ately needed in the city. a battle as hard as i could, but it was his opponent who ended up in legal difficulties after the election and ended up having to pay $2 million things that he was involved in. the problem street was the one who never bound up under indictment or any sort of legal sanction. >> but his closest friend was the person being investigated died before he could be charged and probably would have been charged we don't know. >> like i said, street was never indicted, never convicted of anything. and his opponent had some legal problems. as probably not.

>> you have a long life ahead of you told many stories. the book that retains a light that was going to go on. you moved, the book remains in place. so you're moving out as distinguished knew academic career, very important men in democratic party politics. the party is converging on the person that you and your campaign beat in 2,008. you tell a story of how their campaign beat hillary clinton you quote from a memo a memo that you heard of the time. all of her advantages, she's not a human figure. the more she more she tries to moderator image the more she compels her exposure. making herself the candidate of the future will be a challenge.

those words on paper, how do they fit with your life and in the new era of the democratic party. >> well, i think every time in presidential politics is different. i don't think hillary: was of a in a strong position in 2,008 in part because she supported the war in iraq and president bush's decision to go into a rack iraq and that was a defining issue within the democratic party hard to be the nominee of the democratic party haven't taken the that position. people were looking for someone outside of washington, outside of this sort of day-to-day plug-in poll that was going on she. that made him a strong candidate. people were looking for someone who would challenge the system in a way a way that he was willing to challenge the system. i think that every election the matter whether a president is popular or unpopular every election

is defined by the outgoing incumbent and never do people choose the replica of what they have. they always choose the remedy. barack obama was seen as the starkest remedy because he was was a more nuanced in his thinking, because of some of the policy positions he took like on a rack and stood apart from a system that people were unhappy with. in 2016 people will be looking for someone who can manage the system. there may be less of a belief that someone can come in and thoroughly change the system in washington, but they want someone who can manage the system, move the country forward, skilled and equipped and experienced enough to do that. that is that is a circumstance that favors hillary clinton. if 2,008 wasn't the right environment 2016 is. that may be a benefit that

flows to governor bush and perhaps some of the other governors were seen are seen as people who are good mechanics in terms of dealing with the political process and might be able to work within the system better than they perceive the president has. >> to step outside the book for a moment you are at the institute of politics in chicago. this is a choice that people in politics used to make a lot. as you know well much more typically nowadays they make the choice to cash in. i am sure with your record of success that the cash and has been enormous. you said no to that. that's unusual. white neck. >> i've done well enough in life that i don't feel like i need to do that she.

i never viewed politics as a business. i viewed it as a calling and thought the best use of my time would be to try and inspire young people to get involved in the political process. there's a great deal of skepticism, not cynicism, but skepticism about politics because of the nature of the kind of blinding we have seen. frankly they have come up in a generation when if you see a problem you create an app to organize people in social media. by the way, things that the government should look at as a a potential way to approach some problems in a different way but they are skeptical about politics and government and the value of the as a means to solve problems. i always say to these kids that congress is going to meet with them or without them.

they are going to live with the consequences of those decisions, and the decisions that are made we will be very consequential affecting all the equity they care about from right to left. i have students across the political spectrum. we're going to be a better country if they invest they're efforts in trying to steer the country in the direction that they think it should go through the political process, not necessarily as candidates but advisers as generalists commentators, but be in the public arena is what i think is the best use of my time. for all its messiness, and believe me well we talk about the fractious nature of our time your student of history and no the history of this country is replete with examples. i sit here in new york city as we speak and across the river a sitting vice

president shot and killed the former treasury secretary over what was largely a political dispute. you know, we -- so i want to encourage these kids to make a difference within the political arena and make this a better and stronger country. that is more inviting than making a bunch of money trying to trade on my profile or connection. >> last half minute. you are lighter, began as an is peppermint. this book is your work and no one else's. will they're be another? >> well, your a writer. you write a book and it's a little like my wife describes childbirth. it's very painful when you go through it and can't imagine doing it again. then your pretty happy with the product and over time the memory of pain recedes. ..

>> this is part of the 2015 c-span cities tour. and then on "after words", rossmoor retraces his steps to

combat fellow, social entrepreneur, to find his life's purpose. then on american history tv on c-span3, does that are 7:00 o'clock on a 1963 interview of malcolm ask discussing race relations and opposition to race relations opposition. and then the former cia chief of the guys mendez talks about a kgb spy that infiltrated the cia through the use of sex in the 1970s. find out complete television schedules at c-span.org and let us know about the programs you're watching. e-mail us at comments at least do not work. or send us a tweet join the conversation, follow us on twitter. >> former arkansas governor mike huckabee is the author of "god,

guns, grits, and gravy" about political and cultural divisions in america. in this age of you interview, he discusses the book and the 2016 presidential race with our cnn host. this is one hour. >> governor, i think it is worth pointing out the irony that you are sitting there in new york are used 11 i am here in washington where maybe you were living just over a year ago? >> we will see about that. i did say that there was really only one address and in all of washington that i would have any interest in moving to. and i think you probably know which one that might be. >> your book is called "god, guns, grits, and gravy." can you explain the title? >> first of all it is not a recipe book of southern cuisine.

so if you are saying that i don't even know what this is just relax. here is the point of the book. there are three major cultural bubbles in america new york and washington and the other one is hollywood. from those three cultural bubbles in fashion and finance government politics, music movies and television pretty much all of the things that set the american cultural table my point of the book is that there is a big disconnect between the people and the values and the attitudes and the lifestyles of people living in those three bubbles and the people who live out in what we often call a flyover country, all of that red area between the east and west coast is vastly a part of this. and that includes what i call

the land of "god guns, grits, and gravy." it is just a descriptive term and the book really does two things. it says all of the folks out there that you are not alone there are a lot of folks like you and it says to the people you don't know us you don't know what it is important to us and so read the book. maybe you'll find out that these good old boys are not so dumb after all. >> you describe the urban centers and then the "bubble". he said not every "bubble" or "bubba" is good or bad. >> you can go to manhattan, from

all places we have a lot of altar liberals and it's not that you can define any geographic area, but i think it is generally true that the culture and lifestyles that you're going to see are very different and i was traveling and i really came to realize that 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 to "bubba"-ville. and so that would shock the people in new york, but i cannot someone out there with a semi

automatic blowing ducks away out of jackie onassis par, that would get us into this for sure. and often i think i didn't just go to new york i planted on a different planet. and it's just because there is a vast disconnect. >> believe me if they allowed it to upcoming come i would leave the state of virginia and be back there with you. but talking about why this cultural divide is such a problem.

>> i wouldn't say it's a threat to this, but the polarization is not necessarily healthy to building a strong kind of america where we are a melting pot. and the one i'm most familiar with and the one i most comfortable with, i don't want to lose that and i found that many people look towards those of us in bubb-ville with content

and they look towards us with a sense of the road are men and wonderment. and that is just crazy and so i have had discussions even with conservative people in new york if you tell them that they owned firearms, they are just aghast and they almost want to jump under the table because they fear that they are going to whip out a pistol and start shooting any minute. >> i think most of the people that live there kind of do understand the people in the bubbles and here's why. we do see this all about the bubble. whether it's crime shows, other shows most of them are about

people that live in the bubbles come in new york, washington california lifestyle. so we kind of know what the people live like and this includes religious people that are part of this. and they usually are charlatans and her husband people out of money or those that are not cool dragging neanderthals that are just so that word. >> yes i am a nonbeliever, you

are a baptist minister. but we have respect and for the american people and i sort of have this view and fox news does really well, they have a lot of viewers over at fox news conservative radio, conservative online media does really well and whether hollywood wants to admit it or not and so aren't conservative values pretty well represented enact. >> they are certainly represented within the niche of the media that is targeted toward them.

they look down upon fox news and the fox news viewers and how can that network be doing so well. i will tell you why, it is scratching where the edge is and sometimes whether it is roma downey or mark burnett's magnificent trauma of the bible that got more viewers than anything that had ever been on the table, whether it is the extraordinary response of reality shows that are wholesome like a dynasty or 19 and counting who i know very well from arkansas or others that is a head scratcher to a lot of people who live in the bubble. they cannot imagine who are the people that watch this stock. but it's also true even of other movies. i remember when "the blindside." we know people that say we understand the language, the whole love of football, we do it

all. there are a lot of people that just couldn't figure out how that movie was such a huge success. it was a sleeper for them and it was an obvious choice for us. look at films like heaven is for real or god is not dead. >> it was somewhere near the top grossing film of the year, hollywood never seems to anticipate that the conservatives like to go see movies. but you touched on this earlier. can you talk about environmentalists and hypocrisy in what you call environmental extremism. >> well, he is all about wanting

to reduce the co2 emissions, but it turns out that this shows that he is flying from his home over to luxembourg a couple of times a month and the output of co2 was like 100 times that of the average person. and that this trip would take 12 hours and that would take time away from the family and in other words it was not very efficient. and so i use the example that glenn reynolds talked about. who is a great blogger.

and then this is because some, like there'll be carol hanna for example, i read about it they have a very spartan life this small footprint of energy output, once in a great while he may make a postal trip. but i respect that. whether i agree with it or not if you have a conviction to me just live it out but don't be al gore and say that they are about to overtake the coast and then build a 20000-foot home right on the coast.

>> well, do republicans have a problem with science or is that just a perception? if so how do we change that perception? >> i could see that that is for a long time people pulled over on the issue of live and it was about how i believe there's no such thing as an expendable human being. i don't believe that any person is expendable. i value every person, whether a kid with down's syndrome or a

person of the football team. but having said that actually we do biologically and because of the fact that we now realize that we had 23 male and 23 female chromosomes come together, it has never existed before enact that never will exist again for exact individual and it happens at the moment of conception. everything in that person's dna schedule has formed. now, it will change obviously with size and shape and dimensions and they said it will never be broccoli or a puppy or a pony, it's only going to be a human being and we have to

understand that that is when life begins. take a look at a sonogram. and i think that science is a great thing and it is an incredible ms. protection to think that those are us that are faith oriented that somehow it is a science >> i have a six week old at home. i can attest to seeing a sonogram is life-changing.

[inaudible] this renders them incapable of critical thinking. you know that i am a gun rights advocate and it doesn't own her. in all seriousness i always think that we have the facts and the statistics on our side and on the other side there is fear in an emotion which is equally powerful. but when do you think that the two sides are going to find finally come together and have a real conversation about this. always seemed to do a shout at each other. >> if we have a serious

competition. you cannot base things on i think, i feel, and i believe very those are wonderful as objectives of motivations but i guess you have to say what objectively is true and i think some people probably shouldn't own a gun but not because the government or some mayor in the city decide that they can't. but maybe they want to be proficient at it and have some training. but my point is that for many of us that grew up.

guns were part of our lifestyle. i had my first baby gun when i was five years old. and here's what i learned as a kid. i have such a respect for firearms because it was building to me that you never ever consider a gun unloaded. even if you notice. and you will be so wonderful.

when in all my life of owning firearms that i would ever think to use it to go into my place of work or into a school and this is also part of it being so simple. i knew what a gun to do what it could do, but i was absolutely certain what my dad would do if economy with those guns. the gun might hurt me my dad would have killed me. [laughter] >> i think that the biggest threat is the lack of understanding that the second minute was never intended to protect people to go hunting. i am a hunter, eight duck

hunter, deer hunter, turkey hunt, antelope and pheasant hunting. but the purpose of the second amendment was not for recreation and sport. and the way that they had this come about is that so if we go back to the history, people could defend themselves from others. and it would be so people could protect their families and properties and liberties and we should respect it and treat it with a great sense of reverence.

>> you suggest that we need term limits to what we knew that when we win and that there was a terminal departure point making very different decisions. i'm one of those guys that believe that after term limits

was a good idea, having believed that, serving a long time as governor, three years as a two lieutenant governor at both ends of the tenure believing it now more than i ever have and i think that we ought to have term limits with the executive branch i think we ought to do this with the legislative branch we ought to have it for the judicial branch and people doing this should not believe that this is going to be this lifetime appointment that forever leave them from ever having to worry about the decisions that they make and this is something that they can live for the rest of their lives went.

>> they say prohibit everything, disclose nothing, what did you make your changes? >> everything has been a total disaster. here is the thing is that once you start to restrict and tell people what they can and can't do, they will find other ways to do it within the context of a lot from the mechanism. so if you look at the presidential process now. and it is out of control. and it's the most you can take from somebody -- $2700 when that's not like a lot of money to some people. when you're talking about a campaign that has raised upwards of a billion dollars, you know that is a lot of phone calls and events.

and by the way this is when a federal candidate can only take from an individual. and this job could be hurtful to the candidate that they can't say stop running that ad run this one instead because then both go to jail and that is insane. what we should say is if you want to give it $50 million to a person running for president write the check, but we will all know about it for the world to see because it will be posted on the internet. but we will disclose everything and we know exactly where the money came from.

and the donors that gave that money, the ones with the attack ads they don't have the guts for running office, but they will attack somebody threw some dark ops operation. and this includes the name of a candidate that will stick his name on the ballot with the message. >> president obama and republicans looking ahead at 2016 are all talking about

poverty, what would you do to end poverty or reduce it in this country? >> one of the things that would shock most americans is if you took the amount of money that a person could maybe accumulate as a result of the many different programs, everything from food stamps to rent assistance and educational assistance and medicaid and on and on it is not completely out of the realm of reason that a mother with two or three children would have the equivalent of 50 or $60,000 a year in income benefits. it would be much simpler to simply write her a check for that amount of money rather than have all of these programs and run through all of these different processes. before some of the viewers go apoplectic i'm not suggesting that we write everyone a check

for $60,000 but a lot of this is cut out the middleman and let's do the things that will really and truly help people. i don't begrudge helping people that are poor. i saw that some of these programs are vital and here's how they ought to operate. instead of punishing people meaning that there is an earnings threshold it ought to be administered so that you get the benefits of a temporary stopgap to help you do this rather than take you completely off medicaid and leaving your children exposed with no coverage, leaving you with no capacity to pay your rent making it so that every step you take lets you move ahead rather than behind. don't cut off all the benefits, make sure that whatever you are weaned off of leaves you a little bit of progress and move

forward you have an incentive to achieve more and that we should never punish people for their productivity, never, we ought to reward them but instead we punish them. >> all of these reforms are starting to sound a little bit like campaign platform. so where are you on your decision for running for president? >> obviously i am very serious about it and i have read some comments and i'm thinking really, are you really thinking that i would leave an incredibly good job that pays me very generously and that i love just so i could push a few books? because honestly i could've done that in state at fox and it would've been a much more comfortable atmosphere.

and i had a terrific place to be with great people and so i couldn't continue doing the television show and have the kind of genuine authentic forthright conversations that i have to have with people will you help me will you support me. and this includes that i would forgo the presidential race in 2016 -- so how is that for an answer. [laughter] i would always say to my timeframe is sometime in the spring later than earlier. it won't be before april, i'm pretty positive of that beyond then when it is, i don't know, that is the least of my

timeframe. >> let's walk with some of the issues that you will confront as a candidate and later as a president, one of the vaguest issues that we will face this year and next year is the threat of islamic extremism as we have this unfold in europe and the what would you do about al qaeda and isis and the growing threat. >> the person we have to do is we have an administration that refuses to call it islamic terrorism. when you call this workplace violence and what happened in little rock and other places the private who was killed, when you say that if a state crime or murder that has nothing to do with terrorism, it's hard to defeat the enemy if you don't know who it is. so the first thing is to

recognize that jihad is them is fascism, however you want to call it this fanaticism that has resulted in people that believe that their purpose on gods god's earth is to kill everyone that doesn't agree with them that you cannot negotiate with that. this is unlike any war that we have ever fought before because in a traditional war you are fighting a geopolitical force that has boundaries that may want to extend those boundaries so the war could be over a piece of real estate and you can negotiate back and you may come to a conclusion. you may have to defeat the enemy or tell them that they can't have anything beyond the borders and they may have to take the borders away. but the point is that you know what the endgame is. when you have a force in the endgame is the annihilation of everyone they consider to be a religious infidel there is no negotiation and there's nothing to negotiate. because their view is that you

die and so our view is no you die. and i know that sounds pretty blunt. >> would you suggest that we have boots on the ground in places like syria and yemen and other places? what is your solution? >> this may be necessary [inaudible] benigno often we are making footprints in your part of the world differently we are not going to keep spilling american blood for the lives of saudi arabia and the people of the uae. if you want to keep your kingdom, you're going to have to fight for it and fight these

people and call them what they are. if you're not willing to do that when the dark clouds come upon you good luck, you're on your own. and i think that we need to have a relationship who understands the value of things like president sisi and the king of jordan is another ally.

>> you said before if republicans want to lose a guy like you they can advocate the issue of the subject of gay marriage. i can make a conservative case for gay marriage, but marriage is a stabilizing institution and i can make a political case as well for gay marriage. but maybe loosen their opposition and they are largely in support of gay rights. >> i think that there is a difference between gay rights

and gay marriage and i had no problem with making accommodations that used to be the center of this and all sorts of aspects that used to be and focused around civil unions. and historically it means that a man and a woman formed a relationship in which they are going to be committed with each other in a monogamous relationship not having many partners but one and from the partnership they would biologically produce the next generation and then train that generation to be the replacement. that is the simplest explanation.

but marriage has always meant that. my traditional marriage is the exact position that barack obama had in 2008. when he was talking to rick warren at the saddleback church during that time in august 2008 and rick asked him about that, here is what barack obama said. he said that i believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and i don't believe that it should be other things because -- then use this term because as a christian i believe that god is in the mix. so okay. barack obama believe that in 2008, as did libby clinton and joe biden and as did every democratic presidential candidate that i knew of. and that is all we are capable of feeling and doing and i would've granted him the license to change his mind and that is

not what he said. he said it was because he was a christian. >> value can be a democrat you can no longer be a democrat that does not support gay marriage and do you think that you can become president of the united states without agreeing on that

issue, considering how large a voting group that the millennial generation will be. >> i think that people will vote for the next president based on will he bring a new sense of optimism for america? will you truly understand the threat that we face internationally and globally and do a better job of protecting us? will we understand what it is to be in the struggling class to try to build an economy that works for people like that? i am sorry, but i just don't believe that this is going to be the position on marriage. i will give a couple of 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 could never be elected if he holds that view. because people didn't elect him but i believe this that ultimately what they look for is

authenticity. and they have not just theirs but a religious tradition and social and political traditions. i don't think that's the deal killer but i would say i don't agree with mike huckabee on marriage. >> so what about mitt romney. should he run for president a third time?

>> i would say if he wants to. if he thinks he can make another go of it and be successful after two other times when he was in, he has every right to give it his best shot and i will be focused upon whether i should run whether or not mitt romney should run. >> you can give jeb bush runs, do you think america is ready for another bush in the white house? >> i guess that the voters will make that decision and you know, jeb bush is a friend of mine and we have served together i came into and in two and a half years before he came into the office and he is a very good governor and a very good guy and it has been a way it's unfair

and he might argue that he thinks it's being penalized. >> we also have a number of folks in the house and senate rand paul ted cruz discussing possible candidates. do you think some coming out of this congress, that was much maligned and so dysfunctional do you think that someone could get elected president right now? >> if someone is considering running, my answer would be i hope so because that could lemonade a lot of the competition. and i think whether or not that's a better chance i don't know. if you had been a governor you

managed a microcosm of the federal government being responsible for it, serving in the executive position and every agency we have a corresponding agency at the state level and you understand the whole field of play. and unlike what some people think that governors have a great understanding of domestic policy but they don't understand about the world, i would challenge that because as a governor one travels all over the world in trade deals and partnerships and we have a global economy as we are often reminded and governors who have multinational companies within their states do business all over the world and we'd be hard-pressed to find a governor who hasn't traveled all over the world and he he is dealing man-to-man or man to woman with ceos and heads of state not just in having a conversation but actually making deals and

negotiating. i believe that that is a great level of experience to take to the presidency. >> i think the fact that there are so many potential contenders volumes. it doesn't seem that anyone is all that intimidated by her. you find her intimidating as a potential opponent if you run? >> i think that everyone would be an intimidating opponent in the only way to run is unopposed or scared and those are the two options that you had as a candidate. so i don't expect that either of us will run unopposed, 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'm not sure that she has a connective quality that her

husband has but more the ideologue with that incredible connector with people, i would say that i go to there's anyone on the republican side that might run for president that would have a better understanding of them than i would and maybe understand the background and so on. but having said that, hillary clinton is a rock star within the democratic party and its interesting that most of them say they will support her as democrats i am not convinced that she will pull the trigger when she has to and ron. and if she does i do not think that it's a foregone conclusion that she's the nominee or elected president. i don't think that she will be elected president. and let me see why because people sometimes say it is

inevitable. it is inevitable for her to be the nominee in 2008 and is relatively unknown upstart junior senator who sponsored this era legislation in his senate career named barack obama, came up and beat her. so let's let recent history be guide of what they would hold. >> who might it be this time? who you think would surpass her in this. >> she may get in it it may not be her, elizabeth warren, she has an interesting voice but she does touch the nerves of a lot of people on the left. and i think it could be somebody that we really haven't thought about. someone who has been an effective democratic governor someone who has managed and led

and been a good communicator and i'm certainly not to build someone's career the next thing they say mike huckabee said that on the show with s.e. cupp i would be a great president. [laughter] i will forgo that temptation. >> let's hope that jerry brown and andrew cuomo are not listening. >> that's right. [laughter] >> let's say that you win the republican nomination and hillary clinton wins the democratic nomination for the sake of argument. what kind of campaign would you run against hillary hillary clinton? what kind of weaknesses would you exploit if you are the republican nominee? >> i can't tell you all that i would do she ran for secretary

of state, she set the table for the relationships with other countries and they say that we are doing better than we were now when they obama administration took office and that guess what? nobody can give me the name of one country. not one of them. >> i still think that that is heartburn for hillary clinton. >> what do you expect democrats to do with a