tv [untitled] CSPAN June 13, 2009 7:30am-8:00am EDT
residing on tehran university campus. we were trying to get our freedom of speech. it's a very totalitarian regime, only one voice. there was a huge turn out. i conducted a pole among university students, market people, traders in tehran, which is a heavily populated city. my pole in every big square was 5-1 for the option mr. moussavi. unfortunately, this government, this leader who holds the power in iran, he himself screens the capped dat. it's ridiculous. he wants to hold the election
each time, this guy screens every candidate. he doesn't let anyone outside the government enter the election. having said that, we voted for the option. we voted for mr. moussavi. he used to be a prime minister. he has different views on freedom of speech, women rights. he didn't tolerate that. right now, there is a huge dissatisfaction among iranian jews and women. we are terribly dissatisfied. right now as i'm speaking with you, there's an upset going on. ahmadinejad, himself, who is said to be the next president -- host: having said all that, we
had a previous caller who said despite the fact that mr. ahmadinejad might win, he still sees there could be a progress toward dem crassy in the country. would you agree with them? caller: no. i don't think so. he didn't even tolerate the people's vote. the problem with this guy he is against any talk. he is talking about wiping israel off the map. it's not possible for this guy to deliver these kind of things. mr. ahmadinejad, he is against the people's will. i don't know. there was a huge turn out before that that was helping him. there was a huge process in favor of mr. moussavi. host: we'll have to leave it there. appreciate the input.
i see all these ladies dressed in these long black robes. i would like to see the iranian people vote for freedom. it seems to me like moussavi is the one that represents those principals. these leaders are in bondage and need to be set free. thank you. host: los angeles, california on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm an iranian-american, first generation. this was an important ante lection due to the coverage. the outcome wasn't what i would have desired. it reminutes me a lot of the anniversary with china and the democratic movement attempted
there in 1989, i'm old enough to remember that personally. i've been to iran. my family is from iran. the outcome is very important to me with talk of possible invasion of iran and that type of thing. i agree with the caller from tehran university. i don't believe this in any way that ahmadinejad would lighten his stance. i believe the reporter from iran is correct. he is who he is and that's the stancele take because he's a media hound. that gets him on the map. i really do believe that there is a desire for change. the youth, the kids are just as western as any other country. my cousins all know the latest rp music and are up on fashion. you don't see this through most of the publications you see
here in the united states. it's very much underground but it is there. host: question for you. we had a caller saying the average american may not be interested in this issue. caller: i totally disagree with that statement. that's really sad. this does affect our lives. it's an economic issue. if the economy stabilizes in iran and we are able to do business there. that means the middle class has more money to pump american goods and it benefits us the way it has with china. china has grown a middle class and that becomes an important place to sell goods and do business with. host: have to leave it there. going to new york city. caller: about morning. my first point is i feel so bad for the iranian people.
ahmadinejad is just a disaster. people are calling and saying it doesn't matter. it does matter. there's another part of the ministry that is like, quote-unquote, the congress. my other point is that -- it disheartens me so much when the republicans believe whatever they hear. they don't do their own research or read the papers or something. how could you not say it's not going to affect us and you only
direct impact on the caller from detroit a few minutes ago. that's part of the reason gm had to go into>e5áñ because of the $4 a gallon for gas. it has a direct i am pact. we'll get through this. hopefully our new president will extend and olive branch. host: going to the next call. thank you. caller: i'd like to agree with our previous caller. part of the reason iran has kept a more closed coirnt is because of this country going over there and trying to privatize their oil resources and steal their oil like this country did over there in iraq. we all know that that war in
iraq was for oil. i think that's part of the reason they continue to be a more closed nation. host: next north carolina on our independent line. go ahead. we'll go next to new york city then. tony on the democrat line. caller: good morning everybody out there listening to c-span. i was glad to see iran have an election and have it exposed to the news media. my second point is, how do we know any election is really real until you stay involved. my other question is -- i notice your hand goes to the
button to cut people off when people go to israel. you should ease up on that a little bit. we need to give the same emphasis to any other country when it comes to anything that has to do with anything else. peace to the world. let the country be who they are. america, be who you are. live together. host: on the republican line. go ahead. caller: if you check on heartland .org. , you will find some results on a study of the climate change
from a non-governmental entity. it is a 700-page report. the first eight pages are critical. it shows that this global warming is pretty much a fraud or a misinterpretation of data. we do not have auay need to red anything or quhange our lives in any way, shape or form. that is where the real science is. 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying this as opposed to the less than 100 scientist that's came up with this stuff in the beginning. host: we'll take a couple minutes left in our program to talk about programming coming up. coming up talk with ruth bader
ginsburg. you can get more thoughts on america and the courts starting at 7:00 tonight. host: north miami beach, florida on the republican line. go ahead. caller: the last caller, he was right. i'm glad that the people here in america are listening to the calls. i've been listening to you guys for a very long time. thank you for c-span. it is not about oil. it is not about any of those things.
it is about freedom. i believe the iranian people have the same rights as all of us. the instanity that goes on not only there but here. when you start labeling -- it just saddens me going forward again, thank you, again. i'm not well. i just need to say thank you. host: leave it there. missouri on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i wanted to express that even though it may not have been maybe the choice that we would have liked to have seen as a nation but they ran an
election. if there is any propriety as far as some fault in the election, they can always call in, i believe, the u.n., and jimmy carter and that kind of thing and maybe have a reelection like they did. where was that russian revolution. they had a whole newó2 vote again. it might end up in that situation. or praus has already emphasized the fact that he's willing to talk to ahmadinejad himself. i think he's already made those cards -- he laid out those cards so he could have some kind of communication. host: that's the last call we will take on this subject. we will change gears and talk
sunday night at 8:00 c-span's "q&a". >> here is our current policy. we are eager to stop the bombing as we are eager to stop the war. >> telephone conferences from the final month of johnson's presidency. listen today at 10:00 eastern on c-span radio at 90 .1 fm in the washington area and nationwide on xm satellite channel 132. washington journal continues.
host: susan, when you hear about these bills pertain together tobacco industry, what is the feeling you get here? guest: we are talking about new regulations for an entire industry. we are talking about a whole set of companies they will have to look over. host: this was specifically dealing with tobacco. guest: it is specifically tobacco products. i know there are concerns out there. it deal was tobacco once in the manufacturer'sá÷ hands. it will give them new powers over marketing, advertising claims. host: specifically and looking at the marketing, what is being done? why was this legislation enacted by congress?
guest: members of congress have been talking about children and preventing children and teens from smoking. they have marketing restriction that's would limit advertising directed at children and any publication that has a large teen or child audience. it would limit vending sales in places where children are and try to prevent young people from picking up the habit. host: are those vending machines found and publications found in those areas anyway? guest: that's a good question. there has been a movement to try to limit advertising. television, radio ads have been banned for years and years. there's been a number of court
cases putting the restrictions on there. billboards and areas where teens gather is what they are trying to limit. a lot of the people i have talked to said you can be sure there will be lawsuit was first amendment issues. host: as far as the inspection process. why more inspection needed? guest: some have said tobacco companies put a lot of different things in their cigarettes that could make them worse. the fda will have a whole new center. they will have a new tobacco center. they will have a certain deadline they have to meet to do that. all the companies will have to register and provide a list of the products they make and pay fees to pay for this center. you are talking about fda
having clear direction of how they are going to oversee these companies. host: is this regulation what most anti-pow bacco people wfer looking for? >> hundreds of groups backed this bill. there was a lot of support. di talk to some critics that said this bill doesn't go far enough. some of the supporters on the hill said they want to see more done to try to limit smoking. host: such as? guest: i am not sure. it took a number of weeks to get this passed. host: in the discussion i heard , philip morris supported this. why is that? guest: that is an interesting
point. they are the largest cigarette maker in the country. some say, it's in their best interest to do it. it could in fact make it harder for newer products come to market which would limit challengers. host: if i'm a smaller company, i see this in a completely different light. guest: other companies are not particularly supportive of this plan. they cited a number of different reasons. host: here's how you can get in the conference. call in. the numbers are on the screen. if you follow us on twitter go to c-span wj if you want to send us a dweet that way. the republican line first.
go ahead. caller: i'm calling in. first-time caller to c-span. thank you for your coverage. i want to thank congress and mr. obama for doing this, and the fda. it's about time. it's probably 30 years too late but thank god they've done it. host: buffalo, new york on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i don't know if you've ever been a smoker. i have. many other listeners this morning who have been smokers in the past have found it a living hell to attempt to give up cigarettes after they've been smoking them. the reason for that, as you know, is the addictive drug which many scientists say is ever bit as strong as heroin.
my question is this. i assume congress will pass this and mr. obama will soon sign this giving this the fda authority to regulate the context. my question is this, this is the real $64 question americans should pay attention to. will obama direct the fda to regular the amount of nick owe teen in cigarettes. if that nicotine was reduced, americans could kick the habit easier and perhaps we could faster arive at a smoke-free america. guest: you raised a couple of good points. one being, you are right, this
bill doesn'to+3 ban nicotine outright. some academics vo said if congress really wants america to stop smoking they would have banned cigarettes or nicotine. you raise a good point. one other expert talked about compensation saying if they did levels, you might see smokers smoking more to get their fix. it's really unclear, 10 years from now, are there going to be fewer smokers in this country because of this bill. we dovent know yet. host: from new york on the independent line. caller: i agree with the caller
before. i'm a smoker. my husband is a smoker. i have a son and grandkids growing up already. i smoke in the house, my son never did. never wants to smoke. he not even stay around when i smoke. my grandchildren the same. if they don't want to smoke, they are not going to. teach them not to start it. that's the main thing. i always tell me kids, don't start it if you want to stop. the food and drug administration should check on the nicotine and control it and check on the food we eat. host: one more thing, susan, other thant terms we use.
some things you won't hear are light, mild and low tar. guest: it's not that you won't hear them. just like in foods. seeing heart healthy, fda has power over those marketing claims. it is jet yet to be termed how the fda will let that happen. host: the previous caller talked about her and her husband being smokers but her children not picking it up.
guest: there is a lot of passion behind the children and whether they are affected or not. this bill a you los adult smokers to do so. this is one way congress is going to try to get children not to pick up the habit. host: how does congress' own experience come into play? guest: there's discussion of whether congressmen still smoke or not. it is yet to be known. host: on the line for california. caller: it seems like they want