westerlies assisted bill within these areas, their beneficial to our national security interest

also. with the rebalance of asia-pacific theater i am having a bit of trouble understanding the new air force plan which would move for air force kc-135 tankers from joint harbor had come to the mainland. given the space and time to my keeping the tankers for deployed in hawaii would make the most sense. would you like to share some of your perspective on this? >> well, i have not yet seen no formal proposal by the air force. as you know, the proposal would have to come through me further my comments. the decision to move any forces that are cocom to pay, or under my command would have to be -- would have to be authorized by secretary hegel. there will be a dialogue about this. i don't think there will be a lot of perspectives as we look at it. i believe those four airplanes

are a result of a braque initiative. what i understand is that there are some maintenance deficiencies that as we look at across service efficiencies that are being forced on us by the -- that we are being driven to because of the fiscal realities we are in that this is probably the reason that the air force is pursuing the consolidation of these assets. but we have not made a decision yet. >> i would have an expectation that the national guard, airforce, and you would be very much engaged. of course i want to be in touch also. the department has proposed a 36% reduction in funds for fiscal year 15. it is my understanding that these cuts were made to help operations and readiness accounts because of the impact

of sequester. how will these budget changes affect your ability to carry out your missions both from the milk on an operation and readiness ten. >> well, in general slowing the we had anticipated to this degree, 36 percent will impact the service's ability throughout the world but in particular to be able to move forward with some of their initiatives. for instance, in hawaii i think there has been a reduction. we are moving the 22 is there, new cobras, new apache helicopters and those type of things. and so it will slow the pace at which we are able to integrate

these forces into the alar. >> my hope is also that the deferred items will be restored as we go along and assess the needs the you have in this area. you mentioned the cyber threat the impacts alar and with the ever increasing number of cyber attacks everywhere. frankly, let's focus on your alar. would you support a strong cyber team that is made up of active guard and reserve personnel? >> well, generally speaking the more cyber experts we have the better. but i would recommend that deferred that over to us cyber command to take a look at how those forces would be integrated into the overall plan.

they guard, as we have seen the last number of years, in times of crisis goes forward in many cases. we have to understand how they would be manned and trained and maintained when they showed up with the active forces in a contingency. >> it is clear that we ought to be working in parallel course, right hand, left and, by should be working together. that is where i am going, settling at advocating that everybody does their wrong thing in this area because it is complicated by realized. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> thanks you, mr. chairman. thank both of you for your service. general, is it a fair statement that north korea is one of the most unstable nation states in the world today? >> yes, sir. i would agree. >> within the top two or three. >> yes, sir. >> in terms of their missile program by 2024 do you expect

that they will have ballistic missile capability that could effectively reach our home land? >> yes, sir. on the pace pteron, yes, sir. >> to you expect by 2020 for that they will have plutonium weapons, not just uranium based nuclear bombs? >> is, sir. >> admiral, by 2024 if china continues on their present pace of building up their military what will the balance of power be between china and the united states in your command? >> well, i think in the region the balance of power will continue to shift in that direction that the chinese dependent on how much more investors to make independent on what our forces look like ford.

so it will continue to shift. >> well, we are uncertain as to what china will do, but it seems like they are intent on building of the military. is that a fair statement? >> over 12%. that is a fair statement craigslist look at the pace there on a wall happen to us by 2024. if sequestration is fully implemented how much longer realistically do you have in this command? a couple of years? what is the normal to work? >> it about -- it is about three years. >> as we look for do will probably have two or three commanders but 2024 at least. looking down the road what kind of -- if sequestration is fully implemented what will that mean in terms of the ability to defend this region and have a deterring presence? would it be sequestration, mild,

medium, or severe effect on future commanders to be able to represent our interests in your area? >> well, i think assuming that the world other than the asia-pacific will not be peaceful and 2024 sequestration will have a severe effect on our abilities. >> okay. now, general, the transition of leaders in north korea, is a stabilizing or is it still bought out? do we know who is in charge of the country? >> senator, we do know who is in charge. i think recently it has stabilized somewhat. he is displaying a normal routine at this point and purposefully so, i think, for his regime. but we don't know yet the stability within his clothes

regime. significant change recently. >> do we have any real leverage to stop their nuclear program from developing? >> well, i think the sanctions that we have used to this point have not had the impact in that regard. >> okay. south korea, are they seeking to enrich uranium? >> as you know, there is discussion with civil nuclear capability. >> is it our position to oppose enrichment by the south koreans for civilian purposes? >> senator, i don't know. >> general -- excuse me, admiral, you have all of the world to be responsible for. our military budgets will be at 2% of gdp.

do you know last time america spend 2 percent of gdp on defense in the modern era? >> i could not accurately say. >> okay. isn't this dangerous, we are doing? >> well, i think that we have to a, you know, the real question as we talk about it here today is how the weight what appears to be the looming threat to the u.s. economy. >> well, let's say if you eliminated the department of defense in perpetuity, would it remotely move us toward balancing the budget? >> from what i can see it would not. >> okay. if we assume that is fairly accurate the path we have taken as a nation in terms of our defense capabilities, would you

say it is alarming? >> i would say that it bears serious watching. >> what would you say, general? >> sir, i would say that i am very concerned about it. >> from our enemies point of view, do you see it likely that china will have a confrontation with japan over the islands that are in question? admiral. >> well, i think the potential for miscalculation if they don't manage it between themselves properly could be high and it could be very dangerous. that said, i don't see in the near-term that they are heading in the direction of confrontation. >> when you talk to our allies, do they seem concerned about the direction we are heading as a

nation? the united states in terms of our defense capability? some of the things that have happened in the mideast, has that affected at all those you of american reliability in your area of operation? >> well, i think the whole world watches what we do militarily. you know, for a long time we have been the single guarantor of security around the world. >> beginning to hedge their bets >> at think they are starting to look at it and they're asking the question of our staying power globally, not just in my region. >> thank you both. >> thank you, senator gramm. senator cain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to our witnesses, think you for your services, testimony this morning. i don't think anyone has mentioned yet, but we should applaud the work of the seventh fleet in assisting trying to find the air malaysia flight. just an example of the kind of thing that we do every day.

the military does every day to advance humanitarian and other causes. that work is important work. many of the questions and comments today have really kind of circle back to budgetary realities, surplus and to granted. we have to budgetary choices posed for this committee by the president's budget submission. do we accept the president's budget or some version of it which is the have sequester budget. the president's proposal would actually absorber have to sequester cuts over the entire range of the sequestered but try to find a replacement for the other half. there is a suggested replacement or do we just accept the full sequester? there is no way we can do what we want if we accept the full sequestered. we can do it. we are concerned we have a way to solve it. the way we have to solve it is do what we did in the 14-15 budget and sequester relief. it is my hope that we will work in 16 to cite we did in the

14-15 budget to do it. that is ultimately the significant way to answer some of the concerns that you are each laying on the table in my view. admiral la clear, want to ask you a question about one aspect of the sequestered to muffle sequester, have sequester budget deals with carriers because that is one of the atoms that is sort of most obviously different between the two -- between the presidents submitted budget in the fall sequester version. that is scaling back from an 11 carrier navy to attend carrier navy. the 11 carrier navy is a statutory requirement. believe you testified recently were you said 11 carriers continues to be a pretty important component to america's maritime dominance. i would like it if you what kind of describe that, please. >> well, you know, we have debated for a long time what the utility of the carrier would be in the 21st century.

we continue to see it as, i would say, in the forefront of military instruments that leaders have been able to use to be able to maintain the piece, to maintain stability and in crisis to be able to respond quickly. the benefit of our carrier force today is that it is unequaled in the world. it is nuclear, sustainable at sea for many, many -- relief for just about as long as you can think about it. and it carries a very credible capability to maintain peace and to be able to prevail in crisis. the downside to the nuclear carrier force or the opportunity cost, maybe not the downside is that they have to be maintained in a safe manner. if you take a look at the history of navy nuclear power, you have to give these and men

and women who do this a lot of credit. you have young 19, 20-year-old people around these nuclear reactors. they have been largely without incident for the history of the program. to do that you have to bring them back through maintenance. they have to come back to our shipyards, be in nuclear shipyards to have that done. and in the kind of day-to-day operations globally to be able to maintain the requirements that i have and the other combat commanders have based upon the world as it is, abide abcaeleven aircraft carriers, is just barely making it today. >> what would it mean in pay, if we dropped back from 11 to chant ? did not refuel the george washington and dropped back. >> well, i am confident we would still maintain a nuclear carrier forward in that japanese alliance, you know, we announced recently that the ronald reagan would be that replacement.

we are moving in that direction. the implication would be that there would be greater time, not only my alar, but other aor where a combatant commander was a carrier is needed in this crisis are needed in this scenario and it would not be one available. >> if i could continue, admiral, with you, i want to talk a little about china. as i was hearing your testimony you were indicating that china is pretty rapidly chewing away any dominance that we might have in the region. but i think you indicated that even at that 12 percent growth it would be many decades before they could reduce our dominance globally. did i and a stand that just your testimony correctly? >> that is correct. >> does china have military bases outside of china? >> not that i am aware of today. >> does china have significant

military presence today in the americas? >> military presence, no. >> africa? >> military presence, no. >> europe? >> no. >> middle east? >> just in the gulf of aden where they have done counter piracy operations. >> based on that is a your understanding that china is basically trying to significantly grow the projection of military presence in their region but is not at least to this point significantly growing military presence felt -- elsewhere? >> the predominance of their efforts are in the region. >> that kind of explains the testimony you gave earlier. there chewing away our dominance in their region, but it would take a long time for them to chew away our dominance elsewhere. >> that is correct. when you combine the u.s. global security capability with that of our allies, with that of our significant allies from -- in

all parts of the world they would have a difficult time globally. >> mr. chairman, i just ask these questions, i think most would say china is our principal competitor. we use that phrase. they have a fundamentally different business model than we do. our business model is a global projection a presence both sort of physical with fixed assets from the bases and flexible assets like carriers. at least now they're pursuing a different business model. military bases is now we're focused on. other regions, that is now we're focused on. it is as if we pulled our resources into the americas. we would be a major force in one part of the world. that is not what we are doing. principal competitor has a different business model. one last question. i think this is a confusing one for us because these are uninhabited islands. is the debate, the controversy,

the skirmish potentially between china and japan over those islands, it is not about the islands as an economic source unless there are natural resources there. is it more about, you know, national pride or dominating sealanes? are just for china creating sort of a buffer in that region? how would you describe it? >> well, i would describe it as primarily as sovereignty issue, less economic. it is not something new. this issue has been around for a long time. of course we don't take sides on territorial disputes, but japan is our ally. we made it pretty clear how we would support our ally in the case of these -- this particular scenario. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the witnesses. >> thank you, senator cain. senator blumenthal. >> thank you.

i want to begin by pursuing a line of questioning that senator cain began and his very pertinent observation that china strategic model is focused on its part of the world and yet you make the point, i think very tellingly, in your testimony, admiral, that china will soon have its first credible sea bass nuclear deterrent before the end of this year. now that ability to project nuclear power beyond its area if it is further growth and expanded with somewhat contradicts the reasoning that center cain has just advanced for the model that he has just outlined, would it not? in other words, it projects a nuclear deterrent that potentially would be aimed at

this country protecting interests beyond just its immediate area. >> well, i think they have a nuclear deterrent. they have had in a clear deterrent that could be in this country. so putting a at sea bass for them just adds a -- just as it does for us or for the indians who are pursuing the same thing, it adds another layer of confidence their strategic nuclear deterrent will be compromised. so what it does for me, if you should ever have a crisis, and i don't think a conflict or crisis with china is inevitable. i don't think it is. certainly it would not be in the best interest of peace and security in the world for that to happen. we have to us walk ourselves back from that dialogue, i think. but in general i think what they are doing would just add more complexity to how we would never

enter a contingency, but we should not talk ourselves into one either me. >> on our strategic way down in the pacific i noted that the national 2020 strategic laydown -- and i may be misreading it -- seem to contemplate a 22% ship increase based in that part of the world. is that correct? >> well, i think that, you know, when you define my area of responsibility wears a ships and submarines and their plans are it extends from basically california to the intersection of india and pakistan. they will be somewhere in that large area, not necessarily west of the dateline. >> but in that 22 percent increase based outside of the united states? in other words, non u.s.-based?

>> not all of it. >> what percentage of it? >> i will have to give you the exact percentage. it will be outside of u.s. bases. >> is there a way that more of those ships can be based in the united states rather than based abroad? i know i am putting it in somewhat simplistic terms, what i think the reason for my question is facing more of the ships in the united states means more jobs in the united states. potentially greater levels of scrutiny and oversight about contacting. >> well, you know, to some degree we are an island nation. when you take a look at us globally where we're located. and the value of -- as an island

nation that is predominantly a maritime nation the value of maritime forces for word is why you have a navy. otherwise if you want to bring them all home because of the vast distances we have to travel, you know, to continually rotate them from home, first of all, is very expensive. for instance, for every one ship that i have applied for summer it takes about four ships back in the united states to be able to support that rotation. so it is a cost-effective solution to before it, particularly where you have an ally york a host nation that is willing to help support you. so i am always reticent to say let's just bring everything back to the homeland. it sounds good, but it is not operationally a good thing to do >> well, i am not suggesting and i am not in any way arguing with you, so to speak. but i am suggesting is an

analysis that assesses the potential for creating jobs, sustaining economic activity at those bases, whether why your california rather than abroad. and the recognize that it may be more cost-effective looking at is solely in terms of the dollars and cents in your budget but i am thinking about employment and economic activity . anyway, if you get back to me with those numbers i would very much appreciated. general, i notice that yesterday there was an announcement that the republic of korea has officially selected the f35, the conventional takeoff and landing design and announced purchase of 40 of them. wondering if you could tell us how that helps you and terms of both the common platform with

our allies and also the qualitative military advantage of the f35. >> well, senator, the an ounce yesterday was one of those that includes a global hawk. and those are commitments that as an alliance the republic of korea has made as a part of the commitments of strategic alliance 2015. so the first part is that they have invested in their qualities and the capabilities that they bring to this alliance. and both of those platforms in particular the f35 provides, you know, the state of the our capability, compatible with us and in dropper ability and in particular having the same systems gives us a great deal more of vagility. and then finally, the air force is building, getting stronger all the time. that helps us a great deal. in the plans that we have if we were to go to a crisis, the air

force and the establishment of their dominance is critical. >> and i understand that there are eight other international partners. i don't know whether there are any of those in the area under your command, but do you know what the state of purchases by those other eight international partners are at this point? >> no, senator, not specifically . >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for your extraordinarily distinguished service to our country. thank you to all the men and women under your command. thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> i have one additional question. others will be obviously if they have questions or have them and just as well. in your prepared remarks, admiral, you said that it would enhance our security cooperation effectiveness with key allies and partners if we had an

authority to have $30 million a security cooperation authority menaced by a that joint staff under the appropriation. i am wondering whether that request was made of the administration when they put together their budget and whether or not there is something like that in the budget request. we are trying to find out if there is any reference to that. >> of the department of defense is aware of my desire to do that. i cannot tell you if this is actually in a line somewhere. we will have to look at myself and see if it is and then. the purpose of it is it would give us enhance flexibility to be able to do some of the things that statue wise we are prevented from doing today from

small dollars to big impact. >> if you can give us that for the record we would appreciate it. have a number of other questions for both of you. for the record. are there any additional questions? >> did our intelligence provide us any advance warning that china was going to impose the adic in november of 2013? >> well, we have been observing that dialogue, the potential for that for some time. as far as the exact date and maybe it day or two warning, we did not receive an indication that. so it was a surprise to the region of when they actually announced it. we knew for some time that there was a contemplation of that. >> of the surprise was the timing rather than that they actually took this step. >> right. i mean, you know, we came out pretty firm about how we felt

about it afterwards. in reality every country should have, you know, the ability to look at their own defenses and put these types of things in place. we have more than any other country in the world. but is the method and the extra cabbie s that were put on it that made them unacceptable. particularly the way instead of being just -- well, let's have a dialogue with the neighbors and talk about how we're going to defend our territorial airspace to make it was laid on as a, i think, a direct issue with japan . there was not in a dialogue among the regional among the neighbors. there was not in the dialogue with the united states about it. and so in the end it did not sit well with their region in general. >> thank you. >> one last quick question. thank you. admiral, thank you for being so

forthcoming on the bases abroad. one of the reasons for my question is not only the jobs and economic activity but also some of the reports of corruption or waste and contacting and so forth. i wonder whether there have been changes in the systems providing for greater oversight and scrutiny, whether the systems of crown -- contract to import german have been changed at all with respect to those bases abroad? >> well, i would have to dig into specifics of your question, senator. i am not sure that i know contacting irregularities now we're talking about. i think we have -- in fact, i know we have including generals effort very credible leaders of these alliance and the bases and the dialogue that goes on about

how we share costs, how we share responsibilities. we just finished negotiating the mutual agreement between us and the south koreans which we hope that they ratify as soon as they are -- their congress comes back into session. we have a very deliberate dialogue with our allies and japan about how the money is spent. and so i think we are doing due diligence. >> let me be more specific then just to, you know, give you a little bit more. marine a share, i am sure that name is familiar to you. it is a singapore-based firm that service navy vessels throughout asia, in fact continue to do so until is chief executive was recently arrested. i wonder if you could provide us with the records of contract

that the navy signed since 2009 and also -- i am not going to prolong this sharing but perhaps in a written response and account of what is being done to prevent occurrences of that kind of issue in the future. >> i well, senator. i will have to get with the navy it is his primary oversight of those contracts. even in my zero are as that army as primary oversight of the contracts in korea. we will try to consolidate an answer for you with the navy. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. any other questions? if not, we thank you both for your service and for your testimony. again, please pass along our thanks to the men and women with heavy surf. we will stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> in the event that there was discovered credible wreckage. respond more quickly. we clarified it is a localization that requires a pretty good knowledge of where the record will be before the system could be deployed. >> with china? >> we cooperate. there are 26 nations that are involved. we fully cooperate with china and all of the other nations. >> they will investigate

independent. >> i have no comment. >> thank you. >> coming up on c-span2 a look at the influence of the tea party and the republican party. then as senate hearing on exporting natural gas to europe. later, u.s. military commanders discussed north korea and china. on our next washington journal general sanchez of the cato institute discusses the president's proposed plan to end the in as a storage a telephone data. and a cholera representative diana did get of the supreme court health care company said -- contraceptive mandate case. later, republican talks about his recent article on first lady michele obama in the white house plus your phone calls, facebook comments, tweets. washington journal live each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on

c-span2. >> this is a pictorial report on the nato maneuvers of 1954. this is a gigantic plan maneuver under the coordination of the fifth corps u.s. seventh army. as many training purposes, but an additional purpose could be to display natives might before the communists. this exercise is divided into two opposing forces called black and green. in this exercise both sides have the american bell to hundred 80 mm atomic cannon. the atomic cannon has never been fired in europe. what you will see here is a simulated atomic explosion. but the atomic cannon can be fired in europe. the guns are ready, the men are ready. should the soviets attack any one of nato's 14 nations atomic

guns will fire. >> from the u.s. army's the big picture series nato maneuvers aimed at deterring soviet aggression in europe this weekend on american history tv real america sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern. >> the program of the rockies is an annual retreat that provides economic and political training. a panel at this year's event led to the influence of the tea party and the future of the republican party. this is an hour and 40 minutes. >> as they are coming up let me just kind of set the stage for where we want this discussion to go and where we hope it goes. as we know, as we talk in lp are whether it comes to management of a project or enterprise or political campaign we start with

vision and move to strategy and then projects and tactics. and some would say that when it comes to those involved in the center right, the conservative end of the political spectrum that we might hear similar vision, but when it comes to the very next stage, projects, strategies, projects, tactics that is where we go in multiple directions. want to start by telling a personal story from where i have seen this first and then been a part of the problem, perhaps, depending upon one's point of view. the points of view will be represented template. was a member of the colorado state senate, a member of the united states house of representatives. as of the same occurrence in both places and that occurs to a greater extent in the political context, today's topic of discussion. so back in washington there is no sunshine law. members of congress can go off in secret and had meetings.

so it is, those of you are members year, you can back me upon this and other sioux have been there. wednesday morning's the republicans go to their meeting room and the democrats go to their meeting room. they talk about. in their leaders get up and talk about the agenda for the weekend how this fits into our agenda for the year and so on. in a map out a plan. this week, congressman colleagues bear going to go to the floor and here is our game plan. and when we come to the floor the democrats, all of the same. they all do what they are asked. they'll go up to the microphone and the podium and use the same phrases, the same words, the same definition, speaking of the same notes. over on our side where i was you would have dick armey and tom delay and painter and gingrich would be up there during the time was there. they would say come here is our plan. here is what we need to do.

then you would have somebody like me who would raise his hand and say to my did not come here to do that, guys. i am not voting for the bill only because it is better than the worst bill that will get if five of no. you follow me on this? we would constantly be asked to vote for something that was sad because that was better than the alternative. and i was not the only one. this would happen all the time. life was miserable and still yesterday for the floor leaders in the republican house and republican senate. that is true in washington, denver, every state capital. i would submit because we care a lot about the principles. we care a lot about the vision. anything departed from an avid tennis to be to my sticking with the vision. what that resulted in often was chaos on the floor. we were in charge. the gavel in his hand, but he did not have the votes on the

floor to make certain things happen. that is not the case when the other side is in power. i assure you. this is a terribly perplexing dilemma, of course. now, that is what you get after you have won an election and are on the house floor or the senate floor in washington and denver, washington or the state capitol here in denver. but out on the street when it comes to all of us we kind of approach to politics the same way on the conservative side. all of us are driven by vision. and the next level, the tactical level that we are not in agreement and we are not in agreement on this panel here. hence the nature of the discussion. i would submit we are not in agreement even in lp are on any given day on what is the best way forward on the strategies projects and tactical level. that is why we focus on principles and just hope that those principles will result in successes and in our case fortunately they do all the time .

the trick this you can have the best ideas in the world and we can talk about them at gatherings like this for over a beer with friends. democrats understand power. republicans understand principle. more often than not democrats have power and we have lots of great things to talk about. so how do we change that? that is the discussion we are going to launch into right now. let me introduce our panelists and then i will join them in the middle. they're all going to have 50 minutes for some introductory remarks and then we will back a couple of issues around. the arrangement here on the dais and then will take a few questions from the audience as well. but me start with that kidney. that has been here at npr. one of the masterminds of tea party politics. thank you. mastermind of tea party politics by newsweek. an economist by training, public

policy expert but determination. president of freedom march and has been with remorse for over 15 years. also a distinguished senior fellow at the austrian economics center in vienna, austria. david horowitz, a nice number of our panel, one of the founders of the new left in the 1960's but has transitioned to combating those trying to destroy traditional american values, the founder of the david horowitz freedom center, and that is focused on academic freedom and returning universities to the principles of open inquiry and the fights of indoctrination of the class from. he is the founder of the students for academic freedom. jeffrey lloyd, our next speaker sparked this topic in an article that he wrote recently in the american spectator. he brings years of political expertise to the table. he served in the reagan white house as a necessity political director. jeffrey now works as a journalist to be material to the weekly standard, the american

spectator, national review online, the "wall street journal," washington times, many more. mike rosen, one of denver's most listened to radio talk shows now in his 28 year on a 50 caylee writing and editorial page column for the denver post and has been a frequent commentator on local and national tv. mike is a frequent visitor, at least and not many years that i can remember. so let's go ahead and get started. you want to go ahead and take center stage? [applause] >> so i am starting to think that politicians only care about one thing. you know what i'm talking about, right? and short, the sweet talk is really awesome, they send you e-mails and they send your letters and they sometimes friend you on facebook.

if you are democrat it gets really cool because you might get and i am from george clooney republicans are not quite like that. we are kind of old school. we prefer a thousand points saturation tv five. barrell try to do the same thing politicians in both political parties are courting new. you know what they're up to. you try to resist it. you know that they just want one thing. but after awhile they start to where you down. you start to think, okay, maybe just this once we will try. and you do it, right. we have all done it. i am not judging. i have done it, too. i have done get out the vote for somebody else's candidate running on somebody else's ideas, splitting the difference on somebody else's bad public policy. and you always feel really dirty the next day, don't you?

you wake of saying, why did i do that? they don't call. [laughter] they don't right. [laughter] and they sure don't ever keep the promises that they made to you when they were soliciting your vote go right? and i have been that guy. at certain times in my life the republican party has stood for things that i thought were pretty precious. my first experience in republican politics when i was a young intern in washington d.c., i was working for what is now freedom works. one of the first things i got to do was go see ronald reagan give a speech. added not know much about politics. was thinking of was going to be a professor at that point. i got to go see ronald reagan. added not know that much about him to be honest with you. talk about liberty and freedom. he actually quoted someone.

if you don't know who that is, you don't know the secret handshake of the ron paul revolution. some need being young and naive, i was thinking, okay, this is what a republican is. i'm going to be one of those guys. i would find out quite soon afterwards that it really was not about that. that when ronald reagan first announced was running for governor all of the really smart people in the gop were speaking of the record to the new york times talking about how what was that reagan was this right-wing lunatics who was going to destroy the republican party. and later in 1976 he was going to primary a sitting republican president. can you imagine what john mccain would have said if he had been a senior senator at the time? our reagan is a lack of a bird. and i started to notice a pattern as i get involved in public policy that republicans

would win when they stood for something when what they said when they ran for office was by and large what they tried to do when they won office. it was certainly true with. it was true in 1994 when newt gingrich was taking on his gop establishment in this permanent minority mindset that the house of representatives had under bob michael, and it was true again in 2010 when grassroots activists started organizing in large part due to opposition to all of the broken promises from the obama administration. now, there has been a lot of revisionist history on this, but in 2010 the chairman of the senate republican committee, john gordon, was publicly arguing to things. one, we should not run against obamacare. it is a loser for republicans.

we need to back off. to, if we are lucky senate republicans might pick up once the. one. today all of these experts within the gop lecture as for losing the senate majority in 2010. they said we could pick up one. if you cut -- count scott brown we picked up seven. in my world as a colony. in their world they're always diminishing expectations. there are always telling is what we should not talk about, suggesting that there is some sort of trade-off between principle and the electoral success. and this goes -- and they schoolbus often suggesting that it is the tea party and the liberty movement and grassroots activists who would call themselves constitutional conservatives and republicans

that believed what ronald reagan said way back when, that somehow we are tearing apart the coalition that can successfully beat harry reid and republicans. let me suggest a few facts. dick lugar, senator, republican senator, he lost his primary to refuse to support the republican candidate in indiana. recently is. [inaudible conversations] set to the democrats running in georgia. mitch because preferred candid over rand paul, know what he is doing today? he runs the democratic super pak and is co-chairman with my frit economist right. the guys know who robert reich is? he is not a supply cider. let's just say that. charlie crist is running for governor as a democrat.

endorsed by the senate republican committee. hell of as the future of the gop. we had to be more like charlie christian order to win. my favorite, of course, was my worst nightmare to marlon specter. do you guys are rubber the first time pat to me ran against arlen specter? the gop circled the wagons. karl rove in the white house and senator rick santorum and just about everybody that was considered acceptable within the gop said the only guy that can win is allen specter. if they had not weighed in pat to me would have won that fight. the 60's folk, who led the gop at that very moment that he decided that he could win as a democrat, not a republican? so our decisions and politics

matter a lot in public policy. we would not be fighting john banners best friend, former congressman, a lobbyist, defending ministry. i quote to beat this not out of the tea party. he is running ads in some of these, defending some of the biggest defenders when it comes to the principles of limited government. you know who funds that? is best friend, labor's political leak, international union of operating engineers, laborers international union, the building trades union. they could not find a single conservative republican donor that gives the fact.

the family squabble, honest debate about what is good policy and what is good politics and how we retake the majority. i can speak, i think, for a lot of activists to suggest that we are tired of one nightstands. we're tired of waking up the next day and realizing that they made these promises during the election cycle but then they govern in a completely opposite way. there is paradigm shift going on in this country that the gop is slow to figure out. imagine what we could do if the tea party and constitutional conservatives and liberty groups could come together on a set of common principles. we would be unstoppable.

every place i go everywhere in the kutcher rental by activists that the local gop does not want to. they don't want young people that believe in liberty. they don't want tea party activists that will spend every weekend knocking on doors for candid it's. i don't get that. i don't get that. i think more importantly the gop does not get it. there is this new world we live in that is exactly like what we should be. what do we believe? we believe in competition, freedom, the personal knowledge and the ability of individuals to come together on a voluntary basis and create something that is so much bigger than anyone of us could have done. it is still about in the minds of mitch mcconnell and the rnc and the gop experts in

washington, all above then figuring out what they want to do and then dictating to the rest of us will we should do to fall in line. you are losing all of that energy, all of that decentralization that has a fundamental change the world today he saw and said crews ability to go right around the gop establishment. raise money and a decentralized way much luck barack obama did they have gone through this transition where hillary clinton was the chosen one.

everybody except barack obama it is raising money on line. tapping into the growing progressive movement that has by today taken over the democratic party. and yet we are told the republicans cannot win unless they compromise on principle. at think there's a huge a pitch into the air. struggling to protect the country to us say what is precious about america. they're not falling for the gop anyone. they're looking for a long-term commitment if we can figure out

to do that. people want to balance the budget, want to rein in washington d.c. it's easy american to promises about health care. democrats a very good at it. the question is how do we take a good policy and make it good politics? it is not by misleading people. it is by doing what you said you're going to do once you get to washington d.c. thank you. says. >> excellent. >> the question we asked, the republican party and that tea party, can this marriage survive the white house is occupied by

of life why anti-american radical who has done more -- [applause] who has done more to bankrupt the economy, take us down as a military power and destroy individual liberty than anyone in this room. it is worse than that. obama is ahead of the democratic party that has moved so far to the left of the last 46 years that it has become a party that is into a free-market, anti individualist atlanta constitution lost and i'm ready to defend america's sovereign interests of home and abroad. we cannot afford to let such a party run our government for another 40 years. the world can't afford. how do we hold this conservative coalition that opposes our national suicide together? how do we make this marriage survive?

first of all, by recognizing that the difference between the tea party in the republican party is a matter of tactics and to permit, not policy in teleology. understand that you just have to go back the famous alleged shut down by tea party here tempers. i probably should acknowledge at this point that i am a huge fan of what the tea party represents but not always what it does. i believe the emergence of the tea party is the most important political development since conservatism in the last 25 years and is possibly the last best hope for our country. the government shut down was the last result of cruises filibuster of the continuing resolution to fund the government. in fact crews and the tea party as it is voted to fund the

government the house passed an amendment to the revolution that would strip obamacare from the funding bill. the strip the men from the bill. other democrats in the press were able to live successfully and lay the blame on crews and the two-party. then conducted a one-man filibuster to express his opposition and what he regarded as a caving of most of his republican colleagues rather than join him. and so the republicans attacked each other instead of the real culprits. masters of this question immobile but have happened of the republican party in the two-party and the big tax has funded a $30 million campaign to put the blame on reid and obama?

there was no such campaign. all the parties on our side to all of them fail to take the fight to the enemy camp. just another example of the circular firing squad that we on the right are so good that and continually set back. the second important point that applies to all of the frictions between t partyers and republican regulars, the conflict within the right about the obama shut down was not about policy. it was about tactics. every republican in congress is opposed to obamacare with no exceptions. not a single republican legislator before it. not a single republican legislator would support it. the issue is tactics. how best to defeat the democrats and repeal a monstrous law. how to defeat the socialist party that controls our government and is so bent on bankrupt in our country, per

player military and a strong the culture of individual and of which entity that has made this position where it is. understanding that this is tactical, not fundamental, is crucial to keeping the marriage alive. the tactical difference is no grounds for divorce. in an all important movement is there's a difference within politics and policy. republicans are good at policy. they're not so good at politics which is the way one gets to make policy. to we repeal obamacare by obstructing it at every turn our do we repeal the byline love until we have a majority and abolish it and a stroke? if we live low do we demoralize our troops to see us as compromises and appeasers and give up the chance of ever winning a majority in accomplishing our goal? these other questions that divide us.

there are legitimate questions, and excuse me for bargain this out. no one knows the answers. politics is only the -- always a gamble. no one can be sure whether we will succeed. that is why we have to respect each other and keep our coalition strong even though we disagree. i said we were not so good at politics. actually, we are terrible politics. whenever republican and democrat square off it seems to me like godzilla versus bambi. they call us racist, sexist, homophobic and selfish pigs. we call them liberals. who is going to win an argument? they spend their political dollars calling as names and shredding or reputations. we spend hours explaining there is a complicated solution we propose a work and there's

doesn't. when you are being called a racist and enemy of women and egregious of the who do you think his listening to your ideas about the budget? who is going to believe you when all your motives are ulterior and generic to back this is the problem but of all the republicans but the partyers and conservatives of failed to address successfully. it is why the democratic party that supports policies that are morally repugnant and have failed on an epic scale still wins elections. medicare is bankrupt and a mess. social security is bankrupt and a mess. the war on poverty is a trillion dollar catastrophe that has created worse poverty and was designed to cure and yet democrats can still win elections, can pass the biggest socialist entitlement and redistributionist scheme ever and get away with it. my friends, and tell republicans and tea partier start to fight

fire with fire this scenario is not going to change. [applause] twenty-five years, 25 years after the most oppressive empire in the history of the world collapsed because socialist economics don't work, 49 percent of american youth according to a pupil think socialism is a good system. that is a political failure on our part. we won the cold war, but we did not drive a stake through the communist part. as a result, the vampire of social justice has arisen again. another way of looking at this problem is that the republican party and conservatives generally are guided by a business mentality. the left mentality is missionary let me explain. democrats, progressives, so-called liberals see themselves as social redeemers. they don't approach social

programs, problems pragmatically looking for ways to improve the situation or that checks. the approach social problems with an eye to a changing the world. hillary clinton once told a new york times to my "the we have to define what it means to be human in the 21st century. no republican or conservative in his right mind talks like that. on the eve of this election barack obama's said we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the united states of america. no one in his right mind even things like that. unless they are progressives. believe they are on the side of history. and the moral arc of the universe is banks toward justice that phrase is actually woven into a carpet that obama has

installed in the oval office. it is his inspiration. leftists are called social justice. the pursuit of social justice is what the democratic party set out radically to transform american economies and regulate the health care 300 million americans are going to get to that website without the support -- that in itself. central planning failed, people. without the support of a single republican. the democratic party has become a dangerous party. it is driven by the missionary loved and it regards politics as war conducted by a means. that is why democrats can say and believe that republicans are

conducting wars against women, minorities, and the poor while republicans refer to them as liberals and patiently explain why their policies will work. explaining why their policies will work is politically effective it would be added business. socialism does not work. central planning does not work. these ideas have ruined whole continents. why haven't democrats learned from that? is because their missionaries and their politics is a religion which provides them the meeting for their lives. there are the profits of a social redemption about future in which the meaning of being human as been redefined and social justice prevailed. because their politics is inspirational, every failure along the way is regarded as a glitch. the cause is noble and they cannot allow it to be derailed by a failure of any of its

parts. after a century of corpses andrew incontinence socialists would be just another name for delusional, also progressive. these are the fantasies that drive the democratic party today by contrast, the mentality which is ours, not mine because i am a renegade leftist, and business mentality is pragmatic and its expectations are modest. it is not looking to change the world we live in but to service the actual beings when abbott it. it sets out to meet their needs within the parameters that are set by human capabilities and desires. when the businessman is delusional in his expectations exceeding the capacities of the marketplace the market punishes some and punishes them without mercy. a business approach is fundamentally positive. to succeed must meet the expectations of others and not really their hopes.

where possible it wants to avoid conflict and the alienation of others. it is looking to maximize customers and expand markets and therefore to make deals. a businessman would rather buy you out or merge with you that pressure. when obstacles present themselves it is cheaper and in the long run more productive to compromise and find a way around the. this is the mentality of our washington insiders. a layer of looking at the schism between the tea party in the republican party. there deal makers, that came changers. the catch is that this is probably not the best mentality

when confronted by a missionary party that he is politics as war and is out for your blood. in these circumstances and equal and opposite force, missionary force may be required to defeated. a grass-roots understands this which is why it has borne the tea party and why americans like ted crews are able to defeat the strongest republican establishment and texas, the most important republican state and become a senator. the tea party mission is not parallel to that of the political left. it is not about creating a new race of human beings are a new social order. its mission is closest to realism of business. a constitution, out to defend something familiar and real. a constitution that has been shredded, culture that has been reduced and that economy that is heading for bankruptcy. this does not mean that tea party years should be unmindful of the dangers that missionary adi is bring with them

. good principles don't guarantee good candidates or winning politics. some tea party losses in the last election hurt the conservative cause and could have been avoided as a distinction kept in mind. the very fact that tea party missionary organized as a cause makes it seem in practical and even extreme to business as usual republicans. this is inevitable. in order to change things you have to take positions that seem unrealistic and may even seem extreme. it is the nature of change, and the tea party is about change. in fact it has already changed something. what it is changing is the republican party. without the tea party there would be no ted crews, know rand paul, no nightly. if the tea party were not challenging the republican

establishment and causing conflict it would have no reason for being. i believe that his stand on the senate floor not only did not enter the chances of republican victory in 2014, i believe it and handsome. ..

[applause] the question and you probably ask is how far the two-party can succeed as a caucus within the republican party can republicans be changed? if they are not unseated in the primaries in their caucuses? [applause] if my analysis is correct to have a business mentality to appreciate the reality of power my answer is yes of grass-roots mobilizes the two-party gains critical mass they can be change. that is what politics is about that is what happened to the democratic party as the left infiltrated to the mcgovern campaign and it transformed to the anti-american, anti-

constitu tion party. how do you fight fire with fire? how do you answer? every inner-city america will is one of the present controlled by the democratic party. with every pore black and hispanic people in america. with those children that they run as a jobs program through the democratic party's through the republican party for conservatives generally you have to take the battle to the enemy camp to tar and feather them it is very up close of those or not ready for that should not be in

politics. to indict progressives for their crimes to fight fire with fire but it does not mean the business as usual. [cheers and applause] >> garett is the reason he is the favored renegade the leftist. [laughter] first of all, thank you for inviting me and for being here because what you're doing is incredibly important. i dare you cannot see this but this is a story from "the new york times" 1970's six. if you will recall ronald reagan challenged ford for

nomination in friend all the way to the republican convention one of the establishment arguments was only a moderate republican could win. and of course, president ford lost. one month after that defeat the your time sat down with governor reagan in losses angeles and this article was headlined reagan will save the party from the disbelief and he says a political party is not a fraternal order. dock where people are bound together by a shared philosophy. with that in mind let me begin with a joke. he liked to talk about the great baseball manager that sent out rookie to center field.

he promptly dropped the ball on the next ball he led a grounder go. then he threw the ball to the wrong base. the villagers stormed out and took the glove away and said i will show you. the next batter had a line drive over second base franky cave in and missed it completely she got up and threw down the glove you have a center field so screwed up nobody can play at. [laughter] with that in mind let me tell you a couple of stories that revolves around the children's television act. 1988. it was a liberal mission turning it into what kids

were seeing on evening hours. they've would limit the amount of commercial advertising allowed during to live is -- children television programs it would be 12 minutes per hour during the week and 10.5 minutes per hour on saturdays. you can imagine. it was put into legislation and past behalf the house in the senate. why? those commercials, the kids wanted fruit loops or tony the tiger frosted flakes or g i joe. unbelievable. the kids would say i want. i want.

gate old coliseum stop them. so they sent it to president reagan. november 5th 1988 president reagan took a look and said well. [laughter] you can imagine him laughing hysterically. that it was a laudable goal but as far as he was concerned this was a serious constitutional issue about the ability quotation of the federal government to oversee the programming of the television broadcasters not to mention it would raise a red flag of prospective regulators who might discourage the creation programs that might not satisfy the taste of government bureaucrats responsible for considering those conservative principles.

he would veto the bill. done. no, no, no. this is washington. some things and never die. 22 months later the bill was passed again by the house and senate. what was the change? now with george h. of you bush so what happens is staff members sending memos to one another what the president should do then they have a discussion. for some reason one reagan staffer was still in the bush white house he sees and hears the president will sign the bill. he sends a memo and follows up and says why?

why would a man who campaigned as the wrist -- conservative consider signing this? everything is excessive for dangerous intrusive regulation which conservatives oppose on principle. now begins the job back-and-forth in its own way a classic representation of the g.o.p. establishment teapartier problem of today. it does sound like bickering spouses. i got an account of this from a reagan and bush alumni and he wrote a book of the bush administration called zero white house and. so now the bush says to the reagan worker the votes are not there to sustain a veto

and the reagan staffer did not appreciate your understand the problem after all he had four kids and those saturday morning commercials were awful. something had to be done there reagan staffer said wasn't it the bush staffer parenting to do with the issue? the parents buy the tv. the bush staffer, it is not that easy. his kids went to the homes of other kids and he had no control what is on at their house. the reagan staffer said talk to the parents of the other kids if it is a problem. if the situation is out of control which i doubt keep your kids at home. on he went to talk about how conservatives talk about family values or more parental involvement this

went on and on back and forth of phone rings. the end result? president bush refused to sign the bill but he refused to veto. he let it become law without his signature. why? because the reagan staffer was told it was closed as it could make the president look bad. my point liz was an opportunity for a principled stand on a small issue and completely blown off. the towelette long dash the children's television act is in the bureaucracy. receipt broadcaster is playing mother may i with

the ftc. the second bush and administration made compassionate conservatism in this was written at the links about node child left behind. so they've lost to al gore then 537 votes a so this was not the issues survey get there with the help of the great senator kennedy. so now it is lot adding billions and billions to the

$17 trillion debt than there was the republican lobbyist to make a fair amount of change to make sure this is refunded over and over. i will point out reagan had a position and it was to abolish the department of education for provo whole thing. [applause] bureaucrats could do something else with the money and get rid of it. he campaigned on that and won 44 states he did not need the supreme court. he tried and failed everybody knew he tried because 49 states in 1984. the two-party basically carries the reagan message. it is not something that is alone in america one of the

things that we know he was a great president to thatcher in she went through this battle with the equivalent because of the conservative party. i had a quotation from an article she broached in 1975 when she declared her candidacy. >> one of the reasons for the electoral failure people believe to many conservatives have become socialists already. britain's progress to socialism is the alternate with two steps forward and when halfback. why would anyone support a party of no conviction? then she went on to do talk about what she called the socialist wretched to civic reflecting the fact the postwar history is consisted of sharp swings to the left with periods when the left

would flourish. to translate into the republican party what happens the democratic party wins, they move america here then they sit here and say we will manage this better. then we lose the election another to rickrack come san then this was almost fatal for britain and this is what caused market factures election. so when we look at the children's television actor in a number of things we should ask a question, are we moving the socialist ratchet to left? most of the time the answer is yes. this i think is one of the reason why outsiders are so much in favor of the republican party. outside of washington d.c.

or donald trump in and sarah palin and others that are hugely popular literacy the other day one said ted cruz have to take a food tester with him. [laughter] how do we stop this? there is a difference between a policy the department of education and adding no child left behind. there is one way to that it become law or possibly make the president look bad. between the g.o.p. establishment is a real one. the minority leader this say

minority leader 20 years of there. he ran for president and lost badly to ronald reagan in the story goes when the election came he was set the record to looking at all the delegates in he said these are not my people. why is this? ronald reagan a broad do people in to the republican party. margaret thatcher said the problem of the conservative party in great favor into a consensus politics. and always led to move the party line. stick to principles, never shy from bet to and our friend has a book out called the liberty amendments.

i hope all the view in the colorado legislature pay attention and a look at it to others around the country because taking the power back is one way to do it. [applause] ronald reagan made that famous speech i think we are at that point again and we can do this. [applause] >> i regard yourself as a reagan republican defy amassed to define myself. ronald reagan was one of my hero's and so is margaret thatcher. margaret thatcher did a phenomenal job to a

turnaround the trajectory of the united kingdom. her reward for that much like the record for winston churchill is that she was turned out of power. an example of someone who was right by my perspective and i suspect everybody in the probe. who was eventually rejected. there is a bromide going around to that a conservative who stands on his or her principles the most conservative will space be elected. what about 64 with goldwater? how did that turnout for others? that is not true. i wish you were. but it is not to. how many people regard yourselves as a firm

teapartier number? is that less than majority? you tell me. i am glad to hear that. if everybody based their hand unanimously we would be in a lot of trouble. not because i disagree, i embrace the. but this discussion is about unity and winning elections. that is my goal. [applause] when i call myself as the

ideologue, i am ideological, philosophy, a vision, principles, how many of these people in this room are ideological? just about every but a. how many people in this room is as great pulling. [laughter] how many believe the majority of americans are ideological? very few. i agree with of maturity of this room a majority are not. having the ideology and consistent philosophy of vision of how the world works requires self education, hard work work, brainpower a and it too much work. it is not as easy as spending time as watching television or social media or nascar or bronco games.

that is sadly why ideological appeal don't always resonate with americans. if you represented as a fair representation we would have no problems. i am sorry to say and neither am i. is about ideas and winning elections. you'll be with the elections in the aggregate. as opposed to anything can happen belloc get this great nation with the congressional districts in order to be a majority party you have to put together a majority coalition. this is a tea-party system. it will stay a tea-party system for a long time to come. no party will the verge and

suddenly displays one of the two major parties. not any time soon. remember ross perot? he lost that election and got 20 percent of the popular front in zero electoral college votes. zero because of our constitution is biased in favor of a tea-party system. you have to bid estate deal and he did not win one single state. and his party of was the name of it? the reform party. the reform party tried to survive the president shall attempt and hung around for a little while there is an

old expression would if he gave a party and nobody came? a paraphrase may be what did you give a tea-party and less than a plurality came? the answer of would-be that plurality that did get more votes than any other party is the governing party. it is all about the governing party in this country. i like what ted cruz stands for. his courage and principle satellite his tactics and strategies. and holding obama feet to the fire because sandy rational person would compromise on the continuing resolution strategy failed because obama is not a compromiser or rational but obstinate. he is not going to cave or

not give away obamacare. his singular achievement. talk about ted cruz as i said 435 separate congressional districts each one with its own demographics. with how many of those if ted cruz were running for the house see if all of those how they do you think he could win? throw out a number. it would be a of a miracle if he could win 60 although there are 435 districts may be 50 are competitive. may be.

that means out of 385 districts the voting for a democrat or republican. not to either/or there already committed to one party or another. that majority in the u.s. house will be determined to buy which of the two major parties and with those districts proposed you aspire to be a major political party you cannot be dogmatic. i wish that were not true. i wish the majority shared my vision. i would not say dogma but my fundamental principles. but they don't. the republican party is not a minor party but a minor party in the united states. 30 percent call themselves

republicans and the democratic party is also a minority view more than 30%. wendy's independent and unaffiliated. the elections are determined who can win the swing vote. you can win the election based on platitudes. barack obama demonstrated that with his hope and change the you cannot govern effectively on the basis of platitudes that has been demonstrated by this president who was the worst governing president in the history of the nation. he has no concept how to govern. [applause] yesterday toward the end of the program there was a question along the lines is

there any hope for the country. georgia said when he talked about the american public it still stands for those fundamental values as specially freedom. but to invoke that collective notion you years some democrats stand up to invoke we the people believe that this should be. rich people? he was not elected unanimously. a republican will stand up which people? there is a majority in each house in the legislature and

colorado is split. as if americans all agreed. we did not at the time of the revolution. when the constitution was crafted and when it needed to be ratified, you need to get the consent of those 13 colonies to ratify the constitution. they were split write-up the middle on slavery. so the compromise could do not be resolved and it that point as a civil war as a consequence. but those members of the

continental congress could not get together to kick the can down the road we would have -- not have ratified the constitution. the republican party is a minority party. and the teapartier element is a minority of the coalition. with in that he party element they are not monolithic i have spoken to hundreds you disagree as well it should be but with the vast majority republicans and to party activists agree on the vast majority of fundamental principles. it is the politics and tactics and strategy where we disagree. i grand said if you have

conflict the first thing you should do is check the premises. what is the fundamental promise that this topic is based on? what is the successful strategy according to ayn rand? where does the american public set? isn't ready to embrace a compromise teapartier principles? i am sorry to say no. you go to the election with the american public that we have it is not ideological. like to believe they are the right center country that we are not as when reagan was elected. that was a wonderful time he was impacted on their heels of a failed presidency of jimmy carter. with the soviet union on a roll with double digit inflation and interest

rates. it was time for change that is why people wanted a change with ronald reagan. and great damage this business is up overstatement there is no such thing as the republican establishment we have 50 parties in 50 states in many of these but in some of those districts some of those states only a more compromising softer republican could wind. i am so hoping that mike can get reelected in november. [applause]

i am very familiar with his voting record and solidly conservative. i should note he is a traitor to the united states. that is from the tea party leadership fund had said granting him as a traitor because he voted to jettison the losing republican strategy of a government shutdown. others you will recognize congressman from colorado. according to the teapartier leadership that was a bad strategy you can agree or disagree what kind of languages destructive? in order to be a majority

party recognize to fight each battle based on the rules of the battlefield so you have to pull punches that is what politics is all about. he said politicians will always disappoint. of course, they will. the republican party is in perfect as far as i am concerned ideologically but i am a partisan republican because i believe them limited government constitutionalism and individual liberty many other things the republicans as agree on but one that is not up to my standards because i could not win a there that is why it is

essential that the teapartier recognizes the limitations of the republican party has already been pulled to the right coming back to 2006 bush was still president republicans got murdered we did because of the blue dog democrats more conservative democrats it though there is the element they learned their lesson when something like 6 percent of the people voted for golf nader for president giving bush enough electoral votes after 2000

they learned their lesson and they demonstrated that in 2006 when they supported blue dog democrats prefer after that devastating loss with the obama and they've made a comeback in 2010. teapartier candidates in those same swing districts i was delighted to see that but he party candidates cannot win in every district. so this is not your father's oldsmobile thinks to the tea-party. but that perfect the party candidate is not the perfect candidate for every district. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you might and to our panel. taken of a couple minutes the tea-party is discussed as a noun or an entity that i would be rostov the time are you remember of the tea-party? so can that be defined? and what concerns can there be about who gets to define some of them bow -- from a

memo from the organizational title? there are dozens of those. and the difficulty is some renegade group could take the banner and the media always looks at the raleigh they always try to find a the one guy who has a racist statement. what exactly is this group and is a movement? if it is some big nebulous is it capable to put forward actual strategies? >> i will take a crack at that as i am the closest thing to the card carrying member of the tea party but they were trying to figure out to call this it was a

third party with a capital t. it is not partisan. it is a social movement based on values at in any event they will tell you for individual freedom and fiscal responsibility. that is just how they self organize but to day it is morphing into something else we had better get out the vote movement and it is much broader today. here in colorado it is a liberty movement of mashed up of old school conservatives were on paul millenials and teapartier san they may agree on things that matter but disagree on others but with the tea-party rarely is is the

tip of the us be your it no longer is the tea-party system something more empowering of individuals. i know of the tea party bombs to have larger facebook pages band of local g.o.p. think of the cost how that changes everything. these values are not far right to a lot are in that growing class of independence that are fed up with the partisanship of both sides estimate that maybe your vision for the future but it is a tea-party system by republicans or democrats.

we will be governed by democrats or republicans and ideological groups if they've want to have an influence because we will be governed. but if the teapartier word break off of its own it would be marginalized. maybe more support of the socialist workers party but no prospect to be a majority party because i am sorry to say the vast majority are not up to the rigors of libertarianism. >> let me address that. if you look at the majority party to day, i would argue the republican party is ours.

we are not leaving the party those values are hours but the people have abandoned those basic principles that either need to find a better home or discover what they believe. >> that is the point i have been making. [applause] we need to revitalize the party. when the governor said there is no place in new york for conservatives. and i never thought of myself as the establishment republican. [laughter] the republican party cannot win without support from the tea-party. be a governing party even though not all agree on the teapartier issues but to

form a coalition. >> what would help to create the largest since the four days than some would play in the us for not doing better. it was not ideological but we ran on the issues against the government takeover of obamacare if you look at the history not running bob dole for president again and again and again we do something on values and issues it is the alternative >> drawing a line in the san to let people know where you stand with the government shut down. i will recall the 1987 democrats in the house and senate passed the clean

water bill filled with pork but it was a fireman told. reagan made up his mind to veto. he went to house republicans who were castigated on the floor that we wanted dirty air and water. he called the house republican leadership to say i want to veto the bill. they said don't do that. the votes are not there to sustain its. he said i industry and. at the end of the day he got support from only 26 republicans and the house to sustain the veto. he went back and wrote in his diary what they did not understand is you have to draw a line to let people know where we stand. take a stand if you lose the

issue as a sitting president he lost the battle the veto was overridden he made it clear and two years later his successor running on his coattails with the last landslide to elect a republican president because that is what the tea party does consistently. [applause] . .