>> they began to use the term "conservative" for so many different things. and many cases conservative was used by the left as a slur for a lot of angry political slogans. that conservatives are bad. they're greedy people. they're for big corporations. all these angry leftists who use it as an almost anger-provoked ideology.

and it's not -- conservatism is not provoked by anger. it's not some angry group of people who are out there to promote big corporations or big business. conservatives are about very easy to understand ideas. strong principles. and strong values that translate into equally strong and equally valuable moles and that's what my book is about. my book is about -- my book is about four basic principles. respect for the constitution and the rule of law in general. not just the idea that the constitution is a good document and that it's great for america. both sides believe. what we as conservatives believe and it's unique and the constitution of the united states is important. to the preservation of our society. the way that it is today. and preservation of a good society, a good valued moral society. and i can talk about that more at length later. second thing is respect for human life. the dignity of human life. and i get all the time from the left, oh, he's just trying to

provoke people for -- about the abortion issue. that's not what it's about. really, the way you view life in general, what's the purpose of life? what is the value of life? how do we value life? what is life itself? is really something that is the epitome of one's ideology. and it really shows what you believe as an individual. whether you respect life as a right on the individual or you respect life as a state of being hagle said, as george hagle said. it really is the basis and it really comes from the basis of your own ideology. and i'll talk a little bit more at length later. the other thing is limited government or minimalist government. limited government -- and this is the other myth that the left has. that limited government means no government to conservatives. we don't want any government interference. that's an absolute lie. as a conservative and i get a lot of flak from this from a lot of people. i actually do believe that

there's a necessity for the federal reserve, for instance. i don't believe we need to abolish the system. that's absolutely absurd. we already have a system that's worked for a long time. we don't need to change it and then just throw everything out the wind and start a-new. there are changes yes that need to be made in the federal reserve and we can talk about those when i do the question and angeles session. -- answer session. the federal reserve is an important part of the regulation sector. and yes they need regulation of the private business sector because we need enforce the ability of competition and the businesses no the to cheat other people out of their money. and there's so many different ways that we can do it. not just mainly federal regulation like the federal reserve. another thing is personal responsibility and individualism. that's something i believe in wholeheartedly. personal responsibility and individualism really stems from that idea of inherit rights.

i'm about to get to that in a moment. the individual's personal responsibility, the responsibility for their own self really ties into the idea of limited government. if the government is limited, then the people need to take more responsibility for their own actions. if, for example, as some people, excuse me, especially on my side of the aisle suggest that we cut more welfare programs, then more people need to be responsible to get the money they were getting from the welfare programs to pay for their family, to fund their family and to fund their open lives. so, for example, so people need to be more responsible in their own actions. the less government is responsible for their actions, the more they need to be more responsible for their actions. and the government is responsible for creating jobs, the more the private sector needs to create all those jobs. so personal responsibility is tied into that. now, i mentioned itself go back one of the things at the very beginning. one of the things i would like

to remention, revisit, is this idea human life in the abortion issue. and how human life translate to your whole ideology. now, the way that i see it, human life -- if human life is seen as a right of the individual, then that translate back into your idea of the rule of law. that all individuals are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and if they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that means the government doesn't have the ability to take those rights hooper in other words, that translate into the idea that there is a natural law, that there is a natural standard of society that is not manmade or it's not given by the government but given by god. that this is an inherently natural and independent of government. and that all individuals have these rights to begin with. they're not given. they can't be taken away. and in that manner, we get the idea of life as a -- as an inherent right. and those people that believe,

as i do, that life begins at conception. or in most cases, in all cases, that life itself is an inherent right of all individuals no matter their age, no matter where they're from. now, the idea of life as an inherent right is the other -- the importance of understanding what that means. what it means is that life cannot be taken away no matter what stage you're at. and we see this debate in a lot of cases on the national level in healthcare. and especially in other countries. not as much in america but in a lot of other countries. for example, there was an article in "newsweek" called the case for killing granny. now, first of all the reason i don't want to kill granny is because i don't want to kill my grandmother. the other reason i don't want to kill granny and sofistcally and logically and morally it's completely unethical to take somebody's life away for -- as the author of that article made

the case for the, quote, economic benefit of society. that's not what we're aiming at. that's not what we believe as americans. if that is, then i must have been left off the ship. but as americans i believe he believes the declaration of independence believes that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is part of them. killing granny to save money on healthcare and which is what the author's case was, is not the best way to save money. it's not the best way to preserve those rights. and for that reason you then get people on the left, especially on the extreme left such as george hagle that life, quote, is something essentially alive. life is essentially something alive. it doesn't make much sense of us. it's simply a state of being. that you are here and you are

living because you are. and then in order to fill that void that you're just here, government comes in and government makes the value for your life. that government is here to make life better for you. government is there to make you more responsible. the next method i'd like to talk about -- and this is one thing i want to clear up about my book. i mentioned -- i go into a little detail about this. limited government is not just ditching government all together. it's not. first and foremost, government is necessary to preserve the peace at the most basic levels. government is there to preserve the peace. government is there for the common defense. government is there for the general welfare. government is there to make sure things run smoothly and that we can all live prosperously in the greatest country of the world. that's why we have a form of government and that's why wave constitution to make sure that government doesn't go beyond certain boundaries. but the problem is that there

are people, especially, on the far left and especially on the left, who believe as karl marx is a changing crystal. that everything must change. and if society changes then our view of society must change. thus, the laws must change. and thus, the way the law is today, that a constitutional standard must become a living standard. then we get into holmesian thought that the basis of the law is experience not logic. so if we have this idea of -- or as holmes said and as president obama has said that we need to base the law on empathy. that we need to base our legislative standards towards being empathetic to each other and in a given courtroom then we get to legal relativism and as

lex rex as salmonellaual rutherford said but that the king is law. rex lex. therefore you have the two opposing views. the conservative view that law itself is king above the government. or the view that a government is king and above the law. which one of those do we really believe in in america? in my book i make the case that law is king. we in america believe that the constitution is above the government. that the constitution is under certain standards and certain limitations. in countries such as sweden or france, or in other countries where they've taken on a more positivistic or relative standard of the law, it seems to be rex lex, the king is law. the government is the king. the government is the law of the land. whatever the government says, it goes. there's no checks and balances for government. the law is what it is. in my book i make the case that

though the conservative believes that a law is a necessity and that a law itself and the rule of law is good, it does not mean that the conservative at the same time believes that all laws are good. thus, we make the case and i make this case in my book that law itself is to be based on certain values and certain principles, which are outlined in the constitution. and i will -- we can talk more about this in the question/answer session. so now i've dissolved the myth that conservatives really don't believe in this view that government should be abolished and that we should run away from what we have today and there should be no laws, whatsoever, for the private sector -- that's a myth. that's a total lie. that's absolutely -- that's absolutely nonsense. but it comes to what conservatives believe abolishing certain aspects, that's through for example, there's absolutely

insanity going on in washington right now. especially on one count, jobs. let me just clear up this myth. there are so many people out there who are saying president obama have saved a lot of jobs with the stimulus package or that he will create more jobs or that he will save all these jobs and create another stimulus package and he'll save the jobs. the stimulus package was to prevent the unemployment at 8%. now it's up to 9%. that's a lot of people out of work. on a more policy oriented level. is that president obama idea of creating and saving jobs are creating these temporary worker jobs such as the $8 billion light rail program in central florida. now, let me just tell you th pgram in central florida. a few things.

first and foremost, the light rail program goes from tampa to orlando. okay. let's just get this straight. if you're going to be communing to tampa to orlando every day, generally it's -- first of all, it's not long island to new york city. it's not that same kind of population. florida is florida. it's not -- it's totally different demographic from traveling from orlando to new york. that's pretty much a straight line. and the majority of the people that are going to be -- that are going to be working to orlando, going to tampa or orlando they will have a house or a condo where they will stay but the most important part of this is that no light rail system in history has ever paid itself off. the new york subway systems have come the closest. no viable light rail system has ever paid itself off. i live in atlanta, georgia. we have this system, it's absolute insanity. i know people who go on there. my dad, for example, goes on there every day.

but the majority of people commuting from metro atlanta to atlanta do not use light rail partially because we're americans and we like to use cars. we don't like to climb onto little trains and travel every day to work. the other thing is, logistically, americans -- it's in a lot of cases it's even better to travel by car. believe light rail system is going down the center of the highway from tampa to orlando. they say that it's going to create an easier way to get to work. you want to create a better way to get to work. create more lanes of traffic, okay? and the other thing is, the jobs they are creating with some of these programs like the light rail system, for example, are temporary jobs. so everybody they employ is going to be out of work in a few months. or if these programs go on as long as light rail systems should normally take after about a year. so there's -- it's absolute insanity.

a, they're pushing money down a hole that's never going to come back. it's always going to -- it's never going to break even. hardly ever light rail system has ever broke even. and secondly, it's going to be bad logistically. and thirdly, it's not going to create any jobs. it's not going to save any jobs. it's going to create a system that just -- that takes a few people into work for a little bit and dumps them out into the unemployed. if that's the kind of saved jobs we have in washington, that's not what i want to see. that's not what conservatives want to see. when we talk about limited government as conservatives we talk about not having these stupid light rail programs funded by the government. the private sector will build them. if there's a place to make a profit, the private sector will build them. that's just how it works. so that's another myth about conservatives. we don't believe to abolish government. we believe that there's a necessity for government.

but there is just a line between necessary government and insanity. and that's the line conservatives want to draw. the next myth i want to kind of just throw out there and just kind of kick around for a little bit is of this myth that conservatives want to just destroy -- conservatives want to destroy the poor. the conservatives are not -- they're not for the middle class world for the wealthy, for the evil bankers. let me tell you something, the evil bankers as they've been called -- these people -- i've talked to them. they're out there to -- they want to make a profit. is that such a bad thing? 'cause if they make a profit then their company makes a profit in turn and then they can employ more people and that's a bad thing because we don't want people -- more people being employed.

we don't want to compete with china -- competing with china who had just a 10.7% gdp gain. we don't want to compete with that 'cause we want to get people -- 'cause we want to penalize the evil banker with the bank fee. i think we've penalized them enough. i think we penalized them enough by giving them all these bank loans that they can't pay them back and when they pay them back, they will be piled back with more daxes. -- taxes. when conservatives talk about preferring business over government, it's that businesses have a vested interest new the consumer. if you are going to a business such as this fine establishment book review, book review has the interest of getting you to buy their books. if the government were to run it, they don't need you to buy their books because the government isn't relying on your profit. they're relying on your taxes. so, therefore, it's a totally -- it's a totally different go-around.

the government's job or at least it should be is to protect the people. to protect them to make sure that they can make a profit. the job of a business is to make sure that every individual is happy with their product and to make sure that each individual is able to succeed. that's generally what the business -- that generally is what the business model is. make a profit by making people happy with what you get. so once again the conservative role -- the conservatives' perspective on the individual and on the business is not this idea of preferring businesses run the world. it's this idea that businesses -- especially small businesses, which have a vested interest in making a profit by pleasing you the consumer thereby having a vested interest in what you want, thereby having a vested interest new the individual, have a better perspective than the government when it comes to the financial

sector. the other part of that is who employs people? well, the government just employed -- if i'm is not mistaken more than 1 million people this year. they went, i think, .5 million people more this year employed by the government. that's a lot of people. okay? even if it was 500,000 people employed by the government, that's a lot of people employed by one thing. by one entity. and the fact of the matter is, do we need all those jobs? do we need to be spending all that money in a period when we're in an extraordinary deficit period? and one of the great examples of this -- a great example of why conservatives believe in business over -- business over government when it comes to financial prosperity. is president obama's plan to get small businesses back in running. i don't know if you guys listened to the state of the union address.

but president obama made the comment that part of his jobs program is to take the money the bank have paid back and give them to lenders so they can lend them to small businesses. okay. let's just think about that for a moment. what should you do with the money you get back. pay off your debt. if you go home today, if you have mortgaged your house or if you have -- if you are -- let's say you have your credit card debt, what's the first thing you pay off with your money? you pay off with the debt you have. you don't go creating new ones. or you don't go lend it out. you make sure you settle your own estate. that's what we should be doing with the money we're getting back. we go pay off the debt we already have instead of creating new programs. and then having more debt eventually. and maybe not ever getting the money back, maybe getting the money back. it depends. so that's another -- that's just another point about why the government is not the best person for the -- the best role -- the best role-player in the financial sector.

the next thing i want to make the case about is why my book is important to americans today. why i think conservatism in general is important and why defining conservatism is important. the reason you have to define conservatism is because it becomes such an ambiguous term. it's almost as ambiguous as the term progressive or liberal. a lot of people don't understand what these ideological term means. they throw them out and they become so overused. the reason conservatism is important to modern america, first of all, it's making a comeback. that's the tea party movement. they consider themselves independent or tea party values. but generally the majority of the people in tea party movement are self-proclaimed conservatives or by their values conservatives. and conservatism is important to modern america because it has -- it has for a long time made a great difference in not only in

american politics but in the way that americans prosper in the future. i believe that ronald reagan's fabulous leadership in the economic crisis of '80 and '81 first of all got a lot of americans back to work. it lowered taxes for many americans. it helped end the cold war in russia all at the same time. i think that's a pretty good accomplishment. conservatism did a great job in the '80s. it's done great jobs throughout history. and we can talk about those later. but nonetheless i think that conservatism is important now. because while we have big government in washington spending $8 billion in hallelujah systems where they will not pay themselves off we have conservatives such as myself saying wait a minute. we don't need to be doing that. we need to be protecting this country from our enemies foreign and domestic. we need to be focusing on our national defense first and foremost. we need to be focusing on education. on competing with china. a recent survey by an international research firm made the case that, you know, what?

if americans increase their education scores by, i think, it was 25%, on average, we can boost our gdp in 80 years by $42 trillion over 80 years. that's a lot of money. now, logistically it's not $42 trillion cumulatively. but the $42 trillion it's a lot of money to increase the gdp. and i believe that if we increase our education standards by a good number over the next few years, we'll be able to have large competition with china. we'll be able to have viable competition with the chinese. and india. so that's why i think conservatism is important. because conservatives have values that will solve the problems that america faces today. and the final thing is why do i think americans should buy my book?

why do you think i should buy my book? first and foremost because i think the average american needs to know more about conservative values. as conservative solutions are coming forward and conservative views are coming forward, i don't want you, the -- i don't want you guys to get caught up in all the hubbub of, well, conservatives are just doing this for the big banks. or the same thing for liberals that liberals are doing it just to get votes or any of that. i want you to really understands what it means to be a conservative, what it means to be a leftist. what it means what all these ideologically this means. i would like to open it up for questions now. so -- [inaudible]

>> okay, go ahead. >> do you have an idea on a candidate, a republican candidate for the next selection? -- election? >> for the next election? >> yes. >> oh? i think we need a candidate like governor mitch daniels of indiana who has a 60-something approval rating in a purple state mixed between republican and democrat state indiana which is more general to the right. but nevertheless, 60-something percent in indiana is very good. he has very high ratings because unlike some people in the party and -- i think this is true for a lot of them.

sarah palin is one of them. who believes that conservatism -- the only way we can create a good -- we can get a good candidate is if we create this strong ideologically barrier that prohibits a lot of people in the middle, the independents, from supporting us. and we can't do that. the fact of the summary was in new jersey, just nearby, the candidate that they ran -- i met chris christie, great guy. he was not mr. conservative. he was not the most conservative guy in the world. in fact, chris daggat, the independent in the race, took a lot of votes away from chris christie. and honestly, that's why he was -- that's why he was -- that's why he was tied with the then-incumbent governor of new jersey. because this independent candidate was taking 11% of the votes in the poll. and he was campaigning as the conservative. so part of the problem is we

can't -- we don't need to find a candidate that campaigns sincerely as creating an ideological bearer but who is at the same time able to get the independent vote in because he's able to appeal to them. that's what mitch daniels did in indiana and newt gingrich did in 94. that's what ronald reagan did and he was able to get the blue dog democrats and that's why reagan won so handily against carter. so i think that somebody like mitch daniels from indiana would be the perfect candidate. anybody else? >> i have a question about your views towards -- not necessarily the money being spent, stimulus money being spent on public transportation. but just in transportation in general. you suggested that as opposed to building a light rail system between the cities of tampa and orlando, you suggested that the

government should expand lanes. but from what i took of that would be to build more roads. in order to build roads in certain metropolitan areas, you would potentially have to acquire land in order to do so, which in some cases would mean eminent domain, correct. in a city like washington, d.c. write used to live, the population expanding is ever-growing rate, one because of expansion and because of the private businesses in the suburbs, northern virginia and maryland. in an area like washington, d.c., for example, they are expanding the metro. out in northern virginia and then they are expanding the metro in the maryland suburbs. from what i gathered you would be against that due to your idea that public transportation has not yet paid for itself? >> it's a fact. public transportation in general -- now, there is one i will say that has really done a fine job when it comes to public transportation.

if i may say this, this isn't technically public transit, amtrak which has been federally subsidized. it too is not doing very well but the route from d.c. to new york is doing quite fine because, a, it's -- it's not a, heavily federally subsidized and more privately owned by amtrak and b, because people use it. >> my thought with eminent domain, my thought on eminent domain. do you support that idea and if that, in fact, is a government takeover by public land. >> that's a great question. i have a whole section on eminent domain and different court cases addressing eminent domain issue. there are two interpretations of eminent domain. there is the more positivist argument, the more legal positivist argument for eminent domain, which is that the government has the right in all

cases for eminent domain. and then there is the -- the conservative view on kelo versus new london. which is -- and after kelo, there really -- this was very polarized. and the debate became even hotter after kelo versus new london because there were the conservatives who supported the new london residents, kelo who said if we don't want to give up our land we don't have to and there were the people who were supporting the new london, the positivists, the relativists who believed the way the constitution was to be interpreted is that the government should have the right to take over your land at any time for any reason. now, the -- in my opinion, yes, eminent domain is in the constitution. there are necessities for eminent domain. there are some necessities for eminent domain that we can make a case for.

now, personally i don't think light rail is one of them. but the way eminent domain is written in the constitution, it is that you are giving a compensation so that it's a changing of wealth. it's not a government owning your wealth to begin with. i personally don't agree with the idea of eminent domain as it now stands and as it is now -- as it now stands in -- as it now stands in modern legal interpretation. the idea of -- the government has the right to take over your land at any time at any place which is a common legal interpretation by a lot of people in mainstream legal thought. and especially those embracing holmesian legal thought. so it really is a matter of your interpretation of eminent domain, whether you interpret it in a traditional constitutional interpretation as read through the eyes of the -- through the eyes of the constitutional framers. if you read the minnesota constitution by james madison. which is that it is supposed to

be an exchange of wealth. the government doesn't already own your house to begin with. it's an exchange of you exchanging for a fair sum of money with the government. and that it should be used for real public necessity, not public transit. but it's something that would benefit the public. and really, i think, the case for -- i think there needs to be stricter limitations on the government's ability to take over your land for the public good, which is in the constitution. we need to really define what public goods mean. it does mean -- it is projected to make a profit of "x" amount of dollars. or does it mean it's good for five people? what does that mean? and i think personally public transit, which doesn't make a profit at all is not technically in the public good. but -- >> so do you regard roads as public transit then? >> when i talk about public transit, i'm -- well, roads actually do make a profit -- actually benefit the majority of people. depending on where they are. now the bridge to nowhere, for

example, in alaska is not something that benefits a number of people. maybe we need to have a stricter legal interpretation of public good as something that benefits, i don't know -- it needs -- there are -- there should be more limitations, i think, on the turnpike -- >> you support eminent domain for the creation of roads? >> i mean, it's constitutional. but in the original constitutional way it was written, it was not meant to be the same way that it's being interpreted so often now. look, if you're going to aim at the whole -- that big highway debate that they're trying to create. that people are saying there's a big highway that's going to be created from mexico to canada and all that. if that's what you're aiming at, there are some people who do that. and i've had that question before. and, look, there are certain places where roads -- it's necessary to have eminent domain. because there's no other way -- there's no other way to build the road. i mean, there's just no other way to do it.

so do i completely believe that eminent domain is unnecessary? no. but do i think it's always necessary? absolutely not. like you said, the metro. building the metro, expanding it -- the metro is fine the way it is. you want to make profit off it, you want somebody to make an actual profit of it, start selling it off to private businesses. i think that you should really privatize a lot of these systems because then they'll start making a profit because you can really publicize them. and we have the same debate in atlanta with marta and the hartsville jackson international airport as well. hartsville jackson international airport in the hands of the government -- it makes a profit. but honestly if you had a private business running the airport it can make a lot more profit. because they're able to do a lot more with it that the government can't do. so my personal opinion is eminent domain necessary? yes. not in every case. not in every case where you can build the road in other cases. so i'm not totally disregarding eminent domain. i'm not going to totally do that.

[inaudible] >> do you think that with the november election coming up things can change very drastically? >> no. i think they can. do i think they will? i think they will. but here's the problem, and the main problem the conservatives will be facing in november is the fact that there are some people on the far right -- there are some people that don't want the conservatives and the tea party movement to become part of the republican party. well, that's a very small majority. look, do i think they will? i think they will? i think they'll make big gains in congress. i think we have a very good chance of winning seats such as harry reid's nevada's seat and winning illinois and i think there's a fine chance of beating barbara boxer in california.

there are a lot of seats that can be won back for the republican party that we have a good chance that we didn't have a chance a long time ago. see massachusetts. i think the republicans will make a big comeback and this is what was trying to get at a moment ago. the problem is will they really focus on conservative values? and what the people want -- what people want to know? such as the roadmap for america that's being supported by a number of budget hawks and talk about issues that the american people want to address? are we going to try to appeal to the -- are we going to try and do what we tried to do last year and really go all over the board and tried to find our voice. we already know what the american people want to hear. they want to hear conservative values. they want to hear -- they want to hear things that create jobs. that's the main thing. they want to hear things that cut the deficit. they want to hear -- they don't want to hear healthcare. they want to hear things that

benefit them on their everyday life level. and frankly there's some conservatives that aren't addressing that. they're thinking they can just say i'm a conservative and they can win. but i think in the grand majority the republican party is doing a fine job. and i think that in november, we'll probably be -- we have the chance of winning back the house. i don't think we will win it back entirely. but i think we'll get very close to having a full majority. [inaudible] >> if the republicans do have the majority, does pelosi have to stay there? >> oh, no, no, no. the speaker of the house is always elected by the majority. in each new congress. so nancy pelosi would be out -- would not be able to be speaker again unless the democratic party has a majority, then she will be re-elected. yes. >> i agree that two parties are good because i don't believe really we have a government now and that's why the people are the only hope now.

the tea parties are really the only hope for america. but do you think like a third-party is dangerous because if you have a third-party, it would only strengthen the democrats? >> oh, absolutely. i think the third-party is dangerous. absolutely. 100%. because that's what i was saying about in noonl. -- new jersey. chris daggat with 11% of the polls was having chris christie sweating bullets. he had no chance of winning, whatsoever. because he was being -- he was really being a kind of pushover and just staying in the race for too long. you want to win an election. the closest thing to winning the election. you support the republican candidate who actually has a chance of winning. and you get out of the race if you lose the nomination. [inaudible] >> exactly right. and the majority of the people i talk to in the tea parties don't want it to be bigger than the republican party.

they tell me every time i talk to them anybody who's in the conservative movement -- there's about 10% maybe less maybe more fringe movement in the tea party. the vast majority, the strong majority of them believe that the republican party needs to become more conservative. and they will support those candidates. not hardly any of them will support a tea party candidate. >> i was just wondering if you had any goals right now aside from being 14. do you have any goals? >> well, of course, i'm working on future books. that's something i've continued to like to do. the book is presently at this time -- i don't know when this will air on c-span2. today as of february 11th it's the fourth bestselling conservative book in the nation. and the third bestselling conservative author in the country. i would like to write more books. i would like to write more books

not just like this but philosophical books and policy books and to address issues in a greater depth such as eminent domain. i would like to do more of that kind of stuff. i really enjoy that. of course, i'd like to go to college and get that, too. out of the way. but i'd also like to maybe eventually have a radio show or a television show or something where i can share my views physically with people all over the world and have people on who i don't necessarily agree with so i can debate them and i can have a conversation just like i'm having today. because i enjoy hearing people's views and be able to address policy issues and that's one of the problems i have with being my own age. a lot of people think, oh, you need to address this issue 'cause you're a 14-year-old and you can't talk about this. i can talk about just any issue and i have a strong opinion everything from education to light rail to eminent domain to whatever you want to talk about i will have an opinion on it.

so honestly i have a lot of things i'd like to do. i have a lot of projects i've been working. a lot of things that will hit the ceiling, too. we'll see what happens. another question. >> i just want to know your opinion and maybe you can give us your thoughts on why you think president obama was elected in 2008 -- what were the reasons that you feel he was elected over senator mccain and governor palin. what made him better in the eyes of the people who elected him? >> well, i don't know if -- well, it was certainly 'cause he was the better -- the better candidate. not because he was the better person when it came to his policies. but he was certainly a better candidate, 100%. and i'll tell you why. first and foremost he was abdicating for change from the old white male. he ran an ad -- it was called --

i think it was called "out of touch" that's the name of the ad saying john mccain is out of touch. he's just like push. -- bush. he's a member of a country club. you know, all country club people are bad, right? and so he's a member of a country club. he rides a golf cart. and he's a bad man. john mccain is just like bush. he's the, quote-unquote, old white male. that's what the republican party was seen as. he did a great job hammering that message in and saying at the same time that, well, i am the new guy, the fresh face, good night who's only been in the senate for less than two years and i'm going to come in and change washington for the better. and he didn't say for the better. he always said a change you can believe in. change can be interpreted as progress or it can be it could be change for the worse. and he used the word "change." which he has really changed a lot of things. and he's changed his own views on a lot of things such as national defense.

he thought he could take everybody out of afghanistan and iraq. and he was not able to do that because bob gates and others said you know what? that's so naive. you're not going to be able to take people out of those countries without winning the war first. so the reason he was a better candidate is because -- he was a better speaker. much better charisma. and he really was able to appeal to people's emotions on how washington is. even people who generally might not vote democrat or might not vote at all such as a lot of college students. were mesmerized by him. they heard him say he was going to change washington to being the old white male to the younger fresher face and to be a new kind of voice for the people. and that's what appealed to people. that he was going to change things. and what else appealed to people he wasn't republican. and people were tired of president bush and they were tired of the republican party. and they wanted -- they wanted to give something else a try.

and i think that they really started to believe in -- in the idea that if we can have healthcare, if we can have healthcare for everybody if we can have a stimulus package that's completely and utterly comprehensive, if we can have cap-and-trade, if, if, if, all these ifs that he was saying then we can have a better world. then we can have a better country. lk to iran, then we can have peace. and they heard him saying he's going to change the policies today to create a whole new kind of ideology and a whole new style in washington. and i think it was really that message for changing from the ways things used to be to creating a new kind of idea that appealed to people. any other questions? great. that's about i so all right. thank you so much. don't forget to buy my book. and i'll be signing some over there. thank you. [applause] >> john krohn is a columnist,

speaker and political analyst. he writes for human events and has been seen "the today show" and fox newschannel. for more information, visit definingconservatismbook.com. >> well, joining us now is richard wieler and he's the author of "chasing normality" and he joins us from lincoln, nebraska. mr. weiler, why did you call your book "chasing normality" >> i've been coming up with a title one time and one night in bed thinking, well, that's what my life has been is being a chasing normality. i think it may be fairly common in post-polio people. we alws try and strive to live normal lives. >> and were you able to do so? have you done so?

>> it's a process. and i think i've done so to a point but lately i've had some more physical problems which have made it impossible to live the life i had lived. >> well, plaintiff wieler. what happened? >> i got polio at 15 just before the shots became available. so i struggled to get through high school thanks to the superintendent of county schools, i started in college living with my uncle because he said no one would give me a chance unless i can prove that i can do it. and then so i spent a year in south dakota doing that. and then missouri and they started a program for handicap students. and i was accepted there.

law school had always been kind of a dream because that the original rehab hospital for lawyers, they seemed like they had something going -- going for them. they wanted to continue their normal lives. and that's what i wanted. so i applied for law school and got accepted. how i ever got through, it was a different era back then. they invited a bunch of people in and try to weed you out. >> what was it like to be in a wheelchair during law school in the 1960s? >> it was interesting. thank goodness the law school at the university of missouri didn't have that many steps. the only room i couldn't get into was the trial practice room.

but there were no aids, there were very few people and you depended on people. people were always picking me up and pushing me to the next class. one good thing about being in a wheelchair is i might have been conspicuous but i don't think the professors didn't want to call on me. so my theory was the hang low. >> and what does that mean? >> that means keep your head down, keep writing notes and try not to get called on because the socratic method was rather brutal in the '60s. >> let's go back just a little bit, mr. wieler. what happened at age 15 to you? >> i woke up one day with a severe headache.

it was the classic symptom of polio. i checked into a hospital probably two days later and i started losing muscle over the course to the point to the point i had to be put in a iron lung to keep breathing. >> within a week? >> yeah, within a week. it all changed within one week. >> now, most polio patients don't live but a few years; is that correct? >> i don't know. i don't know if there's studies on that or not. we seem to have the ability to live fairly normal life spans. one of my friends died of cancer. one died of a brain hemorrhage. franklin roosevelt died of a brain hemorrhage. but i think that was a result of overwork and undermedication.

>> so overnight, mr. wieler, you went from playing baseball and being a part of 4h and being a farm boy as you say to being in a wheelchair? >> this is true. within the space of a week. i actually went from farm boy to iron lung. and i spent the '60s in that iron long. -- lung. and believe it or not i didn't want to come out of it when the time came. i was scared to death. and i was comfortable in that sealed cocoon and i wasn't ready to come out of it. it's like you're comfortable where you are. so when i did get pulled out of it by people who knew better, they expanded my horizons. >> now, this book has been epdoors -- you've got a couple of blurbs on the back of the book by two well-known folks former attorney general john

ashcroft and missouri senator john ashcroft and danforth. did you work for both of these gentlemen? >> yes, i did. i got a job with the attorney general's office out of law school. and three months later jack danforth was swept into office. and thankfully for my sake he retained me. it was a good working relationship. he brought in a lot of new people. it was good time. the attorney general's office overnight became a front runner for the state of missouri. and same with mr. ashcroft. he had moved on to some other agencies to try to do some work. and when he was elected he asked me back. so i had a good working relationship with both of them.

and they were kind enough to write the little editorials on the back of the book. >> richard wieler, this book came to our attention at booktv via justice clarence thomas. he told us about it. what is your relationship with him? >> i've known clarence since the first day he arrived in the attorney general's office. jack danforth recruited him out of yale. and so our relationship goes back some 35 years. we actually worked together on several cases. consulted with him. i probably spent every day in discussing the events of the world. so clarence is a good, good, good friend. and i had a feeling somebody must have given you a tip on the book 'cause it hasn't had much publicity. i haven't been able to market it. >> how long did it take to you write it?

>> well, i started writing 10 years ago. i wrote the first three chapters. i did it because clarence and other friends wererging me to put my story down. they said i shouldn't pass without people knowing what happened. and then i just -- i couldn't find a way to make it down realistic or something than just bottling -- i didn't want to be that way. and then three years ago maureen park, serendipity walked into my life. she's a freelance writer. she's never done a project like this. but she'd help me with it. between the two of us it took about three years. >> what do you want people -- when they read this book, what do you want them to take away from it? >> that as long as there's life, there's hope. it doesn't matter what you do. just do something.

i'm not a leader. i'm not -- i don't see myself as a forerunner or someone to look up to. but i hope the book would give people a chance to say, gee, look he did. i can do that. >> now, given the fact that you're in a wheelchair and have polio and essentially paralyzed from the neck down, correct? >> yes. yes. >> how did you write this? was it dictated? >> maureen and i spent time with a dictation unit. she would sample passages and then i just took those iron bones and filled them out with a computer and a mouse. i type one key at a time. >> tell us about your parents.

>> well, the kind of people who don't give up. they're a farm family. my dad had an eighth grade education. and mom -- my mom's family is a little more educated. but dad was an optimist. when anything went wrong, he always said well, we'll get them the next time. it will get better. mom is more of a realist. but a fighter for a cause. she probably did more to push me through high school and into college than anybody. dad died about four years ago. and it left a big hole in my life. >> now, why are you in lincoln, nebraska, now if you had lived in the state of missouri for so many years? >> well, i moved back from missouri to nebraska when my little hometown is called west point. and i wanted to spend time with my parents. they were getting aged.

and got some time with dad before he died. and then this last summer as we had just finished putting finishing touches on the book, i came down with an intestinal problem that led to respiratory arrest. so i'm in lincoln with an extended stay. >> facility. >> a extended stay facility because i have a trach. now. and i have several other holes in my book. and i don't think i can maintain an independence. there's too much need for professional help so here i am. >> now, how many years did you practice law before you retired? >> oh, about 22 years. not long enough. >> you enjoyed it? >> oh, yes, i enjoyed it tremendously. i enjoyed the work. i enjoyed my colleagues.

i thought i was an asset to the office in some way. which i don't really -- i don't really like talking about myself it's difficult sometimes. but it was a blast. it was something nobody ever expected me to do. >> well, i want to point out that your book, "chasing normality," it's not just the story of your professional life. or just inspirational but it's also a lot of personal. a personal memoir as well. >> yeah. i wanted to tell a story -- the story of myself, you know? the professional life was part of it. i don't know. it gets boring talking about tax cases. it was an attempt to say who i am and what i did. and it was probably one of the hardest thing i've ever done.

it's easier writing a law brief. >> if people are interested in writing this book, where can they go to find it? >> they can google my name. i have two websites. www.chasingnormality.com. and the other one is www.richardwieler.com. and those who are not computer literate would have to write the company. we formed a little publishing company to do this. >> and this was self-published; correct? >> yes. i got tired of rejection slips. >> what were the reasons given for those rejections? >> ironically enough one from the university of missouri said it didn't have enough local content. i wrote them a nasty letter on that one. but the university of iowa said it was just -- the book would take too much of their

advertising budget because there wasn't any specific genre. it was a general memoir. and it would have an appeal to a general audience. and others who said no. the first time author, no agent, no business. so after about seven or eight rejection slips, a friend of mine offered to finance the start and we just did it ourselves. >> richard wieler is the author of "chasing normality with a little help with family and friends." ....