>> and he was the one who taught us that we had to learn to fight. we had to learn our history, to reclaim our history, to know all of you are other ho. -- our history and based on that we could reclaim what we wanted it to be. >> thank you all. >> what a moment. you'll remember this moment. i certainly will. i want to thank all of you for

being here. i want to thank c-span begin. -- c-span again. this is going to be a very special night. i want to thank phyllis bennis, ips, all of our supporting organizations. and each and every one of you for really, you know, keeping busboys and poets alive. thank you very much. have a wonderful evening. [applause] >> phyllis bennis is the director of the new internationalism project at the institute for policy studies. she's also a u.n. advisor on the middle east. busboys and poets in washington hosted this event. to find out more, visit busboysandpoets.com. >> 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 it we had quite a few debates as we went along. the reason we wrote the book together is we had a very similar philosophy of writing. and of advocacy. but when we got in the book we had some agreements. -- greets. -- disagreements. we'd just done the audio book which we read in october back and forth. he would read a section. i would read a section. but in the sections in which we had sections we would have our disputes, we would have our arguments back and forth. it was really fun working with him. i would say -- justice scalia is not the way the public perceives him to be. in my view he was surprisingly humble to work with and he acquiesced quite a bit when i worked with him. >> how did you get hooked up with him?

>> originally 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. and so i invited him to collaborate with me and i accepted. it's as simple as that. >> where are you from and do you teach? >> i teach around the country. i do 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 are they going to learn? >> they will listen how to persuade and speak credibly and write credibly. in those, there have been business people writing reviews of the book how it could make them make better business -- help them make better business presentations.

how anyone in any kind of argument can at least be sure that he or she has 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." >> it is -- it is a lot of fun to be here. it is a lot of fun right now as you can imagine in washington and around the country on the heels of what has been one of the most profoundly important elections that i know i've seen

in my lifetime in massachusetts. and the win of scott brown in taking back the people's seat. [applause] >> as he put it. [applause] >> incredibly, incredibly important. so we're having a lot of fun. and it's -- it is a good space to be in. right now. just as this is a good space to be in. i had the incredible honor of visiting the reagan ranch and to be amongst the things of his life. he and nancy's lives together. and it's just wonderful. it's just a great energy that i get from that and i got from that. and so it's great to be able to share that in the context of his legacy and certainly what it means for us going forward to me is a real honor.

i really appreciate the young america's foundation in inviting me here to be a part of this. andrew is right we spent a lot of time over the years working with the various groups that come in to washington or i visit around the country. it's such profoundly important work. i was in the board room before coming down and i was struck by a little placard un -- you know, nothing fancy about it. it was on the wall and it basically said the young america's foundation is committed to encouraging that young americans understand and are inspired by the ideas of individual freedom, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and traditional values. and that is such a powerful statement. and it is part of the underlying thinking, if you will, that i try to capture in the book right now. a lot of folks in washington are all hyped out about this book. and i don't really understand

why. it speaks to some of the core things that we believe. as conservatives and as republicans. and it speaks to them in the context of reagan. but most importantly in the context of how we regain the trust and the faith of the american people who if you haven't figured out right now aren't too happy with us. [laughter] >> and have had good reason not to be. but that's part of the past. and that's part of, i think, also the process of healing and recovery. and so i took on the idea of the 12 steps because i think it was an important part to get to recovery. so that's kind of the background. and we'll get into a little bit more of it. before i do, i really do want to thank wendy mccall for her sponsorship for her speaker series for 2010. what a wonderful gift to the community and to america to have the voices that have come through here and have shared with you and have broken bread

with you. get out there so people can really see and hear what conservatism is in the 21st century. and some of the things that we face, the challenges and the opportunities. so, wendy -- i know she's not here. but i did really want to thank her publicly for her support of the series and her work with the foundation. certainly to members of the president's club and the rawhide circle, i won't even go there. i had to think about that 'cause i'm from the east coast so rawhide means something completely different. it's usually what's you've had after your mother's done spanking you. [laughter] >> i didn't understand but it works. certainly to ron robinson, the president of the young america's foundation and to andrew who was a great guy this morning in helping for me to get there and to see.

it was rainy and it started to hail and it was just perfect. [laughter] >> it was just perfect. i in the sense thought that president reagan was speaking to me. and just letting you know that the cloudy days may be a part of what you do. but the sun does come out. and when it does, you better be prepared for it. and that is a lot of -- been my experience in public life. dealing with the clouds and the noise and the floods and all the crazy stuff that goes on but knowing that the sun will come out and things will get better. i was always struck by the quote "may you live in interesting times." [laughter] >> and they don't get much more interesting than what i've seen over the past year. and a friend of mine pointed out that was actually a curse. and i could see that. how that could be the case. but the reality of it is living in interesting times enables us and empowers us to do some interesting things.

it allows us to go beyond our comfort zone and go beyond the things we think we know. to explore new avenues and new opportunities. so for this afternoon what i wanted to do was set the tone. since we're living in interesting times i thought it would be important to set the tone a little bit differently with a quote from frederick douglass, who once noted, i glory in conflict that i may here after exalt in victory. now i've always liked that. and i liked it i think primarily because as a roman catholic african-american conservative from washington, d.c. -- [laughter] >> my whole life has been conflict. so i get that part of it. i really do. but today in this hour what conflicts us is not the ups and downs of elections.

but rather the very nature of conservativism in this post-reagan era. what conflicts us is the vision of the conservative movement. its radical nature and the unique challenges and opportunities that come from both conflict and victory. and you've seen that played out in small measure over the last few years. certainly the elections of '06 and '08 and even as recently as '09 in virginia, new jersey and now in massachusetts. but no great thing has been achieved without overcoming obstacles. and no quality is more indispensable than to press through on adversity. in other words, to persevere. so in these very interesting times, where we have to confront conflict in order to obtain victory, we must persevere. we must find a way to make all of it fit and all of it work.

now, the first thing i noticed about perseverance is that it comes more easily to the optimist. as a young man i was struck by ronald reagan's unwavering optimism and sense of hope. for me, that sense of our best days lie before us was captured in the phrase "morning in america." now that was 1984. but i think by now a lot of people feel and have come to believe it's more like lunchtime now or even dinner. in other words, our best days are behind us. the sun is setting. the day is done. as a young african-american male growing up in our nation's capital, such optimism moved me to understand the power of perseverance. the power of perseverance. and to be able to put into focus that we are often touched and

indeed moved to action not by the great figures of history but by those whose names are not written in the history books. the names that don't appear on your nightly news. but the names of individuals who live in our neighborhoods and our communities, indeed, live in our very homes. such is the life of mabel. mabel is just one of many faces in america who struggled to raise a family and believed that she could provide for her kids more than she herself had received. she was one of those many faces who believed in writing the history of this country not in its history books. but instead on the hearts and consciousness on the -- of the individual. of the community. so that the promise of believe great nation would become its truth. she grew up the daughter of sharecroppers. had to quit school when she was in fifth grade to work in the

cotton fields of south carolina. she married a man who abused her both mentally and physically. and he himself would die at the age of 36 from alcoholism. she would go on to work in a laundromat for the next 45 years of her life and the most she ever made was $3.83 an hour. now, despite the hardships that come from limited resources and certainly limited opportunity, mabel had an extraordinary sense of the possible. she did what it took to stimulate the economy of her household. she did what it took to make sure that despite all the hardships, things that needed to be done, raising the kids and providing for the family got done. she made certain, as she put it, that it would be she and not the government would raise her kids. it would be she and not the government who would provide for her family. and she did a pretty good job.

because today her daughter is a very successful pediatrician. and her son stands before you as the chairman of the republican national committee. [applause] >> the power -- the power of a mabel is a mabel that we all witness every single day. and it is why what we fear the most right now, stripping away that power from mabel, that power she feels that she has to raise her kids the way she wants, to provide for her family the way she wants. stripping that away from her is why the fight right now in this country for freedom, opportunity -- the very things that this organization are trying to impress upon young

people to appreciate and understand about free markets and free enterprise and the value of family and community matters. mabel's life embodies perseverance, the struggles and challenges of her time would hold opportunity for her children. and while her story like so many of ours contain many hardships, she also found a way to turn her hopes for her children into action. her desire that tomorrow would be better for us than for her meant more than anything else. she made sure her kids knew the value of hard work both in school and in the workplace. she made sure that we could think for ourselves. she made sure we had a good education. she made sure we knew right from wrong. she had our behinds in church on sunday. and in a classroom on monday morning. she understood the value of america and the future of her kids.

through the remarkable example of her life, my mother was the first person who taught me about fiscal discipline. the value of a dollar. budgeting. and most importantly, how thoughtful investment when coupled with hard work can provide empowerment and opportunity. now, lord knows why those individuals in the united states congress can't figure out what the sharecroppers daughter with a fifth grade education figured out a long time ago. [laughter] >> how to create wealth within a family. how to create wealth within a community. and while her bank account may not have made her rich, she was rich in purpose as every day she found a way to turn her hopes into action. mabel was never discouraged by the trials of the moment because she knew that they would pass. and because she was in it for the long haul. she was going to work it out. and that is the power of perseverance.

i remember as a young boy at 17, 1976, first time i get to vote that november. i turned 18 in october, get to vote in november so back in september, august, i'm trying to decide, okay, do i want to be a republican or a democrat. now, my mom is a democrat. she's a roosevelt democrat. my dad's a democrat. and so she raised me to appreciate that i had a mind that i could go out and learn and decide for myself what i wanted to be. and she pressed me hard on that. don't be a democrat just because i am. don't fall lockstep into a mindset or a way of thinking just because others are. so she instill in me a sense of independence. you wonder why i get in so much trouble in this job, blame mabel. because that independent spirit allowed me to go and discover a man named ronald reagan. and it was his voice i heard in that campaign that sounded so much like the way my mother raised me.

when he talked about an america that would be better. when he talked about opportunities. when he talked about the power that comes from individuals, not from government. so i'd go to my mother and i would say, hey, mom i decided to become a republican. [laughter] >> well, the idea of going out and doing that was great. the actual doing of it, however, was a whole other conversation. which began something like, lord, baby, why do you want to do that? [laughter] >> so even to this day, there's still moments where i think she's trying to recover from that. [laughter] >> and get me back. >> but she understands and she still understands why i did what i did. because of how she raised me and what she passed on. that legacy. and i really appreciate that legacy. more than anything else.

there was a great moment in 2006 when i was running for the united states senate. election night i'm sitting on and we're watching the returns. and it's in all elections it starts out great. we've all been there. you're looking at the numbers. those first precinctszd come in and you're 52-48 and you're like yeah well, the rest of the precincts come in and you're like oh, that's a little bit different. i'm watching all the hard work go. i'm watching the election slip through my figures for the united states senate and my wife is sitting next to÷;ñ me passionately taking this in and once it's clear i'm not going to be the next united s)y- senator from maryland, i turn to her and i go, so what do i do now? spousess have a way of putting things in perspective for you. they are very supportive. and she turned to me and she looked at me and she goes, well, i think you better get a job. [laughter]

>> that's it? and then she got up and left. and there i sat. lost an election. got to get a job. [laughter] >> but what iu;y took out of th moment was something that my mother had taught. and that i learned in listening to reagan. and that my wife brought home to me in a very real way. persevere.h! this too shall pass. get through it. don't be overwhelmed by it. don't let it break you down where you can't get up. and as i reflected on this book -- now i wrote this book actually before the 2008 election really got underway. and -- because of publications and delays and all that of, it

turned out and god works in mysterious ways that i could update it to capture the realities of the 2009 election. but the core of the book really focused on this idea of a party that had been beat down. a party that had lost its way. a party that had fallen away from conservative principles that had defined it for generations but now was faced with an opportunity to move forward. to pick itself up. to know be overwhelmed by the circumstances. ronald reagan understood the importance of connecting to the mabels of america. through themes that inspired us and policies that restored the strength, pride and prosperity of this nation, he did the unthinkable. he helped america embrace conservatism. and the core beliefs of the conservative movement. he made it cool to be a conservative. and that opportunity afforded to him enabled him to then change

the course of this nation. to put it on a pathway in which it appreciated prosperity and opportunity. where it appreciated our role in the world. and our fight for freedom. not just here but abroad. but since then america has changed. and our movement has changed, too. but what we believe has not. what we believe has not. in the words of austin powers, we now have an opportunity to get our mojo back. [laughter] >> to be relevant in this century, in this hour, in this time to engage in the debate of the big ideas and the small ideas. to fight for those principles again in a way that empowers the mabels of the world. because they know there's standing there helping them provide for the next generation. thurgood marshall once said, we

all need to pull ourselves up by our own boot straps but every once in a while it's nice to have someone bend down and help you. and that was what reagan understood. that while wewdñ espouse the principles of freedom and independence, every once in a while it's good to know that someone is going to be there to help you. lift you up. not do it for you. but to show you how. to give you the tools. in the times that we live in right now, what is the cry from the american people? don't do it for us. give us the tools and let us do it for ourselves. so whether it's healthcare. whether it's job creation. whatever it happens to be, the cry that we hear across the land is, we can do this on our own. individually, we're strong. together we're stronger.

but in all of that is not government's job or role to kind of shape that outcome and to create that pathway. i think conservatives now have the opportunity to reaffirm to the american people the core belief that government should be limited so that it never becomes powerful enough to infringe on the rights of the individual. that those tax that is we pay, you know, those little pesky things that come out of your paycheck -- that they be kept low so that individuals might keep more of their hard earned money. that business regulation should business entrepreneurs should take business and growth and to use those regulations to beat businesses into submission. some just talk about change, folks. but what we believe and what we know about the resilience of the american people that will underscore the real change this

nation needs is that it is the individual that will stand america up. it is the individual that will help america prosper. it is the individual that will keep us strong. our work is not done. but in some respects, in many respects, our work begins anew. not in the sense of starting over. but starting with a different perspective. a 21st century perspective. focused on how we will make the hopes of tomorrow a reality today. now, you've heard the mantra. hope is on the way. keep hope alive. hope you have a nice day. [laughter] >> but there comes a point where hope doesn't get it done. there comes a point where action is the core of what must happen. and that action is what worries people. is it government action? or individual action?

and that is the debate that this nation faces right now. and whether you see the results in massachusetts or in virginia and new jersey as an example of the american people answering the question, there are many more opportunities for that question to get answered over the next few years. not in partisan terms. but in truly american terms. what is this great nation all about? what is it strength and where does it come from? it is one of the gifts that ronald reagan, i believe, left us. when he described this nation the way he had as a shining city on a hill. because one of the aspects of that is that the light that emanates from that hill is a powerful light. and the question is where does that light come from? it shines not because of government. but because of our people.

that light emanates from that ill from its people. the difference between prosperity and poverty is not government. it's people. the difference between ownership and control by government is people. not government. and ronald reagan, i think, understood and put that in its precise a context as he possibly could. so like reagan, when i was 17, and today, i put my faith in people. not government. his spirit reminds us that the promise of america is the promise of endless possibilities. and it was that spirit that drew me in to the party that i now chair. it is that spirit that recognizes individuals as the catalyst, the action point, not

government. that i think what future fights over the role and the control of government will be about. the optimism and the hope that emanates from such possibilities, i think, enables us to persevere. and empowers us not to give up on ourselves. and certainly not on this great country. next year our nation will celebrate the centennial of president reagan's birth. between now and then, we have an opportunity to reignite his vision of america. to remind ourselves and the nation that it is morning again in america. a morning bright with possibilities. the morning of the day representing the rest of our lives. as men and women and as a nation. but president reagan said it better ever than i could when he said we can't to quit talking to each other and about each other. and go out and communicate to the world that we may be fewer in numbers than we have ever

been. but we carry the message they are waiting for. this is your time. this is our moment to carry the message america is waiting for to be the light of this great nation once again. to lift up this beacon, this grand, whacky, wonderful experience we call the united states. and do it in a way in which reagan would be proud. certainly we all know that he would expect no less of us. if we are true to his legacy. and of true to what he left behind for us to do today. so right now is our moment. right now is an opportunity for us to be something better, different but very familiar. and that is the test.

are you ready to pass that test? are you ready to do what is necessary to hold that light up once again and show america and show the world it's morning? thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. [applause] >> now, i guess we have some q & a. the fun part of the program. >> my name is lewis and i just want to thank you for coming to visit us. my hope is that we don't celebrate reagan's great deeds but that we celebrate the heart of the man because it was that

humble heart that chopped wood, shoveled manure, cleaned toilets and did not see himself as president of the united states. >> uh-huh. >> and we just won a huge election. and we won it because our people, myself, saw an arrogant democratic party. the reason why we have an arrogant democratic party is because we had an arrogant republican party. so i would love to see how that that is going to change with our party. >> so would i. [laughter] >> but i believe it has. and, you know, the nature of some folks in washington that the way i started to answer that question will be news. because there are those who don't want that change. there's some who like to wallow

in the muck of past accomplishments or what they believe are past accomplishments. and what is oftentimes lost is you've heard this phrase before, the will of the people. but it's a real thing. and you've seen it now expressed very, very loudly in three elections. and my sense of it is that in large measure, many, many republicans and conservatives out there are working towards the same goal. looking back and understanding past mistakes and not dwelling on them and not beating ourselves up to the point where you can't move forward. but understanding that in order to move forward you have to at least acknowledge and accept the role that you may have played in some of the things that we're now confronted with. and the commitment that the american people are looking

for -- i'm sure yourselves as well, okay, are we going to get the same old or is this going to be different? show us how. tell us how. and that is a very unique opportunity and not too many political parties or candidates really get a chance to do that. to go back to the american people and lay bare, you know, how they have misstepped in the past but have a better sense now of what is expected of leadership. that contract with america in 1994 meant something to people. and it still means something today. and when they saw this wholesale laid out in that document, people took it personally. it would be as if your own kid started to reject the very things that you raised them to believe and sort of tried to help them understand and made

the commitment to them and them to you that this is part of our family. so that sense of rejection was very strong. and still is for a lot of folks. my hope and certainly the work that, you know, i try to engage with with the leadership around the country is to understand that and then let's move forward with a different renewed perspective about how we reengage with the american people and i like what i'm seeing so far and certainly in massachusetts, new jersey and virginia and there's some even better opportunities that lie ahead. so hold on to that faith. don't let go of it. but keep everyone honest. because again you don't get second chance often in politics. and i think the american people are giving us an enormous second chance to reengage them.

and we're doing that and it's a good thing. yes, sir. >> mr. steele i too would like you to visit us. my name is robert olson and i'm from an hour and a half up the coast. with the results of the recent elections in both the november and this week i am more optimistic than i have been since probably the 2004 election. and so are many people who think as i do. we're so optimistic that i'm concerned that we have become overconfident and complacent. there are too many people that are already declaring the next congress after the november election as ours. >> right. >> so i guess my question is, what can we all do, both you as the leader of our party and us as the rank-and-file to make sure that we maintain our edge and don't let overconfidence

lead to something that we don't want to see come november? >> that's a good question. as you probably read i got in trouble because i was -- i'm a very -- i mean, mabel raised me to be a very pragmatic guy. very honest i tend to tell people exactly what i think. which i've learned in this job people don't necessarily want you to do. nor do they want to hear it. but, of course, that doesn't stop me. so that's someone else's problem, not mine necessarily. i really believe that this november we will do incredibly well given the candidates that we're beginning to see emerge and who are already leading in races around the country. how that that ultimately ends i don't know. yet. there's still races where individual candidates haven't decided. we don't have, you know, a declared candidate at all. so there are still a lot of factors there.

and that's been my only point is i agree with you. i don't want to put the cart before the horse and make declarations that i can't back up. now, someone told me, well, you're the party chairman. you should be the cheerleader. and i went, no, don't look good in a skirt and the white pants. no, my job as party chairman is to be the leader. and to be honest. and to be thoughtful. and to be deliberate. and to lay out a strategy that will achieve the goals that people want. winning elections. and helping the party regain its footing with the american people. you can't just wipe away what happened in '06 and '08. i mean, that wasn't a repudiation of just normal course. it was an outright rejection by the american people. i know firsthand. i was a candidate in 2006. so i know that firsthand.

so you just just don't get out because people are upset with the democrats and obama and say well, they are going to love us. no. if you've been listening to the american people they're telling you very clear on both your houses. if you do not understand what this is understand what this is about and our frustration and our anger, and if we don't understand that frustration, that anger, and if we don't know what this is about for them, we are doomed to make the same mistakes. and to repeat those mistakes. and that is not something i want us to do. so i'm very excited. i'm working very hard to go out and get good candidates. i have this enormous sense of the opportunity ahead of us. and every day work to achieve the goals in state after state after state of winning election, bringing principled leadership to the front of the room and leading with that.

not running away with it but leading with that and trusting the american people will like what we they see and what they hear. so far we're 3-0. so i think that pragmatic approach works, you know? that smart approach works. doing what is necessary on the ground to lay the groundwork for those candidates to run. to help them take their message directly to the people and not have it filtered through the national media or the local media who have a whole separate agenda. that's part of my responsibilities that i try to uphold every day. and so do forgive me if i'm not out here doing the rah-rah every single moment. i don't think that's what you want. i think what you want is someone who's looking down the road and seeing where the real opportunities are. going towards those opportunities and seizing those opportunities so that we get the win. and if we come out where we've got more at the end of the day than we started, that's good. but the reality is, we're in a

very different ball game than we were two years ago, four years ago. and there's a lot of hard work to getting it done. yes, i want the majority. but when we get it, i want us to keep it. i don't want us to lose it again. >> my name is frank and again thank you for coming. i almost feel like i asked for the mic too soon because you pretty much answered some of the biggest concern i had. >> uh-huh >> i think what happened in massachusetts needs to register with the republicans because they didn't win this. the independents in massachusetts won it. i'm from massachusetts originally. and i know what drives that state. and it certainly isn't the republican policies. [laughter] >> i think it was a wonderful thing that said. -- that happened. and i think you put your finger on something.

the people in this country have said they're not happy with either the democrats or the republicans. and if the republicans behave like they've done in the past, the recent election will have meant nothing. i was reading "the wall street journal" a few days ago, and there was an article in there that talked about how the american people were kind of disgusted with both parties. i think in fact what they are disgusted with is politics. and i think the message i got out of that "wall street journal" article said that the republican party has an opportunity to rally around a central theme. and that is term limits. and getting those people in washington that are professional politicians not interested in what happens to us but what happens to them. the greed and the bipartisanship that doesn't exist anymore. partisan nonsense where 100% of

the party goes in one direction and another party goes in another direction. something is wrong with that philosophically. and you as the republican party have got to hammer that home so that the people that are running under your banner -- and i happen to be a republican by default. i came here from massachusetts and couldn't find a democrat. all i found was socialists and communists. [laughter] >> but i -- i sincerely hope that the message got across from that election in massachusetts. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> there are a number of points that i could start with on that one. [laughter] >> no, i think you're absolutely right. i really do. i think that "the wall street

journal"'s point is a good one. that we do have an opportunity unlike what we've seen and it's not just about term limits. it's about a whole lot of things. starting with, okay, what do you believe in? what are you going to fight for? starting with what are you going to do? what you and believe what you're going to fight for and what you're going to do different from what they are doing. and what they believe needs to be done. and that is for us a unique spot to be in. again i go back to my earlier point. you don't get second chances in this game too often and the american people are looking at us and saying, okay, here's a second chance. show me something different. show me something that i haven't seen before or that i don't expect. because what i've seen up till now is not what i want. from republican leadership.

and i go back to my point that my opportunity as a chairman is to galvanize within the core of the party grassroots, activists, men and women who believe fervently as i do in what this fight is about and why -- what we can do as republicans is part of a broader conservative movement in the country can do and must do. 40% of the american people now self-identify as conservative. that's a big number. in the annual of obama. that's significant. particularly when you go back and look at the results of the '08 election. you would not have thought 40% of the people coming out of '08 are self-identified as conservative. but what happened? they began to see policies unfold. decisions o-gitmo. -- decisions on gitmo and how to deal with the economy, jobs. and they realize, well, i think

i'm a little bit more conservative than i thought i was. 'cause i don't want any of that. so now we have a chance to come in and fill in the blanks based on principles that are foundational. the fact that we believe free markets should be free so that wealth can be created not up here for government but here at the grassroots, so it can be invested and spent and saved by individuals within the community. so that, you know, drew here can go out and build a business and hire my 18-year-old son when he gets done for the academic year. get the brother something to do in the summertime, you know? that's what this is about. and if we lose that momentum that's being generated by the likes of a bob mcdonald in virginia and chris christie in new jersey. we won new jersey for goodness sakes and then you're going to slingshot up to massachusetts. now, be honest, i don't even have to go back a year.

i can go back a month and i bet you 90% of the people in this room would not have predicted tuesday's outcome. and well, it's massachusetts. we're just not going to win. well, it's nice he's trying. god bless him. [laughter] >> but you had a candidate who didn't give up because he believed in something and he brought that something -- those beliefs to the table and he shared it with the people of massachusetts. and he said to them, what they're doing now has not been good for you and what i'm willing to do is two things. one, account. to be accountable as a leader. when i go to washington. and, two, i'm going to washington and i'm taking you with me. very different conversation with the people of massachusetts than the ones they've heard before. that is our moment. we are the party that is not afraid to account. anymore.

we want to be held accountable in our leadership. and when we go lead, we want you with us. because we have our faith in you, the people, not the institutions of government. and i think that's a very powerful argument to make and it's one, i think, getting back to this gentleman's question will allow us to achieve the goal of taking control of the congress. this year. if the people have the faith in us that when we get it, we'll do the right thing with it. yes, sir. right here. oh, right here. >> chairman steele, thank you for being with us again today. i appreciate it my name is chris garcia. i'm a student at pepperdine university. along that same line of communicating with americans and getting them to understand what our principles are, i think that most people here would agree that the republican party historically has a problem communicating our ideas to the american people. i've come up with an idea of

creating something very simple to pitch the american people. something like they call it three rs. number one, you respect everybody no matter what their race, religion, creed and we believe in traditional values and that goes along those lines. number two you're responsible for your actions. and that includes self-accountability, free markets, not relying on the government. and the third r would be reward. if you produce, you're going to be rewarded and that's the american dream and that's what made america strong. what do you have as far as the idea to pitch the american people some kind of a simple even marketing strategy that's going to say, hey, listen, this is what made america strong. the republican party -- we're the party of the american people. >> well, look in that camera 'cause you just did. [laughter] [applause] >> you just did.

what we have to realize, folks, is that i got a title, all right? that's the juice right here. this is it right here. this is -- what are you sitting down for? stand up, man. i'm the chairman don't sit down until the chairman says sit down. [laughter] >> my point is -- my point is we look around and we look to someone else, you know, who's in leadership to lead. and the one lesson that i learned in the course that i've been on since i was a young man and certainly the time that i spent in a monetary as an aug t augustianin. i'm prepared to lead but i'm never afraid to follow. a true leader is someone who's never afraid to follow someone else's idea, someone else's leadership.

because what happens then is people sees that. he's giving over or she's giving over leadership control, control to someone else and is following. and that's very powerful. that's something that reagan did so well. where he recognized in others their ability to lead in this moment. he didn't have all the answers. he never pretended to have all the answers. quite frankly, i don't think he wanted to have all the answers because that leads to something else. something else not very good. he trusted others and their ideas. so the fact that you've stood up is the first step in leadership. the fact that you've laid out some ideas is the second step of leadership. and the third step is your ability to convey to everyone else the validity and the importance of what it is you're trying to do. by your nature, by your youth, by your experience -- all those things come in to play and empower them. to trust you.

because you're willing to step up and step out and say, hey, i've got some ideas. so while i like the ideas and as chairman, yeah, we can do that, the question then becomes how do you then take what you talked about and put it out in a way so that others can follow you, on college campuses in your community, amongst your friends. that's where the opportunity lies. a lot of folks tend to look at young republicans and they go, well, could you come over on saturday and lick some stamps and do some store knocking for us. that's great. and that important work has got to get done. but what i'm saying to you is, you don't have to ask for permission to lead anymore. you're a part of right now. so folks when they say, well, you're the future, no you're not. you're the right now because if we don't recognize right now what you can do in your leadership, we're going to lose. we're not going to regain the strength that we had to lead. because it's your generation that's making a difference in this time. if you don't believe me, how do

you get a barack obama as president? he struck a chord and he inspired a generation of young folks to get engaged for the first time in a long time. now what's happening? the kool-aid is wearing off. [laughter] >> and they're waking up and they're seeing -- wait a minute. unemployment among 20-somethings is at 30%. i can't get a job. the prospects of paying for a college education is dimming. all these realities are beginning to hit home. they've never seen double-digit inflation or unemployment or they have never seen gas lines or the future that we know is past and they're about to confront. and it will be someone like you who will help guide them through it. and that's what i want you to know. that you're already empowered. your ideas -- the fact that you've been able to capacity lies in three rs a way for your generation to begin to appreciate what thisgch grand o party is about will enable you

to have us make this the grand new party. a party that embraces not just its past and the legacies of great men and women like a reagan but its future. in individuals like you. >> that's very encouraging. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> this gentleman here. excuse me.wxñ this gentleman here has put his hand up three times so can we -- help a brother out over here. >> thank you. i have a very simple question. the view from the rnc in front california and our good senator boxer -- >> time for her to go. [applause] >> amen! [applause] >> let me just say that, you know, without revealing a whole lot of strategies here 'cause i know our friends are watching. california is going to be very important to us this year.

and we're very excited about the prospects both at the gubernatorial and the senatorial level. we're excited about the prospects at the congressional level. legislatively. while folks have been focusing on all the crazy noise that comes out of washington about the republican party and who shot john and who's mad at whom and who's picking a fight, we have been very quietly and very methodically building layers and layers of support networks, grassroots organizations and opportunities to be competitive. in a lot of races people don't expect us to be competitive in. not just here in california but across the country. i'm tired of the party, well, we can't win there so we won't play there. and i've told -- i've told the political operations and all the other adjunct departments within the rnc that there are going to be races where everyone is going to scratch their head well, fred, why are you over here in this race. you're not going to win this race? because at some point, ladies

and gentlemen, we have to plant a flag as a party saying we want to compete here even though we know we'll get our clocks cleaned. we're going to lose the race and we will compete here because the people need us to. it's about time we do that. [applause] >> test case, new york, upstate new york. now, while everybody was focused on new york 23, all right, and losing their minds over what happened in new york 23 -- and they should because that was the biggest cluster you know what i've ever seen. it was crazy. should not have happened. should not have happened. but whilelr folks were focused new york 23's congressional district, guess what we did. we won two county executive races. noo big deal. well, the counties are as big as some states. in population. all right? and what it meant was whether it was westchester county where barack obama won with 60% of the vote last year, a republican now runs the county this year.

because we won the election. and so the point is when you go and engage, when you're prepared to compete, when you're prepared to go after the ground, you may not get it right now. you may not get it the next time. but there will come a point where you will. and so whether it's california or new york, wherever it happens to be where we've not been competitive before, our goal now is to be competitive. to get good candidates to run. to support those candidates, to make the investment that's necessary for them to win. now, everyone, as i said before, would not have advised anyone to invest in massachusetts. they wouldn't have advised to invest in new jersey. because well, republicans just don't win there. at some point you have to stop believe the old thinking. and stop doing it the old way. and take the risks necessary to compete. and i'm the chairman who's

prepared to do that. and i get beat up for it throw the rocks and the stones at me. meanwhile, i'm letting my guys and gals go ahead and win. hit me again. go win. keep going. you hit me again. that's the goal here. that's the goal here. is to put ourselves as a party in a position where we could be competitive. and we will be very competitive in california this year. trust me. trust me. [applause] >> well, i thank you all very much. [applause] >> andrew, thank you so much. this has been a lot of fun. i've enjoyed being here. i've enjoyed being in the spirit of reagan.tgx and certainly being at the reagan library last week and to be here at the ranch this week and to be here with all of you does my heart good. and it is so nice to know that so many people still give a damn

about this great country and are willing to fight for it every day. and i'm just honored to be one of the little soldiers that's been picked out and chosen to g down a particular path to do my best to make sure that we can win. thank you so much. and god bless you. and god bless america. ...

>> and increasingly we're using the cloud to store more and

more, not only as consumers, but as businesses, and governments are doing the same thing. >> host: and here you are talking about the issues. why speak to government folk about it? >> guest: well, this is an important part of the future of technology because more and more people are going to be using the cloud, and it raises new questions, questions we many h the industry need to address, but also important questions for government. will the privacy rights of consumers be respected and protected in the cloud? will security be strong in the cloud? as data move across borders, whose law is going to apply? these are important questions that governments need to sort out if all of this technology is going to move forward and really realize its potential. >> host: be the cloud computing is done with servers not located within a person's own personal computer, the current laws that govern information that stays on a server or stays within a personal computer, they don't --

do they not match up to what's needed as far as cloud computing is concerned? >> guest: in some cases there are some important differences. let's say you're keeping documents on your hard disk on your pc in your ped room. if the government -- bedroom. if the government wants to take a look at that, it needs to get a search warrant. the fourth amendment to the constitution says that's what the government has to do. but when you take that same information and you give it to a third party, the courts really have not been clear on whether the fourth amendment applies. in that kind of situation in the past, congress has acted to make clear that even be the constitution didn't protect your rights, a statute did. now we have this new scenario with people storing things in the cloud. it's one of the areas we've highlighted where we think congress needs to act to make sure that the law is here and that the privacy rights of citizens, indeed, remain

protected. >> host: the chief information officer mr. the administration has made a big point about the potential for economic savings for agencies, and i think one of the assumptions here is that cloud computing saves a lot of computing costs. but i'd like to get your sense of why it is more economical. isn't it just another way of remote computing for agencies, or is there something more that makes it possible to get real savings for the governmentsome. >> guest: well, i think in many instances cloud computing can have a number of benefits. you know, for government, for businesses, for consumers, certainly for enterprises, businesses and government that are employing computer resources at large scale. it can create more flexibility, and it can help people save money. i'll give you a simple example. the big e day of the year -- biggest day of the year for americans ordering pizza happens on the the super bowl day. well, dominoes pizza has a lot

of information technology that it uses to record those orders, even to take those orders. it doesn't necessarily want to have to buy those servers every year. so one of the things domino's has done is contract with microsoft so they can get extra technology capacity from us and use it for a day. that's a lot cheaper than using it for a year. now, that's just one scenario, one example, but it cap which cs the flexibility, and that can translate into real savings. not necessarily for everybody or everything, but in an ways in the case of the potential for loss of customers. >> host: without holding up the assets or computing equipment at times crow don't need it. >> guest: exactly. >> host: now, the flip side of that is amazon.com, for example,

has computing capabilities for christmas, but they don't use it all year, so they've been able to take the excess capacity and say it's pretty inexpensive for us to let others compute on our system. there's an example where it sounded like cloud computing is pretty ip expensive. don't we still need to build a lot of facilities, and, therefore, where's the real savings? >> guest: well, you're absolutely right that if you want to get in the cloud computing business which microsoft is in and amazon is in and ibm and google are in, you have to be prepared as a service provider to spend a lot of money. we're building very large data centers, and we're building them around the world. there may be instances where it will be cheaper for a business to continue to have its own computers on site in its own premise. if you're a bank, for example, and you feel that your customers basically use about the same

amount of computing resources every day throughout the year, it might be more economical for them to build that themselves and run that themselves. but you take another customer who has real seasonality, their business goes up or down during the year, take a retailer, you think about what they have to do in november and december, it's way more than what they do in january through october. for them the ability to bring on extra capacity is definitely helpful. and then more generally, we get economies of scale because we're buying so much equipment. we can, perhaps, buy it cheaper, and we may be in a position to pass along some of those savings to customers. >> host: earlier this day the head of the ftc sent a letter to the fcc about cloude said about it. he said, the ability of cloud computing services to collect and centrally store increasing amounts of consumer data combine

with the the ease with which such centrally stored data may be shares with others, create a risk. what does that say to you as someone who is in the cloud computing business? >> guest: i think it says we need clarity and complicity so that consumers and businesses know what's going on. one of the things we've been talking about is the analogy to the truth in lending act, something that congress passed in 1968 so that when we go to banks and we engage in a credit transaction, there are some standards that apply, and the banks have to tell us what the terms of the deal really are. in the same way, i do think we need to get to the point where it's clear for consumers if that they're putting their information online. i think people are entitled, we're all entitled to though, what's the service provider going to do with this information? how are they going to use my documents? if i want to move my documents to another service provider in the future, am i going to be able to do so? and perhaps especially

important, what is the service provider going to do to maintain security so that i have confidence in the cloud? and these are things where we would probably benefit either as an industry or or as a matter of law. if there's a common set of rules that we all comply with, we'll all have our different offerings, but it will be clear what we have to tell consumers and how we make them aware of what's going on. >> host: in some of the speeches that you've made on this topic, you've called for, i guess, maybe some new laws and maybe an updating of some current laws. where does the fine line about making laws and spriewded into the buzz of a day-to-day -- business of a day-to-day business like yours? >> guest: great question. we have laws that basically date back to the mid 1980s, so we're almost 25 years later, and we have this entire internet revolution that has taken place. we need the laws that exist to be uptated.

there's updated. there's some new gaps. and, i think, as much as anything else it's probably right for us as an industry to recognize that everybody's going to benefit, consumers and providers alike. if the law creates some clarity, establishes a level playing field and gives consumers the kind of information consumers are going to want to have in order to feel confident thinking about this as an option. >> host: does everyone benefit equally? would google be equally treated under new laws like h? >> guest: i think everybody who's doing the same thing would be treated the same way. google has some applications that compete with microsoft word and excel, for example. if we're providing e-mail services, if we're hosting documents, then we would all have to follow the same rules of the road. >> host: let's say those rules are put in place. one of the concerns cios have

in addition to basic securityish us shoos, one of the concerns is, all right, let's say i put our data up into a cloud facility, or let's say i need to move it back or move it to another vendor? how do i make sure there's not remnants that are out there that could be used for reasons not intended? >> guest: well, i think that is a key question, and it's absolutely one of the questions that customers should ask. and i think what they should ask is, will my data be portable? expwhrs right. >> guest: can i take it with me? does it continue to belong to me? what are you going to do with it while you have it? those are basic questions that i think are quite rell atlanta -- relevant in this new era. at one company the data long to you, we'll tell you what we're going to do with it so you know about it, and absolutely you should be able to take your data with you us if you don't like our e-mail and you want to move it to somebody else's e-mail, if

you don't want to use microsoft word and you want to use some other product instead. we're committing and have committed to take a number of steps, and i don't think it's the government's role to necessarily tell everybody you must do this particular thing, but i do think it's appropriate to say make clear what you're doing so that everybody knows and everybody can compare and everybody can evaluate it. >> host: and one of the shorter-term thoughts to get us move forward toward cloud computing is the thought of private cloud, has the government would set up their own cloud facilities but be under their greater control. how do you feel about the notion of private clouds, and is that sort of a contradiction to what we've talked about where you do see the economies of that kind of computing? >> guest: unfortunately, it reflects an attribute of the information technology issue. we take a word that everybody

understands and start to use it in a way ha they don't understand. you know, the mouse became a different thing, you know, spam became an e-mail instead of ham. now we've taken the cloud, and we're using it to describe technology, and we make it more complicated by talking about private and public. in essence, it's the ability to segregate part of a data center or maybe even have one's own data center and know that the only thing on those computers are programs and documents and data that belong to you, and it's not going to get, you know, put on the same computer with somebody else's information. if you're a large customer, a bank, a government, if you have information that's very sensitive, a private cloud may make a lot of sense for a lot of different reasons. and i think it's entirely possible that a decade from now this notion of private clouds will become the norm, perhaps one of the most normal things, especially for businesses and government agencies of any real

size. >> host: what type of information is best served by the government putting the data on the clouds? not is it secure information, is it classified information, what level information really works best? >> guest: i think that the whole world is trying to figure that out, and we're still in relatively early days. there are areas where there's seasonality even for the government. the irs is busier in april than it is in october. so there may be areas where the government wants to move its computer resources up and couldn in scale. there are other areas where it may want to get other parts of the government to share information, and a cloud may facilitate that. we may have an area like the national science foundation working with universities across the country, there may be benefits to having certain information go into the cloud. there are other areas where i would think we're not likely to see the government move as quickly.

i would not be an advocate of the navy putting the launch code for the trident nuclear submarines in a data center that is run by a company. you know, there's certain things that the government should probably keep in its own data centers, and we'll work through all of those questions. >> host: as far as security is concerned, what did the recent event in china involving google's g mail teach us? >> guest: even though we as an industry are working hard to improve security, security challenges continue to increase as well. you know, it's a little bit like putting a stronger door many your house and putting a stronger lock on your door, but then realizing that, gee, this is a higher crime neighborhood than i thought it was. and the world as a whole when it comes to computer security has become a higher crime neighborhood than it was a decade ago. and up with of the challenges is is when -- one of the challenges is when you put a lot more

information in a data center, it's easier to increase security, build stronger doors, but these also become bigger targets. they're more inviting targets. and it means two things. it really means we in industry just have to keep doubling down our investment to strengthen security. that's certainly something we're doing at microsoft every day, others are too. it's also another area where we think congress needs to act and the government needs to act. there's some areas in the law where gaps need to be filled. the law needs to be modernized, and we need enforcement agencies to do new things. congress is going to need to give them more or resources, they're going to have to collaborate more closely. >> host: ideally, what would you see, then, as far as the enforcement side of it? who controls it within the branch of government, and what kind of power do they have? >> guest: for the most part, we're likely to see enforcement

authority reside where it does today. we have the fbi, for example, at the national level. we have the justice department, we have u.s. attorneys around the country. but the work that the fbi does a decade from now, five years from now, it's going to have to be larger and more san francisco candidated than it is today -- sophisticated than it is today because the target keeps moving. we as private companies are going to have to keep moving forward as well. i think we're going to continue to do more things to collaborate. we have a crimes unit at microsoft that investigates these kinds of things. we turn information over to the fbi or other government agent sis, we're going to have to continue to work closely in appropriate ways to stay abreast of these problems. >> host: go ahead. >> host: well, i just wanted to point out many people may not appreciate that the government

is already doing some successful work in cloud computing, it's a rapid access computing environment where people can actually sign up for 24 hours of computing time to develop new tools for the military in a controlled cloud-based environment that's been up and running for about a year. and gsa's also doing some work with its usa.gov site. i think what we're seeing, certainly, is early experimentation to test the waters, and i think many should be commended for that effort, but i think the larger efforts still remain of when we go larger scale, how do we address the privacy concerns? i'd be curious of your thought. it's a very sensitive issue, probably one of the ones congress is going to be taking a close look at. you mentioned some transparency in other rule, but let's talk, how do you really assure that the data and the privacy sensitivity's really properly

addressed if third-party handlers are dealing with it? >> guest: i think it's a key issue, and the you're absolutely right, the government is very sophisticated in a number of these areas. fundamentally, i think individuals should think about two things, what are their privacy rights vis-a-vis companies that have their information, and what are their privacy rights vis-a-vis the government, and in particular the government's ability to go get their information from the companies that have it? perhaps without even having to knock on the door of the individual first and let that person know? we have a great, important tradition, you know, privacy is one of the distinctly american values. it goes back to the bill of rights, it has long been protected, and it's always been a challenging issue at least for the last century as technology keeps changing the way that personal information gets used. i think the key thing is for congress to act to keep the law current with technology.

it did a great job in the '80s, it's something that it now needs to come back and do can again. i think the balance was set right for the types of communications that people were focused on this the 1980s which was a lot around the telephone conversations and early experience we mail. but the technology world has changed so much that the law has really become quite antiquated. i think vis-a-vis companies, this is actually an area where the u.s. has not been at the forefront of the law. europe has been at the forefront of the law. and i think as americans we would actually benefit both in our own country for the u.s. to stay abreast and expect and apply clear standards with respect to companies, and we'd all benefit because the u.s. would play a stronger leadership role in the world in terms of coordinating with other governments. our government would have more influence in discussions with european governments, for example, if it had a more current law to which to point. >> host: you raise an

interesting issue there because as we move to either national and in some cases global computing centers, we are now going across borders in which case the rights and restrictions on what can happen with the data in those certains takes on a more global nature. so how do you see that evolving over the future, and will that be an impediment to the development of global computing centers? >> guest: i think unless governments start to act, it is going to become an impediment, and it's starting to become an impediment. if you're in the cloud computing business, it's a catch 22 waiting to happen. for example, you may have one country that says you must keep all of your data records about people's searches for 12 months, and at least 12 months because we want our police to be able to get access to them. you may have another country that says, you better destroy all of that after six months because we care about privacy. well, let's say we have a data

center that's running in ireland, for example, and the irish tell us to destroy the records after six months, but we have the records of italians in ireland, and the italians tell us to keep it for 12. we cannot comply with both laws at the same time. this is where we just have a pressing need for governments to come together. there will come a day, i believe, when we will see, in effect, a free trade agreement for information, for data. but, unfortunately, that's a ways off, and the sooner the u.s. government can get started, the sooner it can get engaged in conversations with other governments the sooner we can start to take bilateral steps, the sooner we'll get to a solution on a more global basis that ultimately would be good to have. >> host: who's got your ear on this, and who are you talking tosome. >> guest: well, it really is for people in the house and senate, especially on the judiciary committees and the commerce

committees. these are the two committees that have traditionally passed laws in these areas. we're certainly engaged in conversations there. the good news is we're starting to have a broader conversation. our biggest point as a company has been to say we need a new national conversation about what this technology means. and, of course, it ultimately leads to capitol hill and the white house, but it needs to start, you know, on main streets and needs to bring in businesses, it needs to bring in consumer groups, it needs to bring in the rest of our industry, and that's what we're starting to do. and i'm very hopeful that out of that we will see the kind of consensus emerge that will encourage congress to act. what we've said is we think congress should consider enacting a cloud computing advancement act. this is an act that would strengthen the privacy laws, fill in the gaps in the security area, address some of these international issues and put the country back where the law is at the forefront of technology rather than, you know, the lagging edge from a quarter of a

century ago. >> host: has any of this topic that you've talked about a case where companies can self-regulate themselves or at least do the policing themselves? i know in come cases because it seems you coming to capitol hill asking for more legislation, it seems counterintuitive. >> guest: i think you raise a really good question, and i have two thoughts about it. first, by any stretch of the imagination we need to be stepping forward, we need to be assuming responsibility as companies and as an industry, we need to be proactive and keep doing that day after day after day. and then you get to the question, what do we need from government? and there's two ways to think about that. first, we definitely need government to fill in the gaps in the law around privacy and security. beyond that there's an interesting question of whether the industry itself feels it would be better off if there were a law at the federal level about something about truth in cloud computing.

usually people in industry say, no thank you. but in this case i think that there's reason to think a little bit more. if we don't get action at the federal level, we'll get action at the state level, and we'll get states with conflicting laws. if we don't get action at the federal level are, we're definitely going to get action in other countries. if be we want to have one law in the united states and we want our own government to be influential around the world on this issue, there's actually a good reason to think harder about the possibility that maybe even people in the industry benefiting from federal action. >> host: mr. kash. >> host: i think one other aspect of this, too, is we look at cloud computing on a couple different levels. it's rented infrastructure, it's services in terms of software, it's a development platform. so one of the questions is the cloud is really made up of sort of many kinds of services. do you feel that an advancement act would be able to cover all the sort of evolutions of cloud

computing services? >> guest: i think that cloud computing advance isment act could do a lot of good if it's put at the right altitude, so to speak, not to analogize to the cloud even further. [laughter] yeah, if the government tries to dictate particular technological approaches, you know, it will enact a law that will work for about two years and then we'll find that technology overtakes it. but if it takes a broader view, if it recognizes that what we're really talking about here is moving information in some cases from your business or your desk, you know, to the cloud and thinks about it in that way, if it focuses on processes like providing cop assumers -- consumers with clear information, i, in fact, think it's possible to write a law that will do a lot of good and avoid the pitfalls that one would confront if one tries to do too much. >> host: what's the ultimate goal then for companies like, you remember the story of the side kick mobile phone. many of it information, all

the -- if you had contacts, it was stored on a cloud computer. that computer lost information. and if i recall, the phone -- is it a microsoft device? >> guest: it was a device that we did have responsibility for. we had acquired it from another company, but it was a problem that we had to solve. >> host: talk about then what happens now, the part of solving that problem so it doesn't happen again. what's going on as far as making sure those kinds of things don't happen? >> guest: there is a whole set of precautions that one needs to build into the technology as a company in this business. you need to have strong protection for security so that other people are not able to hack their way in which was the incident that google recently confronted, obviously. you need to have reliability, you know, so that your own systems are operating in a strong way. you need to be clear with your customers so they know exactly what they're getting. you tell them, are you keeping copies in particular places?

is the service provider? do you want them to keep another copy somewhere? these are all questions one needs to work through as you enter a new technological era and deal with a new kind of computing infrastructure. >> host: is there a legal process then as far as you lost my legality, and can't find it so i need it back? >> guest: there basically is. it's another good example of the need for clarity. whenever you sign up for a service, let's say you sign up for an e-mail service, you'll get this agreement that pops up called your terms of use. it's actually worth reading. [laughter] it's worth printing out and reading on a piece of paper, perhaps, because that should tell you how those kinds of issues are addressed. this is the kind of thing, though, where i think maybe we would all benefit if there is a clear set of principles that tells all what information we should provide. if i analogize to automobiles, none of us ever actually wants

to sew -- see an air bag, but we want to have the exalt to compare whether different cars have air bags and how they work. as long as you get information out in a transparent way, then you can let the consumer reports publications go to work, and they can inform consumers about how different companies are offering different things, and people can make an informed choice about what they, in fact, want to do. >> host: we have time for one more quick question. >> host: well, microsoft is responsible in many ways for people having their own personal experience on computers and servers as well. one of the dilemmas is people don't want to give that up. cloud computing represents kind of taking that and putting their information and control over it in a new place. so how do you kind of envision getting past the sort of cultural inertia of making cloud computing a reality? >> guest: i think you've hit on a point that is really fundamental and that we care

deeply about. the personal computer revolution made computing personal. it democratized technology. it let people decide what they want to use a computer for, how they want to use it, where they want to keep their information, when they want to share it with whom they want to share it. people shouldn't have to give that up. we as an industry should do a good job of creating cloud computing offerings that give people that continuing ability to make choices, to personalize the computing experience. if we don't, then i think consumers should say, wait a second, you know, we're not sure we want to follow you to this new country that you're talking about. certainly we at microsoft are focused on trying to keep the personalization that technology has created over the last 25 years and take it with us. it also means, by the way, that it's not just about the cloud, it's about smart clients, and it's about giving people the ability to make their own decisions. just because it's there as a new option doesn't mean that