throws the whole thing out of balance. it doesn't take a a lot. we saw that during the reagan years and just a change in policies to make the rewards predictable and worth going after, lower the risk from regulation and litigation as much as you can and then you will see people go out there and go after it. when they do it helps the rest of us. our foreign policy is definitely weekend by the fact that folks know we have to borrow money to pay our own bills. they know we have to go to the international target from china or we will print money which means the dollar will get weaker. as some of our chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is that our biggest national security issue is our debt and we are seeing now the pentagon pull back on spending, warships because of our debt, because of her inability to pay for these

and we need to rethink how we spend money in the military. there's no question about it but we should not have to weaken our defenses because we have spent so much money in other areas with no return. so the fiscal situation is definitely related to our national security. >> this will have to be the last question. >> a lot of the times conservatives are known to be on the -- rhetoric and the debate going on in washington as a prominent member of congress how do you turn around this idea that conservatives are selfish and that they know the difference between selfish and individual liberty and he said economic mobility. how do you change the debate so we know there's a difference between selfish behavior and being able to be successful

economically versus having economic ruin? >> it's a great question because i know that a lot of americans are busy and not paying attention. they are not that well informed on what is going on and i think this administration really preys on that. that is how i think the president can have the audacity to in the state of the union say all of these things that go's of us who are really getting at but that he knows a lot of americans are not paying attention and that is really what i'm trying to do with this book. it's not just to appeal to those who were involved in politics but hopefully someone will pick it up and just like i was and i confess in the book when i was 40 years old i had my own business with four kids and i didn't even know who my congressman was and didn't care because i didn't think i was a big issue in my life. but the more i got involved with business and community, the more i saw what our policies were

doing. somehow we have to get the average american engaged in this process as soon as we can and i'm calling on people who are active to do everything they can to engage in the people who sit next to them at work or in church or in a cybergame and see if we can get these other people and ball. i have a whole chapter on what the right messages and we do need to remember that this is not about politics or political labels. it's about people, it's about their families. what people want more than anything else can a gallup just came out with a study saying all around the world as a good job. a good job music and take care of their family and to the other things they want. having a good job means government needs to be about creating the best environment in the world to do business at the local, state and federal level. we can see the truth and communicated to people it's amazing to me that the democratic politicians can somehow say that we can punish businesses and create jobs.

and that some americans still buy that idea. i have never worked for anyone who didn't have more money than i did and i'm very thankful for them. that is what -- stigmatizing success which we have seen and even some republicans, we have to not that down because i hope all of young people are aspiring to make a million dollars. in america 50% of the people who make a million dollars do it for one year. this is not a permanent class of people. what we want is you to work your whole life to make a million dollars and when you do you create jobs and you create prosperity all around you and then you'll go over to the other side and somebody will take your place. that is what is great about america but to suggest when you get there that we need to take 60 or 70% of what you make, that's not going to get people going to college, going to graduate school or working and struggling, sacrificing so that they can be successful.

if you have read the wealth of nations by adam smith and how prosperity really occurs, and i don't think many people understand. it occurs when you have got individuals out there trying to better their own situations and when they do just like i did, i started a business not to create jobs but to create a better living for myself. in the process i created dozens of jobs over the years, a lot of them starting their own businesses. i rented space and borrowed money from banks and borrowed for office supplies, created my own little economy and now somebody else is doing it. but america is very different and unique in the power is still there. we just have to unleash it again but to do it people have to understand what it is in the first place and that is our challenge in this election. thanks for all the time. thanks everybody. [applause] >> for more on senate church and demand in his work, visit jim

demint.com. here's a short author interview from c-span's campaign 2012 bus as it travels the country. >> whywhy did you decide to wrie the book? >> i was living in the netherlands for a year. year. i had a sabbatical and that was the first country that allowed country -- couples to get me to just as i arrived in massachusetts where he lived the supreme court said gay couples are not allowed to get married so i was watching the debate and watching what was going on in europe and realized the debate was very similar and focused on

a lot of questions that i could answer as a social scientist. >> what is the current state of gay marriage in america in terms of states which permit gay marriage or states that are moving in the direction of realizing gay marriage? >> we have about 20 states that have utilize some form of relationship for same-sex couples. six allowed gay couples to g

they realize that unless the parents had a relationship there was putting the kids in some danger, so there were lots of different things happening in the gay community that highlighted the need to have some kind of recognition and actually some of the first places to recognize was the big corporations who started giving domestic partnership benefits to their employees. these were very important to us in a lot of companies have actually come through. >> have some states permitted

state workers to have health care benefits to share with their partners? >> yeah. roughly 20 states have made that possible so it is much or common at the state and local level. really about one third of employees in the u.s. have access to domestic partner benefits in the workplace was something that is now kind of an old idea. it's not even a new idea any more. >> what are the benefits you talked about as far as places of employment? are there any other factors you believe should be included for legalization in recent years? >> well, there's the opportunity to do so i think that is really opened up in the mid-90s. a court case in hawaii and vermont had a good court decision with civil unions there and we have looked at the rest of the world. other countries have started allowing cut -- couples to get

married. now there are 10 countries that allow gay couples to get married and many more with the equivalent of civil unions. we are not the leaders by any stretch of the imagination but i think you know public opinion is now moving in the direction of saying yes, about half the country thinks gay couples should have the right to marry and that it's been increasing every time. young people in particular are very much in favor of it so i think we are seeing a real change, real trend towards acceptance. >> do you think gay people change the institution of marriage? >> no, i don't think so. they want to get married for the same reason that everyone else does. they found one person that they want to share their lives with. sometimes they're practical reasons for wanting to get married. sometimes they are getting ready -- married to express their love and commitment and they want their friends and family to recognize it. a lot of people seem to respond in that way and do recognize

these relationships. the couples that i interviewed from the book and the netherlands told many stories of how their friends and family members encourage them to get married and recognized anniversaries and help them plan their weddings. they have been very supportive so i think what that says is they recognize the same-sex couples are to people like to be able to get married and maybe they should get married. >> you of a have a chapter in the book titled -- you believe gay marriage has changed gay people and what is your research covering? >> we have we have certainly seen a message that same-sex couples report that there just made a difference for them for their relationships. they have more of a commitment and makes a difference for their families and how they see those relationships and they are more supportive of them so that matters and then the larger more philosophical issue though is really about what happens when you have more a quality.

a lot of the gay community structures built around political movements towards winning a quality and once you have that equality that is hard to know what will continue to hold the community together so we are not at that point yet but for instance there has been what some people call a sense of complacency that there is no need to continue to have gay organizations or a gay political movement. we are not there yet in the u.s. but it may be in the not-too-distant future. >> you believe civil unions are an appropriate alternative if gay marriage cannot be legalized in the state? >> they have of value, clearly. they are better than nothing and certainly lots of people want to have at least some kind of legal right to recognize their relationships but they are not seen as the same. the couples that i interview and the book for instance said you know it was a political

compromise. it's the second class status. why shouldn't same-sex couples only have the right to have several unions are registered partnerships and europe went straight couples get this other kind of thing that has much more emotional significance. domestic partnerships or civil union sound like a business relationship basically. and the other thing we know is that same-sex couples but with their feet. if you give them a chance to marry they are much more likely to marry than they are to get a civil union so it clearly has more value. >> what protections do civil unions as well as gay marriage afford members of the lgbt community? >> well, it takes to people who are not related to each other that says they have a legal relationship so that makes it easier for them to live their lives together in the normal kinds of things that happen in the course of a relationship, buying a house, buying cars, having kids. it provides a legal framework for people to live their lives together and it says to the

state governments anyway, not to the federal government right now, that state the state governments will recognize those relationships. if i don't have the well then you're civil union partner or your spouse, your same-sex spouse has certain kinds of rights for same-sex couples who cannot get married just don't have. they have to pay a lawyer money to develop these documents and sometimes those documents don't work very well. >> where do you see the movement for gay marriage going? >> there is no evidence it's going to slack off anytime soon. they are two directions. one is to continue to work with the states. there a lot of states that now have very strong laws against the idea of letting gay couples get married and that will probably take a longer effort to try to undo those. but people are already doing that in many states. the second level is at the federal level. the defense of marriage act that the president signed in the 1990s says that the federal

government won't recognize same-sex marriages even though they are perfectly legal in the states. the obama administration has said it opposes doma and would like to see repealed and it says for the most part it won't defend it in court but they can't really undo it. that is really a congressional effort so that is probably a big lyrical effort that will be taking place in the near future. >> five years now where do you think gay marriage will stand in america? >> we will see a lot more states giving gay couples the right to marry. some will open a marriage. they are already thinking about it in many places. we will see other states start down that path, maybe with domestic partnerships are the bigger packages of civil unions. we have got 20 states now better at some stage in that process and i think in five years we will be passed the tipping point. >> we thank you very much for your time.

>> thank you. >> the c-span 2012 campaign bus visits communities across the country. to follow the buses travel's visit www.c-span.org/bus.

you have written a book about the obama -- and most people find it a very admiring book. the administration has i guess disagreed. they have come out with some comments about you, hey what's it like to be in the middle of a political firefight? we are not used to being the middle of it and what you make of what is happening? >> well, it is a little strange because the book, you know i've been covering the obamas for

five years and it really started with a series we do at the paper called the long run, and it's about trying to capture the lives of the candidate and especially because candidates are so restricted now and it's so hard to get access to them. one of the ways we learn about them is through their biographies. we delve deeply into their past in their characters and we really look at the whole person. and so this book in anyway is an outgrowth of those stories which i have been doing for years and years and so the whole of this book was to really write about what i would call the big change. when i started covering iraq and michelle obama they really were barack and michelle and the extraordinary thing that i was watching happen was watching these two regular people become president and first first lady of the united states and what i was seeing was that there wasn't a process that happened on inauguration day when somebody takes an oath, but it's a huge learning curve made all the more

germanic in the obama story because of their freshness to national political life and also because of the fact that they are the first african-american president and first lady so we really see a couple of things happening in this book. we see people learning to take their partnership which used to be this private thing and turn it into a white house partnership. we see you michelle obama have a really tough landing initially in the white house and then actually turn it around and then the third thing the book is about is the most fascinating thing that i find about barack obama which is a struggle with politics. after all these years i still can't get over the fact that the top politician in the country is a really complicated relationship with the business that he is in. i worked on this book for two years and i've published it. whitehouse cooperated. i've been working with all these folks for years. lots of people in the obama inner circle gave me interviews.

they knew exactly what they were getting into. they never misrepresent what i was doing and also i fact checked the book with an assistant before publication. we publish an excerpt in the times on saturday. and then a really, i guess to really interesting things happened. the first thing is that people started discussing the book without having read the book and that is not happen to me before because as a newspaper reporter, people just read your work in the newspaper and the other thing is the white house started pushing back and some interesting ways. they had really challenge the reporting in the book, like i haven't gotten a phonecall from david axelrod saying you have got it all wrong and the quotes that are in the book. something that really surprise me surprised me up and yesterday which is michelle obama went on tv and she said and i'm paraphrasing, she said i am

really tired of depictions of myself as an angry black woman. and she also protested portrayals of her fighting directly with rahm emanuel. so that was kind of fascinating to me, because the book definitely does not portray her in any stereotypical way. also i am very clear to mention that the clashes between her and emanuel were really philosophical in nature. maybe i shouldn't undercut my own reporting and talk about their differences in approach to political life but that is really what they were. she did acknowledge that she didn't read the book so i have to imagine that she is responding may be that the coverage of the book instead of the book itself, but part of the reason i'm really excited to be here tonight is talk about the actual thing with you. >> let's go to that political thing because that is one of the themes running through the book. it reminded me when theodore roosevelt ran, everyone around

him said you don't want to do politics. that that is the need people like us. is they have that attitude? what are the qualms about politics at the aba must have? >> part of the reason i think they're qualms are important and not to just be dismissed is that they are similar to the qualms that a lot of us have about politics, right? i mean we all see what is wrong with the political system and what is ugly about it, weather can really address social needs and what not, but you know this is one of the many things about obama that is such a big asset in the campaign that ends up being somewhat inhibiting in the presidency time and time again in my reporting. sometimes in very simple ways and sometimes in very complicated ways. i found that he had trouble acting like a politician. a small store in the book is about the first super bowl party in the white house and you know he is kind to everybody. he greets everybody but he does not want to walk through.

his got this principle projection. he doesn't want to be the guide who is spending the entire super bowl schmoozing and he has this idea that he wants to still hang on to a normal life in the presidency. you know, in my reporting i just watch that idea get tested again and again and again. >> there is another story in the book where they have dinner every night at 6:30 so it means he cannot schmooze with other reporters and that is an admirable side. is that a constant theme to wanting to preserve domestic life as opposed to being full-time? >> certainly wanted to preserve domestic life. part of the trauma the situation is that barack obama gets to washington and not only does he have not so much managerial or executive or national security or economic experience, but he has also never lived in the same house as his family full time.

and the house they are going to live in for the first time is the white house, which is not in any way, shape or form like a normal life. but you know i think the 6:30 ruined by the way he is obviously willing to miss dinner with his family for important situations and willing to miss it tonight a week. i found my reporting that the obamas are constantly seeking ways to kind of limit and protect themselves from political life. >> so why do you think he rand? if he is ambivalent about politics? >> i think it was a rushed decision and i think it was a hard decision. you know, his aides say that you know the summer of 2006 he was still really dismissive of it and it was only you know, they began to sort of test the waters than that when you think about at their decision-making process only went from maybe the summer of 2006 through the fall. but people kept telling him was

your time is now. if you miss this window of opportunity you may never get it again. part of the drama of the situation is that michelle obama is initially very opposed in part because of the family issues but in part because she thinks, she is worried about attacks from the clintons and the standing attacks and she thinks a couple of years may benefit him. what susan -- or chief of staff said to me is the decision just really weighed on her. i find her situation at the time so dramatic because the way people describe it is she really did husband would be an exceptional president and yet she really wasn't sure it was the best thing for her family. so how do you choose between what you think might be good for the country and what i'd be good for you? >> and mitch daniels did not run for president and his wife had veto power. do you think they have the same kinds of discussions, arguments

arguments back-and-forth? >> yeah, the president and first lady have talked about it and also the physical white house is almost a character in this book. i spent a lot of time describing what it's actually like to live there and what the structures like and all the restrictions that come without life. i will admit that is fun to report on and read and that there is a little bit of you know exploratory pleasure in getting inside the house. but i think there are two very substantive things about it and this to me is the sort of needy argument of the book, which is that the confinement and isolation of the presidency has two really important effects on our system. one is that it really limits the number of people who are willing to run for office along with all the other factors that you know the number of people who are willing to a go through presidential campaign and then live this incredibly restrictive life, it is pretty small.

the other thing is, you you knoe consistently see these presidents get cut off from the white house and they all say it's not going to happen to them and it happens to all of them. >> now michelle obama is one of the first, well she is certainly the youngest person to have served as first lady since the sexual resolute -- revolution. did she have a more difficult time than other first ladies being second fiddle with that is the word? >> it is funny because she is such a -- of hillary clinton in that way. in my reporting i found again and again that she and kind of everybody else in the white house had one eye on the hillary clinton situation and also the attack she went through in the 2008 campaign were really pretty painful for her and everybody around her. to be that new to public life and to watch herself caricature that way was really really hard.

you know, the twist i think to it though is that you know when her aides talked about the traditional nature of first lady hood which was so confining at first and so sort of protecting her a little bit because political life is so difficult that you know it's another way of limiting. it's another way of saying i don't do policy, i don't have to be part of this discussion, you know i'm not going to get engaged in these kinds of debates. i think there is something very protective about the traditionalism of that role. now of course she is playing a much more prominent role in the presidential message which is what she wanted in the first place. >> these are moments, they their moms of toughness that she displays that they are moments of real vulnerability. there's one you describe where

she is wearing normal shorts to go to the grand canyon and i guess robert gibbs in the post made fun of them saying they were not normal shorts and she wondered if she was leading the team down. how do you weigh the balance of vulnerability and fierceness that alternate in the book? >> that is part of what i think is so fascinating. a part of the reason i think, i mean let's just banish the phrase angry black woman from the culture not only from this book that part of the reason i think i caricature her is so wrong is that it misses the vulnerability and it misses the anxiety. those are the worst that her aides used. they don't call her angry. the caller anxious. the point in my of my reporting where i found her really fuming was after this the scott brown victory. scott brown a