enormous importance of america's environment and for my fellow southerners the critical nature and the enormous importance of nature and its relevance to fiction and nonfiction for future creative work. >> you mentioned your relationship to the south. do you think there's more of an awareness between man and his environment in the south than in other parts of the united states? >> not particularly especially the mid-atlantic states in new england, or the far west. or the close attention many southerners give to the outdoors to -- tends to deal little much on fishing and hunting which is okay but i want to help encourage a broader interest

>> it's a book that's about the rise of extremism. we've seen in the opening of the obama years, and it's an attempt to remind us we've faced forces of extremism before, and they are not isolated to one political party or another, and neither has a monopoly and virtue or device, and we forget that in our overheated intense deablghts these -- debates that people use fear to pump up. i am getting more concerned as an independent, and we need to push back on these who are hi jacking our debate and our country. i'll tell you about what's a wing nut. what's a wing nut? well, a wing nut is someone on the far right or left ring of the political spectrum.

the professional partisans, professional polarizers, the paranoids, the people who are trying to divide rather than unit us. one telltale sign of a wing nut, and i see bill nodding there, they confuse pay -- patriotism with partnership. they have little to do with each other. we are in a time of cycle of insightment in our politics where the extremes echo and encirnlg each other, and they use hate and fear to drum up ratings, that used to be a few years ago that political leaders gave talking points to talk radio. they use the same form mullah, conflict, tension, fear, and resentment every day to drum up listeners in narrow audiences, and political leaders are starting to echo that plan.

it is empowering, the most unhinged among us, the fringe is blurring at the base, and because of the cycle of insightment, it's not isolated necessarily to one side, but we've seen a particular amount 6 ugliness against president obama, and it's pompt to pull back and realize though that before there was obama syndrome on the right, there was bush syndrome on the left. there's characteristics calling him a terrorist, comparing him to hitler. the problem is and whenever i interview people for the book, people protesting holding signs comparing obama to hitler, i always say, ha are you saying or thinking about this? they say something like, well, they started it. [laughter] they compared president bush to hitler, and nobody complained, so i just figured @ fair game, and that's the problem.

you know, john stuart in his rally to restore sanity one of his suggested signs is i disagree with you, but i'm pretty sure you're not hitler. [laughter] that's good advice for us all now. if you have a problem with a president of your party being compared to hitler, that's a problem. the hyperpar sanship is hurting our country and stopping debate and stopping us from being able to unit. we are increaseingly segregating ourselves in media season summing. that, itself is danger and says everyone is entitled to facts and people approach politics as war. conversation reaping out across the aisle is condemned as if the parties were the most important

thing in politics, and they are not. this book is an attempt to look at the way that the extremes are increasingly dominating our debate and political parties to remind us we've seen these forces before and confronted them. i was trying to update the classic of paranoid style in politics so show we've faced the forces before and demagogues do well in economic downturns and in the 190 -- 1930s, but we don't appreciate how much of the stuff you hear on the far right talk is just recycling stuff from 50 years ago, and now it's advanced by candidates in some cases, but we haven't had enough of what we had at that time with william f. buckly stood up to the administration and claims dwight d. eisenhower was a soviet

agent. that's my favorite. i'm sorry you think he's a spy, and then you're not welcome in our con conservative movement. he stood up. the problem is we don't see that today. i think because our political leaders are afraid. they recognize or fear that the fringe is blurring with the base e and if they stand up, they alienate their base and lose a primary. there's political resumés that add credibility to that fear, so what we need to do to restore some balance with backbone to our politics is stand up to the extremes on both sides. i really believe that's the only way that we will stop the cycle of insightment we're in before it getting ugh leer. that's not to clack that at any -- claim at any given time there's quality of extreme, but if you buy into the idea that only one party is to blame, you compound the problem, and that's what i'm concerned about. i care less about the parties,

and more about the country. it's an attitude that's unfashionable these days. i mean, this is a rebellious project because the media and political system a set up to reward hyperpartisans who factor in the lowest common deno , ma'am tear. it's about pushing back, trying to restore a sense of common sense to our politics, and to play offense from the center for the first time in a long time, to not just feed this beast that is distorting our politics and dividing our nation. i think we can do it. i know that, you know, we are facing groups of extremes that we face every once in awhile and militia group on the far right theses days and they are comparatively small, but it's worth paying attention to. if we do that though, play offense for the center and return and be honest brokers again in the media and hit left

or right as the cause, and an event my compel, i think we can restore that trust and the parties can govern and not attack each other. to do it, we need ton individual lant and stand up to the extremes and call them out and not be lulled into a sense that being a good partisan makes you a good patriot because it's the opposite i believe. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon, well, i'm convinced, john. i agree. i'll stop being reasonable on the left when those people on the right stop being so reasonable. [laughter] [applause] good to see you today. we're here to talk about books, but look, also, we are living

and talking about the issue of the day, # 10 i cannot -- so i cannot help myself. i have a brief comment first on the biggest story of the day. when i pick up the "miami he recalled" and it says that the pope says it's okay to use condoms. [laughter] especially, he says, when male prostitutes use them. i grew up a catholic, i was an an altar boy, and i never thought i would see the day when the pope tells catholics to take their queues on sexuality from male prostitutes. [laughter] [applause] i can only call that progress i guess. [laughter] great to be back at this book

fair and great to see so many of you who love books, writers, love reading, thank you for being here for all of us who make it. [applause] so, my book is about toxic talk really about right wing talk and it's great radio which is so powerful today and most of us don't realize there's more people who listen to talk radio than reed the newspaper. maybe that doesn't surprise you. there's more people to listen to talk radio every day than all the three cable networks combined. it is the most powerful communication in our country today. it's so right wing and it is so ugly most of the time which is what i talk about in the book. remember, i see a lot of gray hairs in the audience like me, remember back to "saturday night live" and they did the little thing on the takeoff on the

today show, and slut, and she su arrogant ass, and we thought that would never end up like that. but today that's mild on what we hear on talk radio. first of all, the imbalance. talk radio is great. it's where people express their opinion and hear other americans express their opinion. the problem is, from my take, is it doesn't really reflect the american public because it is 90% issue there are nine hours of conservative talk in this country for every hour of progressive talk. we are not a 90% right wing nation. we're -- doug can you tell, it's 50/50 or 50/45 nation.

there's 2,000 news talk stations in the country, and 1940 of them are all right wing all the time 24/7 and 60 progressive radio stations, none in this market i must add, they pulled the plug and made that another sports station. i'm on every 60 station in the country that i can get, but there's not enough platforms for progressives and centrist voices that don't really exist on talk radio anymore. it's not because liberals can't talk. god knows, we can talk. [laughter] it's not because we can't make money and get ratings. look at portland, oregon, chicago, st. paul, new york, where progressive radio is on the air, making money, getting good ratings and sometimes beat rush head-to-head. the real problem is ownership.

most of the stations are owned by conservative and controlled companies that started back in the days of richard nixon. they were smart and did nothing illegal. they bought radio stations, hired their talent, trained them, and today they dominate the air waves, and the fcc does nothing about it. it's not just that it's radio is so one-sided, the problem i see is when you listen to it, the content is so ugly, so partisan, so personal, and so disgusting, look, let me back up just a minute. a couple observations here. number one, it's -- i don't have anything against political date. just the opposite. i made a good living on my life with cross fire, the spin room, radio and television, i love political debate. pat bucannon, i've been up against the best, and i enjoy it

and the more hard hitting, the beller. i'm not saying we have to be pansies or be nice to each other not not mix it up, but i'm not perfect. i'll tell you that before doug does. i go over the line. [laughter] remember scott mccellan? remember him? a -- well, he's not, but i just love saying that on cnn, and i should not have done it. the point is you may hear that on the left that you hear all the time on the right and neil borts in florida says don't blame bush for cay katrina or the governor, # but the worthless parasites who live

there who didn't have enough sense to wipe themselves let alone get out of the way when the levies broke. that's the kind of talk i'm talking about. i'm talking about rush limbaugh, you can disagree with president obama. you don't have to call him an ignorant jackass or if barak obama was not black, he'd be nothing more than a tour guide in honolulu today. you can disagree with the policies. you don't have to go that far. it doesn't serve the country well when you go that far. it's not only disgusting to listen to, it can be, not always, but it can be dangerous. glenn beck identified a group in the san fransisco area called the tides foundation and called them the most dangerous element in america today out with george's money to undermind this

country and bring the country down. about a couple months later, the police stopped a guy weaving in and out of traffic and had three guns in his car on the way to san fransisco to wipe out the leadership of the tides foundation baa glenn beck identified them as evil. toxic talk can lead to toxic actions. it's not good when that happens. as a solution, look, i'm not about to censor anybody. people have a right to make a fool of themselves as much as they want. god knows i do regularly. i do think there should be balance in the air waves, on the air waves and that every market in the country people who don't necessarily agree with rush limbaugh or glenn beck should have a station they agree or disagree with. i would like to see the fcc to

just enforcing the current law which is that if you have a license to operate the public airways, you have to operate in the public interest. what a novel concept. [laughter] [applause] i say, you're not operating in the public interest when you are all right or left wing. thank you, and you know, one final point is that where all of this is coming from, right, the right wing talk radio hosts are fueling the tea party and the tea party is fueling politics today, and nobody could defend the tea party today except doug s -- shone. [applause] >> well, it is left to me to tell you what my dear friend, bill press, and my equally dear friend, john avlon, didn't tell you. i say this in both mock and real

seriousness because there is another perspective. my own world view is close to john's who used to be close to bill's, but that was awhile ago when we had dark hair, and now i have less hair, and he has white hair. that being said, i have a couple of points. i read a book about the tea party movement. it was not and is not a defense to the tea party movement. it was designed to be an -- explanation of why 40% of the american people identified with the tea party and 36% identified with the major parties. two years ago at this time there was not a tea party. what is it about american politics that allows a movement to grow that arguably elected 50 or 60 members of the house, two or three members of the u.s. senate, and has affectively a

veto power over one the major political parties. how did this happen? john, i think you chose the wrong bill buckley with all do republic. the quote that was described was he would rather been governed by the first, i think 100 names in the massachusetts phone book than the harvard faculty. the reason i elude to that is because that's striving the tea party. there's a sense that politicians of both parties, and in this sense, john is absolutely right, both parties are missing the boat. it's not only extremism and extreme rhetoric, but it's the failure to solve problems, and if you look at the tea party and analyze what they stand for, it's really not so much what jon was talking about and there's leaders who reflect the

sentiments of so-called wing nuts, but bottom line the tea party in vast, vast numbers and bulk of the leadership, will people with real concerns with the way government operates with federal spending and the dysfunction of washington and the absence of a balanced budget and a growing debt, and if you talk to them, they will tell you they got angry under george bush, and angrier still under president obama with the health care bill driving that sentiment. you obviously have a senator here and marco rubio but for the sentiments and tea party would be but an as risk on the political spectrum and in the country. i think it's important to recognize that political issues surface because of real concerns.

now, my friend, bill press, doesn't like the fact there is talk radio and presumably would not like the fact that i work for fox news, but the reason why these stations have done and networks have done as well as they have because people listen. rest assured the businessmen running them are not ideologs first and foremost, but businessmen. it's not a 55-45 nation, but a country in the exit polls thamps 42 conservative and 40 liberal. them just the facts. i'm somebody who thinks like john avlon and worked for many democrats and mayor bloomberg in new york city, and i'm not necessarily comforted by that, but i don't deny the reality of what's happened. in is a center right country, and if you put the moderates in with the conservatives that something that unfortunately happened in this election more or less, it's probably not a

90/10 country, but closer to an 80/20 country and that overstated things, but not by much. now, john is absolutely right to say the lack of civility in our discourse is a huge, huge problem. the problem is what people want to hear, and bill, is a master at it, is they want to hear the over-the-top rhetoric that overpolarrizes and excises and in my judgment destroys the context for civility and discussion. john is right when it's done on the left and right, we are all lossers as americans. in real life, bill press is a thoughtful and rational reasonable person -- [laughter] who is a terrific entertainer, and i'm talking the veil off, but saying the problem in

america today is to get ratings, to get attention, to sell books. you really have a tough time being thoughtful and sentiments cerebral. now, the problems we face as americans is it's one thing to face in the roller derby when you have a balanced bument and you are not at war, but given the nature of the problems that we face, if the republican leadership in the white house engage in a kind of rhetoric we've seen recently with witch mcconnell saying my highest goal is to make president obama a one term president, and president obama who i think tried to moderate his rhetoric, but spoke of his o pents in the campaign as enemies saying we have to have hand had to have had -- hand-to-hand combat. we will not solve problems and have another election in 2012

seeking to complicate the issues of 2010 campaign. the losers will be all of us. if you look at where our economy is and where we are as a nation, you know, we are at 9.5% unemployment. you add in discouraged workers, underemployed people, and you're closer to 16-20% of americans facing some degree of economic dislocation. if you look at targeted audiences like african-american youth, you got 40% unemployment. it doesn't matter your philosophy or approach is, those numbers in my judgment are intolerable. my conclusion about all of this is to try to demonize people whether it be the tea party, people on the far left, whatever, is really, really more than just bad politics. it is destructive of our broader, national interest.

we all enjoy the sport of politics. i enjoy going on fox news and talking about the issues, but i try to tell things as i see them. to be straight, bill and john are the two smartest people you're going to get, and rather have me go on defending things that bill press finds intolerable, and john avlon finds barely palatable, i will mercifully stop and take your questions. thank you. [applause] ..

>> i wonder why it is that we talk of they doing something, and then at the same time we talk of less government doing something. it sounds to me like -- not a paradox, but a contradiction. i don't understand that. i wish you would explain that to me. >> barre last question. i encourage the -- john and bill to join in. i use the word they because i'm not part of the tea party. my book was not a defense of the tea party, but the fact that i didn't use the word we. i think certainly i feel like if

we use the word we have not they as a country we would all do better as a people. i take your point, and would echo it. >> you know, i think the us against them analysis apart its excesses of these the a big part of the problem. we are dividing ourselves the recently as a matter of political strategy. there is a divide and conquer strategy that has been embraced by activists and ideologues that seeks to divide to conquer. it does not think so much about unifying the country as a goal. they want low turnout high-intensity elections. they know that they can when. there is something deeply disturbing about that. it is a good linguistic cats. even on the tea party, certainly i say this many times. the two-party and not all. it is a good example of how we are having fundamentally dishonest debates. i think it's the party is composed of two main streams, a

very principled fiscal conservative protest movement that was created in the mid bailout backlash against big government and big business concerned about the generational debt and then over the course of the summer of 2009 especially east odyssey obama derangement syndrome. folks that have, angry views of the president that departed from reality and turned him into a demonized figure. democrats on ly see the obama derangement syndrome. conservatives on the see the principle of fiscal conservatism the reality is and what we need to get back to is be honest enough to say there are elements of both in there. so we can do that we are going to keep having these fractured distorted the base that end up in that as against an analysis. >> i disagree with both of my colleagues on this issue. first of all, to me this smacks of moral equivalency, which i despise. i like the phrase we and they.

i'm a member of the professional left, and i think we are right and their wrong. i may not be right. i may not be right, but that's what i think. let me tell you what drove me crazy. i went down to the jon stewart rally. i went to the plan back rally. i went to the johnston rally. at the end he gives this whole thing. he says this video. the car is merging into the tunnel. he said now, look at this. this is america. we're so polite. i go and then you go. and that's what politics is. i was screaming, no, it's not. i mean, i like being polite. i try to be civil, but there is a difference between the two parties, and i think there's a difference between the tea party and the republican party and the democratic party. i think the tea party is dead wrong on a lot of issues. it when they say they are against government spending and i say well, where the hell were you when we went to war in iraq

against the country that didn't attack his first? [applauding] so i exist submit i think there are legitimate differences. we can disagree and not pretend we are all in the same boat. >> broadcasting has been my passion. my cousin. a little senate transistor under my pillow. >> i have to say, i did not understand. >> i'm sorry. i said broadcasting. >> slowed down. >> by the way, broadcasting has been a passion of mine since i was a little boy listening to my a.m. radio under my pillow as a child in new york city. i'm in a blizzard just like you guys. i agree with you that the language is not the issue. the second election in this country between adams and jefferson if you want to see he'd political rhetoric.

in my view the issue is money. all one need do really in terms of looking at how talk radio grew to what it is now is look at the deregulation of the broadcasting industry back in 94 -- 96. the same holds true with the financial crisis in the deregulation of the financial industry during the same time after the '94 election. and so it's all about the money. [applauding] >> certainly, i mean, there has been a lot of conversation about the united decision. the one thing i will say about money and politics, whether you believe that money is speech are not. i keep waiting a year molotov back, and it doesn't. look. certainly i think a lot more money. 2008 in the rearview mirror of history may look like a very

civil election because there were not a lot of 527 and spending. people were nervous about litigation. and keep in mind that the current decision opened the floodgates not only on corporate money but union money. with that said if you think things are ugly and uncivil now, just wait. we have problems coming down the pike. let me take issue with the premise of the question and perhaps gill's point as well. when david axelrod said the issue is the corporate money for foreign money, he didn't have any evidence. beyond not having any evidence he didn't have anyone who much cared of the then some professional liberals. i say that not because there's anything wrong with being a professional level. i guess i'm sort of a professional moderate, but the

average voter's attitude is, what are you going to do to change my life? maybe its bid for you, but it's run for us. and so john avalon is basically right. unless we can focus on common problems and provide some effort to create collegiality, agreement, or at the very least, a consensus i can assure you the net losers will be the broad mass of the american people even though those of us to make our living talking become enraged. >> let me just say on the money issue, first of all, i always tell my democratic friends when they stop whining choose to go raise your own money and spend your own money. outspend these other guys. that's just a temporary solution, but as long as the game is the way it is you have to play it the way it is. at the same time i have to tell you i think the amount of money -- and we see more and more, especially more and more wealthy people spending their own money to buy elective office.

it was john in new jersey. let me tell you, you would not have rick scott as your governor if he didn't spend $73 million. [applauding] meg whitman spent hundred and 43 million lost. >> i would like to ask any and all of you to explore a little deeper with the use of social media in the next number of years. i'm specifically bringing this up because to those that were not here for the last talk i believe she represents a 20 something very astute political figure in this country. if i'm quoting her correctly when asked why the turnout was poor in the midterm elections she said they weren't sexy enough. when asked what her source was for various pieces of news she

listed 17 various blocks that she reads every day. when someone approached the microphone she said, oh, my god, you're so and so from the miami reality show. i thought she was going to jump off the stage, breaker ankle due to the justice and some shoes she was wearing and ask for his autograph. i really wanted to be the one interviewing her. we would have had a heyday. i'm sorry. it's very important. she does represent -- i was very impressed. she presented herself beautifully. very, very important to me. i looked at her as a twentysomething individual and i look at the sources. eugene robinson this week, there are facts and there are false facts to the number of twentysomething thirtysomething that are getting their source for information through facebook. housetop. you catch the draft. between now and the next

election how do we help the media did in to some of the incredible issues that face this country rather than the celebrity, crazy, whatever that is being covered by the news today. forgive me for being so long. >> i'll address the social media part of that question. there is a good and bad aspects of it. a tidal wave change. you might as well make change your ally because it's a lousy enemy. the good news about social media, i think, is it gives us the ability to aggregate people who have. right now pauline parker -- party politics plays. they can get away with it. it can mobilize the clubhouse model. played by industrial age rules. it has not woken up to information age reality. for a rising generation of us which of the most applause -- multiplicity of choice if politics is the last place we are told we need to be content with a choice between brand a and brent peek. for many of us who are

independent, the youngest segment is independent, by far. many of us are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. neither party reaches out to us, because they can't. we are desegregated spirit we don't like joining things. we don't want to surrender our individuality or diversity of beliefs to walk in lockstep with one party or the other. social media creates the ability to unify and organized a group like never before. that is helpful to boc group's coming up. no labels will be one of us. there are a lot of groups that can do that. we can push back on the power brokers and party bosses using social media in a way that's better than ever before. the downside is we are getting our news in increasingly actualized ways. essentially everything is and a man. they can isolate themselves and get only news that confirms their own political prejudice or

bias. that divides us even further and create a dynamic of group polarization. that can be very destructive and is one of the reason what politics is looking more and more like a call to. there is that self reenforcing at a chamber atmosphere which is really popularized. people are only getting their news sources from narrow radiological corners. >> you know, i think the question is a very good one. there wouldn't be at tea party if there was not the internet causes some media, blogs, and the like. indeed ascot and i were writing the book we were able to trace the development of different individual t parties through precisely what you described. there would not have been in a bombing campaign in the fund-raising that was done but for social media and the like. the hugely important point that your making that, frankly, none

of us made and we should have is that young people today are more likely to get their news online from blocks or snippets of newspaper articles than they are for newspapers. you know, the model that i suspect we all follow, i say we meeting the audience and panel, three or four newspapers in the morning. try to get through part of them. finished at night and end up with a vague sense if we did not do a. whereas the people who work for me to look in newspapers, believe they're relics. go on line mostly of round logs, net sites and sesame deicide and that's how they communicate. that's how you organize politically. to not understand that is to really mess of fundamental truth and core element in american politics. >> on dangerous territory when you ask this panel to get

deeper. [applauding] [laughter] we all agreed not to. but i think all of us recognize that we are all in the middle of this. the social media is changing our lives in many, many ways, especially the media. none of us really understand how. for all just trying to keep up with. you can now be on radio or television. i have a website. i have a block. at tweeted from the white house. i do all that kind. most jenn people today never pick up a newspaper. would know where to find one. they get to the sites. you have to be there. you have to be there. the problem is -- both john and doug eluded to this, the quality control is really lacking. stuff can get started and it spread ended a life of its own.

the network news and really it's the kick the tires there's nothing there. so we are all dealing with this phenomenon that is very real and very powerful. >> i work for the daily beast. it's a great web site. our editor in chief has taken over newsweek. that is a remarkable thing. and so there is a lot of hopeful aspects of all of this. minute by minute, but it's exciting and dynamic. >> i couldn't keep up with what megan mentioned, i'm sure. in my own light i can remember doug killing in and starting with a stack of papers and going through the papers to look for things i want to talk about. well, first of all, i get to the studio at 5:00 in the morning. there aren't any papers delivered by that time. i wouldn't any help. i go to dredge. a good to politico. the daily caller. a liggett ms nbc, fox. it's all online. that's where we are.

>> everyone in this room knows about the crazy election we just had. there was one same thing that came out of that election. that was amendment five and sex. [applauding] and for those of you don't live in florida that was called fair district. we got almost one-and-a-half million petitions to get it on the ballot. we get more than 60 percent of the floridians who voted to say that now our congressional districts and legislative districts cannot be drawn based on voter registration data. we have to keep canter's together and use natural boundaries to draw these districts. it just seems to be a movement. john, you are probably the one person that can really push this. if we can get rid of rent districts include districts than safe districts that congressmen and senators and state legislators are going to have to run on the issues.

we also get rid of closed primaries. >> yes. >> but nothing is going to change as long as there is this crazy gerrymandering. we saw it in palm beach county. god knows where this guy came from. but we need people like you to talk about fair districts. >> we need people like you to care. this is a citizens' revolution. you really want to change politics? redistricting, reform, and open primaries. it is hugely important. our political system has been a raid by partisans who want low turnout, safe districts. what you guys did in florida and what happened in california, their is a section in the conclusion of the book called how to take america back. it explicitly redistricting reform and open primaries. you know, just look at how the incentive system has been changed through this system that

has been put in place. you get low turnout and closed partisan primaries. 10 percent turnout. by percent is the majority. it's a paradise for actresses and ideologues and makes the politicians spend all their time playing to the base. in is the only election they have to worry about. ended up hurting the republican party because they would have picked up at sea with my castle. redistricting reform is so essential to be open primaries and redistricting is the most potent, powerful citizen tool we have to reduce the polarization and extremism in our politics. this needs to move beyond florida and california. it is the most important thing. >> a man. >> let me make one other point to have are rare and i'm sure temporary moment of complete agreement. >> i just raised my mind.

>> so, get. i'm glad. and now we will tell you about something that people in my position rarely do. a failing of mine. it is called the political effects. i tried to save what john avalon said so eloquently who know what, nobody cares. maybe it wasn't a good book. maybe i let the readers down or and let the publishing world down. and be happy to acknowledge that. but the reason why a point to my own failings is because what john said about open priories and redistricting reform is absolutely right. i tried to do my bit for the cause. i failed. to the extent you're able to do with the last questioner so eloquently spoke of and compellingly accomplished and the we will have a better country, better politics and be

able to do with each of the three of us want to, solve all problems. >> a man. >> i wanted to ask you in the extremist rhetoric square you think it will play in terms of the problem i have with whether it's news commentary or campaign ads. actor the back taking people. the more moderate dialogue if people had the truth and how you feel we can fix the problem. >> you know, in florida the st. petersburg police fact, it is a great site and service. that is exactly what we need more of. the problem with the rise in partisan media is that everything is put through a filter. therefore facts are selectively pick and it leaves most people

confused because their getting opposite visions of american just depending on what their new sources. so what we really need is more news sources to be independent and push back against this tide of partisan news to be the honest brokers again at a site like pulling the fact which actually does the analysis of what is a lie and what's true. that is what we need more of. we need to insist on it pretty have to vote with your wallet. reward the sights and new stations that are actually trying to be independent, trying to be fair and balanced. not just saying they are, but are willing to of punch both sides. that is one of the only ways. >> i have to tell you, i'd like facts. i think every political debate should start out with facts. then you can draw your own conclusion.

i can see how different people can come to their conclusions about what should be done will what the solution is to that problem. when you at least start with -- and there are a basic set of facts on any given problem. you don't get very far when you start out by saying the obama health care bill contains death panels. it doesn't. never did and never will. yet we heard it until the very end. sarah palin is probably still saying it. you don't get very far when saying that the stimulus bill or the recovery bill did not create one single new job. i don't know how many did, but that certainly is just not true. john dean still says it today. i'm sure doug can give you plenty of examples of people on the lefty will say things which are patently untrue. that's where we are. it's called gridlock. a lot of it is simply because people just refused to lay out

the facts. there are we put the deficit. now on how we solve it. at least start with the basic fact. we'd be a lot better off if we can do that. >> thank you for your talk. basically i think all of you have described the problem. i don't think i really heard proposed solutions. a little bit, but i don't think anybody really has been down to the very basic problem. i don't know what it is, but i think people like you should believe. >> i do. i will urge you to go back to, i guess, the fourth -- i think it was the fourth of november. if you have the time and inclination to do so, the "wall street journal" were asset what i thought president obama should do.

what i said is we need a fiscally conservative pro-growth agenda that seeks to unite america on a set of stimuli to encourage entrepreneurial ship and private sector job creation, on merit based education system, an effort to break dependence on foreign oil, cut the -- make modest but real cuts in the defense budget as a means of trying to put together a plan to begin the process of doing what bill said he haltingly wanted to do, which is to balance the budget which is an absolutely critical necessity if we are going to go forward as a nation which is going to require tough decisions about entitlement given the attacks that came as john suggested. the two ballot -- balanced budget committees. i think there are clear ideas out there. i put them forward. john has. bill has in his own way. rest assured they are there, but

for panel discussions people like to hear more about priests and condoms than they do about payroll tax and holidays. >> well. >> they do. >> i just might point out it's not the "wall street journal" i have a problem with. it's the "washington post" a few days later where you and pat cadel wrote the best thing for this country would be for barack obama to declare that he is a 1-term president and not seek reelection. at think that is the dumbest thing that i have ever read in 30 years of covering politics. >> i read. you can defend it. >> and asking you to summarize my argument. all defended. >> as i recall the argument it was that this is the way to get things done. suddenly barack obama system not going to run for reelection.

give him a french kiss. there will live happily ever after. >> you know, doug, barack obama said i'm not running for reelection. why should we deal with you? and will be the worst thing we could do. >> i agree with you, actually. the point of the piece was to suggest that if the president returned to the values of the 2008 -- of the 2008 campaign where he emphasized bringing red and blue together, put aside the extreme rhetoric. you may not like the argument, but screaming down doesn't really add to the stability. it doesn't. the side of a microphone today. for example, the largest point that bill refused to articulate tells you how well abhorrent he

finds what john avalon talks about every day. rationality. >> no, no. common sense. >> that he tried to briefly answer your question. here's the dirty little secret. the american people are not deeply divided. the extremes and the elites and the activists are deeply divided, but the vast majority of the american people aren't. culture or issues that are intensely designed as issues put forth to divide people. on an issue like worship which is deeply, sincerely divided, the vast majority of the american people actually agree. user problem. if you look at the issues are facing as a country, the american people want that divided. at think the president could work with the gop.

bleeding. but you have to generally reach out, not a total of by partisanship, but the substance. what if the president took immigration reform. immigration reform gets demagogue every election cycle and then nobody deals with that. what if president obama to president bush's immigration plan and dusted off from the border security and say, here, do you like this? just fooling with the american people? >> is going to take a look at energy. the american people, health care reform. the debate and health care reform always began with we did -- agree on everything. then it immediately became about socialism. to find common ground and then build on it. on the issue of deficits and debt the president to lead by pulling and nixon in china. he has talked about his willingness. we all know that is their only

way. he have a bipartisan panel that just came back with recommendations. on day one it got attacked and destroyed from the far left and far right who both said it was the l.a. these people would rather demagogue to death and deal with it. they are who we should be furious that. those folks are just them in america. >> i feel pelter response. just on one issue, which is immigration. first of all facts. facts. the fact is there are like -- i don't want to give a number, but far, far, far fewer people coming across the border than there were two, three, four years ago. more borders secure and there have been ever. the fact is we have made a lot of progress. the of the fact is the president has put forth the very same plan that george bush had on immigration which at the time i said and still say today the bush plan was a good plan.

obama has put it forward. why hasn't it moved? the very same republicans who supported when it was george bush's plan, john mccain, lindsay graeme and others now say we're against it because it's a bama is planned. that's the problem. we are not being honest about our support. people say it's about ideas. they're so principled. but frequently they will support based on the party's the president belongs to. as not being serious. it's stopping as from solving problems. the back to what the other lady said. redistricting reform and open primaries are good place to start. >> who's next? >> we have time for one more. >> i have a quick comment. for mr. sean to suggest that there is this moral equivalence and there is this back and forth. democrats doing the same spirit

is totally not true. what i see going on is that the tea party, yeah, it sounds real nice. there's they're real extreme part of the tea party and then there's kind of the common american tea party people. if that's true then why are the tea party candidates so radically extreme? if the tea party candidates represent this, you know, broadsword of consensus of americans with these values about smaller government stuff and that's a legitimate, you know, ideologies then why are these candidates so completely extreme? and just want to say one thing real quick. >> come on. >> i wanted to hear dug answer that. >> again, when you have a social movement that is leaderless that encompasses up to 40 percent of the american people, frequently

those to step forward are people who wouldn't pass a litmus test for rationality. even john avalon. >> how about 70? >> maybe that, too. the fcc wants to regulate speech in fairness. i understand that. because we're in a democracy and because broad ideas percolate there are people who come forward to don't pass the smell test. it's very good for america. people like sharon and bill and christina o'donnell did not win the election. i will tell you, if you have a large percentage of the electorate responding as people have to the two-party, far more important than there are a few candidates who are arguably outside the mainstream and not acceptable to people in this room, the fact that we have a real problem in our politics. but the questioner had an important point. a lot of the tea party supporters are genuinely attracted by libertarian rhetoric and the real concern about fiscal responsibility.

concerned about a generation of that and what it means to have this to be the american people are smart. you can't be the world's sole superpower. it's worth pointing out there was a fundamental fault line, a contradiction between many of the candidates put forth who are not libertarian in the least, but, in fact, hard core social conservative activists. most of those folks lost. you have to rise to the payless standard on abortion, not being pro-life but opposed even in the case of rape and incest. most of those candidates lost, but i can't think of anything less libertarian than that. or the fact that a couple of candidates all were saying the same stuff as michele bachman about separation of church and state. it wasn't in the constitution. look at the tea party caucus. the most serious fiscal conservatives in congress aren't part of that caucus. instead it's michele bock and in

the 12 co-sponsors of the birth the bill. people who are seriously devoted really need to look deeply and recognize that there is a fall line and a fundamental contradiction that they need to deal with because it's going to erupt. [applauding] >> good point. i just want to say, i've been around this all one time in many different angles. i worked in the legislature, jerry brown, a state party chair. i've run campaigns. press secretary. i was a candidate in california. radio and tv. i really love this political system. friends on both sides of the party. i believe in it. i believe this the way we as citizens involved in get things done. as an american and someone who loves the political system i am worried about the tea party movement. i don't like it and i think it represents the dumbing down of america. and i hear somebody stand out --

and i hear somebody stand up at town hall meeting and say here's what i think about health care keeping government out of my medicare. >> i think, wait a minute. can't we do any better than this? i don't disagree with what you said, it's good for america. i think it's bad for america that they even got as far as they did. encino, the issue that i would take with you is when you self appointed critic on the left beside his time and he's not dumb, with all due respect that isn't how things work and it shouldn't be how things be. >> well, you can defend kristine a doll. >> defending fairness in the process rather than your omniscience. we don't want to demonize people

we disagree with. >> correct. at the we said that earlier. >> at think we did. this seems to be general agreement on that. i want to check right now. >> the christina donald tang was really special. that, i learned to masturbate in delaware. >> it begins with condoms and ends with masturbation. such is the nature of american dialogue. >> she didn't get my vote. >> that's clear. >> look at the clock to see if we have time. >> the tea party. >> c-span. where is brian lamb? >> five minutes. go keep this going.

>> well, two things. i take pride in the fact that we are a nation that is a diverse culturally, politically, and in every way. i think that is wonderful. i grew up in a cable television age along with the new york times and "wall street journal" and all that. yes. corrupt also. some of the early, you know, brilliant articles. >> question. >> question is first of all, the biggest -- my biggest complaint or my biggest not the -- question. >> is, and as to this, why do we -- why do we call -- think of the tea party as an organization

that has any fundamental belief or issues? as far as i can tell that to party is just a radical group of people who are very, very unhappy and range from moderate. >> we get the question. simple answer, bill and john should speak to it. they have three or four core principles they articulated. large numbers of people responded to reducing the debt or reducing spending or returning to what they call core principles. that's what politics is about. >> the idea, we don't want to just use the us against them and all of a sudden see these fellow americans as aliens. they're not. we may disagree with them, but this is part of the problem pretty gone to a point where someone is liberal or conservative party party or entity party we start to question the patriotism and their americanism. that is dangerous. don't fall into it. the bigger. the better.

>> try not to. >> my radical point of view is there is no such a thing. twenty-four different organizations around the country to identify themselves with something called the tea party. >> were going to keep it moving. >> my question is for mr. avalon. how do you explain individualist's to start out on one extreme and then turned out changing to the other side? >> it depends on which way they go. [applauding] >> if they go from right to left. >> i'm sorry. >> the extreme right in the 90's and extreme left. i was wondering what your take is. i was trying to think of someone who does the opposite. >> there are plenty. i mean, i think that we want to encourage political evolution.

the really core addicts that we need to remember that we are forgetting is that in a place where everybody thinks like no one is thinking very much. we want to doubt in our own infallibility and question their compatriots and think and analyze and evolve. that is a good, healthy sign of an individual. great. more the merrier. >> why do we need the party system at all? is deteriorated into government. why not have primaries that are not partisan and have two candidates with the highest number of votes have a runoff in the general election? >> two-party runoff. california just voted for that. past the primary vote in every county except orange county and san francisco county, which i thought was funny. >> first of all, quickly, we started out with the number one

vote-getter being the president and the number to the vice president. that's how we ended up with george washington and thomas jefferson and john adams. the founding fathers had enough sense to realize that was not working and it changed. i thought where we were going was i really believe as a solid democrat that the best thing we could do would be get a viable third or fourth party and really shaken up. really shake it up. give people a choice. >> in a rare moment of agreement having worked for a third-party, advocated a third-party candidate in 2008 and written a book about it, i can tell you i could not agree with him more. >> independence of the largest and fastest-growing segment. the democrats or republicans. we forget that. the key is the source of the problem. so deeper than that. don't buy into this idea.

parties are essentially opportunistic organizations designed to achieve power. washington, the only city in the country with the single most important thing about you is what political party he belongs to. most americans don't have a political litmus test. that's one of the reasons why washington is so screwed up. >> so why not have a drop at the end? it doesn't have to be president and vice-president predicting be a president with someone of his own party running against -- >> national fair vote. >> well, i would put none of the above. the problem with that is it would always ran. it would. >> how can you talk about the t party and the motivations behind the two-party and not talk about race? i mean, it's like the 2,000-pound elephant in the room. >> sure.

>> going to a two-party affair. race is one of the main factors. also, you keep citing examples. you're assuming that the electorate is 2012 is going to be the same small electric as 2010. let me tell you something. if the tea party at all carries out their program and the democrats respond by doing some of the things that people thought about busted four and release fought for progressive change you will see a much better turnout. you know, what lost the election was not that people change their mind. it was the democrats did not vote. if you look at it, that's the case here in florida and the case across the country. if the democratic base comes out there will win. again, how you cannot talk about race in know, having written a book about the two-party having

no connection to the two-party obviously scott and i were happy to write about race if race was an issue. we know, you can yell about a, but if you can present some evidence of mainstream tea party people making racial or engaging in racial epitaphs, it just doesn't happen to. >> john lewis is a patriotic american. if he had evidence it would have come forward. there hasn't been any evidence to support what john lewis said. he's a man of enormous patriotism and courage and enormous heroism. other than saying that on one day unnamed people who he could not point to, you know, engaged in some vile behavior. there has been no evidence. that being said, to brandon organization as racist just

because you feel strongly about the organization is really pretty sad in my judgment. [applauding] >> okay. i will tell you based on my own experience. i've been to several rallies. i did not see a lot of dark skin at any of those tea party rallies. glen beck rally and several in the washington d.c. area. i don't play the race card. i do have to say that when you look at the issues that the tea party raises and if it was government spending, the president before barack obama who until that time rolled up the biggest budget deficits ever and presided over the largest expansion of federal government since lbj and taken this into two wars hemet even the wealthiest people a $2 trillion tax cut over ten years. you can go on and on with the issues. the only difference between that president where you didn't hear

people from this crowd and the current president is that barack obama is the first black american president. i think that has something to do with it. something to do with it. that's all insane. race has been of fundamental fault line in our politics forever. you can't discount and its impact. america has come a long way since the simple stupid bird or racism. attempts to throw the race card in every debate in the subject meeting our conversation parity have to deal with the role of race. i have a chapter brad talk about the rise of white minority politics. i do not think it is simple braces and all. i think that some folks do express anxiety about the demographic changes in our country that president obama is a symbol of to some extent. but let me just -- the gentleman who asked that question, wearing a george bush t-shirt that says i screw america. so that's important to know. i do think that this election,

you know, is not about -- you've already seen some democrats. the problem is we weren't enough. the far left thinks he's a corporate sellout. you can't be both. if democrats got in trouble by misinterpreting the 2008 election as an ideological mandate, it was not. voters were -- the independent voters were consistent-2018% for republicans this time around. we want checks and balances. let me tell you. republicans misinterpret this election they're going to find out they have another think coming. >> let me make one final comment. i think everybody will at least consider, if not embrace. a bill of the best of the american people. a gracious and did people that they elected barack obama.