participated. we will see you again tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> coming up in about half an hour, we will go live to the pentagon with lieutenant general william caldwell. last week, during a senate armed services committee, leon panetta said afghan soldiers are progressing toward handling their own security. that briefing will get under way at 10:30 eastern and we will have it live on c-span. this afternoon, we will also be live with president obama at a town hall meeting in california hosted by linkedin. over in the capital today, lawmakers are still working on a federal spending package to fund the federal government for the first seven weeks of the new fiscal year, which begins this coming weekend. the senate rejected a house- passed measure that included measures for disaster relief to be cut. the senate will take up a version that does not include those spending cuts this afternoon. you can watch live coverage on c-span2. keating is the oshte editor over at "foreign policy" magazi and is here to talk about the 2012 republican presidential candidates and their views on foreign policy. welcome to the program. guest: thanks for having me. host: during one of last week's republican presidential debates, it featured an increased discussion on foreign policy. which candidates benefited most -- which candidate benefits most from a shift to foreign policy issues? guest: i'd say that's probably jon huntsman, who's not really a major figure in the race right now. he's kind of in fourth or fifth place, but he can really run on his record as ambassador to china and as somebody with a large amount of foreign policy experience, which, frankly, the other candidates don't have. host: is there any particular aspect of foreign policy, for example, the mideast, the far east with jon huntsman, southwest border issues, or our relationship with europe, that one cdidate can use to separate him or herself from the rest of the group? guest: well, rick perry has been talk ago lot about immigration, and as a border governor, oiously that's sort of his core area. he has a very different take on it from other candidates. he's thought of as this conservative, but he's the only one in the debates who's saying it's simply not practical to build a fence on every inch of the border as some other candidates are saying. he's supported several programs , sort of head start type programs, to help immigrants have access to the texas educational system, and so he was kind of getting hammered on that in the last debate, but it's one area where he kind of -- there is some daylight between him and the other candates. host: is there a coherent obama foreign policy that the candidates as a group seem to be focusing on running against? guest: well, i think the words you're going to hear a lot are leading from behind, which was a comment that an obama advisor made in a story in the new yorker earlier this year to describe how the administration is responding to the revolutions in the middle east, and obviously leading from hind doesn't sound very presidential. it's the kind of thing he's going to get consistently hammered on. what's important to remember is at whether you're listening to president obama or these candidates, that the foreign policies they run on don't necessarily tell you much about how they're going to govern. president bush ran on being humble abroad. he spoke out against nation-building and embarked the u.s. on one of the largest nation-building projects since the end of world war ii. presidenobama, if you had to define him early in his campaign, it was on his opposition to the iraq war and on his stated willingness to talk to autocratic governments and perhaps sometimes anti-american governments, and we've seen him both scale up the war in afghanistan, you know, participate in an intervention to remove muammar gaddafi, and call for bashar al-assad to be forced out of power in syria. it's important to remember that often foreign policy, they're responding to crises to these so-called 3:00 a.m. phone calls and their stated positions in these debates don't necessarily tell you that mu. host: wee talking about t 2012 republican presidential candidates, their thoughts on foreign policy. here to discuss that with us is josh keating, "foreign policy" magazine associate editor. if you'd like to get involved with the conversation, 202-737-0001 for democrats. republicans, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. you can also send us messages via email, twitter, and on our facebook page. throughout the discussion, we're going to be showing some clips of various republican presidential candidates and what they've had to say regarding their views on foreign policy or how they perceive foreign policys has been exhibited by the obama administration. first like to take a look from last week's debate with former governor romney talking about president obama being euro-centric and how he gets his inspiration from europe. we'll take a look and then get a rponse from joshua keating. >> what president obama is a big-spending liberal. he takes his political inspiration from europe and from the seerblist democrats in europe -- and from the socialist democrats in europe. guess what, it's not going to h line of attack. he used the phrase european a number of times describing obama. that's kind of convenient shorthand, because it has a domestic and intnational component. it's both big government, liberal, pseudosocialist, and a certain timidity in foreign policy. it will be interesting to see how long he can really keep up this line of attack, because interestingly, european governments are, of course, most of them are embarking on austerity programs and cutting quite a bit of spending. and we've seen the french government take the lead in intervening in libya. so this kind of shortha of european as passivist and liberal, i'm not sure how well it holds up anymore. host: when candidates talk about trade inerms of foreign policy, is it more of a domestic issue for them or a view of foreign policy or a little bit of both when you'r talking about trade? guest: i think it's mostly domestic issues. we had several callers talking about the outsourcing of u.s. jobs overseas, and, you know, that's always going to come up. but it's also, you know, especially with a rise in china, mitt romney in particular has hamred on this point that he's not going to allow chinese currency manipulation to create a trade imbalance, and so there is that kind of great power competition aspect to it. it was interting, not the last debate, but the one prior to that, to see jon huntsman kind of counter that and say that the least productive thick we could do would be to have a trade war with china. host: our first call comes from pennsylvania, bill on our line for republicans. you're on the "shington journal." gues good morning, gentlemen. josh, i have a question for you. you said that obama and bush were unable to keep to the foreign policy that they campaigned on. do you think that ron paul, if he were elected, would be able to keep to the foreign policies that he's presented? and also, why is it that these other two guys and so many of them can't keep to their foreign policies that they campaign on? guest: well, i think it's -- you know, the general rule in u.s. elections is that candidates are elected on their domestic policy, but get remembered for their foreign policy. and i think that's generally been true. the lastlection was a bit of an exception to that rule. president obama was first distinguished by his opposition to the iraq war, so john mccain is very experience on foreign policy, so that election did turn quite a bit on foreign policy. but generally speaking, in these races, candidates are trying to appeal to a domestic audience and sort of sell themselves on domestic concerns, whereas when they get into office, they're responding to crises and situations that upt, and often the sound bites that they used on the campaign trail simply don't work anymore. and you mentioned ron paul. ron paul is a real outlier in this republican field as somebody who favors large-scale defense cuts and st of pulling back u.s. bases overseas and quickly eing the wars in iraq and afghanistan, which none of the other candidates have really committed to. you know, i don't know if he'd be able to stick with that if he were elected, but, you know, it's been very interesting having him in this race and to see the other candidates respond for him in these debates. host: ron paul, also during his time on the date last week, talked about linng the currency reform and also a tougher line on immigration all together. i'm going to take a look at what he had to say and then move on. >> this leads to capital controls and they lead to people control. so i think it is a real concern. and also, once you have these data banks, the data banks means that everybody's going to be in the databank. you say, oh, no, the data banks are there for the illegals, but everybody is in data bank. that's a national i.d. card. if you care about your personal liberty, you'll be cautious when you feel comfortable, blame all the illegal immigrants for everything. what you need to do is to attack their benefits. no free education, no free subsidies, no citizenship, no birthright citizenship. that would get to the bottom of this a lot sooner. but economically, you should not ignore the fact that in tough economic times, mone and people want to leave the country. that's unfortunate. host: josh keating of "foreign policy" magazin sort of a mix of foreignnd domestic policy from ron paul? guest: he was following u on an earlier statement where he said a fence won't just keep immigrants out, it could also keep americans in, which is kind of a surprising statement and widely marked upon. you know, i think he's sort of staked out a very clear position on immigration. a lot of the candidates are trying to sort of outdo each other in how tough they can seem about immigration in these debates. you know, it's interesting to see that the candidates with the sort of most experience on border issues, rick perry, is very different from the other candidates in this regard and also governor huntsman as well. you know, i wonder to what extent they're sort of going back to george bush's immigration picy, which was not quite as exclusionary, and he was sort of looking a little more long term at demographic trends, the degree to which latino voters are going to be a major factor to elections in the future, and potentially republican voters, and, you know, it's interesting because none of these candidates are looking at that and saying that . host: let's move oto new hampshire. keith is on our line for republicans. go ahead, keith. caller: good morning, thanks for c-span. just got some facts here. i'm kind of fed one everybody saying how the republicans' vision is going to cripple the country. january 3, 2007 was the day the democrats took over the senate and the congress. at that time the dow closed at 12,621. gpped for the previous quarter was 3.5%. unemployment rate was 4.6%. the annl budget deficit was $161 billion. host: keith, we'veoved on from that discussion and we're talking about foreign policy and the presidential candidates. this is what we're talking about. caller: ok, then you don't want to hear what i got to say, i guess that speaks volumes too, huh? host: let's move on to baton rouge, louisiana. tyrone on our line for independents. caller: gorge. how are you doing today? host: what are your thoughts regarding the republican presidential candidates? caller: several things very quickly to mr. keating. first, ron paul didn't want a fenc he was the one who said that if you put a fence up, it only not keeps people out, but it also keeps those who are in from leaving. second point i want to make is about the israeli foreign policy in the middle east. i think ron paul is the only candidates that just don't want to give israel an open key to the candy shop, and we're just not going on with anything that they do. i'm more israel. i recognize israel, and i recognize them as a country. but he is the only one, when he mentioned the rights of the palestinians, he got booed by his own republican counterparts. my thing is, if you just -- if you don't address this and have a broader mind set about,ou know, a more fair and balanced approach, that's never, ever going to get solved. i'd like his comments on that. thank you for c-span. host: joshua keating? guest: that's true, and ron paul does have a different policy, especially on aid to israel. we've seen the other candidates trying to position themselves very pro-israel, particularly after last week, you know, mitt romney said that there should be no daylight between the u.s. and its alli. now, of course, all countries have, you know, somewhat differing interests, as there's no daylight between them. but we're going to continue to see israel as a major factor in this campaign. you know, it's interesting to see president obama at the u.n. last week addressing palestinian statehood and taking a very -- mh more pro-israeli line in the speech than he has in the past, and, of course, the u.s. is planning to probably veto the palestinian statehood bid it's interesting to consider how much of what's driving his considerations campaign issues and to what extent that dreams the u.n. was partly a campaign speech as well. host: telegraphing officially or unofficially from officials in israel as to who they'd like to see as the republican candidates, or would they refer just continue dealing with president obama? guest: well, i think prime minister netanyahu has definitely been closer to the republican party in the past. in his visits to washington, he's had very sort of warm meetings with republican leaders. it's obviously not been quite as close with president obama. as for which candidates, i don't know to what extent they're really taking a position. but, you know, several of the candidates have visited israel and are definitely all trying to position themselves as the most pro-israel of candidates. host: back to the phones and our discussion with joshua keating of "foreign policy" magazine. new york, eleanor, caller: i wanted to comment on the candidate who spoke about immigration. this country is built on great immigrants and on the backs of great immigrants. it to say we will close our doors sounds like foolishness. we need to create better policies to except those who have stayed in america and made an honest living and tried to be productive. children have graduated high school and our college students. many of them are good members in their community, never did anything wrong. our stores have never been closed -- our doors have never been closed. we need to control the things that go beyond our borders. there needs to be laws to protect tm, too. they should not live in america and be afraid. host: that is eleanor in new york. the current governor perry and rick santorum talk about something similar in a discussion about mexico. we will take a look of that. >> one question. have you ever been to the border with mexo? >> the answer is yes. >> you are going to build a wall or fence and then go to tijuana does not make sense we know how to make this work. aviation assets on the ground. the federal government has not encased in this at all -- has .ot engage in this at alled we'll stop illegal immigration. we will make america secure. host: joshua keating, what did you tnk? guest: the candidates are trying to make a name for themselves in these debates. rick santorum has been the defender of conservatism in a lot of these debates whenever ron paul talks about cutting the military budget, rick santorum has been engaging them and again in these long ck in force on foreign policy. host: this morning in "the washington post," they talk about the tightening border in one their editorials. talking rious about immigration. "is it worth spending billions of dollars?" host: the overall thought is thatepublicans should claim a victory and move onto something else. guest: it hard to build and defey fence. no matter how we build up the border, it will not stop the flow of immigration into this country. i think there's a need for a more nuanced discussion in this country. host: joanne in san diego. caller: my concern has been ever since president obama opened cairo, that he has wanted to weaken the role of the united states in the world. we saw that inibya. initially he try to find a way to get gaddafi outp. i am concerned the republicans are becoming more isolationist. i think we should be supporting democracy in the middle east. this war on terror, i view this like the cold war. the american will was so strong. we need a republican leader who will stand up and say the problems and yemen, we will help fight terrorism in yemen. we have to be in it for the long haul. we need a powerful republican leader. host: joanne in san diego. guest: the influence that the tea party movemt is having on the republican party. the tea party is mostly focused on economic issues. the question becomes, is defense funding going to be on the table? traditionally the republican line has been a strong military any strong u.s. presence abroad is a priority. those parts of the budget should be off the table in terms of these discussions. you see rand paul talking abt putting military spending on e table -- you see ron paul talking about putting military spending on the table. host: you wrote that ron paul said there is a difference between military spending and dense spending. guest: i think there is a distinction. not just weapons systems. i think he refused -- i think he views this as a way to create jobs and as much as a domestic program as anything else. he wants to separate building high-tech weapons systems from addressing the u.s. national security. i think that's the distinction he is trying to draw. host: joshua keating has been an associate editor at oreign policy." he also blogs. you can follow him on twitter. you can also follow us on twitter twitter.com/cspanwj. caller: good morning. host: thank you for waiting. caer: what happened to all the good informants america had in thesforeign countries. we have be losing troops. candidates like obama and george bush, they have no idea that those foreign countries are run by a tribe of people. will we get a presidential candidate -- getting americans killed. guest: it is striking to see the degree to which the war in afghanistan has not been a major issue in this election. august has been the deadliest months so far. we saw the assassination of a former president and a major figure in the negotiations with the taliban. the economy is going to be the major issue. it will be jobs who determines who will be the next president. i think it has been striking the degree to which -- the question of what these candidates plan to do to bring the war to an end has not been a major topic of debate. host: there was a class on the u.s. role in afghanistan in the debate last week. >> after 10 years of fighting the war on terror, people are ready to bring our troops home from afghanistan. this country has given its all. what remains behind, some element to collect intelligence. we will have to do that in every corner of the world. >> very quickly. our country is not six - that doesn't mean our country is sick. the bottom line is that we should be fighting wars to win, not fighting wars for politics. [cheers] not giving the troops what they need. unless we change those rulesnd make sure our folks can win, then we will play politics with our military. host: joshua keating. guest: i think huntsman is put himself as the thinking candidate. if you listen to these candidates, the