.. >>

stick is worth pointing up the irony you are where i used to live band the be you will live in one year? >> guest: we will see about that. i did say in my book there is only one address of all of washington never had any interest to move to and i think he probably know which one that maybe. >> host: we will talk about 2016 but let's talk about your book and explain the title. >> guest: "god, guns grits, and gravy" it is not a recipe book. [laughter] there are three a major cultural bulbuls the york and washington and hollywood. and from those bubbles of and a fashion, a finance

government, of politics entertainment movies television pretty much all the things that set the cultural table. and the people the values the attitudes of lifestyles with staying in those bubbles and in the flyover country between the east and west coasts if you look at the electoral map it is vastly read your and in that great divide exist what i call the land of "god, guns, grits, and gravy" they descriptive term of flyover country. it says to all those folks you are not alone. he and you are okay and it says to those who are living in the bubble here is who we

are you don't know what drives us or why it is important to us so read the book. >> view describes the divide between those urban centers the you don't think everyone in the bubble is bad or not every bubba is bad? >> clearly it is said generalization. with midtown manhattan they are bubba the way they field you will find birmingham alabama you will find old churl liberals believe it or not so it is not any geographic area but it is generally true the culture and lifestyle you will see

the bubbles are very different then not here with bubbaville. i realized when i get off the plate and i ended the york two or three days i in a different world then when i get back to bubbaville. people will say have you moved to new york? i say i am not moving to new york unless they let the duck hunt in central park. stick that would get me in the headlines for sure but to describe this completely different world view and so often i would say i didn't just go to new york i am on a different planet.

there is a vast disconnect that comes to me to explain to what it is how of these lifestyle and cultural patterns are so disparate between the two areas. >> if they allowed does contain a i would be right there with you. why the cultural divide? is a the two sides don't understand each other? >> wouldn't say there is of a threat to the existence of this great republic but the polarization is not necessarily healthy to build a strong america where we are a melting pot where increasingly less of melting

pot and simmering pots of the same stove for the southern culture one i am most familiar with and comfortable with, i don't want to use that to become so homogenized that is the unrecognizable. but i found a medieval what d.c. kyat to go to church? that every dollar goes to the church? why would anybody of the pie iron? i had discussions with

conservative people if you own firearms they almost want to jump on the table because they feel you will start shooting and a minute. but you just told the owe us. fight to keep most of the people who live in bubbaville to understand the people in the bubble because everything we see on television and movie is all about the bubble. this it comes in the movies are mostly depicted and most of them are about those that live in the bubble that depict the california lifestyle so we'd know what the people live like because we see it all the time but how many times cady think of a television set, to treat people respectfully is if we

are pretty normal and balanced and engaging people? those that hustle people out of their money or the tattersalls better just so backward we have not modernized and highly educated incredibly anti-intellectual and therefore not happened to the same level of the elite. >> this is what i love about our friendship. i am i nonbeliever you are a baptist minister but we both have a deep respect for the judeo-christian values and for the faithful. but hollywood in particular

to put family first the you have to limit i don't have to tell you that fox news does really well. they have a lot of keywords conservative on my immediate that does well whether hollywood wants to limit it conservative movies do well so hard to conservative to values well represented? >> they are within the ditch that is targeted to examine this is what baffles those folks that they look down upon fox news and viewers and how could the network do so well? because it is scratchy the itch because of that magnificent drama of the bible more viewers band

cable with that extraordinary response like duck dynasty or 19 and counting. that is the head scratcher and they just can imagine who are the people that watch this? i remember when the blind side came out. those who live out in. >> host: tv said we get that. we understand the language. we get it that there were as a lot of people in hollywood could not figure out how the movie was a huge success it was an obvious choice for us but a sleeper for them. looked at have is for real or god is not dead. those are films that certainly play to a niche. we understand it in

bubbaville that those of the bubble got so much. >> i remember that chronicles of cardiac and hollywood predicted some weird year the top grossing film that hollywood never seems to anticipate those conservatives but such talk about environmentalist hypocrisy. >> guest: i get an example is an "god, guns, grits, and gravy" all about 20 to reduce co2 emissions but that he flies from his home to luxembourg a couple times a month and the al platt of co2 because of jet travel is

100 times that so when confronted about that here was his answer. the trade trip would take 12 hours that would be tied away from my family because it is not very efficient. isn't that what most of the supply? if you say it is horrible through this co2 i use the example of a great blocker who makes in a statement to says it is a serious problem with people who say it is act like it is. but kudos to those are the environmentalist who practice a.m. with it.

with his very spartan life in energy output he does not fly very often he may take a bicoastal trap but i expect that but if you have a conviction in live-in out and if it is authentic we will see it if not don't tell me how to live for to be on board to save the oceans are about to overtake the coast to have a 20,000-foot home on that coast? i am sorry it does not make sense if you figure ocean from property is about to be washed into the sea why would you build it? >> to republicans have the problem with scions are is that just a perception? how do we change that perception if so? >> no problem with science at all.

but occasionally it catches up with god. i would expect you to say that s.e. but let me give an example. for a longtime people over the issue of life. a strong advocate every person has intrinsic value. but i believe there is no such as cigna said expendable human being no person is disposable y value each person whether down syndrome or capt. of the football team. but biologically we do know now lot more than 30 of 40 years ago. because now we realize when the chromosomes come together to have a unique

schedule that pattern will never exist again and it is unique to that individual and have been set the moment of conception and at that moment everything in that schedule tsa has formed it will change to vengeance or size or shape because that is what happens is cuban life at that moment that scheduled never be brought the aura of a dolphin so my point is now science has given us an affirmation and when life begins. look at a sonogram they did not think it was a real baby until maybe four months. now at 12 weeks you say i

see a baby it is a human form. the weather space exploration which i strongly support or medical innovation incredible perception to think those that are faced oriented are against science. not at all. >> i have the six week-old at home so i can attest to see that sonogram is indeed like changing -- life changing. you talk about guns that is a hot-button issue in the title of your book the and you write quillback clear of the city slickers are more afraid of guns than the criminals who might use them have a serious mental condition rendering them incapable of critical thinking.

i am again rights advocate but in all seriousness i think we have the facts and statistics on our side and on the other side is period the russian. so what he's think the two sides will come together to have a real conversation about lowering done the crime? because all be seen to do is shout at each other from the perch. >> guest: that have been said large measure if we have a serious conversation a bit past to be around facts and not feelings. you cannot build a culture based on i see gore i feel or i believe those are wonderful motivations but what objectively is true?

so talk about the issue of gun violence that is a horrible problem i am not suggesting everybody shed by a gun. but some people should not owed it to not because of the government or a city cannot protect themselves maybe they don't want to go through the training to be confident -- competent or proficient for those you grew up, guns were a part of our lifestyle i got the bb gun at five years old the single shot at 22 at age nine then graduated at that the 20 gauge shotgun.

first of all, i had such respect for firearms it was drilled into me to never ever consider a dozen loaded you treated as if it is loaded you always learn to behave that way he will never misused or point it unintentionally will be sold mindful. never point at something in the plan to shoot don't shoot to mature point to kill or your boy duty to that is gun ownership it never occurred to me i would ever think to go and murder a bunch of people i knew exactly where the guns were in our house we were not fortunate or wealthy enough

they were accessible but the reason i did not touch those about my bothers permission was simple. i knew what a gun could do but i was absolutely certain what my dad would do to be a fee ever caught me messing with the guns. [laughter] >> host: what is the biggest threat to second amendment rights right now? >> but the second amendment was never intended for people to go hunting. i am a hunter occasionally known to but the purpose of the second amendment was not recreation or sport. i know in the year 2015 this will sound almost bizarre but the founding brothers wrote the second amendment

so we can always protect the first amendment we do the one thing that will always provide the people with the dignity of their liberty is if they could fend off the attack. the purpose with which it was there so they could protect their families or properties or themselves or their liberty from anyone who would try to take it. teetoo with a great sense of reverence 57 in the book "god, guns, grits, and gravy" you have rules for reformers you thought you suggested term limits but

not? >> guest: if people think they could make a career that every decision is based how does this affect my next election but if they do there was a terminal departure point they will make a very different decision. i really believe the in terms of its and those people who say that after they had been in office a few years say we don't need term limits for. but i am one who knew 25 years after believing it was a great idea and having served in office a long time as governor and attended governor to be involved in politics i believe more than i ever have in it that we should have term limits for

the legislative branch but one thing i suggest is a judicial branch. people going on the judicial bench ship on believe this will be a lifetime appointment that for every leaves them for ever having to be responsible for the decisions they make up for life is absurd. it is a career. >> what if stages would you make for campaign financing? >> a total disaster. once you start trying to restrict people what they can't do they will find other ways to do it.

so let's get that process now is out of control. as a candidate you raise money at $2,700 a pop the most you to take from somebody. a $2,700 when you talk about a campaign raising $1 billion that is a lot of phone calls and a lot of defense. enter the world of the super pac. a kontakion limited amount of money that the candidate can only take but is superpatriot the take $50 billion they can do it but the super pac is totally disconnected from a the candidates because the message could be hurtful

that the candidate cannot say run this ad instead but then both go to jail. that is insane. presage you want to give $50 billion then write the check but within 10 minutes of your gift will be posted on the internet see were not prohibited but we will disclose everything we will know where the men became prime. because what is killing politics today to the super pac there is disclosure but there are other forms with the mechanisms like other organizations so i could run millions of ads attacking somebody in the donor's will never know who they are. they are cowards they don't have the guts to run but they will write a check and

attacked somebodies from a dark operation. we say disclose everything give money and dedicate your message but stand up and be counted. id league give to a person who will be a candidate. >> the next issue is poverty and you say it is a whole career for those who would minister the program to be put out of business to be successful at eradicating poverty. now president obama finally are talking about poverty so what would you do to end or reduce poverty in this country? >> if you took the amount of money that they could accumulate from food stamps

to rent assistance coming educational systems and medicaid it is not out of the realm of reason would be the equivalent of $60,000 per year in the combined benefits. it would be easier to write a check for that amount of money rather than have all these programs to hire our old the bureaucrats. now before your viewers go apoplectic i am not suggesting we write a check $60,000 for everybody but cut out the middleman. do what will help people i don't begrudge helping people to war for but i saw firsthand some of these are vital but this is how we ought to operate meaning there is the earnings

threshold and it ought to be administered to get the benefits s.a. a temporary stopgap rather than penalizing you to leave your children expose to leave with no capacity to pay rent so that every step you take leaves you ahead rather than behind. make sure it leaves though little bit of progress because did you have the incentive to do better to be better educated job skills and never punish people for productivity. never. instead we punish them. >> all of these are starting to sound a campaign platform

where are you with a 2016 decision running for president? >> i have wrestled with this some say i am left fox news why could sell my new book by faye and poorly? the guy with the the and incredibly good job that paid me very generously and that type of so i could push a few blocks? because i could have done that to stay at fox would be a much more comfortable atmospheratmospher e. i walked away from the wonderful position and a terrific place to be with great people because i am seriously looking at running for president. i could not continue to do the television show to have said jedi went authentic forthright conversations i need to have to say if i

read will you help me or support the. that is why the severance and over the next couple of months i will make the final decision but obviously the decisions i made were not made it dissipating i would forgo a presidential race in 2016. how is that for being evasive? [laughter] . .

who was trained in yemen, when you say that it's just a state crime murder that has nothing to do with terrorism it is hard to defeat the enemy if you don't know who it is. so the first thing is recognizing that radical islamic fascism, whatever you want to call it this religious fanaticism that has resulted in people who truly believe that their purpose on gods god's earth is to kill everybody who doesn't agree, that you cannot negotiate, this is unlike any war that we have ever fought before because in the traditional who are fighting a

geopolitical force that has boundaries that may want to extend the boundaries so the war may be over a piece of real estate. you may come to the conclusion. you may have to defeat the enemy or tell them you can't have anything beyond these borders and you may have to take them away but the point is you know what the endgame is. when you have a force and their endgame is the annihilation of everyone 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 no, you di. that sounds pretty blonde -- >> what you suggest or ask that we have boots on the ground in places like serious and again and become a part of the maghrib, what is your solution for the foreign-policy standpoint?

>> in some places it may be necessary if we have a specific target, but to say we are going to put boots on the ground all over the world we can't do that. we are not equipped. we don't have the stamina or the will but what we do have to do is say to the people in the rest of the world we are tired of our boots being the only one that big a footprint. often we make a footprint in your part of the world and we are not going to keep spilling american blood for the lives of the saudis and people of the uae. if you want to keep your kingdom come and you have to fight for it. you have to call them what they are and if you are not willing to do that then when the dark clouds come upon you, good luck. you're on your own. we need to find people in the middle east that are true allies. we have treated them dismally. i am ashamed and embarrassed.

but we have an ally and president of egypt we have insulted him and pushed him into the arms of vladimir putin and that is a relationship that could be restored with the a president that understood the value of a person like him. he's another natural ally. they don't want the radicalization so we have the opportunity to build something different. but you can't do it when you're 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: you said before but that if republicans want to lose a guy like you they can advocate the issue of gay marriage i can say that it's a stabilizing

institution but i can also make a political case not that conservatives need to support but maybe losing loosing their opposition and 80 million potential voters the biggest generation of history they are largely in support of gay writes. is that a problem for you both in terms of running for president and in terms of holding firm on this issue i know you are very passionate about. packaging that is the difference between gay writes and marriage. no person could be penalized because they are gay from jobs from being able to visit where they want live where they want. i have no problem making the kind of accommodation that is to be the centerpiece of the visitation and making sure that there are visitation rights and all sorts of aspects that used

to be the focus of the civil unions. but look. marriage either means something or it doesn't. it's meant that a man and woman for 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 but one. and they would produce the next generation and been trained at generation to be the replacement. that's the simplest explanation. of course we have adoption. we have all different kind of way is the next generation can be trained. but marriage has always been. my position on marriage by the way is the exact position of 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 rick warren asked about same-sex marriage here is what

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

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

will he understand what it is to be in the struggling class and try to build an economy that works for people like that? i am sorry but i don't think the deal killer is going to be the position on marriage and i voted a couple examples going back to 1980. ronald reagan ran as a pro-life candidate when it was very unpopular to be pro-life and people said he can never be elected if he holds that view. people didn't elect him because they were against that and i believe this. ultimately what voters look for his authenticity. voters are going to know that i am a person who beliefs in a biblical definition of marriage and marriage and i believe with mother teresa believed and billy graham the pope and barack obama in 2008. it's not like i believe that marriage ought to be you know people and their animals. so i don't have some crazy view.

i have a view that is pretty well-established in history and that has a long, long not just religious tradition that social and even political tradition. people can say i don't agree with mike huckabee on that but he really the leaves that. >> host: someone who recently discussed this is mitt romney. should he run for president for a third time? >> guest: if he wants to. it's a free country. i wouldn't say you know you've had your shot. that's it. if he thinks that 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 or mitt romney ought to run. >> host: if jeb bush runs, do you think that america is ready

for another bush in the white house? >> i guess the voters will make the decision. he's a good friend of mine. we served together. a good time we were governors and i came into and a half years before he came into office and we then served at least eight of my two and a half years as contemporary governors. very good governor. and a good guy. he has a great platform but then he might argue that it is unfair that he's being penalized because of his last name and his background because he can't help that he was biologically born into the family. >> host: you also have a number of folks in the house and the senate.

rand paul, maybe tom cruise. you have people coming out of the congress that his much-maligned and so dysfunctional as you know. do you think someone coming out of the congress could elected now? spec if somebody is seriously contemplating that would eliminate a lot of the competition, wouldn't it? >> i think that he would be a better president. if you have been a governor, you have managed a microcosm of the federal government and you've actually been responsive 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 you understand the whole field of play. by the way unlike what some people think, they have a great understanding of the mystic prophecy that they don't know

much about the world. i would challenge that because as a governor one travels all over the world and in trade deals and partnerships we have a global economy as we are often reminded and guess what, governors have multinational companies and their state within their state to do business all over the world. i have yet to find a governor that hasn't traveled around the globe and he is dealing man to man or man to woman with ceos and heads of state dot just having a conversation or being part of the study group but also making deals and negotiating. i think it is a great level of experience to take to the presidency. >> host: the fact that there are so many contenders speaks volumes of the idea of some of the running against hillary clinton. it doesn't seem that anyone is that intimidated by her. do you find her intimidating as an opponent if you run?

>> everyone would be an intimidating opponent. the only way to run is unopposed or scared. those are the two options you have as a candidate. so i don't expect any of us as republicans 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 the candidacy. i don't think that she had the connected quality that her husband has. she's more the ideologues that incredible connector with people that bill clinton is and i've known them both a long time. i don't think that there is anybody on the republican side that might run for president who would have a better understanding of the clintons than i was and understand the background and so on. but even having said that the replanting is a rock star in the

democratic party. i am not convinced that she will pull the trigger when she has to end run. probably will but maybe not. and if she does i don't think that it's a foregone conclusion that she's the nominee or elected president. i don't think she will be elected president and and what they say why i think that when people say it's inevitable it was inevitable to be the nominee in 2008 and this relatively unknown jumpstart junior senator that sponsored zero legislation in the senate career brief as it was barack obama came out and beat her. so let's let recent history be the guy that's what the future might hold.

>> postcode who might that be this time? are you thinking it thinking elizabeth warren or who on the left may be able to surpass in the democratic primary? >> guest: she has an interesting place on the left not one that i agree with, but she does touch the nerve of a lot of people on the left. a person that has been with an effective democratic governor and has managed in to govern and lead is a good communicator i am hard pressed to tell you who that is. next they say i'm going to announce because they said that i would be a great president. i will forgo the temptation. >> postcode lets hope that andrew brown isn't listening

right now. let's say that you win the republican nomination for the sake of argument. what kind of campaign would you run against and what are the weaknesses what kind of weakness is what you exploit if he were the republican nominee? >> guest: i can't tell you what i would do because i would be giving it all the way. she's going to be tied in the next election to the policy of barack obama and she will be to the policy of her husband bill clinton. she was first lady with 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 the secretary of state and said the relationship in the country and i have asked even my close democratic friends and yes i actually have a few, i'd ask them this question and they

can't answer. name a country on this planet with whom 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. so that is going to be a problem. when you mentioned things like benghazi i still think that's hard for hillary clinton. >> host: what do you expect democrats to do with a war on the women especially if hillary clinton is the nomination how would you handle that inevitability from the left >> guest: if that is the best that we might as well start measuring and getting the inaugural ball planned because that is proven to fall so short. the colorado senate race is a

great example of how this message rings hollow. and look, intelligent, thoughtful strong women know that they are not helpless creatures of their gender. my wife knows that my daughter knows that, my daughter-in-law does that. all the women i surrounded myself with my life, my chief of staff for ten and a half years was a female. they would be livid if i said to them we are going to give you these jobs. 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 have my face slapped into the next county for saying something like that. they are capable of doing anything they wish to do. women who that intuitively and i think they are insulted when someone tells them they can't

make it without the government coming around to bail them out and lift them up. >> host: what about minorities, what can the republican nominee whether that is you or someone else do to bring more minorities into the fold for 2016? we lost a good amount in a past. >> guest: the only republicans being on the remote list could say that he had 49% of the african-american vote in the state, which i did when i was running for governor. my vote among hispanics was in the high 40s as well. for somebody for whom this is not an abstract this is something that i've never done. i try to say to the republicans over the last 15 to 20 years we shouldn't be giving up on the minority votes. these are votes ought to be with

us and they would be if we worked at it dot by pandering that by building relationships ensuring that our policies left up. whatever their color gender ethnicity, the reason i got that is that i feel relationships with people in the minority community. i give them positions that they've never held before. this would surprise people. the minorities got more major executive of appointments in my administration than bill clinton's administration. and by the way more women held high-level positions in my administration dan bill clinton. so, maybe the republicans off to republican party to pick somebody who has a real history of getting women and by northeast to vote for them. who could that be? think about that. >> host: do you think that republicans have in many cases given up the minorities of?

>> guest: they have and it's absurd. minorities want the same thing that anyone wants. when they say how do you get the votes of people that are black will, without giving them the power to choose the school for their kids and making sure that they have access to a decent education in a safe place for their kids to play and to give them an origin of hour today to live in the neighborhood they want to rather than in some housing project the government sort of exiles than two. there are a number of ways. let's talk about the fact that what people in the minority community want are exactly what i want some of the ability to be upwardly mobile and to be treated fair and just and make sure that the criminal justice system does not unfairly punish them with a sentence that is distinctly different than if they were an upper-class white kid with a good attorney. those are things we could talk about.

>> host: in the "god, guns, grits, and gravy," and you write i would rather eat barbecue with hugh albright who is your fishing guide and with a wall street banker and i would rather sit in church with nancy that make up artist and author with european royalty. i'm more comfortable in wal-mart and tiffany's. so, what do you want people to know about you, why are you laying out this way? >> guest: because i think sometimes people believe that if you are in politics you are living in a world so unlike there is that your life and your values are so different vendors that you can't possibly understand them. over the past five or six years i have been blessed to make a better income than i ever have. but even to this day i'm still the person i was as a kid growing up in the house on second street in arkansas whose parents between the two of them

worked three jobs and barely made the rent on that little house. i am still a kid that had to make up my toys because we couldn't afford all of the cool stuff and i have to use my imagination. i've often said i learned said at the head table, but i always really had more in common with the people working in the kitchen than the one sitting at the head table. i think people want someone to lead them to understand them and respects them and understands 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 it halfway so they can get to the next rung on the ladder. so i am convinced that it's missing a lot of the messaging not just for the republicans but i think in the messaging for democrats as well. >> host: do you think that 2016 is going to be one of those

presidential years of personality or do you think it is mostly going to be that pendulum swing away from what we had with barack obama and maybe more towards, sort of a caretaker figure? set the scene for me in 2016. >> guest: i think it ultimately comes down to the sense of vision and leadership. i'm convinced that it is not all ideological. it's personal. if they feel like they can connect to the person, they don't necessarily agree with the person on every issue that they want to notice this person know people like me does this person care about people like the? do i like this person, but i invite them into my home? i think that when you say is that personality, it always is. a person may be brilliant and have all the right pedigree to the president but if he's

unlikable, guess what he is not going to be elected in america. he just won't. so i am just convinced that its accommodation but ultimately it's the messaging and part of the theme i want to convey even as i wrote the book is to say to people if you're that person out there living in the heartland of america, and you think nobody pushing the cultural center, nobody who is running government or entertaining or whatever it is, they don't know or understand, i just wanted to say not only do we know who you are, we are of you and you are not alone and you matter. in short views and your values are not crazy and you are not dumb. one done. one of the statements i make a note if you read this book you will discover that those good old boys they are not so dumb

after all. >> host: republicans as you know have taken the senate, they controlled the house, we have had eight years of president obama. they can't seal the deal in 2016 is there something wrong with the party? >> guest: there may be something wrong with the people that carry the message for us if that is the case. it ought to be a great year for the republicans. as it is is often the case when the democrats won back in 2008 i remember the obituary for the republican party was written in 2010 republicans came soaring back in the congress and then in 2012, everybody talks about what a big sweep it was. actually it was only in the white house, congressional congressional aide that republicans did fairly decent in 2012 and then in 2014 was the republican blowout. so if we look at it it's not so much democrat republican. there's a deal with politics but i felt for a long time and i think that it really nears and

reflects the values that i share in the book and that is where the practitioners of politics everything is horizontal. but, right, liberal, conservative, democrat and republican. but for the people that actually decide, for the people who don't live every day on politics it's vertical and the way they vote isn't left or right, they vote up or down and ask if this person going to take this up or will this person take us down. will he will he make things better or make it worse? >> host: i hope it is a great year for republicans and for you and that you will let me know what you decide. i will do so. >> host: thanks so much. it was great talking with you. >> that was "after words," booktv signature program which authors of the latest nonfiction books are interviewed by

journalists, public policymakers and others familiar with their material. "after words" airs every weekend on booktv at 10 p.m. on saturday, 12 and 9 p.m. on sunday and 12 a.m. on monday. and you can also watch "after words" online. go to booktv.org and click on after words in the tv series and the topics list on the upper right side of the page. >> ..