will never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in washington belongs to you. >> an alert on an about face on president obama palin he is reversing course. the president seems to be having a change of heart. >> asking his top fund-raisers to embrace the pro-obama super pak's. >> think of the sad commentary on where we are. >> the obama campaign says it will not fight with one hand tied behind its back. >> this is part of a pattern of behavior with barack obama that goes back to 2008. >> he went on to raise more than anyone that had never raised. >> the president will continue to fight for ways to reform the system in the future. >> but you don't get to change the rules if you're not in control of the car. >> we will run the campaign and the rules that exist right now. >> if i could take the money and politics, i would. >> the rules are what they are and they can apply when it -- can a plea by difference the rules. >> it may be more money, but will hit -- will lead branded with a hypocrite? >> "huffington post" put together the compilation of campaign finance. and they're in there is this from "the national journal," a piece by beth reinhard. in 2003-2004, mitt romney signed official proclamations supporting a gay pride march sponsored by nonprofit organization by the massachusetts organization on the rights. mitt romney has evolved views on some key issues or flip flopped? that is the question on this sunday morning. you can join the conversation on our tour page. or you can send us an e-mail. hostcaller: i am not a democrata republican. here in california, on proposition 8, we voted against the marriage only a because we didn't want the people to have our children, which they're doing, and raise them gay. because, in the world, we know that we have had priests, holy people, even taking care of children and abusing them. this is why we think it is better that it is between a man and woman to raise a travel. but at the same time, we think that politically, when you have the obama never making a decision on his own, this time, it was his daughters who made the decision for him and made him change his mind. that does not seem credible because, going back, he did believe in gay marriage. then he changed the military. i think the best thing for us to do is not take his political views very seriously when it comes to this topic. he wants the money from this group and that is the only way he could get it, by making that statement. host: do you think that the president flip-flops' or do think he did the ball on the issue of gay marriage? caller: as i said, in 2002, he had a different opinion. and then, when he was elected, he said he believed marriage was between a man and woman. and then he said he was dining with his children and that changed his mind. host: thank you for the call. amy sullivan framing the debate somewhat differently, but also we balding or changing views. amy sullivan writes not only about the president and his citation of the bible and his conversation with u.s. troops when it came to gay marriage, but leaders on capitol hill are catholic and the issue over budget cuts and some of the tension that paul ryan received as the chair of the house budget committee among catholic groups critical of the budget cuts, this morning from the outlook section of "the washington post." we go to sharyl from california. caller: the lady that was before me, i don't want to insult her, but it seems that there's such a level of ignorance in this country. people are born gay. they don't choose to be gay. i've never met a gay person who chooses to be gay. and i don't know how people can think what people do behind closed doors with their loved one. their intimate love one -- has anything to do with any kind of sin or anything else. they were all sinners. i just don't understand the level of hypocrisy, prejudice. the older people really have old ideas. i understand they were brought up the way they were brought up and there is a great deal of prejudice that has gone on because they did not understand it. but i would suggest that people read literature rather than getting sound bites from the television, from their neighbors, from people that have the same viewpoints and make it a point to really study this issue because you will learn a lot. it does take a while to evolve into turning around because we were all born with certain -- we were brought up with certain prejudices and separation and the group mentality. i know i have. and i am very sorry about that. but i have made it a point to educate myself about that. thank you. host: think it, both college were from california. i want to bring you a story from "loss angeles times." jerry brown made an announcement in sacramento. california has to struggle to turn the page and a devastating economy. the governor said this means we have to go much further to make cuts far greater. again, the headline above the fold this morning. of course, calif., like most states, require a balanced budget at the end of each fiscal year. back to the question of the balding vs flip-floping. next is lauren on the phone from michigan on the republican line. caller: good morning. i think it is evil. the reason i think it has evolved is that the one of the other people are gay. host: thank you for the call. on a weekend in which many are receiving their graduate degrees crushed by college debt, massive loans hanging over graduates. there is a piece related to this in "the washington post." independent line. i believe the president is a flip-flop for on everything he said from his inauguration, whether it is closing get more, torture of suspected terrorists, and with the gay marriage. personally, i don't care pet i don't think it should be a federal law. it should be a to the states. and i also feel that the president stands down on the 10th and second amendments and he has to go. i'm sorry. he has to go. thank you for taking my call. host: the president did state that this was ultimately a state issue. taking up the issue of gay marriage, including the overwhelming vote in north carolina, amendment 1, which basically reaffirmed that marriages between a man and woman. there is a piece this morning inside "the washington examiner" showing all the problems facing north carolina. but this is from "the chicago tribune." the g8 summit takes place this month and then the nato summit in chicago. protesters are eager to be heard in chicago. they're thinking about the logistics of travel, food and aid. ron emmanuel, one year as the mayor of chicago, mayor in a hurry as he tries to remake chicago his way. joan is on the phone from utah from the republican line. evolving vs flip-floping. what is your take on this? caller: no. 1, gay marriage is wrong. as wrong as a natural occurrence of gone. it is wrong in every way. mitt romney knows that. he stood up and said that. you don't have to worry that mitt romney because his religion knows of the marriage between a man and woman. barack obama is like every other liberal who doesn't have a clue how to live and doesn't have a clue what is right and wrong. and you can see that in his evolving stance. his policies evolve from whatever cnn says and msnbc says. that is what obama will do. host: thank you very much for the call. this weekend, the republican presidential candidate travel to liberty university. he delivered the commencement address in lynchburg, virginia and he addressed this issue. >> what you believe, what you value, how you live matters. as fundamental as these principles are, they may become topics of democratic debate from time to time. so it is today with the enduring institution of marriage. marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman. host: yesterday, from lynchburg, va. -- by the way, that speech is available on our website. writing about the issue of gay marriage, "obama's choice and hours." as most americans judging at the ballot box, they continue to understand. most folks views evolved. flip-flop is a republican definition which assumes nothing should ever change. while flip-floping did hurt but running during the republican primary, mitt versus mitt is what this is called. >> i am running for office, for pete's sake. >> who is this guy? can you believe him. >> note time, no where, no how. i think there is need for economic stimulus. >> you are only lead to a certain number of clips before people began to question your character. >> there is the issue of abortion. has he flip flops on abortion? >> i will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose. the right next step in the fight to preserve the sanctity of life is to see roe v wade overturned. >> or he flip flops again like he did on abortion and he did on ronald reagan. >> i was an independent during the time of reagan-bush. the principles that ronald reagan espouse were as true today as when he spoke them. i think people understand that i am a man unsteadiness. >> who is this guy? can you trust him? >> mitt romney's reputation as a flip-flop error -- he has changed his position on a number of issues. >> some people will see changing his mind as convenient. >> it does not seem to have a core. >> i am running for office, for pete's sake. host: that was put together by the democratic national committee. joseph ramirez has this point of view. next is michael on the independent line from florida. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i am independent and a christian. i believe it was adam and eve and not adam and steve. on the inside of a flop, that is romney. for sure. he flip flops on a bidding group but -- on everything. but with obama, see who elected him. wall street. i joined the tea party recently could i have to do what i can to get obama out of this. for the first year of his term, he had the senate and the house and he did nothing. yes, romney flip flops like crazy, but i have to go with him over obama. thank you. host: on atwitter page, a lot of you are weighing in as well. you can join the conversation. in a page from "the new york times," assuring evangelicals that their values are his as well. mitt romney traveling to liberty, va university. offering a forceful the fence -- a forceful defense on faith. he focused on the tea party movement and its impact on indian and the upcoming primary as well in utah, pursuing a house dialed conservative fervor. it illustrates how closely republican hopes for majority in the senate are tied to the candidates who chose to infuse the chamber with a deep-seated conservatism which is a hallmark of the house since the republicans took control back in 2010. from illinois, the democrats' line. caller: i am listening to some of your callers, especially the independence and the republicans. if you go back and do a montage on mitt romney, you can see his own party don't care for him. he flip flops. i remember a couple of statements he said he was for gay people having the right as other people. so how can the republicans and independents forget that? i would much rather hear obama say what he said because he said it is ok for gays to marry. he cannot tell grown people what to do. he cannot get this country going as he should to feed people. but i would much rather go in with him than have someone who will take meals on wheels or take food from children. babies were going to school, hot lunches. he will destroy medicaid and medicare. why would you want a person in there that is filthy rich going in there and take all of your rights from you? his words carry some weight. president obama's words on gary made -- on garrett -- on gay marriage carries no weight at all. host: one of our regular viewers says -- to headlines from the "washington examiner," ryann use points up the reports of the nation's biggest banks, jpmorgan losing $2 billion in two weeks with the derivatives trading. this issue comes to light with senator carl levin telling the hill newspaper saying he wants to see tougher regulations, even tougher than the the franc bill -- than the d and frandoddk bill. charlotte is the site of the democratic convention in early september. mike joins us from brooklyn, new york. caller: i just want to say, you know what? i know you're not concerned about the gay agenda anymore. they should join the rest of america. our economy is in the toilet. our jobs have moved received. we are involved in multiple wars. and yet we have to pick the candidates on their views on abortion and gays. why not become americans -- never mind their sexuality. let's pick the guy with the support for the right guy. host: the iconic adds that took aim at senator john kerry had this had tunneled "windsurfing." >> i am george w. bush and i approve this message. >> in what direction would john kerry lee? he was for the iraq war, oppose it, and now supported it began again he talked about voting for the $7 billion for supporting our troops before he voted against it and he claims he is against increasing medicare premiums, but voted five times to do so. john kerry, whichever way the wind blows. host: another example of flip- floping vs evolving. that is what we are asking you on this sunday morning. your views over whether or not coming in this campaign, mitt romney, president bush, and president obama are flip-floping on the issues. david had this point of view. michael is on the phone from michigan on the republican line. caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. i am calling about the president's change of mind on the game marriage issue. -- the gay marriage issue. everybody knows that homosexuality is a perversion of human nature. and the presidents and thought and speech on this matter is also a perversion. we need to throw him out of office. thank you. host: ok, thank you for the call. mike is on our independent line. caller: given that romney was a mormon and was a long time discriminated against by other minority groups for even being a member, there is a lot about talking about being accepted into their own religion as not being equal. hall of a sudden, he is for everyone. when he talked about reverend wright and obama sitting there for 20 years, they were, oh, we cannot have this point here is a man who was a missionary in vietnam and there were people dying in jungles over there. now, all of a sudden, he wants to bomb iran? come on. let's look at the truth about it. when this man steps up, he is nothing the narcissistic in itself. he takes the opposite view of his own father. his father made his money off the government, making jeeps with the gmp people need to look up and see the history of this man and see why he does what he does. he is just try to get into history by any means necessary. have a good day. host: thank you for the call. that is from bob lilly. and bonds sank, since announcing his bid for reelection, he is adopted a set of proposals ostensibly to create jobs and that they be passed pronto without the republicans being informed. next is like on the phone from georgia. -- actually, we will go to daniel from tennessee. obamar: weather barack go flip-flop story evolves, i think he has evolved. he has the fortitude to change his opinion. some politicians are so narrow minded they cannot. and if anybody that says they're christian, they have to promote jesus christ's love, there's no place in the bible that germaine's, sexuality. i'm not saying that homosexual is right or wrong. but when you take the preference that you love somebody because they have a certain defaults, then you're not doing the christian thing. christ loves everybody. in my opinion, barack obama is doing a good job. he is standing up for the american worker, the people in america that have no chance. he is they're trying to help them. and i think he is doing a good job. host: thank you. jan has this point of view. some other news this morning overnight from yemen as military officials confirm that 11 al qaeda military -- al qaeda militants have been killed in southern yemen in two suspected u.s. drone attacks. it was in the southern part of yemen under the control of al qaeda militants. it has not been confirmed whether the u.s. was in charge of the attack. but the news overnight is at 11 al qaeda militants have been killed. as the story develops, we will bring this back. the issue of evolving vs flip- floping, that is our question. next is jim from texas. caller: thank you for allowing me to have a say. i would -- i would ask that the homophobic right consider that the homosexual in afghanistan did not go there to defend catholics or jews, protestants or muslims, gays or straits, but literally to take a bullet for all americans, all of the many thousands of variations of us who exist. the idea that an american boycott of such a generous heart and mind and pure giving -- an american boy of such a generous heart and mind and caregiving, when he returns to reunite with his boyfriend only to discover that the ability takes instead saved a handful of congressmen in the comfort and safety of the homeland where they sat composing the very legislation that will prevent that marriage is an outrage beyond expressing. we need to stop thinking about what harm we believe same-sex marriage may or mike or could impose on heterosexuals. and asked what right we have of depriving the american soldiers from the joy of all to have the right to marry who you love. host: thank you for tuning in. we are asking, in part because of the president's comments this week in his interview where he said that he now supports gay marriage, and also the issue that came up in the republican primary, including this example from the jon huntsman campaign as he took aim at mitt romney. >> if republicans did not like mitt romney's position on union busting in ohio, all they had to do was wait one day until he changed it. >> of the last few decades, the flip-floping candidates do not get elected. >> i believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. but i have been consistently pro-life. >> when he took over, the economy was in recession and he made it worse. >> i did not say that things were worse. >> i was an independent journey times of reagan-bush. i'm not trying to return to reagan-bush. >> i would protect our second amendment rights. >> what is his court? >> leading from behind, this is a time, when if you're going to be president of the united states, you have to take a leadership role and there is a risk in taking a position, but that is all part of leadership. >>host: that was from the jon huntsman campaign during the republican primary. he has since endorsed the mitt romney campaign. caller: thank you for allowing me to voice my point of view. i am addressing the issue whether obama is flip-floping more evolving. i think it is only natural that we call it devolution. -- call it the evolution. he changede said that yo his pointed you because of his daughters. the fact that he can learn from his children is a sign that he does not see himself as the paragon of all that is right and all that is wrong. he is willing to learn from younger people, which is only a tribute to the fact that he is willing to learn. all of our politicians who have the point of view that they have complete knowledge of what is right, ethically or morally, or what is wrong. host: thank you for the call. you can join the conversation on our facebook page. our question of flip-floping verses devolving. on the phone from texas on the republican line. caller: good morning. this is the 0 p from waco. do you remember our last conversation? host: i do. caller: when i give these numbers, every time i used the billions, just remember that $100 million is only a 10th of a billion. so just add a zero to whatever i say. for example, in the last year- and-a-half, the gao says that we have, through redundant programs, wasteful spending, flushed down the toilet $400 billion a year. that is $60 billion of fraudulent payments with respect to medicare. that is $40 billion with respect to medicaid. we are talking about the president wants the buffett wrote. that will barely cover the fraudulent payments that we made to illegals per year, not to mention the billions that go down the toilet that we give them through the back door. and then you have all of the slush funds, like through the energy department, so linda, and all of the other things. look at all the money going down the toilet. as far as this particular subject, this should not be any surprise. i do not think the president the vault. he showed his hand way back there. remember when he decided -- and i thought it was somewhat constitutional -- and he would not enforce the law, the defense of marriage act. and speaking of the constitution, there was a major oil -- a major article that the big media did not carry, that nearly a dozen states attorney general's show that the president has himself directly disregarded the constitution 21 times. so here we are talking about gay rights. i just cannot believe we are going that far. steve, what do you think? what do you think we should be worried about? host: this is a chance for me to hear from you and our viewers to hear from all of you. as you know, in its network, there is not a chance to discuss their point of view. an e-mail from washington -- on our twitter page, the twitter perkins has this point of view -- the caller referring to solyndra, this is one of the ads that is part of the debate, flip-floping vs devolving. let's watch. >> we could see positive effects. through the recovery act, they can expand this operation. this new factory is a result. >> understand that this was not all program per se. host: back to your calls and your thoughts of flip-floping, evolving views in this 22 presidential campaign. democrat from ohio on the phone. caller: on the flip-floping, hyacinth sure that he evolved. i evil. when i gun into school and found out that some people are born with x x y or an extra chromosome, not that all homosexuals are, but we have a golden rule could anyone that wants to make it a religious issue -- you cannot take the chance on stepping on somebody's human-rights, their right to be happy and to live free. that is too big to gamble with. i support homosexual marriage. host: ok, thank you for the call. "the baltimore sun" with a preview of the sunday morning programs that will include a discussion of the dodd-frank bill. stephen dennis commented that senator carl levin in the u.s. senate is pushing for regulators to stiffen their language on the volcker rule. senator levin is appearing on "meet the press." nancy is on the phone from connecticut on the republican line. caller: we are sick and tired of the liberal media covering up for obama and protecting him. i have many independent friends and they are all voting for mitt romney because obama is anti- israel. israel will have big problems if he is in office for four more years. host: why is he anti-israel? caller: he is allowing iran get the nuclear bombs. he is a complete failure on a farm policy. nobody mentions that appeared the only people that were so excited about this the issue or the liberal media. and to tell republicans they are on the wrong side, these people, the liberal media and liberals and progressives, are so intolerant of any republican. we are sick of it. so the referendum on the liberal media, ok? we are sick of it appeared you know, obama was a bully also appeared he beat up at parole core -- he beat up that girl coretta. he never apologized. mitt romney did. he has a women pause chance to choose, christians, hispanics, the oil company, millionaires. this man really hits women. host: ok. from "the national journal," and from "the chicago sun-times," his every evolving views on the marriage. evolving vs flip-floping. good morning to you independent line. caller: i would like to say that he is not flip-floping. he is not evolving. he is flip-floping. when god said in the new testament that he would turn homosexuals over to fe -- and be damned. it is all about sex. that is all it is about. it is nothing about homosexuals but sex. that is all they care for. if they want to live with each other, that is fine. but don't put it out of base. we are tired of these people trying to be what they are not host:. thank you for the call. meanwhile, over the weekend, the present and the vice president making their appearance since the apology. the vice president did apologize to the president for jumping the issue on the marriage. they appeared yesterday as the president and vice president on a police officers in a ceremony at the rose garden. back to your calls, and john is on the phone from danville, illinois. caller: i think that all politicians flip-flop back-and- forth. it is not a big deal. but i think god should judge the people one way or another. and i would like to find out whatever happened about the bill that went through congress to impeach this man that is in re before he turns us into a military police state and controls everybody. host: thank you for the call. the front page "below the fold," approaching the trial for john edwards as subdued. it is a nearly month-long trial in greensboro, north carolina. it begins with these words. "john edwards takes minting careful steps now, not the long strides of the triumphant. in said the jump pages a picture of john edwards with his daughter who has been at his side during this ongoing trial. good morning from north carolina. caller: yes, i would just like to put it out there that i am a gay independent living in north carolina. and i am appalled with this gay ban for marriage. it is not only affect the gays in north carolina pick it affects everybody. also, why would you make such a law, such an amendment when there is already a ban on homosexual marriage and a ban on unions of -- heterosexual unions as well other than marriage? this will bring it down fall in the north carolina economy because a lot of companies will not come to north carolina. if you will lead north carolina because of this ban. -- and they will leave north carolina because of this ban. our president will say what ever they want to say. we need somebody who comes out of the gate and stick to their were finally. there is no more bill of rights because it has been shattered. in my opinion, as homosexuals are now the illegal immigrant, the mexicans, and we are being hated upon on some levels. that is my comment. thank you. host: another point of view from our tour page -- you can continue this conversation on twitter. coming up in just a couple of minutes, a conversation about cell phone tracking. our guest is christopher calabrese from the aclu. and virgil gould will be joining us. and "newsmakers" making some news this morning. senator hoven will join us on "newsmakers" after the "washington journal". here is an excerpt. [video clip] >> this is an important part of getting it passed through the senate and house cricket to look at the bill itself, it was the bill that was put together in the senate. so the provisions that the house added, one of which is keystone, are important in terms of getting it to the house. senator in half's comments were good in that he said, look, we want to get a highway bill done. which is important. at the same time, he things keystone will be and should be part of it because it is important infrastructure and that is what a highway bill is all about. >> you referenced the importance of gas prices as a motivator. but they are starting to trend down. i spoke with analysts this morning saying that, by midsummer, it will be down to $3 per gallon. does that change the course of dynamics? >> it really does not. you have to look at a long-term basis. over the years, gas prices have doubled. we can produce more energy in this country, particularly working with their closest friend and ally, canada. we can produce more energy than we consume. that is energy security. that means not to lower gas prices for the long term, but also a security issue so we do not have to rely on the middle east or places like venezuela, not to mention a huge job creator and lower energy prices that will help get our economy going. that is so important. we need economic growth as well as better control of spending. for all of those reasons, we need not only keystone and other vital infrastructure projects to move forward, we also need to continue to move the kind of energy legislation that myself and others are putting forward for the good of the country on a longer-term basis. i believe that we can get to energy independence in five years to it seven years if we pass the right kind of legislation, creating the kind of legal text needed in our informant. host: senator john hogan is our guest on a " newsmakers." christopher calabrese is joining us. he is with the aclu. thank you for joining us. let's talk about the issue of cell phone tracking. let's take a step back and say, when you are on cell phone, what kind of information can be gleaned from those? guest: a lot of information. yourself and is communicating with a cell tower about every seven seconds, whether or not you are on a caller not come simply to say i am here if i need a call. so that is revealing the location of the cell tower that it is going to. frequently, that information is triangulated so it is multiple cell towers that give your precise location. oftentimes, if you have a smartphone, your phone is gathering information in a lot of ways with the nearest wi-fi device, for example. it is pretty precise information about you and it is keeping a detailed log of your movements at all the time you are holding it. host: is there anything wrong with this? guest: there is nothing wrong with you sharing your information if that is what you choose. there's nothing wrong with the company -- the forum -- the phone company doing it per se. what it means is controls so that law-enforcement only access is it by warrantor with companies with your permission when you wanted. host: jason one steam spoke about this issue at a recent event. [video clip] >> probable causes a standard that we follow this starkly in american law enforcement for the most intrusive techniques. but it is important to keep in mind that we do not begin an investigation with probable cause. we have to use less intrusive techniques as building blocks to develop enough evidence to overcome a probable cause standard. celt our information is a important one of the building blocks. it is used routinely in the early stages of criminal investigations and national security terrorism investigations when the government does not have probable cause. to distinguish the type of information and require probable cause for all types would cripple many law enforcement before they can really reach their goal. we make it substantially harder to get this information and to solve crimes. host: is this really dealing with the authority in the jurisdiction of law enforcement? many times, they need that information. life could be on the line. a criminal could be on the loose. guest: this our constitutional protections. any time you bring up these kinds of barriers, it makes it harder for law enforcement. we understand that. but that is built into the fourth amendment saying that law enforcement cannot do whatever it wants. recently, the supreme court said that location information implicates the fourth amendment, part of our constitutional rights. knowing that, we have to set up a process so that it can be accessed in a appropriate way. there is a bill that would set up appropriate controls, including probable cause, including an emergency exception, so that location information can be used, but only when appropriate. host: this issue of a generic warrant, does that cross the line, the constitutional line? guest: i think the constitutional line is a warrant based on probable cause. that is what we're saying. we're getting probable cause that your location will reveal evidence of a crime. if i suspect that you rub it 7- 11, of course i will get yourself on information to see if you were there. this is not a very high standard. it is not that you could never use location information. it is just weaving it into the fabric of law enforcement investigations in the same way that we have always used probable cause warts. host: you can call us at the numbers at the bottom of the screen or you can join us on twitter and facebook. let me share with you with senator al franken said in a recent letter to the justice department. "i am writing to ask you that the department of justice's own practice of requesting information for wireless carriers -- can you elaborate? guest: what senator franken is asking for is basic information. how often do you do this? are you getting reimbursed? really fundamental stuff. this is a common law enforcement practice. it is really amazing that we don't have this kind of information already and we applauded senator frank and when he saw that kind of basic information and we are interested to hear what the response will be. host: he is the legislative counsel for policy issues at the american civil liberties union. the website is aclu.org. independently, good morning. caller: i am calling in regards to invasion of privacy. it is not just with cell phones. another issue that needs to be taken up is what about the national defense authorization act? mainstream media does not talk about that. i have heard little mention of it on c-span. i would like to know what you have to say about that. host: thank you. guest: it is very troubling could hit the something that the aclu has been talking about for quite a while to be clear, it would allow military detention of civilians in the finale. we feel it is a violation of the constitution. civilians should not be detained by the military. these are violations of basic constitutional freedoms. law enforcement powers, security powers -- we have seen a real expense for the last 10 years, of course, and how these powers are used and how we have granted the these powers to government. these are the benchmarks that say you can go past this line a matter what the situation no matter what the current circumstance. host: this question may be apples and oranges, because it is not tracking information. but a viewer is asking -- guest: that is a very good question. the first thing to understand is that the supreme court is recent. we have not seen the full implications of that case in the or court decisions. information that you share -- if i tell you my location, that is different, i think -- i think the court things, then a device that is recording my information and sharing it without my permission. it is a different legal standard. but i think it is important that we really get control of the fact that personal information is flying around about each of us and we have no control over it and that is part and parcel of this location tracking. guest: going back to your 7-11 idea -- 9 guest: the supreme court says that location tracking reveals your associations, who you're with all the time, do you spend time with, your interests and hobbies -- not just at a particular time, but all the time. whether you're going to a peace rally or a therapist or a bar or church or all of those things in any particular order, that should be protected. you should not worry that the government is monitoring you, they take an interesting you, or your employer might take an interest and where your going. you should be able to do them without worrying that the government is scrutinizing you without good reason because you are a free american. host: how does google do we with free views, a traveling kem cars driving a people's driveways? guest: they are a little different. the street you something that they're taking simply by driving around. they are essentially taking photographs of things that are in plain view. whereas, with a cell phone, you are paying for cell phone service. you don't assume that you will be giving up your privacy when you pay for itself phone service. and ultimately, google is not the government. the school has its own set of rules set by the constitution and that is what we want and -- the government has its own set of rules set by the constitution and that is what we want to protect. caller: i would like to know why the general news media is not picking up on obama ordering a 30,000 drones for america? i have called my senators and house of representatives and said what is going on and they keep telling me, well, we will pass it on. what are the passing on, something on nothing? we're losing our freedoms under this man faster than any other president in the united states we have had. i am very concerned. i am concerned because i am so political. am i being watched? i am on the phone three or four times a recalling d.c., to my representatives, and i am getting nothing other than that we will pass it on. we paid puku bucks for people to tell me they will pass it on. what are the passing on? are you following me? are you tracking me? i believe you are. i believe my phone has been tapped. we're losing our freedoms. are we being tracked at home and in privacy when we are driving around or somewhere else? host: your response? guest: if your political and you are worried about what is going on in this country, you worry that someone is buying a new and you worry that that is a pressing your ability to express your fundamental freedoms. in remarks to drones, congress just passed the reauthorization act appeared in the provision, there was a bill that authorized the more widespread use of an unmanned aircraft or drones over the next five years. so we will see an expansion of the drones that legislation did not contain explicit privacy protections. that will be an ongoing discussion over the next five years. . caller: we all hopefully will act accordingly. so thank you. guest: thanks for the call. yeah, i mean our fundamental freedoms are the things that we can't allow to be bartered away for any particular concern, in fear of any particular enemy. we have to recognize that the constitution served us well for more than 200 years. it will continue to serve us well but we have to embrace those values. host: our next call is connie joining us from puerto rico, good morning, connie. caller: good morning. in terms of cell phone tracking and privacy rights, i really think there needs to be a balance because in an internet age when so many things are electronic and records are electronic, i think, you know, national security concerns should be primary. what i'm concerned about is that people in power using these things for partisan purposes and that there should be some legitimate oversight, not just everything in the executive and also, we need to be concerned that you don't get into a joe mccarthy age where people are branded inappropriately. so if people, you know, try to, yeah -- people just need to have checks and balances and restore those in their government. host: thank you, connie. guest: i think connie is absolutely right and it's interesting, there will be a hearing this thursday on a bipartisan bill to make location tracking require a probable cause warrant. that's a bipartisan bill that will be in the house judiciary committee, sponsored by very strong republicans like james henson brenner who is the former chair of the house judiciary committee, mr. john conyers who is also the former chair of the house judiciary committee on the democratic side. so there really is, i believe, a bipartisan consensus that probable cause warrants are an appropriate tract for location tracking. we may also need some reporting requirements as well as senator franken called for but i think that a solution that a middle ground solution really is possible and appropriate here for location tracking because you're right, i mean, we have these new records. we don't necessarily have rules for them. we need to create those rules. >> as you well know, a decade ago, the debate that followed the 9/11 attacks is the patriot act and the question is where does the constitution come down vs. the issue of national security and that seems to be somewhat along the lines of now what we're dealing with as the justice department looks to try to track cell phone usage as a way to either prevent a crime or track down a criminal. guest: it's interesting the national security debate here. much of what the discussion has been up to this point has been law enforcement, not national security. law enforcement and they are two different things, of course, and so in this bill that i was just describing, there is actually a national security exception which is really a separate issue because we don't know what's happening in the national security realm of location tracking. there's a different set of rules. there's an enormous amount of secrecy and i think that raises really troubling concerns. the same ones that we had in the patriot act where we don't even know what's going on, we don't know what techniques are authorized. how can we regulate them appropriately? host: again, i put this question in it's related category. we've been following things that has been happening in great britain, covering the inquiry in which rupert murdoch and rebecca have been taking some direct questions. one of our twitter followings saying is there an investigation of news corp guilty of hack cell phones, how do you think they got those number one stories? is there anything to parallel what we're seeing in great britain here in the u.s.? guest: clearly in the u.k. that's where the investigation is happening. that's where most of the parties are. that's where the most -- to this point, this is where most of the hacking seems to have taken place and though the f.b.i. was certainly investigating whether a u.s. company was essentially violating foreign law which would be a violation of u.s. law as well, and i suspect that they're also looking into whether there were american victims of this kind of, you know, wiretapping and hacking and it's related. it's not directly related but it does sort of demonstrate, you know, you might not have anything to hide per se. you might not have done something wrong but if you look at what happened in that investigation, i can't remember the name of the model but her assistant was fired because of, you know, because information leaked as part of the, you know, the u.k. wiretapping scandal and the model just assumed it was her assistant who leaked it because the assistant was the only one who knew. she was fired. she lost her job. she didn't do anything wrong but there was a privacy violation that has real consequences. so even if you haven't done something wrong, there's still, you know, very much serious consequences and reason we have these privacy laws. host: the issue of privacy and the constitution and cell phone tracking, again, that's our topic with christopher calabrese joining us here at the table with the aclu. our phone lines are open. give us a call with your comments and questions and dan is on the phone. republican line. from san diego. good morning, daniel. caller: good morning, gentlemen. first off, high five, c-span, i appreciate your service and high five aclu, i appreciate your pushback on this. i've been greatly concerned about this trend since really post patriot act and though you just briefly touched on this, my question is what percentage of usage of this trend is being engaged in local law enforcement and if we are concerned about the usage of this trend in national security interest, how can we possibly get access to the amount of times that this is being done? guest: it's a fantastic question. we were worried about the same thing. the aclu did a nationwide request of about 400 different local law enforcement. host: freedom of information act. guest: freedom of information act request and of the 200 police agencies responded, 190 of them use location tracking so it is essentially a universal practice. and only a handful of them are doing it with probable cause. so we really don't know exactly how much location information is being tapped by local police but we know it's a lot. host: randy has this point of view. the government has been listening to us for a very long time. anything they want to use, they'll cite national security to get around the law that goes back to the patriot act issue earlier. guest: you know, we have to push back against that trend. we also need rules that start with police. right now, we don't even have the basic rules for law enforcement never mind the national security realm. that will start with law enforcement and we'll get a probable cause warrant and then we'll, you know, try to get more information about what's happening in the national security realm where we really don't know what's happening and then we'll push, you know, for an appropriate standard there as well. host: good morning to you joining us from lauten, oklahoma. caller: good morning. i love your program. i see very similar parallels between 1930's germany and today in the united states. we are living in a fascist state right now and or a police state and one quote i ran across from a lady who survived nazi germany. she said our freedoms were not taken in a flood of new laws. it was taken by the slow drip, drip, drip, drip of a leaking faucet and that's what's happening today. and i believe -- and i truly believe this, the politicians have thrown all these red herrings out there like abortion and gay rights and everything to focus the attention away from what's really happening. fascism is the merger of corporations in the state. mussolini did the same thing when he basically took the civil rights away and they just from northern italy and eventually took over the whole country. this is what's happening in this country. you can go back to 1933. this isn't the first attempt to take our rights away. it was called the business prop where the bankers, the corporations tried to actually overthrow the united states government and they were working hand in hand with nazi germany. host: thanks for the call. christopher calabrese? guest: well, i mean, things are -- things get bad in this country. we recognize that and we saw about 100 years ago, there was a plot, there was actually a bomb detonated on the floor of the senate. not the first time. this is a century ago. not the first time we've faced these kinds of problems, terrorist issues, you know, the violence in our country. we've maintained our core values in the face of that and it stood us well. hundreds of fears of freedom, economic prosperity, happiness. so i think we just need to continue to stick with what's -- which what has created the success of our country which is our constitutional values and, you know, we need to resist any efforts this slow drip, drip of taking away our rights. host: let me go back to really the debate that so many people have been wrestling with which is if law enforcement officials are trying to track somebody down that is a known criminal, that could be a threat to society, could be a threat to individuals, why not in this case overstep any individual rights for the protection of the larger population? guest: i don't think that would be overstepping. if you've got a known criminal, someone who has been convicted of a crime or, you know, there's a warrant out for their arrest, that's well -- host: even if suspected? guest: if you've got probable cause which basically says that you have enough evidence to arrest that essentially. so it's not, you know, that's well within the system that we have now and that's an appropriate use of location tracking. so it's really -- i'm really glad you asked it. it's not this idea that we can never use these new records and the new tools. they have to be used in an appropriate way with a framework that, you know, guarantees that the innocent aren't surveilled along with the guilty. host: where does that line cross? guest: well, you know, the line, i believe, and we believe is really probable cause. so if you've got someone who, you know, you believe is a, you know, a criminal, you've got evidence that shows that they were in the area or just other -- a variety of different ways that you can determine that they're, you know, impossibly involved in this crime, you can certainly use location information to make that case. and that's within a standard that existed for a long time, that's probable cause. law enforcement understands it. prosecutors understand it. they can employ it here. host: robert has this question. could phone tracking be considered harassment? guest: that's another side of this, of course, is if a private party uses tracking and it's not just cell phone tracking. it could be a g.p.s. device on a car, for example, to track the location of a -- you know, someone they're stalking or could be an abusive husband or boyfriend stalking their ex-wife. or, you know, or husband. so we could have a situation where private parties misuse this. there really isn't regulation of location tracking. we haven't talked about that. but that's certainly something that this law would regulate and it's an appropriate regulation. host: robert is on the phone from anderson, kentucky. good morning. caller: good morning. you know, i don't know why people worry about government tracking you and all that stuff. any crook can go down to the radio shack and $8 or $10 buy something that you could buy to steal your information. they can -- they're the ones that take from you and everybody worries and worries about -- there's zillions of phones and stuff out there, there's antennas for them everywhere and you can't expect privacy with that stuff. guest: very good point. he's absolutely right. that's the other piece of this g.p.s. act, this bill that i mentioned that will be before congress or going to have a hearing on this thursday, it would also -- just the way that government keeps, you know, people from tapping your phones, it makes that illegal. it's not just illegal for the government to do it, it's illegal for me to tap your private conversations as well. similarly, we would want to make location tracking illegal absent things like your own consent so a private party doesn't have to worry about being tracked in your day to day life. host: steve says if you have probable cause, you can get a warrant in tract. in some cases, law enforcement officials don't have enough time to get that warrant and they want to go ahead and begin tracking cell phone usage. guest: similar to the way we do phone tapping conversations, if you have an emergency and there's two kinds of emergencies. there's a law enforcement emergency where you think somebody is in danger but you don't have time to get the warrant, you can go ahead and track them for 48 hours and go back and get the warrant later. so you can track first, get the warrant later if you have this standard. and then if you have the other kind of emergency where someone is lost or they've been kidnapped, that's an emergency where someone's life and bomb is in danger and that you can track as well. host: glenn is on the phone from missouri. good morning with christopher calabrese from the aclu. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm fully in favor of people being able to track somebody because i know a man here that his wife was supposed to be working. and she wasn't. and he tracked her down exactly to find out she was cheating on him. wonderful way to be able to do something. thank you. guest: well, we disagree on that subject. host: robert is on the phone. lot of viewers in california early on a sunday morning this mother's day. go ahead, rob. caller: hello. hello? host: yes, you're on the air. caller: thank you. yeah, i'm in an industry of video tracking and on this topic of cell phone tracking. if this passes, what about the mantra for pedophiles? would that give them a way out? and also like to talk about video camera tracking because there's a high rate of mortality in taxi cabs. at what point in time do we give up privacy for freedom? guest: well, you know, those are two interesting examples. i think we could regulate those in the bill. i'd have to go back and look at the language. i think tracking a convicted offender of any sort, there's already an exception and you would build in another law enforcement exemption exception for that. if you own the cab, you're allowing to be tracked yourself, in essence. that would be outside the rules. host: assuming that the tracking is taking place so this is from a twitter viewer, twitter from a viewer saying will they track everything? and then look for the anomalies in the data. guest: i think that's the real concern, right? i mean, if we start to say, well, you're guilty until proven innocent, so i'm going to keep an eye on you, you know, just the people that we think are a danger. and i'm just going to track them all the time and i'm going to see what comes up, you know. and then if something does come up, i'm going to investigate it. well, i mean, not only is that really suppress your freedoms and your right to go about your day-to-day life but, you know, what -- what's going to be uncovered? how much abuse and how much fraud -- i shouldn't say fraud but how much abuse is going to take place as we start to target people we don't like, we think are suspicious or whatever political stripe or persuasion we think are troublemakers. host: let me take that one step further. reveals how difficult it is for those who are convicts getting back into society. if you suspect somebody who has been in jail, they've served their time and trying to get back into the work force and get on with their lives in society, what are the chances that person, that individual could face this kind of tracking? guest: well, you have to worry about it. i mean, you -- host: assuming they've done nothing wrong. guest: assuming they've done nothing wrong. we've seen a number of barriers put in place for people post conviction who are trying to reintegrate into society. you would worry that ubiquitous tracking would be an easy way to keep an eye on them and make sure they haven't reoffended. in this country, you're innocent until proven guilty for a reasonful all of us want to enjoy those kinds of things. these things are really too much of a temptation. host: you can get more on this issue by logging on to aclu.org, american civil liberties union. tom is on the phone from port charlotte, florida. good morning. caller: hello? host: you're on the air. please go ahead. caller: yes, i have a question about this homeland security thing in florida. all of a sudden, they've doubled the prices on our licenses. we have to bring in two forms of like your electric bill and water bill, your original birth certificate and i have had a license for seven years since i had an infraction or i had some problems in 2004. in 2005, they reinstated me and in 2007, the five year was up. so tallahassee, i did the mail-in thing. and all of a sudden, this homeland security people since my birthday expired. this is eight years later, have a problem with 2004, and i'm -- they will not give me a license now and, you know, i'm one of the people that -- one of the millions that got write off, 18 of us the same day. it will cost a bunch of money to straighten this mess out because homeland security that i'm paying for to expand bigger and bigger and here i am sitting here in this position, and homeland security, that i pay, is just throwing a bunch of horrible obstacles in my life. host: thanks for the call. guest: it's called the real idea act. it's a bill that congress passed all the way back in 2005 that would essentially create a one size fits all standard for state driver's licenses and it was supposed to be a security requirement. in fact, actually many states rejected it. at this point, there's about 16 states that actually said, we're not going to comply with these real i.d. requirements. we think they're burdensome and unnecessary. florida obviously isn't one of those states but i urge the caller to call his local elected official, state official and say hey, you guys should reject the real i.d. act. lots of other states have done it. pennsylvania was the most recent, just this week as a matter of fact. so it's got burdensome requirements that we think are unnecessary, it's a separate discussion but it's some where states can push back. host: is it easy or difficult for law enforcement officials to get that warrant if they need it in a timely basis? guest: in a timely basis and on an emergency basis, it's easy. assuming you have -- assuming certainly if someone's life is at risk, it's easy. assuming you have an appropriate standard for a criminal investigation, even if it's emergency so you don't have the time, it's also easy. you simply have to go back later and get a warrant. so it's not difficult to do in an emergency. and again, it's the appropriate standard. there's a bipartisan agreement about this. supreme court has confirmed that location tracking implicates the fourth amendment which is a constitutional privacy protection. so sometimes easy or hard isn't always the question. sometimes it's right or wrong. here we think it's a constitutional question of right or wrong. host: privacy rights framing this comment from one of our viewers at the airport often saying we're already guilty until proven innocent at airports. a total flip-flop of rights and t.s.a. is growing, coming to bus, trains and road blocks around the country. i'm not sure about road blocks but seen it at the airports. guest: we've also seen it at buses and trains. t.s.a., it's really troubling. i sit sometimes -- this is another issue i'll do sometimes. i sit with t.s.a. officials at panels and they'll start off by saying listen, we can't have 100% security. ok, if we can't have 100% security, it's all going to be a balance. it's all going to be a tradeoff. so the question is how much are we losing? how much are we trading in terms of the groping and the naked body scanners, having t.s.a. officials at buses vs. the security we're gaining and i urge everybody to ask themselves that question and think whether there's a good answer to that once they're standing in one of those lines. host: that's another topic for another day. back to the issue of cell phone and tracking devices and the constitution. and privacy issues. our topic this morning with christopher calabrese who is an attorney with the aclu. sharon is on the phone from hyattsville, morton dean. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe obama is using this to his advantage to track down political enemies and people like myself who simply speaks out about him. that could be considered a crime. you know, or suspicion of someone. you know, it's over -- it's just overstepping it in my opinion. track people on their cell phones? i believe he's using this to use against his opposition. people like myself who speaks out against him. i mean, like the one they did with ted nugent. he said nothing about harming the president or anything. but before you know it, he had the f.b.i. of -- i don't know. who led the f.b.i. after him? this is so people could go after his political enemy. he cannot stand criticism. he's thin skinned. host: thank you, sharon. guest: well, you know, that's the problem with not having an appropriate across-the-board standard because you don't know how it's being used. host: from stan, what is the difference between passive g.p.s. tracking and someone following you in a car and writing down your locations all day? guest: it's an awful lot more work to follow you around, seriously. in some ways, it's not more complicated than that. this would allow -- g.p.s. tracking, cell phone tracking would allow the government to simultaneously track thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people. literally, it's technological possible, it's actually happening. we're carrying these devices all the time so, you know, the manpower alone, i think, would foreclose that kind of surveillance just by an individual, just by the government itself. host: you can share your comments on our facebook page. facebook.com/cspan. donna is on the phone from wheeling, west virginia. caller: i'm going to go now? host: yes, we can hear you, go ahead. caller: my name is donna. i'm a victim of the cell phone tracking. host: how so? donna, how so? caller: well, everything on a cell phone is repeated -- you can hear yourself echoing. my family members have their cell phones, you know, you can hear echoing and everything. host: we all deal with echoing in the cell phone. caller: no, it's echoing on -- i'm echoing on cell phones and land phones. and we -- i went to use a pay phone on the city street and on the handle of the phone, it says this phone is being tracked by the government. i mean, and i was with a fellow tenant where i used to live, they evicted me because i'm fighting for justice and worked for 49 years in the housing authority. i am a victim of that. and they have evicted me. and i've been, you know, 30 years on community services. i received an award in 2008 on interracial justice and my family has been evicted. i'm homeless right now. and g.p.s. on vehicles. they follow us everywhere we go. this really is corrupt. and the police track me everywhere i go. the sheriff, i've been cut off by the sheriff's department. one in front, one in back. and because i'm fighting for justice, racial justice, i have extremist groups spin their tires in front of my house. going over to that housing authority. host: i'll stop you there on that point, christopher calabrese, did you want to respond? guest: of course, i can't know about donna's particular circumstances but the fact is that all of our cell phones are byproduct of tracking devices. whether someone is tracking any individual, the capacity is there and just as a function of the cell phone, that kind of tracking is happening. host: matthew, good morning. joining us from utah. our line for republicans with christopher calabrese of the aclu. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my question. what i'm curious is where does the aclu see as being the definitive level where checks and balances need to take place to ensure that this is not being abused by law enforcement or federal agencies and things of that nature and what does the average citizen have as a -- as a way to respond that they feel that -- that their rights have been infringed upon? guest: it's a very good question. i think we think the line is probable cause. we think the line is that you, you know, the same constitutional standard that we've been talking about today. in terms of the average citizen, you know, it's a very good question because, of course, this kind of surveillance is basically invisible. you're not going to necessarily know that someone is tracking your cell phone so what we -- we believe is that there should be reporting and transparency so you have a sense of how much this is being used and, you know, what's being done with it and then if it does happen and your case comes -- the law enforcement tries to use this in a case against you, if it's been obtained illegally it should be thrown out. that's called suppression of evidence and illegal evidence being suppressed and if it doesn't lead to an investigation but you still find out that the surveillance is taking place and you believe it's improper, you should be able to go to the administrators of that particular police office and have a mandatory review of whether that officer or official acted appropriately and whether they should be disciplined. that's similar to the wiretap act, the way that works right now. host: our next caller is from cincinnati. dee is on the phone. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. i am just listening to the discussions of cell phones and i think the point has been touched upon that i was just really surprised when i got a new cell phone that it pinpoints your location and i just found that to be very disturbing. i guess i know that the cell phones can be, you know, people know from the tower, i suppose, where you would be at any given time. but this is really just upsetting to me to think that someone can pinpoint your exact location at any time, it just takes away from privacy all over the board. and that's very disturbing to me. and it seems that this trend started when president bush was in office and i remember trying to attend town hall meetings and being rejected because of, you know, perhaps our wearing of a t-shirt that they didn't like or, you know, being anti of whatever the policies were at the time. this is disturbing to me to know that we can be tracked like this. i'm skeptical to have my television on thinking, perhaps, someone can see through it. host: thank you, dee from ohio. guest: well, i mean, you know, we sort of did start with president bush but that has more to do with the rise of this particular technology and the use of cell phones. it's interesting to note that the pinpointing of location, it's not just your cell phone company. it's also, for example, your -- the operating system your phone has. so if it has google, that information is often shared with them. location information also can be shared from your phone with the apps you have on it. if you have a smart phone and it collects your information, that's being logged as well. so, you know, it's not just the carriers. it's really a lot of third parties that have your location and that's another reason to think that this has gotten a little out of control and we need to regulate. host: let me come back to that last point which is what is the tracking of cell phones? you indicated that congress is taking up the issue this week. guest: congress is taking up the issue this week in a number of ways. we saw senator franken wrote a great letter to the department of justice asking them how they use these practices. a representative wrote a great letter the week before to the carriers asking them what is your practices when law enforcement comes to you? there will be a hearing this thursday in front of the house judiciary committee, the crime subcommittee about the g.p.s. act which is a bill that would require probable cause, a probable cause warrant in order to use g.p.s. and actually if you wanted to learn more about that, you can go to the aclu's web site, www.aclu.org and search the g.p.s. act and you can find an action, you can find more information about it and if you want to learn about that law and about that hearing, you can find more there. host: thanks very much for being with us, christopher calabrese of the aclu. coming up in a moment, our conversation with constitution party nominee virgil goode, a former member of congress and later, we'll introduce you to ralph eubanks of the library of congress. this is one of a number of campaign posters, nixon's the one back in 1972 as he campaigned for re-election. we'll look back at political posters and their influence on american politics as the "washington journal" continues on this sunday morning. back in a moment. host: joining us from richmond, virginia is former congressman and former constitutional party presidential nominee, virgil goode. thanks very much for being with us. guest: thank you, steve. doing your program this morning. host: part of our campaign coverage at cspan.org. why did you decide to run and why the constitution party? guest: steve, at this point in our nation's history, we need several courses of action and the constitution party and my nomination as their candidate for president will enable us to focus on balancing the budget now, securing our borders by eliminating illegal immigration and reducing legal immigration. i also favor term limits. for example, i am going to serve only one term if elected president. i believe if the incumbent president was campaigning less and focusing more on the needs of the country, country would be better off. i also support term limits for members of the house and members of the united states senate. our campaign is taking no donation over $200. i had a little funds left over from a congressional account, and some personal money going into the campaign but from citizens across the country will limit it to $200 per individual with no pac contributions. the political action committees are morning the money into the national democrats and into the national republicans and into the campaigns of romney and obama. we need grassroots leadership in the white house, not those that -- that our first order of business is listening to the big pact -- pacs and it is big donors. host: let's talk about getting elected first and foremost. looking from past history with third party presidential candidates dating back to 1980 when john anderson ran as a member of congress and then as an independent candidate against jimmy carter and ronald reagan, he got 6 1/2% of the votes. in 1992, the high mark, ross perot getting almost 19% of the vote. and in 2000, ralph nader getting about 2 1/2% of the vote and in all three cases, none earning any electoral votes. how does the constitution party do it in 2012 and how do you do it personally? guest: well, you didn't get quite far enough in history. abraham lincoln was basically a third party candidate when he won the presidency in 1860. third party candidates in 1948 received electoral college votes and in 1968, received electoral college votes. in 1892, the peoples party with james b. weaver as its candidate received a number of electoral votes in the midwest. this year is more like 1860 and 1890 than it was 1980. the level of dissatisfaction across this country with both major parties is significant and with the course that both are taking us down. for example, in dealing with the federal deficit, obama submitted a budget that is $1.3 trillion in deficit. the republican passed budget resolution is over $600 billion in deficit this year. we need persons in the white house and in the congress that have the courage to balance now, not 10 years down the road. host: how do you answer this question posed by michael shaley in "time" magazine, he's writing about americans elect which is trying to get a third party candidate by having a place on the ballot in all 50 states but his question in time, why has a third party presidential effort sputtered? why is the constitution party in terms of valid access and what's your take on americans elect which is essentially an internet driven nomination process? guest: the constitution party is ballot eligible in 17 states including florida, ohio, michigan, missouri. we hope to be on at least 40 state ballots come november. possibly more. with regard to americans elect, i know i've talked to some individuals that have participated in that process, and they have told me that they worked very hard to get through all the hoops that you had to jump through to cast the ballot. i know my wife tried and she found it very difficult and a lot of persons do not like giving part of their social security number in order to cast a ballot. i had a number of citizens tell me, said well, i'm not going to do my ballot by giving four numbers of my social security number and putting that on the internet. so i know your previous persons were talking about g.p.s. tracking and how all the information that google and all those are able to have on persons and a lot don't want to do that and i think that's a factor in the sputtering of the americans elect effort. they also said that someone like myself could not be a candidate on americans elect if you have any party nomination you cannot be a candidate. so i think it's difficult to navigate the process on americans elect but i want to salute americans elect for trying to give the public options besides that of the democrats and that of the republican nominee process. host: our guest is virgil goode who is a veteran of the u.s. house of representatives serving six terms. before that, he served in the virginia legislature. a graduate of the university of richmond and u.v.a. law school, our phone lines are open. you can also send us an e-mail or join the conversation on our twitter page. before we get to calls and comments, give our listeners and viewers your pitch. why should you be the next president? what's your message? guest: to the citizens of this country, i would say we are on a downhill slide in the united states. under president obama, a course of increased indebtedness is running at break neck speed. over $5 trillion added to the national debt. there is not the courage now to end the deficit spending. tough choices have to be made. if i'm elected president, i will submit a balanced budget. secondly, i will totally eliminate illegal immigration and work to significantly reduce legal immigration. i am the only candidate that has called for a moratorium on green card admissions into the united states with a very few minor exceptions such as a visa or having someone like warner von brawn wanting to come to the united states. why should we admit 1.2 million persons annually by giving them a green card and 2/3 of that number go immediately into the work force when the unemployment rate is between 8% and 9%. we need jobs in america for americans first. also, i mentioned campaign finance. we need a candidate that is free of the big special interest in washington. and the hollywood millionaires on the west coast and the financial moguls and wall street and new york who are contributing heavily to obama and to governor romney's campaign. on other issues such as traditional marriage, i have been a consistent supporter defining marriages between one woman and one man. both president obama and governor romney had wavered and flipped and flopped on that issue. host: this is a tactical and political question, congressman goode. how on earth -- this is from one of our viewers, do you expect to make any headway with a legitimate campaign when you're not even on the ballot in california. guest: we are going to make an effort to get on the ballot in california. it's an uphill fight. but california is a big state. the biggest with a lot of electoral votes and we are going to make an effort there and we'll see how that pans out within the next two months. host: so what does this say about the state of political parties and the difficulty that you, the libertarian that americans elect have in trying to get a third party on the ballot state by state? guest: well, it varies greatly among the different states. here in virginia, for example, which is among the hardest states to get on the ballot, you've got to get 10,000 signatures and 400 in each district. senator santorum and former speaker gingrich nor governor rick perry were able to achieve ballot access in virginia. ron paul made it by a close shave and governor romney worked on it longer and he was on with a sufficient number of signatures. we are hopeful of getting on the ballot in virginia. i know my signatures will likely be highly scrutinized and we're getting them all across the state. oklahoma is another example of a state very difficult to get on. georgia is very hard to get on and you go to a state like louisiana where you pay $500 and have your electors and you can get on. that's much less. the state of iowa is 1,000 signatures. persons are working in vermont now where the limit is 1,000 signatures so we're going to get on in a lot of states where it likely won't be on in any state. but we are already as i indicated ballot qualified in michigan which is a key state. we're on ballot qualified in the state of florida. ohio. missouri, colorado, utah, wyoming, south carolina and i could go on and name all 17. and we are optimistic on getting on a few more right away and we're working on those -- new mexico was the most recent state which we were ballot qualified for and also, i believe north dakota just passed -- we passed a threshold there or will pass it shortly. host: we welcome our listeners on c-span radio coast to coast. on xm channel 119 and streamed on the web and we welcome our viewers and listeners watching from great britain on the bbc parliament channel. danny is on the phone from wallingford, connecticut. good morning with representative virgil goode. independent candidate for the constitution party. go ahead, danny. caller: inform me a little bit about the u.s. commission on the presidential debates. it sounds like a government agency but it's actually run by the democrats and the republicans. and that's why they say you need 15% to get on the debates. my question is -- why do the republicans and democrats get free network time on all three major networks and exclude everybody else? i wouldn't say unconstitutional but it seems since these guys run their own debates under guides of the commission of presidential debates, it seems inherently unfair to the american public. host: thanks to the call much the parties aren't directly involved in the commission. you are right. the former chair of the republican party is now the co-chair of the commission and mike mccurry, former democratic press secretary is the other co-chair and virgil goode, in the history of the commission, only once in 1992, and 1996, third party candidates participate in a course with ross perot to the caller's point about the commission and these debates and whether or not something like you and others will have a chance to participate, what's your take? guest: we certainly should be included in the debates. i think it would be great to have a debate with the democratic nominee, the republican nominee, the constitution party nominee and a couple of others. if they did, the united states citizens would be able to see a broader perspective on many different issues. the problem with the democratic nominee and the republican nominee, they -- it's often a choice between tweedle dumb and tweedle dee. i'll go back to the moratorium on letting so many green card persons into the united states. governor romney is not for that. and neither is president obama. you won't hear that discussed! they are not going to focus on the adverse impact on the budget, on the economy of this country and on the job level of so much legal immigration. we have one of the most legal immigration systems and laws of any country in the world. and when we have unemployment at the level that it is now, we certainly should not be letting so many persons into this country that cost this country jobs. you can take the issue of birth right citizenship. automatic birth right citizenship when illegals are coming into this country, they have a child so that the child can get medicaid, food stamps, public assistance and probably hires him, too. i've not seen governor romney really focus on this issue. he says he's against amnesty now. i remember talking when he was in the u.s. house, he visited our caucus in 2008, he seemed less sure. i think he may be more sure on that narration now. but i've not heard him talk about birth right citizenship. you will not hear president obama talk about it. they want the court, special blocks in this country instead of looking out for the american citizen. if i'm elected president, i'm going to look out for the american citizen. it's time for the american citizen to be first instead of in the back seat all the time and that's the presidential election commission, they don't want to hear my views in the debate. you'd be surprised how many citizens across the country are fed up with tweedle dumb and tweedle dee. i believe a majority would agree with me if we had the opportunity in the form of a presidential debate with me sitting down between barack obama and likely mitt romney offering a courses of action that this country needs to get back on its feet and be the shining city on the hill. that it needs to be. host: we were the only network that covered it in its entirety. guest: i appreciate that, steve. and i have to tell you, a lot of persons, we talked about some of those issues then and c-span is -- i know you've given gary johnson, former new mexico governor an opportunity to be on "washington journal" and you are certainly ecumenical in trying to achieve fairness across the board for the candidates and i thank you. host: we'll look for other ways to showcase the third parties, their message to viewers. by the way, one of our viewers following up on danny's point about the commission of presidential debates, a third party is a must. take the money out. crony capitalism pure and simple. bill is on the phone from florida, our line for democrats. good morning, welcome to the conversation, bill. caller: good morning, steve. i'm here in florida on the beautiful indian river and i'd like the gentleman's opinion on possibly a review of the constitutionality of the patriot act and would he repeal some of it or all of it and i'd like to know how he feels about the geneva convention and the guantanamo bay and comments on the president for the new american century. host: congressman goode, how much time do you have? guest: we'll cover the patriot act hopefully quickly here. when i was in congress, i did vote for patriot act. my association with the constitution party has enlightened me, if you will, about the need to repeal portions of that act and that apply to u.s. citizens. i'm not for giving noncitizens located in other parts of the world the privileges of the united states constitution. i don't think you should have to furnish them a lawyer, give them a trial by jury, but u.s. citizens deserve the protections of the fourth amendment. they deserve to be free from unwarranted searches and seizure and i know your previous program just prior to this one, addressed some of the issues with regard to g.p.s. tracking, cell phone tracking and things like that. and so i would assess the patriot act, repealed portions that apply to united states citizens. they're in this country and they should have their constitutional protections. now, the second issue, i believe he asked me about was the geneva convention. i'm not versed in every one of those conventions but i can tell you as a matter of principle, the sovereignty of the united states in my view is supreme. we should not be, for example, i don't think we should be subject to participating in the world court and then have that supreme over our sovereignty. our sovereignty should be supreme. the constitution and the bill of rights trump that in my view and that's a fact in my position to trade agreements like capta, nafta, mfm with china, we'd lose some sovereignty in all of those agreements and they need to be redone where we keep manufacturing in this country instead of export it and not have our sovereignty subjected to some third party or foreign entity. that doesn't totally answer anything but in the time we have, that addressed the top two. host: let me ask you about the larger issue, though of the constitution and your own record, 12 years in the house of representatives. did these issues come up when you were in congress? and did you personally get involved in these constitutional issues? guest: yes. every one of the hours, one of the leaders in the fight against capta and i don't mind telling you, myself and congressman walter jones from north carolina, we worked very hard on that issue and both of us saw highway money that we had wanted for our particular state slashed. in my view, we were never told that was the reason but we had it while doing that. host: rosalie is on the phone from northfield, connecticut. good morning to you, welcome to the program. caller: hi, good morning. host: good morning. caller: nice to talk to you. i understand your concerns, a lot of people's concerns about term limits, one term. and i just wondered how one person could -- you said you'd only stay one term. how you could possibly gain enough knowledge about the country and the world and world leaders to know what you'd be doing in that position and i understand that, you know, more than one term can lead to abuse of power for some politicians and that term limits would eliminate, would eliminate some of that power, also a waste of time that politicians spend to try to keep their jobs and half the time they're not doing their jobs, they're out trying to get their jobs back. so how can you -- how can you mitigate this or, you know -- guest: well, rosalie, you made a great reason for term limits. and that is politicians and i was up in washington for 12 years in the u.s. house of representatives. and with regard to term limits, if you elect a person with common sense, focused on balancing the budget and doing some of the other things i mentioned, they don't need two terms to get it done. they only need to get in that one term and focus on doing what's right and not be focusing on what's best for the next election. i mean, i'd have to criticize president obama. his takeoff on raising the marginal tax rates in my view is a way to gain votes and to vow to americans i'm an average person. there's so many loopholes in different parts of the tax code, he should before going after that would hate to mention them all, i could mention some. first one would be they let illegals and legals get a tax identification numbers and claim someone in mexico as a dependent and get a deduction. $4.2 billion in one year goes to that. that should be off the table immediately but it's not going to be because obama doesn't want to do that. he doesn't want to offend in any way the hispanic caucus which he wants to capture in the next election. if the president had one term focusing on what's good for the country, he'd do that. same way in congress. i can tell you, i was there, what happens is as soon as you get elected you have to start worrying about your fundraisers for the next election. we should have a term limit on service in congress. when i was in the u.s. house, term limits came up several different times. i voted for nearly every bill. to mimic the term limits for members of the u.s. house, for the u.s. senate, it should be a two term max and i'm for one thing that if you're 12 years total service in the elected capacity in the house or the senate and the presidency, and that's we -- you would have and rosalie hit the nail right on the head. you have members so worried about what we're going to do to get the money for the next election or what, i don't want to take a stand on this issue. for goodness sakes, we can't trim education. if we trim education a little bit, the voters won't vote for us. we need to take an act to the department of education, for example, i was opposed to no child left behind. huge expenditure of funds. very little good results. and a lot of red tape forced upon the public schools systems across the united states. it's time to cut it out. it's time to cut out a lot of other programs across the federal budget and federal agencies and departments. and it's not going to happen in my view, unless we get term limits and that will give more backbone to the members of congress and the members of the senate so they can cut even though they're going to make some people mad. if i'm elected president, i'll submit a balanced budget and it will make a lot of citizens mad but we'd be doing the right thing for the country because we've got to reduce debt greatly and eliminate the deficit all together. otherwise, we're going to be sliding downhill and could face the situation like greece or, perhaps, spain and that would be a disaster for the united states. host: you can get more information by logging on to a couple of web sites. the constitution party web site and goode for president 2012.com. our guest is the former congressman and constitutional party nominee virgil goode joining us from richmond, virginia, and from one of our viewers going back to your tenure in the house of representatives, congressman. how many times did you vote for the president's debt limit increases? president bush raised it seven times. how many years did you add to the debt? can you respond? >> i didn't vote for it all seven. it's possible i voted for it a time or two if it was something related to my district that i was really looking out for because i was thinking about the next election. but i was one of those that voted against the budget resolution a number of times and voted against raising the deficit -- and i think ron paul is the only purist on there and i want to salute congressman paul for consistently, always voting no. i voted no many times and that made the leadership in the house irritated as senator santorum said it in a debate, i can't remember which one it was, they had so many, but he said sometimes you have to take one for the team. that's what's wrong. too many are taking one for the team. we need to do what's right for the citizens of the united states, not what's right for the republican party and not what's right for the democratic party. it should be country first, not party first. host: one question from mike freeman, he may have in mind what happened in 2000 when ralph nader taking away votes, many suspecting votes that would have gone to al gore. third parties tend to be spoilers. how do you respond to that sentiment? guest: this country needs some spoiling, i'll tell you that. i'm not here to spoil, i'm here to win. we need somebody with my philosophy and my view running the view. if they were, the united states would be a lot better off. and on so many of the issues like some have suggested and have talked about this morning, you don't have a real big choice. in some ways, the republican would be a little bit more conservative. but on a lot of issues, i'll take more votes from obama. i know the keith tosh who runs main street amoco where i do a little trading with, he said that if i'm auon the ballot fro virginia, you're going to take a vote away from obama because i'm going to vote for you. we're going to get a lot of democratic votes that are fed up with obama but would not vote for the republican nominee for president so we're going to be taking votes from both sides. and i hope by the time november 6th comes around, we will have taken enough votes from both sides that we are on top and they are on second and third base and not at home plate. host: karen is on the phone from richmond, virginia, where congressman goode is joining us, republican line. please go ahead. caller: thank you, steve. good morning. good morning, senator representative goode. i have a comment first and then a question for you. you said country first, not party first. well, you've been a member of, should i say, the democratic and then independent and then you were republican and then constitution. so i think you're a bit of an opportunist but my question is for you, is i have had the opportunity -- i'm an american but i have lived in two other countries, britain and australia where they have different voting systems. where you can go into a polling booth and in australia, you can vote for, say, i could vote for you and say my second preference would be a republican. my third would be constitution. whatever, and go down the line. and it would be a more honest vote. and then that would spare people the angst of going into a booth and worrying about that wasted vote. always with a third party which you're now doing, there's always the angst about am i wasting my vote? will i be that swing vote like that movie? will i be the vote that just doesn't get, you know, obama out of the white house? do you think there should be some looking into the electoral system in america where the two party system that really, people don't get a look in like yourself, to be honest. you're not going to win. you're not going to get a look in. congratulations for running but there needs to be a change. i'd like your comments on that, please, sir. host: thank you, karen. guest: sure. at first glance, i wouldn't be in favor of having your first choice, second choice, third choice, fourth choice vote. i think voting in the united states is -- it's hard enough now for some people that would make it harder. the fact is you don't have a big choice right now whether you like the democrats or republicans. and they're not going to change much. change a little bit at the corner. karen said well, i'm an opportunist because i've been a democrat. i was an independent first and then a democrat in the state legislature. and then a democrat in congress. then an independent. then a republican. and now i'm a constitutional party person. and i'll tell you why -- because i'm an issues oriented individual. and in virginia, the democrats were the conservative party when i was elected to the state senate back in 1973. then they started shifting nationally and got very liberal like the national democrats. and congress, as a democrat, i voted conservative. they didn't like me. the local democrats after i voted to impeach president clinton said you don't agree with us, you ought to get out of the party. so i ran as an independent and i joined the republican conference and the republican party and not just a conference so i could advance on appropriations committee. third party was always listed at the bottom on that committee and that was a big factor. and my views have stayed pretty consistent. i been a low spender, not for a lot of government waste. i had been consistent even in the general assembly, i was against nafta and kapta. did not vote for very few unbalanced budgets. was a strong and pretty consistent opposer of so much debt and deficit and that didn't sit well with the republicans. the republicans are better in my view on spending than the democrats. but they don't want to take the added leap. i would go to these conference meetings and urge the chopping of foreign aid. we've spent hundreds of billions and trillions on foreign aid over the last few decades. always better -- are we better off because of it? i would say no. if i was president, the act would come out and rather than a continuing asending amount of foreign aid going to pakistan, saudi arabia, south america, africa and asia, the act would come out and we have to look out for citizens in this country first and not spend so much overseas. we can't be everything to everyone. so i would say to karen, overall, my principles have remained consistent and steady. the party label isn't what matters, it's the views of the persons in office and how they're running the country or the individual state. host: barbara, good morning to you here in washington, d.c. with virgil goode, constitution party, presidential nominee. go ahead, barbara. caller: good morning. thank you, c-span for having me. i'm calling to make a comment and also ask a question of mr. goode. you know, for the last eight years, 12 years when president bush was in office, why is it that no one ever had anything to say or to stop him from doing certain things that would put us in a lot of -- put us in this situation that we are in today but yet we still -- everybody wants to blame obama for that, you know, president obama didn't create this situation as we all know. but nobody seemed to wanted to stop president bush from creating these two wars, from giving money away, from starting no child left behind when they knew, know that education is the first thing that they give money to and the first thing that they take away. and then i would like you to comment on that. where were you when bush was in office and you didn't stop him from doing some of these same things? you know, when we were going into the deficit and the market is ready to crash. where were you when, you know, maybe you should have ran for president eight years ago as opposed to trying to run for president now? host: thank you, barbara. guest: all right, i'll tell you where i was, i was out voting no on bush's unbalanced budget. he was out voting no on foreign aid. bush was spending too much money in my view. he didn't want to cut foreign aid. his people in the house didn't want to cut it on illegal immigration, bush in my view, overall he was good on a lot of things but i disagreed with bush. i voted no on no child left behind. i was one of 65 in the u.s. house that voted no. when he went over to the senate, it passed unanimously. a good example of too much federal money. the federal government should not even be in secondary education telling school systems what to do. that should be up to the individual state and local school division. they mentioned the bailout. where was i on the bailout? i voted no and it made people mad and some of them took it out on me in election and i didn't win in 2008 but i voted no on the bailout. i remember john mccain was the republican candidate for president. i was in the republican conference then, we heard rumors that mccain was going to stand up to hank paulson and george bush. he didn't stand up to them. neither did barack obama. the lady that just called in, she ought to be criticizing obama for voting for the bailout. he did and so did mccain! i voted no. that's what we need. somebody in washington that's willing to say no when everybody comes out and wanting more money. most everything -- so many things in washington all about money. how much you're going to spend. we can't keep spending. we keep spending, we are on the road to a catastrophe for the american people because our debt is way too high and our deficits are not under control. they should be no deficit. so i was there. we need more like me in the u.s. house, the u.s. senate and its president. host: let me jump in and ask you another debate question. this is from joy who wonders if the constitution party would work with americans elect and other third parties to host your own debate excludeing tweedle dee and tweedle dumb. guest: they already have a debate with the third parties and they'll probably have several. in 2008, the candidates for the libertarian, the constitution party and several others, probably green party, i don't know off the top of my head all that were there, in cleveland and i'm sure there will be that debate again. they usually have it in october in the election. and there will likely be several others among the third party candidates. i will point out the problem with it is c-span will cover it. c-span will give that attention to those debates but you won't see fox, you won't see cnn. you won't see abc. you won't see cbs covering it from the beginning to end. i think it would be great if they did. but that's highly unlikely. host: dick has this question. has mr. goode signed the grover norquist pledge which, of course, means no tax increases? guest: i haven't gotten the latest pledge from mr. norquist but i can tell you, i'm not for increasing marginal tax rates. anything over 35% is too high in my opinion and 35%, i'd like to see it come down. i'd like to see the corporate tax rate come down but having said that, there are so many things that makes the effective rate less than that that needs to be addressed by the tax code and that's not going to -- that's not going to sit well with a lot of people. we -- if you're going to have the income tax as a chief choice, the current tax code needs to be totally redone. some sort of flat tax that's simple and fast for everyone to have. and there are alternatives that could be looked at as other sources than the income tax but if you're going to have the income tax, it needs to be simple and i would point out that when i was in the house, the congressman from oklahoma had the bill to end the tax code for some date in the future to force the house and senate to come together on something, whether it was a consumption tax. whether it was some other form of tax. whether it was income tax, something that was simple. in my view, i wanted something simple. that measure did pass the house several times but never cleared the senate. host: time for one more call. on the phone from new orleans, republican line. good morning to you, sir. caller: good morning. your third party, you're not going to win. you're going to get in the way. the public already knows about what you're talking about and what for you to jump from one party to the other, i mean, nobody is going to trust your judgment. so where will you for the regular qualifying for the presidential election? guest: well, they should trust my judgment i'd say to the person because i've been consistent on views and that's what we -- we need somebody that will have the courage to cut. i have the courage to cut. i can tell you president obama does not have the courage to cut. he's been given a credit card and he is gone wild with it! we are $5 trillion more in debt now under his leadership than we were when he came into office. and president bush ran up the credit card too much, too. but president obama has gone hog wild. and frankly, i don't trust governor romney to cut like i would cut. i would submit a balanced budget to congress and probably make people mad and a lot of other persons mad. a lot of things would be trimmed. we got to do it. we don't have a choice. it's going to be some pain, far better to do it now than to wait years in the future. host: virgil goode, the constitution party presidential nominee, former member of congress from central virginia joining us from richmond on this sunday. thank you very much for being with us here on c-span. guest: thank you, steve. host: and the "washington journal" continues. coming up, we'll continue a look at politics but a look back at some of those campaign posters. how they've evolved over the years. ralph eubanks will be joining us from the library of congress. later, we'll open our phone lines and a chance for you to share your thoughts on some of the stories from the morning newspapers. one of the stories getting a lot of attention, comments yesterday from lynchberg, virginia, as mitt romney, the republican candidate delivered the commencement address. here's a portion, the entire event, by the way, available on our web site at cspan.org. [video clip] >> people of different faiths like yours and mine sometimes wonder where we can meet in common purpose when there are so many differences in creed and theology. surely, the answer is we can meet in service, in shared moral convictions about our nation stemming from a common world view, the best case for this is always the example of christian men and women working and witnessing to carry god's love into every life. people like the late chuck coulson. not long ago, chuck recounted a story from his days just after leaving prison. he was assured by people of influence that even with his prison record, a man with his connections and experience could still live very comfortably. they'd make some calls, get chuck situated. set him up once again as an important man. his choice at that crossroads would make him instead a great man. the call to service is one of the fundamental elements of our national character and culture. it has motivated every great movement of conscious that our country has ever seen. sometimes as victor frankel observed in his book for the ages, it's not a matter of what we're asking for life but rather, what life is asking of us. how often the answer to our own problems is to help others with theirs. in all of these things, family, faith, work, service. the choices we make as americans in other places are not even choices at all. for so many on this earth, life is filled with orders, not options. right down to where they live, the work they do and how many children the state will allow them to have. all the more reason to be grateful this and every day that we live in the united states of america where the talent god gave us may be used in freedom. thank god for this country. host: we want to welcome to c-span ralph eubanks, he is the director in the library of congress. this is your latest venture, presidential posters. as you put this together, what did you learn? guest: learned that a lot of things have changed over time. particularly, there was the, you know, television media coming into presidential campaigns. but also a lot of things have not changed. i think that really, we think about negative campaigning. it started as soon as george washington left office. host: as you look at some of these early posters and we share them with our audience, could they be the first form of a tweet or web page? guest: i think that they are in a lot of ways. early posters really got not only just a slogan but very often a full campaign platform in them. particularly a good example that is william jennings bryant's poster which completely reproduces his cross the goal speech. later, once again, as television comes into the picture a bit more, the poster becomes much more of the campaign's branding rather than actually getting out a message or an idealized image of the candidate. host: let me share with the audience. this will be more of a visual segment, apology to those listening on the radio. king andrew the 1st. born to command. what is this about? guest: andrew jackson was an interesting character because every negative that was thrown at him, he turned it around into a positive. this is not too long after america becomes a country and anything that has an imperial image or monarch in it still is likely to get a visceral reaction from the public but he turned that around and made it a positive that he was actually making a real stand to the issues that matter rather than them being trivialized. host: the post you are referring to from 1896 or the cross the goal speech. guest: that was actually mckinley. host: mckinley, ok. guest: mckinley, part of his platform was the gold standard. the gold standard was mckinley's position and the silver was bryant's. host: farmer garfield cutting a swath to the white house. explain. guest: that's a great image. once again, it shows you what a good campaign poster is. a good campaign poster first and foremost presents an idealized image of the kanld date. -- candidate and look at those muscles on james garfield there. those are incredible and that also he's got that in his hand and he's out there cutting out corruption and waste and abuse. that's all down there on the ground and i think that's the white house in the background. host: campaign posters, our guest is ralph eubanks who will be with us for the next half-hour or so. this is william howard taft and as i looked at this, i'm wondering if this is a positive or negative one. it says "good times" but it doesn't show him in a very flattering picture. guest: well -- host: he was our heaviest president. guest: he was our heaviest president and one of the things that we did in the book is added some supplemental images. one was the sheet music from the library of congress. his campaign slogan was get on the raft with taft. something that seems a bit perilous to do. the good times slogan, that was the slogan for the taft campaign. and some of that came from teddy roosevelt that he felt that he should project this really positive image so, of course, good times and he also told him that he should be photographed, ok to be photographed sitting on a horse, never be shown playing golf or tennis. both of those are fatal. guest: why? host: he felt that it showed that you're a bit distance from the people. he wanted taft to feel approachable and likable by the people. that's why the good times slogan. host: 202-737-0001 our line for democrats and 202-737-002 for republicans were send us an e-mail or join the conversation on twitter page at twitter.com/cspanwj. this is one that i showed earlier in the program. nixon's the one. and then there's another one with a pregnant woman and flowers, nixon's the one. explain. guest: the first one is, of course, the official poster for the campaign. which i find to be quite fascinating because nixon is surrounded by the luminaries of the party. there's nelson rockefeller, john lindsay, spiro agnew and then in the background, you have wilt chamberlain towering over everyone. showing he's a regular guy. the parody poster comes from the yanker poster collection. gary yanker collected protest posters and street art and donated them to the library and that's how that poster came into our collection from 1968. host: do we use posters today? guest: i don't think that we use posters to communicate a message very much, i think that happened very much in the 2008 campaign with the hope poster but posters, as i said earlier, have become much more of the branding of the candidates. they're usually red, white and blue and the biggest choice that most of the campaigns make is typographic rather than actually message. they limit the message to campaign advertising for the most part. host: these date back to 1976, gerald ford with bob dole on the ticket. both having, we should point out, four letters to their name which made it easy for posters. guest: it made it very easy and the type on that is someone who works in publishing, i found the type in that is perfected. host: look to that, happy days and fonzy and then there's this, j.c., jimmy carter can save america and of course, the sun behind him, a caricature of jesus christ. guest: you know, i love these posters and this is the first election that i ever voted in, the 1976 election, and it really gets into some of the issues that were going on at the time. there was, of course, the show "happy days" was very popular. thus the images of gerald ford as the fonz and wearing his wind button which was with inflation now. and a lot of people felt during the campaign, they accused jimmy carter of having that complex. that's another poster from the collection. host: romney for president not 2012. great for 1968. romney, the governor of michigan. where did you get that poster? guest: a lot of our posters come through copyright deposits and through actual campaigns donating them and this is how, i believe, the campaign donated this to us. it's interesting to see that poster and the likeness between father and son is interesting and it was also an interesting campaign because romney held on to his delegates right through the convention. and never relinquished them from nixon. host: from jim heinz, how collectible are campaign posters, is there a decent market for resale and which poster has sold the most? guest: i think i don't know as much about resale. as we were doing this book, we were looking a lot on line to see what posters were popular and there seems to be a market for campaign memorabilia, of what the actual sale price of them, how saleable they are, i couldn't answer that. host: this is from 2000. rocks the rock garden. this is one of the posters you might see at college promoting an upcoming event. guest: it's almost like a rock 'n' roll poster like eddie vetter or on the bill there, it's -- i think it really speaks to the position that the nader campaign was in. very much a grassroots campaign, not a lot of money to spend on posters and artwork. >> this is from 2008, we talked about the famous hope poster which, by the way, the president talked about last thursday when he was at george clooney's house, where that came about. and this is another version of the change we can believe in with obama and biden, 2008. guest: i really like the hope poster. there's also another poster from another artist in there that we use, chicago artist who did a series of posters that he donated to the collection at the library and one is go tell mama, i'm for obama. it's kind of a fun poster. shepherd-ferry poster, what's interesting about that is hope wasn't originally on that poster. what it said at the bottom is progress. the campaign contacted artist and asked him if he could put hope in rather than progress. host: and this is a -- this is one that we used significantly during the summer campaign, during the conventions and in the fall. guest: absolutely. and again, i think this -- this poster works because it has an idealized image of the candidate. it is catchy. it really mimicks a lot of the early street art that you see back in 1968. and it's colorful and it has a message that really sticks with you when you see it. host: i want to show. this is also from the 2008 campaign, it is sarah palin delivering her acceptance speech. my question to you is when you're at these party conventions, it's a very orchestrated series of posters back in the 1950's and 1960's, a lot of hand made signs but today, there seems to be some choreography with the look and feel from these convention halls once they, of course, know who the nominee is going to be and there hasn't really been a contested process in two generations in terms of these conventions. guest: no, there hasn't been. and i think that's -- i think that may speak to why the campaign art is a little less dynamic than it once was. i think the year that as we were putting the book together that we had to make the most decisions about what to leave out with respect to art was 1968. because there was so much going on. there was so much that was contested in that election with johnson losing the new hampshire primary to mccarthy and after that, bobby kennedy getting into the race. kennedy's assassination. the riots in chicago. i mean, there's just so much artwork that we had to pull from. host: 1968, you might remember pat paulson. guest: oh, yes. that's one that we had in the collection and i'm so glad that we had it. i used to watch pat campaigning for president in the smother brothers comedy hour. host: richard is on the phone from yuma, arizona. good morning, republican line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i was just wondering are these campaign posters for order? and if so, do we have a web site we can log on to to look at them? host: thanks, richard. guest: they are -- actually the book, the posters themselves, it's microperforated, you can take them out. they're frameable. so there is a place you can order them and also, all of these posters if you go to the library's web site to the prints and photographs on line catalog, all of these posters have been digitized. they are available on the library's web site so you can see as well. host: from 1968 "bobby is my choice in 68" and this almost has that seal of something from the 1960's, the way that script is put together. guest: we call it the psychedelic bobby kennedy poster and it was part of a series of posters that was done that you hear about all the candidates. again, this was popular street art that came up at the time. and that one was in the collection and it's just gorgeous. i love the way that one looks. host: in 1972, george mcgovern asked the country to come together and this is one of those posters. getting it all together. asked the party to unite around him. guest: 1972 wasn't a tough year and that -- i think that image really says it all. you have the stripes from the flag there to be put back in place. the stars kind of there also, again, to be put back in place. only five stars left there in position. so it was -- host: what do the five stars represent? anything? guest: i'm not sure that they represent anything. we did research on that trying to figure out if that was the case and we couldn't come up with anything. but -- host: on the phone from wartburg, tennessee. good morning to you. caller: yes. is there a number that you can call to order them if you don't have a -- a computer or nothing? guest: there -- i guess if you don't have a computer and you wanted to order the book with the posters, they're all perforated and frameable, you could, you know, available at bookstores everywhere across the country. you could call your local bookstore, i'm sure they could order it for you. host: another poster, there must have been an awful lot in 1972. there's a lot featured here. guest: there were a lot in 1972. host: unbought and unboxed. guest: that is such a great poster and one of the reasons that we included that was she was one of those first women to run for president. first african-american woman to run for president. and as we started doing research on this campaign of the 1972, we felt we couldn't talk about that campaign without talking about shirley chisholm because she really, i think, reflected the message of the party that year. host: anthony is on the phone from san diego. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. you're on the air. caller: my question is i'm not very proud, but i'm a relative of warren g. harding. he was a terrible man, got terrible stories i can tell you. my grandmother and my father told me when they were children. but do you have anything on him as a poster? warren g. harding? guest: i'm trying to remember if we do. i think we may very well have. host: moments ago to 19 -- guest: that would be -- host: this is 1916. and this is keeping cool with coolidge in 1920. and this is -- there is a harding poster right here. and the words and music of al jolson. guest: harding, you're the man from us. that's from our sheet music collection and it was -- look, think about it, really emerging from world war i at this point. host: that was revolutionary at the time, wasn't it? guest: it very much was. i think one of the themes that we found throughout this book was how people were involved with -- famous people got involved and making campaign slogans on stops. host: do we or don't we win with dewey, was that 1948? guest: that would have been 1948. the dewey and truman election where the famous headline of truman holding the paper that says dewey defeats truman. host: and ashley wants to know how the library of congress preserved the campaign posters collection. guest: these are all stored in a temperature-controlled environment. all kept inside a very, you know, tight mylar sleeves to protect them from air. they're rarely exhibited. they can only be exhibited for a limited amount of time. because we want to limit the amount of exposure to light. and in particular, like the abraham lincoln poster that we have, i think there's only five of those known to be in existence. we have exhibited that but it can only be xiblted, i think, for no more than six months at a time. host: what intrigues you the most as you put together this collection? so much here, you mentioned lincoln to reagan, ford in 1976. the hope poster in 2008. guest: i think the -- i mean, i love looking at the logan poster from 1968 because it was a very complicated poster to put to print as someone who works in publishing now with everything is digital. it's red, white and blue, as you can see going through the book that the early posters were largely black and white. the andrew jackson ones are all black and white and then in the corner of that abraham lincoln poster, that's the image you see on the cover, is this very complicated cut of abraham lincoln and that had to go through a press several times to get that poster printed. so i think that's one i was really very much intrigued by as i actually saw it in the flesh. host: let me conclude with two other posters. andrew jackson, you talk about the black and white posters, the account of the bloody deeds of general jackson. guest: you know, andrew jackson became one of the characters, i think, that fascinated me the most as we put this book together. as i mentioned earlier, he's one of those candidates who took every negative and seemed to turn it into a positive and i think that it -- one of the things that the joke around our office is you can see why there was a broadway show based on the life of andrew jackson because he was so colorful. host: finally this other poster from 1864 and you look at this and the print which is so difficult to read, it's the presidential campaign of 1864. can you explain? guest: 1864, gosh, i remember this poster. let's take a look here. host: was it the election between abraham lincoln and george mcclellan? guest: yes, this is one of the posters that every fact that you wanted to know about the election is there. you've got the lincoln letter. there's a letter here from him. and positions from all, you know, the various people and the other thing about this poster, this is something that goes back into another poster, the one for lewis cast election earlier than this, between zachary taylor is how they put all of these presidential faces around it as well. and that's one of the things that seems to be a common theme in these early posters particularly in the 19th century where they're trying to go back to the founders. host: this is the poster you're referring to? guest: that's the poster and this is very much like that poster and i think listeners in michigan will know who he was. he was the governor of michigan. a high school in detroit is named for him but during the campaign, zachary taylor's campaign liked to make fun of his name because he felt that it rhymed with gas and every opportunity that they had including the song ralph taylor is the man uses that rhyme within the song. host: if you want to get more information on these books and campaign posters dating back to george washington in 2008, library of congress web site is loc.gov. thank you very much for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. enjoyed it. host: we'll open our phone lines and tell us what is on your mind on this sunday morning. it is, of course, mother's day. we're back in a moment. host: it is sunday, may 13th. we want to open our phone lines. many of you from time to time asking for a chance to share your thoughts about anything in the news and so now here is your opportunity. 202 is the area code, 737-0001 is the line for democrats and 202-737-0002 for republicans. we have a line for independents. you can send us an e-mail and also join us on our twitter page. from the chicago tribune, a story that will be getting a lot of attention this time next week as the nato summit heads to chicago. protesters eager to be heard in the city and next to that, mayor in a hurry. former congressman, former white house chief of staff rahm emanuel one year on the job as chicago mayor and the piece pointing out that he wants to remake chicago in his own way. and another story getting a lot of attention on this sunday morning, the comments of governor jerry brown of california. california budget deficit estimated to hit $16 billion. that's an increase from the $9.2 billion that was initially projected back in january. the governor outlining some budget cuts tomorrow in sacramento. of course, california our nation's most populous state and now facing the biggest budget deficit of all the states. california does have a requirement to balance its budget at the end of the fiscal year. and front page of "the new york times" below the fold is the speech from lynchberg, virginia. mitt romney, assuring evangelicals that their values are his as well. mitt romney traveling to liberty university, the spiritual heart of the conservative movement yesterday speaking to quell concerns about him among evangelical voters in a graduation speech at the college founded by evangelical leader jerry farwell. mr. romney made the case that he is bound theologically and politically to the same belief and value system as christian conservatives although he never explicitly mentioned his mormon faith. he also talked about the ongoing debate over gay marriage. here's a portion of mitt romney's speech yesterday in virginia. [video clip] >> what you believe, what you value, how you live, matters! now, as fundamental as these principles are, they may become topics of democratic debate from time to time. so it is today with the enduring institution of marriage. marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman. host: mitt romney yesterday in lynchberg, virginia. the lynchberg times has the story front page of the newspaper. romney building the bridge of faith, pointing to shared values at the liberty ceremony. gloria is on the phone from illinois. democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. this being mother's day, i'm a mother of five and a grandmother of 12 and a great grandmother of nine. host: congratulations, gloria. caller: and listening to some people and i've listened to the program all morning. and i tried to raise my children to be nice kids and, you know, not criticize other people. but i've heard so much hatred on the phone this morning and you wonder about some of the people's mother. and how they were raised to have so much hatred. but anyway, i want to wish everybody else a happy mother's day and i hope they're as happy as i am. thank you! host: gloria, thank you. let's wish you a happy mother's day and grandmother's day. on the phone from florida, republican line. good morning, what's on your line today, ed? caller: yes, i'm wondering about the mortgages and the foreclosures because you don't see a lot of it in the news like you did, you know, like a year and a half, two years ago. i just want to know what happened to the money that was put out for the banks, and if they're actually doing anything to help the people that are, you know, upside down in their homes? host: thanks for the call from tamarac, florida. front page of the atlanta journal constitution, new airport gateway and international terminal opening up, $1.4 billion price tag for this terminal that opens on wednesday. ken is on the phone asheville, tennessee. good morning, welcome to the "washington journal." caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to see c-span, this is a request, do an expose on the girls club at some point in time. this is something that needs to be exposed. host: ok, thanks for the call. from inside "the washington post," president to meet with parties for a final coalition bid. dateline is athens. greece's president meeting with political party leaders today, a last ditch effort to broker a deal for a coalition government and avoid yet another general election. the step taking place yesterday after socialist leaders giving up the mandate to form a coalition government when its three rounds of negotiations proved to be fruitless. keeping an eye of what's happening in greece and france following the elections last week and the impact all of that is has on the euro. next is ted from greenbelt, maryland. good morning to you. caller: good morning. happy mother's day to everyone. i'd like to make a comment about the cell phones and privacy rights as you were talking about this morning. i would like to say that this is a matter of technology. i mean, the fact that we have the ability to track people on their cell phones is a matter of ability to be able to use technology in a way that advances civilization and privacy is something we're going to have to deal with. privacy rights is something we'll have to deal with but you can't blame any president or any individuals for using technology. i mean, if we don't use it, somebody else is going to use it. host: ok. ted, final point? going to lily in greenville, south carolina. republican line, good morning. caller: hi. i just wanted to comment on governor romney's speech at liberty university yesterday, the graduation speech. i was a graduate yesterday so i was there in the audience listening to the speech and i just kind of wanted to give way that a lot of the graduates that i heard in the days and weeks leading up to commencement about how how dissatisfied a lot of us were with the university trying to give governor romney a platform, if you will to speak to conservatives and evangelicals and a lot of us were really upset that was done. we feel taken advantage of and kind of used so i don't know how warmly that mitt romney will be received among the evangelical community rooted at liberty university. a lot of people that didn't know about the controversy didn't have the same take. i wanted to point out the controversy within the university itself. host: thanks for the call. mitt romney's speech is on our web site at cspan.org. we carried it live yesterday. christian is on the phone from oklahoma city. good morning, democrats line. caller: good morning. let me follow up on that last caller. now, i have a sister-in-law who is a lesbian but she's a christian and she thinks that jesus christ is the son of god. now, these republicans talk about these lesbians but then get mitt romney who is a mormon cannot confess and will not confess that jesus christ is the son of god. so he cannot enter the kingdom. all right? point blank. but the lesbians who is my sister-in-law, she can. and another thing that really upsets me is that you guys talk about or republicans talk about their religion and their guns. well, mitt romney is not for your guns. ok? mitt romney was not for abortions. i mean, this guy, you talk about a flip-flop, mitt is a flip! so you republicans, either you guys are senile or you guys are just -- just racist. because i mean, there's no understanding for it. but just think about that. host: ok. thanks for the call. detroit press and also from inside the business section of the baltimore sun, familiar theme on a weekend in which many are receiving the diplomas after the college degree. this is what you're focusing on in the greater baltimore area and in the detroit free press, the economic output, i should say in the greater detroit area. richard is on the phone. welcome to the program. caller: yes. host: go ahead, please. caller: am i talking yet? host: you sure are. i was wondering what about those congress people that showed up last week about their cars that the taxpayers are paying for their insurance and the brand new lincoln while i'm driving a ford. and he's got it for his wife also. and there's nothing been said since then. host: so what's your view on all of that, caller? caller: well, my view is they're paying my money on brand new expensive cars when they should be driving a chevy. host: ok. richard, thanks for a call from inside "the new york times," a photograph of the president and vice president embracing each other. this ceremony took place yesterday in the rose garden as the president honored 34 law enforcement officers chosen as this year's winners. three of the absent members were recovering from gunshot wounds. mr. biden's unexpected comments last week on "meet the press" that he said he supports gay rights forcing the president to move ahead sooner than he had planned his announcement on gay rights and "new york times" columnist saying afterwards, the two men went golfing at andrews air force base. next is kathleen from houston, texas. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. i want to talk about outsourcing. we expect congress to create jobs in south korea, panama, colombia. you know why we got colombia? we got colombia because if you want to join a union, they kidnap your kids and kill and murder you. it's going to be the new cayman island. south korea takes advantage of the north koreans. we don't have torture and slavery. we outsource it. the u.s. commerce going to china to stop raising wages. you know, i think wall street is a traitor to the u.s. country and it's time all jobs created last year by u.s. corporations, 3/4 were outsourced. it's time to end u.s. taxpayer, you know, deductions for corporations that manufacture overseas. i love you, steve. this is kiki. bye-bye, happy mother's day, everybody. host: one of our regular viewers and as i point out, one of our most prolific tweeters, we appreciate that as well. you got through to the phone call. from "the washington post" this morning, there's this headline saying beset by protests of economic policy, first anniversary of the movement spurring demonstrations across spain. again, more reaction on the euro and what is one of the biggest economic stories of the decade throughout. eric is on the phone from chicago. good morning, independent line. caller: good morning. looking at the coverage of romney, i'm confused about the state of politics in america. we've got a guy that doesn't support the just war here which is christianity, speaking at a christian university who is also pro abortion. we've got obama that takes away our civil rights as a democrat. i'm watching the caucuses in arizona, oklahoma and maine and nevada and things are going on that are very suspect. so i'm an independent watching all of the politicians that don't have a balanced budget. who do i go for? what do i do? host: on our earlier discussion with regard to gay rights, pointing out that the president evolved on same sex marriage, not gay rights, they may overlap but they are different. next is john on the phone from portland, maine. welcome to the conversation. caller: hi, steve, good morning. excellent show, as usual. just wanted to address an earlier call, fellow was wondering what happened to all the money that was going into the housing bailout. just to let everyone know, hearings are going on currently in congress and they're being covered by c-span. if you want to know what's going on, i would recommend that anyone watch c-span. it's like going to college. if you want to get educated. host: speaking of education, there is "the new york times" bestseller list at number five this week is the president's club co-written by nancy gibbs and michael duffy, our conversation with the co-authors can be seen tonight, a look at the former presidents and the relationship or in some cases, lack thereof between former chief executives, interesting insight into what they call the president's club. some news from the sunday morning programs and nbc's "meet the press" where david gregory is sitting down with jamie diamond, the c.e.o. of j.p. morgan which disclosed a $2 billion loss last week. j.p. morgan said he was dead wrong when he dismissed concerns about the trading last month that he said that the concerns were a tempest in a teapot. he said we made a terrible, egregious mistake. there's almost no excuse for it. the $2 billion loss coming in just six weeks. by the way, the entire interview can be heard on c-span radio along with reaction which we'll get more of this week on capitol hill. two more minutes with your phone calls. curtis is on the phone from missouri. welcome to the program. caller: good morning. i just had a comment on liberalism. liberalism has never worked anywhere in the world. i don't know how it could work here. they bought up most of the media. and the journalists, the professors, the teachers, they try to get the propaganda over to everybody. and most people are just follow the leader. they buy this. and it can't work! it's never worked and it won't work here. that was my comment. host: thanks for the call. and this point from randy saying wall street and banks are the new mob. and we are being shaken down. well, news of the week characterized on snl "saturday night live" last night with vice president joe biden and the caricature with president obama following the news of the president's views on gay rights. >> vice president biden still in there? >> yes, mr. president. joe, it's me barack. can i come in? >> you mean president jerkface? >> i'm coming in, joe. joe. you've been locked inside your room all day, what's wrong? >> what's wrong? are you serious? do you really not get it? >> does this have something to do with the whole gay marriage thing? >> doy! it's not fair, ok? i was the first one who said it should be legal but now you're the one getting all the credit. >> that's not true! >> oh, yeah? oh, really? then why are you all dressed up? >> i'm going to a gala with lady gaga and elton john! host: from last night's "snl" and one more week of "snl" before they go on a summer hiatus. we will continue the conversation tomorrow morning on c-span, among our guests chuck wolf who is the president and c.e.o. of the gay and lesbian victory fund and arthur brooks, the president of the american enterprise institute, the author "the road to freedom, how to win the fight for a free enterprise" and marcus is with the defense news as the pentagon correspondent to talk about the scope of the missiles procured by the defense department, the army, the navy, the air force and the marines. and how these missiles work. that's all tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. here on the "washington journal." to moms and godmothers and grandmothers and great grandmothers, a very happy mother's day. i hope you especially enjoy the rest of your weekend. to all of you, have a great week ahead. [captions copyright national satellite corp. 2012]

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Nevada , United States , Australia , Port Charlotte , Florida , Brooklyn , New York , San Diego , California , Connecticut , West Virginia , Charlotte , North Carolina , Mexico , Arizona , Massachusetts , Iowa , Spain , Indian River , Michigan , Chicago , Illinois , Baltimore , Maryland , Rosalie , Queensland , Canada , Germany , Missouri , Afghanistan , Liberty University , Virginia , Georgia , Cincinnati , Ohio , Puerto Rico , Iraq , Saudi Arabia , North Korea , Capitol Hill , District Of Columbia , France , Danville , Louisiana , Vermont , China , Hyattsville , Kentucky , New Mexico , Lynchburg , Washington , Richmond , Greenville , Tennessee , South Carolina , Wyoming , Hollywood , Sacramento , Wartburg , Panama , South Korea , Greece , New Hampshire , Texas , Iran , Colombia , Oklahoma City , Oklahoma , United Kingdom , Athens , Attikír , Maine , Israel , Town Hall , Geneva , Genè , Switzerland , Detroit , Pennsylvania , Houston , Tamarac , North Dakota , Yemen , Italy , Venezuela , Utah , Americans , Mexicans , North Koreans , American , Britain , Roe V Wade , Nelson Rockefeller , King Andrew , Joe Biden , Ronald Reagan , America Africa , William Jennings Bryant , Virgil Gould , Mike Mccurry , John Conyers , Jerry Brown , John Kerry , Stephen Dennis , Al Qaeda , Al Franken , Al Gore , Ralph Eubanks , Keith Tosh , Rupert Murdoch , Paul Ryan , Chuck Coulson , Warren G Harding , George Mcclellan , Jim Heinz , Ralph Nader , Ted Nugent , Grover Norquist , Andrew Jackson , Michael Duffy , Bob Dole , Joe Mccarthy , George Mcgovern , Gerald Ford , Zachary Taylor , Spiro Agnew , William Howard Taft , Abraham Lincoln , Mike Freeman , Barack Obama , George W Bush , Ross Perot , Reagan Ford , Beth Reinhard , Nancy Gibbs , Obama Palin , Jon Huntsman , John Hogan , John Anderson , James Garfield , Ron Paul , Amy Sullivan , C Jimmy Carter , George Bush , Jerry Farwell , Gary Johnson , Rick Perry , Joseph Ramirez , John Kerry Lee , David Gregory , Walter Jones , Hank Paulson , John Edwards , Ralph Taylor , Ron Emmanuel , Bobby Kennedy , John Mccain , Al Jolson , Elton John , Shirley Chisholm , Christopher Calabrese , Victor Frankel , Pat Paulson , Bob Lilly , Jimmy Carter , Carl Levin , Rahm Emanuel , David Sanders , Virgil Goode , Jesus Christ , James Henson Brenner , Sarah Palin , John Lindsay ,