to talk about cultural and landscape in his book "god, guns, grits, and gravy." this is an hour. governor huckabee, i think it is worth pointing out the irony that you are sitting there in new york where i used to live and i am in washington where maybe you will live in just over a year? >> guest: we will see about t t that. i did say there is only one address in all of washington i would have any interest in moving to and i think you know which one that might be. >> host: i do and we will talk about 2016 in a bit. let's talk about your book "god, guns, grits, and gravy." explain the title, first of all. >> guest: it is not a recipe book of southern food. if you are saying i don't know what a grit is relax. here is the point of the book.

there are three major cultural bubbles, new york, washington and the other is hollywood. and from those three cultural bubbles come fashion, politics, movies, entertainment, television, all of things that set the american cultural table. but there is a big disconnect between the people, the values, the attitudes and lifestyles of the people living in that bubble and the others that live in the fly out, the red area between the east and west coast. in that great divide, that flyover country exist what i call the land of god, gun, grits and gravy. it just descriptive term. the book does two things. it says to all of those folks

out there in the land of god, guns, grits and gravy you are not alone. you are okay and not nuts. it says to the people in the bubbles here is who we are. you don't know us. you don't know what drives us and makes us think what is important or why it is important to us. read the book and maybe you will find out the good ole boys are not so bad. >> host: you describe things in the book but surely you don't think everyone in the bubble is bad and not ever bubba is good. what point are you trying to make in describing the country in this way? >> guest: it is cleary a generalization. you will find bubbas in mid-town manhattan in the way they think and feel. and you will go to places like

birmingham, alabama and find ultra liberals. i think it is true the culture and lifestyles you will see and the bubbles are very different than in bubbaville. over the past six and a half years when was going to new york to do my show for fox, i came to realize when i get off the plane and i am in new york for two or three days i am in a different world than the world when i get back to bubba ville. people would say have you moved to new york and i would say i am not moving to new york unless they let me duck hunt in central park. that would shock the people in new york. they cannot imagine someone out there with a 12-gauge blowing the ducks away in central park. that would get me in the he'd --

headlines. when i would come to new york, i would say i don't think i went to new york, i manned -- landed on a different planet. there is a disconnect to explain why the voting patterns, lifestyle pattern, and cultural patterns, if you will, are so different. >> if they allowed duck hunting in central park i would leave virginia and be right there with you. talk about why this cultural divide is such a problem. is it just two sides don't understand each other? or is there a real threat for the country coming from this cultural divide and disconnect as you explain it? >> i would not say there is a threat to the existence of this

great republic because of a cultural difference but i think the polarization is not healthy to building the strong kind of america where we are the melting pot. we are increasing less a melting pot and more several simmers pots on the same stove that each maintain their own unique recipe. i think it is healthy to have differences of culture. for example, the southern culture, the one i am the most familiar with and most comfortable with, i don't want to lose that. i don't want us to become so homogenized we change into something that is not recognizable. there needs to be an understanding. not a melting but an understanding. many people look toward us in bubba ville with content and a sent of bewilderment. what do you mean you believe in god? what do you you mean you think

you ought to go to church and paying a dime out of every there in your income makes sense? that is crazy. or why would anyone own a firearm? i have had discussions even with conservative people in new york that if you tell them you own firearms they are a gasped and want to almost jump under the table because they fear you will whip out a pistol. you just want to say you don't know us, do you? let me make this observation. most of the people in bubba ville do understand in the bubbles and here is why. everything we see on television and the movies is all about the bubbles. television citcoms and movies are depicted whether they are crime shows, doctor shows, or films, most are about people that live in the bubble. new york, washington, the political thrillers are california lifestyle. we kind of know what the people

live like because we see it all of the time. but how many times can you think of a television show that treats religious people respectfully. we are not up to the same level as the elite they think. that is what i am speaking to. >> host: this is what i love about our long friendship. i am a non-believer and you are a baptist minister but we have a deep respect for the judeo

christian values and the american faithful and you call people that put faith and family first the new american outcast and i think that is what you are getting out. hollywood in particularly depicts people of faith and people who put family first as sort of backwards and rubes. but you would have to admit, i don't have to tell you, 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 want to admit it conservative movies do well. so aren't conservative values pretty well represented? >> they are certainly represented within the niche of the media that is targeted toward 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. i will tell you why. it is scratching where the itch

is. sometimes rather it is mark bernet's drama of the bible that got more viewers than anything on cable, rather it is the response to rialtreality shows are wholesome or 19 and counting with my good friends from the duggars i know. that is a head scratcher. they cannot imagine who are the people who watch this. i remember when the movie the "blind side" came out. it was a film those of us in bubba ville watched that saying we relate that and understand the language and whole love of football. we get it all. there were a lot of people in hollywood who could not figure out how it was such a success.

it was a sleeper for them. look at films like "heaven is for real" we under it in bubba ville but folks in the bubble not so much. >> host: i remember when the cs lewis books were being made into the movie and hollywood pro d t prodicted no one would see it but it was the highest grossing film of the year. you touched on this earlier. talk about environmentalist hypocrisy and what you call environmental extremism. >> guest: i give an example in "god, guns, grits, and gravy" of this guy heading green peace in europe. he is all about wanting to

reduce co-2 emission. but an audit shows he is flying a couple times a month and the output of co-2 he's expending because of his jet travel is a hundred times that of the average person. when confronted here was his answer: the train trip would take 12 hours and that would be time away from my family and a whole lot of time i would not be working. in order words, because it is not very efficient. and i am thinking, well, isn't that my most of us fly? here is the point. if you are going to be an environmentalist and you say it horrible to admit co-2 than live like it. i use the example of glen reynolds, who is a great writer, and he said i will believe it is a serious problem when the

people that say it is act like it is. kudos to the environmentalist who practice and live it. you know, i have read about it. and ed begly has a spartan wife, and small footprint of energy output and he doesn't fly very often. i respect that. whether i agree with it or not. if you have conviction, live it out. if it is authentic we will see it. don't be like al gore saying the oceans are going to overtake the coast and then build a home on the coast. if you think our ocean-front property is about to be washed into the sea why in the heck would you build it? >> host: do republicans have a problem with science?

or is that just a perception? if so, how do we change that perception? >> guest: no problem with science at all. i think it is a magnificent gift. i would say it catches up with god. i would not expect you to say it that way. let me give you an example. for a long time, people mulled over the issue of life. as you know, i am an unapologetic pro-life and strong advocate that everything person has strong value. it is not about abortion. it is about i believe there is no such thing as an expendable human being. i value each person whether it is a kid can down syndrome or the quarterback of the football

team. we know more about life now than we did 30 or 40 years ago because of the mapping of the genome and realize the unique schedule that never existed and that pattern that will never exist again and is unique to each individual. it happens at the moment of conception. at that particular moment, everything in that person's dna schedule has formed. it will change, obviously, in terms of size, shape and dimensions. but we know when it happens, and it is life at that moment. it is human life. that dna schedule will never be broccoli, it will not be a dolphin or a puppy or pony. only a human being. now we look at science and say it has given us a real

affirmation of when life begins. look at a sonogram. people didn't think it was a real baby until maybe the baby was four months in the womb. now at 12 weeks you see a sonogram and you see a baby, a human form, not just an animated blob of plasma. i think science is a great thing whether it is someplace explorati exploration -- space -- medical intervention is important. it is a misconception to think those of us who are conservative are against science. not at all. >> host: i have a six week old at home. i can a attest to seeing the sonogram being life changing. you talk about guns. another hot button issue. it is right there in the title

of your book. you write clearly, city slickers more afraid of guns than the criminals using them have a serious mental condition rendering them of not be able to critically think. i think we have the fact and statistics on our side and on the other side there is fear and emotion, which is equally powerful. but who do you think the our two sides will come together and have a real conversation about, say, lowering gun crime? all we ever seem to do is just shout at each other from our purchase. >> guest: if we are going to have serious conversation it has to be built around facts. not feelings. one of the major themes of the book is you cannot build a

culture based on i think, i feel, and i believe. those are subjective motivations that are wonderful. but at some point you need to see what objectively is true and let's build it from objective truth rather than subjective -- i think, i feel, i believe. let's talk about the issue of gun violence. it is a horrible problem in our country. i am not suggesting everyone should be armed with a gun and walk around waving it. see, i think some people probably should never own a gun. but it isn't because the government tells them they can't or a mayor in a city decides. maybe they just don't want to go through the training to be competent and proficient. my point is that for many of us who grew up, and again, use this land of "god, guns, grits, and gravy," guns were a part of our lifestyle. i had my first bb-gun when i was

five. a pellet gun at seven. a single shot-22 at age nine. and went up to a 20-gauge shotgun eventually. and here is what i learned with each one as a kid. 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 look down the barrel and see daylight you still treat it like it is loaded. if you learn to behave that way, you will not misuse it or point it at someone unintentional. never point it at something you will not shoot and never shoot at something you don't plant to kill and couldn't kill anything you don't plan to eat unless it is criminal who plans to kill you. it never occurred to me in all of my life of owning a firearm i would 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 were guns were in the house and i could have gotten them because we were not wealthy enough to own a gun safe. the guns were accessible. but the reason i never touched them without my father's sup supervision was simple. i knew what a gun could do. but i was certain what my dad would do if he caught me messing with the guns. the guns might hurt me. my dad might have killed me. that is as simple as it was. >> host: what do you see is the biggest threat to our second amendment right now? >> guest: i think the lack of understanding the second amendment was never to protect people to go hunting. i duck hunt, turkey hunt, pheasant sometimes, analope

hunt, but the purpose of the second amendment was not for recreation and support. i know in 2015 this is going to sound bizarre but the founding fathers wrote the second amendment so we would be able to protect the first amendment. the right of our basic aspects of liberty. we knew the one thing that would always provide the people with the dignity of their liberty and their ability to keep it as if they could fend off an attack. if we go back to the history of the second amendment and the purpose it was there it was so people could protect their family, property, themselves, and their liberty from anyone who would try to take it. and that is why we have it. it is sacred. we should respect it. and treat it with a great sense of reverence.

>> host: you suggested we need term limits for running. explain that. >> guest: if people knew going in there was a terminal departure point for the tenure in office they will make different decisions. i was for term limits before first elected to office. i ran proposing on term limits. and those people who say that before getting elected, after they have been in office a few years, they say we don't need term limits. we would loose the great experience. i am one of those guys who 25 years after believing it was a great idea and serving in office, a long time as governor, ten and half years and three

years as a lieutenant governor and being involved in politics at both end of the tenure believe in it more now than i ever have. i think we ought to have term limit and do for the executive branch but for the legislative branch as well. one thing i suggest in the book is we ought to have them for the judicial branch. people on the judicial bench shouldn't believe this is a lifetime appointment that relieves them from having to worry about decisions they make. i am not suggesting we eleth -- elect the judges. but appointment for life is absurd. people shouldn't feel anything they do for the service of their country is a career and something they can live the rest of their lives off of. >> host: next is campaign financing. you say prohibit nothing and disclose everything. what kind of changes would you make for campaign financing?

>> guest: everything we did to improve campaign funding made it worse. once you start trying to restrict and tell people what they cannot do they will find other ways to do it that is within the context of the law from another mechanisms. look at the presidential process now. i mean it is out of control. if you are candidate you raise money at a high amount. when you are talking about a campaign that has to raise upwards of a billion dollars. you know that is a lot of phone calls and a lot of events. now, enter the world of the super pac.

the candidate say stop running that ad. one this one instead. because one would go to jail. we should say if you want to give $50 million to a president go ahead but we will know about it within ten minutes. we will disclose everything. we want to know where the money came from and one of the things killing politics today and in the super pac there is disclosure. i could run ads attacking and

the donors who gave the money will never know who they are. here is what i say in the book. they are cowards and don't have the guts to run for office. they will write a check and attack somebody through some dark operation and we need to end it all. just say look, we will disclose everything. you want money and advocate your message, fine. have the guts to stand up and be counted for it. ideally give to a person who is willing to be a candidate and stick his hand by the message. >> host: the next issue you talk about needing reform is poverty. you say poverty is a career for those who put out the plans and would be put out of business if they eradicated poverty. what would you do to end or e t

eradicate poverty in the country? >> guest: if you took the amount of money the person in poverty could accumulate from the programs like food stamps, rent assistance, cageducational assistance, medicare, wic, it is not out of realm that a mother of two children would have the equivalent of $50-$60,000 a year in benefits. it would be simpler to write her a check for inmoney rather than have programs that hire all of these bureaucrats and run through the processes. before some of the viewers sound off i am not suggest we write everyone a check for $60,000 but let's cut out the middle man.

i saw first hand some of the programs are vital. but here is how they ought to operate. instead of putting people on them and punishing them forg administered so you get the benefits a as temporary stop gap to help make the next run on the ladder. as you make it, rather than penalize you and take you off medicaid leaving your children exposed with no coverage, is leaving you with no capacity to pay your rent. make it so that every step you take let's you move ahead rather than behind. don't cut all of the benefits. make sure that whatever you are we knowed off of, still leaves you a little progress as you move forward. then you have an incentive to do better. you an incentive to achieve more. to be better educated. to learn new job skills.

we should never punish people for their productivity. but instead we punish them. >> host: let's talk about 2016. where are you on your decision for running for president? >> guest: i am very serious about it. i have read some people who write i left fox news so i could sell my new book and i am thinking are you that stupid to think i would leave an incredibly good job that paid me generously and i loved just so i could push a few books? i could have done that and stayed at fox. i walked away from a wonderful position, a terrific place to be, because i am seriously

looking at running for president and i could not continue to do the television show and have the genuine conversations i have with people and say if i run will you help me, will you support me, so that is why the severance and over the next couple of months i will make the final decision. but the decisions i already made were not made anticipating that i would forego a presidential race in 2016. how is that? >> host: check in in a couple months, i guess? >> guest: yeah, i said my time frame is sometime in the spring. later than earlier. it will not be before april i am pretty positive of that. beyond then, i don't know. but that has been my time frame and i never changed that. let's >> host: let's assume you run

and walk through the issues. one of the biggest issues the candidates face this year and next year is the threat of islamic extremism. we are seeing it unfold in europe and the united states. what would you do about al-qaeda and isis and the growing threat of islamic extremist around the world? >> guest: we have an administration that refuses to call it islamic terrorism. when you call the fort hood shooting work place violence or what happened in little rock with andy long who was killed by an islamic jihadist trained in yemen, when you say that is a state crime, a murder that has nothing to do with terrorism, it is hard to defeat the enemy if you don't know who it is. the first thing is recognize that radical islamic jihadism, this religious fanatic behavior

has resulted in people believing their people on god's worth to is kill everybody who doesn't agree them, you cannot negotiate with that. this is unlike any war we ever fought before. in a traditional war you are fighting a go-political force with boundaries nat may want to extend -- may want to -- the boundaries so the war may be over the real estate. you can negotiate the real estate, defeat the enemy, take his borders away, but the point is you know the end game. when you have a force, and their end game is 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.

boots on the ground in some places may be necessary if we have a specific target we are going to attack. just saying we going to put boots on the ground all over the world we will not do that. we are not equipped for it. we don't have -- i think the stamina and will for that. what we do have to do is say to many of the people in the rest of the world look, we are tired of our boots being the only ones making a footprint. we are making foot prints in your part of the world and we are not going to keep spilling american blood for the lives of saudi arabian, people of qutar, and uae. if you want to keep your kingdoms you will have to fight for it and call it what they are. if you are not willing to do that then when the dark clouds

come upon ayou are -- you are on your own. we treated israel horriblelthem. i am ashamed. i think the relationship could be restored with a president who understood the value of a person like the king of jordan. 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 if republicans want to lose a guy like you they can advocate the issue of gay marriage. i can make a conservative case for gay marriage that marriage is a stabilizing institution but i can a political case as well for gay marriage. maybe loosen the opposition. the reason is the millennial. 80 million voters who are largely in support of gay rights. is that a problem for you in terms of running for president and holding firm on to this issue i know you are passionate about? >> guest: there is a difference between gay rights and marriage. gay rights say no person could be penalized because they are gay from a job, from being able to visit where they want, live

where they want. i have no problem with making the kind of accommodations that used to be the center piece of the discussion: visitation, making sure there are visitation rights and all sorts of aspects that used to be the focus around civil unions. but look marriage either means something or it doesn't. and historically, it has meant 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 but one, and from that partnership they would biologically reproduce that generation and train them to be the replacement. of course we have adoption and other kind of ways in which the next generation can be trained but marriage has always meant that. my position on marriage is the

exact position that the obama had in 2008. when he was talking to rick warren at saddle back church and rick warren asked him about same-sex marriage obama said i believe marriage is between a man and a woman and i don't believe it should be other things because and then he used this term as a christian i believe god is in the mix. he said it was because he was a

christian. one of three things had to have happen is my conclusion. he was lying in 2008, lying now saying he is all for same-sex marriage, or the bible got re-written and he was the only one who got the new version. what other option is there? i don't feel like my view is all that crazy or out there. it is the same view that has been held and the view the president himself has held. >> host: but a lot has changed since 2008. you can no longer be a democrat who doesn't not gay marriage. they all seem to have quote unquote evolved on that issue. and even some 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 the millennial generation will be? >> i think people are going to

vote for the next president based on is he going to bring jobs, is he going to bring a new sense of optimism about america, will he make the country safer, truly understand the threat me face internationally and globally, do a better job of protecting us, will he understand what it is to be in a struggling class and try to build an economy for someone like that. i don't believe the deal killer is going to be the position on marriage. and i will give a couple examples. going back to 1980, ronald reagan ran as a pro-life candidate which it was very unpopular to be pro-life and people said he could never be elected because he held that view. people didn't elect him because of that. voters look for authenticity.

voters know i believe in a biblical definition of marriage and also what the pope believes in, billy graham, obama in 2008, and mother theresa. i don't have a crazy view of marriage. i have a view pretty well established in history and it has a long not just religious tradition but social and political tradition. i don't think that is the deal killer. i don't agree with mike huckabee on marriage but mike huckabee really believes that. >> someone who is recently discussed maybe throwing his head back in the ring is mitt romney. should he run a third time? >> guest: if he wants to. this is a free country. if he thinks he can make another go of it, and be successful this

time after two other times when he wasn't, he has every right to give it his best shot. so i will be focused upon whether i should run, rather than mitt romney ought to run. >> host: if jeb bush runs do you think america is ready for another bush in the white house? >> guest: i guess the voters will make that decision. jeb is a good friend of mine. we served together and were governors at the same time. i came in two and a half years before coming to office and we then served eight of my ten and a half years as contemporary governors. he is a good governor and good guy. it is like saying it is unfair he has this great platform. but he might argue it is unfair

he is being penalized because of his last name and background because he cannot help because he was born into bush family. >> host: you have a number of folks in the house and senate, rand paul, marco rubio, ted cruz who are discussed as possible candidates. do you think someone coming from this dysfunctional congress could get elected president right now? >> guest: as someone running, i would like to say i hope they can't. that is eliminate the competition. i think he would be a better president. if you have been a governor you have managed a microcosm of the federal government and you have actually led it. you have been responsible for. you served in that executive

position. and every agency that exist at the federal level you have a corresponding agency at the state level and you understand the whole field of play and by the way unlike what some people think, well governors have a great understanding of domestic policy and don't know much about the world. i would challenge that because as a governor, one travels all over the world, in trade deals, and in partnerships. we have a global economy as we are often reminded and guess what? governors who have multi national companies within their state do business all over the world. i doubt you can find a governor who hasn't travelled around the globe. he is feeling man-to-man or man-to-woman with ceo's and heads of state, not just in having a conversation or being part of a study group, but making deals and negotiating. i think that is a great level of experience to take to the presidency.

>> host: i think the fact there are so many contenders here speaks volumes about the idea of running against someone like hillary clinton. it doesn't seem like anyone is all that intimidated by her. do you find her intimidating as a potential opponent if you run? >> guest: i think everyone is an intimidating opponent. the only way to run is unopposed or scared. those are the two options. i don't expect that any of us as republicans will run unopposed or scared. if i were to be lucky enough to get the nomination i would have great respect for the nature of hillary clinton's running. i don't think she has the connected quality that her husband has. she is more the policy one. the idea log and the incredible

connector with what bill clinton s. i don't think anyone on the republican side might run for the president that understand the clinton's better than me. and understanding their background and so on. but hillary clinton is a rock star within the democratic party having said that. but it is interesting that while all of the democrats expect her to run and most say they will support her i am not convinced, first of all, i am not convinced she will pull the trigger when she has to and run, probably will but maybe not, if she does, i don't think it is a conclusion she is the nominee or certainly not she is elected president. i don't think she will be elected president and let me say why people say it was inevitable but it was in 2008 as well.

and this junior senator who sponsored zero legislation in his senate career, brief as it was, came up and beat her. so let's let recent history be a guide to what the future may hold. >> who might that be his time? are you thinking elizabeth warren or who are you thinking on the left would be maybe surpass hillary clinton in the democratic primary? >> i don't think elizabeth warren. she may get in it. she has an interesting voice for the left. i mean it is not a left i would agree with. but she does touch the nerve of a lot of people on the left. maybe the very far left. but i think it would be somebody we have not thought about. a person who have been an effective democratic governor. somebody who managed and governored and led and is a good communicat communicator. you know i am hard pressed to tell you who that is. i am not trying to build

somebody's career and puff them up and next thing they know is are running because mike huckabee said on s.e. cupp's show i will be a great president. >> host: let's hope jerry brown is not listening to this right now. >> guest: right. >> host: let's say you win the republican nomination and hillary clinton wins the democratic one for the sake of argument. what kind of campaign would you run against hillary clinton? you say you know her well. what kind of weaknesses would you exploit if you are the republican nominee? >> well i can't tell you what i would do. because then i would give it all away. i think hillary clinton's challenge is she is going to be tied much more in the next election to the policy of obama than the policy of her husband bill clinton. she was first lady with bill clinton. there was no official policy

role in the white house. in the obama house she won the state department and set the table for our relationships with other countries. i asked even my close democrat friends, and yes, i actually have a view, i asked them this question and they cannot answer it. i say name a country on this planet with whom we have a better relationship now than we did when the obama administration took off in january of 2009 and guess what? no body can give me the name of one country. none. so, i think that is going to be a problem for her. and even though the left goes nuts when you mention things like benghazi. i still think that is heart burn for hillary clinton. >> >> host: what do you expect democrats to do with a war on women especially if hillary clinton gets the nomination? how would you handle that

inevitability from the left? >> guest: i hope that is the best weapon the left has because if it is we might as well go ahead and start measuring drapes and getting the inaugural ball planned. because that is proven to fall short. the colorado senate race is a great example of how this message just rings so hollow. and look, intelligent, thoughtful strong women know they are not helpless creatures of their gender. my wife knows that. my daughter knows that. my daughter-in-law knows that. my chief of staff of ten and a half years was a female and many cabinet officers as well. they would be livid if i said we will give you jobs and you cannot do them because you a woman and helpless to your gender and if you don't have help from the government you will never be able to make it.

i would have my face slapped into the next county. women are capable of doing anything they wish to do. women know that intuitively and instinctively. i think women are insulted when someone is told they cannot make it without the government coming around to bail them out. >> host: we talked about women and politau candidates but what minorities? how can be bring more in for the 2016 race? >> guest: i am probably the only republican, even being on the remote list of people who can say he had 49% of the african-american vote in his state. my vote among hispanics was in the high 40s as well.

somebody who whom this is not an abstract. this is something i have done. you know, and i want to tell you something. i am very frustrated. i tried to say to republicans over the last 15-20 years we should not be giving up on minor votes. these votes ought to be with us and they would be if we work at it. not by pandering but by building relationships and showing policy lift up all of the people whatever their color, gender or ethnicity. the reason i got that vote as governor is because i built relationships with people in the minority community. i gave them positions they never held before. this surprised people. minorities got more major executive level appointments in my administration, a republican administration than in bill clinton's administration. by the way, more women held high level executive positions in my administration than in bill clinton's.

you know, maybe the republicans ought to pick somebody who has a real history of getting women and minorities to vote for them. who could that be? this happeni thing about that. >> host: do you think republicans have given up the minority vote in many cases? >> guest: of course they have. it is absurd. why would they do that? minorities want the aim thing anyone does. when people say how do you get the votes of people that are black? let's talk about giving them the power to chose the schools for their kids, let's talk about access to decent education for the kids, and a safe place for their kids to play, and to give them an opportunity to one day live in the neighborhood they want to, rather than a housing project that the government sort of exiles them to. i said, there are a number of ways, let's talk about the fact that what people in the minority community is what i want. the ability to be upwardly

mobile and be treated fairly and justly and make sure the criminal justice system doesn't unfairly punish them with the sentence that is difference than if they were an upper middle class with a good attorney. those are things we can talk about. >> host: in "god, guns, grits, and gravy" you write i would rather beat bbq with who'll who was your friend and fishing guide than with a wall street banker. i would rather sit in church are nancy the make-up artist than cyst in an opera with royalty. i am more comfortable at wal-mart than at tiffany's. what do you want people to know about you? why are you laying it out like this?

i am still the man growing up in hope, arkansas whose parents worked three jobs and barely made the rent. i am still the kid who made up the toys because we could not afford the cool stuff and i had to use my imaginatiomagination. i learned to sit at the head table but i have more in common with the ones working in the kitchen than the ones sitting at the head table. i think people want someone to lead them who understands and respects them and understand how hard they work and sometimes for how little they have to show. people don't want people at the top to be torn down, they just want the people at the top to know how hard the struggle is to

make it pathway so they can get to the next run on the ladder. i am convinced that is missing in a lot of the message. >> host: do you think 2016 is going to be one of the presidential years about personality? >> >> host: describe the 2016 winner. >> guest: i >> guest: i am convinced when people lect a president it is not all ideas. it is personal. they don't necessarily agree with the personal on every issue but wants to know if this person knows people like me or cares

about people like me. do i like this person, would i vote for them, invite them into my home, when you say is it personality, it always is. a person may be brilliant and have all of the right pedigree to be president but if he is unlikable he will not be elected. he just won't. i am convinced it is a combination but ultimately the message and part of the them i want to convey as a wrote the book to say to people is if you are that person living in the heart land of america and you think no body sort of pushing the cultural center. no body who is running government or entertainment or whatever. they don't know me or understand me. i just want to say, yeah, not only do we know who you are, we are of you, and by the way, you are not alone.

there are millions of you and you matter and your views and 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 those good ole boys are not so dumb after all. >> well, republicans as you know, have taken the senate, they control the house, we have eight years of president obama. they can't seal the deal in 2016 is there something wrong with the party? >> guest: maybe something wrong with the people who carry the message for us. '16 ought to be a great year for republicans. as is often the case, when the democrats won back in 2008, i remember the obiterary for the republican party was written and in 2010 the republicans came soaring back and in 2012, you know, everybody talks about what a big sweep it was for the democrats. it was only a sweep in the white

house. congressionally the republicans did decent in 2012 and in 204 a republican blow out. so if we look at it. it is not so much democrat and republican. there is a view of politics have have held and it mirrors and reflects the values i share in the book and that is this. for the pract -- practitioner of politics everything is horizontal. but to the people that decide the election, the people that don't live every day on politics, elections are vertical. and the way they vote is not left or right. it is up or down. and they ask will this person take us up or this person take us down. will he make it better? or make it worse? >> host: i hope 2016 is a great