nt to spy on us people say there are many safeguards so that is dangerous thinking it goes back to the first world war with the black chamber in and then we had j. edgar hoover. . .

discuss as america's current political and cultural landscape with cnn. mr. huckabee offers his thoughts on a range of topics from the obama administration and the state of the republican party to popular music and television. this is about an hour. >> host: governor huckabee i think it is worth pointing out the irony that you are sitting in new york where i used to live and die in here in washington

where maybe you will live in just over a year. >> we will see about that. i say in my book there is only one address in all of washington that i have had any interest in moving to and i think that you probably know which one that might be. >> host: we will talk about 2016 but let's talk about your book, "god, guns, grits, and gravy"." explain the title. >> guest: it isn't a recipe book so i want to put everybody to ease if you are saying i don't even know what that is relax and here's the point of the book. there are three major cultural bubbles in america. new york, washington and the other is hollywood. from those three equal total bubbles emanates passion finance, government, politics music and entertainment, movies television. pretty much all the things that

set the american cultural table. my point of the book is there is a big disconnect between the people, the values, the attitude, the lifestyles of people living in those three bubbles and the people who lived live out in what we also called the flyover country. all of that gray area between the east and west coast if you look at the electoral map apart from a few urban centers is vastly red and in that great divide that flyover country exists of what i call "god, guns, grits, and gravy" and it's a descriptive term of flyover country. you are not alone. there's a lot of folks like you and you're okay. this isn't as important to us.

so read the book and you will find out they are not so dumb after all. >> host: you describe the bubble. obviously you don't think that everyone in the bubble is as bad. so, at what point are you trying to make in describing the country in this way? >> guest: you will find people in the way that they think and you will go to places like birmingham alabama and you will find some ultra- liberals believe it or not so reticent that you can define any geographical area but it is generally true that the culture and life size you will see in the bubbles are very different than out here.

i came to realize when i get off that plane and i'm in new york for two or three days a week i am in a different world than the world i live in when i get back because people always say have you moved to new york and here is what i say i'm not moving to new york unless they elect me.com in central park. they can't imagine somebody out there with a 12 gauge semi automatic in central park. that would get me in the headlines for sure. but my point is to describe this completely different worldview. i didn't just go to new york i'm on a different planet. but this is to explain why it is

that he is voting patterns and lifestyle patterns and cultural patterns if you will are so desperate between the two areas. >> host: if they allowed duckhunting in virginia i would be right back there with you. but talk about why the cultural divide is such a problem is that the two sides don't understand each other with respect to the country coming from this cultural divide in the disconnect. >> i wouldn't say that there is a threat to the existing republic because of the cultural difference but i do think that the polarization isn't necessarily healthy for the building of the strong kind of america that we are a melting pot.

to have the differences in the culture and the southern culture but one i'm most familiar with and comfortable with. i don't want to lose that or become so homogenized that we morph into something that is unrecognizable. but there needs to be a mutual respect and understanding, not a melting that understanding. they look towards us with a sense of wonderment. what do you mean you believe in god or you think you want to go to church and paying a dime out of every dollar of your income and tied to the church makes sense. that's crazy. why would anyone own a firearm? i have had discussions even with conservative people of new york who is futile than you own firearms it's almost like they want to jump under the table because they fear that your

going to put out a pistol and start shooting any minute and you say you just don't really know us do you. now let me make this observation. i think most of the people i know to understand people and here's why. because everything that we see on television and admit in the movies is all about the bubbles. television sitcoms but most of them are about people that live in the bubbles of new york, washington, the california lifestyle. so, we kind of know what the people live like because we see it all the time. but how many times do you think of the television sitcom that teaches religious people respectfully as if we really are pretty normal and airlines and engaging people we are usually

presented to hustle people out of their money or people who are neanderthals who are just so backward that we haven't modernized and we are highly uneducated and incredibly anti-intellectual and therefore just really not up to the same level as the elite. that's what i'm speaking to. >> host: this is what i love about our long friendship. i am a non- believer and you you're a baptist minister and yet we have a deep respect for the judeo-christian values this country was on hand you call people who put states and family first the new american outcasts and they think that's what you are getting at is hollywood in particular depicts people who put family first has sort of backwards.

but you would have to admit i don't have to tell you that fox news does really well. they have a lot of viewers. conservative radio, conservative online media does really well and whether hollywood wants to admit it or not are at the conservative values pretty well represented pax >> guest: they are represented within the niche of the media that it is targeted towards them and this is what i think baffles some of the folks in the elite. they look down upon fox news and fox news viewers and how could that network be doing so well? because it is scratching where the h. is and sometimes further it is mark burnett's magnificent drama of the bible .-full-stop more viewers than anything that has ever been on cable whether it's the extraordinary response to reality shows that are wholesome like duct dynasty

dynasty or 19 and counting with my good friends the duggars who i know very well from arkansas arkansas as he had to scratch her. they just can't imagine who are the people that watch this stuff. but it's also true even of the films. i remember when the movie the blindside came out. it was a film of those of us that lived out there we watched that and we said yes we get that, we relate to it and and understand the language and the whole love of football. there were a lot of people who just couldn't figure out how this movie was such a huge success. it was a sleeper for them an obvious choice for us. look at films recently like having is for real or god's not dead. those are films that play to the niche and we understand it. other folks not so much. >> host: i remember when the chronicle of narnia was coming

out of being made into a movie in hollywood predicted no one would go see it and meanwhile it was somewhere near the top of growing. hollywood never seems to anticipate the conservative likes to go see movies. but you touched on this just earlier. talk about environmentalist hypocrisy and what you call environmental extremism. >> guest: i give an example of this in "god, guns, grits, and gravy." he thought about wanting to reduce co2 emissions but it turns out that in the shows he is flying from his home over two walks under a couple of times a month and the output of co2 that he is expanding because of his jet travel is like 100 times that of the average person. so when confronted about it here was his answer.

he said while it would take 12 hours and that would be time away from my family and a whole lot of time i went into the working. in other words because it isn't very efficient and i'm thinking is in that way most of us like life >> i use the example of key makes a statement about environmental issues into into survival believe it is a serious problem when the people who say it's a serious problem act like it is. now kudos to people like this because they are environmentalists who actually practice and live it. i've read about it. he has a small footprint of energy output. once in a file he might make a

trip that i respect that whether i agree with it or not. to me if you have a conviction you just let it out and and if it's authentic we will see it in you and if not don't tell me how to live. don't be al gore and say that the oceans are about to you know, overtake the coast and then build a 20000-foot home right there on the coast. i am sorry that just doesn't make sense to me if you think your oceanfront property is about to become washed into the sea why would you build it lacks >> host: do republicans have a problem with science or is that just a perception and if so how do we change that perception? >> guest: no problem with science at all it is a magnificent gift i would say that science occasionally comes to the place a kind of catch up with god. i wouldn't expect you to say it that way but in my own way i

would probably come at it. let me give you an example. for a long time people mulled over the issue of life. as you know i'm an unapologetic pro-life strong advocate that every person has an intrinsic organ intrinsic organa to value and it's not about abortion. people miss it completely. there's no such thing as an expendable human being. i don't think any person is disposable. i value each person whether it is a kid with down syndrome or the captain of the football team to begin having said that when we say we don't know when life begins actually we do biologically we know now of what's more about it and we did 30 or 40 years ago because of our mapping of the genome and because of the fact we now realize that india may 23 male and 23 female come together creating unique ena schedules that never existed before. that pattern will never exist again. it's unique to that individual and it happens at the moment of

conception. and in that particular moment, everything in that person's dna schedule has formed. now it will change obviously size, shape, dimensions because that's what happens as that new dna schedule forms, but we know when it happens and it is life at that moment, it is human life. that dna schedule whenever b. buckley, a dolphin a puppy tony, it is only going to be a human being. and so i played is that now we look at science and we say science has given us a real affirmation of when life begins. look at a sonogram. people who a few years ago didn't think that it was a real baby until, you know maybe that bb was four months. now at 12 weeks you see a sonogram and say my gosh i see a baby. i see a human form. it's not just an animated glob

of protoplasm so i think that science is a great thing. whether it is a sex duration which i support or medical innovation i strongly support and we should be doing a lot more of it. it's an incredible misperception to think those of us that are conservative and those of us that are faith oriented are somehow against science, not at all. >> host: i have a six week old at home, so i can attest to seeing a sonogram is indeed life-changing. you talk about guns another hot button issue. it is right there in the title of your book and you write quote, city slicker's that are more than the criminals who might use them as a serious mental condition rendering them incapable of critical thinking. now you know i am a gun gun owner and a gun rights advocate and in all seriousness, i always think we have the facts and

statistics on our side and on the other side, there is fear and emotion which is equally powerful. but when do you think the two sides are going to finally come together and have a real conversation about say lowering gun crime because all we ever seemed to do was shout at each other from our porches. >> guest: i think that happens in large measure because if we are going to have a serious conversation, it has to be built around facts not feelings, and one of the major themes of the book is that you can to build a culture based on i think, i feel, i believe. those are wonderful subjective i guess motivations but at some point you need to see what objectively is true and what to build it from the object of truth rather than subjective i think and feel and beliefs and the leave so let's drop the issue of gun violence. it is a horrible problem and i'm

not suggesting everybody in america ought to run out and buy a gun and walk around waving it. i think some people probably should never own a gun but it's not that the government tells them they can't but a mayor in the city decides they can't protect themselves maybe they just don't want to go through the training to become proficient with it. my point is that for many of us that grew up and again i used this land of "god, guns, grits, and gravy," guns were a part of our lifestyle. i had my first bb gun when i was 5-years-old. i got a single shot 22 at age nine then graduated up to a 20 gauge shotgun. in each of those things here is what i learned. first of all i had such a respect for firearms because it was drilled into me that you

never, ever consider a gun unloaded even if you know it is if you can look down the barrel and see daylight you still treat it as it is loaded. if you learn to behave that way you won't miss use it or played it at someone even unintentionally. you will be so mindful. second never point out something you're never going to shoot and don't shoot anything you don't plan to kill or eat unless it is a criminal that is about to kill you. those are fundamental things about gun ownership. it never occurred to me in all my life of owning a firearm that i would ever think to use it to go into my place of work or school and murder a bunch of people. in fact as a kid growing up i knew exactly where the guns were in our house and i could have got into them because we didn't really have the wherewithal and we were not fortunate enough and i guess i'll see him if you own a gun safe, so they were accessible. but the reason i never touched them without my father's permission and supervision is

real simple. i knew what a gun could do and i was absolutely certain of what my dad would do to me if he ever called me messing with them. but i might hurt me but my dad would have killed me. that's just simple. >> host: what do you see is the biggest threat as the biggest threat to the second amendment rights but no clicks >> guest: the biggest threat is the lack of understanding that the second amendment was never intended to protect people. i'm a hunter. is occasionally been known to send on to but the purpose of the second amendment wasn't the recreation and sport. and i know that in that year 2015 this is almost going to sound bizarre but the founding fathers wrote the second amendment so that we would always be able to protect the first amendment, the right of our basic fundamental aspects of

liberty and they knew that the one thing that would always provide people with the dignity of the liberty and ability to keep it is if they could fend off an attack against you so if we go back to the history of the second amendment and the purpose for which it was. it's so people would be able to protect their families, their property, their selves and their liberty from anyone who ever tried to take it. that's why we have it. we should respect it and treat it with a great sense of reverence. >> host: in "god, guns, grits and gravy," you go through some rules of reformers and i want to walk through a couple of those for the viewers. you suggested suggest that we need term limits. why is that important to you clicks a >> guest: because when people get into public office if they think that they can make a career out of it than every decision they then every decision they make is based on how would this affect my next election or career backs if they

knew when they go in that there was a terminal departure point for their tenure in office they are going to make very different decisions. but they say to you i would support term limits before i was first elected to office. i ran to be banging the term limits proposing it and most people who say that before they get elected after they have been in office a few years then they say we don't need term limits we would lose this great experience. i am one of those guys 25 years after the leaving term limits was a great idea and having served in office, a long time as governor, ten and a half years being involved in politics at both ends of that tenure believe in it more now than i ever have and i think we ought to have term limits which we already do for the executive branch i think we ought to have them for the legislative branch and one of the things i suggest in i suggest in the book we ought to have them for the judicial

branch. people going onto the judicial branch should into the leave is as big a lifetime appointment of relieves them from having to worry about the decisions they make. i'm not suggesting that we even asked the judge is appointed. the appointment for life is absurd and people shouldn't feel that anything they do in the service of their country is a career, something they can live for the rest of their lives. >> host: next issue campaign financing you say prohibit nothing and disclose everything. what changes can you make for the candidate financing? >> guest: anything we have done has become worse. it's a total disaster because here's the thing. once you start trying to restrict and tell people what they can't do they will find other ways to do it that's within the context of the law from another mechanism. so look at the presidential process now.

it's out of control. if you are a candidate you raise money at $2,700 a pop. that's the most you can take from somebody 2700. that sounds like a lot of money to some people. but when you are talking about a campaign that has to raise upwards of a billion dollars that's a lot of phone calls and events. now enter entered the world of the super pack. it can take an unlimited amount of money from a corporation or an individual which paid which paid with federal candidates can only take to an individual. if somebody wants to give ten 20 to 30, 50 million they can do it. it is totally disconnected from the candidate which means the message they put out may be hurtful to the candidate but they can't say stop running that ad and run this one instead because then both of them go to

jail. that's insane for what we should to what we should say is look if you want to get $50 million to a person running for president right to check that we the check but we will all know about it within ten minutes because it will be posted on the internet for the world to see. you're not prohibited that we are going to disclose everything to know where the money came from because one of the things killing politics today are the people. in the super pack there is disclosure but there are other forms in some of the mechanisms that don't have the disclosed donors. i could run millions of ads attacking somebody and for donors who gave all that money we will never know who they are. here's what i say in the book. they are cowards. they don't have the guts to run for office but they will write a check and attack somebody through some dark operation and we need to end it all and just save up we are going to disclose everything. you want to get money and advocate for message for fine

have the guts to stand up and be counted and ideally give it to a person who's willing to be a candidate who will stick his name on the ballot and by that message. >> host: the next issue to talk about needing the reformist poverty and you say that poverty is quite a career for those that administer the programs and who would be put out of business if they were successful at eradicating poverty. president obama and the republicans looking ahead are all finally talking about poverty. what would you do to end poverty or reduce poverty in this country? >> guest: one of the things that would shock most americans is that if you took the amount of money that a person in poverty could maybe accumulate as a result of the different programs administrative everything from food stamps to rental assistance to medicaid and on and on come it isn't

completely out of the realm of reason that a mother would have the equivalent of 50, $60,000 a year in an effort. with the simpler to write a check for that out of money rather than have all these programs at higher office bureaucrats and run through these different processes. before some of your viewers go active toxic i'm not suggesting we write everybody a check for $60,000 but a lot of this is to cut out the middleman. let's do the things that will really help people. i saw firsthand some of these programs are vital. but here's how they ought to operate. instead of punishing people for getting off which means there is a learning threshold and then you lose all the benefits. it ought to be administered so

that you get the benefits as a temporary stopgap to help you make the next rung on the ladder and as you make it rather than penalize you and take you completely off medicaid leaving your children exposed with no coverage or leaving you with no capacity to pay your rent will make it so that every step you take what you move ahead rather than behind. don't cut off all the benefits, make sure that whatever you are weaned off of still leaves you a little bit of progress as you move forward because then you have an incentive to do better. you have an incentive to achieve more, to be better educated to learn more job skills. we should never punish people for their productivity. we ought to reward them for their productivity and instead we punish them. >> host: all of these reforms are starting to sound a little like a campaign platform so that about 2016. where are you on your decision for running for president?

>> host: obviously i'm very serious about it. i am amused i have a little bit of pendants that's right by work with fox news just so i can sell my book and i'm thinking really argue are you that stupid to think that i would leave an incredibly good job that paid the very generously and i loved just so i could push a few books because honestly it could have done that at fox and it would have been a much more probable atmosphere. i walked away from a wonderful position and a terrific place to be with great people because i am seriously looking at running for president and so i couldn't continue getting the television show and have the kind of genuine and authentic forthright conversations i got to have with people and say if i run while you help me and support me. so that's why the severance and over the next couple of months i

will make a final decision but obviously the positions i've already made or not made anticipating that i would forgo a presidential race. i've always said my timeframe is sometime in the spring later than earlier. it won't be good for april and pretty positive of that. beyond that when it is i don't know. but that's always been my timeframe and i would never change that. >> host: let's walk through some of the issues you will contract as a candidate and later as president. one of the biggest issues candidates will face this year and next year will be the threat of islamist extremism which we are all seeing unfold in europe and unfortunately we have seen here in the united states. what would you do about all qaeda and the growing threat of the islamist extremism around

the world? >> guest: first you have to identify with the problem is. we have an administration that refuses to call it islamic terrorism. when you call it violence and say what happened in little rock , the private that was killed by asia hottest, when you say that it's just a state crime or murder that has nothing to do with terrorism it is hard to defeat the enemy if you don't even know who it is, so the first thing is to recognize that islam of fascism, whatever you want to call it this religious fanaticism that has resulted in people who truly believe that their purpose on author god surface to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them and that you cannot negotiate with that. this is unlike any war that we have ever fought because in the traditional or you are fighting a geopolitical force that has boundaries that they want to

extend its writ may be over a piece of real estate and you may come to the conclusion you may have to defeat the enemy and you may have to take orders away but the point is you know what the endgame is. when you have a force and the endgame is the annihilation of everything that they consider to be a religious infidel there is no negotiation. there is nothing to negotiate because their view is you die so our view has to be though you die. that sounds pretty blonde -- >> host: would you suggest that we have booths in the ground in places like security and yemen, parts of the mock rather? what is your solution from the foreign-policy standpoint? >> guest: boots on the ground in some places may be necessary if we have a specific target that we are going to attack.

it's saying we are going to put boots on the ground all over the world he can do that. we are not equipped for it and we don't have the stamina for that and the low. what we do have to do is to say to many of the people in the rest of the world look we are tired of our boots being the only one making a footprint. often we are making footprints in your part of the wealth and frankly we are nothing to keep spilling american blood for the lives of saudi's and people of qatar and the uae. if you want to keep your kingdoms you're going to have to fight for it and call them what they are and if you're not willing to do that then when the dark clouds come upon, upon you, good luck you are on your own. we need to find the people in the middle east to our true allies. we had one in israel and we treated them abysmally. i'm ashamed as a manner that we treated the one true allies that we had but we have an ally in the president of egypt that we

have insulted him and pushed him into the arms of vladimir putin and i think that is a relationship that could be restored with a president that understood the value of a person like him. the king of king of jordan is another natural ally. they don't want radicalization. so, we have the opportunity to build something different. but you can't do it when you are showing disrespect to your friends like israel and egypt and kissing up and bringing hugs and kisses to the iranians who we can never trust. >> host: let's talk about some social issues. you said before that if republicans want to lose a guy like you guy like you they can abdicate the issue of marriage. i can make a conservative case that it's a stabilizing institution that i could also make a political case for gay

marriage. they need to maybe loosen their opposition and that reason is no one he knows. 80 million potential voters, the biggest generation in history and they are largely in support of rights. is that a problem for you both in terms of running for president and in terms of holding firm on to this issue but i know you are very passionate about? >> guest: there is a difference between rights and gay marriage. they could be penalized because they are gay from a job being able to visit where they want to live where they want, i have no problem making the kind of accommodations that used to be the centerpiece of the discussion of visitations and making sure that there are visitation rights and all sorts of aspects that used to be the focus around civil unions.

but with come marriage either means something or it doesn't and historically it has meant that a man and a woman form a relationship in which they are going to be committed to each other as partners for life in a monogamous relationship not having many partners with one and from that partnership they would biologically produce the next generation and trained a generation to be their replacements. that is the simplest explanation. of course we have that option and all other kinds of ways in which the next generation can be trained. but marriage has always meant that. my position on marriage by the way is the exact position that barack obama had in 2008 and when he was talking to rick warren at the saddleback church during the forum in august of 2008 and he asked him about same-sex marriage here's what barack obama said. i believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and i

don't believe that it should be other things because and then he used the term because as a christian iv leave god is in the next. by the obama the league that in 2008 as did hillary clinton and joe biden and as stated every democratic presidential candidate that i know of so here's my point. if barack obama said i believed buried as between a man and a woman because that is all we are capable of doing as a society than i would have granted him the license to change his mind but that isn't what he said. he said it was because he was a christian. here's my conclusion. one of three things had to have happened. barack obama was lying in 2008 he is lying he's lying to us when he says now that he's for same-sex marriage, or the bible got rewritten and he was the only one that got the new version. [laughter] tell me what other option is there? that's my point. i don't feel like my view is all

that crazy or out there. it's the same view that has been held and it's the same view the president himself has held. >> host: but we have seen a lot of changes since 2008 grade now you can be a democrat -- you can no longer be a democrat that doesn't support gay marriage. they all seem on that issue even republicans have come out in support of gay marriage. do you think you can become president of the united states without agreeing on that issue considering how large a voting group from the millennial generation will be? >> guest: i think people are going to vote on is he going to bring jobs come is he going to bring a new sense of optimism about america, will he make the country safer will he truly understands the threat that understand the threat that we face internationally and globally and did a better job of protecting us? will he understand what it is to be in the struggling class and

to try to build an economy that works for people like that? i'm sorry i just don't believe that the deal killer is going to be the position on marriage and i will give a couple examples let me go back to 1980 ronald reagan man as a pro-life candidate when it was very unpopular to be pro-life and people said he could never be elected if he holds that view. that's what he was because people didn't elect him because they are against that and i believe this. ultimately what when voters look for his authenticity. but they are going to know that i am a person who beat leaves in a biblical definition of marriage. i believe what mother teresa believed, billy graham, the pope and barack obama in 2008. i'm not way out there. it's not like i believe that marriage ought to be you know people and their animals. i don't have some crazy view. i have a view that is pretty

well-established in history and that has a long and not just religious tradition but social and even political tradition. so i don't think that is the deal killer. people will say i don't agree with mike huckabee on marriage but he really believes that. >> host: someone who has recently discussed as mitt romney. should he run for president a third time? >> guest: if he wants to. i wouldn't say you know, you had your shot, that's it because if he thinks he can make another go of it and be successful this time after two other times when he wasn't then he has every right to give it his best shot. so i will be focused on whether i should run. >> host: if jeb bush runs to you think america is ready for

another bush in the white house? >> guest: i guess the voters will make that decision and he is a good friend of mine. we served together a good bit of the time we were governors at the same time i came into into half years before he came into office but we didn't served eight of my tennis contemporary governors. in a way it is like saying it's unfair that he has a great platform but then he might argue that it's unfair that he is being penalized because of his last name and his background because he can't help but he that he was biologically born into that family. >> host: you also have a number of folks in the house and senate rand the senate, rand paul, marco rubio, maybe ted cruz who discussed as possible candidates. you'd think someone coming out of this congress which is much

maligned in washington and is so dysfunctional as you know. you'd think someone coming after the congress could get reelected right now? >> guest: if somebody is seriously contemplating running my answer would be i sure hope they couldn't because that would eliminate a lot of the competition wouldn't it? like her co- >> host: right but who do you think would have a better chance? >> guest: i think that he would be a better president that a better chance or not i don't know. here's why, if you have been a governor, you have managed a microcosm of the federal government and you've actually lead it and you've been responsible for it and served in that executive position and every agency that exists at the federal level you have a corresponding agency at the state level and understand the whole field of play. by the way unlike what some people think he had a great understanding of the domestic policy, they don't know much about the world i would challenge that because as a

governor one travels all over the world and trade deals and partnerships we have a global economy as we are often reminded and guess what governors that have multinational companies within their state do business all over the world. he is dealing man to man or man and a woman with ceos and heads of state not just became part of a study group but actually making deals. that is a great level of experience to say to the presidency. >> host: i think the fact that there are so many potential contenders speak volumes about the idea of running against someone like hillary clinton. it doesn't seem like anyone is all that antenna needed. if you find her intimidating as a potential opponent if you run the?

>> guest: i think anyone would be an intimidating opponent. you either run not opposed or scared. those are the two options you have as a candidate that i don't expect any of us will run unopposed. we better run scared and if i were to be fortunate enough to get the nomination i would have great respect for the formidable nature of hillary clinton's candidacy. i don't think she has the connected quality that her husband has. she's more the policy wonks, the audio log into that an incredible connector and i've known them both for a long time. i don't think there's anybody on the republican side who might run for president who would have a better understanding than i would and and maybe understand the background and so on but even having said that, hillary clinton is a rock star within the democratic party but it's

interesting that while all the democrats expected to run and most of them say they would support her, i am not convinced -- first of all festival that she would pull the trigger when she has to and run probably well but maybe not and if she does, i don't think it is a foregone conclusion that she is the nominee or certainly not that she is elected president. i don't think she will be and let me say why. when people say it's inevitable. it was inevitable for her to be the nominee in 2008 and this relatively unknown upstart junior senator that sponsored zero legislation in the senate career he came up and be heard so let's let recent history be a guide to what the future may hold. >> host: who might that be this time are you thinking thinking elizabeth warren or who are you thinking on the left

would maybe surpass her in the democratic primary? >> guest: she may get in it but she's got an interesting voice for the left. it's not a voice i would agree with that she does touch the nerve of a lot of people on the left. but i think it would be somebody we really haven't thought about. a person that's been an effective democratic governor, somebody who has managed and governed and led and is a good communicator. i'm kind of hard-pressed to tell you who that is. the next thing you know i'm going to announce because he said that i would be a great president. so i will forgo that temptation. >> host: let's hope that they are not listening right now.

>> host: let's say you win the nomination what kind of campaign would you run against, what are her weaknesses you say that you know her very well. what would you exploit if you were the republican nominee? >> guest: i can tell you all of what i would do because i would be giving it away. i think the challenge is that she's pretty much for tied to the policies of barack obama and she will be to the policies of her husband. she was first lady to bill clinton. she didn't have an official policy role in the white house. in the obama white house she ran the state department. she was secretary of state. she's she set the table for the relationships with other countries and i've asked even my close to the critic friends and yes i actually have a few. i'd ask them this question name a country on this planet filled

with a we have a better relationship now than we did when the obama administration took office in 2009 and guess what, nobody can give me the name of one country, not one. so i think that's going to be a problem for her. even though the left goes nuts when you mention things like ben ghazi i still think that is heartburn for hillary his heartburn for hillary clinton. >> host: what do you expect democrats to do with a war on women especially if hillary clinton is the nomination, how would you handle that inevitability from the left? >> guest: i hope that is the best weapon they have because if it is we might as well go ahead and start measuring drapes and get into the plan because that's proving to fall so short. the colorado senate race is a great example of how this message rings so hollow.

into legend, thoughtful, strong women know that they are not helpless creatures of their gender. lord knows my wife knows that, my daughter knows that, my daughter-in-law does that. all the women i've surrounded myself with, my chief of staff for ten and a half years was a female, many of my cabinet officers. they would be livid if i ever said to them while, you know, we are going to get you these jobs cut you're not really able to do them because you are a woman and you are helpless to your gender and if you don't have some help from the government you will never be able to make it, i would have my face last per saying something like that. women are capable of doing anything they wish to do. when they know that intuitively and instinctively and and they are offended and insulted when someone tells them that they can't make it without the government coming around to bail

them out and lift them up. >> host: we talked about the one eagles and the women. what about minorities. what can the republican nominee whether it is you or someone else do to bring more minorities into the folder for 2016? we lost a good amount in the past two elections. >> host: >> guest: i'm probably the only the be on the republican and list of people who had 49% of the african-american vote in his state which i did when i ran for the re- election as governor. my vote among hispanics was in the high 40s as well. so, somebody for whom this is not abstract this is something i've actually done -- and i want to tell you something it's frustrating because i try to see tried to say over the last 15 20 years. we shouldn't be giving up on minority votes. they ought to be with us and they would be if we worked at it

and not by pandering. we work at it a building relationships and showing that our policies left of all the people, whatever their color whatever their gender, whatever their ethnicity. and the reason i got that kind of vote as governor is because they build relationships with people in the community. i give them positions that they've never held before. this would surprise people. if minorities got more major executive level appointments in my administration dan and bill clinton's administration and by the way more women held a high-level executive positions in my administration dan and bill clinton. so maybe the republicans ought to pick somebody who has a real history of getting women and minorities to vote. who could that be? >> host: do you think that they have given up the minority vote? >> guest: of course they have and it's absurd.

why would they do that. they want the same thing anyone wants. how do you get the votes of people that are black? its talk about giving them the power to choose the schools for their kids. let's talk about making sure that they have access to a decent education for their kids and a safe place for their kids to play and give them an opportunity to one day live in the a neighborhood they want to rather than a housing project that the government sort of exiled them to. i say there are a number of ways. let's talk about the fact what that people in the minority community want. the ability to be mobile, to be treated fair and adjust and make sure the criminal justice system doesn't unfairly punish them for a sentence that is distinctly different than if they were in a upper class kids with an attorney. those are some things that we can talk about. >> host: in "god, guns, grits, and gravy," you write i would

rather eat barbecue with your fishing friend and a wall street banker. i would rather sit in church with nancy that make up artist of an opera with european royalty. i'd were comfortable in wal-mart and activities. so, what did you want people to know about you? if you are in politics you are living in a world so i'm like there's your life your values are so different then there's that you can't possibly understand them. over the past five or six years. even to this day i still the same person i was in a shotgun house on second street whose parents work two or three jobs and barely made the rent on that

house. i am still the kid who have to make up my toys because we couldn't afford all of the really cool stuff and i had to use my imagination. i've often said i learned how to sit at the head table, but i always have more in common with the people who are working in the kitchen than the ones sitting at the head table. i think people want someone to lead them to understand them and respect them and how hard they work and sometimes for how little they have to show for it. people don't want people at the top to necessarily be torn down. they just want the people at the top to know how hard the struggle is and to make a pathway so that they can get to the next rung on the ladder. i am convinced that is what is missing in a lot of the messaging not just for republicans republicans think it is missing in the messaging for democrats as well. >> host: so, do you think that 2016 is going to be one of the presidential cheers or do you

think that it is mostly going to be sort of the pendulum swing away from what we had with barack obama and more towards you know, sort of a caretaker figure. set the theme for 2016. >> guest: i think that it ultimately comes down to the sense of vision and leadership. it isn't all ideological. they don't necessarily agree with the person on every issue but they want to know that this person know people like me, does this person care about people like me. i think it always is. they may have the right pedigree to be president. are they unlikable?

i'm just convinced it is a combination that ultimately part of the theme i want to convey. but the heartland of america and you think that pushing the cultural center nobody running government or entertainment, whatever it is they don't know me or understand the. not only do you know who you are and by the way you're not alone. there are millions of you and you matter. and your views and your values are not crazy and you are not dumb. one of the statements i make in the book if you read this book you will discover that those good toys are not so dumb after all.

>> host: republicans as you know have taken the senate and control the house and we have had eight years of president obama. if you can't seal the deal is there something wrong with the party lacks >> guest: may be something wrong with the people that carry the message for us if that is the case. 16 not to be a great year for the republicans as it is often the case when the democrats won back in 2008. i remember the obituary for the republican party. republicans came soaring back the republicans came soaring back into the congress and then in 2012 people talk about the big sweep it was for the democrats. it was only asleep in the white a sweep in the white house. congressionally republicans could fairly decent in 2012 and then in 2014 it was a republican blowout. so, if we look at it it isn't so much democrat and republican. there is a view of politics i felt for a long time and it really nears and reflects the values i share in the buck and that is for the practitioners of

the politics everything is horizontal. left, right, liberal conservative it is all horizontal. but for the people that actually decide the election the people who don't live every day on politics the elections are vertical and it hasn't left or right, they vote up or down and ask if this person going to take us up or will this person take us down. will he make things better or what he may get worse? >> host: i hope 2016 is a great year for republicans and for you and that in a couple of months he will let me know what you decide. >> guest: i will do so. >> host: thank you so much governor. it was great talking to you. >> that was "after words," but can be's signature program in which authors of the latest nonfiction books are interviewed by journalists, public policymakers and others familiar with their real. "after words" airs every weekend

on booktv at 10 p.m. on saturday, 12 and 9 p.m. on sunday the end of 12 a.m. on monday. you can also watch "after words" online. go to booktv.org and click on "after words" in the book tv series and the topics list on the upper right side of the page. ..