as bitter as jefferson and going up against hamilton and the federalists. so, you now, jefferson is always intriguing. and we haven't written the last book on jefferson. his personality, his political views, but hopefully we jumpstarted a conversation about james madison. ..

because when the mail could be opened, you're secrets could be revealed in the was jefferson who usually got in trouble that way but i think part of the problem is it's difficult for americans to understand the issues of the 18th century. it's difficult for them to understand what are the things the riled people and the 18th-century about power? and if you just only site references to tyranny commodore not going to really understand. i mean, the perfect example is that jefferson and madison were strongly opposed to a standing army. is any politician today going to stand up and defend the dismantling of the military? >> i guess the answer is that

what matters is context, understanding the context so when you see the quote double jefferson or madison you can't take them out of context. you have to understand them within the moral boundaries within the emotional boundaries, within the intellectual boundaries of the world in which they live. now, understand we are nearing the end of the hour, and i believe you all will be treated to mr. shivers and's favorite wine -- mr. jefferson's favorite wine. [inaudible] [laughter] i'm sorry, it turns out we will be having a more recent vintage. thank you him for coming. [applause] >> there will be a book signing and reception of stairs.

my resolve to name order of the book all to represent the extent to which madison has been obscured, and andrew and nancy tried to resurrect madison in this relationship, so thank you again for the extremely accessible and readable book. thank you. [applause] >> kuhl authors nancy isenberg and andrew burnstein are both professors at louisiana state

university. for more information, visit nancyisenberg.com and aburnstein.com coming up next, book tv presents "after words," an hourlong program where we invite a guest hosts to interview authors. this week political pollster scott rasmussen and doug schoen discuss their book, "mad as hell how the tea party movement is fundamentally remaking our two-party system." in at the political veterans

describe to party activists as an authentic grassroots movement of concerned citizens who hoped to shrink the size of the federal government. they examine the impact small government proponents are having on the midterm elections and the potential lasting influence on the electoral system as a whole. the pollsters share their analysis with bloomberg columnist, amity shlaes. >> host: hello and welcome to "after words." my name is amity shlaes. i am a senior fellow at the council on foreign relations and a bloomberg news columnist. i am your host today for the show about authors and their books. today our guests are two formidable to outstanding political observers, scott rasmussen and douglas schoen. mr. rasmussen is founder and president of rasmussen reports, which collects and distributes public polling data and mr. schoen is a consultant who

has advised candidates from hillary clinton to mike bloomberg. mr. schoen is also a contributor to fox news. their book is "mad as hell how the tea party movement is fundamentally remaking our two-party system." welcome, gentlemen. >> guest: thank you for having us. agreed to be with you. >> host: great to be with you. we have a double author, so we are going to be a little bit short. can you each get a two sentence description of what the tea party movement is? >> guest: the tea party movement is inauthentic grass-roots movement is respected by people in the political class because fundamentally it is a rejection of that political class. and i would say that it is a group of voters about a quarter of the electorate that is basically saying we are fed up with washington. we are fed up with spending, fed up with taxing policies that don't reflect our values and we want to return to the core principles. >> host: house speaker nancy pelosi said the tea party is and

grassroots at all. it is an astroturf movement founded by a few rich people. what you say to that? >> guest: the whole notion of the tea party movement attended washington. the city was racist, it was astroturf. but what happened this frustration has been building for decades and was pushed over the top by the bailout movement, the bailout legislation. and people in washington never saw it coming because they still believe the bailout saved the nation. most people in the tea party and in america believe was bad for the economy. >> host: so mr. schoen, it wasn't anything new at all? >> guest: there was a long line of populist movements in americas and as you know better than me. on the left, others on the right. but this, to me, is continuation of what we saw in the mid-1990s, early 1990's with of the ross perot movement which is greater fervor and a think after the election we are going to concede it is that greater impact.

>> host: i think you list americans for prosperity founded by david coca-cola industries, as one of the major organizational backers of this movement. isn't that evidence of astroturf? >> guest: i think the opposite actually. my sense is that if there wasn't a grass-roots movement to fund, there would not be voters to mobilize. you could put a lot of money into campaigns and not get much response. and the tea party i think is an authentic grassroots movement that are really self created and mostly self financed. >> guest: there is a lot of money. there are politicians trying to jump in front of the tea party movement, but that's because when you have a movement like this that is really -- it has two things going for it. it has passion and number two, the core ideas resonate with a majority of americans. so a lot of people like to take credit for that and help it along, but quite frankly of the coke brothers disappeared the tea party movement along just

fine. >> host: it's kind of a race to take credit. thank you. you exercised the name mainstream media interests under appreciated -- field to appreciate the persistence of the tiberi movement. why did the media -- the old media overlooked this trend? >> guest: they didn't want to see it. earlier this year scott brown had a stunning electoral victory in massachusetts for ted kennedy's old seat. the polling was showing was going to be competitive race, yet the major networks never covered it as a competitive race until the final couple of days because it just was incomprehensible to than the democrats could lose the seat. and so much of the tea party movement sits in the same category care. it can't be the people aren't happy with policies right now and the federal government. this could you know, i am startled. as i look at the data i see the level of optimism scott brown plans to bid to could point to share an ankle and paul marco

rubio and for some reason they haven't wanted to give the tea party movement credit. now for goodness sake, you don't have to be a supporter of christine o'donnell or sharon angle to recognize the vibrancy, authenticity and power and potency of the tea party movement. >> host: utility and anecdote in your book about rush limbaugh, the radio show host, and mr. steele of the rnc. can you tell us that anecdote again and say what you think it means? >> guest: my sense is what anecdotes' really means is the political class, the political leadership doesn't have a clue about what this movement is really about. one of the things scott points to quite frankly and he should talk about it is that the republican leadership is as alienated from the tea party movement as is the democratic leadership. >> host: could you repeat what happened with mr. steel and

mr. rush limbaugh? >> guest: they had entirely different views of the republican owners of the tea party activists. mr. limbaugh would like to think of himself as the leader of the movement. mr. steele republicans and it isn't going to work. republican voters believed that michael steele and republicans in washington are out of touch with the party base by -- >> guest: michael steele criticized limbaugh, rush limbaugh pushed back and steele sued for peace, and in a certain way, when that happened, i said boy, that's the power of rush limbaugh, in actual fact while he is an undeniably potent and powerful and influential it was ultimately an expression of the tea party power reflecting itself in the dispute. >> host: maybe it is a point in history that the to produce such as the repeal of the fairness doctrine that radio doctrine that made it very strongly opinionated shows such

as rush limbaugh's possible, dating all the way back to president reagan comes of the would-be decades and decades ago now. >> guest: certainly what's happening goes back to what we know is the tea party movement. everything that is in the political mainstream today is built upon frustration that's been growing for decades. and this is the lead grass-roots movements happen in america. in the 1950's rosa parks didn't give up her seat on a bus and ignited a civil rights movement but the frustration had been building for decades before that. even the founding of america for decades before the revolution, the frustration had built and what was happening today. the frustration is finally being unleashed but it didn't just start in april of 2000 line. >> host: it reminds me of another grassroots story about wendell willkie, their supplies republican candidate in 1940 of running against franklin roosevelt, roosevelt's dearth term kind these it keeps a grass-roots candidate because the club's spring of all over the country and in washington

they commented yeah, the grassroots of 1,000 country clubs. that was funded by the corollary to the -- guest co-chairs the, wilky as i remember was a utility executive. what was seen here is a rejection explicitly, unabashedly of country clubs, eletes, business leaders, and when people say sharon hinkle, ron paul, joe miller, margo rubio try to derive them in a certain sense i think this points to the power of the tea party that candidates who are hardly ideal are getting nominated because they are not traditional republicans, they are not mainstream candidates. they assure the mainstream and are supported because of their alienation from the system. host and indeed it is a central theme of your book, the elite verses the regular men. how do you define elite and what is the ratio of americans who

are elite and who are not elite are mainstream and real? >> guest: reaction the call them mainstream voters in the political class, and the political class of people who support the concept we should be led by the elites, we of three questions. we ask people whose judgment to the trust more, the american people or their political leaders. we ask is the federal the front special-interest typically working together against the rest of us. seven out of ten people hold that latter view about this alliance between the government and big business. some are on the left and some are on the right. but for all but 55 or 60% of americans are consistently on the mainstream side of all of those questions. about 14% are even with the political class on the to with three questions, and, you know, you talk about a sense of scale back in the 17 seventies they said about one out of three columnists still supported the crown so a corporate now we have a very small level of support for the status quo in washington

>> host: how big is the political class, the elite group? >> guest: about 7% are clearly in and another 7% of the population living in the direction. >> host: is it possible, dr. schoen went to harvard, is it possible to go to an ivy league school and not be in the political class? does that define you forever and you are stuck on one side or the other? >> guest: we need is to delete could disagree on this but if you go to an ivy league college you are part of the political class just by membership. i told your research associate before we began that i took a seminar with the late departed and much lamented senator daniel patrick moynihan who has come up with a terrific book you might also enjoy reading. but i remember that seminar, some 30 years ago, and a guy got up and said he was an authentic representatives of the working class, and moynihan said when you're living in the 02186 code

i can assure you you are in the political class, and i think that is really the case and you lose touch very substantially with mainstream values. >> host: so everyone who ever attended pushes a little further, senator moynihan would have said whoever attended one of those schools, which i did, too, is always out of it for ever. i think that is a little harsh. >> guest: you did well. >> host: [inaudible] >> guest: but it took me 12 years to get my undergraduate degree. i dropped a couple times -- >> guest: i think what you're saying is certainly if you are part of an elite institution if you have gone to an elite school of you have the advantage is you don't even recognize to read it is possible for someone with that background to recognize the american people should be given more respect and should be given the government should derive its

authority from the governed and there's an attitude among some, those recovering from this, there's an attitude from some that really -- i was at harvard recently and a woman said -- we don't understand why people don't want us to leave. we've been trained to lead. that is the attitude people are upset about. >> host: maybe the problem is arrogance, not had a great. >> guest: it could very well be. do you remember what eric young said about harvard men? she said the most arrogant thing in life was a harvard man with a c average. >> host: maybe the universities aren't as different as we would like -- >> guest: what he should understand about space and his family is notwithstanding what i would like to be these five accomplished and what you certainly have accomplished, scott and his father founded espn, sold it, he is built of the most respected polling companies in america, and given that level of success, and a relatively young age, he may not

want to be part of the elite but he has done more than the vast majority of the eletes, with regret read it from harvard or not. >> host: maybe you are the elite of innovation. >> guest: he is. >> guest: if you go back even to the founding days of the country, there were eletes, but they were pursuing this idea that the government should not be run by the elites. the government should we run with the consent of the government. there had to be a popular component, and we seem to be moving away from that at this point in time. >> host: in covered let me push on this question and being tolerant maybe we should just get a little bit more to the tea party. what are the -- the tea party itself has issued memoranda or documents, what is the issue for the tea party as they declared and as you perceive those issues to be? >> guest: i love it when you see the tea party has issued -- >> host: the 5. -- >> guest: there are lots of groups that have partnered. it is hard to define who is

there is we ask one or four or five say we are part of the tea party movement. the things that unite them, fiscal policy issues. they believe government spending should be lowered. >> host: number one you mentioned first, fiscal policy. >> guest: fiscal policy in the sense that no one is listening to them. >> guest: and i would go back to the fiscal policy and say they believe that there is a -- effectively correct on audience between the two parties in washington. to spend and tax more than they believe is prudent. and when people say that he parties are no nothings, what they really are is and how keynesian. they are traditional balanced budget, run the government the way i run my household. i don't want that, i don't want a deficit, i don't want excessive spending. i'm not against social programs if we can afford it, but if we can't i don't want to do it and

i would like to protect the social programs we have because i need them. they are not libertarian, they are just small, limited government people who frequently just say i am new to all this and i just am so angry. and, you know, that is a think pretty authentic. >> host: let's back up and say what keynesian and is the biggest to basically stand to prime the pump. spent. and you've written about this eloquently. >> host: no, but we want to talk -- i was just reading the economic consequences of the peace, just that's a very fine book. this is a great economist who did indeed developed the concept of the modern stimulus as we know but also wrote a lot of other things, and one of the things he praises in that book is inequality of income distribution because he says it is often all when the wealthy elites have a lot of money. they don't spend all one watches like paris hilton.

a large share of it they spent on investment, which we support activity gains which are the best type of growth for the economy. but it is antikeynesian, i agree, and it's sort of a visceral antikeynesian as some people don't like it and say i hit the u.k. economize. what they say is it doesn't make sense to me to spend more than i can afford with iran and the government or a household. >> guest: you're right. most americans don't know who can say is. they said we are all keynesian nels there's a certain keynsianism notte if you cut the government spending that would create more jobs and spending. to cut the deficit they believe that it will create more jobs and the reason is not because of an economic theory but they just think that is the right way to run things. >> guest: there's something else to it. the average american, whether he or she be in the tea party or

separate, kovacic we believe if you increase incentives to reducing taxes, you're going to get more economic growth. so if you say to the average american which is better, the government spending money to encourage both growth and consumption or the government cutting back and leaving more money in your pocket they are going to tell you more money in my pocket and let me do with that what i want and i am more

the other

thing about this that is important to understand is the tea party members and supporters and the american people generally are compassionate people. these are not selfish mean-spirited people, but they need a common sense life and common sense means you don't spend what you don't have, you don't overburden people and you give incentives and they see these as core values that if they were more perhaps what verdict they would express more eloquently, but they are no less fervent and passionate than a trained economist. and the other thing that happens, space pointed to this a bunch of times, they look at people in new york and say where do these people come from? what kind of values to the half? how do they think about things? they are just befuddled. angry, too but befuddled. >> guest: you tie this back from a policy point of using that ignited all the frustration

that is now the tea party movement was the bailout. >> host: we have fiscal and now we are addressing bailout as a trigger as a catalyst. >> guest: and it's part of the same thought process because what douglas saying about common sense approaches of a sudden the government says we have $700,000,000,000.1 of reaction is you didn't notice ahead of time? another reaction is a sense of moral outrage about it. americans believe in this idea that if you do well in business you should keep profits and if you do poorly he should pay the price and all of a sudden they say wait a minute people change the rules to help their friends to bail out their friends with our taxpayer money and was seen as an insider job, it was seen as political class alliance with the big business crowd on wall street and people were saying wait a minute. at the same time this is happening the housing values are falling and they believe their home is worth more than the mortgage and they're seeing

somebody changed the rules to help the big boys and they changed them to hurt us. >> guest: the other party alluded to in again you have written enormously, eloquently about is this suspicion of eletes, bureaucrats and the washington arrangement. i remember you were writing about the jewish culture birchers and was who couldn't explain to the government bureaucrats why they did what they did and why it was rational, reasonable and supported the community in the market. it was seen as i recollect as a violation of trade laws that led them to i think one was even incarcerated if my recollection of the store you told in the book is correct. and i tell that story because what use he and the tea party movement is the absolute sense that washington is just out not

only of touch because scott delude to is corrupt if you're a big builder you get yourself in trouble and you are billed auditorium of the company builds and if you are a working guy who gets behind on mortgage they never should have taken out because a shyster bankers foisted upon them, tough luck. >> host: maybe we can see this in addition to s elite regular and as a battle of economic ceres you started your day with keynesian and a battle between macroeconomics and microeconomics. microeconomics being the experience of the firm. what does the firm say about what's happening to the economy? what does the little business say sometimes little, about whether it wants to decide to hire again? the system a great problem we have had in this recovery, the jobless recovery that's very interesting. as we talk about the first bailout, just so the viewer is clear on that, the wall street bailout. we talked about fiscal and a

little bit about tax and may be about the economic philosophy. until we have economic philosophy that might be behind those impulses, is there a few other components that you've identified and "mad as hell"? >> guest: when you talk about all this, it's not quite right as you describe it when you talk about it in the economic future because people that are mad as hell aren't sitting there thinking in terms of economic theory. with the our thinking is their sense of what is right and what's wrong and translating into an economic theory, but that's not the way that they are viewing it, and they are viewing what is wrong as a moral sense. >> host: there can be morals to economics, just not modern economics. [laughter] there were elite people what i see institutions who were morrill about economics in the past. one was william graham sumner, who sit don't forget the forgotten man, whom he had really identified as what we would call today as a tea party

person, a person left out, not receiving the special gifts of the special interest crowd. is this -- just let me ask one other question and we are going to ask questions about yourselves since we are interested in how you got here and all these books you've written and who you've worked with -- is the tea party movement more powerful than other such movements? i'm thinking specifically for rick sable i will read you a quote from the 1970's. many have had to suffer at the hands of a political and economic elite who shaped decisions and never have to account from the states to sever from injustice. when unemployment avails they never stand in line looking for a job and that quote is from jimmy carter, who is running -- this was an acceptance speech by him when he ran for president more than a quarter-century ago. so it sounds awfully similar. is the revulsion now greater

than other revulsions that we've experienced in our lifetime or in american history? >> guest: the passion certainly is coming and what i you would say is there are about 100 potential tea party congressmen that could be elected. six u.s. senators and their mouths. two years ago at this time if we said we're going to talk about the tea party and its influence on the midterm election you would have said what's that? and if i had said it to you it's pretty simple there's going to be this spontaneous movement that's going to grow up that's going to take over the republican party that's when to be able to fundamentally influence our politics and that is all we would be talking about in the run-up to the midterm elections you would say are you fantasizing? i would see it is extremely potent and powerful, and when the next question gets asked and incurious on scott's reaction which is will the tea party go away and i said of the fiscal agenda is addressed, i am sure

they will go away but i don't see any evidence that that is going to happen anytime soon. >> guest: when you talk about the change from the 1970's, jimmy carter was tapping into a similar frustration. you had watergate and vietnam and a lot of the fiscal policy issues we are dealing with today have their roots in the presidencies of lyndon johnson and richard nixon. the set fiscal policy on an unsustainable level. and people have been voting for four decades for some kind of fiscal -- at list candidates to promise the policies so i don't know if this is bigger or more powerful of think it is an expansion of the same frustration that's been going on a lot longer. >> host: can you get to briefly you had a less leaning strand to your populism or maybe t party or not, i'm not quite colin sure what are the two strands and are the leftwingers in that t. party or the different kinds? >> guest: they are and what they call the coffee party which they had a rally against that

about two weeks ago and what they are is people who would agree with the critique of the tiahrt amendment. they would say washington is corrupt and serving the business and what we need is more regulation, more government, probably more redistribution away from the wealthy and powerful to ordinary people and they would argue that the was morally, economically and socially unfair and bonuses on the bailout are egregious violations of the norms of american society and we should take the as bonuses and benefits that came from the bailouts away from a corrupt elite, so the same analysis, a different conclusion from that t. purdy movement. much smaller, however. >> guest: there's a couple of things. because there is the movement on the left and right, there is a sense of lack of legitimacy. only 21% believe the government today has the consent of the government. second thing is the populist

wing on the left side of the equation tends to have more confidence in democratic lawmakers and the people on the populist right in republican lawmakers and so their level of outrage is directed a little bit differently. they may be upset the lawmakers are not more effective in getting things enacted, but people in the tea party movement don't think they have anybody on their side in washington. >> host: that's an awful lot of caffeine. maybe the coffee already happened or the health care law which is a progress of law and progressive tradition >> guest: i think that takes a lot of the steam out of the movement but there is in their judgment a fundamental flaw with that analysis. they will say the health care law was proven positive of the bankruptcy of the system because the public option was defeated. insurance companies are still able to raise rates

indiscriminately. there was a corrupt deal with the pharmaceutical companies and their view, and all of this ends up to a health care bill that the left would regard as essentially corrupt and dishonest. now the right has their own problems which are very, very different. but again, similar analysis, diametrically opposite conclusions. >> host: so in your book you describe a single payer group, with a chicago basis? a chicago basis that was not entirely happy with the health care law. was to the right wing, too compromising. >> they wanted action on the street to fight the healthcare bill. >> host: and there's a story of a young woman who died in pregnancy, it? so all of this is happening but i want to talk about now these are special guests, they've done quite a lot of work in their lives, just this wonderful book

although it is wonderful and interesting as we are coming up to the midterm highly exciting. i'm a little anxious to ask this question since we already talked about schools the where did you go to high school? right here in new york? and where did you go to high school? >> guest: massachusetts. >> host: where did you go to college? >> guest: i went to harvard college. >> host: and where did you go to college? >> guest: to figure of first and the limit to connecticut and took more time off and went to the university of north carolina and finished about the university saw it took me awhile to get there. >> host: as a wall street journal dow jones there was a starkly a number of competing cultures in a company and one was the culture of depaul. there were many, and the culture was a pragmatic culture. i would think it's fair to say we had a number of hoosiers. it seemed to be the college though many of the hoosiers and

many of the viewers would remember george malone and the great columnist of many decades and malone had that at some and talk about the tea party now. what were your parents political views? >> guest: moderate. my mother is alive and is a left-wing democrat. my father was a more moderate democrat and i was brought up to believe that my religion was jewish and my political party was democrat and i was supposed to be about both. >> guest: my views are different. my family made sure i was brought up to be a new york yankees fan and new york giants fan. the political views never got far into the equation. i guess at some level it probably republican leaning. politics was something of a distrust -- discuss. >> host: i refer bloomberg

news and you write for mayor bloomberg. but your mother is benevolent about -- >> guest: an interesting question. she waxes and wanes. i think she feels he has been unbalanced a very good mayor for the city but someone who franks and fairly straightforward terms about politics, frequently has trouble with somebody like mayor bloomberg who is pragmatic calling it as he sees it, and i think one of the problems we find in politics today is the left and right have become sufficiently distinct and it's hard for politicians in the center to build a kind of avoiding and endorsing coalition that would demonstrate to people of the current arrangement of the left and right talk about is not real but is illusory. >> host: what is the relationship between the politics? are they the same thing? are they similar? to the ephriam equals leyva

we've the line or the same thing? >> guest: the way they view campaigns is the way i watch a giants game, and, you know, you get upset when they don't call your way and one of the things that happened in america we have become a sports nation in terms of politics. when we pulled on of scott brown race nationally before the race people around the country, the enthusiasm that was the same everywhere in the country as it was in massachusetts because if you were a republican in california you are watching with the same excitement a republican of massachusetts was. >> guest: i will tell you one story on sports and politics. i am proud of one of the things i'm most proud of is having worked for about seven or eight years off and on with the opposition to milk a. one of the people i had the opportunity to work with and was a great pleasure was ambassador richard holbrooke, and in the course of discussing the poll about the political divisions in

serbia, if you look at me and said 367, just stopped. i said 367? he said don't you know the date lifetime batting average and i said well i guess i knew that but not in this context. he said like you, i was a frustrated sports editor who turned to politics because you substitute one kind of statistic for another. i did. >> host: you also did some work in the u.k. and i believe your first book was about [inaudible] can you tell us a little bit about powell and then you also wrote a book about lenihan? and how you wind of this political journey and when you found with these early leaders. >> guest: i decided when i was young i was interested in ideas, so my dissertation was on the basis of support of powell and the british electorate and for anyone who has any interest in what i have done coming to the

tea party movement in america was a lot of ways the return intellectually to the same kind of questions i faced in the u.k.. there was a social the extent lesser economic issues. this is purely if not exclusively economic, and so i wrote about the free market economics and britain and the impact of immigration and then turned to senator moynihan had been a teacher of mine and obviously a friend of mine and i wrote his biography when he just came to the senate and i guess i published in 1977 or 78 and it was absolutely thrilling for me as a young person under 30 to have a chance to write about such figures, one in the case of britain and the other in the case of american politics so was a thrill for me. >> host: was the greatest thing about moynihan? >> guest: his intellect, brilliant man. i don't know if you have seen steve weissman's book yet, but

it is extraordinary, the range and depth of the subjects who wrote and spoke about, and the problem we have in our politics is there are so few people who are able to do more than just the talking points. just one more comment and scott certainly should talk about his extraordinary background as well. i went to a breakfast this morning with former governor carey of new york. he is in his early nineties but he is well aware of what is going on. he is in good shape and as somebody mentioned in ireland and he said you know, we had the four men, referring to himself, there are not politicians like that anymore. and i'd think he's right because you can agree with people or disagree but i think what we were lacking in political life to a very substantial degree are transcendent figures who are able to bridge cultural, political and economic decides.

>> host: people seem larger every year to all of us. >> guest: it think that's true what we are lacking large skill figures in our politics of any or all of you and i think it is hour to our detriment. >> host: tell us a little bit more about espn. >> guest: i grew up on a broadcast and my father was in it. i did my first radio commercial when i was seven. >> host: what was that about? >> guest: the was a christmas promotion for something of elmhurst, massachusetts. >> host: can use it for us? >> guest: i can't remember. i just remember being so nervous looking into the studio -- >> host: how did they make you read? >> guest: i memorized my lines and i also remember i did my first television 1i can tell you about was employed with the boston patriots in the american football league that went on to become the captain of the only undefeated team, and that was a long, long time ago.

but my dad and i get lots of broadcast things. western massachusetts high school hockey playoffs when i was in high school because my team wasn't good enough to make the playoffs, so we paid $20 a game and did everything to do with it. but the hockey team came to town my dad was working with them and i became an announcer and actually had from a pure performance point of view the greatest film of my life, doherty was a hockey player that came to play on the team playing with his two sons and had his 50th birthday i got to be the emcee so senator royce in the spot light my childhood idol on his 50th birthday and take it even better his birthday is today after mine, so that was our joint birthday celebration and just a great thing. and in those days you couldn't get sports, couldn't get things on television. there was only one game played a week on television, hockey games were not on much, my father and i were trying to find ways to do it and heard about this thing

called cable and satellite. wheeler could send a signal or of america over satellite for less money than the cost to send the same signal around the state of connecticut as yet traditional land lines. >> host: using to also identify again in this book which is the new medium on the messages to get through that. somehow for some reason shed lp4. guest could you talk about wendell willkie before and what's happening today. it's the internet, social networking. the message, the way you get messages out changes everything. >> host: in your publisher of the book is harper collins, that's my publisher i should mention. who is your editor? can you say a word or two about him since they don't get caught a lot of on radio or tv? >> guest: i would tell you this and i think the great genius of a good editor like adams is the ability to take an idea and helped craft it to suit

both current, the current environment as well as appealing as closely as possible to the underlying intellectual trends that are driving it, and adams helped us do that immeasurably. i think we have a much better book as a result. >> guest: there are two things that happened in this book. we met at a wendy's to talk with this. >> host: and you worked together before? >> guest: we didn't on tv together. we started with this idea and then when adams came he was very nice about the way he did it but he reorganized our thoughts and really put it together in a much more compelling way. >> guest: i don't know if you've collaborated with anybody on a book. >> guest: it's hard. [laughter] >> guest: we i think cooperative and collaborated seamlessly. the only thing i have to say is

that, you know, i assume that people see that my genius would run through every page and it's been the to realize scott has gotten as much if not more well deserved credit for a margin that i must confess that day in wendy's he said unless we get into the distinctions between the political class and the political elite and what it means for public opinion we will not be doing justice to my idea and what i want to do. i think we did it, scott, and i think the book is immeasurably better as a result. >> host: did you each write chapters or did you write them all together? >> guest: we wrote different sections, we put them together and if it. >> host: did you use skype or a regular television? >> guest: i think we used a pen and paper. we sat down face-to-face a couple times. we scribbled things down, not so much pennypacker but e-mail and work documents, and there were times i would get a document and

i would say there is no way that this can work because dog dismissed this completely and then i would go back and talk to him and i realize he had some critiques of mine and eventually we found a way to work it out and i think it is a much better product. >> host: or e-mails or chat on the phone? >> guest: mostly email and a few chat, but i think the great benefit of the collaboration having done another book where the collaboration was not as seamless to put it politely, when we talk things out it took only a few minutes to try to resolve things, but the important issue is in addition to the conviviality and commonality, i think the work product benefit from it, which is why you want to collaborate. >> guest: we started out from different places and so when i would say things i would realize doug was hearing things different than i tried to say and we articulate it to each

other it became clear what we bush met. >> host: we are coming into the final part of this show so i'm going to ask a couple questions about some things and then politics. he we are close to an important election. there is a chapter in your book where you talk about populism and you use the word sprigg, pages 104 to 105. the system is rigged, and one of the quotes that your writing about the law that changed the banking and investment banking structure, gramm-leach-bliley from 1999 you say it repealed the glass-stegall act and allow commercial and investment banks to merge. the policy reversal was meant to benefit the elite but they did benefit some of the elite we can clearly see that. was there an intention? when you say meant to benefit the elite that sounds like not meant to benefit other people. do you see a motive or do you just see outcomes?

>> guest: first most people see motives. >> host: do uzi motives? >> guest: sometimes. >> guest: he sees motive and i see outcomes. >> host: the famous -- the double scott d. fight. >> guest: we reached on how we would analyze it, but it was perfectly clear to me that repeal of the glass-stegall did very little for ordinary people and a lot for some very, very wealthy bankers. scott when he critiqued my views it will get the process that got here and how people think about that. you have to do that if you are really going to understand what is going on. >> guest: what i say the motive, part of it is there was a corrupt process. i believe most he party activists if they want to washington and stayed long enough they did in that just as corrupt or just as wrapped up in the system as people are today, so i think it is a deeper --

>> host: power corrupt, absolutely. >> guest: i want to see something on the word reg because normally when you do polling you don't throw in supercharge words like that so we tried to find out how deep this was and we asked people how did the members of conagra's get reelected so often, people on happy with them coming and we asked was the system rigged come using that word and a majority of people said that is the way to get reelected, they rigged the system to get reelected. so there is a level of distrust. >> host: i think everyone agrees on. it's just to find the intention is a grave thing to do. much of the banking crisis we have in the united states, a good part of it had to do with people borrowing too much with adjustable mortgages that were not the right decision for them to make. >> guest: what about financial institutions borrowing too much at 35 period one to invest in the underlying assets of those

mortgages that are wrapped up different charges of debt so that somehow a house in cards that is shaking is presumed to be more stable because the rating agency that it's not corrupt is certainly incompetent. how about that? >> host: it's all in there but i'm just questioning on the causality to it. the mainstream man or woman who's internalized on the economics knows you probably shouldn't borrow -- interest rates may one day go up or he may think of that or she, so that's all. this is a question from john. i asked of "the wall street journal" is it because one of five local friends so i like to hear what he has to say. he says politics is a marketplace that conveys information just like the stock market, and i am paraphrasing

him, but somehow the marketplace didn't seem to give the political parties the right information about the popularity of their policies because the party seemed surprised the voters don't like them. is that you're deily to some again? >> guest: every market needs to have some rules to operate by, and a market can be well-designed or poorly designed. my argument would be right now for political system is designed to transmit information from the voters to the political parties. >> host: now we get the most important part of your book on what we can do. we know people are mad as hell, we know that the phrase is there. we can see it not only in your final word but also in other works and you have some very interesting recommendations, and i would -- before i take your three step plan it is especially interesting because you seem to put ideas before people which is to say you ask in step three for a plan to be put to the voter rather than a politician to be

offered. can you describe that process that you recommend at the end and the conclusion? >> guest: i know we are short on time as i want to make sure we vote quickly on this. one part is the politicians think to level with the voters they need to get the information to them about our idea is to put a major issue because there is no trust in congress, there is no consensus of the government that a politician's proposed changing social security or medicare or raising taxes they should do their best effort and submit to a vote of the people and try to win approval. dust was of the legislation. >> host: and in that sense the legislation could be shorter. >> guest: a would be less special surprises for people in nebraska or other places. >> host: we are also waiting getting close to the conclusion. can you tell you think is going to happen in the e election? >> guest: 55 seats in the house, eight or nine in the senate republican route. i agree with those numbers and i

will also say there is a string of governorship in the midwest that are going to shift from democrat to republicans because the working class voters who voted for hillary clinton over barack obama are getting ready to vote for republicans. those with those republican gains will there be a change in the tax law or the health care law? >> guest: house republicans will repeal the health care law. not because they want to but because they are too afraid not to and then it will go to the senate and there will be all kind of political maneuvering to try and avoid looking like you're supporting a status quo but it will become a campaign issue in 2012. >> guest: and goodness gracious who knows what will happen. obama seems absolutely intent on raising rates on the income of 200,000 for an individual, to 54 families. the republicans will be intransigent against that and goodness gracious, on a fear for our fiscal health if we have the

kind of cataclysmic conflict i feel will result from that battle. >> host: the battle will be in negative. >> guest: it's going to be a huge negative for the country because i don't think there is going to be agreement. >> host: exciting days ahead. this is a happy battle. i'm going to try "mad as hell" a very important before our next election. our guests are scott rasmussen, doug schoen, thank you very much. >> guest: thank you. a great interview. >> here are some best sellers from the conservative book club.

the cofounder of the enough project profiles people who decided to help africans fight against genocide, rape and the use of child soldiers. barnes and noble booksellers in new york city hosts this 40 minute event. [applause] thank you, karen. in this room, karen or either one of us it is coffee, let's not pretend. [laughter] let's not ascribe a level of

sanctimony not deserving. we are here tonight though to confront what i believe our arguably the three greatest scourges of our time. rape has a war within, child soldier recruitment and genocide. these tools of war verso deftly. our message though, don and i wrote is at its most fundamental is a simple one. in message that is positive in its core pity if we take a hard look at the last century, our own countries history, politicians and ideas come and go, but it has been essentially it has been people's movements, which have helped change the course of history. and the women's movement, the

civil rights movement, environmental, labor movement, all of these movements, anti-apartheid movement, where people come together around the cause, usually start a very small, and change the course of human history. and now as we gather here tonight, across this united states a people's movement is being born on college campuses, high school, synagogues and churches and in community centers around the country's support of the women and girls of the congo. in support of the invisible children number ugonda, in support of the genocide survivors in darfur, and we call this point in time of the enough's moment when the enough people have finally had enough of the deadly status quo and t