tv Washington Journal 11212021 CSPAN November 21, 2021 7:00am-10:04am EST
covid-19 concerns, about holiday travel and family gatherings. all of that and your calls, texts, facebook messages and tweets our next. washington journal starts now. ♪ host: good morning on this sunday, november 21. this morning there are 351 days left until the 2022 midterms. we want to take your pulse with the euro. will you vote to reelect your member of congress? democrats (202)-748-8000, republicans (202)-748-8001, an independents (202)-748-8002.
you can also join us with the text and your city, name and state at (202)-748-8003 or post your comments on facebook.com/c-span, send a tweet with @c-spanwj. look at this headline in the washington post. immigrants face a 2022 superstorm. gallup shows how presidential approval correlates to midterm success or, more often, failure. since the 1970's the higher the president's approval the fewer the ct loses. but when approval is near where president biden's approval was in october the
results for his party are grim. a national poll found 68% of you say higher prices are changing spending habits. that is one of the issues that is hurting democrats right now, the issue of inflation. then there is this from the washington post. a washington post abc news poll showed republicans with an unprecedented 10 point advantage of the generic ballot, that is whether they prefer a generic democrat or generic republican. they lead 51% to 41%. none of the 100 previous polls showed such an advantage,
including on the eve of republican elections like 2010 and 2014. listen to kevin mccarthy this past week talking about democratic retirement and what he thinks is going to hurt democrats in the midterm election. [video clip] >> another week and a few more democrats announce retirement. another week and morality across this country has plummeted 70%. think about that, 70% of americans describe the economy as poor or not good. that is the highest numbers it has been since the last time president biden was serving in the white house. u.s. consumer confidence plunged to a 10 year low. one in four consumers reported reducing their living standards. we are talking about america. one in four reported reducing their living standards as they adjust to a 31 year high
inflation rate. we have a supply chain crisis that continues to rage on, skyrocketing prices, scarcity of goods our citizens are experiencing. ask yourself this, what has this chamber done, especially this week, to alleviate any of these pressures on our fellow citizens? those are the actual people that elected us to come here. the answer? absolutely nothing. the democrat majority under speaker pelosi is more interested in protecting special interests and delivering task tax cuts for the wealthy friends. another week and two democrats announce retirement. speaker pelosi is burning down this house on her way out the door. she is not concerned about how many bad votes democrat members have to take or how many democrat retirements she creates. who can blame them for
announcing retirement? they see the writing on the wall and they know this reconciliation bill will be the end of the democrat majority, and for many, the end of their careers. host: the republican leader talking about the prospect for taking back the majority in the house for republicans. spoke about democratic retirements and the news this weekend of another one. democrat eddie bernice johnson ending decades in congress. he is 85 and a political fixture in dallas where earlier she became the first black woman to serve the city in the state senate since reconstruction. edie bernice johnson deciding she will not run again. will you vote to reelect your member of congress? market philadelphia, democratic caller, you are first. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what do you think? caller: i would like to say
first of all on the philadelphia county border i was gerrymandered into a republican -- first district representative republican. i am going to vote for him again. he is a good man. he recently broke ranks with trump and voted for the infrastructure bill. at the end of the day who were you going to represent? the constituents here or are you going to toe the line with trump? it was a gutsy move and i applaud him. as long as he keeps voting against trump i am all for him. host: mark, this is an area of pennsylvania that switches, the seats go back and forth constantly over the years. caller: yes. host: do you think you are an exception or do you think there are more democrats that will
vote for him? caller: i mean, he is big with the unions. he is a big union man, prounion. how many republicans in the house or prounion? at the end of the day he delivers for his constituency. here in this area we have power blackouts the last year when it used to be just in the summertime. now it is happening all the time. our electric grid needs work. why would fitzpatrick vote against it? people are sitting in the dark with no air conditioning in the summer and people cannot work from home because the internet is down. do you think trumpcare is about that? host: is that what he talked about when he said, i voted for the infrastructure bill and he gave examples like that? caller: we need work on the grid
and deliver to your constituents, don't deliver to the republican party. host: senator toomey is retiring. would you vote for a democrat no matter what or do you know who is going to run? caller: let me say this, the republicans that have been talking about running our trumpsters. the way it is now i will probably go with the democrat. i don't know which one, i think there is three of them, but i would probably go for a democrat in that case. host: you will split your ticket. caller: yes. ticket splitter since i voted in 1972. host: you always do it. caller: always do it. i vote for the person. host: which way does it usually fall? caller: it is pretty much split.
i voted for hillary clinton in 2016, i voted for biden in 2020 but my first vote was richard nixon, i voted for reagan twice, george h w bush twice. host: what do you do for a living if you don't mind me asking? caller: i am a retired accountant. host: mark in philadelphia, thank you for being our first today. glenn in texas, republican. good morning. what are you going to do? will you vote for the republican or the democrat? caller: good morning. i am not going to vote for the 13 republicans that voted for this democratic agenda. i am going to vote against any democrat running for reelection. i want to get pelosi out of office. and we have got to do something about our american border.
if the democrats don't want to do anything about it, i think we can secure our own border. i will not vote for any democrat running for reelection. host: do you know who represents you in the house? what district are you? caller: who represents me in the house? host: yeah, house representative. caller: yes i do know. i will vote for him again. host: who is it? do you remember who it is? it's ok if you don't. i was just curious. caller: well, we have several. host: ann in new york, democratic caller. will you reelect your member of
congress? caller: yes i will, yes i will to get the crazy one that wants to be speaker. he is nothing but a racist and all those republicans are nothing but a bunch of racists. i will vote my congressman ming back in anytime. host: what do you like about your member from congress? caller: she supports our district area, queens, and i am happy for her and i will not vote for the one who wants to be speaker. host: kevin mccarthy. caller: he would be an awful speaker, awful speaker. that is all i know. he is nothing but a trumpy and anybody who supports trump i will never support because he is nothing but a cult leader. host: speaking of future
speakers, there is speculation hakeem jeffries could replace speaker pelosi someday as leader for the democrats. here he is this past week talking about retirement and the prospects for holding the house in 2022. [video clip] >> every individual that makes that decision to retire we are going to miss and miss their service and jackie spear, an incredible, courageous,, bol fierce advocate for the american people will be missed. but she made that personal decision and serve this congress, this country and her communities ably. this is a redistricting year. we came in in a redistricting year in 2012. >> i tried, man.
[laughter] >> he tried but he is a redshirt freshman. he came in in 2014 but there was 51 of us in 2012. i believe sean will correct me, we picked up 15 or 16 seats that year. that means that the vast majority of the class of 2012 came in as a result of retirement. that is what happens in a redistricting year. we are not even on pace to hit that number. we will see what happens but this is to be expected and i don't believe it has anything to do with our prospects in 2022. we are going to hold the house, grow our majority, and do it because of leadership, speaker pelosi, and most importantly because we are delivering for the american people.
host: that was hakeem jeffries. we are talking to you this morning about whether you will reelect your member of congress when the 2022 midterm elections are held. here is frank peterson on facebook, yes, andy kim has done a great job. you have another tweet, absolutely because senator duckworth and senator durbin are adults in the room getting work done to keep america moving forward. sonja says, my leader hoyer in maryland will get my void and may be the speakership. gar in georgia, independent. are you going to reelect your member of congress? caller: i have not decided yet. she replaced john lewis in georgia but my point is the democrats have a royal flush
hand. after january 6 they got a royal flush hand. now, if they decide to play it, that is the question. because the republicans have no policies. the only policies they have are obstructive voting, crying about the border which has always been open and shut, and it is up to the democrats if they want to play that royal flush hand. host: you said you are not sure if you are going to vote for the member who replaced john lewis. why not? caller: my thing is i like to listen to both sides of the story. i am independent. i decide what they are going to do, what they say they are going to do and their track record. but so far i don't know.
host: did you always vote for john lewis? caller: yeah, i like to john lewis. -- liked john lewis. i think he was one of the top congressmen in history. if they get behind his voting rights bill, we could have a democracy we could be proud of. thank you. host: before you go, is the voting rights bill a big motivator for you and do you think it is a motivator for others in your community? caller: well, here is the way i look at it. policies determine who i vote for and so far republicans have not given us one policy. what have they given us? all they do is obstruct. give us policies. host: have you ever voted for a republican? caller: i have. i voted for george h bush. host: we go to michael in indiana, democratic caller.
what are you going to do in november 2022? caller: i am not going to vote for any republicans because they have all this obstruction. they keep anything from passing. they don't want to pay us anything. the people need all these benefits and stuff but they just obstruction everything. host: michael referring to leader mccarthy stalling a vote on the social spending proposal by the president and the democrats. spoke over eight hours and broke the previous record by the current speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, when she was in the minority. it is called the magic minute. you get a minute and if you are speaker, you can speak as long as you want. he broke a record going eight hours and i think 30 minutes.
the vote finally took place on the build back better agenda. 230-213 and one democratic congressman of maine voted against it. let's go to ed in fayetteville, north carolina, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. no, i am not going to vote for him. he is a democrat. his name is buckfield and i will not vote for the idiot. host: is there a republican challenger you know of? caller: not right now. it is a liberal district. i doubt a republican would win. where is steve at? host: he moved onto the bipartisan policy center. caller: do you think you lost credibility? host: what do you think?
caller: for the debate with trump. host: what do you think, ed? caller: yes and when you hire the black girl for five years ago from msnbc -- you know, you guys definitely turned left. you are no longer the objective show used to be. host: emily in henderson, nevada, independent. caller: how are you? good morning. i would vote for a democrat. host: why? caller: because i think they are less racist and because i have alzheimer's. host: ok.
mary in new york, democratic caller. mary, good morning. are you going to reelect your member of congress? mary, you gotta turn the television down so you can listen and speak through your phone. jerry in new jersey, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i will not vote for my democrat people. i am a registered democrat but the democrats have disappointed me terrible. everything is racist. i heard that last caller, the democrat. who said the republicans are racist? it is getting old and it is not going to work this time. the media are not even able to influence anything anymore. i think the republicans are going to win and i will vote republican and i think trump is going to wind up being speaker of the house.
host: how would that happen? caller: because they have to vote him in. he does not have to be elected. if enough republicans want to vote him in, he can be in. he does not have to be nominated. i just see it coming. host: and where do you see that chatter? caller: it is all over the news. i hear them talking and on the phones. i don't think the democrats realize 87,000 irs hire areas -- these democrats are so thrilled about the bill. i cannot wait until they get audited and they want to give legal amnesty to the illegals. that is going to take their jobs. i am listening to all of them and they think this is so good but you wait. they are going to get affected. the democrats don't realize -- by the way, they are going to get rid of the deduction which mean the rich are going to get their money. the democrats are not paying
attention. pay attention, pay attention. host: let me ask you, if you were in a district that was represented by a republican who was getting a primary challenge and the former president, donald trump, said, i want you to vote against this incumbent, i want to vote for this primary challenger, would you do it? caller: absolutely. i believe in trump so much, they can call it a cult, but this country ran so much better when he was in. they don't want to admit it. they don't like him and i understand the personal part of it. i don't understand it but i don't care. if the economy was doing great prior to covid.
he was doing great things for this country. they don't want to admit it and that's ok but guess what? they are going to pay a heavy price because how is it working for them? host: gop may be energized but trump cancel culture poses a threat. in a private meeting that took place recently of the republican governors association governor larry hogan of maryland brought up mr. trump's campaign of retribution against incumbent republicans he disliked. an effort that appears to be escalating as the former president pushes former senator david perdue of georgia to challenge governor camp. it is outrageous, unacceptable and bad for the party, mr. hogan said. he termed it trump cancel culture and it is happening with house members and senators. governor doug ducey of arizona
said the rga would support republican incumbents according to several in the room. shelley and wisconsin, independent. are you going to vote back in your member of congress? caller: yes, i am an independent and i have always since i was 18 voted fourth person. host: do you know who represents you? caller: ron kind. host: you plan to reelect him? caller: if he runs. host: there is a question mark on that. caller: correct. host: what do you like about him? what does he do for your community? caller: he does everything. he is honest, puts in long hours which is not an excuse it is just a fact. i just really like ron. host: thank you for calling in. i want to show you some ads the
parties have put together. we will start with the national republican convention campaign committee. this is something they released earlier this month. [video clip] >> deliver bold progress for the people when we have president joe biden in the white house. >> significant surge of migrants crossing illegally. >> the prices are going up. >> democrats cannot protect us around the world. they cannot protect our street and democrats cannot protect us from work. >> how did president biden get this so wrong? >> because he will be an extraordinary president. >> nrcc is responsible for the content of this advertising. host: now take a look at this ad from last month by the democratic campaign congressional committee. this linking the republican party -- the house campaign
chair to former president trump. [video clip] >> trump lost but he cannot move on. he is a loser and republican leaders like tom know it. >> cannot accept that he lost to the election. >> he wants to dump trumpet keep his voters. donald has other plans. >> angry orange baby said republicans will not be voting. >> do you think he knows what they say about him? >> trump is not invited. trump is not invited. trump is not invited. host: will you vote to reelect your member of congress? bob in plymouth, indiana, republican. go ahead. caller: i will vote for my republican representative. i feel the democratic party is really not for the poor.
they are going to have to crush programs for people, transportation more expensive, at times i think they say they are for the poor but the policies they do is against the poor. the other one is the border. tried to become a citizen of canada or mexico and see how easy it is. i knew an individual from poland trying to become a citizen and he had many hurdles to climb. i think we should make that process easier like controlling what is into our country so we can have the resources to take
care of the people who are citizens of our country. host: you are in the second district is that correct? caller: yeah. host: do you know who represents you in the house? caller: i do. my mind is going blank. host: jackie walorski. caller: i feel she is willing to work bipartisan. i remember when congress worked together. they were willing to compromise. i don't know how we got to this point in congress will retake sides and call each other names. it is a sad state of affairs. host: bob, were you for the infrastructure bill? caller: we need infrastructure.
i am for parts of it. what i continually dislike is what they work into these bills that is not about the title. they always quote with the title of the bill is without sharing the details that are in it. this latest bill that is trying to go forward i feel we are weakening our constitution constantly in this nation or taking away freedoms while being promised safety as a trade for freedoms. i think that is ongoing. we are moving toward a strong socialist government taking away the freedoms to move up as american citizens. host: bob referring to the build back better bill that passed in the house on friday. it has get a vote and pass the senate in order to go to the president's desk. the bipartisan infrastructure
bill did pass both chambers in the president signed it into law. rob portman, republican of ohio part of the bipartisan group of members who helped secure the deal at the white house on monday talked about bipartisanship. [video clip] >> this bipartisan support for this bill is because it makes sense for our constituents but the approach should be the norm, not the exception. the increasing polarization of our country is keeping us from getting things done and we have a responsibility to do better. the american people want to see us coming together. they know despite our differences we should be able to figure it out and work together to solve the problems. we can start by recognizing that finding common ground to advance the interest of the american people should be awarded not
attacked. [applause] mr. president, in a moment you are going to sign this bill. i will say you and i will disagree on the tax and spending another priority you have, the reconciliation bill, but i think we can both agree this infrastructure investment should not be a one-time bipartisan accomplishment. this should be the beginning of a renewed effort to work together on big issues facing our country. host: rob portman, republican of ohio and retiring. he is not running for reelection. take a look at the makeup of the senate. as of late january 2021 the u.s. senate has 50 republicans, 50 democrats, two independents that side with democrats. democrats will control the chamber. there are 34 seats up in 2022 of
which 20 are held by republicans. that party can retake control with a net gain of just one or more seats. here is stephanie potter on facebook from vermont, lee is retiring and it looks like peter welch will run. yes on that. being an independent i will wait until a month out to pick a candidate. another viewer said, betty mccollum has been very strong on local environmental issues. her bill is very strong. if she runs, i will be happy to vote for her again. stephen in chesapeake, virginia, republican.
good morning. what do you plan to do? will you vote for the incumbent? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my answer is i am down here in virginia, the fourth congressional district, and my congressman is donald mcgaiken. he has been here since 2017 and i will not vote for him. he is right with speaker pelosi on everything that she pushes through. i am a more conservative person and i cannot wait to flip this to the republican side. host: if republicans win and take the majority in the house and senate, what do you want them to work on with the president and what do you want them to push? what should be on the agenda? caller: i think the big thing for me is the border.
i think the border has become an open -- just so open now. i think that we need to bring back the mexico policy where people cannot just come in and claim asylum. they need to wait and put in a petition where they are or in mexico before coming up here. i believe this is a major problem. we have drugs pouring across the border, we have traffickers. host: understood. immigration tops the list. shirley in orangeburg, south carolina, democratic caller. caller: hi, greta. i would just like to make a statement. i am a diehard democrat. i would never vote for a republican and all these democrats calling in talking
about they are going to vote republican, you never was a democrat in the first place. why are you jumping parties? stick with what you are. host: how do you know they weren't democrat? caller: huh? host: how do you know they weren't democrat? caller: they say they were democrat but they're going to vote republican. if you are a democrat, why are you going to vote republican? you were supposed to stick to your party. host: tim in fort myers, florida, republican. caller: i was a democrat and then barack obama came along and that ended that. i will never vote democrat again, never in my life. this joke with joe biden and kamala harris, he never wanted her as vice president. he was pushed to have her as vice president. all these people talking about racism in the republican party,
the democrats are the biggest racists. they just want to hide behind -- in fact, the vice president thinking they are doing something big for the country. this economy is a mess, the border is a mess, the last woman that spoke if you are a democrat you should always be democrat, those people need to wake up. i am tired of being called the trumpster and a racist. they use the racist word as bad as the n word. i would never vote for another democrat again. host: are you in the 19th district of florida? caller: yes i am. host: do you know who represents you? caller: yes i do and i am going to vote for them again. the thing is this is just getting ridiculous. these democrats get on here and they speak. they don't even know what they are talking about. host: tim, what do you like
about the republican message from your member of congress? caller: number one, trump tried to push through an infrastructure bill and it was obstructed by the democrats. nancy pelosi, none of them would work with him and it did not have all the things the democrats are pushing. they get up there, nancy pelosi gets up there and every word that comes out of her mouth is for the people. they have not done anything for the people. obama was in office eight years and did not do anything. he passed the affordable care act. they never did anything for the blacks. host: zeke in tampa, florida. do you know who represents you in tampa? caller: absolutely, kathy castor. host: are you going to vote for her again? caller: absolutely. host: why?
caller: she has been excellent as far as things that are important to me. she comes out, talks with the people, listens to what we say and she fights for us. she does not pick on the republicans, she does not attack republicans she just tells us, this is what i have done, this is what i want to do. all this talk about far right, far left, liberal, everything is a bad word, racism, but look at what is going on? we have an infrastructure bill. we need that. the country is falling apart and everybody is saying, oh, it is costing too much money. from what i understand there is trillions and trillions of dollars being carried over from the previous president. everybody thinks it is all biden
and it is not all biden. he has stuff he is accused of having control over which he did not. first of all, i am tired of the republicans just doing nothing. fighting everything, automatically no, mitch mcconnell saying his goal is to fight president biden. host: republicans have not been able to stop other republicans from voting for a bill like the infrastructure bill. 13 house republicans voted for it. caller: i think that is wonderful. host: democrats control the white house in both bodies, house and senate. should they be pushing more bipartisan legislation rather than the social spending bill, the build back better bill, that
had no republican support? caller: absolutely. i mean, that is the problem. there is no give and take anymore. everybody is one side or the other side. we are getting some republicans that are looking out for the people. i think that is wonderful. i think it is horrible what they did to liz cheney. god, she voted her conscience and they take everything away from her. is that a party want to be part of? if you don't play their game and support someone -- obviously i'm not going to badmouth him -- but he did nothing but divide the country and lose all she gained. host: let's listen to kyrsten sinema, democratic senator from arizona. part of that bipartisan group that worked on the structure bill. she was at the signing ceremony this past week. [video clip]
>> how many times have we heard that bipartisanship is not possible anymore? or that important policy can only happen on a party line? our legislation proves the opposite and the senators who negotiated this legislation show how to get things done. the senators in our group of 10 effectively represent the needs of the regions we represent. senator cassidy in the deep south, senator warner and the mid-atlantic, senator manchin in appalachia, and senators romney and tester in the west. in alaska, each with unique needs, were represented by senator shaheen, collins and murkowski, the wonder women of the group always focused on the practical outcome. [applause] i sincerely thank my partner in co-leading this long effort,
senator rob portman, whose knowledge is matched only by his steadfast commitment to delivering on this priority for america. [applause] delivering this legislation for the american people, this is what it looks like when elected leaders set aside differences, shut out the noise, and focus on delivering results on the issues that matter most to everyday americans. host: arizona senator kyrsten sinema at the white house. john harold on facebook says, good god no. paul tonko has been feeding out of the government trough too long. he and chuck schumer need to get the hell.
out. kissing her will not get my vote. kisinger will not be running for reelection. i'm fairly sure mine will be running. i'm hoping that catherine sims will run for congress. no way in hell what i ever vote for lauren boebert. take a look at the makeup of the house as it stands right now. democrats have a slim majority. 221 democrats to 213 republicans. there is one vacancy right now after alcee hastings died april 6. john, we go to you in las vegas, republican. will you reelect your member of congress? caller: i probably will.
i have not seen how she is going to vote coming up. host: who is she really quick? caller: i cannot remember her name. host: that's ok. go ahead. caller: i think some of abraham lincoln's observations are relevant right now. in terms of the rancor of the school board, lincoln said the philosophy of the school room in this generation will become the philosophy of the government in the next generation. i think that is the heart of the debate in schools. also, lincoln was quoted and this is not often repeated in a book called "lincoln and shakespeare." he was talking about jefferson davis, he said, they are rep jillian and their characters were forged -- reptillian
and their characters were forged. there is a lot of hypocrisy and deceit in my opinion. host: your member is dina titus. caller: yes. host: it depends on how she votes on what? caller: i don't know her as a person. what happens is she votes with the crowds. as mark twain said, if you don't think for yourself, you don't think at all. joe manchin is an independent thinker and there are others that i know, elected representatives just do with their told. host: tyrone in alabama, independent caller. how do you plan to vote? for or against the incumbent?
caller: against. host: are you a democrat? you called on the independent line. how do you lean? caller: i am a democrat but i am going to give you all that is going on. i ran for the special primary election and i am in the area they do not count the votes. i am black, i am african-american and they have been shutting me out, trying to keep me from -- i control the government from where i stand. i do not have to be in office. i and the governing body and we are coming. we are on our way. i have been anxious to get on the tv live with somebody. i cannot contact nobody. they have our phones blocked like we are not part of the world. we have been getting annihilated this whole time.
kids are being killed, parents getting killed of sickness, heart failure, all of that has to do with the government and i speak with anxiety because i'm so excited but i am sad and grieving for my family. all these people that died they were my family. if y'all know god and y'all believe, you would do what's right. you have people that are lying and not letting people vote. host: rob in colorado, republican. caller: good morning, greta. i called on the independent line. i did trend republican into the last election. i would be considered to be a light leaning independent. also being highly educated and highly intelligent there is no
way i would vote for the person who represents me, lauren boebert. that's all i have to say. we are talking about somebody -- a high school dropout, uneducated. you have to live in this county where covid is running rampant and there is nothing done about it. the person who called a person of congress part of the jihad squad. she supported the people we have running for school board one of whom got elected as a bouncer at the strip club. she votes against everything that is not republican. i live in an area that has the largest area in the united states of two degrees celsius for 30,000 square miles and she wants to do nothing about climate change? it is embarrassing and as far as
voting for people my county -- if you put a rabbit up, they would still vote for that person. for me i vote for state elections and i vote for initiatives because i know my vote does not count. go ahead. host: is grand junction traditionally republican? have you always been represented by republicans? caller: no, not always. but go back to the last election. donald trump won 62% of the vote in lauren boebert won 58% of the vote. there are so many in this county that don't believe the dominion machines fixed to the vote for joe biden. even though there is not an elected democrat in the whole
county they put the ballots through the machines. they had to put them through the clear voting machine and now they are hand counting the stuff to make sure these people believe the election was not fraudulent even though all their candidates won. it normally costs $200,000 or less to do an election. it is costing us over $1 million just to satisfy the lauren boebert constituency who believes in conspiracies all over the point. you take a look at this. colorado is the second most educated state in the nation with 40% of the people over 25 with college degrees. we have almost 100% of our hospital beds full, almost 100% of our icu beds full. she is one of the leaders of the
conspiracy theory. host: what about your senator, michael bennet up for reelection? how will you vote? caller: i don't know. i don't know is running against him. i have to see what type of candidate -- i did not vote for john hickenlooper. i voted for the republican. but even on the stateside it does not make difference because the front range is so democrat it doesn't really matter because the democrats -- the front range, which is different, elects republicans. i just vote for initiatives because my vote does not matter. host: rob in grand junction, colorado. carla wayne city, illinois. caller: how are you doing?
host: fine. caller: i would not vote for mine, my senator for my district. i would vote for my representative for the house. host:host: do you know who it is the echo caller: host: do you know who it is? caller: tammy duckworth is my senator. that big spending bill goes through the senate. i've never vote for a democrat -- i w would neverould never -- caller: i would never vote for a democrat. they are going to go after gun rights, they are going to have a bunch of really bad taxes in there.
anybody that is middle waged or on earned income, set income, they are going to pay the most. host: you mentioned tammy duckworth for reelection 2022. her seat is considered a safe one for her the incumbent. dan in independence, missouri, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. hi, greta. host: good morning. caller: i would vote for cleaver every time. the democrats only have two seats representing missouri but missouri is pretty red anyway. host: you are kind of muffled. it sounds like you moved away from the receiver. caller: maybe i did.
host: you are back. caller: coming from the home of harry truman -- his adopted home in independence, we are proud of harry truman -- i would not vote for a republican until they get over the trump thing. it does not matter how you spend what trump tried to do to this country. until the republicans figure out you cannot adopt a guy like that not to represent whatever ilk he is but to recognize he should not be leading the country and anybody who is an apologist for trump, i could not possibly vote for. host: here is dave in georgia, yes, i will vote for my representative again. marjorie taylor greene, she is one republican that will not cave to the dems. from brooklyn, i will be voting
for hakim jeffries and yvette clarke. you can only vote for one. i will never vote for chuck schumer again. he has been weak and not my upcoming vote. democrats need new leadership. carlo wade on facebook, yes, nancy mace and elizabeth francis says yes to elizabeth warren, 100%. will you vote to reelect your number o congress. ? don in st. joseph, missouri. caller: hello. i have been an independent on and off. i vote against social issues i don't like. i am poor myself but i generally stick to republicans because of the disgusting social issues the democrats push. host: like what? caller: well, homosexuality
they're pushing down the throats of little kids in elementary school. of course, letting the border be open and they are anti-israel. i think the republicans are not going to end social security. the blacks, they kinda vote as a group but they need to think for themselves. i am calling a black wash instead of brainwashed. host: in missouri, roy blunt your senator. he was a congressman for many years and is not running in 2022. john in mechanicsville, new york, republican. caller: thank you for taking my
call. no, i would never vote for my representatives again. i have voted for them in the past and ever republican conservative. i like to consider myself a moderate. he is a great guy and comes to these events but i have called his office several times mentioning some concerns i had and they are polite but never get back to you. particularly immigration on the border. one of my questions was biden's proposed separation of families. he never got back. schumer is a joke in my opinion with his fake crying. kristen gillibrand who be an upstater john sweeney who was a
disgraced congressman, she actually had an a+ rating for me and then all of a sudden she gets assigned this job as senator and she is now an ultraliberal. the things that bother me about the democratic party -- and it is sad to see the split in the way people form opinions -- we are really heading toward some kind of reckoning. with biden doing what he is doing with the border is probably, in my opinion, the most dangerous thing any president ever did. host: i am going to leave it there. we have got a couple of viewers talking about senator chuck schumer who is majority leader in the senate for democrats up for reelection in 2022. and considered in one of the safe seats. hermann in bellwood, illinois, democratic caller. caller: hi.
good morning. host: morning. caller: i was calling because my republican countrymen, countrypeople seem to forget how corrupt the trump regime was. he took the border money to build the wall and gave it to steve bannon, down in the caribbean partying. do they understand what justice is and what justice is supposed to stand for? that is my comment. host: we are going to take a break. when we come back we are going to switch our attention to u.s.-china relations. robert daly will join us from the wilson center. he will talk about the summit between president biden and the chinese president and the tensions between the two countries. later, infectious disease expert dr. michael saag from the university of alabama at birmingham will talk about the latest on the covid-19 pandemic
and concerns about holiday travel and gathering. ♪ ♪ >> walter pincus has worked in journalism for over 60 years. until 2015 he was a national security correspondent for the washington post. on the cover of his new book, it is subtitled "america's deadly betrayal of the marshall islanders." it was those islands that served as a staging ground for over 60 nuclear test conducted by the u.s. government, getting in 1946 and ending in 1948. the castle bravo test over bikini atoll was where america executed its largest nuclear detonation, 1000 times more powerful then hiroshima. >> walter pincus on this episode
of "book notes plus." ♪ >> tv, every weekend, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. watch our coverage of the miami book fair. featured authors include craig whitlock, evan also know -- evan osnow, chris hedges talks about the american prison system, which details his time teaching literature to students incarcerated, and gilly brown, her book on jeffrey epstein and her work for the miami herald that led to his arrest. and afterward, pharaoh stockman talks about her book, "american
>> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us this morning is robert daly, he is at the wilson center's kissinger institute and the director on china and the united states. mr. daly, how would you assess u.s.-china relations right now? guest: right now u.s.-china relations are at their lowest point since we established relations in 1979. lower even than after the tiananmen massacre. the countries are deeply distrustful of each other, increasingly alienated. both countries see the other as a major strategic competitor. china does not use that language, the united states does , but china sees it in the same way. there are a few bright spots. right now we see president biden and secretary xi jinping trying to put some kind of floor under the relationship so that this
distrustful competition does not become a conflict. host: why are we at the lowest level in history? guest: it is largely due to china's rise. china has been very successful and its economic development over the past 40 years. as any other large country what it is now using its wealth to increase its global influence. all countries want to shape the international environment they have to function in. china does so against particular interpretation of history. china is ambitious. china is aggrieved. and it is trying to increase its influence, especially in its neighborhood, in the south china sea and the taiwan straits. the united states, for its part, is worried about its relative decline, influence, and relative wealth. the two countries have truly begun clashing in the western pacific.
they have interests that are clashing. i'm afraid that for the long-term this is going to be a worldwide competition in the security, economic, technological, and international law and ideology spheres. this is going to be with us for a long time. host: where do our interests class? guest: our interests clash in the western pacific, where the united states, she has not signed the u.n. convention on the law of the sea, never act in accordance with it. do not see this enormous area as china's leg. we see it as part of the global commons through which all countries should be able to sail or fly, in accordance with international law. whereas china increasingly is trying to assert its dominance in this region. the most dangerous potential flashpoint has always been and remains taiwan. many americans are worried that china might be getting close to
making a move to incorporate taiwan. america is drawing closer to taiwan and expressing greater support for taiwan in a way that alarms beijing. beijing sees that as a violation of what we call our one china policy, that has kept the peace since 1979. taiwan is the most concerning area where we could imagine coming into a conflict with china. it is not the only one. host: why is it in the u.s. interest to defend taiwan? guest: this is a huge question. if we do not defend taiwan, if we were to yield the western pacific to china, what would that mean? it would cast doubt on our reliability as an ally, worldwide. it would mean we would no longer be providing the kinds of protections for our allies in south korea and japan that we do. and if they do not have the protection of the american alliance and american nuclear umbrella, they would engage in a
nuclear arms race. south korea, japan could go nuclear relatively quickly. it is possible indonesia would follow. if america were to renege on its commitments you would see a nuclear arms race in northeast asia among countries that are historically deeply adversarial. it would also mean america is giving up on its role of defending the global commons and international law. that is a fairly high cost of pulling out. there is a further concern in washington that if china were to succeed in taiwan it would embolden china and that china would reach for more. perhaps okinawa, perhaps other islands in the pacific. the broader concern is that china would prevail in a worldwide competition to shape global norms, mobile practices, sort of run the way things are done. china's idea of the way things
should be done is hierarchical, extremely illiberal. they are opposed to things like freedom of the press. the concern is about whether the world is going to be shaped by, more or less, liberal norms, or the norms china would like to promulgate. host: who would be with us if we defended taiwan? guest: we don't know. we have heard recently from australia, that it cannot imagine it would not be with us. australia has always been a terrific ally for the united states. japan has been strengthening its commitments to taiwan and has implied strongly that it would also be involved in any kind of conflict. beyond that it is hard to say. most of the other countries in the region in asia, why they are concerned about chinese power -- many of them have territorial disputes with china -- china is also their number one trading partner and they see their economic well-being tied to
china. they do not want to make a choice. europe has been drawing closer to an american point of view. members of the european parliament just in taiwan, over the objections of china. but they do not want to get involved in this either. any war between the united states and china could escalate rapidly, and it could end up going nuclear. our interest is in having them not this decision. we need to maintain peace in the region. that has to be done not only through the sorts of deterrence we have been involved in, but diplomacy, we have been less involved in. we need to assure china that these relationships can be managed peacefully and that we are committed to doing so. from china's point of view over the past six years or so we have been extremely provocative. we have not been reassuring. host: robert daly, our guest. he will take your questions, your comments about u.s.-china relations.
if you live in the eastern part of the country, call in (202) 748-8000. mountain/pacific, (202) 748-8001 . text us at (202) 748-8003. while we wait for these calls to come in, what role is russia playing in this? guest: russia has drawn closer to china, especially since we put sanctions on russia for its annexation of crimea and for its involvement in violence in eastern ukraine. of course, europe put sanctions on russia as well. europe has turned to china as a market for its oil and national gas. those two countries have drawn closer together in a limited strategic partnership. one of the russian sayings for this is that they will not always be together, they will not stand apart. both countries also share an
interest in not having the choices shaped by the united states. they resent the amount of power that the united states holds internationally. resent what they see as insults to their countries and their civilizations. and they increasingly stand together in the united nations. some countries share their interests. iran, certainly. turkey. some of the countries in eastern europe also share this set of dispositions. it is not an alliance between russia and china, but it is a partnership we have to be deeply concerned with. increasingly they are conducting joint military exercises. the russian and chinese navies came close to circumnavigating japan. both of those countries have territorial disputes with japan. they are working together in a way we need to be mindful of my even though there are other historical, cultural, and
geographic forces that keep russia and china suspicious of each other in some circumstances. host: on the summit president biden help with the chinese president, a virtual one, the new york times headline reads "biting and g -- and -- biden and xi -- similar to a quote you gave to cnn, a small step, but not a breakthrough. why? guest: not a reset. there is some urgency. wanted to get together to try to give some kind of assurance that they could prevent that from happening. but neither biden nor xi is so alarmed they are willing to fundamentally change their ideas about their interests, their strategies, and their goals. in other words, they want
reassurance we will not keep drifting toward conflict, but neither of them is willing to do anything concrete to cease that risk. what biden and xi are looking for is some kind of formula that the other will accept. president biden has told xi that america is functioning within the framework of the one china policy. china sees us as challenging that policy. xi jinping has continued to say that china favors a peaceful reunification with taiwan. even as china continues to build out all aspects of its military at a rapid rate and send far more bombers, fighter jets, and ships closer and closer to taiwan. china has been provocative as well. both men would like a guarantee of peace, but neither is willing to fully provide one and fundamentally change their strategies. so, a small, good step. we are going to have some
dialogue coming out of this meeting. one on climate change and one on strategic stability. meaning how our military's talk with each other. we want to learn more about china's evolving nuclear concepts. we want to have our people seated across from each other to prevent this understanding. that is very important. it is going to be a long-term process, but it needs to be restarted. that is why i think this was a good step forward, but not a real breakthrough. host: david in texas. hi, david. caller: good morning. host: you are up first, david. question or comment about china? caller: a little bit of both. the u.s. was full by chang in world war ii, and it has been fooled by the communist chinese ever since. we should clearly be supporting taiwan. china, as i understand it, --
this sounds unbelievable -- 3 million party members. i have been reading about car marks, communism, the history of socialism, etc., over the last few months. none of the communist countries -- so called communist countries -- that have existed -- chino, china, russia, vietnam -- i used to think korea is one. it is not on the list. it is a theocracy. marx said he thought russia would be the last country on earth that would have a communist uprising during uprising of the politically -exploited proletariat. by the time marx died he felt the revolutions would happen in highly-industrialized countries. that would be a matter of taking over political power as suffrage was expanded and the working folks got more involved. i would say it is more what is
happening in the u.s. now. host: david, your point? caller: we are doing too much business with them. we have given them our businesses. we have not just invested money there, we have given them entire businesses. the entire capital associated with the business. we gave them a huge increase in their ability to dominate industries like steel and drugs and rare earth elements and such. host: let's take that point. robert daly? guest: there are not 3 million members of the chinese communist party, there are about 95 million members. every street, every neighborhood, every company, every university it is pervasive . it's power seems to be getting stronger. it seems, as far as we can tell, to be fairly popular in china. everybody in china is related to people, is friends with people,
his colleagues with people who are members of the chinese communist party. it is not something distant. it is getting more repressive within china. it is becoming more maoist or red under xi jinping. universities, the media, culture, the company are increasingly tightly controlled the chinese communist party. the difficulty is that the chinese people have seen this mostly working for them over the past 40 years or so. under this kind of leadership china has become increasingly wealthy. there is a new study out that shows china has more total wealth now in the united states. china has a larger middle-class than the united states, means china is going to be taste maker to the world, on both the supply and demand sides. it is a country of increasingly repressive communism, as the caller suggested, but it is also very successful economically.
people are getting better health outcomes, or educational outcomes. in a come -- a country that was so poor for so long, that results in an awful lot of support. this question of how much our businesses should be involved in china is also a big question in washington that neither trump administration nor the biden administration has really been able to work out yet. our companies face a dilemma. the country faces a dilemma, which is this. one of the reasons america has had the power it has enjoyed over the past decades is that we have many of the world's leading companies. they cannot remain the world's leading companies unless they do biggest with the world's biggest market, just china. but insofar as they do business with china they are seen as strengthening china, strengthening its capabilities, making it wealthier and more competent. that can work to our detriment in this global competition. so what do you do?
caller suggests we pull out of china. well, qualcomm makes most of its money in china. apple, general motors. many a american companies would fail if they were to pull out of china. many americans would say that is a price worth paying, that we haven't made that decision as a nation yet. we are still at a very transitional phase. host: the question washington of late is, should we boycott the olympics? and would that do anything to china's strength? guest: boycotting the olympics would not in any way harm china's strength. i think what it would do within china -- and i am leaving aside the question of whether we should wait, or not -- but the result will be anger not only in the communist party, among the chinese people. no, 1.4 billion, 1/5 of
humankind would probably be convinced that the communist party is correct, that the united states is trying to smear china and lead an international campaign against it. and the probable result would be that it would strengthen the chinese people's support for the communist party, because there is this long historical narrative, they call it the century of humiliation, about china being exploited, weakened, attacked by vicious foreigners. this is a version of history that every chinese who has been through the educational system there has heard. so if we were to boycott the olympics it would play into that narrative. we would feel better about not supporting the communist party, especially in light of what they are doing in hong kong, but it in no way would weaken china, and it would probably strengthen domestic support for the government. host: how many years did you spend in china? guest: i lived in china for
about 12 years over the course of 35 years. in beijing, shanghai, and taiwan. host: what have you done over the years there? guest: i began as a diplomat at the american embassy from 1987 until 1991. i was there for the two years after tiananmen square, when we were assessing the relationship. then from 2001 to 2007 i was the director of johns hopkins university's educational institute in nanjing. i have done cultural work, television, radio, lecturing in universities within china, and have also been involved in some television production, including in the late 90's a chinese-language version of sesame street i was happy to be involved in. host: brad in oklahoma. caller: hello, am i on? host: yes you are.
caller: i also lived in china from -- it was seven years. i came back in 2018. was teaching there. i hope people that have not got a chance to visit there to hear this, when i watch u.s. media and i am living in china, it was like i was living in two worlds, because it is actually -- they are making, clearly life is getting better for people there. i'm looking now, they protected their people against this pandemic might you know? they don't have hundreds of thousands of people dying, like is going on here. the poverty alleviation is just incredible. probably unmatched in history and terms of the amount of people they have lifted out of poverty.
meanwhile, our country is just clinging tenaciously to what limited democracy that we have. watching the rise of fascist demagogues like trump. i really would like to say, let's have some peaceful relations. i think this stuff is being sold to the american people and we are being sold a bill of goods. host: i'm going to leave it there. robert daly, he talked about how the chinese people have any fitted from the regime, but what have been the problems? guest: china's problems are actually growing. the caller is correct. if you go to china you will probably be extremely surprised, because you have been hearing in american media about how china treats the uighurs, which is true. about its breaking its promises to the people of hong kong.
also true. about the fact it is moving to techno-totalitarianism and building out a surveillance state. all of this is true, and yet when you go to china what you feel generally is pride, ambition, and entrepreneurial spirit, innovation. people do see their lives getting better and better. how do you put these things together? china also has a narrative about the united states. that there is racial violence everywhere, that all americans are armed. that if you come here you are going to be killed, that there is growing american racism. we can see the bits of truth these accusations grow on. each country tends to characterize the other based on the worst things that you can say about it. then people from both countries are pleasantly surprised when they actually visit and get to know each other. i think that the caller is absolutely right about that. at the same time, china's growth
now is slowing down. it is facing an enormous demographic problem as the country gets older before it gets rich in a more balanced way , before it gets a social safety net and place. it has huge problems with corruption, with pollution. the government is increasingly doubling down, as i have said, on sort of maoist repression on freedom of speech. it is very hard if you are in china to know what is going on in that country. you do not have a vibrant civil society. your activities are monitored. the media is limited. we are starting to see some pushback within china against the government. it is not really political. i am not saying china is ripe for revolution. most people are supportive of the party. young people are marrying later, having fewer children, having them later, if at all, despite the governments call on them to
have more children. women. the #metoo movement and china. the government keeps trying to suppress it, push it down, and does not allow free debate about these issues, but it keeps reemerging. men are pushing back against patriarchy through popular music, through lawsuits. had this case of chan's former wimbledon doubles championship -- champion, who has accused a guy who retired in 2018, who was formerly one of the seven members of the standing committee of the politburo -- i know that is a mouthful, but one of the seven most powerful men in china -- accusing him of sexual harassment or rape. this is not been reported in china. the caller is correct. the level of material well-being and china, they are doing better and better, and they are rightfully proud of that.
it is a scale of development, a scope, a speed of development that is unmatched in human history. and yet the chinese themselves are expressing dissatisfaction with some of china's direction under its current read -- current leadership. in that repressive is is being matched by aggressiveness internationally that concerns us. host: where is that tennis star? guest: we don't know. she is probably in beijing. the women's tennis association and people like chris lloyd and martina navratilova and naomi osaka and others have been calling for clarity about where she is, and they want to know that she is safe and is not persecuted. the chinese government is in a box on this one, because they do not want a discussion of her happening in china at all. she has been erased from the internet. if you put her name or the name of the official she has accused into your internet search, you
will be told this is an illegal search. so nobody can talk about this. china is worried that if they do not give the international community some reassurances, that that could increase calls for a boycott of the winter olympics. over the past few days the chinese government has been circulating video that they say shows her eating at a restaurant , that shows her at a children's tennis tournament to try to convince foreigners that she is not in some black prison, that she is alive and well and moving around. that information is not being circulated in china. it has only been circulated internationally. but the women's tennis association and others has said this is not enough. that these videos lick staged and they are not -- these videos looks staged and they are concerned she is not safe. the association has said that unless it is convinced she is safe and her case is being taken
care of fairly under law, that they will not her old -- will not hold any more tournaments in china. china is in a bit of a box here. it will always pearl ties domestic stability, which means it will not be fully transparent about how it handles peng shuai's case. it is looking to be just transparent enough to assuage the views of foreigners to avoid a boycott of the olympics. host: on twitter, remember how ike handled china? he left open the possibility of a nuclear strike. since china was not a nuclear power yet, it worked. guest: it worked because we did not yet have a relationship with the people's republic of china. china is a nuclear power. it is building up its nuclear arsenal with new icbm silos in the west. they now have a nuclear triad, so they can launch from air, water, or land.
it just did a test flight of a hypersonic glide reentry vehicle, which could potentially deliver nuclear warheads far faster than we can counter them. i don't know what difference the ike example means now. we have a relationship with china, and when we established diplomatic relations with china in 1979 we agreed with china through three communiques, we acknowledged that china was the only government of china and we also acknowledged that china regards taiwan as part of the people's republic of china. we acknowledged that that is how they see it. he did not say that is how we see that. handling the sensitive taiwan issue has been one of the pillars of u.s.-china relations. china regards taiwan and its independence from china now, which it has -- it is not an
independent nationstate, it is not governed from china. the chinese communist party regards that as an unfinished civil war. and wholly as china's business. is willing to break off relations with the united states if it feels the united states is pushing for international treatment of taiwan as a sovereign nationstate. to date we have wanted a relationship with china, and so we have been willing to walk this very delicate, very ambiguous line about the status of taiwan. but we are now pushing for more support for taiwan in a way that makes china nervous. i think we need to be very clear here about the goals for which we are pushing. while china unquestionably would prefer to incorporate taiwan peacefully, there is little doubt that it is actually willing to pay a fairly high cost and is willing to use violence to invade taiwan if it
sees a need. i'm not sure the united states is as clear on how far it is willing to go in this particular arena. host: ray in delaware, good morning. looking to the conversation. caller: good morning. a couple of things with china. first of all, the virus came from china, ok? millions of people died from china's mistake or error or there it was intentional or not, a lot of people died from that. now, taiwan, biden is not going to rub china the wrong way, because he is financially gaining from it. his son just helped purchase a mine in south africa for minerals that we need for the batteries that he wants for the electric cars. so, biden is not going to rub china the wrong way. he doesn't even bring up anything about the virus when he talks to china. host: let's take those points, ray. mr. daly? guest: the coronavirus
originated in china. we don't know how. most scientists have said that it is probably, the highest likelihood is that it was transmission from animals to people. but they do not discount the possibility it late -- it leaked from a chinese lab. we will probably never know the answer the question, because china is not going to allow an international investigation of this. we can be sure this was not done intentionally by china. that pausing conspiracy room. conspiracy theory rom. if you believe china did this intentionally, then you have to believe that china deliberately manufactured a deadly virus about which he could not have complete information, and deliberately released to this into its own population so that it would then spread to the rest of the world, with confidence this would harm the rest of the world more than it did china. and that is absurd.
that did not happen. nevertheless, china does bear responsibility for this, both because of the way it covered it up in the early phases of transmission in wuhan, and mostly because of its ongoing refusal to allow a real investigation into the origins of covid. president biden actually pushes back against china pretty hard. on the human rights area, in terms of global norms, in terms of taiwan and the pressure china is putting on countries in the western pacific, he is actually been very straightforward and very firm on that subject, as have his national security advisor jake sullivan, and as has the secretary of state, antony blinken. i do not think in the most recent summit that he spent a whole and of time on the coronavirus. i think that is true.
there is not a whole lot to say at this point. secre he is now pushing the conspirator -- he is not pushing the conspiracists view and he was trying at the outset to put a floor under this relationship and some guardrails around such that we would not find ourselves in a conflict with china in the western pacific. that is the primary goal until he focused on those issue areas. host: pat in new jersey. caller: good morning. my question is, do you or your college -- colleagues ever look at the possibility that our concentration of manufacturing in china puts us at security risk -- not necessarily for war, what if there is a natural disaster in the manufacturing area? what would happen if americans were deprived of medication? guest: this is a major issue, and i think the trump administration very effectively cast a spotlight on this issue.
the chump administration looked at american supply chain resiliency and other questions as being too dependent on china, especially for things like critical minerals and rare earths. medical equipment and the precursors for many of our drugs. in certain high-tech areas. that is why the biden administration has continued the trump administration's push for supply-chain diversification. so far neither trump or biden has had much success with getting companies to come back to the united states in their entirety, that there is a continued push for trying to bring some of this manufacturing capacity closer to the united states, and also for supply-chain diversification. there is a strong realization that we mustn't be too dependent on china for any critical goods. as you say, not only because of
war, but because you can create a single point of failure where china can cut off supplies to us. this is a major focus of the department of commerce, and this is something the trump administration usefully spotlighted. host: a tweet from a viewer who writes, the guy has more than 1000 intellectual property theft cases involving individuals associated china. those thefts have cost the united states nearly 500 dollars a year, cording to the national counterintelligence and security center. your reaction to that? guest: i think those numbers are somewhat exaggerated. i would have to look at the source of those numbers. if you go to the department of justice's website on what is called the china initiative -- and this was an initiative that was announced during the trump administration when jeff sessions was the attorney general -- to look at cases in which american universities, because they are relatively open international, might be
vulnerable to espionage from china. they will give you a list of actions and results. most of those are, in fact, not intellectual property theft cases. it is nothing like 1000. those numbers are not correct. most of the cases from the china initiative will show you that the people that they have prosecuted have been prosecuted for process crimes like nonreporting of conflicts of interest on their applications for grants on -- for grants for research. there is concern in american universities, because of their openness, and because they are international, and because there are so many chinese scholars on american campuses, there is concern that there is the potential therefore the theft of internet you'll -- of intellectual property to china.
there is an issue here. there is a legitimate concern. it is true the chinese government will take advantage of openness to build up its national power, first for china, then vis-a-vis the united states. to date -- again, don't take my word for it, go to the department of justice's website -- the list of demonstrable harms that have done to american security through american campuses, that list is danny. he needs to -- is thin. it needs to be weighed against the millions of chinese who have come here, studied here, contributed their expertise here , many of whom have stayed in the united dates as american citizens -- in university labs, in corporate labs -- and these are people who are contributing to the american innovation system, the american knowledge system.
one example, a guy at purdue university group in china, now an american citizen, not his phd here. his lap just invented the world's widest paint -- whitest paint. if you paint your roof with it it lowers your air conditioning 70% to 80%. this is one of our weapons in the fight against global warming and it was invented by a scholar of chinese origin. there are people all of the country doing great things in medicine, in cancer research, in every aspect of basic and applied research. they make this a much stronger country. we have a dilemma in that we do have a vulnerability in the universities, because they are open. but if we close them down will not inviting the world's most talented sign tests -- talented scientist to the united states
anymore. the question is, how big is the risk, really? and what degree of risk should be -- should we be willing to accept and manage? what degree of risk should we be willing to deal with in order to get the tremendous benefit we have had from the inflow of talent from china and the rest of the world? host: mike in ohio, you are next for mr. daly. caller: yes i have some matters of fact i would like to point out, going back a few years. i remember when nixon and kissinger stood on the great wall of china back in the early 1970's, with the open-door policy to china, and kissinger looked at dick, and he says, i see a lot of cheap labor around here. now there is over one bit -- 1.5 billion, and we have a population of over 300 million. go forward to reagan and his
unionbusting, and trickle-down economics, and we are right now 37th in, math, and 18th in science. and we jump ahead to newt gingrich's contract with -- but was on -- america. that giant sucking sound we were told about. now 20 years later we are worried about taiwan. why don't we just bring all of those companies back to the u.s. that is in taiwan and make america great that way? how do you feel about this discussion? thank you and have a good day. guest: i think the caller touches on a very important point. we are concerned about china and competition from china on many fronts and with very good reason . he referred to american scores in stem and math.
a big part of the issue has not to do with china, but with american performance and with american strength. many americans think we have seen a fraying of our democratic institutions. we have not invested enough in infrastructure, in research and development, in education. the way to compete with china is to be more competitive. there has to be a real effort at self-strengthening. this is what the biden administration has begun with this, with making america more competitive and trying to reinvest. it is not enough to point out the things china does that work -- that we are rightly concerned about. unless we are bringing real strength to the table, china may run the table. we are concerned about a way -- huawei. we do not want it to be installing the 5g systems for the united states or other
countries as well. but it is not china's fault that america itself does not have a company that can compete with huawei. other companies say, what should we install? we say, we will put together a public-private coalition for you. that one is not on china. we have hundreds of thousands of chinese stem students in american universities, in phd programs, in physics, and computer science, and chemistry. if we were to send them home tomorrow, we have equal numbers of qualified americans who are pursuing phd's in those fields? no, we don't. that is not on china, that is on us. a big piece of this has to be starting with reinvestment in the united states, with strengthening the education system, with infrastructure, support for r&d, as well as institutions, if we are going to compete.
yes, it is a story of china's growth and growing strength, but it is also a story of american underperformance. i think the american is right -- the administration's right to focus on that first. host: robert daly, director of the -- robert daly, we thank you. when we come back we will open up the phone lines. we will be in an open forum for 30 minutes or so get your thoughts on any public policy issues. there are the lines on your screen. after that we will talk with dr. michael saag. he will join us to talk about the latest on the covid-19 pandemic. we will be right back. ♪
>> on monday the chicago council of global affairs hosted a discussion on the u.s. role in the middle east. watch live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or watch coverage on c-span now. axios hosts a discussion with republican senator tim scott on financial inclusion and what steps the public and private sectors are taking to expand access to capital and services for those who have been excluded from the financial system. watch live coverage monday at 12: 30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or watch live coverage on c-span now. >> cyber officials testified on deterring computer network attacks before the house oversight and reform committee. you can watch the hearing monday
night on c-span, online at c-span.org, or watchful coverage on c-span now. ♪ >> you can be a part of the national conversation by participating in video competition. if you are a middle or high school student, we are asking you to create a five to six minute documentary that answers the question, how does the federal government impact your life? your documentary must show points of view on a government program. c-span's studentcam competition awards cash prizes and you have a shot at winning the grand prize of $5,000. trees must be received by january 20, 2022. for rules, visit our website at
studentcam.org. ♪ >> c-span offers a variety of podcasts. weekdays, washington today gives you the latest from the nation's capital. footnotes plus has interviews with writers about their latest works. the weekly uses audio from our archive to look at how issues of the day developed over years. her occasional series "talking with" features conversations with historians about their lives and work. any of our television programs are also available as podcasts. you can find them all on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ >> get c-span on the go. watch the day biggest political events live or on-demand any time, anywhere, on our new mobile video app, c-span now.
access highlights, listen to c-span radio, and discover new podcast, all for free. download c-span now today. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back in an open forum this morning. call in with any public policy issue on your mind. new york times front page story this morning on how speaker pelosi got the votes to pass the social spending proposal pushed by the president and democrats. with back channels to manchin and sinema, pelosi found a path to a deal. on a wednesday night in september, while president biden back slapped in the republican dugout during the congressional baseball game, speaker nancy pelosi sat nearby, wagging her finger while speaking into herself on. toiling to salvage her party's top legislative priority as it teetered on the brink of
collapse. on the other end of the line was senator joe manchin, a crucial swing vote on mr. biden's sweeping policy bill. ms. pelosi, seated behind the dugout, was trying to persuade him to embrace $2.1 trillion in spending and climate change positions -- provisions. in a moment captured by c-span cameras that went viral, ms. pelosi appeared to grow agitated as mr. manchin told her he could not accept more than $1.5 trillion, and was prepared to provide a document laying out parameters for the package. a behind-the-scenes look in today's new york times of how the speaker was able to get vote -- the bill on the floor and get a vote on friday. passed 220-213.
one democrat voted in opposition. that was congressman gerald: of maine. -- gerald golden of maine. what is on your mind? caller: good morning, greta. thanks for taking my call. i called to express an idea i have had for some time. i was a schoolteacher for the past 15 years and retired a couple of years ago. and suggested that one of the ways we can solve our global warming problem and our dependence on foreign oil and domestic oil and petroleum products was to invent or first offer a prize to anyone or a group of people who can invent an automobile which would carry four 200 pound adults with their luggage from kansas city,
missouri, to denver, colorado, averaging 85 miles an hour and averaging at least 100 miles to the gallon, regardless of how it is propelled, whether it is solar, or however it is done. i sent a letter to both my senators and my congresswoman this past week. i wanted to share that with you so you can share that with america. when the british wanted to establish -- navigate, they offered a prize. when we wanted to fly across the atlantic we offered a prize. instead of having the politicians rely on electric vehicles, we ought to offer a prize so that someone or some group people could invent a
vehicle that would carry adults as i earlier described. the reason i picked denver is it is uphill all the way. they're going to go an average of 85 miles an hour, they are really going to have to do a good job in the invention. the government did not invent the wheel and they did not invent the automobile and they did not invent the airplane. host: got it, roger. hunt in hopkinsville, kentucky. caller: how are you doing this morning, greta? host: i'm doing fine. caller: glad to be on again. host: moving onto billy in crockett, texas. morning. caller: good morning, greta. god bless you.
with everything going on in our nation, i truly believe that all of our citizens will expect other americans will work together for the success of this nation. we can see there are some americans who do not care about other people going through difficult times. alliance, loyalty, and work to other americans. unless your mind is on helping other people instead of hateful activities making some americans hate other americans, we will continue to have problems of racism, people, problems of racism and political decisions causing problems on a daily basis. however, we got to do with that, but every generation americans must be aware of their commitment to this nation, which is the strongest country on this planet. we must be responsible for the
future of where we live and citizens of our callers, races, political backgrounds -- colors, races, political backgrounds, and how we treat each other. host: more on speaker pelosi p -- pelosi's role in that spending bill. carl halted his reporting, he writes, while her main responsibility was wrangling the house, miss pelosi devoted attention to miss -- mr. manchin and ms. sinema. she has bonded with mr. manchin on their shared italian heritage and catholicism. when ms. pelosi wanted to send a message to mr. manchin, she had
it delivered on a literal silver platter given to her by robert byrd, former senate leader from west virginia, whom mr. manchin sites often as a guide and star -- guiding star. a reminder for this dimension of the speaker's past relationship with his predecessor. "i thought he should see at," ms. pelosi said, with a chuckle. jim in sebastian, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to comment on the discussion, the previous discussion about china. according to college factual, and 2019 there were almost 400,000 -- actually 398,041 students from china enrolled in some of our top universities, like florida institute of
technology, m.i.t., and so on. i think that the person who was speaking -- and i do not recall his name. host: robert daly from the wilson center. caller: yes, thank you. he downplayed the threat that poses to the united states. in it, many of these students to return to china with a lot of technological information that really gives them a competitive edge in any areas of technology. i don't know if he mentioned -- because i came in in the middle of that, unfortunately -- i don't know if he mentioned the confucius institutes on campus. there were probably about 100 confucius institutes on different campuses across the country. i believe that some of them have been found to be involved in chinese -- part of chinese
espionage program. that is really a concern. i think that concern was downplayed a bit too much. host: all right jim, her that point. robert in mississippi. independents. -- independent. good morning. caller: i wanted to talk about january the first, or january the third insurrection. host: january 6. caller: pardon? host: january 6. caller: january 6 insurrection. i think it is terrible how the people have been arrested for that are being treated in jail. i understand some of them are not being fed, they are not getting to go to the bathroom, and i have evidence that nancy pelosi instigated -- host: right, moving on. linda in missouri. republican.
caller: yes, i was intrigued by the gentleman from china, from the wilson center. and one of the points i wanted to make was, america has always been at the top, he know, we are considered the most powerful nation on our on earth. you are the king of the mountain you always have a target on your back, but in other countries that are upcoming see that. what i see as a grandmother and as a person who has worked many years in a fortune 500 company, and everything that our educational system is so poor in the united states. the degrees that i got in the 1960's and early 1970's puts what is happening on college campuses and in our secondary schools to shame. i mean, i was always asked to read over masters dissertations
and things like that i was shockt through a masters degree. it was equivalent to a high school education back in the 60's. now, i see my grandchildren at a catholic school. i have two in public schools. they are not focusing on math and science enough. because of that, we will eventually not be the most powerful nation on earth. it really does bother me that the kids today do not -- i don't care if they go to harvard or
the community college. the education is not up to par. i just wanted to make that point. host: we will go to patricia in massachusetts. caller: my concern is global pollution causing climate change. the pollution is not just carbon. a major element -- an overwhelming element is 70 years of radioactive byproduct from -- it is covering the world. it is encircling us for 70 years , accumulating everywhere. the forests are covered with radioactive dust. forest fires are radioactive. they are causing it radioactive
smoke. this added carbon pollution, it's causing a catastrophe. i want to be hopeful. the operating discharge that is loaded with radioactive debris, they take electrons out of the uranium in the coal. they put ocean water through the core. going into a 600 degree court, it becomes radioactive and goes back to the ocean. it is global. the explosions, the atmosphere, this does not go away. it is forever. host: tony is in tampa.
we are in open forum. caller: i vote candidate now more than ailing else. when trump got in, he promised us the world and a wall and obamacare to be gotten rid of and a balanced budget. he had a 30 seeks eat how to advantage. he had a senate advantage. these democrats are getting this done with basically a four seat house advantage and no seats in the senate. this is why trump should never be able to run as a republican again. he got nothing done. he wasn't able to build the wall even though he promised it. he was never held accountable. he promised to get rid of obamacare. these democrats who aren't supposed to be dealmakers get all these things done.
obamacare, these two bills. these are going to devalue the dollar. they are going to inflate everything. everybody knows it. host: are you for them or against them? caller: the democrats? host: are you for the bills or against them? caller: i am definitely against the bills. host: howard is in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i hope you don't get the finger and put it on me. you might not like what i have to say. host: we want to keep it civil. caller: he mentioned the chinese wouldn't do this. they wouldn't spread that. the only three factions that
have benefited from it -- the democratic party in the u.s., and biden. host: you are breaking up. are you there? caller: i'm here. host: we heard the tail end of it. you are breaking up a little bit. caller: i think this is all brought on by the biden clan, power power power. host: kelly is in west virginia. caller: i just wanted to talk about the pandemic, the government has been saying we need to vaccinate seniors, we need to vaccinate seniors.
you've got to look at it, they are trying to give this money to the lower class or working people. there are millions of people on social security that are only getting $1000 a month or less. my comment is people that are 50 years old and older better start realizing sooner or later it's going to be your turn. you are going to be on social security. you are not going to be able to live on it. democrats and republicans have done the same thing for years and years. people on social security are being left out in all of this. host: we are going to talk about the pandemic. this headline is the drudge report this morning. protests turn violent in europe.
we are going to be coming up in the last hour talking about the pandemic with a doctor. we will get his perspective on where we are headed as we approach thanksgiving and the christmas holidays. lawrenceville, georgia. we will go to you. caller: i was trying to get through with the gentleman from the wilson institute. i had a question about richard nixon being evaluated with the rise of china. he and kissinger were responsible for the opening up of china. i just find it curious. i don't see anything scholarly being set about that. i do think if there is not a statute to nixon in tiananmen
square, there should be. he's the reason they are where they are now. host: the house censured congressman paul gosar for video he tweeted out of him killing alexandra conseil cortez. this is him on the floor. >> i reject the mischaracterization from many in this body that the cartoon from my office is dangerous or threatening. it was not. i reject the narrative categorically. i do not espouse violence toward anyone. it was not my purpose to make anyone upset. i took the cartoon down not because it was a threat, but because thumb -- some thought it was.
last week, my staff posted a video depicting a policy battle regarding amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. this is an anime. it speaks to young voters who are too often overlooked. even twitter did not remove the cartoon, noting it was in the public's interest for it to remain. the car turn directs to the understanding and the discussion of the real-life battle resulting from this open border policy. this body is considering passage of the socialist $4.9 trillion spending bill that provides $100 billion for amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens. this is what the left doesn't want the american people to know. our country is suffering from the plague of illegal information -- immigration. aliens of illegal aliens are
bringing in the dead of night, for this cartoon, some suggest i should be punished. i have said there is no threat in the cartoon other than the threat to immigration. host: he lost his committee assignment. aoc also came to the floor during that debate and condemned the actions of the congressman and its impact on the image of the house. >> this is not about me, this is not about representative gosar. this is about what we are willing to accept. not just republican leader, i've seen other members of this party advance the argument, including represent of gosar himself, the
illusion that this was just a joke. that we we say and what we do does not matter so long as we claim a lack of meaning. this nihilism runs deep. it conveys and betrays a certain contempt for the meaning and importance of our work here. what we do so long as we claim that it is a joke doesn't matter. that what we say here doesn't matter. that our actions every day as elected leaders in the united states of america don't matter. that this chamber and what happens in it doesn't matter. i am here to rise to say that it does. our work here matters. our example matters.
there is meaning in our service. as leaders, in this country, when we incite violence with depictions against our colleagues, that trickles down into violence in this country. host: the congresswoman from new york. freddy is in los angeles. we are in open forum. caller: i just wanted to make a comment about inflation. it's not emphasized enough, it's the result of government overspending. that's all it is. when you have too many dollars chasing too few goods. you will have inflation. inflation is a hidden tax. i just want people to realize this is simple economics.
when you see prices going up outside of an emergency shortage somewhere, its a tax. you may be for higher taxes, that's fine. at least acknowledge to yourself that inflation is a tax. if you for higher taxes, you are for inflation. host: willie is in louisiana. caller: good morning. i'm a 20-year-old -- 20 year military veteran. as a black man, the only time i ever felt free was being in vietnam in the jungle. host: why is that? caller: i had my grenades and everybody was equal. all you had to do was lose your life. people have got to start thinking about being out here in
america. host: when we come back, we will be joined by dr. michael saag from the university of alabama at birmingham. we will talk about the latest on the pandemic in your concerns about holiday gatherings and traveling. >> tonight on it q&a, >> some people will say i want to know the story of how america became this melting pot. of different cultures and cuisines, a place where you can get mexican cooking on one block and indian cooking on the next and jamaican on the next one after that. i want my readers to understand
there is so much struggle embedded in that wonderful reality. you see that struggle in the stories of these women. we should honor the struggle as much as possible. >> professor discusses his book taste makers, profiling seven immigrant women and how they transformed american cuisine during the 20th century. tonight at 8:00 eastern on q&a. you can listen to q&a and our podcasts on our new c-span now app. >> book tv, every week and features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. watch our coverage of the miami book fair. featured authors include craig whitlock.
chris hedges talks about the american prison system in his book. julie brown on her book about jeffrey epstein and her work for the miami herald that led to his arrest. sarah stockman talks about her book american-made, what happens to people when work this appears. how companies moving overseas have affected the working class in america. watch book tv every weekend and find a full schedule in the program guide or watch online. >> washington journal continues. host: dr. michael saag from the
university of alabama at birmingham is an infectious disease professor. what advice do you give to americans who are thinking about changing up thanksgiving it, maybe gathering in larger numbers than they have last year? guest: we are definitely a better place than we were last year. this is mostly because a lot of us are vaccinated. that's a game changer. if you are vaccinated, you can pretty freely join gatherings of people when others around you are vaccinated. if you don't know the status of the people around you, and it becomes a numbers issue. the more people you have in a number with unknown status, the higher the likelihood one of them will be infected with covid and could spread it to you. it's really a question of the numbers game in that setting.
i want to remind everybody, we want to be safe about getting together. a lot of the risk calculation is not just yourself. it's the people around you. someone in the room at thanksgiving has got an underlying health as you, it might mean that they are on chemotherapy or an immune-based therapy that makes them more at risk if they get sick and potentially die. it's something we should be thoughtful about and not say we are going back to normal. that's not a responsible way to go about this. host: what is your fear of what the numbers look like coming out of thanksgiving? guest: the honest answer is i don't know what's going to happen. i think everyone needs to be clear. this is much more difficult than predicting the weather. based on the principles, if
people gather in large numbers indoors and a good portion are not vaccinated, we are going to see another increase in cases. we are already seeing increases in cases in the colder parts of the united states, minnesota and michigan have skyrocketing cases. it's clear the virus isn't going away. the virus doesn't care. it only wants to do one thing and that is survive and replicate. it will find anyplace it can to make that happen. we have to protect ourselves. the good news is we have the vaccine. we have knowledge and we can think and be smart about how we engage in groups and gatherings so that we minimize our risk and minimize the risk to others. host: is there another variant out there on the horizon? guest: well, there are variants
that will be emerging. what's important to recall about this last summer surge, it was delta that kicked it off. delta is different because it is much more transmissible. if you are in a room with someone and there is a cloud of virus around you and you breathe it in, there's a much greater likelihood that that single breath is going to lead to your becoming infected. there was an interesting study that showed the delta variant was affecting people who had waning immunity from the vaccine. if someone had been vaccinated in the month or two before delta came out, they generally did not get sick. six months after the vaccine was administered, let's say you got
it in january and you got in august, there is a good chance that you have a breakthrough case. that is kind of what we were seeing in the summer months. that's why the boosters are important for everyone. i was so happy to see that happen. if it's another delta like variant, it's all about the immunity. what we are fearing in a scientific way is there could be a variant that emerges where our immunity doesn't work as well. that wasn't the case with delta. there was no difference in time after vaccination for delta versus other variance. it was just more transmissible. what we are concerned out is a mutation that happens in the virus where the immune system doesn't recognize that variant. i don't think it's likely. that's the concern that more variance could emerge. host: why do you think it's not
likely? guest: one reason, these variants happen sporadically. the outer portion of the virus, that spike protein that immunity is based against, we have a pretty good response with the vaccines. secondly, what we've seen with the booster shots is the immunity is pretty broad. it not only gets the alpha variant and the delta variant, it's giving some protection against the coronaviruses we saw years ago like the original sars virus and mers. even though people were never exposed to that. i'm feeling reasonably good that it's unlikely. it's unlikely a new variant will emerge that totally evades our immune system.
what we have to watch for is what's in the news. as i said earlier, if you are six months after your original series, it's time to get a booster. if you had covid, i heard a lot of people salad had covid and i don't need a vaccine, that's not true. the immunity from covid without a vaccine works for about 1-3 months and then it starts to fade. another study from last month showed that if you compare people who got vaccinated and never had covid and compare them with people who had covid but never got vaccinated, the people who just had it covid and weren't vaccinated were five times more likely to have a breakthrough infection. even if you've had covid, get vaccinated and move on. if you had a vaccine six months or longer go, get your booster. that is our best protection
against getting sick and getting hospitalized or dying. host: we are talking to dr. michael saag. we have divided the lines. start dialing in. you can send us a tweet. you can go to facebook. you can send a text with your first name, city, and state to (202) 748-8003. i want to show you the cdc director from this past week talking about infections, where we are with infections and vaccinations and hospitalizations. >> people who are unvaccinated are more likely to be infected, to be in the hospital, more likely to have severe complications. in recent weeks, we have seen additional data that reinforce the importance of covid-19 boosters.
particularly to ensure protection against severe illness and hospitalization. those who live in long-term care facilities and adults over 65 were among the first eligible for vaccination. as coverages increases, we sought emergency department visits decline. after early vaccination efforts in january and february, we had evidence that demonstrated vaccines are effective and provide protection against the severe complications of covid-19, since then, we've been watching vaccine effectiveness carefully. although the highest risks are those people who are unvaccinated, we see an increase among adults 65 and older, which are higher than for young age groups.
we also have new data that looks at covid-19 cases in long-term care facilities. when we compare rates of covid-19 to these between those who are vaccine it with two doses and those who have received a booster, the rate of disease is markedly lower for those who received the booster shot. boosters are working. fda is evaluating data on the authorization. as we've done before, the cdc will quickly review the safety and effectiveness as well -- soon as we hear from fda. host: you were talking about waning immunity. you heard it therefrom dr.
wilensky. guest: people are going to -- people who have not been vaccinated are still not vaccinated. that's the biggest risk not only to them as individuals, but to people around them. when they get infected and start having the symptoms before they develop symptoms, they are spreading virus around them that other people can breathe in. it's a stress to the health care system. in minnesota, they are being stretched in their hospitals like we were in the southern states a couple of months ago. living through that as a health care worker is very stressful and demoralizing. at the time we were dealing with it here, 90% of people in the hospital were unvaccinated people. 90%. the other bit of data to expand
on, over the last eight months in the united states, the risk of death, if someone had covid, is 12 times more likely in an unvaccinated person than a vaccinated person. i will say that again. an unvaccinated person to gets covid is 12 times more likely to die of covid in today's world then if -- then a vaccinated person. we used to think three times was a big risk. this is 12 times more likely. protect yourself. get vaccinated. protect the people around you as well. host: she talked about the approval. that's been done. this is the new york times headline.
take a look at the latest numbers of those getting vaccinated in this country versus those that are not. 100 96 million people vaccinated in this country. before we take calls, where are we in the pandemic? at what stage are we? guest: i would say we are in the middle. this middle is going to last for a long time. i strongly believe and i think most of my colleagues will also say this, this virus is going to be with us for a while. we are going to be dealing with it for years to come and may be longer than just a few years. where not only protecting ourselves, but reducing transmission.
the countries that are in the position where they are getting large numbers in the 80's and 90's, they have much lower rates of infection. that means 35% of the people in the population are unvaccinated. that's the fuel that keeps the virus going. host: jerry in texas, good morning. caller: i am 72 years old. looking for my best options, i have checked with my doctor. he recommended not getting vaccinated. i have checked with the head pharmacist, the basic
information. it stays in your system for your life. i have checked with a guest from c-span who was a scientist involved with aids. now he's in the virus scenario. what are my best options? guest: that's a great question. that's when i've gotten several times. for the audience, it's a syndrome where an immune system response results in the loss of motor function, the loss of the ability to move arms and legs. it's a very serious complication of any immune response. it can happen after a vaccine, it happens after a viral disease. people with covid can develop it on itself. the concern is if you had it
from another vaccine, does it translate over to covid? we haven't seen enough cases. because of your situation where you are concerned about even getting it, i've counseled people through this, we have tried the vaccine and they did ok, they did ok. it's very nerve-racking. what we are balancing out for you, the risk of getting covid and then having it from that, not to mention other complications versus the risk of the vaccination. i hate to say it, it's going to boil down to your individual tolerance of which risk you want to choose. we just don't have enough information. that's the most straightforward
answer i can give you. it's a tough situation. my lien would be toward getting the vaccine and monitoring carefully, mostly because i've seen people suffer mightily. at age 70, you are at the risk of bad outcomes if you get covid. it's a bit of a tough choice for sure. host: ray in colorado sends a text. guest: it depends on the timing. j&j is the one shot and it has pretty good immunity. it's a little slower to build up delete two shots from modernity. there was an antibody study that compared it to another j&j shot.
they were comparable. pfizer and modernity had better antibody response. right now, you are pretty well protected with that second j&j shot in the last two months. i would be pleased with that for now, especially if you don't have any immunocompromised situations. we are going to get more boosters. we are just going to. i think we are going to continue over time to need boosters. how often will be determined as we follow things out. if you had j&j twice, next time get pfizer or moderna. make sure that for a booster it is half dose. it's normally 100 micrograms.
any shot after that, if you are vaccinated with a previous one, get the 50 microgram. all the pharmacies know to do that. host: richard in missouri. caller: i'm 84 years old. my wife is 81. we've been vaccinated with moderna. i look at this shot like having a gun. it is self-defense. take care of yourself. one person we know, we had dinner with a long time ago, he didn't get the shot. he was a month in the hospital on a breathing machine. use your own judgment. if you don't want it, it isn't my health, it's yours. host: dr. michael saag, go
ahead. guest: i think you've made a wise decision. i hope that more people do that. host: this debate over vaccinating and mandating those to do it is plain out in europe. covid protests turned violent in europe. there was a revolt against the lockdowns and the vaccine mandates that are happening. guest: it's a conundrum. it really is. i can see both sides of the argument. on the one hand, i'm choosing for myself. i think i've made a good choice. if you choose not to, you could go to the hospital and dive -- die. on the others of the argument, it's that plus we have to ask the question how much are we
contributing to the ongoing epidemic my not being vaccinated? i think that's where the balancing issue is. my personal view, this isn't different than texting and driving or other things we have. you can do that if you want. you are putting yourself at risk because you could have an accident while you are texting and driving. you could also hit somebody else on the road while you are looking down. i think it's more like that. it's not a great analogy. it sort of like that. when we choose to be vaccinated, we are protecting ourselves. we are also protecting those around us. when we are vaccinated, we are less likely to become infected. if we do, we are not likely to get symptomatic. if we do, we are much less
likely to go to the hospital. we will shed virus for a shorter duration and could -- protect those around us. i would lean toward mandating it because it's not just for us. it's for the people around us. i mentioned about hospitals. in alabama, we almost ran out of beds. there were a couple of stories where people were being traveling 150 miles to another state to gain access to care. that's how bad it was. with most of those people unvaccinated, they're putting stress not only on themselves, their putting health -- stress on the health care system. i see the scales tipping more in favor public health.
we need to have the debate go on further. we know this is going to be with us a long time. ultimately, we are going to need to protect ourselves. host: brenda in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: it is my understanding that a virus in you never dies. your immune system just keeps it suppressed for whatever. as far as the hpv virus, they have linked it to certain kinds of cancer. it's my understanding that chickenpox virus mutates in you and services as shingles. if these things are true, would it be better to tell people that if you get covid and you survive, we don't know how that virus is going to mutate in new
and turned into who knows what decades later. would that be a way to encourage people to get vaccinated? guest: i love your question. it points out several things. some viruses, the ones you mentioned, when you get infected as a child, that virus is with you the rest of your life. your immune system keeps it at bay. in the case of the chickenpox virus, it doesn't mutate. it's just hiding out in nerve roots for decades. when the immune system starts to wane, it appears as shingles. those are those types of viruses.
other viruses like the common cold and coronaviruses a hit and run virus. we don't see evidence that it's hiding out in tissues. we don't really see it as a rule. it can't really make the argument for covid that it's a reason. however, we do know there is something about the infection that triggers an immune response that can last for weeks to months later. that causes what we call long covid. this is where symptoms continue on for weeks to months after someone has recovered from covid.
that doesn't mean they have to be hospitalized. we don't know one hunter percent whether that's residual virus triggering that. my assessment is the virus was taking -- taken care of. it triggers an immune response that doesn't get the stand down order. when the immune response goes, it fights and gets rid of the virus. central command says stand down. that command isn't heard. that causes an immune system overreaction. it is the type of thing that causes long covid. i hope that was clear. i love your question. host: james is in louisiana. caller: good morning.
my brother made a career as a nurse at your hospital. my disabled daughters genetic defect was at your operation. i'm disappointed i didn't get to discuss the truth of the matter we are facing. the vaccinated are not immune to covid. they are spreading covid. the i the senators had to cancel. you are advising people who are going to need six month booster shots of a gene therapy that is never been. i had it. the people need to get this and get through it and not let your
hospitals and pharmaceutical companies run roughshod over the country with fake false narratives on these vaccines. i would like to know that study you said that natural immunity is five times more likely to get it. can you tell us about that study? plenty of them say natural immunity is better than the vaccine. i don't appreciate this propaganda. i wish you had a guest on that would tell us the facts. host: how do you respond to people like james? guest: there is a lot of information out there. the study was a high profile journal. the study was done very well. it was in last month's issue. there is a lot of information out there regarding these breakthroughs of vaccinated teams. it's about waning immunity.
we know that within the first three months after someone got vaccinated, there is hardly ever a breakthrough except someone who might be immunocompromised. when you get up to six months, immunity is waning. you can tell that through studies of antibodies that are starting to come down and the immune system responses and what we call it. the booster reengaged the immune system. like we were talking about earlier with shingles and chickenpox, once somebody as chickenpox, there immunity will work for years, decades. it will protect them from having another outbreak of chickenpox until the immunity may wane. there is a shingles vaccine, a chickenpox vaccine. this is the same principle.
it's not like covid is isolated over here and totally different than most other infectious disease that we see. when you look at information, you've got to put it in the context of all infectious diseases. that's what the experts do. we can quibble about the meaning of data. you can look at one study and i can look at another, what's really important is we think about it openly and honestly and have this dialogue. i'm not here to give you misinformation. i am here to give you the truth as i see it as a research scientist who studies infections for 40 years. i don't have an agenda other than to tell things as i see them. in the case of that team, that's why we recommend boosters.
i can't respond any more than just to tell you i don't have an agenda other than to tell you the truth. host: these 5-11-year-olds who have been approved for the vaccine, many of them likely have the first shot but won't get the second until after thanksgiving. is there a concern there? guest: there is some good immunity that occurs after the first shot. when you look at the curves, they diverge at 10-12 days. the second shot increases it further. i'm not that concerned about it. what i am more concerned is people not getting the shot at all. i would be ok with someone, child or seven-year-old or six-year-old got there shot two weeks ago.
that would be ok. the biggest concern is the spread in the community, especially among the unvaccinated. host: good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, there is an elephant in the room i would like you to comment on, this is an implication to the global pandemic. i'm talking about other doctors, that are utilizing cardiologists, surgeons, other doctors, family practitioners and utilizing television and media to spread messages that are ignorant in the information.
they are not epidemiologists who have formal education in epidemiology and they know how to evaluate critical studies. there is so much garbage published in the literature. they are trained to evaluate them, to make decisions. we are seeing all kinds of different doctors, different people telling different information on television. they are not educated. i wish only television and social media only bring people who are trained in infectious disease to talk about this. guest: i hear you. at the same time, i respect trying to avoid total censorship.
we are a free society. people can speak their mind. it puts the public in a tough position. how does someone listening to the news or social media especially, how do they parse who is a bona fide expert versus someone who has a degree, but really perhaps has other reasons to a spouse a contrary opinion and the data they are quoting isn't as reliable. that unfortunately is the price of freedom. what this means for all of us, on any topic, not just infectious diseases, we have to be smart consumers of information that we received. that wasn't the case 70 years ago for the most part.
journalism had standards, it still does. there weren't competing 24 hour news cycles. there was a twitter or instagram or facebook that would send out information that was unfiltered by journalists or went through some sort of validation. that's the price of freedom. it's not -- i don't -- to the previous collar, i'm not saying that everything i'm saying is the gospel and will remain true. i'm giving you my snapshot of where we are today based on the entirety of what infectious disease principles tell us, and the data as it's emerged so far. it's a new infection. let's from ever that. we are learning as we go.
i will be the first to say that. i would also like to say that as far as i can see, i colleagues who are experts in the field are giving an honest assessment, they are trying to get to the truth. not only as researchers, but his doctors. when i see a patient and they come in with a condition, i honestly assess them. i give them truthful interpretations of the data. my goal is to get to the truth so we can fight this together. in the case of public health, it's the same thing. it's for the whole population. that's what public health is. host: sarah illinois? -- in illinois? caller: i lived through polio.
my son was four years old at the time. they came to our street, set up for our neighbors. we lined up and we all got the shots. i don't understand what people are thinking today. my son is 65 years old. he is healthy. it's all about politics. thank you so much. i really enjoyed what he speaking. i hope we get more like him. thank you. host: dr. michael saag, should the definition of fully vaccinated change to include the booster? guest: that's a great question. you are right. it's a time-dependent factor. over time, fully becomes
partial. that's what we have learned. let's put the bigger context in here. we had an infection that hit us. in less than one year, we have an effective vaccine. that's unheard of. we went through all the right studies. they were done impeccably well, 40,000 people in each trial. that's never been done before in the history of infectious diseases. i called it the christmas miracle last december. i didn't think it was going to work. i thought it was going to fail. now, we are 10 months away from that time. we are learning as we go about the durability. normally, when a vaccine is
produced, it goes testing for the durability of the protection before it gets released. we didn't have that luxury. we had to get it out to save lives. a couple of months ago, there were 150,000 lives, u.s. citizens who are alive today who would have died, people in nursing facilities and people over 65, who are still alive today because they got vaccinated last year. what we are learning about the durability as we go, that's why the term fully is changing to partial until you get your booster. host: ivan is in oklahoma. what is your comment? caller: ivan --
host: i hope you can call back on a more stable line. fletcher is in tennessee. caller: good morning. the v8 has diagnosed me with agent orange. it's destroying my neural system. my question is this, i'm unvaccinated. so far, i'm going ok. if i get the covid shot, i'm afraid it will kill me. what does the doctor say about that? guest: thank you for your service. i feel for you in terms of what you are dealing with.
agent orange was a toxin. it was meant to be used in battle. it had unanticipated long term effects you are suffering with. this is what i would say. like everyone, you are wane out the risk of getting covid by not being vaccinated as an unvaccinated person. in my view, at the age that you are and with an underlying condition, if you were to get covid, your chance of dying from covid is substantially more than a healthy 40-year-old if you were to get covid. the vaccine is much safer relative to your getting covid.
having underlying diseases like agent orange exposure, the protection is there. people are doing well. i would encourage you to get the vaccine. talk to your doctors at the v.a.. that's what all of us are wayne, the relative risk of getting covid versus having a side effect from the vaccine. host: joe is in iowa. caller: thank you for this gentleman. he's very articulate. i appreciate his information. i am vaccinated. i am going to get the booster as
well. i am a caregiver to my mom and my grandfather. my elderly grandmother passed away in february with three bouts of covid. she just couldn't handle it. i don't blame the vaccine. it's everything, including the prior administration. some of the side effects i've had it, i'm going to get the booster, i've experienced things like nerve pain. like reoccurring nerve pain. i do not know if it is nerve damage or not. i went to a doctor who said he is hearing about this from people who have gotten vaccinated. what should i worry about and how can i overcome it in the long run? guest: thank you for your comments. it is a relative risk any time
we give any medicine from aspirin to tylenol to these shots that there can be a side effect that happens. with this vaccine there are very few and very few that last longer than 24 hours after the vaccination. i having neuropathic pain. it is immune mediated where the antibody that is produced against the protein products produced by the vaccine to stimulate immunity can cross react with nerve tissue and cause this type of syndrome or damage you are having. my advice would be on your booster shot switch to a different product. if you got moderna go to pfizer or j&j.
try that to minimize the likelihood or possibility of exacerbating your symptoms. we also know and i feel compelled to say this that when we are talking about reaction to a vaccine it is the protein products of the product itself the immune system is responding to.when you get covid it is the same proteins. your body would have the same reaction simply being exposed to covid. we have heard about myocarditis, inflammation of the heart that happens with the vaccine. it has happened to a much larger degree to people who have had covid. -it is a risk-benefit assessment but i applaud you for taking care of your parents and
grandparents. that is a heroic job and i applaud you for protecting yourself and your family by getting vaccinated. host: thank you so much for the conversation this morning. guest: thanks for all the listeners for hanging in there with us. host: that does it for today's show. thank you for joining in on the conversation. we will back -- be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered
view of government. we are funded by these companies and more, including cox. >> we are bridging the digital divide. cox, bringing us closer. >> cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ >> c-span's washington journal. every day we take your calls live on their and discuss policy issues that impact you. monday morning we will talk about the biden administration's policy and vivian schiller on digital misinformation.