all of us are going long and hard every day to advance the cause of liberty. i wrote this book "takeover" because in my opinion conservatives ever since i've been in politics which is well over 50 years as i said at the national level, conservatives have had their political guns pointed at the wrong target. we have been focused on the democrats. harry reid, nancy pelosi pelosi, barack obama, whoever might be at that time active in politics. that is all wrong access our number one opponent is the establishment big government republicans. this is a 102-year-old were literally. in 1912, teddy roosevelt former president sought the republican nomination for the president, failed to achieve it. then he left the republican

party and started the bull moose party which led to splitting the republican vote in 1912. woodrow wilson's election was less than 42% of the vote and conservatives have have been battling at a party ever since. sometimes her opponent looks like teddy roosevelt, sometimes tom dewey or eisenhower or nixon or ford, more recently john mccain, mitt romney, bob dole. these are the big government republicans and a appear much more in common with democrats than they do conservative republicans. look to the extent that the establishment republicans went to just a few weeks ago in mississippi to hold on to power. he will do whatever it takes because they have much more in common with democrats than they do with us. they engaged in corruption and lying and cheating to hold onto

that seeded mississippi. conservatives are like the biblical jewish who could not get to the promised land until that generation of failed logged leaders have passed from the scene. as conservatives we are not going to get to the political promise land until we get new leaders. i think that we are poised to do that. i have been involved here for 50 years and i'm more optimistic now than at any time in my entire life. over these last 50 years periodically people will ask me, richard is it too late? have begun to bar down the wrote in socialism? can we still save america? i a vice had one answered one answer only and that is things have to get real bad real quick for america to be saved and guess what, we are there. that water is boiling and the american people are jumping out

of it. the one thing that i didn't say all these years that i should have, it takes two things. things can get real bad very quickly and there has to be some political machinery there to take advantage of that opportunity. that political machine arriving on the scene in 2009 in the presence of the tea party. the tea party has changed everything here in america. when ann's mother and i were involved in politics back in the 50s in the 60s, the conservative movement rested on a two legged stool. the two legged stool is not very sturdy. we went for 45, sometimes 47% vote. very seldom would we get 51%. then under the leadership of phyllis schlafly, gary -- jerry falwell -- falwell and others

conservatives began to reach out and bringing to the conservative movement that social issues. back in the 50s or 60s the two legged stool by the way was national defense which really meant anti-communism an economic issues. it's the two legged stool that would get us to the 40 to 45% vote and then with the third leg being added in the late 70's ronald reagan reached out and brought all of those people into the movement. that was the base of ronald reagan's election to the presidency and re-election and 84. now we have a three-legged stool and we are winning elections. we are getting 51, 52% about sometimes what we are not governing america. then with the arrival of the tea party we now have the fourth leg and we are no longer sitting on a stool. we are at a big table and it is changed everything. i think we have the opportunity now to govern america in a way that i never saw possible before the arrival of the tea party. by the way conservatives have

made a lot of mistakes over the years. in my opinion the number one is that we became an arm, an appendage if you would have the republican party. the tea party is separate and independent from the republican party. they are unfettered. reagan when he ran for president in 1976 talk about we need new leadership. he ran against the entire list establishment of the republican party. the ford wing of the party, the rockefeller ring of the party. you remember 1976 rockefeller was vice president of the united states. the nixon wing of the party the entire establishment and only two u.s. senators supported reagan when he ran in 76 and 80. he said we need new leadership, leadership unfettered by old times of old relationships. the tea party is unfettered with

old relationships. i spoke in dallas a few years ago to about 125, 150 tea party leaders from around the country who gathered for a weekend of training. i was there friday night keynote speaker. i met with a dozen or so in my hotel room before the speeches. i remember there was a woman from corpus christi texas who said that they regularly have meetings of tea party. they had a group of 3000 members and their tea party in the local politicians would call and say we want to come to your meeting. her response was great, we would love to have you come. that you don't speak, you listen to us. i don't have a conservative friend of the national level but i know of that would talk to a republican politician like that. it's so refreshing to hear the tea party be so independent, unfettered to the republican point. james carville in 1992 famously

said over and over and over to democrats it's the economy, stupid. he wanted to drive that point home to the democrats for the 1992 campaign. i paraphrase that and say to conservatives it's up -- it's the primary, stupid. it's a primary, stupid. in 2009 in 2010 we could see a wave coming that was going to sweep the democrats out. if all that had happened and more big government republicans have been returned to office we would have wasted the opportunity of a lifetime. we can see again that way then it could be a wave of tsunami proportions that's going to sweep democrats out of office in november of 2014. that is why it's so important that we focus on the primaries. not only this year but also in 2016.

a lot of copy has been written by our enemies, the mainstream media about how bad the tea party is doing in this year's election. do not believe them. the tea party and grassroots conservatives are winning. the no republican out there other than maybe thad cochran and the only reason he did it was he one of the liberal democrats to come in and vote for him. every other one is running as a limited constitutional conservative. not one of them is running on the record. the republicans in congress are acting more conservative than they have in years. the reason we don't have a lot of liberal legislation right now is because of the influence of the conservatives, tea party types but also with few exceptions, very few exceptions tea partiers victories conservative victories in recent years afcom with open seats in open races. it's exceedingly difficult to

beat an incumbent. where these high-profile races or incumbents are beating big tea party candidates, they candidates, there are outspending them 10 to one, 20 to one. so we are making a difference out there. i would urge you to think and realize we are winning and we in my opinion continue to focus on the primaries, taking over the republican party at the grassroots level. phyllis says the most important political position in the world is being a precinct chairman. that means we must take over the republican party starting at the precinct level, county, state and the national. if we continue to focus on this i think we can prevail in the primaries in 2016. nominate a constitutional conservative to be the republican nominee for president in 2016 and the governing america by 2017.

do you young people and their awful lot of you here. that's great, it's so exciting to see so many young people he here. and it may look like we are in a dark. math. things are not going well. i have been there when there was a darkness about the political landscape of biblical proportions. after the 1964 election it was tough out there. it didn't look like they would be any hope for us and the democrats had two-thirds plus majority in the house and senate. anything lyndon johnson and the democrats wanted through congress. i was there after ford lost in 1976 and carter was four years as president. again supermajority in the congress and we didn't have at that time talk radio. we didn't know who rush limbaugh was an anti-le pen. we didn't have the internet. we didn't have fox, cable

television. and c-span. we didn't have the ability to go-round the microphones. i was fortunate many years ago to pioneer political direct mail which gave us the ability to go-round the microphones in the country and communicate directly with american people. it changed everything in american politics. now we are competitive in a way that we were not able to be back in the 60s and 70's and 80s. my book "takeover" is the only book that deals with what i'm talking about now. the most important political battle in america as i said earlier is inside the republican party. most people think it's between republicans and democrats. now, it's inside the republican party that's the most important political battle an american if we are able to prevail and be able to take over the republican party and be the principle opposition to the democrats

people will reward us with victories. by the way in my lifetime, a long time, republicans have had for and only four big victories all led by conservatives. the face of the opposition to the democrats was principled limited government. reagan's election to the presidency in 1980 and his re-election and 1984 and 1994 gingrich led contract with america taking over congress for the first time in four years and of course the 2010 election, tea party election. all of those elections, the face of the opposition to the democrats was limited government conservatives. voters don't like the big government types. they don't like quite frankly the karl rove's in the george george bush's and the mitch mcconnell's, the john boehner types.

whenever they are faced with the opposition we lose. republicans lost the congress in 2006. 2008 in my opinion having nothing to do with nancy pelosi and harry reid and barack obama that had everything to do with the failed corrupt immoral leadership of the republicans. 2010 comes along and rove, george bush, mcconnell and are nowhere to be seen. the do they see in 2010? they see marco rubio, rand paul lived then in the tea party. he gave them their best congressional defeat in 75 or 80 years. and so i'm going to wrap it up quick so we can go to questions. let me just make this last poi point. once, twice, three times a day obama is going to do something

that's going to upset you, anger you, frustrate you. that's okay. take the maximum of 40 seconds to throw something but then get down on your knees and thank god because i know no other way to save america. it's a high-risk but we are waking up america. we are poised to winning here because of the excesses and extremes of the democrats and obama. so with that i will take your questions. >> great. let's have some questions. yes, writing here. the lady. >> hi, good morning. i am from georgia. thank you very much for being here today. as i'm sure you might now we have a primary coming up in a couple of weeks between jack kingston who has been in politics for about two decades now and david perdue who is a businessman.

a common argument in this primary is whether or not we want someone who has been in politics for a long time who has good relationships in washington or if we want someone who is more in touch with running a business and what it actually means to be an american working hard. would you mind sharing your thoughts on the people who would argue that while someone who seems to be a little bit more touch with running a business and being what you might call an average american, is that better or should we rely on someone who does have these relationships relationships, they maybe would give us a better chance of actually passing some conservative legislation? >> that's a very very good question. thank you for asking me. in a few weeks there will be a runoff primary for the senate in georgia between longtime political leader and a business person. i'm not in a position to endorse one candidate over the other

right now but i will give you this piece of advice. i heard it from herman cain maybe 10 years ago. herman talked about qualities to look for any candidate. he said after you have established the conservative bona fides, the most important quality in a candidate you want is for us as conservatives, you are looking for a boat rocker, someone who's going to rock the boat. i won't mention names but there've been a few high-profile republicans who are not that conservative but they were fierce partisans. we have got leaders now that are inarticulate, that are not fighters and we want a lot of things as conservatives. number one we want leaders that will fight and we will articulate. someone who has been in office for 20 years that hasn't been outspoken in providing that

leadership is probably not likely to provide inarticulate leadership for the cause in the 21st year. let me take the opportunity to mention something else. periodically i will have discussions with someone about a particular politician and they say well richard why don't you think x or y is a conservative? i say i've got a foolproof, i call it sub by's foolproof test of whether you are a conservative or not in the test is this. tell me who you walk with and i will tell you who you are. i never saw a ronald reagan in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. i saw him a fair amount. at a reception i would turn around oh governor. he was not the head table. he was with us and he would come to her meeting since sit at the tables with us. i never saw him except i saw

half a dozen stars of the conservative movement. their stake allen and judge clark and margie anderson. when reagan moved conservatives were all around him. if you haven't surrounded yourselves with conservatives for the last 15 or 20 years when you move into office, let's say you are running for president and i had this conversation with mitt romney in 2007 when he was running in 2008. i asked him about the people around him. he said you've got to have competent qualified types. i said if all that moves into the white house with you if you are fortunate enough to win this election that the government wall street types, ceos. personnel is policy, conservatives remember this. look who is around these.

>> okay, next question. way in the back. kevin has a question. >> i'm kevin baird from pennsylvania. when you started your talk you were listing a lot of big republicans over the past century tom dewey nixon, ford, dole. that makes it seem the default position of the party leadership is big government republicans. a few exceptions i can think of where goldwater and reagan. could you talk about how they were able to defeat what was able to default big republican leadership and what that can mean when we can get a -- and 2016? i don't know if there is any secret sauce so to speak in terms of nominating or electing a ronald reagan type. i will say this, that for recent

presidential elections, maybe ever since reagan, we have had a few but only a few top-tier really high-level limited government constitutional conservatives running for president. we have had some good people but quite frankly they weren't people that were going to get the nomination. in 2016 we have got a different problem. in 2016 i think we are going to have a traffic jam of top-tier high-level quality candidates running. my concern as that we split the conservative vote half a dozen different ways. this is a serious danger. we have many many of the early primary states are in the northeast and the northeast it's winner takes all.

so if the establishment candidate gets 30% and the republicans get 20% they get 100% of the delegates. then you go down to the south and it's proportional so that candidate goes in there there and the big government candidate gets 30% and they get 30% of the delegates on mike the northeast. sometime next year conservatives really need to come together and unite behind one candidate as we did with goldwater in 64, as we did with reagan in 76 and 1980. and by the way, without promoting any one candidate and i don't have one that i think is absolutely superior to the other although i have one i'm pretty fond of but anyway let me just say what i do is marketing. i've been marketing for 50 years and i know that when i'm trying to sell a development marketing

campaign for a candidate, a cause, an organization, a product i want to position my client against the opposition, against the competition. in 2016 if we assume the democrat is going to be a washington insider i.e. hillary clinton, okay, i don't think quite frankly with all due respect to some really good conservatives in washington he here, i don't think that would be our strongest candidate. i think -- on this candidate will be somebody from the states. we have a half a dozen really good governors. washington is not popular, 10% of best in the polls. so why should we choose our candidate that looks too much in terms of the washington insider like the democrats. >> next question.

>> hi. i'm chris from france. i have a question about the tea party. you will tell me if i'm wrong but the american political system remains divided between republicans and democrats so the tea party leaders should run as republicans to confirm with their traditional system? >> if i understand your question, should tea party type conservatives operate within the republican party or start a third-party? some conservatives, myself included, have been there and done that and it ain't good. i think conservatives as i said earlier, we are so close to

taking over the republican party and governing america. it can happen literally in the next few years. i will be with a lot of libertarians for the next few days in an annual gathering in las vegas. i tell them, i share your anger, your frustration, your disappointment with the republican party, okay? libertarians when they operate in a 501(c)(3), 501(c)4 area with the idea that they make this wonderful contribution to limited government but when they operate politically almost always it's a disaster because they go in there and divide the vote and it costs many good republicans their election. it defeated a lot of republicans with the idea they are going to try to show the republicans and

teach them a lesson. i don't understand it. we had as fine a constitutional conservatives ever run or office can coach an alley in virginia last november. the tea party candidate ran against him and got 7% of the vote and can could ginelli lost by 7%. i talk to these leaders and i tell them i share your frustration with the republican party. what is your plan to get 51% of the vote and govern america? every one of them has an answer along this line, no exceptions. i will get back to you on that. none of them have a plan. they know how to destroy it and i know how to tear down but that's not going to help govern america. if all we are going to do is divide the republican vote allowing democrats to sweep the country and when they have supermajorities at the federal and state level, we see what

obama is doing when he is not, doesn't control the house of representatives. if they control the congress was supermajorities they will rewrite the laws in such a way we will probably win another election. >> another question? okay, great. thank you. >> thank you. thank you all. [applause]