tv Washington Journal CSPAN November 19, 2011 7:00am-10:00am EST
movement. after that, look at the national right to carry pepper sauce -- represent -- national right to carry bill. and then jan withers of madd about their latest on driving report. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning and welcome to this edition of the "washington journal." today is saturday, november 19. we began by looking at several stories involving the former speaker of the house of representatives, newt gingrich. this headline from "to help" this morning. for the first 45 minutes, we will be talking about the former house speaker and whether or not he is gaining momentum in the
gop race to represent the party in the presidential election in 2012. if you want to get involved in the conversation, give us a call. the telephone numbers are on the screen. if you have called us in the last 30 days, today would be the day to put down the funds and pick up the keyboard and get in touch with us electronically. you can do that twa's spare you can send us an e-mail. -- you can do that two ways. you can send us an e-mail. you can also use twitter. this is the story it appeared -- the way that it appears this morning in "the hill." they are talking about a new
poll that shows troubling signs for contender mitt romney. there is a statistical tie between newt gingrich for first place with mitt romney. romney would earn 29% of the vote and gingrich would earn 27%, within the margin of error, if the election were held today according to the latest numbers from the "new hampshire journal." the article goes on that the gains seem to come from dedicated conservative voters who have been reluctant to back romney. gingrich led romney among conservatives, 34% to 27%. those who backed the board say they were drawn to him because of his "depth of knowledge on the issues." 44% say that. debate performances, 10%,
experience as speaker of the house, 10%, and propensity to challenge the media, 6%. we want to find out from you would you think about newt gingrich's surge in the polls. our first call comes from joe in georgia on a line for dam it -- four republicans. caller: i am a tea party conservatives and i was for mitt romney this week. i think a lot of newt gingrich. but mitt romney was in atlanta and gave the great speech i ever heard. he sounded like ronald reagan. i m 200% behind mitt romney. i think he will be elected and the the the greatest president in history. host: why do you think the numbers are going up for newt gingrich, and the concern among mitt romney's people that the
former speaker may overtake him? caller: i cannot think so. we're so fired at, i cannot even sleep a night. i think mitt romney will move out ahead in the next two weeks and stay ahead. if think a lot of newt gingrich but i think mitt romney will be elected. he will be the greatest president. once he starts advertising, i think he will move up and definitely be the next president of the united states. and i love c-span. host: next up is adam on a line for independents. adam is not there. project onto on a airline for democrats. andrea. caller: good morning. i think they should fight it out in the polls as dirty as they want to. yes, they should run against each other. newt gingrich anne romney.
-- and romney. they should fight it out as long as they can and divide the party. host: why you think they would divide the party rather than bring it together? caller: i think the numbers keep going up because of mitt romney keeps speaking. the republicans know they do not want to vote for him. when one is an incumbent and not an unknown, and when they do not know as much as you think, i think they should keep talking and keep fighting it out. host: might in virginia. your thoughts about newt gingrich gaining momentum. caller: i like his grasp on reality when it comes to economic matters. even though he has a couple of
progressive faux pas in his past, it is to the point where conservative voters will overlook a lot of that stuff. the man has such a clear grip on reality than any of the other candidates. i think the format is right, i think he could really take it to barack obama in the debates. people like to think that barack obama is the smartest guy in the room but i do not think that would prove to be the case in his case. i only wish that looking back on the past election, that the mainstream media had vetted barack obama the way that they are doing with the republican candidates. it seems that the media strategy is to knock down one republican after another until the only one
left standing as mitt romney, which i am sure would make democratic voters very happy. even if he wins against barack obama, it would be like having a democrat in the white house. host: carried on our line for republicans. your thoughts on the former speaker gaining momentum. caller: i've always had a soft spot for him. i think he is by far the smartest guy in the room. if you look at his performance in the debates, he does not have a message but a whole lot of common sense. he is speaking a language that people understand as opposed to political colleague to. -- gobblety gook. if i was barack obama, i would doubt. host: would be it think it is a
causing newt gingrich to separate from the rest of the field? -- what do you think is causing newt gingrich to separate from the rest of the field? caller: sometimes he has put his foot in his mouth but i think he has matured politically and intellectually. i think he has so far superior to the rest of the crop that when a thinking person takes a look at the shores in 2012, they will go, newt. host: our next call is from montana on our line for independents. caller: i am actually from florida and i have been here for six years. in the height of that fear of middle eastern power, it is hard to have a president that actually has a name obama.
however, we fear a christian in mitt romney because his church is considered a cult in mainstream christianity. host: do you think it will be religion or politics that separates newt gingrich from the rest of the field? caller: absolutely, absolutely, because it is and will push down the efforts put forward by the romney campaign. it will heighten newt gingrich's popularity and has. host: thanks for your call and started cut you off. we have another story with headline. this is by the associated press. we got it off of the
"washington post" website. as a rising gop presidential candidate, he is facing renewed scrutiny of the intricate network of consulting firms, address key organizations, and other businesses that taken together some have called newt inc. "i have done no lobbying of any kind. a very important point i want to make." he defended himself about his time since he left the speaker's office under political clout in january 1999. he said that he welcomed the scrutiny in questions over potential conflicts, yet his campaign declined an interview requests from the associated press. next up is houston, texas, crystal on our line for democrats. what do you think of his gaining momentum?
caller: desperate times call for desperate measures. right now they feel like he is the best at this particular point. i think he will fall back and mitt romney will come up. if i had my druthers, i would choose mr. romney over mr. gingrich. i would not vote for rick. he was the last person to vote for if they were republican. i do not think he would gain too much more momentum. i listen to a lot of these callers saying that what he has done in the past, they should not weigh highly in this race. it has to. if he cannot keep his own personal and financial affairs in order, what will he do for this country?
if the file bankruptcy personally, how was he going to take on the economy of an entire country on his shoulders? there is no way he can do that. he is not going to be able to pull it off. host: as someone who lives in texas, would use in making the difference between speaker gingrich and governor perry? caller: i am glad you pose that question. i don't think there's a big, huge difference. one of the things as far as rick perry is concerned, he has the true backing of the state of texas. and he has such a history. but then a lot of things that work continuing to come about his politics, but i do not think he will go very far, either. i do not think that he is a better candidate than mr.
gingrich. i think both of them hide things and straddle offenses. and they are not forthcoming with the truth. in many instances, and they are always getting caught. just like mr. romney. that is one of them -- that is one thing that all of them have in common. i think that desperate times call for desperate measures and the republicans are grasping at straws. host: we will move on to arizona on our line for republicans. caller: i am an mitt romney supporter. i want to see tony perkins putting down mitt romney not having the right family values. he is not christian. so you're telling me that tony perkins and these people on the far right are going to go with newt gingrich and that his wife cullis death, we were paying for their affair in congress -- his wife callista, we were paying
for their fair in congress. i do not want a first lady in the white house that was sleeping with this guy with another white betraying the american family. this is what is wrong with america right now. for newt gingrich to have these affairs and dump their family, let the kids pick themselves up. read his articles. of course the daughter is supporting him. daddy is paying a bunch of money. but tom daschle did this "i am not a lobbyist "also. newt gingrich is a lobbyist. you can put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig. host: if newt gingrich would go ahead and get the nomination of the republican party, jan, and be the republican standard bearer, would you vote for newt
gingrich or president obama? caller: i would stay home. i did not go along with anything barack obama says, but you watch this, people will stay home. host: we have this tweet. next up is a call from our line on independents, san antonio, texas. the wellhead, debbie. -- go ahead, d w. caller: i like newt gingrich, not just because what he says as a candidate, but he would probably be a vice-president, with another name that has not
not -- that has not been mentioned that i am aware of, what is, godfather's pizza guy. host: herman cain. caller: yes, he should be herman cain's vice-president because he is as intelligent as he is. and that would assist mr. cain in his foreign affairs and what not. herman cain is the man, never mind mitt romney, he is a proven flip flopper. host: would you say to some of the people who call them and talked about former speaker newt gingrich, that he should be the president and mr. cain should be the vice president? caller: i would pick mr. came over mr. gingrich.
just because, mr. cain -- you know, he has got all of this stuff out there in the wind as far as being a womanizer or whatever. it is not believable. on our line from democrats calling from florida. caller: i think that the republicans are willing to overlook anything to get a republican in the white house. newt gingrich has taken money that he is not willing to except the fact that he has taken. i think the republicans right now are scrambling to find someone. someone that will fit and fight obama. but we will vote for obama again this year. i think it is sad that they are
willing to overlook anything to get a republican in the white house. host: more from the internet this morning. this comes from "at the new york times" blogs. on top of his surge in the polls and fund raising, mr. gingrich has rehired two of the aisle a staff members who quit during a massive -- mass exodus during his campaign in june. the article goes on to say that more than 12 paid organizers in iowa, new hampshire, and south carolina resigned on the same day, saying that mr. gingrich was unwilling to spend enough time on retail politics and cast into doubt his ability to rein -- to remain in the race. privately they complained that mrs. gingrich was vetoing too
many grassroots appearances in favor of book signings and tv dates. when they dropped from sight for two weeks for a greek cruise, almost their entire staff resigned. that coupled with a report that mr. gingrich once had a $500,000 credit line at tiffany's made the "newtatiny"a punch line. more on that later. you are on the washington journal. we talked about newt gingrich gaining momentum. caller: people that finally had enough of the democrats and their buddies, the liberal media, doing to everybody who does not agree with them. people are saying we're not going to put up with this anymore. i do have paula brunswick new, especially with him sitting on the couch -- i do have problems with newt, especially with him
sitting on the couch with nancy pelosi talking about global warming. that is the biggest hoax that has come down the pike. and the solar industry is a big scam as well. we need to have somebody in there that is going to put a stop to all of this liberal garbage that is being forced on us. host: all right, our next call comes on a power line for democrats. john in maryland, you are on the washington journal. caller: that is michigan. host: i know it well, sorry about that. caller: i do not know if it is liberal or progressive. host: that is near berkeley, michigan. caller: just outside of detroit city. host: what your thoughts about newt gingrich's gaining
momentum? caller: i hope then barack is listening. we need to get some mass transit out here. it is in the plans so that we can comem backcanotw -- so that we can come back. motown used to be strong. host: what you think about newt gingrich's gaining momentum? caller: i think that is ok. he wants that power. he used to be speaker house. ca i kind. likedin's idea of changing the tax. -- i kind of like cain's idea of changing the tax. but i think it takes a long time to turn an economy around. it is like an aircraft carrier per you cannot turn them on a dime. host: sorry to cut you off.
we're going to david on our line for republicans. caller: i started listening at michael's called. i'm glad to see newt gingrich gaining momentum. i remember him railing against the gas bill. i think he has a lot of common sense. the worst thing he has going for him is herman cain asking him about the vice presidential role. but i do not want to stay on the line. host: let me get your response on this. i want quick response. dennis lane sent us a tweet. what your thoughts about what he has to say? caller: i would say that i do not hold the money he makes using his common-sense against him. john just said that the tax
reform does need to go. i think he has the experience to know how to responsibly use the personal gain. host: more from the gabriel article. last week newt gingrich opened offices in new hampshire and south carolina. on thursday, the campaign had rehired the state director in iowa before the departure. and a former deputy director. these hirings were first reported by the "des moines register." rate tyler, who before resigning had served mr. gingrich the long as as a spokesman, said last week he had no regrets about leaving. he served for 12 years and there was no more fulfillment for me. back to the phones.
dallas, texas, georgia for independent -- george on our line for independents. caller: [unintelligible] use in getting the momentum. i don't know if he gets the real momentum with the american people. this guy is a corrupt person. he has been very, very corrupt in the last days. the only thing the republicans can provide that would be liable to the american people is ron paul. he is the only person. the other guys are trash. they come in from the bottom of the republicans. they do not represent the american people.
the grassroots republicans, that is. they do not represent anything else. host: the lead in the "new york times." the debateking about going on behind closed doors this weekend regarding the super committee. and the deficit reduction. just 72 hours before a deadline to present congress with a plan to cut $1.2 trillion from the nation's deficit, members of a joint congressional committee remained at a deep impasse on friday.
we will talk more about that. first, back to the phones. atlanta, ga., on our line for democrats. we have malone. hello? is this georgia? caller: yes, and the name is magic. -- mattie. mr. gingrich has been a politician, a congressman from georgia, for quite a while. i cannot believe the short memory of the republican public on what all these things that this man has done. he was thrown out of congress, out of the leadership, and he
accused mr. clinton of doing something in office, that he was doing himself. america is just, it is appalling to me how disappointing and short-memory, conveniently, that some of the republicans can have and how they turn a blind eye to the truth. i mean, i you cannot believe all the scams he has on the american people to get money, to make money. host: mattie, let me read something to you. jonathan martin wrote earlier this week. newt gingrich's campaign sought
friday to differentiate the former house speaker's extramarital affair in the 1990's with that of bill clinton by noting that the former president committed perjury. opponents often try to delegitimizes newt gingrich by pointing out that he admitted to having an extramarital affair during the impeachment of president bill clinton, notes a new page on gingrich's website devoted to explaining past controversies involving the hopeful. these accusers are ignoring the impeachment proceedings against president clinton did to the fact that a president committed perjury and front of -- in front of a sitting federal judge, which is a felony. newt felt that he had a duty to uphold the rule of law by pursuing impeachment. he stands by that decision today. what you think about that? caller: that was a whole lot of
mitt didn't -- there was a whole lot of manipulation to get president clinton before a grand jury. they knew what the situation was. it was all sabotage. mr. greene's huge -- mr. inich knows that. how can you waste all the valuable time that needs to be -- people are sent to washington to govern. to make the policies that will help this country. host: that was on online for democrats. we will take a break from our discussion regarding newt gingrich's gaining momentum to let our viewers and listeners know about what is coming up on tomorrow's edition of " newsmakers." tom coburn of oklahoma, a member of the finance committee and a
gain of six member, is our guest. he will discuss his thinking about congress's work on the deficit and the deadline facing the joint deficit reduction committee next week to cut the federal spending by $1.2 trillion. this is what he had to say. >> was the super committee a good idea or a mistake? toit was washington's answer kicking the can down the road. the debt limit, there is no such thing as a debt limit, because it is never not been passed. there is no debt limit. every time they kicked the can down the road and pass the debt limit, that is what the country is upset about. everyone in this country is making hard choices. they have to make hard choices. and the politicians kick the can down the road. this was another way of doing that. after the sequestration, we are
still going to spend more money than we did the year before. even with a sequestration, it is a big lie to the american people. there will be no net cut to the size of the federal government after all this is through. that is why we're going to get a downgrade, because people will see what we're doing. there is no resolve to make the tough decisions to solve the problem. host: you consider the entire interview with tom coburn tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and again at 6:00 p.m. on c-span. it is also available on-line at c-span.org. our next call regarding our discussion on newt gingrich and his surge in the polls, is gaining momentum, comes from michael on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. host: let do you think about is
gaining in the polls? caller: once they do research on a new and his mormon ism, not new, met, they will pay newt gingrich. -- once they do research on new t and his mormonism, not newt, mitt, they will pick newt gingrich. mormonism believes in a lot of the gods. once the south figures that out, is newt all the way. they will forgive all the escapades with not sticking with his wife and messing with this young lady now, when his wife was on her deathbed.
they are christians and southern baptist and stuff -- host: anything else than religion? caller: i do not think so. if you look at the educational level of both bottom 10% of the 50 states education, it is the whole south that is below 40% educationally. i think their religious perspectives trumps any kind of education or research or anything like that. so if they cannot get the south, and mitt -- that is why he is staying out of iowa. host: we are going to move on to john on the independent line. he is calling from brunswick, georgia. caller: i spent 26 years in the military. i am a veteran. this man does not have any kind
of leadership. he has no kind of character. he cannot leave people. he talks out of both sides of his mouth. you talk about red meat, he is definitely red meat. and i am from georgia. this man is a liar. host: you do not think that they will rally around him in georgia, because it represented them in georgia. caller: all he is about is his money. he has lied to the american people. why could we have him as a leader? he has no compassion whatsoever. he delivered divorce papers to his wife while she was on her deathbed. host: we will leave it there. from the associated press, and we got this all of the fox new'' web site, herman cain tells
david letterman all women accusing him of misconduct are lying. he says that the women who accused him of making unwanted sexual offenses are all lying. he again denied any impropriety during his time running the national restaurant association in the 1990's. this is a little bit of a conversation. >> if you ever want to see an exercise in futility, it is this hearing. host: that is not the conversation between david letterman and herman cain. hopefully we can get that up in a second. let's go to colombia, indiana, on our line for democrats. your thoughts about newt gingrich and his moving up. is gaining momentum? caller: 0, yes, he is gaining
momentum. but there is only one thing that matters and that is the economic interests. you do not vote for a man. you vote for your own economic interests. and newt gingrich is not looking at my economic interest. he is making money for himself and no one else. he does not care about us. he only cares about those $1 million in more just like all the republicans do. if you do not make under $75,000 a year, you do not have any business being a republican. host: now we have part of a conversation last night on "late night" between david letterman and herman cain. >> you will be exonerated and all that gone away like justice beiber. or they will prevail and someone else will come aboard.
herman, here is the money received in the documentation. you need to prove that she is lying. will you drop out of the campaign? >> let's be very clear about the accusations already made. the reason that i went right and center in front of the media is because i knew there was not anything to it. there is no documentation, nothing that could come up. >> so all of these women . -- are all lined. >> yes, they are. four women, similar circumstances. is income 9-9-9? host: part of the conversation last night. i want to go back to the "new york times." talking a little bit about what is going on behind closed doors with the deficit reduction committee, also known as the
super committee. despite time running out on the committee created by the agreement to raise the federal debt limit, negotiations were in disarray with republicans and democrats even disputing -- back to our discussion regarding former speaker newt gingrich and his gaining momentum in the polls. next up is renee calling from riverside, california. caller: good morning, c-span. yes, i think he is gaining in the polls. but i am so shocked. because he basically has been a lobbyist. he has been with fannie mae and freddie mac, which the republicans hate -- hate so
much. he made almost $2 million of them. that is all that i have to say. host: are you still with me? ok, i have an article here from the "washington post." this is written and says, republican candidate newt gingrich is stepping up his defense of his lucrative consulting career by arguing that he did not do very much to earn all that money. what are your thoughts on that? caller: i think the lobbyists go
to washington. he is a lobbyist. and i think that he has made his millions off of that job. that is what lobbyists do. that is what the american people have such a problem with that. host: frances calling from oklahoma this morning on our line for republicans. caller: i am not very political but i am delighted to see newt gingrich coming up in the polls. for whatever reason, i guess i do not trust anybody particularly. i like him the best. host: when you think about what separates him or could be from the rest of the field, what comes to mind for you? caller: of feeling that our country is safer newt than anybody else. because he tells it like it is. he is not afraid to say what he
believes. as a lot of others are. host: we will leave it there. we have this op-ed in this morning's "wall street journal." mrs. higgins is president and ceo of the independent women's voice. mr. lucas is managing director of the independent women's forum. we should recognize that the race is wide open. voters are carefully considering stances and commitments to key issues. they want more than a candidate who will play it safe.
our next call comes from cape cod, massachusetts on our line for democrats. nancy, you are on the "washington journal." caller: i am 67 years old and i have been watching the republicans running for president. i wanted to let the american people think, because they had such buyer's remorse in the 2010 election. just be careful to listen to what they have to say. a lot of people do not want so
security and medicare the way that it is and they could do a lot of harm. please listen this time. do not just bowed because you are angry. be careful. host: nancy, what separates newt gingrich from the rest of the field? caller: he's just bolder than the rest of them. he says what he thinks. it does not mean that what he is saying is all true. you go back to his history and there is a lot of history on him. i think the american people have to be careful what they do when they get angry. we could end up with a lot worse than we have right now. host: mark from lancaster, pa. on a line for republicans, you're on the "washington journal." caller: newt is the smartest one because the first thing he said is that you also have to win the senate to get anything done.
none of the other ones did. he is the man to put into office. host: ok, we will leave it there and move on to chicago, ill., kathleen online for democrats. caller: how are you doing? host: tell me about your thoughts regarding newt gingrich and his gaining momentum. caller: 4 republicans, that is ok, but i'm a democrat. i do not understand the poor and working republicans. how can you set up and listen to all of these republican candidates, who profess to be so christian, and each one of them from michele bachmann on down would stand up and tell a lie at the drop of 1/2? and god said he hates the liars. republicans are so christianified, how can these
people except the people knowing that they are lying? as far as newt gingrich goes, you talk about newt gingrich is the smartest, yes, he is smart about making money. but i listen to him on the tape about the president, give back the money that the president's made with fannie mae, without giving back his money. why doesn't he go to jail because he wanted to send barnea to jail. why does he not take his own advice? america, wake up. do not hate this president so bad. he has not been such a bad president. host: grady on our line for democrats from north carolina. caller: i would hope that some of you people would really think about what they're doing and what they're saying when they are thinking about presidents.
seems like we have gotten so sick in america, all we look at now is the color of a man's can rather than a man's heart and his moral values. if the devil was a beautiful angel, we have got a lot of devils out there running for office. a lot of these people who call themselves christians, christian is just the word. it is not looking at the heart. i always thought that christians were supposed to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and take care of the city. and that is what jesus said. but these people call themselves christian but they are turning their heads to all of the wrong that people have done and try to justify it. it is terrible. they do not realize, a lot of these people are just like me. i'm a veteran, i need my social security, i need my health
care, i am a cancer patient, but they are so hateful, rather than try help the man in office trying to help them, they would rather lose all of their benefits to go against president obama. the people that are supposed to be up there helping us out that are signing away their representation to grover norquist, i do not have representative in north carolina because she signed away. help me out. host: we want to have a programming note. you can watch the 2011 miami book fair, an international event covered on c-span2, book tv this weekend starting at 11:00 a.m.. we will have coverage of two books later on in the afternoon. talking about who is afraid of post-blackness.
the 50 bunny is the american writers. and then we have a conversation with stanley crouch, mike barnacle, pete hamill, and john avalon. that is live coverage of the miami book fair international. you can find out more on our coverage by going to our website at on the television right now. our last call for this segment comes on our line for republicans, coming out of lawrenceville, ga., ed, you are on bill "washington journal." caller: our democrat friends there, the payment that we are making on this debt, but the money that we send every time to the debt, that amount of money would give everyone that needs assistance would get more than they are getting now.
you have to remember, when obama got in there, gas was only $1.81 a gallon. now located. are you better off than you were $4 trillion ago? he spent $4 trillion and we are in worse shape than we were before he got in? we need to help the poor and we're not doing it by him running up these big deficits. we have to pay off our bills. if we do not pay off our bills, there will not be any money for the poor. since democrats spent, obama brought us into a whole. host: and you think newt gingrich is best for the job? caller: yes, because he speaks common sense. we have to pay our bills. host: in 45 minutes we will be talking about a concealed carry piece of legislation that passed in the house earlier this week.
but coming up after the break, a discussion on the occupied d.c. -- occupy an occupy wall street's movements. we have our representative from each of those groups. >> if you ever want to see an exercise in futility, it is this hearing. that site has already made up its mind. this side has already made up its mind. and i call it garbage, dr. rice. >> dr. bryce late -- brinkley. rise is a university. >> i will call you anything that if you said in that chair. you just sit there and be quiet. >> you do not on me. >> i will remind members. >> i work for the private sector. you work for me. >> mr. brinkley, we looked forward to your testimony. you got the chance to say what
you wanted to say. >> the call me mr. rice. i needed to correct the record. >> mr. brinkley. >> ok. >> we see a lot of people here and we may errors. no one is perfect here. but to interrupt breaks the comity of what we're doing. we're going have a lot of disagreements. we tried to do that in a civil. >> he called me mr. rise. so you would do that if someone did that your name. >> mr. brinkley, do you want to continue? then please follow the rules. >> condoleezza rice and others had lined the weekend as book tv brings you the 25th annual miami but there international. join in with your e-mails, calls, and tweets live on c- span2.
also this weekend, pat buchanan and ralph nader on the end of america. >> nationalism, tribalism, religious fundamentalism, are more powerful than ideology. and we are not immune in this country from these forces. and when the melting pot has been thrown out and you are preaching multiculturalism, what holds us together? >> his book is "suicide of a superpower." find the complete schedule online. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on the next 45 minutes, we will talk about the goals of occupy movement. joining us from new york discusses amin husain, one of the organize up there. is it a political force, an
encampment, and invent -- an event? guest: it is a movement in its nascent stage. it is all morrill movement that has a structural critique of where we are in america today. -- a moral movement that has a structural critique of where we are in america today. it started on september 17 and the whole idea was to occupy wall street and the issues were a social and political and economic justice and equality. the idea of the 99% not being represented by the government and the government not responsive to the will of the people, that is where it started off. i think it has gained momentum since then. people are beginning to see that critique and they are adopting it and they feel like they are identifying with that.
host: joining us here in washington, d.c. to talk about the occupy movement is sam jewler, part of the movement here. talk about how this situation may arnwine may not be different from occupy new york -- may or may not be different from occupied new york? guest: we are in different places. they are on wall street and we are on k street, close to the lobbying. we are both focused on money in politics. that is a huge amount of power that corporations have in our government and we are in the heart of that, everywhere that we can protest. host: we are selling video of the occupy movement in d.c. sam jewler, tell us about the
changes you think have been affected over the last two months because of your movement here in d.c.? guest: occupied d.c. started on october 1, so we are a little bit younger. now we have over 150 tent -- 150 tents. we have a medical tent, a food 10, a media tent, a finance 10. it is advanced as a micra society. host: as it evolves, what is its purpose? guest: it is still very young. i urge people to be patient in looking at where we're going with that. part of that is the importance of the community itself. it is a very directly democratic
community. all kinds it -- all decisions are made by consensus. we all have to come to a compromise on the major decisions that we may. some ways i wish that congress would work like that. it is a very human space, a very dynamic, creative the space. i have made a lot of great friends there in just over a month and we are creating the world that we want to see in this park. host: amin husain, your tent city has been taken down. alice that change the focus of the purpose of the movement -- how has that changed the focus for the purpose of the movement, if at all? guest: the focus and purpose of the movement is still the same, to provide a structural critique of the system outside of the partisan system available.
that does not allow for many of the voices to be heard. in terms of losing space, i think that only strengthened the movement. it is a challenge, but that is why we are meeting in cafes and restaurants and people living room. the idea of occupying space is almost a metaphor. liberty square is a symbol of that community that we're trying to build and the challenges we are willing to take. but it is empowering people that we are after, empowering them to occupy their lives and their schools and their hospitals, and liberate those places. host: we're talking with amin husain in new york and sam jewler here in washington, d.c., both organizers and activize -- act of last -- activists in the occupy movement.
here are the telephone numbers. you can also send us messages through e-mail and twitter. before we get to the phone calls, and more our discussion regarding occupy, we want to get some sound from one critic of the occupy movement, that it does not stand for anything or is just a group of people that have somewhat broad grievances. this comes from peter king of new york. we would get responses from our guests. >> life is full of sight -- of frustration. they should go the psychiatrist that they are frustrated. what are they proposing for tax reform our job growth or government regulations? they are angry people who are losers. they are on the outside screaming. going to the system and get
involved with concrete proposals. how they can do anything by living in third for two months, they were living in terror and happy to do that. what does that mean? mayor bloomberg exactly the right thing. host: sam jewler, activist with occupy d.c., your thoughts about that? guest: he said that we were angry people on the outside. we are on the outside because the number of people supporting this movement is about -- the number of people saying that they think there's too much money in politics and the gap between the poor and wealthy is too great is about 80%. the vast majority of the people agree with our fundamental position. host: amin husain, your thoughts?
guest: he needs to do more research and pay attention to what is happening. there are too many proposals and too much talking. what is happening with the people that are on the street that are addressing these issues, those people have lost their jobs or losing their families and other states. they are making their voices heard in a way that the current system does not allow. the idea of an elected official speaking on behalf of their constituencies by narrowing issues into two or three and come up with a proposal on housing or jobs, it is how this congress works. host: if you were to try to answer him regarding proposals on about housing and those kinds of things, is the movement were to towards those kinds of
things? is the movement setting up a platform with various plagues on issues like housing, defense, etc? guest: back in july, when we discussed whether there would be concrete demands or proposals, we agreed we would not by consensus. people feel disenfranchised. we want to empower people and marginalized voices to have their voices heard, and elevated discourse nationwide about these issues. we can free up people's imaginations to think of solutions together and in solidarity. this is a moral movement that has lineage to the civil rights movement where people were talking about economic justice,
and that conversation never ended. with the movement is doing is bringing that conversation back to the forefront again. people that do have movements or organizations that have concrete demands, this movement is in solidarity with them. as you saw with the workers movement that supports the occupied movement, they have become more vocal and this strengthens those that have demands on health care, student loans, and the like. host: let's get to the phones. our first call comes from harbor springs, mich.. kathy on our line for democrats. caller: i can give you a very serious example of how people are grossly marginalized. i live in a rural community.
a gentleman went into the bank this week with a semiautomatic weapon, robbed the day, the paper says of $100,000. he has not been caught. i would venture to say that the majority of people are probably rooting for him. that is where we have lost so much in terms of how we are giving people a chance to live a decent life. people that live up here do not have the economic wherewithal to travel to big places to protest. they live in the streets, or in the woods. i would like to see situations
like that addressed, rob, gentleman. i substitute teacher appear. i cannot tell you the poverty icy. host: sam jewler, talk about economic despair and what cathy is trying to address. >> she gets to the point that this is a moral movement. people might not know all the facts about growing economic disparity, they can feel the government is not responding to them and things are getting worse. people have thought this country is heading the wrong way for years. what she says is speaking to that. host: the next call is alan on our line for republicans. caller: amin husain, are you muslim, and did you vote for obama? guest: i was born muslim, and
i'm not practicing, and i voted for the first time in my life once for president and that was obama. host: what is your point, alan? caller: i have no one rich in my family, i make $50,000 a year, and i disagree with everything you stand for. i have no grudge against people that earn money, corporations. they create jobs. they produce something. do you produce anything? your encampment's -- can you claim those sites up? you leave it for the police and the community to clean up at the costs of $100,000 -- hundreds of thousands of dollars. host: a total of 43 people were arrested in portland, oregon. do you think that action was
justified, using pepper spray? allan? he is gone. amin husain, do you want to respond? guest: each human being has inherent value and we each have different ability. i come from a poor background. i am trained as a lawyer, i worked in finance, and i was making a quarter of a million dollars for about five years, and i felt like i was overpaid. if i chose poverty for the type of life i feel like i have a responsibility to live. i am accomplished in a sense, but to me is about how do we live the good life. it requires a little more imagination and opening up the conversation we are having nationally at a critical time in our history.
host: john on our independent line calling from albany, n.y.. caller: thank you for taking my call. i look at the movement, and i'm kind of torn. i belong to a union that is flirting with you guys somewhat. i'm very uneasy about that. i am tired of hearing you talk about morals. let's talk about ethics. we want to talk about ethics in government and society. fine. i will decide my own morals. i do not won a super committee deciding my marbles -- morals, and that sounds too socialistic, tantamount to communism. when i came back from vietnam, people called me a lot of things for serving my country.
my point is if you really want to have an impact you should take your expertise and start delving into the public records of which politicians are taking money. it is the outside money that is influencing all this stuff that filters down to the street level. if you cannot do that, i think the movement is going to fade. start naming names. where they got their money from, who they are -- do not be bashful. how they voted. host: we will leave it there. sam jewler, talk to us about what john had to say regarding morals and ethics and the significance of the union support for the occupied movement. >> we are hesitant to openly endorse any organization. we have done some support from unions in the area for things
like showers and things like that. we do see that it is a common cause. we should have solidarity with unions because they are workers, part of the 99%, and people like us to want democracy to work. host: are you living in the occupy dc -- to you have your own tent? guest: yes. i think it is great. i have some friends there. it is a little cold, but i enjoy it. there are people that come through the park all day and night and we get to have great conversations about our country, culture, and politics. host: where were you living before this and how long does the movement and tend to occupy the space downtown?
guest: i was living with my parents, and now i'm happy to say i have my own space. host: how long do you think you will be there? guest: as long as i have to be. host: winter is coming. will you be able to survive that? guest: we are working on that. we are getting all kinds of clothing. people have camped in much worse. i know personally the 100, 150 people at least will be determined enough for us to stay there. host: what is the end game? very often in military conflicts, they want to know what is the out strategy? how do recognize victory? guest: is a tough question. we are fighting -- it is a tough
question. we are fighting powerful forces, and we are changing the national conversation already. we are still very young. we will have to be patient, determined, and see where it goes. host: same question to you, amin husain. what is the endgame? how do identified the three decks -- how you identified victory? guest: victory can be measured him at least two ways. this relates to the role of unions. i think of them as labor. this is about building a transformative movement that is bottom lined by students, labor, and the middle class fed has been disenfranchised and lost their homes. -- that has been
disenfranchised and lost their homes path that movement is going to grow and become something -- homes. that movement is going to grow and become something of a popular movement that could put pressure on the political system in terms of structural modification. in terms of goals, i only speak for myself and everyone in this movement only speaks for themselves, it is breaking the link between global capital and state. it is a link between government and money -- banks. another way to say that is getting money out of politics. all of those different ways are important because it is what is disenfranchising people. if the will of the people would be heard, our political system would be working and we would be getting places. host: let's get back to the
phones. tim, from florence, alabama, on our line for republicans. caller: am i on? host: your thoughts or questions regarding the most and -- movement? caller: i am wondering what they think about the movements in foreign countries, for instance great britain, trying to get sharia law put in place. this guy i'm looking at with the cap on and these eyeglasses on, he is islamic, no question about it. in the water one -- the other one is sitting beside year it is islamic and tried to cause havoc. you sit there and do what ever
you want to, mr. four eyes. host: calming his same, -- amin husain, is in communication with occupy movements in other countries? guest: we have a group called movement building. it is important to recognize the impetus behind the movement in general. i think we saw lot of things happen in the middle east, beginning with what happened in egypt, then greece, when we saw a democracy rise up. in spain, we saw an advanced economy used the same kind of people power make modifications and change. from there, we got the idea of people power, and coming out with general assembly and tolls
like that. the spanish and greek people have been involved in terms of the initial tools. that is the lineage of what we are seeing in the united states as modified. moving forward, people are looking to the united states and the occupy movement for the lead, and we have reinvigorated that movement worldwide. host: downed is our next caller from upstate new york. what part of upstate new york are you wind index -- are you again? caller: buffalo. i want to think these two gentlemen for their service and the rest of the people participating in this movement.
the ethics in this country have gone soft. -- south. people are really struggling financially because of these large corporations and because of the politicians who are doing to insider trading. i think someone wrote a book about that. it has been publicized now. people like this, who of written this book, have come forward because of the occupy movement, and that is my comment. host: sam jewler, go ahead. guest: i think everyone is starting to see that our country is in a bad place. the top 1% of people in this country have made 60% of all new income in the last 30 years.
there is nothing fair about that, and it is not healthy moving forward to have that much wealth in the top 1% of people in this country. it is not any way to build a stable, for function in democracy. host: we have an e-mail from jackie in new york city who writes to reason the government is broke is because too few people are supporting too many people already. h l amin husain, your thoughts about what -- host: amin
husain, your thoughts about what he has to say? guest: i think he may be right, and he may be wrong. for we would love for you to get involved. you can move this movement in the direction the 99% would like it to go. we have stayed away from "ism's ." socialism, capitalism, those are latent terms that have a lot of baggage with them. let's think about what is happening. losing jobs, losing houses, doing what you're supposed to do, but there is no american dream. that is the problem most of us can agree on. if you get involved, we can think about what the solutions are. to many people have told us for too long the these are the choices and what we are
challenging is that narrative. let's free up our imagination collectively. let's work toward solutions other than what has already been presented to us. host: amin husain it is an occupy wall street organizer, a studio artist, and was previously a finance lawyer in new york city, born in chicago, ill.. here we are talking to sam jewler who previously worked for washingtonian magazine, and in india. our next call comes from london. roderick, you are on a cold the washington journal -- "the washington journal." caller: high and the visiting london -- i am visiting london.
i am from new york. although i might agree with some of the issues and a lot of the people that observed the crowd agreed with the issues, but the message is quite disturbing and terrorizing. to be clear, it is important that the united states, and people who are viewing this show and reading about this movement really see firsthand on the ground their message. their message is to be kind, radical, and reminiscent of the 1960's. most of these kids are in their 20's, who missed the 1960's protest movements, and try to claim this issue as a replication of that movement when the two have no similarities whatsoever.
host: before we get a response from our guests, talk about the comparisons between the o ccupy movements overseas and in the united states -- in london, for example, how do they compare themselves to what we're doing in the united states? caller: the message is being spoon fred around the world through some of these -- spoonfed around the world through some of these organizers. it is what i observed on thursday and what i'm seeing in london. you could blindfold yourself and place yourself in either city, and it is like you have not changed -- left the city. the accents have changed and the senate's is different.
host: sam jewler, your thoughts about what he says? guest: i invite anyone to come down to the local occupation and check it out for yourself. he mentioned the word terrorizing in relation to this protest. the only terrorizing i have seen is by the government against peaceful protesters. i think that is very telling. when you have police officers pepper spray and harmless people, beating harmless people, -- pepper spray, beat, and shoot from was people, that says a lot about the government today. host: a amin husain, talk about the tactics. people say it looks like terrorism. talk about tying up the brooklyn bridge, going to public
transportation to make it difficult for folks who may or may not be part of the 99% to get to work and fulfilled their own part of the american dream -- fulfill their own part of the american dream. guest: we are cognizant of those people. we have tried to not be antagonistic. one of the core principles of every action is non-violence. that does not mean that there is the transaction -- transgression, because frankly, some laws inhibit assembly, free speech, and movement. those need to be challenged by civil disobedience and this is a component of what people are doing if they feel comfortable with the rest.
when we talk about the brooklyn bridge, that was a situation when we had thousands of people, and it is hard for a proud to be controlled in a manner, and on the other hand, we were excited that we did take the bridge. there was something amazing in sending a message to the world. i wonder why people feel rushed to place labels -- radical, saying it is bad or good, terrorist, terrorism -- these words are conversation enders, and not conversation starters. the other thing i will add is that what people are not realizing right now is the narrative on the 17th was never
supposed to be protesters against police. there are issues that we want to talk about that is not covered, and police brutality while it exists, we would rather not talk about, so we're not interested in those types of conversations. host: you brought up the right to assembly. what is the difference between the right to assembly and the rights to occupy? guest: i think that is a great question. i must admit that they are important for this movement and this time because you assemble physically, where? in some place, right? geography matters. you have general assembly's that happened indoors and outdoors, but the occupation was to try to create a space that is liberated
for people to have conversations that they otherwise are not able to have in society in general. that was and is still the idea and it is important. host: bacteria phones -- back to the phones. russ, independent line, from san diego, california. caller: i probably differ with you on a lot of issues, but the caller from florida who said something about your religion, that is an american. we have freedom of religion, that is what our founding fathers fought for, and i commend you for peaceful protest. if you wanted to pull me in on the street, target the real problem, and it is the federal reserve.
it is not the america. they are being empowered by the federal reserve. that is causing all of the wars. -- is not big america. if they are being and powered by the federal reserve. it is causing all of the wharves. it is not the large banks or the small banks. i am watching a mess nbc. they are nervous that the tea party is going to joined which deal. i'm not a socialist in the any extent. i'm not for government at all. host: we will leave it there and get a response from sam jewler here, in d.c.. guest: applying to any kind of label to us is a little off the mark. we are just tried to have a conversation. if anyone who feels disenfranchised, anyone who feels like they are all part of
the 99% is the kind of people we feel we are talking to. i appreciate him calling in and defending the right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech. -- host: weve a have an article from "the miami herald." host: would you agree or disagree that the occupy wall street movement shares believes with the tea party movement? guest: there is probably too much power in the hands of too few people in this country. host: has there been discussion with tea party members to hash out where you might be on the same page and where you differ?
at has not happened yet. there are people interested in getting that conversation started. we are all part of the 99%, and it would be an interesting conversation to have. host: harry, this bird, on our line for republicans. -- pittsburgh, and our line for republicans. caller: i am looking ahead the pictures of urination in the street, hypodermic needles, some people are on the street, in the 20's, 30's. i hope new york has enough to pay for snow removal. you are not doing any good the way you are doing it.
in a show of that difference pounds with a sensible message for -- if you showed up in different spots with a sensible message for three hours a day, people would listen. what you are doing right now is despicable. maybe not you guys, but the majority of the people doing this. host: amin husain, your thoughts? guest: i agree with some of what was said. there are different ways of occupying. space and conversation are important. it is not just conversation. it is a action. one thing we are doing very well is targeting banks that are disenfranchising people in terms of getting our message out. there are different ways to occupy. i agree with that.
when you occupy a space like we did in new york and over the course of two months, you have a swelling of the population coming out there and the breakdown represents the society we live in. it is a microcosm of not only the world we want to create, but the problems we face in society. when you have homeless people, people dealing with problems, that comes to the forefront. i thought that was an enlightening thing, because we should not ignore the problems we live in. hud as part of the problem. having -- debt as part of the problem. having charitable organizations that we give $10 to every month does not solve the problem. it is part of owning up to the world we want to live in. blaming occupiers for what you
see is not the way to go. host: sam jewler, you get the last word. guest: there have been problems around the country. i agree, but these are things you see in society at large. one of the beautiful things has been that i have met people from all walks of life. five met veterans, gay people, straight people, jewish people, arabic people, homeless people, people i would not have met before. i've never had so much fun in my life. i invite anyone that is curious to come down and be part of the conversation. every committee is open to anyone that wants to join. please come and make your voice heard.
host: sam jewler, there is a group marching from new york to washington. where are they, and when will they get here d.c.? guest: they are in baltimore, i believe. they are supposed to get here wednesday the 23rd, the davis super committee is supposed to make their final decision. we will be joining them to protest the super committee and make sure it makes a decision that is best for everyone in the country, and it is not a decision influenced by corporations and the wealthy. host: sam jewler, occupy dc, and amin husain, of occupy wall street in new york. thank you for being on "the washington journal." coming up in 45 minutes, we will talk about combating drug driving, but after the break a discussion on a concealed carry
permitting that passed earlier this week. we will see you on a "washington journal" after the break. >> every weekend on american history tv, the people that document the american history. david gergen began as a staff assistant on president nixon speech writing team, and wrote his letter of resignation. also, a 1995 debate. and, from watches in history, university at albany professor on emancipation during the civil war. look for schedules in your in
box. condoleezza rice, george mcgovern, randall kennedy, and jim lehrer headline this weekend with the miami book fair international. follow the authors and joined in. you can also look at online for exclusive broadcast ed balls booktv.c -- at booktv.org. also, afterwards, pat buchanan and ralph nader. >> we are not coming from these forces. when the melting pot has been thrown out and you preach multi cultural as of, what holds together? >> and, from new york city, the national book awards.
find the schedule online at booktv.org. host: larry pratt is executive director of the gun owners of america end is here to talk about legislation passed by the house of representatives -- the national right to carry reciprocity tax. what does this do? guest: it says if you are a resident of one of the 49 states that has some kind of concealed carry legislation, you can go to one of the other states. the only exception would be illinois, which has no provision for citizens to carry concealed firearms. if you live in vermont -- let's take another example. i will get to vermont later. if you live in indiana, you could go to kentucky. whether or not they have a
reciprocity agreement, this legislation says you would be good to go. host: there are two different kinds of concealed carry legislation around the country. tell us the difference. guest: if you have shall issue, you go through the hoops, say you're not a crook, you've taken a test. that that point, they must give you a permit. in a may issue state, the authority could set i am not sure you're really need a gun. host: even though you have taken courses, gone on a license, and have everything, in the may issue states they could say we may not give you the concealed carry? guest: that is right.
host: do they have to offer any reason? guest: you did not satisfy the sheriff or whoever was the issue in a 40. -- who was the issuing authority. host: illinois has no concealed carry laws whatsoever. guest: it is a criminal-friendly zone because criminals are the only one that will be carrying concealed. host: if you go into illinois, what will happen to you? guest: if you successfully conceal, nothing will happen, but if you do not successfully conceal, you will go to jail. host: we are talking to larry
pratt. give us a call. host: you can also send us questions and messages from intel and twitter. before we start taking calls, we want to get some sound from representative debbie wasserman schultz, who was talking about public safety wednesday and how she thought it was in jeopardy. that will get some response from larry pratt of the gun owners of america. >> the bills jeopardize public safety debt -- by mandating that states under even the most lax laws of other states. the gentleman from illinois it is incorrect. this is about criminals. gun control is a serious issue for my constituents. in the state of florida, there are almost 800,000 permits for concealed firearms.
the process for issuing licenses is problematic enough. i would not suggest forcing it on the other states that have strong safeguards. this bill will do exactly that. four states that required age minimums or safety training, or permit violent offenders from getting a permit in the first place, that goes out the window if this bill is passed into law. when we get is the worst of the worst, the lowest common denominator of all these state laws. host: larry pratt, your response? guest: the representative does not seem to pay attention to the death in her own state, which is not surprising, because the opposition to concealed carry seems to be based very much on feeling rather than linear logic. in its florida, when they pass their legislation in the late- the's, they were above
national average for the violent crime rate, the murder rate. after it passed, not only did it fall, it kept falling some 44%. they are now under the national average. for her to say this is a problem is to defy the facts. host: earlier we talked about the differences between shall issue and may issue. we have a map from usacarry.com that shows different states and different legislation. we want to get a feel. the dark blue states have shall issue two residents only. guest: that means if you are licensed in another state it does not do you good. they do not have reciprocity. host: the lighter blue is shall issue to residents and non- residents.
guest: that means they have worked out reciprocity arrangements. host: these are all agreements that happened before the passage? guest: that is correct. host: ok. going back to the map, we have in brown the may issue to residents only. guest: it is like california. it depends on what county you live in. if you live in los angeles county, forget about it. if you live up north, and you do not look like a felon from the background check, here is your permit. it is highly discretionary. host: in beige, we have a mission to residents and non- residents.
-- may issue to residents and non-residents. in black, we have illinois, which has the right denied. also, in the american samoa. guest: forget about it. host: our first call comes from co-, tenn., on our line for republicans. caller: thank you for taking my call. there was a case that came up a few years ago with plaxico burress, a football player, who shot himself in the leg. they put him in jail for two years. if i am from tennessee, and i
was going senhor, when i have to worry about as far as having a weapon? guest: you will be protected no matter how strict the state is. it is very difficult to get a weapon in new jersey. if you're just traveling through, you would be protected because you're not intended to stay there. if something were to happen and you were charged by some state local authority in new jersey, he would be ultimately able to prevail under -- you would be ultimately able to prevail under federal law. it is not ideal, but you would be protected to some extent. host: have this law banned the law of the land, the football player would not have faced criminal charges?
guest: he had the gun in new york city, which is the worst of the worst, without a permit. just buying the gun is a big deal. it could be months, a couple of thousand -- a couple thousand dollars, it is not it the situation. host: without a permit for new york? guest: in new york city. host: he had a permit for new jersey. under the new law? guest: that would have protected him big time. host: michigan. you are online for larry pratt. caller: i appreciate the issue of concealed carry.
i have a firearms identification card, and that implies i have the right to carry a gun, but it cannot be concealed. it depends on local jurisdictions' prohibitions also. if i wind up carrying my shotgun around town, i could conceivably be stopped and checked to see if it was loaded. if it was noted, i would probably be in trouble, but if what -- if it was loaded, i would probably be in trouble, but if it was not, i would probably not be in trouble. on the other hand, i would rather have that if someone is carrying a firearm that it not be concealed. i think illinois has it right and the rest of the states have it wrong. the nra, and the outset that is being represented today -- out
said that is being represented today -- host: the gun owners of america. before i let you go, let me ask larry. -- larry pratt a question, that means that it is concealed under clothing? guest:, that is correct. host: d.c. any situation where you need to conceal a shotgun? not really, but i also have a pistol, and that should be worn as a side arm. if you are in a bank or a restaurant and you have a weapon on you, it should be obvious that you do. guest: the reason for concealed carry is primarily in my opinion that you do not become
the first target if there is a criminal. there was a law passed that said we're not going to allow firearms in our village hearing chamber. one evening, when a killer attacked, the first two people he shot and killed were the police officers because they or a badge and a side arm of the hip. then he killed some other people. no one had a gun. so, the gun-free zone turned out to be a criminally -- criminal-friendly zoning text at think the right to have a fire arm reaching zones -- zone. i think the right to have a firearm concealed applies. host: rochester, new york,
you're calling for larry pratt from the gun owners of america. caller: i heard you state d criminal -- that illinois is a criminal safety zone. you hit the nail on the head. i am in the draconian state of new york. i am a two-tour veteran. i have done everything i can for my country. i have to fight for a year for them to grant me the privilege, that is what is considered in new york, to carry a concealed weapon. this is outstanding debt this bill passed in the house. i hope it gets through. i'm nervous about it, but one question i want to escape with
the passage of this bill is does it -- to ask you with the passage of this bill, is will it allow for. on campus? i do not feel like i should sacrifice my civil liberty and my safety on my college campus. guest: you go from state to state, what ever you are able to do will depend on whether restrictions there have in that state. it is the same if you drive from one state to another. now your concealed carry permit will be treated the same as your driver's license, but if one state has a 70 mile per hour speed limit, and the other has a 65, you have to drive 65. if they say you cannot protect yourself legally on a college campus, you will not be able to protect yourself on a college
campus. h., so the national -- host: so the national right to carry that allows you to carry, but once you're in the state, you will have to abide to the laws of that state? guest: that is right. host: is new york has a law that says you cannot have a concealed weapon on a college campus, and let's say he does, starting in virginia, you can go to new york,. a concealed weapon, but not on a college campus? guest: you would have to put it in a trunk, maybe giving a criminal an opportunity to strike because they assume you will not be armed.
it's to our next call comes from zero vinson, merrill -- host: our next call comes from zero hinson, maryland -- odenton, maryland. caller: [unintelligible] there are people that are not licensed to have guns. they walked through society and start shooting people. guns are meant to be owned by law enforcement. if you want to have a gun, i am not disputing that. it is supposed to be to defend your home, not to go to the park, and defend yourself in the park. guest: do you have an example of that? caller: you said something about the first person they shot
was the police. the police are supposed to have guns at all times. guest: you do not have an example? caller: an example of what? guest: of someone carrying a concealed firearm to abuse that? caller: most of these guns are not registered. guest: i think you are arguing against yourself. host: we will move on to our line for republicans. justed in new jersey. go ahead. -- justin in new jersey, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. with the success you had with this legislation, are you going to do any work with being able
to repeal -- i am in jersey, which is a tough state. when i was younger i made some big mistakes and i am considered a felon. for years i have lived a productive life. i follow the rules now. there are a lot of people that want that second chance as well to be able to prove they, too, should be able to own a gun and protect their family as well. all i am wondering if you are going in any direction to help them along as well. guest: i agree with you. i think someone in your situation should not be deprived of the right to bear arms. that is not on the table at this moment, but it is something we defendants every possible opportunity. i think it is absolutely wrong to say that someone that did something wrong early in his life, and has been a choirboy,
we are not want to let them have a gun? that is not what we want. host: our next call for larry pratt comes from tony on our nts from independe a twin set, georgia. at a wet -- atlanta georgia. caller: when will we as a human species advance beyond weapons? when will we advance? guest: i think that weapons solved world war i, world war ii, stopped the nazis from taking over here, and perhaps
us, too. maybe we would be speaking german. you cannot say weapons have solved nothing. when a woman is being attacked by a rapist and is able to pull a gun out of her purse, i would say the weapon has done a good deal of good. host: larry pratt is our guest here to talk about the passage of the national right to carry reciprocity act, which allows people that have won permit in one state to have it in other parts of the country with exception of washington, d.c., and illinois. tell me what is the difference between the philosophies of the gun owners of america and the national rifle association, the nra? >> the easiest -- guest: the way
to depict that is one goes out and six prisoners, and the other picks the can down the road -- takes prisoners, and the other kicking the can down the road. host: new york. caller: i think people should have the right to carry a gun. i am concerned about the timing of the passage. i see uprisings, and i welcome the passage, but the timing is off. guest: why is the timing off? caller: this movement is growing momentum. i think right now would be
people -- people would be quicker to use them because people are angry. guest: do you own a gun? caller: know, but i. a gun for years. -- no, but i carried a gun for years. i have a residence in florida, by working in new york, what i'd be able to purchase in florida? guest: you could purchase it, but you would have to have it delivered to new york by a registered dealer. this law does not touch that. it's as if you have a gun and it permits you would be able to go to state -- from state-to-state.
host: chris. turn the television down. caller: i have a question for you. why our government has to make all of these different laws when you have the right to bear arms in america? guest: that is a very good question, and the answer is we have states that have been acting improperly, and with this legislation is doing is basing its action on not only the second amendment, but in our opinion on the article four of the constitution which says states have to respect the full faith and credit of other states. that is the constitutional basis of this, telling the states to stop on constitutional barriers to concealed carry. >>
host: next of a call on the line for independents. caller: one thing i hear that we laugh that but is not funny is that some will say they have not picked up their guns since the previous year. in my background with martial arts and boxing, i am very fit at 58. most people never even get any fist fight much less seen one. they think they will pick up a gun and start spraying bullets at a bad guy. what is being left out is that people need to practice. many people do not. in the classes i went to four police survival, it was amazing the psyche of the people.
i am asking people to understand is not as easy as people might think it would be. you need to be prepared emotionally and physically. i see too many people thinking they can pull the gun in circumstances when somebody gets mad at them. you cannot. host: as i understand it, you have the right to carry in illinois. is that because you are associated with law enforcement? caller: i am retired law- enforcement in good standing. guest: one of the things the caller said that needs to be highlighted is that it is a state of mind. that is part of what is involved. if you are being attacked and beginning the internal debate of whether you can shoot a fellow human being, that is the wrong time to start the debate.
you have to have that settled well before that moment occurs. host: are you concerned we could have more shootings like the one that injured representative giffords? guest: i think something like that would decrease. because it was a democratic gathering, and no one had a gun in a state where you don't even need a permit to carry a gun. only the bad guy had a gun, just like usual. if you have the opportunity to carry a gun, avail yourself of it. do not just stand around like a good potential victim. host: you are saying because of politics, the likelihood of something like this happening at a republican gathering in arizona and diminishes? guest: put it in the bank. four: kelly is on the line fro
republicans -- for republicans. caller: i belong to a women's gun club. we practice. we stay on top of it and learn constantly. i would encourage all women to join. could you tell me about the amendment to this bill? >> if i am not mistaken, that was the amendment we did not appreciate. the idea was we had to give a police officer. do we have to study how he will be able to know whether your concealed carry permit is valid or not. we should not even have to have permits. the right to keep and bear arms is not open to any kind of infringement. four states get it right. they say you do not even need a
permit to carry a concealed firearm. those are states that do not have the crime problem as they have in new york city, washington, d.c., or chicago. in two of those cities, they have had gun bans. host: the senate is working on similar legislation. tell us where they are in the process. guest: the house bill had the troubling and the matter referred to by the collar. it also does not have any recognition of your drivers license being all you need from vermont. under the current measure before the senate, vermont would have to pass a concealed carry permit law so the person would have a concealed carry permit. we think there is a growing movement.
vermont for a long time was the only state that had no permit requirement. now there are three others in the last three or four years that have come on line. others are moving in that direction. this is a great concern we have with the h.r. 22. we have been very supportive of paul brown's measure addresses those problems in this congress, the house passed a rule saying you have to have a constitutional justification stated for why your legislation is ok. measure passed out of the house, it says the commerce clause is the justification. that is not a good idea. the commerce clause is like a swamp you go into in may never get out of. we like the idea that the second amendment was used by rep brown.
ideally, we would have a measure that says states have to recognize the full faith and credit of other states. host: juan is on the line for democrats from north carolina. caller: we have a law with someone tries to steal from you, you can shoot them. carrying a concealed weapon should be everybody's given right to carry one to protect themselves. things are getting worse. people are getting robbed left and right. if you are going to stand around and get shot, what can you do? guest: i love you. i am not sure why you are a democrat, but i am not going to disagree. [laughter] host: tell us what you have to go through to get your license to carry the gun in north
carolina. it is a residents-only state. caller: you have to go to the sheriff's department, apply for permits, get another person to say you are of good moral character. you wait five days and go buy a gun. that is it. host: do you carry it wherever you go? caller: yes, but you cannot have it in the glove box, the trunk, or a box. it has to be laying on the dashboard. guest: you are not talking about concealed carry. you are talking about a permit to buy again. host: peter is on the line for republicans calling from tucson, arizona. you are on with larry pratt from gun owners of america. caller: he was saying something about the senate before.
do you think it will pass in the senate? the think president obama will sign? -- do you think president obama will sign? people in the crowd at gabby giffords, i think that will grab them. someone had a gun but did not feel comfortable calling it because of the situation. there was at least one guy carrying. guest: i will take your word for it. i have not heard that before. is too bad if that is the case that he made such a decision. if you are carrying a gun, the idea is that you can protect yourself and other people. what was the other point he was making?
it was a good point. host: peter, what was your second point? caller: i said he thought he would be in danger in the other people in the crowd. he grabbed the guy rather than shooting him. he stopped him from continuing to fire. guest: i thought you had said something prior to that. if that is the case, he was there and i was not. i will accept his judgment. i will not second-guess someone in that situation. host: lease is up on the line for democrats from florida. -- louise is on the line for democrats from florida. caller: you said we have to worry about the bad guys having the guns. what about the stupid guys having the guns? gov. bush signed a law written
by the nra called standard ground. it encouraged people to use deadly force if they felt they were threatened. we have had killings and kids shot on people's property. now gov. scott has signed the only bill of its kind in the united states with doctors asking parents about securing guns at home. the governor made a law they cannot ask parents any questions if they keep a gun. you people have gone too far. >> i am glad he signed that law. guns are not a medical issue. for medical groups to say that guns are a issue -- have been issue is a boundary issue. it has nothing to do with the help. it makes them some sort of a social worker, politician. it goes beyond being a medical
doctor. i salute gov. scott for having signed the legislation. host: rebecca is the next caller on the independent line from columbus, ohio. caller: of like to give a question, an example, and state a point. what is the highest law as far as concealed and carry? my example is within the last 24 months, there was a gunshot wound that ended up killing another young man under 30. he supposedly had a license for a concealed weapon. he calmly pulled out his gun and boasted he had a license to carry a concealed weapon. a lot of people were afraid of him. there have been implications he is behind a lot of truth dealing.
as i understand, he is not very educated and clean out stupid. that scares me. i am very afraid of people allowed to carry guns like that. i do not have a problem with hunters. i used to hunt when i was young. but handguns and concealed, that is frightening. guest: i understand you have feelings. the facts of the matter are that in your state, studies have been done that have told us that concealed carry permit holders commit violent crime, including what sounded like an accident crime, but i was not clear from what you are saying. we're not even talking about accidents, which are even fewer. 92% of the time less than the average population that is half of what police officers commit. the person you are talking
about assuming everything you say is correct is a huge minority, a tiny minority of concealed carry permit holders. host: we have a tweets from someone who wants to know if the guest feels businesses should not be allowed to prevent carrying in their establishments. guest: if people want to be stupid and have their business as a criminal-friendly zone, they can do that. if they post that that is their mistaken view, and free not to shop there -- i am free not to shop there. host: what about places that serve alcohol? guest: we have seen a battle over that period as long as someone is not inebriated region we have seen a battle over that period as long as someone is
not inebriated, he will be able to carry in a restaurant. virginia law says as long as he is not in the breeding, he can carry. states that do not recognize there is a problem -- the va does not have bars. they just have restaurants that do or do not sell alcohol. those that sell can now admit people with a concealed carry permit. it has not been a problem. host: the last call for larry pratt comes from georgia on the line from republicans in tampa bay, florida. caller: my wife and i are both concealed weapons carriers. we have our permits. we do go out. we do not expect to shoot anybody. it is to protect ourselves. if someone is going to come after me violently, they are going to get the worst from us.
guest: that is what it is all about. caller: i am still here. we both belong to the second amendment club in tampa bay. we consistently get instructions. we know what to do. we go to the gun range. we know how to handle them. a concealed carry person will not show their weapon. most concealed carry people in our area do not show their weapons. guest: the idea of concealed carry is to keep it hidden. as i said earlier, the main reason for doing that is so that you are not the first target for some maniac trying to kill a bunch of people. he does not know where to start.
it may be that he is the first shot in you get the last shot. host: have been talking with larry pratt from gun owners of america. if you want more organization on the -- information on the organization, you can go to the website. we are going to take a short break. when we come back, a discussion about combating drug driving -- drunk driveing. we will be right back. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
>> i was told when obama was given the first budget, there were ships or fat 7000 amendments. -- there were 7000 amendments. i think if he had vetoed, he would have been the tea party. if he had signaled his fundamental desire to change the system and the way washington works, he could have continued to rally the reform movement that breaks out around the world because of its frustration with the way that democracy does not function. >> the professor on money and its influence on washington. >> every weekend, the people and events that document the american story. this weekend, he began his
political career in 1971 as a staff assistant on president nixon's speech writing team. three years later, he would write the letter of resignation. also, an impasse between congress and the president, the debt ceiling, spending cuts, and taxes. today? try 1995. professor taylor on emancipation during the civil war. look for the complete schedule at c-span.org/history. >> "washington journal" continues. host: jan wither as is the national president of mothers against drunk driving. the latest report includes state rankings of progress in the area. tell us about this report and
why you felt was necessary to put it together. what does it tell us about the state of driving -- drunk driving in the united states? guest: five years ago, we decided to go back to the drawing board. fatalities were staying level. we wanted to do something to do more to make sure we work eliminating this terrible problem on our roadways. we list -- looked at all of the science. we decided to focus on calculations for drunk driving. five years ago, we initiated our campaign to eliminate drunk driving. that included having alcohol locks for all drivers. we want to have sobriety checkpoints and having advanced
technologies in our cars that will turn the cars into the cure. host: regarding sobriety checkpoints, do you feel like there are communities where this effort is lagging? is that the problem? are they not thorough enough in checking the drivers were people behind the wheel? guest: they are effected. we know they reduce driving -- drunk fatalities by 20%. some states do not allow them. some states do. they're very effective. it is a deterrent. it is a deterrent when it is highly publicized. host: what is the status of getting in-car breathalyzer is? are a number of states looking into this? is this technically feasible? guest: alcoholic ignition
interlocks are the breathalyzer as i was talking about before. those are after a person has been convicted of drunk driving. they are required to blow before they go. after a person is convicted, they're not supposed to have any alcohol in their system when driving. they are required to use that. we know they are successful when they are used for all convicted drunk. the other kind is the advanced technology. we are researching that for our new program. it is called driver and alcohol detection system for safety. we are researching nothat. it will someday be in cars and
will not interfere with a sober drivers of all. you will just know you cannot drive if you are intoxicated. host: we're talking to the national president of mothers against drunk driving. we're talking about combating drunk driving. they recently put out a report on their campaign to eliminate drunk driving. if you want to get involved in the conversation, the numbers are on your screen. tell us about the state rankings in the report. guest: when we decided to do the campaign, we also decided we would see where we stood as a result of the campaign.
we put five stars together for each state. we evaluated that. those include requiring ignition interlock for all drunk drivers, using sobriety checkpoints, having enhanced penalties for people who drive in. with children in their car, during administrative license revocation where the licenses taken away immediately upon arrest. we also evaluated each state to see if they had each of these. ese three most effective onc are the sobriety checkpoints in the ignition interlock. host: the first call comes from new jersey on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: this is don.
i wanted to inform your guest that the amount of harm done by these laws is almost incalculable. young people all over the country have to spend four or five years of their lives trying to get out of the fines if they anchor from being stopped at little checkpoints when they are leaving parties down at the shore or whatever -- if they -- from the fines that they incur from being stopped will checkpoint with their leading parties down to the shore whatever. people get caught and have to pay penalties way beyond whenever possible injury they were going to incur because they did not incur any injury. they have not done anything wrong to anyone else.
they've not injured or hurt anyone. it is just because you think they might have endangered somebody threw some potential accident that they -- that has not even occurred yet. i hope you sleep well at night. you look like you do. host: go ahead and respond to what he had to say. guest: i think he is talking about sobriety checkpoints. they're very effective in reducing fatalities. fatalities are people who have been killed. when a person is at a .08 level, that is the legal limit. they are able to stop people who could injure someone or devastate families by killing someone. the potential is there. is it -- it is extremely dangerous to drive impaired.
what they did is an illegal act. it is their own consequences. host: we want to look at the cost of drunk driving. $61 billion is monetary costs. $71 billion is quality of life costs to victims. talk to us about the difference. guest: monetary loss is what people have to pay as a result of drunk driving. if a person is injured, so much has to happen in rehabilitation, altering the way the house is built. all that comes at tremendous expense. if a loved one has been killed as a result of drunk driving, it is phenomenal how much it costs. funeral's cost thousands of dollars. hospital bills can be overwhelming. the quality of life is literally the change that happens after a family has
endured a drunk driving crash. many people cannot sleep anymore. they lose their jobs. they have to change activities in their household because of the high cost of just living differently as a result. host: who pays for drunk driving costs? the federal government picks up $4.5 billion. state and local governments, dollars and 3.2 billion. private employers, $10.7 billion. guest: i think about what private employers have to pay in cost. i think $4.5 billion of that goes to how much they have to pay for one who has been involved in a car related to their work. the rest of it has to do with crashes outside of the work
environment that the company pays for. it is a tremendous cost. host: what is the federal government paying for? guest: as taxpayers, we pay about $500 apiece as a result of a drunk driving crash. the federal government has to cover the cost of what insurance does not cover. taxpayers are paying all of that. host: back to the phones in our discussion on combating drunk driving with jan withers from mothers against drunk driving. caller: in my area, i am seeing support for checkpoints starting to wane. in california, we have the safe streets act. it allows a car to be impounded if the driver is unlicensed or does not have insurance.
some people in our area felt the checkpoints were being used to target immigrants or undocumented workers rather than for the primary purposes. that was borne out by the fact that for every truck driver caught, they probably impounded for five cars from people who simply did not have proper documents. does your organization support rules that would limit these checkpoints to only stopping drunk drivers and not being used for other purposes? guest: absolutely. if done properly, the checkpoints are supposed to do it every so many drivers like every third one. only a person -- only if a
police officer has regional suspicion that the person has been driving impaired. in other words, the smell of alcohol, the person is not able to do the field sobriety test properly, then they can move forward with testing them for a blood alcohol concentrations. . a proper check point does not do profiling. host: the next call is on the line from republicans. caller: my head was almost taken off 10 years ago. i suffered occasional paralysis. there was no drinking involved. it was an attorney and another woman who did not follow the rules of the road. that is the number one cause. this past week, the same thing almost happen again. it took everything from meat to stop an accident. i will not belittle what she
does, but i will not get my neck and arms back. the speed limits are not being followed. someone ran a stop sign in my case 10 years ago. the cars are too big and too heavy. if she wants to make a real dent, have the police stop people when they run a stop sign and speed. that kind of thing will make a dent in drunk driving. if you are not driving fast, you will not cause paralysis. guest: i am so sorry you have to deal with that. it is a permanent effect on the rest of your life. crashes from any kind of cause and are one too many. we do know that drunk driving kills at least 11,000 people a year. we know 350,000 people are injured like you are from drug driving -- drunk driver.
it is a major cause of problems on our roadways. host: denise is on the line for democrats. caller: i am sorry to hear about the families affected by drunk drivers. i have a split feeling about it due to the fact that i know that college students go and party and stuff like that. people play pranks on them. if a person got behind the wheel and did not feel nothing then and they slipped something in their joint, now they cause an accident that affects everything and everyone. that person is penalized. i do have sympathy for the person involved. there are people who do evil
things. you cannot lump them all in one thing. guest: what i am hearing is that it could be that other people are slipping alcohol into their drinks and they did not know. madd always recommends to everyone if alcohol is involved in your evening, make a decision before you go out on how you are going to get home with a designated sober drivers. that is the most important thing you can do for the night. the side before you ever have a drink. -- decide before you ever have a drink. host: brian is on the line for independents. caller: this is brian murdoch. i think the drunk driving laws
are way heavy handed. i think george washington would be disgusted with this. nobody is going to live for ever. nobody should have to die from a drunk driver, but nobody should have to live with slowing under the limit and having their life destroyed by the government. host: we are going to leave it there. i think you made your point. guest: no one is arrested or can be convicted of drunk driving unless they are at the illegal limit or above that. if they are under the limit, they cannot be convicted of drunk driving. everybody is going to die, but there is a different way of
dying. my own daughter was killed by a drunk driver when she was 15. her life was cut short way to sen. behind all those numbers are real people and lives destroyed. that is our entire goal of mothers against drunk driving, to have no more victims. host: the person involved in your daughter's death, and that person been arrested or been involved with law-enforcement before? guest: it was his first offense of being convicted of drunk driving. we do not a person being convicted it is not the first time they have driven drug. we know they drive an average of eight times driving impaired before they are caught. host: want to take a look at some of the laws on the books now. .08 is the legal limit in all
states. guest: we have legislation and at different levels. we recommend every state have a call interlocks required for all convicted drunk drivers and first-time offenders. if you only do it for repeat offenders, the only addresses half of the problem. we know that for all convicted drunk drivers, it reduces fatalities tremendously. host: 42 states and the district of columbia have license suspicions on the first offense. 48 states and the district increase penalties for drivers convicted of driving with 0.15
or more. that is pretty heavy. that is almost twice the legal limit. guest: we know that is about half of the people caught. the other is below that. it is just as much of a problem. host: what are some of the legislative remedies you are seeking for all offenders? guest: we're working hard to get ignition interlock required for all convicted drivers in every state. we are very excited about the advanced technology with the of detection system for safety. there is an act that we continue and to support. the representatives are doing it in the house.
senator udall and senator corker are doing it in the senate. this will support the continued research on the advanced technology. host: we go back to the phones in our discussion on combating drunk driving with jan wither s from mothers against drunk driving. the next call is from joe in michigan. are you there? let's move on to the judith on the line from -- for democrats from florida. caller: your guest is using the words alcohol or drunk driving and impaired. she is using the same as if they are interchangeable. what about prescription drug use? that is a big problem. what about a legal prescription
drug use? that is a big problem in florida. -- what about illegal prescription drug use? what is the organization doing about that? guest: i am so glad you brought that up. it is a very important issue. madd has always supported people who have been victimized by drugged driving. with a voice supported family members that have been victimized by that. -- we have always supported family members that have been victimized by that. we do see an increase in poly abuse.- we are reaching out to this population making sure they know we are serving them in any way we can. for we're also applauding law- enforcement seeking remedies to this. host: 4 worth, texas, philip is
on the line for republicans -- fort worth, texas, the bill is on the line for republicans. caller: i think it is hypocritical for you to see the cops should not enforce all of our laws. if they are having a check point, they should be checking everybody for everything they are supposed to have. it is not just drunk driving. if they are not here legally, we should get them off of our streets. they're taking our jobs. they're taking our benefits. all of these things. i have friends who have those things on their trek to keep them from driving. those do not work. when they want to drive, they get someone else to blow into it. they have their kids to blow on it for them. you are not saving nobody with those. you are just charging everybody money. you are not really solving the issue.
guest: when we are talking about the sobriety checkpoints, we're talking about not profiling to specifically target people for illegal immigration or racial profiling. when the officers to stop the cars and have reasonable suspicion to test them for impairment, they do that. they also do discover other illegal activities and arrest them for those other activities. host: next up is rick in peoria on the line for independents. caller: jan, i am sorry for your loss. i can understand how that would put you in a position to go after anybody and everybody. the point is -- they got it down
to .09 and now it is .08. everybody has to draw responsibly. a lot of people are in. because they are tired. a lot of people are harmed by drunk drivers. i heard the statistics. do you know how many people are harmed because of your laws? there are people who lose their livelihoods. they lose their families. they have children going hungry because they cannot work. you take away their livelihood. this is ridiculous. this is like the gestapo, especially with the traffic stops. i think most of this is driven by the insurance companies. they're the only ones that win with this. host: if these laws were not in
place, what kind of deterrent would there be for people to not drive truck? -- drunk? caller: the deterrent has always been there. i am 55 years old. i did not see more accidents of being people in. back then than now. it is more publicized. i have never been pulled over for a drunk -- drunk driving. i have never driven drunk. people have had their licenses taken over for a frivolous thing. in some cases, they were not drunk. others said they were. guest: one person has had one drink, they are not at the .08 limit and cannot be convicted. someone above that is
definitely a joke. they are causing their own problems. -- someone above that is definitely drunk. their cause in their own problems. host: you mentioned that people drive drunk an average of 80 times before they are caught. this year, nearly 11,000 will die in drunk driving crashes, one every 50 minutes. one in three people will be involved in an alcohol-related crashes in their lifetime. up to 75% of convicted drunk drivers continue to drive on a suspended license. we're talking to jan withers, president of mothers against drunk driving. the next call is from conway, south carolina. caller: have are you doing today?
-- how are you doing today? i think is great that you are combating drunk driving in america. everybody can make a mistake once in their lives. to be branded with such harsh penalties for the first offense ruins anyone from a livelihood. guest: we know that someone who has been caught driving drunk has driven an average of 80 times before they were caught. this is why we have absolutely advocate to have interlocks on everyone's car who has been convicted of this. they can continue to drive and go to work. their livelihood is not interfered with. they just cannot drive with alcohol in their system. host: lisa is up next on the line for democrats.
caller: i wanted to commend you for the work you are doing. i firmly believe if we teach our youngsters there are going to be serious consequences early on that they will learn better than my generation. in high school and college, my friends and i probably did it but probably not eight times. i am grateful that none of my friends injured anybody while they were drinking. is anything being done to make the barge responsible. i have been there at closing
time realizing everyone there is probably drunk. it is difficult for police officers to drive by all the bars and realize everybody there is probably over the limit. i wondered if there any laws passed to make the bars responsible. many times, people are bombed before they even get there. guest: that is a very good question. different states have different laws regarding making the owners responsible. but specific what is called the dram shop law. in some states, they can be held civilly liable for serving someone when they are definitely appearing to be intoxicated. criminal liability is different in every state. it is mostly civil liability in the states with the dram shop
law. host: cheryl is calling from south carolina. caller: you are doing a great job. i am sorry for your loss. my husband is a repeat offender, dui. i did not get a lot of cooperation from the police. about one of those things to take the air out of the tires. i found out where he went and slammed his tires. i had a friend who had a tow truck who would tow the vehicle away. i was afraid of who else he would hurt. my other problem was when he would go to court on dui, the lawyer was able to knock it down to a first offense. he was not being adequately punished for what he was doing. this went on for 20 years until he quit drinking. host: before i let you go, is he
still no longer drinking? caller: he passed away. he got cancer. he quit drinking about six years before he got sick. he was a fetal alcohol syndrome baby. that is still no excuse. you cannot get any cooperation with the court. guest: it is different in every state. in some states, you do get the cooperation. in some states, you do see people go to court on the fourth offense. it is a frustrating issue. a lot of the laws are not working. excitedwhy we're very about the interlocks on cars. host: lincoln?
caller: my name is lincoln. by may 16-year-old from indiana. -- i am a 16-year-old from indiana. are you familiar with the incident where the police officer ran into a motorcyclist in 2010? guest: i am not familiar with it. go ahead. caller: i have been witnessing the indianapolis metro police department covering his butt on so many occasions. recently he was convicted. excuse me. i am a little jittery today. what are the consequences for law enforcement in drunk driving? how is the punishment different from civilians?
host: you said you are 16? you just got your license? caller: no, i went wind because of rock, -- bloch, -- i went blind because of glaucoma. they have new cars that will be coming out in a few years for the visually impaired to drive. guest: i am so sorry to learn about your glaucoma. i am holding you in my heart. every individual should be held to the full extent of the law if they have been convicted of drunk driving. it is as simple as that.
no difference between police officers and civilians. host: we have a tweets on punishment. i wanted to talk to the young man from indianapolis to find out what kids are learning in drivers' education about drunk driving and whether madd with support -- would support something like jim hines is talking about. if they tell you these facts and figures having to do with drunk driving, why give someone a reduced punishment just because they are a first offender? you know what the situation is if you get drunk and dry. you could cause an accident. why get a slap on the wrist for a first offense? guest: i totally agree with you.
there should not be a reduction of the charge to a lesser charge. they should be held to the full extent of the law. host: bonnie is calling from idaho on the line for democrats. caller: i am calling regarding the madd project. i am glad you are doing this. i am a nurse. it is so hard to see families come into the emergency room when family members have been killed by a drunk driver. why are attorneys defending people? a lot of people get off when they can afford to hire an attorney. i do not think we should be along at a to go on with the attorneys. -- i do not think we should be allowing that to go on with the
attorneys. guest: i agree with you. in america, we have a justice system that is the best in the world. everybody has the right to a fair trial. they have the right to be defended in the court of law. host: some say the legal limit of .08 is too high. other countries have a much lower threshold of .02. does madd support an effort to lower the level? guest: research shows a person is in. significantly at .08.
everything is impaired. we know at that level, they are in. . we are holding it at that level. host: the next call is from daniel on the line from republicans. -- the next call is from daniel on the line for republicans. caller: here i am. host: i am going to move on to jose from jacksonville, florida. caller: might issue is this. it is the abundance of alcohol we have in this country in every store. i am in the military. i went in the military at 18. they are serving their country and cannot have a ball until
they're 21. how can they serve their country if they cannot have alcohol? many of the arrogant and corpsmen are being kicked out for of all. what is madd doing to change the laws for people serving the country? many of the airmen and corpsmen are being kicked out for alcohol. some of the sailors have issues with stress and may have a first drink. guest: the age limit of 21 for drinking alcohol legally, the law came into effect back in 1984. at that time, we have experimented with lowering the limit. so many lives were lost as a
result of young people driving drunk that they raised the level to age 21 across the country. it has been the most studied law on the books. we know we save about 1000 lives a year as a result of keeping the 21 age limit. we also note driving and drinking is not necessarily a right. this is a public health issue. we want to keep our young troops safe and everybody on our roads. host: we have been talking to the national president of mothers against drunk driving. if you want more information about their organization, you can go to madd.org. thank you for being on the program. we want to let viewers and
listeners know that one of our guest this week will be rahm em anuel. you will be able to see that live on c-span. we also want to let folks know about tomorrows "washington journal." we will be talking with a pentagon correspondent talking about the relationship between the united states and afghanistan. we will also have a political roundtable and wrap up the program with the legislative director at the national center for missing and exploited children. she will be talking to us in the wake of the child sex allegations at penn state and syracuse university. she will be talking about
mandatory child abuse reporting laws. we want to thank everyone who has participated in this edition of the "washington journal." we will see you again tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next -- a set a budget hearing on the state of the economy with douglas elmendorf. then florida senator marco rubio talks about his legislation to create jobs. then, maryland governor martin then, maryland governor martin o. rally talks about