african-american history and politics and gender studies it is a nice bridge for those two areas with st. louis history. . . >> host: senator santorum thinks for joining us. some of the fetus -- the thesis of this book.

>> guest: the thesis of the book as there is a big swath of america that is being ignored, left behind, not included in the discussion i think for either party. particularly though i would argue the republican party and i call it blue-collar conservatives, the folks out there that are working people most of whom don't have college degrees, folks that really still understand the value of work and the importance of work and responsibility and people who understand the importance of family and faith, believe in freedom and limited government. you say well wow those are conservative or public in voters and in many cases they are not. in fact a lot of them aren't voting at all because they don't really see either party talking to them about the concerns they have in trying to create an opportunity for them to live the american dream. if you look at the democratic party, they talk about these voters a lot and in fact talk

about how they can give them certain things whether it's free health care for subsidized health care or increasing their wages with government minimum wage increases, a whole laundry list of things that government benefits that they will try to help but most of these folks don't want to be in a government program. they want to work. they want to have jobs that are well-paying jobs they create an opportunity for them to support themselves and their families and that sounds like more of a republican voter but unfortunately republicans are economic message as you know tucker and you have seen this over the years we talk like economists. we are sort of wrapped up in the rightness of our position that we talk about balancing the budget and we talk about cutting taxes for individuals to create jobs and in cutting government, particularly a lot of benefits and if you are the average american listening to this economic plan you economic plan is a economic plan is a wealth

where am i next-line? would be doing for me, the people that are seeing their wages stagnating and not getting increases and seeing inflation it away and that's who this book is written for and per public is understand why they are not succeeding in getting these boats. >> host: it's a little perplexing as you pointed out because some of these voters are seen by republicans so why wouldn't the republican party be talking to and about working-class voters? >> guest: well because it really requires you to not think macrobut might grow. that's a very difficult thing for republicans. the republican idea on economics is a rising tide lifts all boats. i agree that a rising tide lifts all boats unless you -- your boat has a hole in it and then the rising tide is a very dangerous thing because when that tide rises your boat sinks into your not in a good situation. to know how high the tide is

they have a lot of folks who have holes in their boats everything for not having skills to get jobs that are well-paying jobs and a family that doesn't have education or maybe has a drug or substance abuse problem or problems at home. there's a whole laundry list of things and they'll have some holes in our throats but there's a lot of americans who don't see this rising tide really necessarily helping them and so what i've done in this book and what i've tried to do in the campaign is specifically address areas where when blue-collar america where average americans can see direct economic benefits to them and an opportunity for them and that's where i talk a lot about specific sectors of the economy where large portions of these types of workers will find employment that's actually going to be family sustained appointment -- employment. energy and manufacturing and related spin-off in the service industries related to those and

then focus on the other side. it's not just economics. one of the problems with culture and the family is breaking down and so we talk a lot about the importance of marriage and the family is part of building that healthier american dream. >> host: president upon this talk a lot about income inequality and its rise. is he right and should republicans be echoing those concerns? >> guest: yeah the numbers don't bear out the rhetoric. a fact of the matter is things haven't changed but they haven't gotten better. i think that's really the issue and in fact relative to europe and canada the opportunity of mobility of america is not as good as it is in some of those countries. and so while the idea that there is this exploding gap of income inequality is not necessarily borne out by the facts. the fact is that there are serious problems in america but need to be addressed and there

are people in america who are not getting ahead. i think it's arguing the debate as to whether we are better or worse. let's just focus on the fact that there are millions of americans out there who are not seeing the quality of life improved and what can we do to address those. there are substandard things we can do everything from what i mentioned looking at the economy and looking at the culture in looking at education. one of the things i talk about in the book is providing vocational education, career tracks other than tracks that lead to college. 70% of americans don't have college degrees and that numbers and going to change much so what are we doing to provide the necessary skills in high school as well as technical schools after high school to provide the skills necessary for people to work with their hands as well as their heads. >> host: how did this all happened quite what happened to working-class america and to rural america? why hasn't the rising tide --

obviously the stock market is on fire but hasn't helped a lot of people in the interior of the country. something is changed. what is that? >> guest: others are writing things. obviously the economy is changed and we have much more globalization and open market -- markets. there's competition that comes from overseas and overall i think the argument is and i think there's probably a legitimate argument to be made here that overall a america does better when they have that competition from overseas that drives down prices because there are prices that are lower for everybody in the competition as we all know is a good thing. globalization is a positive but it also can be made if you are the person that is losing the job is the result of this competition, and i make the argument that look i'm not against globalization. i understand the global economy but we have to be understanding of the impact case-by-case as those free trade agreements in the other agreements we have to the american worker.

i voted for a lot of free trade agreements. i didn't vote for nafta the north american free-trade agreement because i thought that would be more devastating than helpful. in my opinion that's been borne out. it certainly hasn't improved the situation for america but we need to look at free-trade agreements and we also have to look at the fact that america has not been competitive because our taxes are high. we are the hyatt corporate -- highest corporate tax in the world and you look at the litigation environment here. you look at the educational gaps that we have for worker training and manufacturing and those types of jobs. the government, the role that government has played in making this on competitive i think is pretty profound and that is why one of the reasons i wrote the book is that i think american manufacturers can be competitive in the global economy if the government creates a level

playing field vis-à-vis our competitors. i have a whole laundry list of things that i go through the book that talk about how we can do just that. was that the trade gap with china has resulted as you pointed out in cheaper consumer products for everybody and i guess that's a good thing but it certainly hasn't helped american manufacturing. you almost never hear anybody complain about that. why? >> guest: well because most people aren't in manufacturing. most people have lost their jobs are getting lower paying jobs. a small percentage well, relatively small percentage of americans are participating in manufacturing. certainly substantially less than it was before so if you are a professional or someone who works in the service industry and you are looking at getting something for substantially lower price because it's been manufactured overseas you are happy to go to walmart but as you know tucker walmart is now very focused. the ad campaign for the last are almost talking about how they

are trying to move things back to america to try to encourage manufacturing here in this country. i think he even those who have benefited greatly like walmart from this globalization are having these products made overseas see the benefits of having these products made here. there was a famous conversation that occurred between henry ford and walter luther who was the head of the union that ford had to deal with the ironworkers union and he was walking to the plant and showed luther a machine. he said this machine is going to replace i don't know how many workers and luther responded well that's great but how many cars is this machine going to buy? that is really the tension here is that yes we can replace workers with foreign competition and automation but you have got to have wages to buy products here in america. he said there is an understanding now by walmart and many others that we need to look to how we can be competitive.

i'm not looking to rig the game. i'm really not. if you look at the proposals that i put in the book i think they are conservative in orientation. they are not subsidies. they are tax cuts and regulatory reforms in education which government of course is heavily involved in. the thing that we can do all consistent with what i would call conservative politics and conservative philosophies is give us the opportunity to be competitive. >> host: why not rate the game blacks the u.s. is interested in making america free and prosperous so why wouldn't the u.s. government do all it can to help americans? >> guest: first off you have trade rules that you've got to deal with. when it comes to trade laws for example that's one area that we really don't get into that much because when you start looking at trade laws you have retaliatory efforts on part of the of the country particularly china encouraging a trade war

with china or any other trading partners. so i think you have to be very careful that you structure it as a level playing field and you do it consistent with the trade laws that are in place and the limitations of what countries can do to favor manufacturing one country over another. >> host: you don't mention immigration really in the book. if you are persistently high unemployment and obviously don't have a labor shortage why would you report as you do when million low-wage workers get into our country every year. how does that help? >> guest: like to talk about the importance of having a trained labor force. but you are right. certainly with illegal immigration, illegal immigration is anything that we would do in my opinion that would quote solve the problem for legal immigration by granting a form

of amnesty to these workers will flood the labor markets in this country with more low-wage workers. we have an immigration policy that is today a fairly generous immigration policy and we need to examine that immigration policy, see how it impacts the american worker, where we bring people in from, what are the skillet will of the people we are bringing in an certainly faster than when it comes to labor markets of this country. i don't think we do that candidly. we have done it in the past. this is something that immigration policy is dealt with throughout the course of american history so it's not something that i think we should be afraid to do. we should look at it from a standpoint of people here in this country making sure they have the opportunity. my focus was not on immigration policy per se although i think there is a point to be made. but i specifically did want to deal with the whole concept of illegal immigration because to

me, look barack obama had two years as president of the united states with complete control, supermajority control of the house and senate and could have passed any illegal immigration law that he wanted and he never proposed a bill. to me that says that this issue is not a substandard political issue. this is an -- substantive policy issue. this is a purely political issue. this is an issue the democrats and personal, once used to drive a wedge between republicans and hispanics of my suggestion is we do not play that game. we don't get thrown into that breyer patch. we actually say simply this and this is what might position has been on immigration first and foremost with secure the border. let's take this problem of what's a 12 million illegal immigrants in this country and make it a finite problem a resolvable problem. when you don't secure the border to the point you know you're not going to have another flood of immigrants depending on what you

do on illegal immigrants and you've created another problem because you are having 12 million more immigrants in this country because you have granted amnesty to the existing group. from my perspective let's have a discussion as i just did on illegal immigration and how we match that to make sure it's good for the country but the other immigration issue aside. >> host: nobody admits to liking illegal immigration and some do but let's take a legal side. the democrats are for it because a lot of people will become citizens and democratic voters. conservatives are for it because its cheap labor but why is it good for the average american citizen working at walmart in the middle of western pennsylvania where you are from, why is it good for him to have to compete with someone from another country you got work for much lower wages? why is that good for him? >> guest: why would say this. one of the reasons legal immigration is a good thing is

because our country is growing. we now are below replacement rate of a population in this country. i think there is something to be said. legal immigrants to bring a vitality and energy to this country so i think legal immigration still is a positive thing. i think the fact that but for immigration we would not be growing. i think america, we want to be a country that continues to be growing and expanding. i think that's a positive thing and it's a positive thing for markets. so yesterday's people competing against jobs? >> guest: they are also consuming and if they are working and buying products, don't see that necessarily is a zero-sum game. if you do it in a way to make sure you are getting a variety of different workers from a variety of different skill levels to be competitive you are also -- that's not necessarily a bad thing. >> host: if i'm an employer and i hire someone and immigrants are hire someone an immigrant or not and paying

minimum wage, no one can live on that so the slack is picked up by taxpayers in all the social welfare programs we have. the taxpayer pays for that person in effect to be able to live. why should employers get what is in reality a subsidy for taxpayers? >> guest: the cheap labor is labor based upon what the value of that labor brings in so the subsidy is a decision that policymakers have made. so we have made the decision that if someone is making a certain amount of money than then we are going to provide support for them, income support. we are going to provide food stamps or whatever the case may be that that's a decision that i think is separate from a business decision. i don't think we are subsidizing cheap labor. we are basically saying this is the value and businesses have said that this labor brings enterprise and if we are

broadening of the cost of that by higher minimum wage laws which is what president obama is waging which i oppose than what we are doing is driving the cost of labor up which of course will result in unemployment and loss of jobs. >> host: they were suspending it came out this weekend that showed the top 25 hedge fund managers made in personal income for themselves about $29 billion last year. 25 people made $25 billion making hedge funds. what is your reaction? >> guest: my reaction is the capitalist system works very well for people who have resources. like president obama's world of economics is one that encourages that. why? because he has put forward all of this policy that favors to big to fail, that provides backstops for people who take big risks and if those risks don't come true than the federal government backs them up.

so we have created a tremendous opportunity for wall street to do very very well under this administration. and not a particularly strong effort to help main street or small town in. [roll call] america. i'm not surprised to hear those numbers. you know that's part of the american dream. i have concerns though that when you look at the tax on capital versus the tax on labor what ronald reagan attempted to do it in the 1986 tax act was to say we subsidize low capital gains tax rates. where the concerns of conservatism is we need to limit capital gain tax.

keep investing in capital and invest in things because you are going to get a huge subsidy for doing so but if you invest in labor and if you employ people to accomplish the same person to get a return on your money then we will get taxed and labor of the tax heavily. he will have regulations that will be costly so what reagan did in 86 was lower the income tax rate to 20% in the capital gains tax to 25%. you have labor and capital being priced at the same thing from a stamp would taxes, which encourages investment labor and employment. today we have a tax structure with 40% top rate in the regulatory environment that the obama and assertion is created you have an economy that greatly favors capital over labor and that is why we are seeing high unemployment rates persisting. >> host: also doesn't send a message that we don't value work? why would you work for a wage

when you are paying twice the tax rate is someone who is investing? >> guest: warren buffets secretary and you hear this all the time. warren buffett makes billions and pays 50% tax on a dam secretary i'm sure gets a nice salary so without my salary she is paying 40% at the top rate. it doesn't make any sense. i am someone who has been very blessed. i love to work and i work hard and i have very little way in a way -- very little in way of investment. i can't remember the last time i paid capital gains. i have a fair amount of income coming in for labor and guess what? i get taxed to the hilt and so you just have to for me i just have to work harder. when you have seven kids you have no choice but a lot of people say what's the point that's why my doing this so it is a discouragement for a lot of people. >> host: at a certain point

don't you risk social instability? >> guest: well, the point you are making is that when you have people who are making huge amount of money like these hedge fund operators and they are all going to get taxed at 15% and for the quote work they did. if you are working for that hedge fund operator and you are the secretary and you are the administrator or whatever you are paying 25, 30, 35 or 40% on income and you say how is that fair? i would make the argument it really is unfair. we shouldn't beware warding one over the other and the approach in the book and i don't get into it in detail with comprehensive tax policy. what i approaches lowering marginal rates which is a very important aspect of increasing the demand for labor. a big part of what i have

suggested is making the tax code simpler but lowering the rate -- rates is important. >> host: you are famous as a conservative but yet this book does not really tackle abortion or marriage. neither one is in the index. why is that? yeskel i am one of the few conservatives that would be willing to talk about these issues. most conservatives would love issues come up they dive under the table. so it's sort of funny that you are known as a social conservative. we do talk about the culture and as i mentioned earlier i talked about the importance of the family and marriage as an economic good for society. i mean the word economy comes from the greek word orchis which means home. home is the first economy.

it's the first hospital. it's the first school. it's the first everything in a child's life and it is the central foundational building block of society. i do talk about marriage and the family as an important part of the economic well-being of our country and that we as americans are losing this foundation. 40% of children are being born outside of marriage. if you look at the numbers i'm sure you know this but if you go to a prison in america you will find 85% of the people in prison were raised in homes without a dad. we know the social consequences of large segments of society where children don't have data in the home and marriage is impossible anymore and it's not a positive thing. economically for those families of the country generally. the real question which i address in the book is what do we do about that?

is there anything that the government or the public policy can do and the answer is clearly yes. there are lots of things we can do. they are important for us to do. if you look at the last two and there i would argue sincere compassion to help people who are struggling particularly single moms they have structured all these programs that depend on you not being married. i'm not -- sure that is not the way they decide that and the net effect is wisconsin if you you're a single mother with two children and you are earning $15,000 a year working part time you get $38,000 in welfare benefits. if you get married you loose the mall so to get married her husband would have to make 50 grams plus a year in order to get married. i'm sure that's possible but it's not highly likely. what happens is we have created marriage traps.

we have created barriers to marriage for the very people who have important and i'm sure for many of them to have a stable and solid relationship with the man that can help in raising their children but instead what we do is encourage that mother economically either not to get involved or if she does have a very dangerous relationship with having a man living in the home and of course you know that's the most dangerous relationship for both the mother and the children of that mother. we are doing things that are destructive of families all in the name of helping people when in fact we have to change these incentive to create incentives for people or at least off the barriers to marriage. >> host: one of president clinton's most reliable constituencies of single women. why don't republicans talk about this? i can't remember the last time i heard a republican candidate

talk specifically about the importance of tailoring policy to encourage marriage. >> guest: i do. and i did. i did in last election. in fact i have this chart and i was talking about the woman from wisconsin. i found out about that so actually use that on the stump repeatedly. you may remember when i wrote a book back in 2005 called it takes a family. it was a direct response to hillary clinton's it takes a village. i do believe family is a voting block of society and marriage is an essential public good. if you look at the work that has been done by arthur brooks and others have talked about the issue of happiness and looking at studies over time about what makes people happy. i address this in the book but married people are by far happier than single people. and they have better economic prospects. their children have a better

education and there are less drugs are less crime and all sorts of societal benefits. they have been downright hostile to embrace a minute talking about it because they don't want to be seen as more allies than telling people how to live their lives. no one is telling anybody have a live lives. what we are saying is anymore than you are saying you shouldn't smoke. the government has all sorts of messages coming out saying that smoking is bad for you or texting and driving is bad for you or hiring veterans is a good thing to do. we recognize certain public goods and if the government and as a society we get behind them. so what i have suggested in the book is that the popular culture and i'm talking about hollywood in the news media and the entertainment industry, the educational industry. i'm talking about public schools as well as private and colleges,

businesses, labor. this should be something we all agree with that we want to develop a positive marriage culture. post goes through it's just a fear of seeming unfashionable? is that it what prevents -- do they just not want to see them as -- >> guest: when i talk about this that's the push back. what are you telling people? are you saying single moms or dads and i'm not saying anybody is bad. i'm saying we are in a situation where marriage is -- marriage is failing and failing his institution. one of the reasons we are seeing an attempt to redefine it is because we have lost what it is. it's important for us to reclaim marriage for what it is which is not just a romantic relationship between two people although it is certainly as part of that and not just a contract where people perceive benefits because of that relationship that marriage

is unique in that it provides a very unique benefit to society which is the joining of a man and woman together who are of all other options the only two that can have children that are their children and have the natural mother in natural father raise those children in a home that is supportive. it does bring something unique and it is good for the public to have children race and then a. it's also very important good for men and women. not just for happiness but a whole host of other reasons for that relationship has benefits to men and women. i don't think there's any reason for us to shy away from it and in fact tucker what i'm hearing in what i'm saying is many on the left are recognizing this. they are seeing the statistic that came out in the last six months or you had all this talk

about income inequality in every single study to talk about income inequality came to the same conclusion. the number one factor that overcomes income inequality is marriage. and if people get married before they have children, if people who are married and stay married but that in fact results in a better economic condition than someone who is either a single mother or single death or divorce. >> host: you've said we are attempting to redefine marriage. from my perspective do you think there's any chance of marriage won't be the law of the land pretty much everywhere? >> guest: i see this as the same debate as abortion. 40 years ago the supreme court came down and decided abortion was legal and something that should be pervasive and accepted. if you look at this generation of young people according to most of the polls i have seen the youngest cohort in the polls

are usually the most pro-life right now. now i think you are recognizing that just because the court said that so, just because that was something that was affirmed or approved of by the supreme court doesn't mean society is going to accept it because in the case of abortion it's not true. you are taking a human life and more and more people are recognizing the horror of taking out innocent life and i think pushing back. i think the same thing will happen with the issue of marriage. as i said we have lost the definition of marriage because we have lost what marriage is pretty think it's going to take baby losing something in seeing the consequence of losing it and seeing the consequence of losing marriage and the flow with religious -- to recognize that we made a mistake.

>> host: it seems to have a real problem with libertarians. a couple of years you were on fox calling ron paul -- what objections you have to libertarians? >> guest: i didn't call him disgusting. it was his attacks on me saying things that were ridiculous and outright lies about me and my record. i just called it disgusting and i don't think ron paul personally is disgusting. what he was doing was. i do have concerns about the impact and influence of libertarianism on the conservative movement because i think -- i don't think it's consistent with conservative thought. i think the idea that libertarians and i'm not talking about libertarian conservatives because there are conservatives that have a libertarian extent to and are stronger on some of

these issues particularly the issue of constitutional protections and limitations. so i respect that. i think that's a very healthy debate within the republican party as to the role of government and how much government does to the issues of privacy. i think those are very important issues and so libertarian conservatives not as big of a concern that libertarians and some of the folks who pretend to be libertarian conservatives are not necessarily so. they are more libertarians trying to change what conservatism is. there i have a lot of problems everything from their isolationist view of how we approach national security. i think we have seen over the last five years the obama illustration with isolationism and america taking a backseat will mean to the world than our own security and probably the best example of why it won't work has been the last five years. yet they have maintained. the other area i am concerned

about is just the fundamental idea of what libertarianism is based upon pretty think it's based on a flawed view of man. ultimately the libertarian view is that people are free to do whatever they want to do in the government is removed and people have this freedom to exercise their own will in the world will be a better place. i don't buy that. i don't understand why we see anything in human history that would suggest that would result in a virtuous society that they believe i think the fundamental understanding is that humans are essentially good. i believe that man is basically fallen and needs to have the families of the considerations and the government to have laws in place and pensions in place to shape and mold that individual.

>> host: interesting. everyone agrees that there were problems with the occupation of iraq in the last decade that the original decision to invade iraq in the spring of 2003, was that a good idea to think? >> guest: like go back to, i guess i can answer this two ways. at the time i made the decision that i thought it was the right decision ibook back and knowing what i knew at the time i would have made the same decision. knowing now what happened and how the occupation and having involvement in that area of the world and the complexities of dealing with the radical islamists and frankly the muslim culture i certainly going forward would be a lot more cautious about engaging those kinds of activities in the future. we need to learn a lesson that

the long-term prospects of doing what we attempted to do when going into iraq i'm not optimistic about positive results about going and taking that type of approach. >> host: do you think anyone has learned that lesson click the architects of the invasion of going to iraq is -- no one has been ostracized. >> guest: i think it's different to suggest what we attempt to do and again if this has not been done and america has never done this before so the idea is to say well these people were wrong and they should be ostracized a lot of them and i have talked to many of them, are a think a little chastened and venturing again into something like that. i think everyone has looked at what has happened, looked at the fact that like it or not the people who were involved in the

initial invasion and managing without war are necessary to people who are going to finish it out. if we look at the fact that there may be administrations that have less of a stomach for finishing the job were doing it right you have to take that into consideration when you engage in the first place. >> host: you have raised seven children and it seems like you've done a really good job in it. you think a patrician politician do if? if you do it with the best of intentions but you screw something up hsinchu apologize and should there be a role for public sanction and isn't that all part of improving the future? shouldn't they apologize? >> guest: like him think they should apologize. they should be candid about the failures that took place certainly. i don't know how you look at iraq today and say that was a success. >> host: exactly. >> guest: that doesn't mean

you need to take out the whips and log in the back of the public square. the decisions that were made at the time were and are very different set of facts and circumstances and limited understanding of how that interaction with american interaction would work. i don't think contrition is necessary. i think honesty at this point and an office at what happened and what we should do going forward is a much more appropriate tax. >> host: what are the assumptions of underpinning american diplomacy and democratic countries tend to be more peaceful nighttime attack one another. do you still believe that? >> guest: i still believe that but the question is how applicable is that in various cultures and i think we have to recognize there are certain cultures where this type of idea is more difficult to plan and sustained in other areas of the world. think we have to be realistic

where we apply that. the idea is still the right idea and i think it's true. the question is it possible and to what extent are we willing to sacrifice to sustain a presence in an area to finish the job. i think we have found that is not even possible in that area the world. >> host: at the idea is true should may pushing educating and we have authority in this area. for examples out of arabia to be a democratic country of jordan and if they did become democratic countries as egypt did would that be better for us? >> guest: the question is whether this is better for us or not. i think the ideal and the goal is a good one. the question is how do you get there and how long do you take and what measures do you take? you mentioned egypt. egypt was ready for elections. if you look at a lot of these

countries and you make the assumption -- look at the united states. we will be ready for an election the united states was formed to have everyone in the united states both? our founders didn't think so. they limited the people who could vote in an election. you say that for once terrible and maybe it wasn't me maybe it was her make it wasn't that it was a decision that was made to make sure there were some continuity and stability within the government that was consistent with the values the government was founded upon. we can't go out and say its objective is a free election. that should've never been objective. democracy is something that comes when it's appropriate to come and we have to work with the individual situations to ultimately, it may take 100 years to get there but the idea of rushing into these types of freedoms and elections i think was were not the right approach. >> host: what do you think that's due in afghanistan now? >> guest: i think maintaining some sort of presence there.

we have certainly learned their lesson from iraq that leaving is the worst of all possible situations because now we have chaos again and a potential dangerous alliance between iran and iraq. civil unrest, terrorism and terrorist groups. so it's not a positive situation. to the extent that we can continue to support the afghan military and again it's the stomach for the long-haul and having involvement that provide some sort of possibility for stability in the future. just like we say it's hopeless let's leave then you get back to the situation that caused you to get there in the first place. >> host: this book makes me assume you're running again because it lays out a coherent view what do you agree or

disagree. this book describes her philosophy or private anyway and it suggested me that you are reentering public life. are you running again? >> guest: well it doesn't necessarily mean you're running. i'm out there in the public. that's climbing running for president again. >> guest: i've been very clear that something i'm actively considering, trying to gauge the level of support that's out there but also trying to figure out being the father of seven kids for firmer still at home. i just finished up two years ago. it takes a toll so you have to measure all of those things both politically and personally. i have concern about the future of this country. i think i bring something different to the table so we are going to actively consider whether this is something we should do and we will make a decision sometime next year.

>> host: unlike most people who run for president you have little kids at home. >> guest: we have a little girl who is going to be six in may and so that's our youngest and then we have a 23-year-old is her oldest. still relatively young and still needing dad around and that's my job and something that karen and i think about them pretty about trying to discern the right thing to do for a frame in our country. >> host: how was it -- how hard is it on a family to run for president? >> guest: which means absence. you are just out there and for long of time. you can bring kids out on the campaign trail and we did our older kids john and elizabeth were traveling with us quite a bit and now somebody over kids are the two next in line to be in a position to do more of that. we have younger kids -- you know our youngest, our 6-year-old has

a disability and requires constant care. those are the things that i know people look at politicians and say well it's all a political calculation and then he talked about the family and is just an excuse because the politics aren't there. it may be the case in some but it's not the case in mine. >> host: how physically grueling as it to run? >> guest: i love it. i was asked to question the other day at one of these forms that i did at the university. are you a night owl or an early riser and my answer was both. i run pretty hard. i like the pace of the campaign. i love doing seven to nine town halls a week and i love traveling and talking about things that are important. that energizes me. it's not as much of a toll on me as it is a toll on the family and what comes with it. it's not the physical grind is

not a big problem. the problem is the attacks and a cruelty that comes from exposing yourself to american public and a very important small segment of the american public that now because of social media has the ability to speak much more lovely than what they should. >> host: i know candidates or potential candidates are always hesitant to critique other candidates but who are you impressed by what the people who may run for president? >> guest: i thought 2012 there were a bunch of really good people. >> host: you didn't? >> guest: oh yeah. they are good folks. running for president is hardcover. you look at folks and say that this person didn't do very well at that person didn't do very well. it's hard. i said don't try this at home. you look at candidates who dropped them like rick perry who dropped in and found out wow we are not in texas anymore.

this is a very tough environment and its day in and day out. you have to be mentally and physically and emotionally prepared for it. i guarantee you that two years from now when you are looking at the republican field you will say gee that wasn't as great of a field as we thought it was going to be because it's a hard thing to do. everybody has faults. everybody has witnesses and take it shown clearly in the presidential race. >> host: i am sure you will say this is an true but my perception after reading this book was that you had some measure of contempt for. there is talk now that's a couple of his aides were talking about the possibility of yet another one by him for president. what you think of that? >> guest: i don't think i was unkind to mitt romney and a book at all. i said a lot of positive things about him.

i just think he was miscast. i supported him in 2008. it was a different election but in the 2012 election he was just not the right candidate. it was the 99 versus the 1% and we did not need to nominate a wall street multimillionaire 1% or who unfortunately never was able throughout the primary to deal with or get comfortable with his wealth and how to explain that and his success. either on top of that the issue of obamacare and the fact that we had a candidate who took the most important issue that helped us win the 2010 election and probably will help us when the 2014 election but when the election was that for the person instituted obamacare would never talk about it. we had in my opinion and the reason i'm so passionate about running, we needed someone who is better on those two fronts.

i thought a guy who grew up in a steel town who was the son of an immigrant and listened for the wall street bailouts and put forth a lot of a lot of good free-market private sector ideas on health care would be a better choice. >> host: what do you think of jeb? >> guest: i don't know jet that was pretty look at his record of the governor florida may think he is a solid record. i think he is a good and decent man. i don't know that much more. >> host: now as you know romney won for the seven biggest states he won only one texas and other puffins don't want texas on figures a way they can get enough electoral votes. there are a lot of people who are watching this carefully who believe texas could easily go blue and become a democratic state over the next 10 years. at that point where the republican party ceased to be your pup national party?

>> guest: that is why weeks it's important to expand the base of the republican party. you look at what ronald reagan did in 1984 winning all of the states we say that's not possible now given where the welcome party has positioned itself as possible is positioned ourselves in favor and identify with the great middle america who is looking for someone who has a plan to make life better for them. it's really the reason i wrote the book to speak from the people across america those of us who have the sets of values but also speak to the republican establishment. we have to stop our focus on extraneous issues. the idea that somehow or that we have to abandon the family and abandon life. the people i'm talking about happen to share our values on those and they are willing to vote for us if we can show them that we actually care about them. i site this in the book that in

the exit polls i think there were 23% of the population in the exit polls said the number one issue for them was to secure about people like me and barack obama got 81% of those votes and they were by and large people and lower to middle income areas. it's not that his policies for helping them. in fact they were destroying a lot of their opportunities and chances of the american dream but they don't think we care. as teddy roosevelt said people don't care what you know until they know what you care. we have to have policies not just rhetoric that policies that connect. i think we can reestablish an entirely new map that put states like pennsylvania and ohio and even illinois and wisconsin and michigan back in the electro-play again. >> host: a huge percentage of working-class voters are receiving government aid in one form or another. it is that a tough sell for

republicans to see those voters with whom they might have a cultural affinity to say to them elect me and i will for example cut your disability payments. >> host: >> guest: it lets me and i will create an opportunity for you to better paying jobs and to take better care of your family. working one job instead of two, have maybe your spouse not have to work a job so if she wants to be able to stay in the home to stay in the home or if you want to stay in the home and have your wife work, whatever it is but to give options for your families because the jobs you have for better paying job so you don't need those government benefits. part of it is that you know 47% people receive government benefits that's an all-time high. before the recession it was 31 or 32% so as the economy is driving up these benefits in getting more and people involved in getting benefits so quick and grow the economy, i would say we need a progrowth poor worker

agenda. pro-worker agenda. >> host: at some point math suggests someone will have to cut benefits somewhere sometime what the numbers are going to work. even the people who like work why would they want to give up benefits? >> guest: why talk about this in the book. there are certain things we can't and must do with a lot of the programs that are in place that are fiscally unsustainable. you will not be able to continue social security. medicare is on its way to bankruptcy and medicaid is not sustainable. we have to begin to address those issues. my feeling is if we can create a healthier economy and we can begin to create economic opportunities for people affected by these changes then i think it's a good trade-off and hopefully we can make that argument. you say well they don't want to give them up. i will say i have a lot of faith in the american public that if

you lay out a vision for america and make the case for america as a leader and you call up on america to step forward and do their part to make america a viable enterprise going forward i have confidence in the american people that can happen. >> host: i think you've came to d.c. this same year i did in 1991 and i wonder if you notice for all those 23 years you have had conservatives around the country spending money on politicians but also these conservative non-profits in the hope that they would help make america more conservative. over that time from my perspective the country has become anything but playing at the measures you have mentioned today. the welfare rate article about birthrate and certainly the way people vote. what happened out that money and all those billions? without waisted? >> guest: republicans have focused on the wrong place. as you know tucker what the things i've done since i left

the political race for president is i became ceo of the movie production and distribution company. the one of the reasons you've seen the change in america you are talking about is because of the popular culture. you look at the attitudes and we talk about the attitudes for marriage. that is then driven completely by popular culture media television news all that pounding away, pounding away, pounding away on this is the way you're supposed to think and if you don't think that way you are an intolerant bigot. that is a huge impact. if you give money to a think-tank, that's great and it's great for public policy. if you give money to the republican national committee that's great. elections are downstream from popular culture these days. i would make the argument and i think you are seeing this now that conservatives need to engage in the culture. i've done so with this company echo light studios and i think you see a lot of people say you know what, we have to start

going out there battling for the hearts and souls of america and not just the popular culture but particularly the church. we have dinner taste the church and start fighting back in a way that is creative and positive. if you look at pope francis i am encouraged by what i see from him. he has captured the imagination of young people in a lot of cases. he's out there preaching a positive uplifting goodness. if you look at the preachers doing well on television they are positive and upbeat. we have to be happy worse but we have to be warriors. there's a way to present that in a way that's true good and beautiful that will attract and change hearts and minds. >> host: nor should you that obviously you want a clear assessment of your opponents and use of popular culture has worked to undermine the family. why is that? what's the thinking and the motivation behind that? >> guest: that? >> guest: latoya thea lee. go back to the days of william wilberforce. go to an elite culture angle that to the roman empire.

the elites always want to be able to do whatever they want to do and they don't want any constraints on them. they say every problem in the world always comes down to a problem with the first commandment. if you put a false god before god and the false good as you. you do things for you and you don't really care about any consequence but whatever makes me happy in a moment. that sort of materialism and egoism is unfortunately rampant among the elites in every culture and history of man. this is not something we should be surprised that. it happens everywhere. you see that point of view being expressed by those elites and the culture they create. none of this should be shocking or surprising. every civilization in the history of man has gone through this. of global one of my heroes back in england, that was his fight was to go after the elites and the problems that were occurring in the example that they were

setting for society. so if you look at the examples that the celebrity culture exhibits to society while it's not one that is all about living good decent moral lives. so people tend to imitate that. >> host: senator rick santorum and the book is "blue collar conservatives" recommitting to an america that works. thanks a lot for joining a senator. that was really interesting. >> guest: thank you tucker. really enjoyed it. >> that was soft on booktv signature program.

..

>> >> to publish date meaningful book. i they tell lot of you know,