freedom from george w. bush is the one in this room. mr. podhoretz's reza may is sprinkled liberally if i may use that word with similarly seeming contradictions, similar seaming and contradictions. he edited the left journal, commentary, then bolted the democratic party when it nominated the left first political water carrier, george mcgovern for the presidency. he's an intellectual who thinks intellectuals have read the world. most fundamentally he was a key director of the great exodus for liberalism and the democratic party during the 1970's as the leader of a movement that became known dismissively at first as neoconservatives. ..

in fact, he doesn't even think it was a war. merely one front in a new world war against a force he refers to as islamofascism. is now calling for us to bomb iran. [laughter] >> the liberals control everything. [laughter] >> had i gotten past gilligan's island yet? where am i here.

he's calling to bomb iran and soon. and later if you think the question and answer period is getting too tepid, ask him if waterboarding is torture. through his long political march to the right, he's been puzzled that other jews did not come to the same conclusions that he did about liberalism in general and the democratic party in particular. what liberals mainly see when they look at this country is injustice and oppression of every kind. economic, social and political. mr. podhoretz wrote. by sharp contrast, conservatives see a nation shaped by a complex of traditions. principles and institutions that has afforded more freedom and even factoring economic downturns more prosperity to more of its citizens than in any society in human history. it follows what liberals believe needs to be changed and discarded and apologized to for other nations is precisely what conservatives are dedicated to

preserves, re n nn- -- reinvigorating. surely then we jews ought to be joining with its defenders against those who are blind or indifferent or antagonistic to the philosophic principles, the moral values and the socioeconomic institutions on whose health and vitality the traditional american system depends, he wrote. now, i could go on with the typical stuff that goes in introductions including long list of books mr. podhoretz has written and awards he has won but i can tell you're anxious for your blood to start bubbling. so i'll get out of the way before it boils over. ladies and gentlemen, norman podhoretz. [applause]'có >> well, you know, i love being flattering introduced but glen exceeded all my introductions and else stole the conclusion

about the talk you're about to hear from something i published elsewhere. and you're going to have to hear it again. but it's all right. . it's worth hearing again. i've often said and i say again in this book that never have i been asked any question on any subject as many times as i've been asked why most jews are liberals. or and in its more specifically political form why most jews keep voting for the democrats. but this question immediately gives rise to another question. which is why so many people and especially non-jews are so puzzles by the political attitudes and behavior that predominate among american jews. after all up until the end of world war ii no one would have wondered why most jews were liberals or why they were so

committed to the democratic party. in those days most american jews were poor. and this meant that the democratic party which spoke for the interests of people in their socioeconomic condition was their natural political home. in those days jews suffered from various forms of discrimination. and this made it inevitable that they would look upon liberal ideas as being good for them. this indeed had been the case for centuries. the ancestors both immediate and distant of the vast majority of american jews lived in europe where the forces that favored the emancipation of the jews and the granting of civil rights and liberties to them had been located somewhere on the left side of the political spectrum. and in 20th century america especially after the ascension

of franklin roosevelt the closest counterpart to these forces was the democratic party. conversely, the political right seemed to represent an american version of the conservative forces in europe, which had always opposed equal rights for jews. it made perfect sense then for jews to align themselves with the left and to deep their distance from the right where they were in any case unwelcomed. but then something momentous happened that began to rob these political commitments of the sense they had always made. this momentous event was the six day war of 1967. to be sure, even before 1967 in the decades following the end of world war ii, jews found themselves getting more and more out of political step with the other white members of the roosevelt coalition. the attachment of these

non-jewish ethnoreligious groups to the democrats was steadily declining in direct proportion to the improvement of their economic and social condition. but not the jews. a substantial majority of whom kept on voting for the democratic candidate in every presidential election. it was this phenomenon that gave rise to the deservedly famous epigram. jew, he says earn like a episcopalians and vote like puerto ricans. [laughter] >> in short, i told you it was deservedly famous. in short, by 1967, the jewish commitment to the democratic party was already an anomaly from a socioeconomic point of view. insofar as discrimination was concerned, most of the barriers against jews had already been toppled. the principle that was

responsible for this development was the belief that justice required individuals to be treated on their own merits as individuals without regard as the old liberal catechism without regard to race, color, creed or country of national origin. but by 1967, this formally sacred liberal principle was giving way among liberals to a new conception of social justice that entailed the reintroduction of the kind of quota system that had always been used as a way of keeping jews out and down. and then came the six day war. in the weeks leading up to it, president nasr of egypt and the leaders of the other arab countries bordering israel drove its jewish inhabits as nasr put

it into the sea. thus, for the second time in the 20th century, and only a quarter of a century after the first, a major community of jews was threatened with annihilation, actual annihilation. and once again, the world as it seemed stood complacently by. the difference -- the literally earth-shaking difference was that this time jews living under a genocidal threat had the means and the will to defend themselves against it. and so the israelis did. in six short days they averted another holocaust by waging one of the most brilliant campaigns in military history. and most american jews celebrated that victory. but on the left, and especially among the intellectuals who made their political home there, the outcome of the six day war gave

any cause for celebration. on the contrary. the israeli victory became the occasion for an outbreak of what called itself anti-zionism but it was more often than not the cover for a new species of anti-semitisim. through which the old hatred that had from time and memorial been directed at the jewish people was now directed at the jewish state. in the process, the libelist charges that antisemites had always hurled at jews living in the diaspora were being translated into the language of international affairs and applied to the israelis. when some of us sounded the alarm over this ominous development, we were accused of trying to fend off any criticism of israel's policies by smearing it as anti-semitisim. this ploy is still being used. but as the years have passed and

as the new anti-zionism has spread like a metastasize cancer, it's become harder that there's any significant difference between the new anti-zionism and the old anti-semitisim. thus, it came about that the political left which had for so long and with good reason commanded the loyalty of the jews was now offering hospitality to ideas and sentiments that were blatantly hostile to jews. to cite one of the many examples i discuss in my book, the nation perhaps the most influential magazine of the american left and that had once upon a time been a staunch supporter of

israel can now publish an article by novelist and critic gore vidal which have been described as a predatory nation busy stealing other people's name in the name of an alien theocracy. and in which he denounced all american jews as an israeli fifth column. it was bad enough that a major liberal periodical like the nation could play host to this naked invocation of two of the classic themes of anti-semitisim. the jew as a disloyal alien and the jew as a conspiratorial manipulator of maligned power dangerous to everyone else. but what was even worse was that vidal's article elicited no more than a weak peep of protest from the magazine's sponsors and readers. the vidal affair provided powerful confirmation for the arguments some of us had been

making since 1967 that anti-semitisim had found a new home on the left. and then by a lucky coincidence, the nation's opposite number on the right, national review, became embroiled in a similar controversy of its own that provided powerful evidence for the argument we had also been making since 1967 that anti-semitisim was becoming more and more unwelcomed among conservatives. this controversy involved a member of national review's editorial staff named joseph sobrand who had devoted a you been in of his syndicated columns to attacking not just the state of israel but also the jewish people in general and judaism as a religion. a letter of protest was sent to conservative intellectuals. and in sharp contrast to the liberal intellectuals connected with the nation all the

conservatives, every last one of them, joined in expressing outrage at sobrand anti-semitic writings. none of the clearly anti-semitic articles had appeared in national review itself it was sent to the editor william f. buckley, jr. whereas the editor of the nation had responded to a similar letter by denying that the vidal piece was anti-semitic or even anti-israel, he disassociated his magazine from sobrand on this issue and admonishing him to begin to welcome the structure of taboos concerning israel and the jews. what emerged from this dramatic contrast between the two cases was further evidence that anti-semitisim had largely, if not as the name of pat buchanan

reminds us has not entirely banished from its traditional home on the right. while especially in the guise of anti-zionism it was meeting with more and more toleration and sometimes even approval on the left. this momentous reversal also manifested itself in the bitter debates over other issues of jewish interests and concerns such as quotas and the plight of soviet jewry that i analyze in my book.fúr but it was and is in christian attitudes towards israel that the reversal of roles between left and right has most saliently been manifested. and thereby hangs a tail. although there was some slippage for concern of israel, most american jews including most of the liberals among them still care deeply about the security of israel. or so they tell the pollsters.

and as everyone knows or should know by now, there is no group in america, probably not even the jews themselves, which sides more passionately with israel in the war being waged against it by the arab muslim world and which is more steadfast in upholding israel's right to defend itself against its sworn enemies than the so-called religious right. yet, instead of forging a political alliance with this community, jewish liberals look for ways to justify their refusal to do so. at the same time, they are perfectly willing to make common cause with the so-called mainland protestant denominations despite the fact that unfriendliness and even outright hostility to israel have become pervasive in that sector of the christian world. a similar situation exists in the strictly political realm. all the poll data show

self-described conservatives and self-described republicans sympathizing with israel in much greater proportions than liberals -- self-described liberals and self-described democrats. for example, in a pew survey taken earlier this year 60% of conservatives sided with israel as against only 8% with the palestinians. whereas, the comparable numbers among liberals were only about half as much for israel. 33% as against 60 but nearly three times as much 21% as against 8 for the palestinians. the same pattern shows up in terms of party affiliation. where 69% of republicans express more sympathy for israel than for the palestinians. while only 42% of democrats do. a gap of 27 points. nevertheless, the average jewish

vote for democratic presidential candidates, an amazing 75% has remained what it was between 1928 and the great reversal of 1967. and it is still far higher than that of any other group. and when i say "still," i most emphatically include 2008. running against john mccain, barack obama captured 78% of the jewish vote, which was -- and get a load of these numbers. which was 25 points higher than the 53% he scored with the electorate as a whole. 35 points higher than the pro-obama white vote in general. and even 11 points higher than his hispanic vote. broken down by religion, the jewish vote for obama was 33 points higher than the protestant vote for him.

and 24 points higher than the catholic vote he got. only with blacks who gave him 95% of their vote did obama do better than he did with the jews. and so it continues to go with the liberal agenda. now, the older economic and the political issues like government spending, benefits to the poor and organized labor, as well as on the newer issues that form the battlefields of the culture war, abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, assisted suicide, gun control and so on, the polls consistently show huge gaps in support, huge gaps between jews and all other americans including conservative americans. which brings me finally -- excuse me, including other liberal americans, non-jewish liberal americans. which brings me finally to the question i wrote in my book to answer. why are jews so stubbornly committed to whatever happens to be on the liberal agenda at any

given moment? and why have they continued voting for democrats in spite of the changes that have taken place since 1967, both in their socioeconomic position and in the democratic party itself that might have been expected to drive them away? many attempts have been made to account for this anomalous phenomenon. and they fall into three large categories. historical, sociological and religious. those who favor the historical explanation tell us that jews have long memories and that they are, therefore, still mindful of the centuries of oppression their people suffered at the hands of the right against the forces of the left. in my judgment, however, to the extent that the historical explanation is valid, it's a case that resembles the guns of singapore. before the outbreak of world war ii, these artillery pieces were

pointed in the direction from which the island had last been invaded. and so they proved utterly useless against the japanese who simply invaded from the other side. for the jews the enemy had always been on the right for the most part. and it was from there that he had only yesterday launched the most murderous assault on them in their long history. it may be understandable that they would keep looking for the enemy where he was last seen. but as the british discovered in 1940 from the guns of singapore, fighting the last war can only bring defeat in the new war that has just broken out. the sociological factors are minority status, education, parental influence, the greater degree of comfort jews in the kind of people who belong to the democratic party. the fear of being punished socially for dissecting from the

political ordoci -- orthodoxie. not surprisingly the original theory is found in the article by the late irving crystal where with his usual boldness he proposed that jews notorious for their intelligence are actually stupid when it comes to politics. but the most popular explanation by far traces jewish liberalism all the way back to the jewish values that are said to derive from the commandments of the judaism or more broadly of the jewish religious tradition. there is, however, a fatal flaw at the heart of the theory that the liberalism of american jews stems from the teachings of judaism. if the theory were valid, the orthodox would be the most liberal sector of the jewish community. for it is they who are the most familiar jewish religious

tradition with the most influence of its holy books and whose lives are the most fully shaped by its commandments. yet the orthodox are the least liberal of all their fellow jews. the orthodox enclaves are the only jewish neighborhoods where conservative candidates get votes to speak of. more telling on every one of the issues involved in the culture war, the orthodox oppose the politically correct liberal positions that are taken by most other american jews and precisely because these positions conflict with jewish law. for example, jewish law permits abortion only to protect the life of the mother. it forbids sex between men. it prohibits suicide except when the only alternatives are forced idol worship, forbidden sexual relations and coerced murder and so on. i have much more to say in my book about why the religious

theory is commonly expounded fails to explain the continuing commitment of american jews to liberalism. i also analyze each one of the other theories before concluding that they're all either inadequate or just plain wrong. i do, however, go on to argue that there's another way of framing the religious theory that does provide an answer to the question. it is that liberalism has become more, much, much more than a political position to most american jews. it has become a religion in its own right. complete with its own torah and it's own set of commandments. through a process i describe at length in the book, this new torah, the torah of liberalism as i call it, is superseded the torah of judaism to the point where we can say without exaggeration that liberalism, not judaism is now the religion of most american jews.

i do not go as far as the cruel wit who once described the services in a reformed temple as the democratic party at prayer. [laughter] >> nor do i go as far as as the even crueler wit who described reform judaism in general as the democratic party platform with holidays thrown in. [laughter] >> but i do contend that many american jews sincerely believe that adhering to the torah of liberalism makes them good jews. even though in any conflict between the new torah and the old, the new always trumps the old. to this new torah, it's adherence, give the same measure of steadfast devotion and scrupulous obedience that their forebears gave to the torah of judaism. as i can testify from the scars

on my soul, they regard moving from left to right or from liberalism to conservatism with the same horror that their forefathers felt at conversion to christianity. of course, when i speak of the conflict between left and right, or between liberals and conservatives, i'm talking about a divide wider than the conflict between democrats and republicans and deeper than electoral politics can go. what the great issue between the two political communities fundamentally turns on is how they feel about the nature of american society. with all exceptions duly noted, i think it's fair to say that what the left mainly sees when it looks at america is injustice and oppression of every kind. economic, social, and political. by sharp contrast the right principles and institutions that

have made it possible for more freedom than even factoring periodic economic downturns, more prosperity to be enjoyed by more of its citizens than in any society known to human history. it follows that what liberals believe needs to be changed or discarded not to mention apologize for to other nations is precisely what conservatives are dedicated to preserving, reinvigorating and proudly defending against attack. with the conservatives rather than with the liberals. 'cause the social, political and moral system that they wish to transform is through which jews found a home such as which they never found in all their forced wanderings throughout the century on the face of the earth. they began coming from east

europe in 1880s were right to call america the golden medina, the golden land. there was no gold in the streets as some of them may have imagined and they had to struggle and struggle hard but there was another kind of gold in america, a more precious kind than the gold of coins. it was freedom. and there was opportunity. blessed with these conditions and hampered by much less disabling forms of anti-semitisim and discrimination than jews had grown accustomed to contending with, the children and grandchildren and great grandchildren of these immigrants flourished. and not just in material terms. to an extent unprecedented in the history of their people. what i'm saying is that the jewish experience in this country bears eloquent testimony to the infinitely precious virtues of the traditional american system. surely then we jews have an

application to join with its defenders against those who are blind or indifferent or antagonistic to the philosophical principles, the moral values and the socioeconomic institutions on whose health and vitality the traditional american system depends. in 2008, we were faced with a candidate who ran explicitly on the premise that the traditional american system was seriously flawed and in desperate need of radical change. as he said on october 31, 2008, quote, we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the united states of america. and he also had a record powerfully indicating that he would pursue policies dangerous to the security of israel. because of all this, i hoped for a while that my fellow jews would finally break free of the liberalism to which they remained enthralled, long past

the point where it had served either their interest or their ideals, whether as jews or americans. that hope having been so resoundingly dashed on election day, i now grasp for a bit of encouragement from the signs that buyers remorse may be beginning to set in among jews as it also seems to be doing among the independents who voted for obama. and so i'm hoping against hope that the exposure of obama as a false messiah will at last open the eyes of my fellow jews to the coreltive forcity of the political creed that he so perfectly personifies and to which so many of them have for so long been so misguidedly loyal. thank you very much. [applause]

>> before we start the questions and answers, i must tell you that immediately following this presentation at 4:00, mr. podhoretz has a call-in interview with c-span. you can go downstairs to the bus and watch it. so buy a book outside. . then go watch the interview and come get it signed and now come up for questions. >> am i supposed to call people? >> they can come up. >> thank you. it's a pleasure to hear you. and i want to thank you for your -- the stubborn, noble

moral clarity that you have demonstrated. and i find, as you do, a dangerous contradiction in jews of the left supporting regimes that support the very elements that seek to destroy israel as well as the jewish nation. abroad. it seems to me that the position that you're stating, that there's a secular premise that's being getting and they're putting that before the interest of the jewish nation and their religion is extremely relevant. do you think that at some point regimes of the left that is supported so heavily can be stopped? do you see that occurring?

>> well, nothing is forever. and before 1967, the left everywhere in the world, including, the governments like the soviet union, the czech government were pro-israel for one reason or another. and as i pointed out, it all changed -- or began to change in 1967 conceivably something will happen that could -- could provoke another change. i wouldn't bet the ranch on it. but it's not out of the question. but in the meantime, i would recommend -- i mean, i spent a lot of time in this book trying to explain in historical terms how jews have wound up in the position they have. and i begin way back, at least in the mid-19th century. i trace a progression here from a commitment to marxism in its

pure form in the early days to total democracy, democratic socialism as it got watered down as marxism got watered down in this country particularly to the labor movement. and finally with the progressive discrediting of socialism as a socioeconomic system, it morphed into liberalism and from liberalism there's nowhere to go but it's like -- that's it. that's the last stop on the road. the real question is whether most jews will continue holding stubbornly on to their -- to their last resort in the face of mounting empirical evidence and the rational arguments that they have so far resisted. i mean, to the horror of any liberal jews who have dared to

read this book, i compare the liberal religion to the face of tertalism. he had been a roman pagan. he converted to christianity. and when his friends said to him, how can you believe all that nonsense that you're now required to believe? it's absurd. and he said, i believe it because it is absurd. now, if you believe something because it is absurd obviously you're not going to be shaken from that belief by rational argument or empirical evidence. and i actually think the commitment of many american jews to liberalism -- not just the jews has that character which makes it all the more difficult

to shake. i can only say this, jews have a lot of experience with false messiahs. obama is the first non-jewish false messiah jews have had to deal with. but the last one in the late 16th century ended by converting to islam. and he had attracted a following all over the jewish world including many prominent rabbis and learned men. and -- even that was rationalized by some of his followers. but it was such a traumatic shock to most of his other followers that it led to a deep rethinking of all their ideas and attitudes about judaism, about life and about god. i don't suppose that the exposure of obama as a false messiah which seems to be happening before our very eyes.

and as i speak will have that profound effect but maybe it'll start shaking things up a bit. >> thank you. >> thank you for your comments. my question relates to the gold stone report. and i'm wondering what your views are on the responses of the democratic party and administration and the left in general to the -- that report? and the responses of the conservatives and of the republican party to that report. do you feel they are convergent or is there significant and meaningful differences that are important to israel in their responses? >> good question. i mean, being against the gold stone report is a no-brainer. it's so outrageous. so despicable that you have to bend yourself in three pretzels

to defend it. representatives who condemn it overwhelming majority of representatives voted to condemn it. but it's interesting that the only congressman who voted either abstained or voted against condemning it were democrats. there weren't many of them about 30, 35, something like that. it was clear that there was, you know, less enthusiasm about taking it on in liberal circles and even among democratic politicians many whom are afraid of offending their jewish stimps because they still depend on ç as for the administration, we did -- the american representative at the u.n. did, i think, vote against sending the report to the security council. and we would undoubtedly vetoed

the report if it had been brought before the security council. i mean, we may be down but we're not flat as all that to have -- to have gone along with this despicable document. but if you read, as i have, the actual statements made by ambassador rice and a couple of the assistant ambassadors, it's actually quite tepid compared to what, say, the kind of -- the kind of outrage that daniel p. moynihan expressed at the zi zionism racism at the u.n. it's passionate and tough. this is -- it's unbalanced. it won't help the peace process. instead of saying this is a moral and political outrage of the first water, it's sort of -- we're gingerly in dissecting from it. >> you would have liked to have

seen a stronger response? >> oh, absolutely. yeah, i would like to see something comparable to the -- to the response to moynihan who was our ambassador to the u.n. make to the zionism racism -- i mean, the fact that i helped write his speech, it has nothing to do with i -- that i think it was so good. you should understand. >> i am canadian and i'm pleased with our government's response as well. >> harper is a good man. >> i would like to ask with regard to your understanding of conservatism in contrast to liberalism. as apparently they're very central to the thesis of your book, which i've actually just started working on. i would like to ask you to elaborate on your assertion that liberalism seeks to change those values which are most fundamental to america's success

historically when america's success would seem to me to have been built on constructive self-criticism, systemic reform and adaptation. how does resisting change translate into success for a country that has been built on constant reform? >> uh-huh. [applause] >> well, some changes are good. and some changes are bad. it's not self-evident that change is necessarily good. [applause] >> the conservative view, despite what liberals like to believe is not even philosophically opposed to reform or adaptation. on the contrary. the patron saint as you might say of conservatism, edmond burke, was -- formulated the approach the conservatives should take to reform. he was a reformist himself.

but he -- he insisted that any reform be -- that you ensure that any reform is consistent with the fundamental principles of what he calls the english constitution. and that it not in any way undermine the foundation on which the country stands. and that's the position most conservatives take and it's a position i take. the question always is, which reform -- many reforms that i myself supported when i was a misguided leftist -- [laughter] >> like the war on poverty, and some of my friends by the way who fellow neoconservatives who actually helped write the legislation that made up the great society discovered that it had the effects -- the opposite of those that were intended.

it did more harm to the poor than good. in various ways. that's been demonstrated over and over again. so to invoke something like, you know, compassion for the poor or the need to institute reforms when you keep supporting measures that presume or pretend to be favorable to the poor and, in fact, are harmful, you're not -- you're not supporting what i would call reform that's in harmony with the fundamental principles of the american system that i believe, as i said, say again until my dying breath have resulted in more freedom and more prosperity for more of its citizens than any society, any society known to human history, whether past or present. yes, sir.

>> i belong too in that group -- >> i'm sure. i didn't understand you. >> i belong to that group that you refer to universities and -- and people -- >> the mainstream liberal institutions, yeah. >> now, that should be telling you something because as jews i don't think -- i'm more intelligent but we have been reared to analyze and to question and to go for scientific pursuits. jews have been very good at making money and jews have been very good at being academic teachers, stimulating people to question what is going on. .

and i think you shouldn't talk about university people in that way. i think that we should be honored and pleased that the quotas that we had to go through -- or i am from south america. but i went to medical school there. but in those days here, jews couldn't go because there were quotas. >> uh-huh. >> and let me tell you something else, in the last few days, i met with a very good friend who is a professor at another university. and he was saying -- he's from israel. he fought in the 1967 war.

but he didn't fight for the policies that the current government of israel is applying to the west bank. [applause] >> you know, if you read certain sociologists who share your admiration for the universities and my fellow intellectuals, you will find that one of the things they say is that when young people come to college, they have their assumptions and presuppositions, the ones they brought from home shakened up and they learn to look at them critically and this is often applied to both jewish professors and jewish students. but the plain truth of the matter is that most jewish kids nowadays come to college already having liberal ideas and assumptions.

and rather than being taught to question them, they are simply taught how to re-enforce them and how not to entertain any opposition to them. so this much daunted critical spirit, you know, which exists certainly in the bible, you know, yes, abraham argues with god, moses argues with god, jeremiah argues with god, job argues with god. but most academic people or students i know won't even argue with their professors because they agree about everything. [applause] >> i mean, i think -- i think this is demonstrable truths. i went to columbia in 1946. under a 17% quota. nobody admitted that it existed but everybody knew it was 17%. harvard had a bigger one because not being in new york, it wasn't

as afraid being overridden of jews as columbia was. and in those days, the effect that the sociologists that i was referring to ascribed to college education did actually occur. i mean, i was totally transformed by my four years another columbia coming from a slum in brooklyn. i don't see most of the universities have that character any longer. i find them conformists slavishly conformist. intolerant. incapable of entertaining positions on the other side. and dogmatic about their beliefs rather than critical. and i think that's been well documented by studies of the contemporary university.

yes. >> how are you doing, sir? i have two questions for you. i believe abraham lincoln once told us that. a house divided cannot stand. that was recently displayed in black and white in new york with the cycle political division between the republican and the conservative end. two of them became politically helpless. >> who are you talking about? i'm sorry -- >> the election in new york for the congress. >> are you talking about new york 2003? >> yes. >> at the end they became politically helpless and useless. within 24 hours you had the

democratic winner playing an important role. so that's the question on the o-division. the last question to you, just monday, i believe, the prime minister of israel netanyahu made a bold statement that the u.n. made recent displeasure with his, you know, government. in terms of misuse of power. it was horrible. but he went on to tell us that obama almost became a nonfalse prophet. because obama fully supported israel which got to the recent

decision by the uno and it was reacted flatly calling the uno misuse of power.owy so my question to you is, how do you explain those two psychologies that i just gave you. >> the new york 2003 race which i think you're pointing to is an example of division among republicans and conservatives. incidentally there's a recount going on and it may turn out the democrat did not win. we don't know yet. so the whole premise may be false. that so-called division is not as dramatic as it seems. the woman who was nominated by the local county chairman as a republican was almost indistinguishable from a liberal democrat in all the positions she took. and that's why she was challenged.

there was no primary, you see, and there was no chance for there to be a primary challenge to her. she was nominated by what we used to call the bosses in the smoke-filled room. so the challenge that was mounted at the last minute was an expression of the anger of people in that district among other places at the high handedly and arbitrariness of her selection. as for -- i think you're talking about the gold stone report. i'm not sure -- yeah. well, as i said earlier, it's a no-brainer. i mean, the united states did, in fact, condemn it. but i thought it does so in rather weak so as compared with the past. i still think that. and i think that netanyahu is to

paper over if possible the differences that have opened up with the united states since the obama administration took office. as they themselves put it, we want to put some daylight between us and israel. and that daylight, which has been no boon to israel but the prime minister was -- is trying very hard not to let it spread to the point where a possible rupture might ensue. [applause] >> normal podhoretz is a senior fellow with the hudson institute. he also serves as editor-at-large of commentary magazine. he's the author of "my love affair with america: the cautionary tale of a cheerful conservative." for more information, visit hudson.org.

♪ >> did you know you can view book tv programs online? go to booktv.org. type the name of the author, book, or subject into the search area in the upper left-hand corner of the page. select the watch link. now you can view the entire program. ♪ >> you might also explore the recently on book tv box or the featured programs box to find and view recent and featured programs. ♪ >> brian garner is the co-author

of "making your case." mr. garner what's it like to write a book with a supreme court justice. >> first of all, it's an honor. we had quite a few debates as we went along. the reason we wrote the book together is that we have a very similar philosophy of writing. and of advocacy. but when we got into the book we had some disagreements. so there are four debates in the middle of the book which are kind of fun. and we just done the audio book which we did in october. back and forth. i would read a section and he would read a section. and in the sections in which we had disputes, we would have our arguments back and forth. and so it was a lot of fun working with him. i would say he is -- justice scalia is not at all the way the public perceives him to be. in my view, he was surprisingly humble to work with. and he acquiesced a good bit of

the time when we disagreed. >> how did you get hooked up with him? >> originally i was -- i was interviewing all the supreme court justices on their views on advocacy and on writing. and i've written a number of books on the subject. so i invited him to collaborate with me and he accepted. it was as simple as that. >> where are you from? and do you teach also? >> i do teach. i teach around the country. i have a company called law pros. and we do continuing legal education seminars for lawyers around the country. i teach at smu law school as well. but mostly what i do is teaching on the road. teaching lawyers. >> so if a layman picks up this book "making your case," what will they learn? >> they will learn how to persuade and write credibly.

in fact, there have been business people already writing reviews on the book on how it could make them make better business -- help them make better business presentations. and how anyone in any kind of argument can at least be sure that he or she has a cogent, logical argument. that's what the book is all about. >> bryan garner along with justice scalia "making your case: the art of persuading judges." >> here's a look at some upcoming book fairs and festivals over the next few months.

>> please let us know about book fairs and festivals in your area. and we'll add them to our list. email us at book tv@c-span.org. ....

winston churchill, franklin and eleanor roosevelt and the joseph stalin together for eight days in february of 1945 to discuss the organization of post world war ii europe. the center for international affairs at harvard university of