tv Washington Journal CSPAN February 14, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EST
♪ host: good morning on this president's day weekend. the house and senate are in recess. president obama will be going to camp david later today. later this week he has campaign stops in denver and las vegas. marines say the offensive could take weeks to take control of the taliban stronghold in afghanistan.
in an interview later today, joe biden says that his predecessor, dick cheney, is either misinformed or misinforming when it comes to the administration's efforts to combat terrorism. we are going to begin on the issue of campaign finance laws. an action led by chuck schumer to undo the campaign finance rulings. some of the details are coming up from david mark in just a moment. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. the cover story of "the new york post" this morning is "power- play." "with 15,000 troops moving into southern afghanistan." more details coming up this morning.
for the front page of "the new york times is another photograph of southern afghanistan and marines moving into the province. below that, the black caucus has raised $55,000 over the past couple of years. inside of "the new york times" is a piece by david fitzpatrick, democrats trying to change the bill on campaign barriers. the bill was co-sponsored by crist and holland. here is part of what the new york senator said in the last week. >> in the weeks since the decision came down, chris and i, together with our colleagues in the white house, have finalized a legislative approach that we think represents the best remedy to this act of political overreach by the court. our bill takes five steps.
banning foreign corporations from influencing collections. foreign leaders like hugo chavez and the chinese should have no backdoor ability to undercut our democracy. second, we stop bailout recipients or government contractors from spending unlimited amounts. taxpayer money should not be used to promote a company's political interest. third, we are imposing new disclosure requirements. fourth, we are proposing new disclaimers on television advertisements, hoping to drill down deep so that the real person that puts forward the money is disclosed. finally, we are requiring candidates to provide reasonable access to their time if corporations will make them the target.
host: joining us on the phone from "politico" is david mark. thank you for being with us. caller: good morning. my pleasure. host: where does this go from here? what does this action means in terms of the 2010 election? caller: they have said that it allowed to expedite this, moving it as quickly as possible so that it can have an effect of the midterm elections, which are coming up quickly in november. if the house and the senate are going to move on this, it will have to be in a matter of weeks. host: one of the people behind campaign finance laws, john mccain, says that the supreme court has spoken on this
decision. does this tell you that he will not move forward on this legislation? caller: he has had an interesting position. basically he is a primary challenge from the right for his own tendencies. he has got to be careful to make sure that he is not moving towards the center. in a sense, he is right, the supreme court decision was pretty sweeping. they were pretty clear about what is allowable and what is not. the concern for many people is that whenever restrictions are passed, they will just get struck out and it will have no effect whatsoever. host: one of the issues with this decision is that corporations have the right to spend without restriction. the question came up in the oral arguments is how do you define
the corporation? caller: he is specifically talking about foreign ownership. he is suggesting that if a stock is owned by 20% board ownership or more, if there are other kinds of majority ownership from foreign entities, it would not be allowed. a good question. there are all kinds of legal loopholes so that people do not have to declare. it can be tough to pin down. this has always been the issue with campaign finance restrictions. with one limitation in place, another loophole pops up. host: based on what the democrats are putting forth, if you are a corporation in you
want to have a role in the political process and you want to spend money on advertising, what are they calling for? caller: companies would have to approval from shareholders. officers from the corporation would have to do what candidates for congress do, saying that they approve the message. they would have to go in appear on camera for a certain amount of time and say that they're backing his political message. the thinking is that it might dissuade some corporate officers, ceos, from wanting to get involved in politics. but we do know until it starts to play out. host: is there democratic support for this from the white house?
caller: not on these specific proposals. the president directly criticized the justices in his state of the union. it is not clear that there is majority supportçó in either chamber to push this through, particularly in the senate, where there needs to be 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. with senator mccain on the fence, it is not clear how this moves forward. host: if you could stay with us for a couple of minutes, we want to get your reaction out there to this democratic proposal to make some changes. jesse, joining us from lebanon, tenn.. caller: i was waiting for you
guys to say something about congress stepping in, which is what i feel needs to be done. all of these people take money from corporations. it shouldn't all be reined in. senator mccain, as you know, was featured in "usa today" with bob beckel and cal thomas, who is a liberal against conservatives. again, is senator mccain going back on his word? just like he did with gays in the military? not going to vote -- going back to the right, not being the
maverick that he said he was? we know that he got screwed over by president bush in south carolina. host: charles, independent line, chicago. good morning. caller: the morning. this is sending the united states straight into an all agree. -- oligarchy cal. as we speak, grassroots organizations are forming to fight against this, leading directly into a form of socialism that i do not think anyone wants to think about, which was what marxists organized to start communism. this is absolutely the worst decision ever brought upon us in the united states. thank you.
host: joseph, indiana. republican line, your reaction? college coach chuck schumer is throwing camouflage on to the problem. it is a problem of congress. they have to reform the entire campaign finance system. if you legislate against corporations, there are loopholes. what we really need is a total reform to where you publicly financed campaigns. all of this is just political subterfuge by obama and schumer to take people's attention of the real economic problems. host: when you talk about public financing of campaigns, you are talking about paying for congressional candidates or matching funds? caller: the federal government should allow communities to get
on the ballot. they have to get on the ballot so many signatures to entitle themselves for public funding. host: david, ohio. you are next. caller: the ruling is terrible, there is already way too much special interest influence on government. i have heard a lot of people talking about government being the problem, but they are not the problem, corrupt government is the problem. government does that work is be -- government does not work because corporate special interests do not wanted to work. when it comes to passing legislation, legislation that could help the working poor, like health care or that nature, we don't have anything.
host: steve, pa., what do you think? caller: typical move from chuck schumer. it was interesting and that man from "politico," which i loved, he wanted the shareholders to have a say. i wonder if he feels the same way for the unions? people with their money in the form of union dues to use for political purposes they may or may not agree with. this idea, i truly believeñi tht whether they are democrats, for public and both independents, or anxdñi alien life form, all th'e interested in this themselves. host: david, what are we hearing?
caller: even a lot of critics of the decision are green with senator mccain. we do not like this, but the supreme court has spoken in a fairly decorative way and we should try to work with the rules to our advantage. one of the callers mentioned labor unions. and the role that their member of at in overstaying the kind of political activity need to be involved with. you hear a lot of democratic activists saying that corporations can get into the action, so can labor unions. let's use this to our advantage, building up the union's and having them run advertisements. not just corporations, but other outside groups can run political advertising. i would say that there are unintended consequences. we may not know how this will
play out until a couple election cycles from now. host: david clarke is our guest tonight. what role did he play in that decision? caller: david bossy was the protagonist. he and his group created a movement about hillary clinton, a rather unflattering film, going back to her years as first lady. the question for the court was whether this was kind of been in kind contribution against terror as a part of the campaign cycle, essentially a campaign contribution, whether he had the right to do so. the supreme court decided that he and his firm and his team had every right to make this contribution. they can also seek out within 60 days before an election, which was prohibited under the old rules, he wasñr a longtime
republican activist. he investigated the first lady when she was in office. he is seen by a lot of people as a hero in this community. a lot of people on the other side of the political aisle said the this opened up the court ñigates and allowed them to get their voices out. bid is a diverse backing of people. it -- it is a diverse backing of people. host: here is a piece from tonight's broadcast. caller: the liberals have been hyperventilating since this was proposed, they have been actively participating in the process, submitting polling data, going out in the field, doing -- doing polling of the american people.
they are very interested in their viewpoint and their viewpoint, in my opinion, is less speech. for your average person, including the aclu and the planned parenthood, we want them to be able to say their peace without the government participating in telling them what they can and cannot say and when they cannot say it. host: the entire interview airs tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific. check it out of line at q-a.org. if the issue is freedom of speech, is what senator schumer proposing freedom of speech with full disclosure? caller: a good question, something that might be decided
by the courts if this legislation gets passed. previous court cases from federal courts through the supreme court had used these kinds of restrictions in terms of disclosure. it is not preventing someone from speaking their mind politically, it is simply giving access to the public so that they know who is speaking their mind. this seems like the safest legal ground for chuck schumer and his allies to push forward this legislation. even most of the justices said they believe that this element of it. clarence thomas was the only one who took issue with the disclosure element. host: david clarke, senior editor at "politico." thank you for -- david mark, senior editor at "politico," thank you for spending this time with us. caller: my pleasure.
thank you for having me. host: we are continuing with your phone calls. democrats trying to undo the campaign finance reform from the supreme court. bob is joining us from san jose, california. good morning. caller: good morning. i cannot believe the people that have called in. they should all be outraged. how can you say that we have freedom of speech when corporations have billions against any other kind of organization? that is not know democracy. that is complete corporate takeover. when you have government and corporation working together, it is fascism. thank you. host: democratic line, good morning. scranton, pennsylvania. gerald, go ahead, please.
let's try one more time, if you are with us. let's move on to rabin, st. louis, missouri. caller: how are you? if they wanted to simplify campaign finance, they could do it with common sense. the only people like to donate campaigns would be the people living in the district of where the person was running. people in california are donating to people in missouri, which is crazy. there is no common sense. host: thank you for the call. twitter.com/c-spanwj, one viewer is saying "amazing, even when it hits them in the face, they do not understand that they are supporting greedy corporations and the wealthy." you can join the conversation by logging onto twitter.com/c- spanwj. chris, los angeles. caller: i know it is 4:30 out
here -- host: schuring as early out there. glad to hear from you. caller: i have my television turned down and i wanted to say my piece. i could not believe that the supreme court would allow -- idea know what word to use. all that i know is that when i stop to think that the next presidency and the financing of that campaign will be financed by big corporations, to me it makes no sense. i do not understand why they would do it. i would more than likely be glad to put in a year, like they ask for on the income tax, in the election process. this is just insane, and that is my opinion. thank you. i will listen for any comments after i hang out.
host: $3 to help presidential campaigns for matching funds, but candidates are not using that money any more, they can raise more outside of the limits. host: i did not know that. my taxes have not been done this year. host: the point is in 2000, george w. bush opted out and in 2008 john mccain and barack obama opted out of matching funds. host: the last i heard, it was like you could send $1. i do not do my taxes. coastal used to be a dollar, now $3. any help, thanks to a call. we told you about the situation in afghanistan, troops moving into the southern part of the country, this is the story inside of "the washington post." "u.s. marines and afghan soldiers encountered the pockets
of stiff resistance and extensive minefields in the taliban sanctuary of southern afghanistan. numerous gun fights with insurgents and painstaking efforts to clear the roads slows the advance ofñr many coalition units and stop them from reaching key areas. the operation is further complicated by the challenge of irrigation cants that traverse the area, and explosive devices ." that is the front page of "the washington post." they're calling it a tough slog in the weeks ahead. new jersey, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning to you. decades ago a great u.s. senator from new jersey, bill bradley, who happened to have been a
rhodes scholar and a brilliant man, said that the way to get real campaign finance reform was to amend the constitution. i would love to hear people talk about that. thank you. host: senator schumer is behind this effort, up for reelection in new york. will they toss them out? not likely, according to david salinsal, "old friends on wall street fear that he has gone populist on them. others in the political class are hearing more about his standing in washington, where some believe he could be the first said a majority leader in new york. grumbling broke out over his brokering of the senate health care bill, which could have stopped the city in the state with $1 billion in health-care
costs. he will win again, as surely as day follows night." harry, republican line. virginia. your reaction to senator schumer's efforts to undo the campaign finance reform from the courts? caller: good morning. i may be the first business person to call in this morning, according to the commentary. host: what is your business? caller: i work for a fortune 50 global leader in computer communications and i will leave it at that. my main point is this, there is a lot of hyperventilation about fascism and corporatism. we do not all know how this will play out but it will be interesting to see. number one, my public corporation -- in a 50/50 nation
it will not alienate half of the country by publicly advertising for one candidate against another candidate. it is just not going happen. you will see that be the major trend for all major corporations. i see this as affecting more, as mentioned earlier, people like the aclu, which is a corporation, or greenpeace, which is a corporation. people do not realize that in this country, this is how we organize groups of folks. some time for commercial purposes, profit, or other reasons, but they are organized into corporations. that is what the court was conferring, corporations being denied solely on the fact that they were incorporation. to keep this brief, here in virginia, corporations can donate unlimited amounts of money to campaigns directly.
they must disclose. in the last election for governor, any citizen of the commonwealth that wanted to know knew exactly which corporations work contributing to. and they could make their decisions accordingly. in virginia, and i do not think that this is hyperbolic, we have a good reputation of clean government and half for a long time. this has not destroyed the government. host: thank you for the call. "the national journal" is looking at the up-and-coming leaders of the house and senate. the article includes chris van pollan, on the tough side of the proposal we are talking about. we want to get your reaction to the supreme court decision in
the reaction to that decision. "a glimmer of bipartisanship on the high-profile issue of job creation faded quickly last week after teharry reid rejected something put together by top democrats and republicans in the finance committee. max baucus and charles grassley circulated a draft of their $85 billion package, including tax cuts and spending provisions. senator reid of the against the plan, saying that it would not pass and that it would not be helpful for democrats in the midterm elections." oklahoma, democratic line. caller: good morning, how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: this is a big sucker's game. i have watched everything in
this health care debate. i have no health care. i am 58 and from california, where they will let you down. do not yourself. these politicians are using their boats as a commodity. they have been suckered into believing by these political campaign consultants to the need millions and millions of dollars to run a campaign. truth is, for a congressman, the area is not that big. i think that the supreme court is rubber-stamp in what they have been doing for years, which is why there is a mess. the only way handle this is that the local level. i do not care if they are to party groups were liberal groups, often those are people that live right in the community district.
start with these congressman, pull them in and say, look, if you cannot raise enough money in this district, you are not the right person here. i think that they need to tell them that there needs to be a campaign out there -- anybody can get an absentee ballot. people need to tell them, this is not money in the bank. we are not filling this out to make a decision until the day before the election. host: money, spending, fundraising. we want to draw your attention to this story that we alluded to. fund-raising powerhouse, let me read you an excerpt from the piece this morning. when the congressional black caucus wanted to pay out the mortgage foundation to the stately 1930's red-brick headquarters, they turned to a familiar roster of friends. wal-mart, at&t, general motors.
"soon enough, in 2008, a jazz band was playing what amounted to a mortgage burning party for the $4 million town house. most political groups in washington with been barred by law from accepting that kind of direct aid from corporations, but by taking advantage of local finance laws they had built a fund-raising juggernaut like nothing in town. from 2004 to 2008 the congressional black caucus and its charitable wing took in $55 million in corporate and union contributions according to an analysis of open "the new york times." an impressive amount, even by the standards of washington awash in cash. only $1 million of that went to the political action committee, the rest went into its unregulated non-profit network. in 2008 the congressional black caucus spent more on catering for its signature legislative dinner and conference, an event
that one organizer called hollywood on the potomac. -- potomac." if you want to see the entire list, inside of "the new york times" is an entire list broken down by drug makers, of all and tobacco companies, finance and lending institutions, food and beverage companies, telecommunication companies, general motors, toyota, insurance, state farm, and other donors, like wal-mart. stephanie is joining us, independent line. caller: i would be all for that bill if he included individuals that lobbied. for the simple fact that the supreme court, years and years ago, said that corporations were individuals, which was widely applauded the government.
if they do away with one, they should be doing away with the other. the markets are running the country. if you want to add that to the bill, i would be all for it. host: steve, not stephanie. thank you for the call. one twitter comment saying "as far as i am concerned, politicians should wear patches like nascar drivers so that you can see who contributes to them." more from last week in the story on friday, democrats trying to rebuild campaign spending barriers. here's more from the new york senator. >> the highest court in the land is at odds with public opinion and the constitution. which labours strenuously. we are not going to let this decision go unchallenged. today, congressman vin pollan and i are announcing the framework of comprehensive legislation that we intend to
introduce in our respective chambers the week after the recess. unlike most bills that are introduced in congress, this one has a deadline for action. if we do not act quickly, the court ruling will have an immediate and disastrous impact on the 2010 elections. our goal is to advance the legislation quickly. otherwise the supreme court will predetermine the winners of next november's election. it will not be republicans or democrats, it will be corporate america. host: back to your calls, jeff is joining us from texas. good morning. caller: in response to what one of the callers was saying, their point that the righties would benefit most from this. look at the books, what obama received from major wall street corporations and what republicans received, it was
more for obama. most people are not too concerned with that, but they're cooking the books better, which was obama. number three, what i do not understand is when people think that corporations are these big monsters, people work for corporations. therefore the supreme court had no choice to the constitutionality other than to rule that corporations have rights just like any other person. how many corporations get the democrats? host: we just got a comment from a viewer, "you can be sure that the democrats will not complain about the congressional black caucus." caller: that is what i am saying. my ideal solution to this would
be to cut out all campaign financing from individuals. host: thank you for that call. democratic line, james. kentucky, go ahead. caller: i think that the caller from texas was not quite correct about corporations. i know it has been through a series of supreme court decisions, corporations, from what i a understand, there was a lot of legislation passed about the power of corporations. for example, they could not last for more than 40 years. they were not allowed to invest in other corporations. i think that the last one -- i am kind of nervous -- host: we understand your point.
caller: of the end of the 40 years, the rule was that they would be dissolved. one of the big reasons that the founders are concerned, they were concerned about the acquisition of excessive wealth. i think that the remedy to the problem would require an amendment to the constitution. i think that thomas jefferson wanted the congress and the senate to get together, every 20 years or so to amend the constitution, dealing with problems like this that might arise. host: when your said that this is a sideshow for failing in ministration.
>> she and bill clinton, after they've left the white house, until she ran for the senate, she was not out there everyday as a national figure. there was an entire generation of voters who didn't know who she was. i felt that with my organization, producing a documentary films, we should make a film on her so that we can educate the american people about who she is. so, we started down that path. we made a film and we kind of knew what the outcome would be. not in the courts, so much.
host: you can check it out also on our website. jose, new york, the democrats trying to undo the decision on campaign finance laws. your comment? caller: good morning. how're you doing? it looks like the politicians are wasting a lot of time over a minor matter. it will become more and more minor as the importance of the internet increases over the years? host: interesting point. another viewer said that democrats have no problem with a left-wing media purchasing votes. you can join the conversation online ads twitter.com/c-spanwj -- at twitter.com/c-spanwj.
aaron, republican line. caller: i had a question and comment. in a republican, but i voted for obama. i wanted to see him do well, but it is a failing administration, that is what is going on here. he promised transparency and i do not think we have had that for him. big campaign donors purchasing votes, i do not think he will ever be able to stop that. that was one of the things that obama promised he would get a handle on in his campaign, but he has not come through with his promises. host: thank you for the call. a couple of comments on the president's first year in office, peggy noonan has herpes
this morning in " new york post" which is also available online. "there is an amazing political fact hiding in plain sight right now, rich with implications. was there in his january 25 interview with diane sawyer, it was about his political predicaments. "i'd rather be a really good one term president than a mediocre to term president." this is the kind of thing that residents say and often believe that they believe, but at the end of the day they all want two terms, but obama shows every sign a meeting, which explains a lot about his recent actions. in the piece this morning from robert merry -- reason actions." in this piece from robert mary, "with few exceptions history has not smile on one-term
presidents. only one of them has managed to get into the near great category, james k. polk, who upon getting his party's nomination in 1844, he said he would serve only one term. he did this partly as a small government and, presenting a philosophical version of entrenched power. surveys have been consistent in identifying 9 great near term presidents. drug -- franklin roosevelt, george washington, thomas jefferson, andrew jackson, teddy roosevelt, woodrow wilson, harry truman. leaving aside james k. polk, all of these men were to term presidents or got themselves elected after the death of their predecessor, making their case to the voters that they deserve to retain their jobs. mr. bolick can anticipate a one- term fate if he gets crossed
with the citizens. if that happens, it is not likely that he will be remembered in the future as a great chief executive. frank, md., good morning. caller: republicans calling in about obama, and i am disappointed. but i am not surprised at all at "the new york times" peace -- piece. i thing that any person in this country, for the democratic party or republican party, loves this country. you have to have your hands clean.
i am so proud to be from the section of maryland abrams is from, even though she is new. i have high hopes for her. she is pressing down on people through it -- that are faced with inequalities. thank you. host: patti, minneapolis. caller: thank you. good morning. first of all, barack obama declined public financing, which is a big deal, if he remembered. john mccain challenged him. also, i would love to see -- a quick suggestion -- as many shows as you put on about global warming, now that they have information about the phony research and the doctored numbers and the leading of e-
mails, there's a big story in the news corp. -- newspapers -- but they are not running the story. i would be happy with even 50% of the story that the bank's global warming. and you have so many reporters but they are so biased, saying things like everyone agrees, all the scientists agreed. you never hear from al gore anymore. you need to put that on there, put on the people that have been talking about this for years. host: do me a favor, go to our web site and type in global warming, it will pop up everything i've covered recently in the last couple of years. caller: i have watched you guys all the time. you need to refocus on this with the new information on the phony research they have done.
so they could show that the numbers were going up, temperatures were going up. it needs to be brought out to the american people. also, i think if you are doing a better job. democrats are not so much calling in on the other lines, you are doing a better job of that. i love your show and i always talk to you, i feel the you are the toughest person to talk to regarding constructive criticism. these professors that you have on, are you aware that 80% of college professors are liberal? frankly, they are kind of boring. i like it when you have good, too cited debates. the one from the national review -- two cited debates. -- two sided debates. host: hopefully will not find
our next guest, a professor, boring, joining me in a couple of mourn -- couple of minutes. thank you for the call. from joseph wright, "everyone knows that there are no real rules appear " more conversation of line, twitter.com/c-spanwj. -- no real rules." more conversation online, twitter.com/c-spanwj. stories this morning about joe biden giving a free tape in the area for "meet the press" ready criticizes the cheney. here is part of that -- criticizes dick cheney. here is a part of that interview. >> dick cheney is a far in fellow who was entitled to his own opinions, but he is not entitled to rewrite history. the christmas day bomber was treated the exact way that he suggested that the shoe bomber
was treated, absolutely the same way. under the bush administration there were three trials in military courts. two of those people are now walking the streets, free. there were 300 trials of so- called terrorists and those that engage in terror against the united states of america in federal prison and have not seen the light of day, prosecuted under the last administration. dick cheney is a fine fellow but he is now entitled to rewrite history without being challenged. where was he for the last four years of his last administration? host: you can read more about this story online at politico.com. nancy calo has her preview of all the seas and radio programs this morning. >> they include the war in afghanistan, national security,
the economy, and health care. scheduled guests on "meet the press," the rest of the interview you heard their college -- from joe biden. we will also hear from harold ford jr. and aron shock. dick cheney speaks with jonathan carl on "this week." "fox news sunday" welcome as jim jones and lindsey graham -- welcomes jim jones and lindsey graham. on "face the nation" bob c. for talks to joe biden from -- but seifert talks to joe biden from vancouver. these programs begin at noon, eastern time, with "meet the press", followed by "this week,"
"fox news sunday," "face the nation," and "state of the union." hear them all here on c-span radio starting a new, here in the washington area, or online at c-span.org. >> c-span 2's "book tv" we can begin -- continues with books about fdr, president obama, and ronald reagan. this coming week, we all live in prime time on tuesday night with contemporary authors, taking your phone calls, e- mails, and twitter. host: -- >> his film, "hillary: the movie" was a decision about campaign finance recently.
david bossie, tonight on a "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: douglas holtz-eakin is the former congressional budget adviser, president of the american action forum. what is this all about? guest: it and its sister organization are center-right organizations interested in renewing america, reforming government. fun to have a center-right country with invigorated ideas from that base. host: we have other think tanks on the left and right, what makes this one different? guest: this is a country that has a tradition of limited government and a strong defense. but we lost the notion, somehow, that a center-right majority
could solve problems. we want to be the place where we collect those ideas and finance them so that we can solve the problems that we face right now. host: will work? guest: we have a great leadership. norm coleman, from minnesota, a longtime leader in this area, is involved. we're very excited. we will have our first event on the 23rd, which is about creating jobs. host: the center for american progress but together by veterans of the clinton administration, how does your group compared to those? guest: saltarelli i admire them. i do not agree with their policies -- ultimately i admire them. i do not agree with their policies, but they have been great at providing ideas -- providing a forum for the points that -- view points to reach out and educate.
it is time for americans to understand that conservatives share the same goals. we want people have affordable health insurance. we want to have energy solutions and a prosperous america. we just do not agree on the way to move forward. host: norm coleman opted out of the governor's race to put his time and effort into this. why? guest: ultimately you have to answer that question for itself, but he is a great leader with brought out reach to an entire nation. really it is a debate over ideas. host: one of those ideas that continues is this issue of bipartisanship. i want to rescue two specific questions. this meeting will take place on the 25th, invitations were sent to leadership, said republicans, probably about 50 people in the room to talk about health care,
our cameras will be there. is this a good idea? guest of this is -- this would of been great one year ago. i believe deeply that the congress is a partisan organization, ultimately. only the white house in any situation and provide the leadership to bridge those. if the white house had done this one year ago and had genuine open debate from both sides, we would of had a very different 2009. host: john boehner says that the best starting point is to scratch the entire bill. is that a nonstarter? guest: i am skeptical whether there's genuine -- genuine interest in the ideas, and by partisanship. if it is getting both parties
in one room, arguably in the end partisan legislation turns out not to be good policy. our best efforts as a nation have been bipartisan, more durable, reflecting the broad consensus of ideas. host: the other issue is regulating wall street. bob corker, after this program at 10:00, we want to show you exurbs from the interview on friday on whether democrats or republicans can reach mitigation. >> there is the issue of consumer protection. having a freestanding agency is a nonstarter with me. i do not have to be more clear. chris dodd knows that. i did not want to speak for him, but leno's the bill is not going to pass the senate that has freestanding consumer protection agencies.
i sensed a willingness on both sides of the aisle to seek a consumer protection, increasing as there were lapses there. but it does not in any way overwhelm the safety of bank regulation sides. we cannot lead a trump that side. i feel the desire to make that balance. what we want to do with negotiations is build some trust, working to those issues on the front end that we can reach easy consensus on. we cannot just get consensus under evidence. or on systemic risk. resolutions, making sure the entire notion of too big to fail freeze the american vocabulary. people know that if companies fail, they will fail.
working through those, so that there's actually some trust and that we can reach an agreement on things. i feel that as a part of this bill, the issue of consumer protection will be dealt with in a way that seeks that bond. host: can congress reach a consensus, douglas holtz-eakin? guest: the important part of that was building trust. what has been missing is this notion a principled compromise. where the party can share their ideas and agreed on a central solution without coming back to a event where you have failed or capitulated in and your ideas. building trust for principled compromise will not be the weapon for political attacks, it is the key for success that i would like to see in important areas of policy. host: our guest is douglas holtz-eakin, former republican strategist and senior adviser
to john mccain, now the president of part of two groups -- american national forum. democratic line, good morning. caller: good morning, good morning, sir. i have a question about your statements about bipartisanship and democrats and republicans and biting each other to meet with them. it seems that they did attempt in the health care process to inflate and include republicans. the strategy seems to have been the fervor with the time -- to fritter away the time. in terms of possible compromises, it seems to me that president obama demonstrated a remarkable rest of the issues
and equanimity in dealing with what were obviously political statements and attacks against democrats. questions without serious intent. my question to you, in the atmosphere that exists now and looking back over the bush administration, what is the hope for this country to achieve any kind of positive improvement in our situation? which is breaking away fast. you had charles pierce on there, who wrote that book, "immediate america." he discussed the mindset of the people who were set against, forever, government and representation. i think we have an awful mess
here and i do not know what you expect to be accomplished. host: thank you for the call. we have that feature on "book tv." you can log on to the bedside of find out more. guest: there are important points there. i was at the congressional budget office when the park -- when the president proposed reform that was dead on arrival. similar partisan circumstances, democrats never even voted on it. this time around we have seen genuine engagement in the senate finance committee. it is true, republicans have worked with max baucus four months -- for months in an attempt -- in an attempt to put that build together. i always felt that we had better reform when both sides were involved. i am optimistic because i believe that americans are
>> trying to add some transparency or disclosure in these potential campaign ads. your reaction to both the decision and the democratic efforts. caller: we have been planning this for a year. the citizen united decision is something that happened recently we are going to stick to the spirit of the law in the
disclosure. host: joel hung up. it's thomas' lucky day in virginia the democrat line. you with us? caller: hello? host: you are on the air. go ahead. caller: i'd like to ask the question of why illegal immigration -- the issue isn't raised a little bit more. the illegal immigrants in this country are taking job that's americans desperately need right now. nobody is looking at the issue. it's being overlooked at everyday americans over look. >> we are interested in the opportunities to create jobs, rebuild the economy and restore
something responsive to interest. when we ge big enough or have enough time, but it is not our top priority at the moment. the president says he wants his budget director in the room. >> republicans have deep disagreements with these bills from a practice of medicine perspective and certainlyly from an insurance reform perspective. the question will be what will be on the table in terms of ability to change the
legislation in the end we won't actually move reform forward. >> asking you about the political ee earthquake some people in the town are talking about. some say we are not going to go along with you. not requiring that 60 vote image or in the senate. is that a possibility? >> you technically can pass a senate bill to alter it to some of the house member's satisfaction and have that combination and end up on the desk. president of the united states and sign it. what's missing is the fact that the american public dislikes these bills. they do understand and are deeply unpopular pieces of
legislation. it would be a mistake to go forward with bills not what the american people want but they want reforms that lower the cost of the healthcare for the 85% of the americans going forward. >> another twitter comment, what is the difference between think takes and your lobbyists. guest: we are interested in generating new ideas. welcoming them from any sources. there are many out there interested in the kinds of ideas we value.
this is the highest elected office. we should be hopeful every president is successful. this reform has not been successful and got off on a very bad starting foot. i think it makes sense to go back, do it, do it right. get healthcare costs under control. proponents lead the state. advocates are invoking welfare reform relying on states would
the small ideas would barley make a dent. the huge number of americans without health insurance and the every escalating cost of healthcare over all. >> the republican alternative in the house. thads why we are seige a rise in insurance. you have to place the cost coverage ahead of the problem. you cover everybody and put out
president of the american action forum at american action forum .org. robert from virginia on the democrat line. caller: can you hear me ok. host: we can. sorry we lost you earlier. caller: ok. i would like to ask you a question. when in the course of the republican leadership has the option party vowed from the beginning to defeat the agenda and ultimately the country. you are talking about i free standing agency. i'm a toyota owner. i have four toyotas. we paid a lot of money for these cars.
toyota can do whatever they want, we have no recourse. we have a department ever transportation with protective capacity the debate is whether to have them. that i think is the nature of a quality debate. it's not a debate about defeating an agenda for the sake of it. it's about looking at the ideas and seeing which ones can work in concert. i hope to see that more broadly
>> i am a twitter account. i will have to get better in the future. >> can says ok, mr. thinker, what's your plan to top the government >> in the end, we are on track to genuinely leave our children with a burden they will not be able to bear in terms of a broken economy. it has nothing to do with parties.
>> all sorts of construction people. even though it is temporary work, that has nothing to do with it in my mind. it's putting money in our economy. those are some of my comments. if you'd like to respond to them, that would be great. >> what's the unemployment rate in that area. people aren't working but it is pretty bad in detroit that's all we have here is hope. >> thank you. the first thing i want to disagree about is drawing the line at 49.
with age comes wisdom. >> happy valentines day, amanda.ñr host: go ahead with your question. >> go ahead. ied a quick comment and question. we run government. we are their boss. they need to do what they need to do with their money. they were put on probation to help the taxpayers. we have lost our beach. the state of north carolina has
we need to fix that, there is no institution too big to fail. we have a way for them to pay for their own mistakes. ranking with someone disappointing at this point. this is a man who ran for the presidency as a domestic policy. he was interested in the administration reform. fundamentally covered by the international intervention in
iraq. on the domestic side, we never saw that get together to do something. i don't think history is going to judge that very kindly. we were going to do these things despite the satisfaction. i think that's wrong. if they choose not to return you to office, that's a comment on the quality of your presidency and nothing to
aspire to. >> democrat line from trenton, california. go ahead. caller: i wanted to make comment saying earlier that he didn't think it would be popular to have the healthcare bill pass through reconciliation on improve on the senate bill. >> the first year, i was wandering if that plan would be able to survive or if that's too much of a give away. >> charlie, thank you. >> the plan came in 30% cheaper under my watch estimated with cost.
changing the future for 50 years. healthcare reform is something like that. precipitation drug bill is something like that. you are just as likely to be too high as too low. you error on both sides on average. be sure when you give the congress estimates. more expensive to less expensive. >> you are talking about sasha saying the c-span archives was head of the bush administration for med i kate services. he stated no gop will admissible this. . guest: medicare advantage is part of a system that pays hospitals, part c pays insurance companies. you think about it, there's no
>> we don't need it for a card check. if that's what being a republican is about. host: who do you like in 2012? caller: hucka by and palin. i would like to see them both. host: go ahead. caller: either or. by the way, you are the best c-span host there is. host: thank you for the call. your response. guest: praise for you, less for me.
we are certainlyly not the province. we do not want just a dis satisfaction. we'd like to pursue the policies. build a better future. that's what this is about. host: this should help as the president tries to spur a rebirm. democrats are not secure in the congressional authorities. signaling that his current tactics present a golden opportunity.
>> it's imperative for republicans to not be the party of no, to not simply succeed by option but to restore their brands and be a party infused with ideas and promising solutions. that's the path of success that will be durable. i would like to see the policies in this country reflect the center, right roots. >> coming up, we'll turn our attention to the u.s. economy and later one month after the devastation coming from haiti. sharing the first-hand account of what she saw and heard and some of the photographs she took on the tour.
emails and tweets. go to book tv .org. >> his film, hillary the movie was the focus of a resent support committee. documentary producer tonight on c-span's "q&a." washington journal continues. host: the senior editor of blume's business week. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for allow having me. host: how has the feds intervened. if it does end, what impact will that have o interest rates and the economy and over all. the federal reserve hasn't been in the united states history.
guest: these are securities that the entire bnchinging system just binged on. there was very much new thinking when the fed slashed interest rates. you saw rates kept so low that you had a getty real estate market. out of site, out of mind, not your problem. some other institution or investor's problem. there were so many of these
york times. now with business week. good morning. host: the guys that bought cars in japan and people who are buying products in china poisoning our future warriors with children's toys. if we made it impossible for people here illegally to have jurisdiction or standing to prosecute crimes against americans. they could take matters into their own hands and run illegal aliens out of this country.
this is what i think obama and his administration face with the scott brown result. there is this ground swell of sent iment in terms of that we want our country back. countries. illegal immigrants. it's all in there. this is something that the white house is monitoring very closely. i'll be curious to see how it pans out not just in 2010 but in the election of two years. this comment from joe posted on our twitter page at twith.com. do you think future historians will agree that the fed saved us from the abyss or was it all
that could be a whole other way down from the economy. that's what it is. that would get to you grit your teeth when you are watching the evening news. it is part testment that we have watching the economy grow so much. >> back to the deficit in just a couple minutes. peter joining us. good morning to you. caller: good morning. we don't trust the banks or financial institutions.
miami and los angeles. i am struck by how many low or middle income people are availing themselves of these last case, worst case scenario services. it speaks to the enormity of this great recession. it is really so easy to banty about with these terms. when you get out there, you actually really feel the pain. i do not mean to gloss over that. on protectionix. i wonder when you talk about the component parts.
korea has hinn die that took decades for them to renine that process. the japanese, chinese nipping at everybody's heals right now. the indians buying the car makers. every country seems to have a national champion in this race. it brings us back to that question of what is it that we ultimately make from a perspective. what is it that we do they can
afford to 1407 at grocery stores. how does that jibe with a product that the rest of the world wants. the u.s. government won't have to keep throwing up hundreds of billions. that's a question that is very valid. it's a multitrillion dollar question. the chinese have invested for decades. it was electronics they opted to invest so much grorment money in. now they have a competitive advantage. you'd be a fool to try to maffer a dvd play nrt united states or to get those parts. we have some difficult soul searching questions to ask.
loophole. it thought there's no way an insurance tution would not make whole on its commitment to insure certain products. i think deep in the chambers of conference at goldman saches it was understood that there's no way that the government lasted. if it gets this bad, we are all screwed. at that point. it is so unthinkable that in the end we have a second line of assurance, namely the taxpayer. this is the idea of private prophet and socialized republic risk. it's fundamentally that people are mad.
they have not paid 100 cents on the dollar. we took them at face value and should be paid at face value. certainlyly, the company has had quoit a p.r. cal amity on its hands. >> our guest joining us from new york. writing for blume business week. dan is joining us from plano, texas. welcome to the program. caller: gr morning one and all. happy valentines day. i guess i would like to argue a little bit this morning with illegal immigration is just a matter of misplaced or inflamed emotion. it is not. it's a response to a very real
problem. for example. if you review the map where the uninsured are. i work in a small manufacturing firm that katers to illegals boldly. these guys do work. they work to collect a legitimate income on top of the welfare benefit that's they reap from operating with two, three or even four aliases a piece. they live better than i. host: 9 map he is referring to is from our earlier segment. you can see that more and more
people are without health insurance in states like florida, mississippi, texas, new mexico and arizona. more than 19% of the population uninsured in other states. it's between 16-19%. in the northeast, states like maine and connecticut, minnesota, jie, less than 10% without health insurance. certainlyly the extent that they need the medical care.
very costly. this is somethingñi medicaid ha to cough k0÷ for. it is a fraction of our obligations for a very popular system that incidences the elderly, which you'd really have to pry from a lot of people's cold hands if the government argued we had to slash costs here. i really did think the populous is conveying the immigration. on the other hand, i encourage the caller to come to where i'm sitting right now, new york city.ñi look around you here. try to get lo mien delivered and who brings it to your door. try to imagine the city without
guest: people forget we had this national security issue flushed on to us in 2001. these seem to pale and injecting so much stimueluss into the economy. you have to ask yourself, do we want to be spending on healthcare and in iraq. whether the country is far from flush, it's so important to ask questions like this you took time to limit the dead
increase. president obama signed the debt-limit increase with great fanfare. chuck is joining us. welcome to the program. good morning. caller: i have a macroeconomic question. if the healthcare costs so much and it is such a large percentage of our economy. where is the money going? is it going off shore. i use healthcare as an example.
the percentage, the gross national product. host: can you stay on the line for a minute? caller: sure. host: i want to read the five steps for health reform. let me summarize briefly. one, when people buy food, clothes and cars, they compare prices and quality, why should healthcare be different, two, healthcare providers are rewarded for the number of procedures they perform, not for performance. we need to inform the employee based healthcare system. the current system often
estate, part of that goes towards construction jobs and the service sector. home depo and wal-mart of the world. appliance center and seers. where are you going to get that dollar spreading out the most. eefer as we shove el hundreds of billions more. i don't think that's always the case, there's always areas of development where it's worthwhile for these medical device makers to built stints or devices really at the cutting edge. you are seeing areas of the midwest and minnesota that are seeing medical device job that's would have been
inconceivable 20-25 years ago. so many people are correct when they allege that healthcare spending just one big money pit when costs keep soaring year and year. doctors get their cut. nobody seems to be happy. they all say they are increasingly stressed. they have to pay so much for malpractice insurance. hospitals claiming that the rolls of people coming in are uninsured. they have to give really expensive emergency care service. drug companies are claiming foul. again ar rick companies are bleeding them dry. all this money being thrown at this sector and nobody really being happy with it. >> making that point. this viewer, the u.s. spends the most, but health quality
stern's demise in march and the horrors we signed. you wonder if this economy wasn't tested the false security of home prices was just abused. it was understood that home prices plateaued and were falling. we had a couple of marginal subprime spenders. we also had a world where increasingly the chinese and indians were consuming this stuff. we didn't have to compete with the barrel of oil back in the day
>> getting to try to equalize with us economically. >> the last word joining us very early on the republican line. irkts i'm wide awake. i was listening to the news this morning. there was a congressman from florida. speaking about receiving many for 5,000 vacant grorment jobs. talk about healthcare being this giant spending and
not on the hook for these obligations that increasingly the economy as eye wlole could not commit to. host: this is the final twitter comment. the viewer is saying the chickens have come home to ruste. the deficit and interest paying on the debt. back on the economy. caller: i think when you look at these.
>> starting tuesday night taking your phone calls, emails and tweets for the entire schedule, go to book tv .org. >> his film, the focus of the resent supreme court decision, documentary producer tonight on c-span's "q&a." host: one month after the earthquake in haiti. the washington correspond ant fortime spent a couple of weeks
in haiti. we have been seeing these pictures but what did you see and feel? guest: i think for most, it was probably one of the worst things anybody had ever seen. it was difficult to stay detached and be a start of the story. it was really hard. just to see such devastation. >> remind our audience that our phone lines are open. jane will be with us for the
next half hour. >> one of the issues is who is in control? you have the government and the u.s. and western country relief efforts. you have the non-government organizations. food for the poor. the american red cross, other agencies trying to help these people, who is running the show. >> so, yes, still president and there is still a prime minister. ee sent ayally, the un arm of
the government is functioning as the head of the government in the sense that they are coordinating the relief efforts and troops on the ground. they lost nearly 150 people. they are still trying to get their full capacity back. it's every level. not over coming the huge amount of relief in aid is difficult. guest: i arived in haiti less than three days after the earth earthquake. friday midday. i was there for nearly two weeks. these photos are taken for the
first two weeks after this happenedñi you look at the absolute destruction of the earth earthquake to seing the next round of the dead.]x there were people that have internal bleeding, people who had crush syndrom which they found difficult to treat. there was probably less than 10 you nights of dial sister in the country. anyone with gangrene that didn't have broken legs or arms
treated.çóçó they were the6d left on the streets for body collection. host: on a good day, haiti was a troubled nation. if you look at long-term efforts, what are we looking at? is the u.s. committed to this? guest: certainlyly -- the u.s., i didn't think he left the country yet. he's been there the entire time.4hqjeát u.s. has been more necessary enter.jfçó0lxjkxd
if you don't, you are going to get hundreds of thousands of hatians that are going to set sail for u.s. shores. it will become more of a mass tragedy. across the u.s. and ngos and other countries. that something needs to be done. a plan has to be made in order to form and rebuild a country and market. you are starting from less than zero. there's probably not banks. there's no schools. they are really starting from less than scratch. >> one of the photographs you posted is a van. it says optimism. ifment guest: there where are these huge --
they call them tap taps. they are these enormous vans that are kind of illegal.çó they paint them in thesexd ways. there were tons of the people heading to the border. these are people trying to leave haiti to get out and find a better life some place else. even through all that, there is a sense of optimism. you see renee who two days held a day of mourning for haiti. there was this pause where everybody said we need to start saying goodbye to our dead. even in that speech, he said haiti cannot be abandonned. we have to move on.
move on and provide for my family. i'm going to have to keep going in this trooper spirit. >> we'll bring in our viewers and listeners. this is from the twitter comment getting to the earlier point. how did they come up with the number after so many bodies had been dumped into mass graves? that was really striking for me. it was hard to see the mass graves. it just looks like something, you couldn't imagine of hell. just these piles of bodies. in other countries like, say, china. they would try to photograph and fingerprint each body. this wasn't happening in haiti. the scope of the disaster made it impossible.
with the tsunami, you had this wash of wave come in. there wasn't a huge amount of dead bodies. here, they were everywhere. you needed to get them out of the populations so they weren't spreading disease. that was a really important priority. almost every building over four floors were gone. thank you, her reporting available on line attime.com.
we'll share more photographs she took. also want to point out this story from the "new york times" this morning. education also leveled by the earthquake. the country's main nursing school, medical college, the science building has been ripped open, the teacher's college is now tetering on its side. michael joining us from obama. good morning. whoever does the character generators seems to take them off the air quickly and take 30 minutes or so before putting
them back on. host: it's hard to find the right ambulance so we don't keep repeating them. caller: my question has to do with the long term -- that wonderful tv reporter. my concern is about long term economic rebuilding. i don't know how many c-span viewers remember or even know how much -- how many blame france bears in the underlying causes of haiti's poverty. sometime in the 18 20's, france demanded all these tributes back to it getting their
rightful freedom. i heard france didn't stop the pames until 1946. these are some of the causes of haiti being involved this way. i'm ashamed of this. so much of french furniture was build from hatian wood. host: thank you for your call. guest: commenting on the deforestation of that country. absolutely going back to thomas jefferson and the history of haiti.
declaring independence from france. haiti became this orphan child of the caribbean. it lost france. it lost any kind of help. the u.s. wasn't interested in helping this island that wasn't near them at the time that the u.s. was still expanding and part of its own. they didn't really pay that much attention. accept that france eventually demanded to compensate them for the land lot of. haiti had to boor row money in order to pay france back. they were indebited to us and france in paying for their
independence for the decade of generations. that led in many ways to haiti becoming much less developed it is striking when you go. i drove across and you drive through this amazingly lush land. all the way west through the dominican republic. it's green and beautiful and you get to the hatian border, it's like a dust goal. the difference is so striking. it's been completely did he forested. part of that is because the island is so undeveloped. it's really the poorest country. out of 9 million people, only 1
million people had power. there really was almost nothing left. you would get these terrible mudslides because there's no trees, nothing, no roots to prevent the sliding of the mud. one of the main things they will focus on is rebuilding the agricultural. they were all former slaves and none of them wanted to farm anymore. haiti turned from the land. now they need to rebuild that and say, you need to be able to feed and rebuild ago culltuffer and make the land healthy so people can live on it and not be so focused on urban areas.
the u.s. government. we want to share more on the photographs that she saw. welcome to the program. >> yes. thank you for having me. thank you for your insight. our prayers go out to them. i have one question and one comment. my question is all the millions raised through various charities and celebrities so forth and so on. that stuff happened by design.
>> it is a mainlyor priority. you need to employ all these people. i met this young boy. a man. he was 27 years old. he went toñr cover this factory a blue color area. one of the worst areas of loss of life was this factory. more than 2,000 people were inside. they think several hundred to a thousand people remain under that rubble. i asked him why he was there. he said, my sister is in side. my mother and other brother died. when our house collapsed. i figure they are going to need
to hire people. i'm here to get a job. i'm hoping i can find my sister's body but i also need to find work. it is certainlyly a huge priority for those rebuilding the country to get aid flowing and investment >> haiti is a tragic example of what happens without freedom, a free market or free enter prize. >> what has been the role of the dominican republic in aiding haiti, if any. and accepting refugees across their immediate border? >> sure. great question. it's been difficult sharing an
island. it is very different cultures. they have been amazing in this. the government has been great. they could land a lot of planes and truck through enormous amounts of supply and gas. they are totally afraid of their island being overwhelmed. they are going to try to come to santa doningo. you saw several check points where you saw police shaking down hatians.
every time, they stopped us and we said we were foreign journalists. it's their way of preventing anybody but the richest of hatians from coming across and living in the dominican republic until now. they didn't a lue the mules being hired. it's kind of a tough situation right now. >> more images while in haiti, the first two weeks after the earth earthquake host: good morning. welcome. caller: i'm a first-time
caller. >> this might be a really stupid question, but i'm looking at all this horror in haiti. you have this lovely reporter. i know this is a stupid question, i hope you take it seriously. i want to know how much money she spends on getting her hair done every month? host: i fail to see the relevant vens, mary. all this horror in haiti, she's got this beautiful hair. how do you justify that? host: you mentioned this earlier. you are in this country, you are witnessing the poverty, pain and suffering.
for you or any reporter out there to chronicle what you are seeing, what is going through your mind? caller: it's very tough when you are there. when you come out and go to santa doe ming oh , which is ufuoñrñi untouched.mpi notice see women who are beautifullycñ put together. there's food everywhere and grocery storesxd andxdñi ca)ñrñ around and gas and water and thingsçó nobody has in haiti. you have this real -- we gave away every]/>xdxd
relaying information to simp and rescue teams. we heard rumors of signs of life.ñi we would provide immediate new when's they needed it. host: will you be going back? caller: i hope to go back in april or the spring. there is a real worry. there's still 750,000 without tents. there's a real worry when the rains come, this will cause huge amounts of disease just because people living in tents. there's really no sewage systems. this is a real concern. this is a real emergency.
so people could at least have shelter during the rain. host: thank you for your time. we appreciate it. come back again. guest: thank you. host: bipartisanship, one of the issues we brought up with our conversation with senator bought corker, our guest at the top of the hour on news makers. here is a preview. >> i don't think the institution needs reform. ied a talk with a senator in tennessee about this topic the other day. i'd hi for us to move away from a 60-vote senate. the closer issue is brought forth more than necessary.
the senate is a place where it takes more than just a simple majority on con tenuous issues. that's important to keep the balance. not necessarily the institution, it's just the attitudes that exist i'm probably here during the most negative time. the forces here it self. the destructive nature. i sort of wish -- i hate to talk south. i wish citizens across the country could experience what happens here during a content youse legislative debate.
this is an awkward place to be. this whole subject we are talking about right now as it relates to financial reform. to me, unless people are willing to step out and say, look, we know there's a way to get to yes now. we can do that without foregoing prince pells. unless we have more of that occurring. >> news makers airing at 10:00 a.m. eastern. we have about 10 minutes. we talked a lot about the economy, healthcare, the deficit and the situation in haiti. we want to hear from you. your comments on any issue.
trying to break down the taliban. afghan troops joining u.s. forces. there was one british and american cause you will ti in a result of the efforts and land minutes. sloge the operation down. joining us from columbia county new york, what's on your mind? >> first of all, congratulations to c-span, you must be proud and satisfied of the work you do. host: thank you. caller: glad to have you. a strong point, haiti, housing. american red cross has pointed out the strong shortage in
time magazine reporter, and also with what is happening in haiti right now. i served on the rwandan border, after the genocide. i served at a military surgery unit with a team from the united methodist church. my ministry is ecumenical. first of all, tents. the un is failing completely. some of the people there remain embarrassed. that has to be straightened out. i hope listeners will do what we did 10 days ago. we were in front of the u.s. mission to the un. we demanded that dr. rice send in more doctors and more rice. we do not need the
militarization of haiti. we do not need the occupation. to the north of port-au-prince, could be made a temporary capital. they have not consider that, along with bringing back president aristide. it is repugnant that georgeç w. bush has anything to do with this operation. harlem, threeç blocks from president clinton'sçw3 office,s foundation which is just a front said we do not do any local projects. what is all thisççw3 concern f w3çógoing in it to take out? host: thank you for the call. michael vinsen, including "game
change," ozzie osborne's book is number two. potomac, maryland, democrats line. caller: i am calling to talk about job creation in this country. how can we expect jobs to be created when manufacturing jobs that the federal and state governments have are being contracted to countries like china? just to keep the cost down, maybe. there is no way that this manufacturing sector can ever improved. another thing i would like to say, is it not true that the republican leadership has decided not to agree or not to
participate on any issues and give any opinions to mr. obama, only so they can win more seats in the next elections? that is what i heard it david brooks say coon the "charlie rose" show. just because they are in the minority, it does not mean they cannot participate in the government. host: another viewing saying that the congress is saying that the un is failing miserably. it is? that is the first i've heard of their malfeasance. facts, please. caller: good morning. are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: i wanted to get your thoughts on the missionaries that are in jail there right now for trying to do the right thing and help the kids out. when is something going to be done?
host: joining us for "newsmakers" is it tennessee bob corker, and here are for the questioning is david clarke and a banking and finance reporter for newswire. what does it mean to you to have reform and how do you define that? guest: it means trying to reach a middle ground and passing legislation that will stand the test of time. i think to have, you know, continual 59-41 of votes or 60- 40 votes is not by partisanship. i do not think having oneç or o senators on the