>> first of all let me say thank you very much for this invitation. thank you for the arab-american conference. for organizing this. it is an important event in washington and i am happy to be here for the second time to give some remarks. three years ago, in 2008, i came here and that today when i came here, i was expecting

importance news from tripoli concerning the settlement of mogadishu. then the outstanding issue between the united states was settled that day when i came to this conference. the second thing i -- i want to convey my condolences for the death of the crown prince. i want to thank the united states. for what she did for the libyan people when they asked for help against this brutal regime which took place after the libyans tried to ask one -- one simple question, what happens to our people who have been team -- the

change in 1996. they only came to know about them in 2018. gaddafi said -- the libyan people were desperate. they asked for help. i was here in the united states and i was interviewed on cnn. he put the camera on my face and asked me what i wanted to tell the president. i told the president, the libyan people need your help. they are being killed by their own ruler. without the lead of the united states, the libyan people are going to suffer. it will lead to a massacre.

if no international action will be taking, i am sure that the world would regret to. we have had the experience of african countries and we're grateful to the united states. we're grateful to the media and congress. they came and supported. there are some voices telling the people here and there that libya is not in the interest of the united states. but there is the matter of interest as human beings. they're facing this regime and they have nowhere to defend themselves. i am happy on the part of the libyans. thank you very much. the second thing, i want to thank nato who also came to health the libyan people. with the arab league and and

qatar. egypt, tunisia, jordan, all of these countries who came forward to help the libyan people. when the revolution started in february, i was asking myself, what is going on? i made a call to some people to find out why gaddafi was killing the people just for a simple demonstrations. he said they were young people on drugs. i said there is no reason to call anybody.

then my family, the libyan community, we had been discussing libya. there is only one choice to make. one decision. that is not difficult. what have seen, what we have been watching, it is unbelievable. i want to thank the libyans, my staff, and my family. one day my wife and daughter would go to cnn on my behalf. i am grateful to them. nobody in libya and the world

and the intelligence agencies, they expect that they will go up against this regime. the main purpose, the main interest of this regime is how to keep the power -- have been working for libya for 42 years. i was appointed. we have been trying for all this time that if we can make some changes, we cannot leave the country in the hands of khaddafi to do what he wants. there are many decent people in libya. they felt that what is going on in libya is wrong. it is the wrong direction. they never dreamed of a good

future for themselves or their children. they are disciplined. they have no loyalty to their own country. but february 17, there were made changes for the first time in 42 years. we are proud of our country and people. the libyans were chanting on the 23rd of this month, when they celebrated a free libya, raise your head. you are free. the libyans are a free after the revolution. you do not know how much we suffered. to keep our principles and our dignity and to work to make it kind of understanding between the united states and libya. i always believed that when gaddafi felt comfortable with

united states, maybe you will turn to the people. he realized they need in tension, they need education. -- attention, they need education. the message to the dictatorships all over the world, do not underestimate your people. nobody dreamed that one day the people would raise up against khaddafi. this is a great to lesson. imagine to the leader, they have to give democracy to the people to choose their representatives. without this, the arab world is under stress of from their own government.

they are rising and there is no more chance for compromise. when the libyans go against the regime, i spoke to the chairman of the ntc, they asked him for one thing. my advice to you is one thing -- no compromise. no discussions with gaddafi or his government. we have one destiny, one dream, that libya will be free from gaddafi. we will do anything for the libyan people. the libyans find themselves from a different society and facing a brutal regime and they

find they need leadership. they organized themselves and the national transitional council. people know each other but they never worked together. in this situation to become real. these young people who have been fighting, it is because of this accumulation of frustration, and of the hatred of this regime. for eight months, the libyan people made their dreams come true. but we must realize there are so many challenges in front of us. at the same time, the libyans

have been able to unite and fight the regime in eight months. they have been raping and killing. mass graves. i have a great hope in this people to continue the dream of for a free, democratic government. the second thing, the international community who came to help the desperate to libyan in the right time, we not only need their support and help, but we also need it during the peace. libyans need an education and instructions. they need training. they need security and the need stabilization.

this is an important issue. the national security council yesterday -- i was not very happy. i thought they would extend it until the end of the year when we managed to control everything in our country. but the forming of another option led by qatar and the ad states and other countries, this makes me feel more comfortable. gaddafi is dead. he is finished. at the same time, there are some people and -- we have borders with african countries. they came through the border to kill our people. we have to remove the arms from

the street. we have never seen people with arms in their hand except for police or khaddafi soldiers. now, unfortunately, they are. we need help for collecting these weapons like missiles and others. we need to secure borders. libya has no army. no police except for security degrades -- brigades. their purpose was to protect the regime, not the people. we need help from the international community. we need to reconcile among ourselves.

there are so many wounds and the suffering. for the last 40 years. what happened in the last eight months, it has been going on for 40 years. we have to be careful how we are going to absorb, how are we going to get libya to get there. it is not impossible. i am sure that the libyans who fought gaddafi will be able to carry the reconciliation for the people. we need reconciliation among ourselves. the media carried some many stories about to libya. what is going to happen to libya?

what about their agenda. from the beginning, -- who brought them to libya? he is the one responsible. they're living normal lives. when they see the libyans, their families, their houses being raped and killed in taken by the regime who are using live ammunition, you cannot blame them. there is no worry about libya to unite. there's no worry one group will take over. all of the libyans paid a high price for one thing, they want democracy. they have to thank god they are

alive to see this regime overthrown by the libyan people. they are also talking about -- his speech on the 23rd of october. don't worry. this is the excitement of the celebrations. he was the minister of justice. now the process will go different than gaddafi's time. we have to elect our council. the council is the only people who will be in a vault according to the interest of the people.

i wanted the international community to take it easy. the libyans are not aggressive. they are conservatives. they are dreaming to have a normal relationship with the world. we want a normal relations. 50 years ago, the libyans used to travel without a visa. now, during gaddafi, this is a nightmare. we want to have a normal relationship. we want to be an active member in the international community to help countries who are suffering under dictators. our responsibility is different from what has been under gaddafi. what we expect from the united

states. we expect to build a congress which has not existed. i came to this country in 2004 trying to help as much as i can to normalize the relations for the same reason i mentioned a few minutes ago. this relation has never been stable. any statement, anything to do with gaddafi, he is not happy. we go back to the first square. i hope this time is over. we watch the participation of the united states to construct our country. we want the american think tanks and democratic institutions to help us create the atmosphere of

how the libyans can practice their right to run the government. i'm really grateful to secretary clinton and john mccain and others who have been to libya. now there is a deal that the first libyans will arrive in boston tomorrow about 6:00 for treatment in hospitals. this is an important and urgent issue to deal with the injured. the weapons in the street. the security of the country. the security of libya is very important. we have to need in the east and in the west we have -- the illegal immigrants.

gaddafi has used them as a weapon in blackmailing the european countries. if he is happy with them, he would stop the emigrants. if not, and he would open the door and help them with boats and things. we have today -- to go da -- build an institution. there is an important issue we have to handle. among ourselves as libyans, the libyan people are ready to establish a new democratic country who believes in freedom, human rights, in the freedom of the press, but they need your support.

they need the support of the united nations. we need to know where our money is. there is some in europe and the united states. we are worried about the other moneys which may be an african countries. we hope after the fall of the temporary government, we hopes that the libyan people made the right choice. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for year is a thoughtful remarks. -- your thoughtful remarks. our thoughts are with the people of libya at this time. a couple of questions, you seem to have an appreciation that the

apparatus of government that remains may have difficulties in dealing with the challenges of creating a new states. that seems to be the experience of the world when these things,. -- things come. there are concerns about the weapons which may have become misplaced during the time of the uprising. as you mentioned, there is a question of being able to get the money. sometimes when a tyrant's the part, -- when tyrants depart, they manage to bring the resources of the country with them. one wonders how much went to niger. any thoughts would be appreciated. >> weapons are a main concern.

you see the military group, they have presented themselves. this is a symbolic asking of the libyan said the groups have to do the same. we start to see that many groups are giving up their weapons. this is a good sign. it is important to encourage them to do whatever they can. maybe the main issue of the weapons, we do not know what they are. we need some technical help to get them. i believe this is united states and great britain, they are giving their help and support. after the resolution, libyans have more access to their money.

they are working with international banks and other institutions how to get the money. the problem is not only getting the money, it is what we're going to do with it and how can we keep them away from corruption. this is an issue. i believe that the money has to go to the libyan central bank. i think the libyans are mature. they know what corruption means. they know that in libya and there are people against corruption.

>> one more item, a previous speaker mentioned the possibility of a defense relationship between the united states and libya. of course united states has formed a new command that seeks to establish relationships throughout africa and with the arabs. one knows that when colonel gaddafi came to power, the u.s. air force just outside the capital of tripoli, there are those who remember those days and wonder if the new government of libya would seek a defense relationship or be open to negotiations concerning one. >> i think the relationship

between the united states and libya will be one of this issue. we would never think the united states will have a base in libya. it is not on the table. we want to have a respected an equal relationship. we wanted their technology and experience to help establish the libyan army. the relation between libya and the united states -- in 2003, it is very slow. but i think after this it will be different. we will work with them and try to train our people. we in libya understand the west

and what united states did for us. the libyan sovereignty has to be respected. with this we can keep our relation and the interest. we will not be used by the countries to support us and the country's not be blamed that they're coming for certain interests and they want to dominate to the libyans. i'm sure that with this understanding between our leadership, that we have to do it in a better way. we have to build confidence between our people. our economic and trade relationships taking into account the countries who came to support us when we were desperate. i will never forget on march 19

when the acting foreign minister told me if there is no action tonight from nato, that will be the biggest cemetery in the region. at last the french strike just at the right time. if they were late an hour, i think because he would be a cemetery. >> in the interest of moving along, we're going to consider some of the questions in a more thoughtful way. check with our friends from the delegation who can provide answers electronically on our website. we are appreciative of the ambassador's remarks and also his willingness to adjust his schedule as we needed to adjust hours -- ours.

please join me in expressing our appreciation to the ambassador from libya and the libyan people for their freedom. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the presenters on palestine please come forward. >> next, "the contenders" on figures who have run and lost. this week, thomas e. dewey. after that rick perry talks with the editorial board in manchester. later, remarks from former president bill clinton on economic policies>> tomorrow, cy

president annabel park talks about their upcoming rally on the -- in the u.s. capitol. kelly field and george ayittey talks about his latest book. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. and now from new york city, a life of thomas e. delete profile that in the c-span series, "contenders." >> gov. thomas e. dewey reaches over california on his campaign -- reaches oakland, california

on his campaign around the nation. striking at communist elements in government, the gop leader draws big audiences. the next step is portland, oregon with mrs. dewey by his side. in kelso, he makes another stirring bid -- he has at least one ardent supporter. those are some of the region's finest. --finest slamon specimens. we will know soon. november is just around the corner. president truman continues his president. -- present. he will pastorate on the white house lawn for the next four years. he rides to the home of old friend cactus jack and it's ahe visits the alamo. the historic shrine of texas independence. in austin, a big crowd to greet the president as he continues

his campaign for the lone star state's 23 electoral votes. the president struck at republicans, saying they do not want unity. on his tour, the president spoke and visited with sam rayburn, former speaker of the house. the southern vote back into line. >> "dewey defeats truman," the famous headline from the 1948 presidential campaign. as we know, harry truman won the election. his rival, thomas e. dewey had to accept defeat. this week, we are live from the roosevelt hotel in new york city, which in headquarters and thomas dewey's campaign. he used this suite whenever he was in new york during 12 years

of governor. he and his family and the closest aides gathered in this room on election night. joining me is richard norton smith. a historian and biographer of thomas dewey. it is november 2, 1948 at the roosevelt hotel. what happens here? >> well, the day began with a virtual unanimity in the nation's press corps that this election was over. it was thomas e. dewey's to lose. there were pollsters who had stopped polling after labor day. they were so convinced there was no contest. gov. dewey and mrs. dewey want to vote at midday not too far from here. they were cheered all the way. he got out of his car and hotel.

sign. he was a new dewey,a warmer, more personable dewey that people have seen on the campaign trail. they had an election night tradition of having dinner with their friends, robert strauss -- roger straus who was a publisher. the family went there for an early dinner. while they were there, some disturbing returns came in from connecticut in particular. thomas dooley had relied along -- upon the accountants as much as respect for the numbers. the numbers were a little out of sync with what the pollsters had predicted. that was at the beginning of the night long ordeal in this suite. the secret service had sent to their top agents here. they thought thomas dooley was

going to be president like everyone else. it went on and on. about 3:00 in the morning, the agents began to slip away. that was their nonverbal way of communicating a truly historic upset was taking place. at one point before dawn, the governor of new york pulled his head through the door and said know? the little son of a bitch won. in the day. -- his informal concession came later>> before we get to that point where he looks out of the suite upon, very understandably, based upon the fact there was a consensus among people on the right, people on the left, not

this is what is fascinating. when you see the iconic image come up thomas e. dewey is known as the man who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. if you go back and read the contemporary press, everybody from drew pearson to walter whitman, they not only expected the campaign he had run. they thought it was high minded, and they had a lot of criticism for the campaign harry truman ran against him. it is an example of how a snapshot of history can be superseded very quickly. >> we want to show our viewers from that night early on when the returns are starting to come and, thomas e. dewey's campaign manager and the confidence they had early on. take a look.

>> champagne flows freely. victory is in the air. the first returns had truman in not worried. and then he brings good news. >> we now know that governor do we will carry new york state by 50,000 votes and he will be the [applause] confident they could get the white house in 1948? >> by the way, carrying new yorkit was the first time in 20 years of republican had managed new deal. the home of roosevelt liberalism. for him to announce that and it victory was in the air, that

was perfectly understandable. 1948 -- what we did not know going into 1948, america had become a new deal country. the death of franklin roosevelt had ended one presidency. the approaching government, the expectation that government would be more involved in insuring prosperity, the government would be used to fight economic downturns as the new deal had in the 30's and 40's. whether or not he believed in -- and dewey harbored great doubts about the success of those efforts, the assumption was that when fdr died, the new deal died with him. the set of expectations -- the relationship between the average american and his government which had been transformed by

the new deal, that was not the case. on election day in 1948, a americans enjoyed record prosperity, record employment. the reasons the republicans in spite of that thought they could win was very simple -- harry truman. we forget today that here a true -- truman man in his first term was a very unpopular president. there was talk about the little man from missouri. someone torched by the ghost of franklin roosevelt. truman had a very difficult assignment. every president after a war has a process of readjusting economically, culturally, the agriculture sector. inflation, strikes -- all of that came due on harry truman's watch. the consensus in 1946 and 1947 was he did not handle it very well. it was so bad the republicans took congress in 1946 which only fed their expectation that the

presidency would fall into their lap two years later. >> how are republicans viewing the truman administration at this point? heading in the 1948? >> that is a great question. the problem as there was no such thing as the republicans. that was part of thomas e. dewey's problem. the party was evenly split between what is called the eastern establishment, the old teddy roosevelt wing of the party. charles hughes was in that tradition. thomas e. dewey represented that. and then the white house and our -- and then dwight eisenhower, to whom he handed the baton. opposed to that were the conservatives, mid westerners, many of them isolationists who rallied around bob taft. some of the former president. ironically, the elder haft had precipitated the split with

teddy roosevelt. that never really healed. when republicans took congress, it was the conservatives who became the face of the party. on the other hand, you had people like thomas e. dewey, many of the governors who were much less cost out to the new -- much less how style to the new -- hostile to the new deal, much more willing to work with its promises. >> thomas e. dewey is our contender tonight. he ran, he lost, but he changed history anyway. here he is launching his campaign in 1948 and the criticism he has of the truman administration. >> on january 20, we will enter in a new era. on january 20, there will begin in washington the biggest unraveling, unspiraling operation in our nation's history. [applause]

>> what do you make of what he says there? on snarling? >> that goes to his strength andthomas e. dewey had beenhe had untangled it, unraveled a lot of bureaucratic cobwebs. would see as a hybrid of conservative and liberal ideas to make government more responsive, in some ways to make it smaller. taxes were reduced to make it from the year to the private -- to make it friendlier to the private sector. level. one critical element that sets thomas e. dewey apart his civil rights. he is in the forefront on that issue. new york state is the first state in america to pass anti- discrimination legislation.

it did not meet with universal agreement, even with republicans in new york. >> we are talking about thomas e. dewey's campaign. we will be joined a little bit later by his son, thomas e. dewey, jr. he will be joining in us, taking your questions and comments. you can start dialing in startrichard norton smith. we are working our way back. beginning of the campaign. now. -- it is a reversal of what we see now. withe weren't content

record high employment, but they did not attribute it to harry truman. also, global issues were a huge factor here. one of the things that truman has been criticized in retrospect but at the time was widely praised was running a campaign of national unity in which he tried -- first of all, dewey's political legacy. it is something that began in the 1944 campaign. he supported truman on the airlift to berlin. he supported truman on recognizing the state of israel. at the same time, he wanted to increase the defense budget by $5 billion. there is no doubt he would have been -- he supported the marshall plan, but he would have asked more questions before just turning american tax dollars over two left-wing governments in europe.

it was a campaign that in many ways is what we claim we want in a candidates. it was not hitting below the belt, there were not a lot of possible -- personalities, there were not a lot of name-calling. the critics even then said that it was dull and lacked specifics. >> is that showing up in the polls? in a dewey vs. truman hypothetical? >> the popular notion is that thomas e. dewey drowned in a sea of complacency. he was taken by surprise by what happened in the suite that night. the fact is, he knew. he was the first candidates to -- first national political candidate to have a full-time polling unit as part of his campaign. he listened to the pollsters. he had an appreciation of their art. he was well aware of the fact his lead was slipping. there were people who came to him in the last 10 days of the campaign and he acknowledged that the lead was slipping. to one of them, he said "never

talk when you are ahead." >> what happens next then? are the democrats behind truman? are they solid behind -- >> i will tell you who was solid behind truman. one of the factors behind the loss, they had organized labor -- the republican congress had passed the taft-hartley act. which they saw as an attack on many of the rights and privileges that had developed under the new deal. it put thomas e. dewey in an awkward position. by and large, he agreed with much of the bill. at the same time, he is governor of new york. this is a labor state. this is a liberal state. in some ways, he was walking on a fine line. what it did was organize labor

-- what the taft-hartley act did was energize labor has nothing ever did. 1948 was the single election in which organized labor played the biggest role throughout america. in race after race after race, the democratic ticket ran ahead of harry truman in part because of his relative unpopularity and also because organized labor to a man turned out in record numbers and voted democratic. >> who are the other players in the democratic party at this time? >> you have four candidates in the 1948 election. you have former vice president henry wallace who believes that truman has started the cold war. truman is atune to the -- that truman is insufficiently attune to the possibility of peace with the soviet union. on the foot -- on the far right, you have thurman who walked out of the democratic convention because a young man introduced -- hubert humphrey, introduced and passed pro civil

rights. so the conventional wisdom was, this would hurt truman. he would lose votes on the left, he would lose votes on the right. in fact what it did was, it made harry truman a man in the middle. neither thurman or wallace turned out to have anywhere near the impact it was believed it would have. >> the economy at the time, what is it like? >> the economy is truman's great strength. as i say, record employment. more than that, what he did very shortly in his campaign, he does to thomas e. dewey what he did to the republican congress. the fact of the matter was, a democratic president riding the crest of prosperity in the fall of 1948 could point a finger at the republican congress and in

the fact suggest people. truman was not bashful about doing it. if you return republicans to complete control of the white house and congress, you can expect to see a return to the economic policies that produced the great depression. it was not that long since the great depression. people's memories were very sharp. that came into play without a doubt. >> what about the role of communism? >> it is fascinating. truman had taken some heat for -- dewey had taken some heat for introducing this charge that fdr had inadvertently allowed congress to take root in his administration. in 1948, i think we have a -- i think we have a quick -- ok, the first nationally broadcast presidential debate revolved shall the communist party in america be outlawed? thomas e. dewey takes the civil

libertarian view that, no, it should not be outlawed for reasons he expounded. his opponent took the position that it should be outlawed. it was a turning point. that is also the same year that alger hiss is introduced to the american people, and then we have to figure out how to handle the issue. >> we are going to get to that debate a little bit later coming up. first i want to show our viewers what tom dewey had to say about>> some people jeer at the herring. some people get panicky about it. i do not belong to either of those groups. we must neither ignore or

outlaw them. if we ignore them, we give them the of unity that they want. -- the cloak of immunity that they want. if we all love them, we give -- them the marty down that they the martyrdom that they want even more. we well in the government we get to last january -- we will keep the american people informed or there are, who they are, and what they are up to. did in richard norton smith. >> that is classic dewey. the strongman of the left and right and traveling down the middle of the road for himself. that is very much what his approach was. it raises the fascinating and distinct prospect that had he been elected in 1948, we would have never heard of joe mccarthy. mccarthyism would have never entered the language. senator mccarthy, who was in many ways a product of

republican frustration over losing an election that they thought was a sure thing. tom dewey was a political boss, other things. he controlled the republican party in his state. he would have controlled the republican party nationally. i can tell you, he would have never allowed a joe mccarthy to rear his head. >> we talk some domestic issues issues. >> we are well into the cold war. dewey is supportive of the marshall plan. he supports nato. truman had reorganize the defense department and the war department. to some degree, he had put in footing. dewey is supportive of all that. -- the american economy on a

cold war footing. dooley is supportive of all that. -- dewey support of all that. if anything, he thinks we need to spend more money on defenses. he thinks we have neglected conservative forces. for example, charles de gaulle who is out of power in france. he thinks a creative american diplomacy could put people like that to good use. >> how does he differ from the other prominent republicans in the party at that time? who are they? >> bob taft, mr. republican from ohio, is fair to say he was the champion of the isolationist wing of the republican party. that is to say, the wing was profoundly suspicious of international organizations like the u. n. suspicious of later on the korean war.

suspicious of projecting american military power around the world as opposed to building up a american defenses here at home. former president herbert hoover would have been in that camp as the thomas e. dewey is somebody who had morphed. from a young man, he had been an quasi- isolationist. one of the interesting things is to watch him become a committed internationalists and a champion of bipartisan foreign policy. >> given that, what is the impact of that attitude on all of his presidential bid? he runs in 1940, 1944, 1948. >> i think it was safe to say it was statesmanlike. it did not win him any votes. it obviously did not win in the presidency. in 1944 there was a significant conflict between thomas e. dewey and fdr.

even though he agreed at the idea that politics stops at the water's edge, they disagreed over the united nations. specifically, would the united securing the permission of member states at the united he supported that. thomas e. dooley was not supportive of that. he said later on that history was proven i was right. temper the 1948 campaign? together? >> it was very shrewd on his part to see that as the achilles heel. that republican unity was unity

in name only. to try to almost eliminate dewey and suggest if you vote for this man that we are right to get is bob taft and the midwest conservative republican party. to be fact, dewey did very little. him and taft despise each other. their rivalry is one of the great intellectual contests in his american history. on the scale of jefferson and hamilton. it is about something. it is not just about personal ambition. it is about a different view of the world, different view of government at home, a different view of what the republican party stands for, a different view of what abraham lincoln's legacy is. >> tonight we are coming to you live from the roosevelt hotel here in new york city to talk

about thomas dewey. this is our 14th week of the series. our first phone call is brian in springfield, illinois. go ahead. >> thank you so much for the series. here in springfield. i had a question about 1952. i remember reading about an illinois senator who was a taft supporter and a convention here in chicago. he went up to nominate taft and wag his finger at dewey who said you had led us down the wrong path twice. of course he lost to eisenhower. convincing people to select nixon, and what kind of role that he play in the campaign?

>> he was instrumental in getting eisenhower into the race. i will tell you a story. at this point, eisenhower was over in paris as the commander of nato. he really did not want to leave. he did not want to sully himself by campaigning actively for the nomination. at one point,dewey wrote a letter. no copy exists. his secretary for years told me this story. he writes the letter, she mailed it. in it, dewey says that if you don't come home and actively seek the nomination, my fear is that the delegates will nominate douglas macarthur. that was the ultimate hot button to push with eisenhower. three shortly after the letter was received, he heard the call

of duty and came home. we talk about the split between taft and dewey, it was never more dramatic than that night when he wagged his finger at dewey and said you took us down the road of defeat twice. dewey had the evidence because -- the revenge because the next night he was able to announce 87 delegates for eisenhower. finally, he was more responsible than anyone else for richardhe spotted him as a young talenthe brought into new york to speak at the annual dinner of the republican party. he sat down, he took the cigarette holder out of his mouth. he said, make me a promise. don't get fat. don't be lazy.

some day you can be president. >> we will go back to those moments later on in the show. we will talk about his legacy and what he was able to accomplish even though he was not successful for the white house. first, let's hear from michelle from kansas city, missouri. actually exploit his ties with the organization in kansas city? some of the things they did back -- tender gas did back position he was at. thank you. >> that is a very good question. no, they did not. that was part of dewey's approach which was very consciously to stay away from personal attacks, to keep this thing on a very high plane. some would say vapid, content free. certainly, very little

resemblance to a modern attack campaign. >> let's go back to the primary. we worked our way back, fall campaign, general election. let's go to the primary. set the stage for us. who else is running? >> well, of course, bob taft is running and has a substantial following, not just in the midwest, but throughout the country. harold stassen, who, before he became something of a comical figure, who ran every four years to various levels of disdain, was, in fact, a very formidable candidate. and then you had arthur vandenberg from michigan who reminded a lot of people of the old fred allen character, senator foghorn.

he was the quintessential sort of potbellied and pompous -- but he'd become a statesman. arthur vandenberg had undergone this conversion from isolationist internationalist that tom dewey was to emulate, so you had -- it was a pretty distinguished field and it was by no means a sure thing. one other person who wanted to run although he never formally announced his candidacy, was douglas macarthur who was in the jungles of asia but his agent in wisconsin saw to it that his name was on the ballot and of course, one other candidate, who went to wisconsin, and saw his campaign end there, was the 1940 nominee of the party, wendell wilke. >> let's talk about the impact of the oregon primary and the debate you touched on earlier. why is it important? >> it's important for a number

of reasons. first of all, i'm sure it's on youtube, i'm sure it's easy to get. anyone who is watching what passes for debates at the moment among the republican candidates, or, quite frankly, who has watched the fall "debates" in recent years between the opposing parties, i would just urge you, go and listen to the dewey-stassen debate. it is as close in a modern context to lincoln-douglas as anything could be. it is not a collection of sound on the contrary, it is an opportunity -- i believe it was an hour -- for these two men to develop thoughtful, opposing viewpoints on a very critical and very polarizing issue in america, and to do it in a way

that raised the public standard of discourse as opposed to lowering it. >> there's no such thing as a constitutional right to destroy all constitutional rights. there's no such thing as a freedom to destroy freedom. the right of man to liberty is inherent in the nature of man. to win it, and to maintain it requires courage and sacrifice and it also requires intelligence and realism and determination in the establishment of the laws and the systems of justice to serve mankind. i submit that the communist organization in america and in the freedom loving countries of the world should be outlawed. >> here's an issue of the height moral principle in

practical application. people of this country are asked to outlaw communism. that means this, shall we in america, in order to defeat a totalitarian system which we detest, voluntarily adopt the method of that system? i want the people of the united states to know exactly where i stand on this proposal, because it goes to the very heart of the qualification of any candidate for office and to the inner nature of the kind of a country we want to live in. i am unalterably, wholeheartedly, unswervingly against any scheme to write laws outlawing people because of their religious, political, social or economic ideas. i'm against it because it's a violation of the constitution of the united states and of the

bill of rights, and clearly so. i'm against it because it's immoral and nothing but totalitarianism itself. i'm against it because i know, from a great many years wouldn't work, and, instead, it hot states and all over the world. >> in the immediate sense, it won him the victory in oregon which was absolutely critical. emptive favorite, having been the nominee in 1944, and then early primaries so it all came and the role of ready 0 at that time? >> it was the medium by which

news was disseminated. do we had come to new york in the '20s, not wanting to be an lawyer but an opera singer. what surprises people. you heard his voice. it is a very cultured voice, a very trained voice. some people thought that lack of spontaneity. but it was the one republican voice that on the radio was able to hold the magical franklin roosevelt to something of a draw. >> what if people had seen that debate? >> do we like television? -- dewe like television. y he had become the gangbuster and inspired all these hollywood movies. if you stop to think about it, a

television studio is not terribly dissimilar from a court room. the strength that he had in the courtroom to make his case, to connect, whether with the jury or with the viewers -- here are some of earlier television kinescopes in his first race for governor where he is very effective in front of the camera. i think he probably in retrospect wished that he could ever run the 1948 campaign in front of a camera. >> how did he get the nomination? >> there were several ballots. dewey is the last republican candidate who required more than one ballot to be nominated. there was still determined opposition led by a senator taft. and also harold stassen who made

a name for himself as the boy governor of minnesota when he was in his 30's. a real prodigy. of course the real profitdewey it took, i think, three pratt -- three ballots. danny had to pick a vice president. he won an earl warren. warren would not agree. to unify the party, he picked the governor of ohio, taft's friend, fellow conservative, a man named john berger. -- bricker. >> he was a reasonably young man in 1923, and was influential and

eisenhower running. was he offered and job by a eisenhower? >> that is a great question. there is some debate over a period i believe the was informally approach, shall we put it? about the supreme court. when you stop to think about it, nothing else makes sense except for secretary of state, and there he would have the next best thing, maybe better. his longtime political ally, john foster dulles. also, the extent to which he brought to the american political process a whole generation of very talented people. but eisenhower and richard nixon are the most obvious. but there are a whole host of people who would remain -- some here in new york, but others,

tim hagerty was the white house press secretary, to this day regarded the best. the attorney general under eisenhower, his campaign manager. the list was a long run. >> richmond, va., you are next. >> this was the first presidential election my mother had voted in, a lifelong republican. she told me that he found -- she found on a trackd to becomeewe as myy stash. -- she found dewey unattractive

because of his mustache. >> his appearances at revealing and a number of ways. i think today he would be in despair of the handlers. he could not be handled. they're people throughout his career he would say, if you would shave off that mustache and get your teeth fixed -- he had a couple of missing teeth from a high school football scrimmage -- well, he kept the moustache and the teeth -- or the non-teeth, for a very simple reason. his wife liked him the way that he was. but there were times when people in print compared his appearance to charlie chaplin or at of hitler. little brown moustaches then

were not a terribly politically potent weapon. >> let me give you look at than -- at the convention in philadelphia when he accepts the nomination for president from his partner. >> there's been spirited disagreement and i believe considerable argument. but do not let anyone be misled by that. you have given here in this hall a moving and dramatic proof of how americans who honestly differ can move forward for the nation's well-being shoulder to shoulder. [applause] let me assure you that beginning

next january 20 a, there will be team work and the government of the united states of america. when these rights are secured, this world of ours, a permanent ideals of the republican party shall be realized. [applause] the ideals of the american people are the ideals of the republican party. we have tonight and and then places that preceded us, in philadelphia, right here in the beginning in this cradle of our own independence as a great america. we have alighted begin to give eternal hope that man may live in liberty with human dignity and before god and a loving him

stand erect and free. [applause] >> accepting the gop nomination at the convention in philadelphia in 1948. we're coming to you live this evening from the roosevelt hotel where he in 1948 was here with his family and close aides to watch and listen for the election results to come in. joining us is his son. take this back to the 1948 convention. were you there? >> know. >> what you think it meant to him to win that nomination? but in 1944 and 1948? >> digg he wanted in 1944?

>> he did not talk about who what it won and who was going to do what. we were teenagers in school. of parents, neither of them were particularly forthcoming about one in that or we will not do that. you just went for it and did what you are supposed to do or what you thought you were supposed to do. >> what were you supposed to do in 1948? what was your role? >> student at albany academy. >> did you participate it all? were you out on the campaign trail led all posing for pictures? >> no, no, and no. >> if why not? >> we were at school. that was our job. hill is job was governor and politics. we were kids. >> what to talk about around the

dinner table? >> not much memory there. it was more about what we were doing. we did not really talk about what was going on in the campaign in that kind of thing. >> it was not a household suffused with politics. >> it was not. >> even after he lost in 1948 and 1944, did he ever talk to you about politics? >> he was not very reflective about that. >> what about your mother? what you remember her telling you about politics? >> no memory of that. >> do you have the memories of the campaign in 1948? >> not really, no. >> were you here in 1948? >> yes. we were watching returns, being

sent to bed. [laughter] it was relatively early in the morning, i remember dad coming into the bedroom where john and i were in his bathrobe and saying, well, we lost. and that was that. >> did not talk about it after that. just said we lost. >> yes. something think it is that he carried with him, of all and chain the rest of his life? or was he someone that moved on and that was that? >> ball and chain, know. i do not think he ever thought that was something he could've done differently. he did, but we did not hear

that. he went on doing his job as governor of new york until -- fully hoping to retire in 1950 which is to defend when the koreans went to war he felt impelled to take what from years out of what would have been a very good legal practice and run for another term to make sure that he could hold his republican coalition of mostly governors in the northeast to gather to get a non-taft candidate in 1952, which he thought was necessary to get the presidency. >> consistent with what you say, one thing that might surprise people is that your dad in his early days never thought of himself as embarking upon a political career.

when he first came to new yor of frenchk, ask him what he wanted to do in life. he said he wanted to make a lot of money. he did, but there was this thing in the wake of politics. >> 24 years. >> what kind of man was your father? >> in what respect? >> what was his style like? how would you describe him? >> it might surprise people. the images have come with the little man on the wedding cake and the stereotypes by large because of what happened in 1948. if you were to walk again that door, what would it be like to be around him? >> it is the type that i think

-- i am not sure that we see it anymore. he came from a small town in michigan. his father had died, as you know. quite very early in life. he had a very strong mother and he emerged from michigan with what used to be called the protestant ethic and those ideals. and they never change. >> was a workaholic? >> he was that. he was that. he liked his golf game and he loved his farm, but he was taken on to do four are five different jobs, and each one he did well enough so that the next one came along. >> i guarantee a lot of people do not know that in 1937, after his success with breaking up their rackets of new york, john

foster dulles tried to hire him for $150,000 a year. >> $100,000 a year is the number of remember. >> in any event, a lot of money. he was literally drafted to run for district attorney of new york county for the grand sum of $20,000 a year. >> we will get to the rise of your father and how he came to national prominence. richard, given what he has said about his father, take that and describe for us his campaign style. >> well, it deferred, frankly. it is interesting -- for someone who has been often caricatured, he is actually much more dynamic as a campaigner. when he ran for district attorney in new york county, for example, it is one county and

there were people all over the burrow of new york city who wanted to vote for him. well, he was not on their ballot. he had electrified this city with his exploits, taking on the rackets. because new york, even more than that now, was the heart of american communications. you had the loose press and obviously the radio networks. to become a phenomenon in new york mental potentially a national phenomenon. he was the inspiration -- i don't know if you saw the movies, but hollywood was cranking out a movie at a we get one point in the late 1930's, inspired by his exploits. in 1939, 37 years old, that district attorney of new york county is leading franklin roosevelt and the gallup poll by

16 points. in a mythical matchup. it is hard to imagine. it went beyond hero worship. i cannot think of anyone cents. lindbergh and his own way and in his own sphere had that kind of universal appeal. but your dad is still, i think, a unique figure. some people compare rudy giuliani as a prosecutor to your dad. >> rudy does. [laughter] >> i was going ask you what you thought of that conspiracy? >> let's leave that. there was an aesthetic there. a good baritone voice, and of course that theatrics, which was

perhaps, certainly was a revolution against the excesses of the 1920's, still very much in memory at that point. >> sure. >> against the continuing mob scene headquarters in many respects in new york. >> and the alliance between the mob and the political machines. that is what people often mess. there was a relationship of mutual defendant -- dependence that probably grew out of prohibition. as a boy in michigan, your father had put into his head by his father that tammany hall present -- represented all label. to to the predicted? one thing about your dad, which was clear -- when you're caught

father and his best friend, would have been secretary of the treasury in the administration, when he left the administration to make some money, his counsel came to him looking for the letters that have been brought up. he said that these are all wrong. they are too formal and no intimacy here. your dad says something to him that was so revealing. i'm not one to display my emotions in a row -- in public. jim and i was not privy to that of that surprises me not at all. >> there is a type of integrity that but there is also political limitations. >> yes. >> we need to go ahead to

election night 1948. we want to talk about his national prominence coming up. what happens, what are the results? >> truman is reelected by 2 million votes. 303-189 in the electoral college. if you look at the math in 1948, it was a real resemblance to today. swept the east,dewe he losty the farm belt. he always said when people ask him to explain 1948, he said, you can analyze the results from here date kingdom, but the farm vote changed in the last 10 days. truman did carry several southern states. urmond several southern

states. a minor factor but the nbc studios had hooked up by huge model of the white house and they had interestingly enough a parade of people ready to go through as soon as the formalities were observed and your dad was proclaimed the winner. they had republican elephants, but no one that ought to get democratic doggies. that is what the media is expected that night. >> our guest this evening as we take your calls live from the roosevelt hall in new york city. we're talking about his bid for

the presidency in 1944 and 1948. our next is about his rise to power, his national prominence. part of that is his role as a prosecutor. here is from his 19 -- his bid to become district attorney in new york. >> yet been given the most difficult tasks but an opportunity to be a great help to the people of the city. what can we do for you? >> i need a small squad of detectives who will go to work on this job as they never had before. who will note that the mayor and the commissioner are behind them consistently, all the time. >> every gangster is watching this. >> here is the field orders to the men.

>> would crack new york detectives, it was skillfully directed. mob after ma was taken by surprise. in the underworld was rounded up. >> we have made a real start. for 20 years, the underworld has preyed on our people and then robbed them and then frightened them into silence. now, the day of fear of the gangster is coming to an end. >> how does he become a prosecutor? >> well, he went to the university of michigan. he loved music. that is a lifelong love. he was surrounded by music growing up. that is where he met his wife as well. she had a love of music.

eventually he settled on the law and wound up working as assistant u.s. attorney. a man named george medali who all in thoroughness. about him as a work alcoholic. in one of the early cases, i mean, he had his men go over 100 -- they traced 100,000 telephone calls and 200 bank slips in order to get a boot lerg name waxy portman proprietor of the eureka company in many ways symbolic of this alliance between corrupt -- well, prohibition-defying elements and the government, local government. >> so i want to get to a phone call here. but i want to go through some

names. dutch schultz. >> well, dutch schultz -- you had portman at the bottom. schultz took away gordon's empire which was largely based on alcohol. but not only alcohol. there was something called policy, the numbers game. and it was gambling for the masses. and again, this helps explains dewey's appeal across the demographic range because millions up in harlem in particular -- millions of poor people were being taken advantage of in this game. the money was falling to the under world. doug schultz was making $20,000 a day. >> lucky luciano. >> he was the significant step above. doug schultz decided that he would assassinate tom's dad when he got too great and

actually the underworld decided that was a step too far and before dutch and could carry out his plan, mr. luciano took care of dutch. >> the impact of this to your your family? >> well, sure. >> what was it like? did you know about it? >> no. i'm three years older than john. what's happening here in 1936, 1937, i'm 4 or maybe 5. and they -- being the people that they were they would not share that with us. >> what would tell you about that time? >> no. well, there was illusion to it.

but one found out for oneself. >> what did you find out about that, tommy? what were they doing or others doing to try to protect your dad and your family? >> well, he had 24/7 protection and the card, a detective and a driver. i think it was later, the only incident that we did find out about was the missed opportunity to kill him. he had -- he went across the street 96th street where we live to have breakfast every morning and doug schultz had arranged to have the boys there on a morning. and it would have been curtains, except that day he got up early and went to the office so they missed it. and shortly there after, the boys took care of doug schultz. >> do you think you weren't aware of it because your dad didn't let him bother him? just kept to his routine? was that his personality? >> yes. >> he just went forward? >> right. anit is said -- it's maybe

exaggeration. i remember doing research for the book that your dad had developed a habit at that point in his life quite understandably that he maintained in his life. when he was in a restaurant, he would sit with his back to the wall. >> always. always. >> you remember that? >> yes. yes. i don't go back to, you know -- >> sure. >> to the 30's. but every time we went somewhere, you know, and later years, it was always back to the wall. >> let's get to a phone call. august has been waiting for us patiently. august, go ahead. >> oh, gosh. it's an amazing story because in 1948 my family moved up to duchess county in new york. during that time i was going to school. after school, i used to work

with governor dewey on his farm on reservoir road and it was amazing because his farm was probably one of the first farms that came up with automatic milking machines. mrs. dewey had a beautiful garden that she maintained for many years. i remember he had his own personal guard house in front of his mansion. and in 19 -- i think it was 64, 65, their barn burned down. they had a terrific fire, unbelievable. and i worked for little thomas ed mur row on all those farms up there in new york. it was amazing. those farms were so large and so big, they had to raise crops of corn and we bailed hay and it was amazing. it's amazing that i was listening to this program and couldn't believe it, that i'm sitting here, i'm 68 years old and i worked on his farm bailing hay and farming. >> thanks, august.

let's talk about the farm. your father ran in 1930 for governor. he loses and then buys the farm, the caller was talking about. he made a name for himself at this point. decides to run for governor. why, richard norton? >> i could always expect attribute that to his youth. he had come from a farming environment. in fact, during world war i he was too young to enlist an he worked on a farm in the owasso area. my sense is and you thought much better that he was very happy being a dairy farmer. it was a side of him that probably would surprise the public. i'm not sure that your mother was wild about it. i'm not sure you were wild about living there. >> what was it like? >> well, we were given a choice and i guess to some extent she wasn't either.

i remember he was very pleased as the caller had said very pleased to have the early stage milking machines because i remember the period before that, i mean, we -- in the very beginning when we first, i think, we rented in 1937 and then bought in 1938. i mean, people would be horrified today. we were drinking unpasteurized milk because that's one did on a farm. and then of course, when he became governor, that guard house was insisted on by the state police down there by the entrance. but, you have -- you have a very good memory of all that, except i would not put ed murrow

and ed thomas in the same category as farmers. they were people who had some land but they were basically broadcasters and they were there for-weeks. >> the caller refer to a man shed -- >> that had a mortgage on it for a very long time. >> which one? >> the house at dapplebeer. >> it wasn't a very big one but it did get paid off. >> why was it so important to your father? >> i have no idea. he just loved farming. this was his number one farming. >> what was the significant of this area where he buys the farm? >> duchess farm is just gorgeous. a little bit of historical footnote. 1934 is the only election where both candidates come from the same county. >> john, you are on the air. john in eugene -- >> hello? >> we're listening, john, go ahead. >> hello. thanks. this is a great series, c-span. i've really ben enjoying it. quick comment and then question. professor smith, i always enjoy hearing you.

i learn a lot. i must correct you on one thing. over here we pronounce it oregon not ore-gone. second question. could you comment on the republican race for in 1944? was there a race in the campaign itself particularly from the republican side? thank you. >> well, there was a race in 1944 which is interesting because frankly, i don't think -- i'm not sure governor dewey thought the nomination was necessarily worth all that much. certainly he wanted a second

shot at the presidency. general macarthur's admirers an we have reason to believe that he would like to have been nominated. flirted with it for a while. but he went john bricker who we already mentioned to sort of run. it was in some ways a half hearted contest. governor dewey did not announce his candidacy, i think until the last minute. it was a quasi draft and it's an unusual year because it's wartime. and the great issue -- anyone who won the republican nomination would have a challenge. it's not just because you're running toward this formidable wartime commander in the middle of the war but you don't know

when the war was going to end. and the dewey appeal was that if america was at piece in 1945, it was believed that he would have a much stronger electoral taste than if the country would be at war. >> good evening. thank you very having me. i want to comment richard norton smith for preserving the history which is so important to america. they both do a great job. and in regards to mr. dewey, his passion with music from michigan, richard dreyfuss says in mr. holland's opus. music is not about notes on a page, it's about having fun and passion. that's what dewey had a lot of passion which is missing today. today it's texting. nobody communicates and i think we're losing. we're losing that.

and what mr. norton's doing god bless him. you know, i work with governor rockefeller and i met him being in politics and part of that and also the history of the roosevelt hotel is important. i was fortunate enough to work with phil and tony who did the

bully french connection, and we shot a scene from the 7-ups in that hotel. and i was in that hotel, you felt a part of history. and the waldorf astoria had a train that teddy roosevelt would have come in because he was in a wheelchair, they didn't want to photograph him. so you're all doing a great job. and god bless dewey for what he did because those are the times when people were close. it was an intimate looking situation. today people are tweeting and it's very distant. and we in the baby boomer generation, we have a sense of stories, great stories. the next generation, they don't even know -- they can't even converse with you sometimes. so again -- >> all right. we're going to leave it there. we're going off on another area. >> how important was music in your parent's household? >> well, dad came to new york to go to law school. my mother came to new york to study singing having won a contest in oklahoma where she came from. they met at the studio where they both studied. dad also supplemented whatever -- he didn't have any income, i guess. we supplemented by singing in synagogues and churches, etc. of course, my mother went on stage singing. i would say it was very important then and it diminished for both of them. >> really? >> well, they -- they were great opera fans and they had the box at the metropolitan opera which i still have. and they enjoyed the opera very much. i don't think they went to the symphony very much in their

later years. while it was extremely important of getting them together, i think it wasn't all consuming later on. >> were there big theater goers? >> fair. not terribly. >> thomas e. dewey is our contender. he ran in 1944 and 1948. he also ran in 1940. we want to show you the campaign announcement in 1939. >> i think i'm confident and that of my associates in the republican party in the state of new york. i appreciate your support. i shall be glad to lead the fight.

>> that was tommy dewey and his campaign announcement in 1939, goes on to run for governor again in 1942 and wins. why did he decide to run? >> one thing that should be mentioned about 1940, he made history in 1940. he had the first female campaign manager that year, a woman named ruth anna mccormick simms. her father was mark hannah, no mean political operative himself, but it was -- it's revealing -- you mentioned him singing in synagogues. one of the things that he did when he was -- in his legal career particularly the racket days when he put out sort of a -- tough inside. 20% of the lawyers were applied at a time when the old law firms didn't necessarily hire jews. i mean, that's one revealing aspect.

>> and let's take a little bit more about his record. he runs more with governor in 1942. what does he do if that position? >> oh, gosh. i would call governor dewey a liberal. he used to say that before there was government, there was mayhem. and government rose to meet man's needs. and in the modern industrial society that we live in, that means as much economic security as is consistent with individual freedom. so it was that constant balance. in terms of the operation, he cleaned up the cobwebs in albany. albany had been run by one party for 20 years. there was waste and fraud and abuse. but in a more creative way, he cut taxes every year he was governor. >> an his record on civil rights? >> he was out in front. new york stated that because of governor dewey passed the first anti-discrimination legislation

at the state level in america, it was to be in discrimination or for racial reasons in employment. >> los angeles is next. joe? >> i want to say that i really enjoy his books and how he speaks on tv. my question is about polling. i had heard during the 1948 election and i don't know if dewey was the first one to actually hire pollsters. but one of the reasons that the polls were wrong is that sample with people on cars, that people had drivers licenses and that led to a wrong result about what the election was going to be. i just want to get more information about that. >> that's a fascinating question.

one of tom dewey's best friends was george gallow. it was a personal friendship. but there's no doubt. dewey was fascinated by the science of polling and that's how he regarded it. the big problem in 1948, i think is that they stopped polling. they stopped, even the late polls which by the way, show. i mean if you look at the race they're anywhere from a 5.3 to in one case a 9.3. it's not the kind of overwhelming cut-dry that one would believe. but the demographic issue is legitimate. in 1936 the reason that the famous literary digest went out of business is it predicted landon would beat franklin roosevelt. in america in 1936, the people who did not have telephones were likely to vote for f.d.r. >> david in sioux city, iowa. >> first time caller for me. so i'm a little bit nervous

here. he knew everything about law. when the radical president -- you have all these other issues like helping the poor, that kind of thing. what were his strengths and what is his worry? what was he lacking and needed a little bit of help? thank you. >> what were his vulnerabilities? >> oh, i think curiously the flip side of his traits there were a lot of republicans. there were a lot of conservative republicans who never forgave him for being a new yorker. i mean, new yorker's has been the city that people love to hate or at the very least like to misrepresent. >> hold on. would you father consider himself a new yorker? >> oh, he did, absolutely.

>> he did? >> yeah. that was back in the days and i did get this from my parents. that so many of the people at the time in commerce and in other areas in new york were transplants from somewhere else as they both were. and they thought that that did not bar them from being real new yorkers. i think there was a cultural divide in some ways which is still with us in some senses. at 44, he had a difficult different situation. the 8000-pound gorilla was to ensure of his health. we now know that f.d.r. was dying in the fall of 1944.

but it was not something that you could possibly touch. and the other was the award with pearl harbor and there's speculation as to what if anything the president might have known? and i i think your dad would have some fairly good views on the subject. >> that's correct. well, there was -- not ironclad but presumptive proof that we have broken the japanese code before pearl harbor and did nothing about it. and that was once spread at the time and in fact, i think in the book roosevelt set the colonel up from washington to see him during the company. he said i just you're not going to mention this because there are police who use the same code which is and cost lives. he sucked it up and never did mention. >> but, it is a logical assumption that general marshall would not have acted on his own. >> that's my assumption.

>> james, in los angeles? >> yeah, i'm a -- i was 20 in 1947 and a top secret technician in carswell what i'm commenting on is dewey was way ahead in the polls and he ran the dumbest campaign i've ever seen. he was -- he didn't attack truman and he ran as if he was already president. he started a blockade. pearl harbor is being set up by roosevelt. then he just acted like he was going to win. he didn't attack. truman was broke. and he recognized israel and they gave him $100,000 for his company.

dewey should have been a shoe in but he had the worse company in the history of american presidents that he probably did good in new york. >> richard norton, thank you. >> i've thought that he was a better governor than a president. >> why? >> it is universally recognized today with al smith. >> recognized as what? >> as one of the absolutely finest governors in a state who has had a history in gubernatorial leadership. one of the first people who invited up to albany was, a l smith who had a fallen out between f.d.r.

and the two couldn't be more different and yet they just absolutely clicked. yet, the reporter said to al smith. he said there's only one thing wrong with that guy, he's a republican. they were great administrators who were what i call practical liberals operating within a balanced budget within the taxpayer and a productive private company. and what does that do for the republican at the time? >> well, it made new york one of the most watched in the country. they gave us al smith. they gave us the new deal. the man who had appointed him the gang buster somewhat relatively earlier.

herbert lehman was very disturbed and popular governor who because huge favorite to win another term. it's a tribute to the campaign, the excitement that dewey created that he won by 1%. four years later, there was no doubt that you know due bi-would win. he's the first republican in 20 years. and he went on to build an organization some might call a machine. but it was an odd organization. it was a good government. if you can imagine such a thing. >> john in -- >> go ahead. >> i'm not sure that i would -- organization, yes. machine, no because it didn't outlive him.

>> you're right, machine didn't outlive him but machines can be personal rather than ideological or enduring for that matter. >> like the subject of your next book. \[laughter] >> yes. he appreciates that plug. >> let's hear from john from crown point, indiana. >> yes, during the 1944 campaign, tom dewey delivered, i think one of his best speeches of his career in oklahoma city. he really took off the gloves and hit roosevelt. now prior to that he delivered what i call 1948 type of speeches where he talked about home, mother and god and the american flag. but after that oklahoma city

speech, i think that convinced most republicans they had a chance to beat him. i wonder if he had the effect it had on the republican party in 1944? >> thank you. >> that speech reverberated in ways that no one could imagine at the time. there had been -- remember the famous speech in d.c. someone said there was a contest between their dog and coat. he was running under this campaign. we go get into this. he brought everything together. all of the allegations of new deal, incompetence, new deal. economic failure. on and on and on. >> this is in late september, about a month before the election 1944. i think a lot of republicans at that point were close to despair. they -- he gave the speech. the campaign was broke.

dewey and his friends raised $27,000 in order to put together a national radio network. he delivered the speech. it was galvanizing. a pole of 40 newspaper correspondents, 23 of them had come out of roosevelt. he had the league change. but the irony is, he later decided and he said, the most important thing of this speech. if you want one reason why, he ran in 1948. he told a friend that was the worst speech i ever did.

>> he didn't want to be the prosecutor. i mean, i think there was some element that he didn't want to be elected as, you know, as the honest cop. i mean, he wanted to be more than that. and it was something about that speech. and i it's hard to believe that your mother also thought that it was some how a departure in terms of dignity and the respect that you show the office, effort, effort, effort. did you sense that tension at all? >> first of all, i was not 12 yet. so i've heard no personal knowledge. that would have been reduced. >> where did that view, from? >> i think she and his brother abbas agreed on practically everything, but they know both had a strong sense of you had to be dignified in what ever you are doing. don't demean yourself by attacking the other guy. not necessarily smart in

politics, but they were who they were. >> let's show a moment from tom dewey criticizing the new deal. >> the record of this administration as one chapter of that failure. but still, we agree that the new deal is a failure at home, but its foreign policies are very good. let me ask you, can an administration which is so disunited and unsuccessful at home be any better abroad? can an administration which is filled with fighting and that fighting were we can see it be any better abroad where we cannot see it? these things we pledged to you. an administration and which you will not have to support the three men to do one man's job.

[applause] an administration which will root out waste can bring order out of present chaos. an administration which will give the people of this country receipts to the taxes they all paid. an administration free from the influence of communists and corrupt big city machines. an administration that will devote itself to the single- minded purpose of jobs and opportunity for all. [applause] >> richard norton smith, we are in the 1944 campaign, how does he positioned himself to take on fdr and truman?

>> is really a question that he cannot answer as to what the status of the war will be. there is no doubt that he ran against fdr and what he called the tired old man. i think it was as close as you can get to raising a health issue. there was a sense of intellectual exhaustion after 12 years. what dewey represented was youth and the vigor and energy. in a way that john kennedy symbolically represented more than a turning of the page from the oldest president to the youngest president. he had the same quality in 1944. he could point to his record in the new york. he had not gutted the social programs that people had come to expect. he made them work better and

cut taxes at the same time. >> who was his vice president pick? >> a fellow governor from ohio. he had bad luck with running mates. you might know better than i. >> no. >> what are the results of the 1944 election? >> he came closer than anybody else. of the four people ran against franklin roosevelt, he came by a considerable at about closer. he won 99 electoral votes. the shift of 300,000 votes in the right states would have actually given dewey a majority

in the electoral college. it was the closest race since 1916. >> hi. i was wondering. you were talking about earl warren, i think i am right about this. he was the governor of california. if dewey had won california, which i think he may be had lost to truman by a few votes, would dewey had swung the election or would he have one? >> the answer is no. you are right, he came within 18,000 votes. it was close in california. california was much smaller in 1948 and it is today. an alternate theory can be argued that the man who thought he was going to be governor dewey's running mate, a republican leader in the house

from indiana who served in that role until 1964, charlie hallock was a representative of the farm belt. it can be theorized that if there had been somebody on the ticket who was a sensitive as hallock was to the unhappiness of the farmers that perhaps some things might have been done differently. who knows? >> let's go back to the 1944 campaign. he loses. he makes a concession speech. >> it is clear that mr. roosevelt has been reelected for a fourth term. every good a american will wholeheartedly accept the will of the people. i extend it to president roosevelt my hearty congratulations and my earnest hope that his next term will be

speedy victory in the war, the establishment of lasting peace, and the restoration of tranquillity among our people. i am confident that all americans will join me in a devout hope that in the difficult years ahead, divine providence will guide and protect the president of the united states. >> when does he make this speech? >> he made it the day after. there was some grumbling up in hyde park that he had not gotten the concession on election night. he says to an aide, fdr had worked himself up into a lather over your dad. i am sure everybody that was for president fred out their opponent has hidden defects. i think it was personal in this case. anyway, the last word on

election night before fdr goes to bed was, i still think he is an old son of a bitch. did your dad talk about roosevelt? >> no. >> ever? >> no. >> that is fascinating. >> just another example of turning a page. he is not tomorrow to talk concerned. >> it is not that it was a painful chapter that he did not want to revisit, it is just -- >> if there was pain, we did not see it. >> or talk about it? >> you cannot talk about it unless you saw it. you are back to his mother and his wife. >> can i ask you one quick -- i was told by somebody who was at the law firm. it's almost too cruel to be true.

one year he went to the christmas party -- one year for some reason -- the band played "hail to the chief." the story is he turned around and did not go back to another firm christmas party. is that possible? >> it sounds out of character and impossible. >> why does it sound out of character? >> had the band -- remember this was his law firm. had the band done that, i think he would have gone on, he would not have walked out. you forgot earlier his major walkout in the 1956 convention after dirksen had dismissed him. he was introduced to give a speech.

he got up and walk all the way down the aisle and out of the auditorium. gone. take that. >> i think he had been waiting for years to take that walk. >> he did say that. >> it must have been very gratifying. >> he is referring to the law firm that his father was partner of after his political career was over. he was a partner in a law firm here in new york. what about the role in that? >> the law was something he wanted to do. politics was a detour. i think the idea of really creating or recreating a firm -- i guess he did not found it.

he remade it. >> it was an old firm which he joined and became dewey- valentine. they had about 90 lawyers when he joined in 1955. he attracted many of the big companies in the united states, foreign governments. when he died prematurely in 1971, it had 300 lawyers. >> let's get to a phone call. >> mr. smith, talking to hank who is the biographer, he has said that charlie was under the belief in feet through support behind mr. dewey, he would be the running mate in 1948. when that did not happen, it

may be the only regret he had politically was with dewey -- >> you are breaking up a little bit. i think we lost paul. do you want to take that? >> i heard the same story. there is no doubt that he thought he was double cross. people hear what they want to hear. there is no doubt that hallock the lead going into that convention that he had an understanding with the dewey forces that he would be on the ticket. >> hi. the disney character dewey was named after thomas e. dewey. how did he feel about that? >> i did not hear that.

i apologize i did not hear the question. let's move on to cheryl in bakersfield, california. >> i have been calling the series. the one thing that comes to my mind is, what was his relationship with the tammany hall people in the new york city during that time? my mother comes from brooklyn. my father was a californian. it is amazing they always split their votes in the 1950's and 1960's when i was growing up. my father change to republican when he ran in 1948. thank you. >> you might say tammany hall was the making of tom dewey in some way. he had it drummed into his head at tammany hall was the epitome of political and civic evil. he would spend a significant part of his public career

demonstrating the truth of that. >> hello. my name is adam and i am a college student. i actually read part of the book that mr. norton wrote about dewey. i was just wondering -- what did dewey think about his chances of going into the 1948 campaign about winning the race? i know that dewey was supposed to win that race. maybe mr. smith can talk about what were his prospects about winning the 1948 campaign against roosevelt. >> now the 1948 campaign against truman -- i think the 1944 campaign i am not sure he ever really expected to win. i think he expected to win four years later. again, as we talked a little

bit earlier, he was not a complacent figure sitting unquestionably on his lead that you might think from some of the textbook accounts. he was very confident of the fact that public opinion was a dynamic thing. he sensed slippage in the last few days of the campaign. i think he felt he was almost trapped. he had a strategy that brought him this far. there was no reason to believe it would not carry him across the finish line first. >> as thomas e. dooley, jr., told us tonight, his father turned the page and moved on. he goes on to still play a role in party politics. what is it? what is the influence? >> imagine being an older statesmen in '46. that is something. he remains governor of new york

for another six years. he wanted to retire. he wanted to get on that business of creating a great law firm. but the great work came along and the party had no one else. he was nominated, he ran again. he was reelected. he was very glad to leave at four years later. in between you have an extraordinary show of political strength. i don't think anybody would have predicted where he and his organization -- his national organization at really puts dwight eisenhower over the top, write a platform to the liking of the moderates in the republican party. he brings richard nixon on to the national scene at the age of 39. i would have thought your dad saw some of his younger self in

young richard nixon. they had some temperamental similarities. >> they did. i think it is easy to say that geography had a lot to do with it just as it did with earl warren in 1948. it is also important that you mollify the taft wing of the party. while they are not selecting somebody from the taft wing, nixon was seen as the closest possible guy. i was there when my dad said, there is your vice-president to eisenhower. >> where were you? >> i was at the convention. i was opening doors and carrying the notes as a college sophomore should do. i know that is what happened. i don't know if it was a temperamental likeness or if it

was getting the taft wing on board. geographical balance was a big thing back then. >> what your dad used to say, at the end of his life he said, everything came to rule for me. he always like to surround himself of people who he said careers were ahead of them. the fact that nixon was 39 years old was a way of not only mollifying the taft wing of the party but projecting into the future. >> he is successful at keeping the taft wing at bay? >> yes. senator taft unfortunately died at the very early part of the eisenhower administration. it was very touching to see him

go to the hospital. he slips into visit taft. it must've been a surreal final meeting in the hospital. i would have loved to be a fly on the wall. >> the you know anything about that meeting? >> no. >> let's hear from bob next. >> good evening. what did governor dewey think of governor rockefeller as the inherit tour of the east republicanism? >> i will defer it to tom who was there. >> you go first. >> there is some debate on that in the book i am working on. i have not quite made up my mind. tom dewey was much more of a fiscal conservative and nelson rockefeller was. there was a meeting to work the end of his life for they are at a party.

dewey says, you know, i like you. i am not sure i can afford you. dewey's approach to government was much more fiscally orthodox. he hated debt. nelson was less restrictive in that regard. >> that is a very nice way of saying that. as far as the nixon vs. rockefeller, that did not attended the convention because the rockefellers going way back had been a baby his largest campaign contributors, they worked hard for him. there were good friends. my take from that was he thought the party should be nominating richard nixon in 1968.

he was not going to get involved. >> it has also been suggested that, quite frankly, his law firm -- he had reasons not to alienate nelson rockefeller. >> i don't know if it had anything to do with the law firm. they were never the rockefellers' law firm. i don't think there were economic reasons. i think by that time, he felt uncomfortable with the amount of money that nelson rockefeller had been sent. >> let's hear from debbie. she had been waiting. >> i have a very interesting subject to talk about. sarah palin and a tod palin and i have been conversing on sessions on the internet facebook. since the occupy wall street has started -- [unintelligible]

>> debbie can you relate this to our topic tonight? what is your topic about tom dewey. >> my question is why haven't democrats put somebody else at office and sent barack obama back to africa? >> all right. let's go to pennsylvania. >> in 1944, i am a world war ii veteran. i still have a good brain. but i still remember things. i feel like 1944 it was roosevelt's time. i think dewey was a very smart person. they just wanted to keep him an office because they were at a

board. i think if they were not in war, dewey would have won hands down. >> that is exactly as i said earlier. that was the conundrum. you could not know. it is interesting that that comment all these years later reflects what dewey believed. the strategy was that in a peacetime environment, as grateful as people were to fdr, they would have been willing to turn a page and embark on a different kind of domestic policy. >> let's go to bill. >> good evening. i am residing in virginia now. as a youngster about 13 or 14 years old, i grew up about 3 miles come governor dewey's farm. i had an occasion on more than one time to caddy for the

governor of quaker hill golf course. on one particular time, i remember after the afternoon was getting late and his golf partners lowell thomas, judge murphy from new york city, edward r. murrow, they wanted to continue playing at the park. they asked me to caddy. it was getting late in the day. i said that i am about 8 miles away. i need a ride when we are through. one gentleman spoke up and said, don't worry, i will take you. when they finished, that man got in his car left and i was stranded there. governor dewey saw to it that i had a ride back to the village. i would never forget that. i was very grateful for him.

>> that was bill and new york. mike, staten island, new york. >> had mr. dewey won the 1944 election, what would be his policy as far as ending the war? >> 1944 did he say? ok. >> i think it is a fair question. if you look at the calendar and you see where the armies were in january of 1945, i think at that point announcing defeat was only a question of time. how dewey might have conducted diplomacy differently if it had been him meeting churchill and stalin -- >> what about the atomic bomb? do you think dewey would have done that?

>> it is hard for me to believe that any president after we had spent $2 billion to do this thing -- knowing that if he did not use the bomb and if the war or prolonged, quite frankly it might be subject to impeachment. what was the point of -- i think in the retrospective argument over troop and whether it was moral to use the bomb, it is hard to believe any american president not taking advantage of the opportunity to end the war at the bomb represented. i cannot imagine tom dewey would have -- >> on your earlier comment. dad was bitterly critical for years after about giving away all of those people in eastern european countries into the slavery of the soviet communism. he was consistent on that

subject. >> i would give anything to see your dad sitting across the table from joseph stalin. somebody who had prosecuted gangsters all of his life. >> let's try to get a couple more phone calls and hear as we wrap up tonight's "the contenders." >> thank you very much for this wonderful program, part of a wonderful series. historically toward the end we did get back to the question of foreign affairs. my question has to deal with professor smith's reference to his role of an adviser in for policy at what the relation between the two was and what that had to do with dulles becoming the secretary of state in the cabinet. >> i think you are absolutely right. they all fit together. the relationship was a uniquely

close one. intellectually substantive. at one point, your dad appointed him to the united states senate seat which he was unable to hold onto in the election. there is no doubt that john foster dulles became dwight eisenhower's secretary of state as an of growth of the long record of association of creative foreign-policy position he had had with tom dewey. >> he may be the most senior of dad's group of advisers that went to washington. he mentioned tom stephens, there were quite a number of them. >> one of governor dewey's great innovations was the new york state freeway.

it probably did more for new york city's economic development than everything since. the man who built the freeway was burt ptolemy. he went on to build the interstate highway system under dwight eisenhower. >> i want to throw out a couple of names as we finish here. >> one of the many of surprising aspects of a surprising life. in 1964, dewey was at the white house. lbj wanted to get him to chair a national crime commission. in any event, he backed off of that. he pointed out to lbj, if you look at the schedule of your convention in atlantic city? he was meeting with marvin watson who was the president's top aide. anyway, there was a day set aside as a tribute to kennedy.

it was up front. dewey pointed out that if this happens, jackie will be there, teddy, and the entire family. there will be an emotional -- before you know it, bobby kennedy will be your running mate. the president on the phone and called watson and said it moved kennedy from day one to day four. hubert humphrey became the running mates instead. he was in his debt until the day he died. >> they were social friends. >> they were social friends. >> they spent parts of winter together. i even went to the races with them. >> we are all out of time and gentlemen. i want to thank the both of you for being our guests and talking to our viewers. talking about thomas e. dewey. our contender in our 14th week

of the series. i want to thank all of you for calling in. a big thanks to everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the contenders returns live next friday. we will be in libertyville, ill., to talk to historians about the provincial campaign of adlai stevenson. the series airs live at 8:00 on friday nights. you can see tonight's program on thomas dewey again this sunday.

for more information on our series, go to our website at c- span.org. there you'll find a schedule, biographies of all the candidates, speeches, and appraisals. that is all at c- span.org/thecontenders. >> every weekend, let the c-span network be your source for public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. on c-span, politics and public affair events. c-span2 has booktv. american history tv on c-span3. all our programs are available any time at the c-span video library. the c-span networks -- washington your way. >> republican presidential candidate texas governor rick perry formally became a cabinet today in the new hampshire primary as he filed paperwork at

the statehouse. a date for the provincial primary is expected to be chosen next week. >> all right. we have a room full. i stayed up until the end of it. i know you are getting covered up back there. is your room normally this crowded? [laughter] >> on a few occasions. >> you have good paraphernalia in here.

quite this is the formal part of spelling out the declarations and the candidacy. these have been completed. all it needs is a signature. >> i can do that. >> this is the filing fee. >> i have got that. >> we do this every four years. >> i think i know what to put on there. let me sit down here.

i think y'all have seen that one before. >> this first of the nation primary and at -- is a tradition that i certainly respect. i am very honored to be a part of it this morning. i am excited to bring my conservative message to new hampshire to campaign about jobs so that americans get working again. that is the issue that americans are focused on and i put before the american people at the very fundamental reforms that will

jump-start our economy, open up our federal lands and waters for exploration so that we can reduce our reliance on oil that comes from nations that hate america. major tax reform, as i laid out two days ago. 20% flat tax to create jobs and growth all across america. that is it. pretty% -- -- 20% -- you take your deductions for dependents, local taxes, charitable deductions, and subtract those. it is that simple. it makes so much sense. when people look at that plant,

it will clearly show we can balance the budget in this country by 2020 and protect future generations through a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. at the end of the corporate loopholes and carve out, basically lobbyists and tax lawyers in washington have been feeding at the trough for way too long. the granite state is good. they know these are not just a bunch of talking points. they realize that because we were talking -- i have a record of 10 years of creating along with our legislatures -- legislator force a climate in texas that over the course of the last decade we have created

1 million net new jobs. i have signed six balanced state budgets. we have collected $14 billion in texas. this is what i have done as governor of texas. we have an invigorated our economy in my home state by reinventing the tax code and getting washington out of the way. that hat -- that can happen all across the country. but we have to spend a message that you are going to have the confidence, that we are not going to overtax or over regulate, and get washington out

of the way. get rid of this one size fits all mentality. whether it is obamacare, dodd- frank -- all of these regulations are straggling job creation in america. my campaign is not a campaign that would establish -- we are going to bring opportunity back to main street. washington can do a few things very well. that is what americans are looking for. confidence. if they look at our jobs plan, and our record, they will come to the conclusion that there is one person who is about them. >> how do you plan on getting your message out there? >> i do not know whether we are

going to forgo debates or not. there are going to be a lot of debates. we have not made any decisions about what we are going to do, but getting the message out, obviously we have this fund raising period and are going to the people with our message. folks are starting to see our economic plan. it has only been out there for 48 hours now. once people -- people need a president who has the courage and stand up and knows our wisdom does not emanate from washington, d.c. the states need to make the decisions to make them more competitive. i have talked to enough people in the state to understand that you all have a really interesting tax structure.

you have a really interesting business climate. if you had the right to work law in this day, you would be a beacon in the northeast. you want to create jobs. this is not an anti-union issue. this is about creating jobs. you create an ander project create an environment where entrepreneurs -- i believe at folks ought to have the choice. if you create a right to work in varmint, this -- right to work environment, this place will be a job creation missing. >> after falling papers to become an official candidate, republican and presidential candidate, rick perry, spoke to the union leader editorial board in manchester. he responded to questions regarding immigration, and are mature regulation, and health

care. it is over one hour. >> the forgotten man. >> there was a piece on sunday about taxes. i saw you on the zero riley program the other night. you looked startled when he asked you what the effect on government revenues was going to be on your plan. i do not know why you're staggered the cut -- startled because the next morning in the papers, your advisers said the specifics about how much revenue would be.

>> i did not catch myself being startled. >> he made a big deal with that afterwards. i was not intuitive, i was just agreeing with them that i would have thought you would have been like this, but you said you would have your people give them the figures the next day. >> we were having an economic model done and we did not have the hard numbers from the standpoint. i know what you are making reference to. if he had asked a specific question about what is this going to do from the government revenues, there are some people who say this will blow a hole in the debt in the first few years and i did not have it at that

particular point in time. we were having an economic model finished that day. i did not have -- what i did know is that you put these all into place -- 20% flat tax, 20% corporate tax rate, addressing social security, medicare, medicaid, non-defense discretionary spending cuts -- by 2020, that budget will be balanced. i did not have exactly what he was asking. i gave him a few examples. take the department of education and tate secondary and elementary programs, cut them in half -- half of it back to the states for them to decide how to

implement those education programs -- you say $25 billion. i will be honest with you. i am last worry -- less worried about whether or not we have some budget holes to fill in the early years than i am giving confidence to the job creators to have a return on their investment and create jobs. >> he gave the credit for that. it is the crux of your plan anyways. getting money into the hands of people who can use it. explain the cut down to 5% plus changes in taxes for offshore revenues. >> we are somewhere around $1.70 trillion. u.s. companies would profit

offshore, but today get taxed at 35% if they bring it back in. common sense tells you that money is not going to come back in. we -- they look at ways to invest it there rather than bring it back and giving 35% of it to the federal government. a host of the economists and others who are familiar with those dollars is a reasonable rate to tax that and bring it back. 5.25% seems to be the happy medium, if you will, to bring it back in. the american chamber of commerce estimates there is about $360 billion worth of economic activity bringing that back into the united states.

i am all about creating jobs. i do not get into class warfare. i think the president or those on the left, frankly, someone on our side of the aisle who wants to talk about class warfare and then somehow know the wealthy are going to come out better on this tax plan -- i do not have time for that because i am about getting americans to work. there are people sitting around a kitchen tables today who do not have a job. one out of six cannot find a job. that is what i am worried about. this country was built on the premise that you create an environment for job creators to risk their capital. it is taxes. but even more important, it is regulations. the regulations are the real job killers. we have driven millions of jobs

offshore because we have overtaxed and overregulated. the overtaxing side is a symptom of the spending problem we have in washington, d.c. i addressed that in this plan as well. cap those taxes, those 20% for personal and 20% on the corporate side, 5.25% on that offshore money to repatriate it, and then you balance the budget through a number of issues -- of ways, one being a balanced budget to the united states constitution. i plan on traveling to the states that it requires and either cajoling, threatening,

or whatever other ways i need to -- >> a constitutional amendment takes too long. the last couple did not take long at all. one day a 80 year-old is the right to vote. i think it depends on what it is. >> the united states senator is up for reelection in 2014. i will ask for their support and the legislators' support. there is no one who has that commitment to a balanced budget amendment. i do not think america has a revenue problem. as a matter of fact, i would vote for ways to reduce revenue coming into the federal government, particularly if i think it is going to be spent on programs that are not helping create an environment for job

creation. regulations -- i have moved -- i would move substantial amounts of regulations back to the state. the governor of any state and their environment will protection agency has a better vested interest -- has a more vested interest and has a better ability to address the issues of the environment in their state than the epa. i will give you an example. in the decade of the 2000's, texas and a flexible permitting process for clean air. i think the clean air act and clean water act were good pieces of legislation. do not pay me with a brush so broad that says i do not care about the environment. i do care about the empowerment. we clean up air more than any

other state in the nation in the 2000's. we did it by flexible permitting. what i mean by that is if there are eight smokestacks in a plant, we had a total amount of emissions that plant could emit rather than checking each smokestack. each source, if you will. we were able to lower our ozone levels by 27% and our nitrogen oxide levels by 68% during that time. this administration wants to come in and take the process over and put their oversight in place. we come up through our comptroller's study, know what that will do. it will cost a huge number of jobs. better than 60,000, to be exact. it is no different than the

response we've seen to the deep horizon sector. -- disaster. the private-sector has the ability to do that. the technology has been developed. the last thing the industry wants is for that type of event to occur again. they have developed the technology to be able to protect our environment in the gulf. this administration, rather than allowing for regulators that actually go out and do their job, they just basically put a slowdown on permitting. 400% longer to get a permit today. 80% fewer permits for drilling in the gulf. those are just two examples of the knee-jerk reactions this administration has had dealing with regulations.

but when you are -- audit them for their beneficial impact on air, water, or the safety of people -- the cost are monstrous. dodd-frank banking regulations is another example of a knee- jerk reaction by this administration and congress to put into place another layer of regulation that is not going -- as a matter of fact, it puts into law, it codifies too big to fail, and it makes community banks and endangered species. it makes capital very hard to come by. i know i am all over the board on this regulatory world, but that is an example of -- taxes are too high.

i would suggest that it is not the tax structure that is killing the jobs and impacting the confidence of the investor, whether it is a big business or mom and pop, it is the regulations that are out there, both on the mental side -- the department of interior and the banking regulations. two weeks ago i laid out phase one of the economic plan i talked about -- the energy side. 1.2 million jobs will be created if we open up our federal lands for exploration -- land and waters -- 300 years of energy america has access to. we have proven reserves of 300 million units. i am counting all of the above. texas is now the no. 1 and wind

energy producer. people say it is easy to be governor of texas. you have oil and gas. we only had 2% increase in our oil and gas production in the last decade. how long have i been talking here? >> that was my point. your campaign said something about the number of debates and whether you will continue or not. you are going to do some more, but not necessarily every debate? >> i do not know. 18 debates seems like a lot. i am more than a passing observer. 18 cells like an incredible number. >> as of today, there were 34 candidates registered in the new

venture prevent a primary. if we put them all in the debates, the debates would last until january 10. you have been exposed to this process and you have some specifics you were trying to get across. in the debate format, how would you suggest -- the news media have to be careful in going behind a screen and deciding who gets to be in the debate. how do you improved the level of discourse in a presidential campaign? >> being here is one of the ways and chewing -- choosing the forum in which i can go and lay out for other people, in this case of new hampshire and the surrounding states and, obviously, c-span and the national audience -- but here is

the plan i am laying out. it is not just rhetoric. if you want to know how someone will perform in the future, look to their past. for almost 11 years, this is what i have been doing in the state of texas -- creating and debarment with our legislator so that our private-sector has confidence. under anyone except -- i would have done that. 1 million jobs were created in texas while the rest of the country lost 2.5 million. allowing the states to take over those environmental regulations, allowing the states to deliver health care and medicaid, allowing the states to be making decisions for their young people on education policy makes abundant good sense to me because what we will do -- bobby jindal is a brilliant governor. he is also a technocrat when it

comes to health and human services. he has run a university system. he is uniquely qualified. bobby will come up with ways to deliver medicaid whether it is optional programs, insurance coupes -- he will put a lot of different ideas out. you can go across the border and pick and choose which of those will work best in my home state. that is how our founding fathers, i believe, foresaw this country as it was growing. i have no idea if they had any idea that there would be 50 laboratories of innovation out there, but they realized the federal government had to do a few things and do them well -- our military, secure our border, lookout for the general welfare of our country -- and

this is whate's -- the 10th amendment says. what's that is a good segue. i ask governor romney the same question i am asking you. you pointed to romneycare and say that is wrong. he says it is a state's rights issue. the ported to your allowing illegal immigrants to get in- state tuition. use a that is a state right. can you see his position on this? >> here i never wrote any book that i thought we did in texas was good for the nation, which is what he said in the first edition of his book. at he said at romney care would be the cure for america. he wrote in his book. it was in the book, then he took

it out in the paper backed. that is my point, that i am consistent, if nothing else. i have stayed true -- unless i have been wrong, and i have admitted being wrong, the human papillomavirus, i stood up and said i handled this wrong. i still hate cancer. i still think this vaccine should be available, but it should not have been done with an executive order. >> the health department actually suggested giving it for boys, too. >> at the end of the day, i was right on the issue, i was wrong on the delivery model. the difference between romney care and in-state tuition -- i want to address that if i could, but i have never said -- i have said multiple times, this truly

was an issue for texas to decide. i would never go to oklahoma or mexico or any other state and say this is what you need to do, not on that issue. that is one the state has to deal with. the bigger issue is we are forced to deal with this because of a complete failure of our federal government to secure the border. i have been dealing with it for over 10 years. i have carried the border sheriff's to washington to meet with congress, homeland security, to talk to people, the last two administrations, about the drug cartels and violence and the moving of weapons and money and drugs and people across the border because of the federal government's failure to secure that border.

i passed a voter identification bill, signed into law. i vetoed a driver's license item, from the standpoint of dealing with immigration issues i have a very strong record. $400 million we have dedicated to border security, texas taxpayer money, but we have done those things because we happen forced to deal with them because of the federal government's failure to act and secure the border. i know how to secure the border. >> how? >> strategic fencing along the border, where it works well. boots on the ground. i am talking a spectrum of boots on the ground, both military, law enforcement, state, federal, local law enforcement, but the real key as we were talking earlier was and it is a predator drones.

there are a couple of predator drones dedicated to the border, but nowhere near enough. we need to have enough predator drones on the border, looking down, real time, giving that information will time to the boots on the ground. then we will know when there is activity along that border and we can immediately respond to them. at that particular point in time, the individuals who are involved in illegal activities, they will know soon that the game has changed. but we have the technology. we just don't have a precedent, we don't have an administration that is dedicated to securing the border. when the president of the that is states comes to el paso and says the border is safer than it has ever been, either he has some of the poorest intelligence or he is telling

the american people a known lie. >> falsehood, be nice. mlk. -- >> ok. >> some of your competitors, who are not from border states, harped on the issue. you have a different view. how do you view that? is that pandering? >> before we get off the illegal alien tuition issue, texas has two choices. because the federal government has failed to secure the border, and the federal

government also demands that we give health care and education to these individuals. so i don't have the privilege to stand on the sideline and say this is what i would do, here is where you made a mistake. we have to deal with these issues in real time and our state. we have two choices. we couldn't take these people to the curb and pick up the cost of them being in the state through other sources, social programs up to and including incarceration because of the unskilled workers and what might occur with that scenario, or, just like we do with anyone else in the state of texas, if you have lived in texas three years, if you have done your high-school work and, in the case of those who have been brought here through no fault of their own, require they pursue citizenship and to be that states, pay full in-state

tuition -- no subsidy, full in- state tuition, that those individuals become tax paying, contributing members of the society and u.s. citizens. we want to create tax wasters or do we want to create tax payers? >> not in a position to show them the door and tell them to get out of the country? >> we cannot. we have had that conversation. the idea that we will roundup 12 million people and say you were out of here? that is not going to happen. some people said that is the answer, round up everybody who was not a u.s. citizen. i am not going to pander. it is becoming president of the united states requires me to change its position of great import or to pander to a different group, then i will not

be the president of the united states. i know how to govern in the state of texas. when 181 members of the house legislator vote on this issue and there are only four dissenting votes, that is the will of the people of the state of texas. i agree that as a texas decision, and i stand that. -- i stand by that, but i will not change my position by virtue of, well, gee, in new hampshire let's build to thousand miles of fence and that will take care of it, because it will not. strategic fencing and places is important. it works, it slows down the high traffic areas, but an obstacle without observation is no obstacle at all. you have to have the observation, with boots on the ground, and these technologies

that are fascinating and how well they work. the air force base last monday, and my instinct is there is a young american pilot compound mr. gaddafi's from there in nevada, waiting for the opportunity to impact that appreciative regime -- that oppressive regime. the technology is there. we need to directed more towards the border with mexico to fight the drug cartels. we know hezbollah, we know hamas, we know the iranians are using mexico as a base of operation to penetrate into a very porous border with the that states to do harm to the american citizens or a saudi

diplomat, in the case of the iranians. >> understanding this is a state-by-state issue, what would you advocate as president that all the states do to turn these tax wasters and to taxpayers? -- and to taxpayers? >> the issue is to secure the border. once you secure the border and you start alleviating this number of people, then we can have a conversation, a debate, a discussion with congress and the american people about how we are going to bring the individuals who are here, who may have been here 20, 30 years, out of the shadows of illegality to deal with the issue. i did not know if i have the -- >> what would you offer as president? >> from immigration reform?

i think you start looking at some type of program where people come out of the shadows of illegality and they work appropriately. amnesty is never on the table. i am not for the dream act, not for amnesty in any form or fashion item for citizenship the old-fashioned way. -- i am for citizenship the old- fashioned way. >> tracking their progress towards citizenship, who does? >> the universities. that was the way that piece of legislation was written. then you do not have 50 different immigration policies. that is the problem today with the porous border. you have at arizona, which i do not necessarily agree with everything with the arizona law, but i did support them and their

right to pass that, as we did with alabama. but having 50 different immigration laws is not good public policy. america needs to have one immigration policy in place for the 50 states. that is one of the things they should be doing. doing theirof them job, the states have the right, and i respect that right. but to go back and not put too fine a point on it, but the issue of create a work visa program, or individuals, here is where you pay taxes, here is where you get your driver's license, he resorted to become a contributing member of society. one of the knocks on what is going on out is these individuals are not paying their fair share and they're taking advantage of the social programs

we have. again, the federal government is forcing the states to deal with this. i think we can have a debate to find a way for those individuals who are law-abiding, who pay taxes, who can contribute to society to have the ability to move back-and-forth. i happen to think we need to get back to having immigration policy that actually looks at what are the needs of our work force in this country and to allow for individuals who can help create highly technical workforce and a lot of different areas that we do not have the engineers, etc., and a federal government, again, that is quite inept at just getting paperwork done. >> you talk a lot about your

record of jobs in texas, and your opponents will say the unemployment figures in texas being hired, getting higher, how do you explain that? you created jobs, but then i unemployment happened? >> we still keep growing jobs. as you would expect, that is not a secret that texas has created -- we have a huge influx coming into the state of texas, but in this environment, even texas, as good a job creation climate as we have, we cannot keep up with the influx of people. just to pull out one number and say, aha, you're unemployment rate went up to it what 0.1% -- went up to 8.1%, or whatever they're pointing to, yes, but we created a million jobs. i think free trade agreements,

matter of fact, i believe with colombia and panama, we still have two free trade agreements that are awaiting the president's signature, i believe south korea as well, and they have not been signed and i have no idea why. americans, if you do not overtax them or over regulate them, they can compete with anybody in the world. i truly believe we can bring back manufacturing jobs from china that have moved theire. when the chief executive officer of coca-cola says it is easier to do business in china than in the united states, that says volumes about how difficult we have made it to do business in

this country. and that is where we need to pull these regulations back. we need to audit every one of them cents 2008 for their beneficial impact compared with their cost. this is not instinct, i know this, we will find the vast majority of them, the costs far outweigh the benefit. >> what about the wage costs, mexico, china, other third world -- >> again, i think because the cost of doing business in the united states, particularly on the regulatory side, is so onerous, we may never compete from the standpoint of an hourly wage, but there are a number of issues -- davis-bacon i would do away with. the idea that you have to pay

union wages? i am not anti-union. i am pro-job. i happen to think that if you create an environment in this country where private sector business people feel comfortable they can risk their capital, that is good for the unions. i am a right to work state governor. the teamsters endorsed me every election that i have had as governor. i understand that i care about creating an environment where jobs can be created, because whether you are a non-union worker or a union worker, there are more jobs out there, that is good for the rank-and-file. i happen to believe that america can compete again on the manufacturing side, but we cannot if we continue to pass regulations that do not help

safety, do not help air quality, do not help water quality, did not improve the environment. all they do is create a cost of compliance that then drives jobs offshore. >> what do you do about the global situations where multinational companies, they have no particular allegiance to the that is states of america, how do you get them to want to rebuild american manufacturing? is there a component there? in the old days, what was good for general motors was good for the country, etcetera, and now you have companies which is the bottom line, where the taxes are least and the labor is the cheapest they will go to. does that figure in at all? >> sure.

that is the reason they left to begin with, the bottom line. we overtaxed and over-regulated. this is not rocket science. for a decade in texas, we operate with three simple principles -- did not spend all the money. spend all the money. that is why i talk about cutting spending. there will be hard decisions. there will be pain to reduce spending. i just signed a budget in texas that for the first time since world war ii, we cut are spending more than the previous budget, the first time since world war ii. and there was gnashing of teeth and "it is the end of the world." but job creators will understand, they get it, and we are not going to raise our

taxes or put an additional burden on us to get more government. we have to do that. >> part of the reason you say it that went overseas is because we over-regulated them, but we also change the trade laws and made it easier for them to go offshore to do this. we lowered trade tariffs and barriers to international trade, which free-market economists say has lifted all boats, but in the meantime, the general electrics of the world are doing more business over there because it is cheaper, not just because of regulation but because the tariffs are no longer in place that protected them building their companies here. >> i happen to believe that when you look at this plan, and part of their decisions to leave have been tax loopholes and other beneficial treatment that corporate america has received.

i am for removing all of those. i am for putting a level playing field, for instance, on the energy side. i did not think we ought to be paying any subsidies to any energy source, period. not wind, not solar, not oil, not ethanol. they all need to participate on a level playing field. >> solar? >> not solar, either. if a state wants to put in place an incentive to have a particular type of energy development in that state, i don't have a problem with that, because states are supposed to compete against each other. the the laboratory of renovation. we put an incentive in place in texas for alternative energy. the wind energy people said we

can go compete and texas, and now we're the no. 1 wind energy producing state in the nation. i think it is smart to have a broad portfolio of energy. whether it is wind, solar, nuclear, petroleum, natural gas, whatever the alternative energy source maybe, but government, not the federal government, does not need to be picking winners and losers. at the marketplace will do that. it states want to compete against each other. i am completely in agreement with that. but these companies that have gone offshore, have gone offshore i think for two reasons -- tax policy, regulatory, and tax loopholes. we need to remove the tax -- matter of fact, we need to remove all three of those, from my perspective, flat 20% corporate income tax rate, have the regulatory climate reduced,

where they know there is going to be stability and predictability in in farming bill community, and have those tax loopholes gone. there is a reason that ge does not pay any taxes. they have really good lobbyists. those need to be removed. you need a president who will stand up and have the courage to do that, have the courage to veto spending bills. >> governor, who is marcus? >> marcus? >> marcus. >> what is his story, his connection with your family? arcus is a former navy seal who wrote a book, "one survivor."

we talked about whether i would be a candidate for the presidency. we talked about all of the implications, that our lives would be changed forever, young, right out of college. 24 years old, that her life would be forever changed. that they would have to probably change his company work because he could not help his dad. and they all agreed that the country was worth making the sacrifice for. >> was he a navy seal and afghanistan? >> a lot of different places, but afghanistan was the place where the event occurred. where his four-man team -- he was the only one to come off the mountain.

i hope you get a copy of it "lone survivor." it is a great tribute to american heroism. at he really did not want me to do this. from that standpoint. >> personal? namely your wife? >> right. >> i read this in a "parade" magazine. there was a big hullabaloo because you answered a question as regarding president obama and his birth certificate. i heard this on national sandinista radio and i went back to parade to find this and i could not. it is only in the online thing. what does that say about the parade editors? is the editor dumb, or maybe this is not a big issue? >> this was not a big issue. i think i had dinner with donald

trump the '94. it was more of a humorous back- and-forth between donald and me. i cannot speak for him. he may think the birth certificate is a real issue. i think, frankly, is a humorous issue that the media would become so focused on it. i think it is a rather distractive issue. i am pretty sure people are a lot more interested in how are you going to get me the dignity of a job. >> they are interested and obama birth certificate and whether campaign manager was smoking. i have monopolized this. i have a last question. what are we doing in afghanistan?

>> i think we are fighting the wrong kind of war at this particular point in time. having been there on multiple occasions, having had a number of conversations with young men who are under my command until they are loaned to the federal government to go and serve, that the change of rules of engagement -- i think this is a special operations type of war, particularly as our technology advances so quickly. ibeing able to find osama bin laden, to find gaddafi, to find all of these individuals, they were not found because we have huge massive numbers of

troops on the ground. we need to be able to train the afghan forces so they have the ability to protect and defend their country, and there is some time line out there to bring our troops home and transition that country's protection over to the afghan security forces. i don't know when that is. even if we did, we would not be having that conversation in public. i think the president has made a huge. -- i think the president has made a huge error, plan to his base, saying that he would bring them home at this date, but we have the ability to impact the war on terror. in a substantially smaller footprint then what we are engaged in today.

when we reduce that footprint and how we reduce that footprint needs to be coordinated with commanders on the ground. but, again, i would substantially increase the amount of funding for our technological research and development, that side of the military. i would never put the military budget on the chopping block from the standpoint of we're going to cut x % out of it. the question should never be how much will we cut. the question should always be, what is it going to cost us to keep this country secure? and that is not to say there are not places that we need to have good, solid discussions about

reductions at places that may not be inappropriate expenditures of the military budget, research and development is not one of them. that is one way we stay hopefully ahead of the chinese. all of the foreign policy issues go back to one thing, which is if we do not have an economy that allows us the resources to pay down this debt and to create the wealth to drive this country, drive this country forward, then foreign policy really does not matter. >> you said you were not a great debater, and you may get better, but you get the nomination, you are going out against a really glib, slick, sharp guy.

>> in the -- if the american people want a great debator and a glib and slick politician, i don't think the last three years is going to be very good proof of how that has worked out for us. >> but support that how a lot of people make their judgment? >> i don't think so. i mean i truly don't think so. 2008 was a most interesting lexi cycle. when you're sitting at home, and your wife and children are sitting around the kitchen table or in the living room together, and you don't have a job, i don't care how glib, slick or how smooth that politician is, when there is someone standing beside them that says i know how to get your family back to the dignity of having a job and this

country back on track, and get america being america again, it is a message that penetrates very much to the heart of who this country is. >> we have covered a lot of issues. going back to the national media, i'm constantly being asked why it is not all over in new hampshire already based on polling, romney way out in front in poll, after poll, after poll? >> what is your approach? can you win this primary? >> yes. >> are you going to give it a go, or is it lip service? >> we are campaigning again. we know we got in late. we are just now laying out, after 10 weeks, which is

actually a pretty good time table to lay out a rather in-depth economic plan. that is what this campaign is going to revolve around, to get america back working again. i think our 20% flat tax, how we are going to balance this budget by 2020, getting americans back working. if you want to know how somebody is going to perform in the future, look at their past. i think people are just now starting to pay attention to the campaign. with all due respect, governor romney has been running for this for six years. i have been at it now for 10 weeks. polls are going to go up, and polls are going to go down. i was 25 points down at the start of my last gubernatorial

race. so there's plenty of time to be in new hampshire, to be in iowa, to be in south carolina, which i will have been in. this is my 10th trip to new hampshire. so as the voters here look, probe, ask questions and peel back the skin of the onion, i think they will like what they see, and at the end of the day, they will see somebody who has a good track record. >> there has been so much press about your new organizational hierarchy. they say while you are obviously a gentleman and soft spoken here in this situation, these guys are apparently -- the way one person put it who is a supporter of yours, they are going to amp tate romney.

how rough is this going to get as we two -- good forward, and him being way out in front, at least in this state if you believe the polling? is this a battleground for you, or is this a play to do just ok enough to keep moving on? >> well, we aren't in any state just for the exercise of it. we are in every state to win. i am always intrigued with folks who talk about negative campaigns. actually, i have never run a campaign that wasn't factual. somebody on the other side might not like the fact that they did x or y, or said x or y , but if they find some place where we are not telling the truth, please let me know, and i will be the fist to pull it

down. but facts are facts. they may be consult for some folks to get their arms around, but we will be factual. if that is considered to be hard-hitting, then so be it. i think americans are ready for some just really straight, honest answers as to how to fix things in this country. whether it is dealing with the issue of social security, which we have clearly said that it is broken. those that are on it today, those that are approaching the age to be on it, it's going to be there for them. but to use it as a political tool and say listen, they are going to take away your benefits, now that's dishonest, and i will come back pretty hard on that. do we need to give young people the options to have these personal accounts? do we need to raise the age for

which people become eligible because we are living so much longer? do we need the means tested? all of those are appropriate questions to ask, and i think there are a lot of positive aspects to those. but americans want to hear how we are going to get this country back working again. how are we going to get america back to being a powerful influence in this world? there are going to be hard decisions that need to be made, and people that are misleading americans i don't have a lot of time for. >> who is misleading americans? >> well, anybody that says it is going to be easy. the president of the united states stood up three years ago and said listen, you allow me to be the president of the united states and i will create 3.5 million jobs. that is misleading. we have lost two million. well wait until all the plans

get laid out. >> drew, you have to ask the question about what department would he eliminate? >> cut, balance, growth. cut what? >> well, i laid out one earlier when i talked about in year one you could say save $25 billion by con dating the lament ear and secondary programs at the department of education. i would substantially reduce the impact of the p.e.a. from the standpoint of a federal agency. it ought to be there as a place to consolidate best practices. it ought to be a place where it can work out any interstate issues. but from the standpoint of making one size fits all regulations and having this -- i mean i want to say it is $12 billion worth of administrative

costs. this is an agency that is out of control. so substantially reducing the p.e.a. the department of energy. i don't know what -- i'm not sure there is anything the department of energy doesn't do that couldn't be placed in another agency of government are -- somewhere. there is a substantial amount of reduction. health and human services. again, the medicade portion of that could be sent back to the states. but you have to have agency administrators and those senior level people who are willing to go fight that fight. that is the kind of people i am going to be hiring. >> i'm not sure what you mean by substantially reduce, but you would favor the clean air and clean wear act. who is going to enforce that

without the e.p.a.? >> your local states would. let me share you the clean air act that was passed. texas implemented it in 1991. they went forward with their plan. interestingly -- excuse me, it was 1993. it was put together by anne richards, and it was approved by the clinton administration. not exactly hardcore republicans. and for 17 years this plan was in place and worked well. as i shared with you, they were the numbers of the last decade. my point is the states have the incentive, they have the expertise to put these programs in place. we just have these multiple layers from the federal government. there is nothing wrong at all with the clean air and clean water act. bobby engine dall -- jindal, i

have great faith if he were to allow things to happen in his state that would harm the air and water, the people of that state are going to become i rate. they are going to make the changes. and this a philosophical difference between myself and obviously this administration in particular. i trust the citizens of this country to make decisions that are in their best interests and not have it all consolidated in washington, d.c. with one-size-fits-all and spread out all across this country. i truly believe that the american people will make better decisions than some bureaucrat in washington, d.c., whether it is environmental, whether it is race to the top on education, or whether it is transportation infrastructure. the idea earmarks are deciding where transportation projects go in a state, and they are not

even working with the state's transportation department? that is insanity. >> here in the his east where the states are literally smaller, environmental issues in one state might be more apt to affect a neighboring state. so there has to be in some cases, some would argue -- >> and that is why i have said -- and as i have said, there can be some interstate issues where the e.p.a. could sit down and work out issues. it is like the ferc in dealing with electrical. i know you all have an issue with transportation lines through new hampshire. there is a roll. i am not anti-government. i'm just for a government that works and doesn't cost jobs. >> speaking of repealing regulations and federal law.

repeal obama care. then what? >> again, when you look at -- there are two aspects of health care. medicare and medicade. medicade i would block grant. i would put back to the states and allow them to come up with the programs. i think paul ryan and some of the work that he is doing has some great examples. and we talk about it in our white paper here some of the ways to give options on medicare. maybe it is moving up the age of which people become eligible for it. maybe it is having insurance programs that they can access to give people the options of whether they want to have a private sector account. i mean there are a lot of

different ways of which we can deal with the medicare side of it. we have a system of sick care today. we don't have a system of health care. and to give those incentives to the physicians, to the hospitals, for outcomes that are healthy outcomes rather than the way we do it today where they get paid on the number of procedures they do -- and again, i happen to think paul ryan is one of the most brightest, most capable individuals who has taken on this issue, and i would have him very close to my administration on a regular basis. tom coburn on the spending side. tom has put a white paper out called "back in black."

i want to say it is $9 trillion worth of reductions. the answers are all there. it is just going to take a courageous administration working with some courageous members of the united states congress and senate to say you know what? we've got to do this. america's future is at stake from an economic standpoint. and if we don't stop the spending, if we don't get the relief from the tax side and reduce the regulatory burden, then this country is going to every day get closer and closer to becoming more like our friends in europe where we have a sovereign debt crisis, a serious sovereign debt crisis. >> one of the goals of obama care, probably the main goal, was to broaden access to health insurance. so if you repeal obama care, then you take away its incentives to do that. what would be a perry play for saying we want to make health

insurance more acceptable -- accessible to people? >> i saw an interesting sign today when we were signing paperwork, and it said keep your hands off my medicare. this administration took $500 billion away from medicare to help pay for obama care. they are talking to the wrong people. they need to be talking to that administration for taking $500 billion away from medicare. state by state we make decisions every day about how we are going to take care of our citizens. we get criticized in texas because we don't have everybody covered by insurance. we made the decision that is how we wanted to operate our state. if you come to texas, you will have access to some of the finest health care in the

world. at the texas medical center every day there are more doctors, nurses, researchers that go to work there than any other place in the world. u.t. south western in dallas, we have some of the finest health care. we committed $3 billion over a 10-year period of time to find a cure for cancer in texas. i passed toward reform in 2003. there are over 20,000 more physicians practicing medicine in texas than there were six years ago. so the idea of somehow or other that texas has a large uninsured population, that doesn't mean anything to me. what means something to me is that people in texas have access to some of the finest health care that there is. how we choose to pay for it is

actually our business. that is how we have chosen to deal with it. that health care is available in the state of texas. now, could we take those medicade dollars and come up with programs that are affordable to people? they don't want to buy health insurance today because it is too expensive for them. are there ways we could come walkup with? i think there are, rather than forcing us to deliver health care the way the federal government says. again, i go back to allowing the states to be the deciders instead of washington, d.c. i don't think texans want government-mandated health care. and i'm positive they don't want obama care. in fact, i don't think this country wants obama care after they have looked at the cost and looked at the accessability

-- accessibility that will be negatively impacted if fully implemented. again, i just philosophically am in a different position than those that think that government-mandated health care is the correct answer for people's health care needs. i think we need to give folks a substantial menu of options from which they can pick and choose. there may be folks who say i am 25 years old, i am healthy as a horse, and i would rather spend my money on something else rather than health care. >> you have a chapter on judges. you use the phrase a lot unelected judges. we are talking about the federal government even though they are elected in some

states. would you have the supreme court elected? >> no, i would have a term for them. i would have a discussion with the country and say does it make sense to have an appointed for a lifetime united states supreme court justice? i happen to think lifetime is generally a pretty long time, and particularly when you are talking about a court that has that big an impact, is it 12 years, 15 years? i don't know. but i would have a term limit on all the federal government judges. i would have a limit on the number. why do we limit the president of the united states to eight years max, yet we put a person on the united states supreme

court who may serve 50 years? >> well, you would have to ask the founding fathers why they did that. >> from time to time we decide as a country that the founding fathers -- >> well, the founding fathers had unlimited terms of president, and then f.d.r. came along, and the country said no. are not yes. >> and with the supreme court nominees, the way the battles are now, what is the realistic chance of anybody being term limited to 12 years, to get anybody in the next position? >> somebody would want it. >> you go to the state and cajole, and then you said threaten. >> right. >> threaten? >> yes.

>> what does that mean? >> that means if your guy doesn't vote to get the spending until control, you unelect them. we do that all the time across this country. you basically say hey listen, here is what is going on in washington, d.c., and your guy or gal is part of the impediment. i don't oscar that to be negative. i just consider it to be factual. when the president of the united states, who generally has a pretty big megaphone stands up and says senator smith, why are you not supporting a balanced budget amendment to the constitution? and then they can have that conversation with theirs folks back home? >> good answer. we have to cut it now so this guy can go write the story. >> i enjoyed it. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> watch more video of the candidates. see what political reporters are saying, and track the latest campaign contributions with c-span's website for campaign 2012. it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates, candidate bios, and polling data, plus c-span partners at the polling places. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," coffee party president annabelle park talks about the rally on the west lawn of the capitol. and the talk about student loans with kelly field. and author george ayittey talks about his new book. that is live at 7:00 a.m. here on c-span. >> next, remarks from former president clinton on economic policies during his presidency.

he also talks about the current unemployment and housing crisis. this event is hosted by the william j. clinton foundation and georgetown university. it is about an hour. and then i got to wave the cars, show them where to park, and that was the end. i was greeting the motorcade, not the governor. but here -- hearing him speak for the first time that day,

his energy, his hope for the future, his optimism, they came through, and he inspired me. he inspired me to cut some classes, not go to school some that spring and winter, and to go up in hampsheir and work than his campaign. up there i got a great job. i got to go door to door, knocking on doors looking for people who might vote for him in the primary and distributing what was a revolutionary new technology. a v.h.s. tape with his bio on it. [laughter] >> it looked something like this. it was the first time it had ever been done. bill clinton understood innovation. on lexi night in election night in new hampshire, i had another job. i was in the phone room, and we were getting calls about the results as they came in. and when they did, it was my job to take a piece of paper and run.

yes, physically run from there to the suite where the governor was staying. now why would you run that information over there? because at that point we didn't have i-phones. we didn't even have cell phones. all we had were tennis shoes. now when i got to the suite, i handed that piece of paper to mickey cantor, who i have not seen in 20 years until i saw him before this speech at lunch. but i thought it was appropriate of what is going on today. because that night when bill clinton came back, and they wednesday on to serve in our government. mickey cantor as the trade representative and the secretary of commerce, we began the motion towards the global economy. they were leading us to that compli where we saw global production and global innovation. and they pushed open the borders with apec, the w.t.o. and nafta, and this drove

innovation so much faster than it would have come had we decided it to go it alone. we saw samsung and nokia developing cell phones. we saw the black we arey from canada. this is now the way we community. what happened today? the two most advanced makers of those devices that we would call cell phones, now they have newer names, are american companies that no one in the country would have imagined would be making phones when bill clinton was president. apple and google, they are the world leaders in innovation, and that is all because of the decisions they made to drive the global innovation. it wouldn't have come today without the leadership that drove us into that global competition. and we won. we are the ones with the leaders as a result of that decision. [applause]

now as much as i loved my job as a runner, i decided after i graduated from college, which i did manage to do for any of you who decide to go off on a campaign, go ahead and finish. [laughter] i decided i needed a new job. and partially as a result of the hope and optimism bill clinton inspired in me, i became an internet entrepreneur. i started my first company in my apartment at night after i went to work, and we grew those businesses, taking advantages of the new possibilities that bill clinton unleashed. as an prune i learned something that he already knew, that america's economic success is built on innovation, and that great innovation is not an accident. it comes with the public and private sectors work together. when we leapt forward during word war ii with sonar, radar, penicillin and atomic energy,

it wasn't an accident. when we went to the moon, solving that wasn't an accident. for the last 50 years when we have watched medical devices, drugs and innovation ns our health care system take us forward and extend our health, that wasn't an accident. and over the last 20 years while we watched what the defense department started, move into the interpret and the worldwide web and all the innovations that have come behind it, that wasn't an accident. in all those cases the government was funding the primary research and the development and getting us through the overwhelmingly expensive, risky and daunting first steps that then allowed the private enterprise to come along and build on top of that foundation. that is what he knew about taking he is into the global economy and driving the internet forward. we heard people talk about this, but it was when decisions mattered. he also knew that to have this thriving economy, you had to

invest. we have heard about it all day long, but i'm going to talk about two investments he made that didn't get mentioned yet. in the public sector, he put money out so we could hire 100,000 new police officers and put them on the beat in our cities. many of the students who don't remember the 1970's and 19 80's when cities were failing and things were out of control. i do. he turned it around so we are living in an urban renaissance where your students are flocking to the cities, powering the economies of boston, new york, san francisco and washington. he knew that investment has to come in the private sector. that is where the jobs and wealth of created in our economy. he passed the telecom act in 1996 to open up communication in the telecommunication space that saw the biggest boom in

history in investments in the infrastructure we needed the as a result today, we have high speed internet almost all over our country because that investment was made in response to his policies. that is what his leadership did that drove that internet economy forward. he made all these investments as we heard so much today while balancing the budget. it is hard to imagine today in the congress i was in two years ago, hard to imagine the environment we live in was just 10 years ago. many of the people in the audience were 10 years old, that we had the surpluses, a path to the future that was responsible. that was the result of the hard work of all the people you saw on the stage today. one other thing that got left out of the panel as it often does, and that is the renewed sense of hope and optimism that minute -- that president clinton brought to our nation. it inspired me to start

businesses and a new generation of entrepreneurs to go out and take that leap of faith, to quit their jobs, to innovate and create the new industries that drive our economy forward. every president faces a different set of circumstances and challenges. there is no cookie-cutter solutions to driving an economy as complex as ours. but in 1992, bill clinton made the decision to embrace innovation, to bring the public and private sectors together to invest in america and to balance our budget, and to do it all with hope and optimism about where we were going. the results speak for themselves. 22.9 million new jobs. reductions to people living in poverty. 4% unemployment, real wage growth for all americans across every income bracket, and an ever more connected global world. it is my great honor to introduce the 42nd president of

the united states, william jefferson clinton. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you. >> thank you very much. i thank you for bringing me back to georgetown. i want to thank scott murphy. i wanted all of you to hear him, and i thought the students could identify with him, and he does start out with me 20 years ago. two years ago -- actually less than that. a year ago, the day before the

election i was with him in his congressional district in upstate new york, and we had 1,200 people for a breakfast at 7:30 in the morning. i thought that maybe he would escape the tide of 2010. he didn't. scott is my 2010 version of what happened to marjorie in 1994. people got a fever. they only elect democrats when things are screwed up. [laughter] and they want to feel fixed, and they didn't feel fixed yet. in this sort of anti-government fever, sometimes people are swept from office who shouldn't be. i hope i live long enough to see him go back to congress because he really understands the economy and the country.

and i'm delighted that he is here and honored by his introduction. he was asked today because my staff heard my say when i came back that guy introduced me to speak at his rally, and in three minutes he showed he understood more about the economic strategy we pursued than 90% of the team that i talk to. so thank you. i want to thank all of the members of my administration. thank you, bob, reuben, for speaking. and thank you for moderating the panels and all of you who participated. i was so proud all over again. basically i could have had a lobotomy and succeeded as president because of them. they were so good, and you saw that, and i am very grateful for them being here and all of you who were part of the administration who weren't part of the program. i would like to thank

georgetown for letting me come back here to where we all began this 20 years ago with the three speeches i gave outlining, as they said, the philosophy that was driving the campaign. one of those speeches is reprinted in the program you all have. then i think you have this little page which summarizes most, but not all of the things we did to try to drive the economy. i would like to especially say i'm grateful that my international economics professor in 1967 is here. [applause] i'm really proud of him for many reasons. he is an egyptian, and all the

young egyptians ought to be modeling him. 40 years after i was his student, i saw him at the georgetown contribution to the multi-university complex in katar. thank you for being here. i want to say one other thing, at the end there, gene spurling was telling you about the run up to the government shut-down, which led to the cooperation later. he mentioned that we had a big fight over medicade because the republicans basically wanted to end the guarantee of health care to poor people and just cut a check to the states, and i wouldn't do it. i did say to dick, who was basically -- at that point he,

1-2-3 inning and tom delay were in the oval -- beginning beginning and tom delay were in the oval office. i did say to dick when he was getting very macho with me -- i said you have to understand, dick. i don't care if i go to 5% in the polls. you will have to get somebody else to sit behind that desk before you get this done. all the democrats were thrilled . our lib -- liberal base thinks the president is going to cave, just like the conservatives are always afraid the republicans are going to cave. anyway, we had this meeting, and they left. the meeting was adjourned, and the democrats hung around

afterward, and they were all so happy. al gore in this totally drole tone of voice said that was really great what you said, but i think you should have told them that you were going to hold out even if you went all the way to zero. why did you stop at 5%? [laughter] i looked at him and said no, al, if we get to 4%, i am going to cave. [laughter] one lesson of all this is you've got to keep your sense of humor here. i was aided in that because in 1999 at the very end of my term -- in 1999 we celebrated the 30th anniversary of america's walk-on the moon, when we had an astronaut walk-on the moon. and surviving participants came

back to the white house. we had a wonderful event, and nasa actually brought me a volume-packed moon rock that was carbon dated at 3.6 billion years old. every time you see the president entertaining a foreign leader, they were in the two chairs, and then there is that round table. so when you meet with other people in congress, you are either meeting in a cabinet room like you have seen on television or in the oval office. but the president is not sitting behind a desk. you sit in the chairs, and everybody sits in the sofas opposite and a table in the middle. i put the moon rock in the middle. every time the temperature would start to rise, i would say look at that rock. that rock is 3.6 billion years old. believe me, we are just passing

through here. so everybody just take a deep breath and let's figure out what we are going to do. [applause] that moon rock did more to lower people's blood pressure than any medicine devise by any faurm -- pharmaceutical company on earth. i would like to close by saying a few things. first of all, i am deeply grateful for what has been said and the contributions va have been made -- that have been made. but when i came here in december of 1991, and we started in november. the country had at that time manifestations of many of the underlying economic realities

that are gripping us today. it was obvious. we were under going a big increase in income inquality. i get to say the same things i have been saying for 20 years updated. it is not healthy for a country that depends upon the idea of opportunity, the idea of social mobility, the idea that having a job or starting a business is way more than just earning income and staying busy all day. it is fundamental to human dignity and to the fire of human imagination. so when we have 9% unemployment, and you know it is really 15% if the labor force participation rates were the same today as they were in 2000. then you know it is bigger than that because there are so many people who have part-time jobs

who want full-time jobs. it is about so much more than economics. i think it is important to say that, because if, like me, you were born around the end of world war ii, or for the next 15 or 20 years, and you were sort of half way intelligent, half way diligent, and you showed up and went to school, the one thing you never had to worry about was whether you could stay gainfully employed and support yourself. the first job i ever had was cutting lawns when i was 12. i talked my way into a job with a guy that owned a grocery store across from my house when i was 13. i talked him into letting me set up my very first small business, a used comic book

stand, where i sold all these minute condition comic books, and i made $300 and thought i was a millionaire. it was the single dumbest thing i have ever done. if i kept them, they would be word a quarter of a million dollars. since getting out of the law school, i have done seven or eight things, and then later nine more things. i never worried about whether i could make a living. i think it is very important that we acknowledge today what it does to a country if a substantial number of decent people who are perfectly intelligent and perfectly able to be productive, and perfectly willing to get up every day and to what they are supposed to

do, go months and months and months without jobs, or weighed down by paralyzing debt and even more by paralyzing doubt. what doubt does is it keeps you from playing the game. did you guys watch that world series game last night? by the time it got to the end, i didn't want either one of them to lose. why? because they decided they would play the game to the end. most people would have been broken by doubt if they had gotten banged around the way st. louis did, mostly by self-inflicted wounds. which is how most of us get banged around. but they just kept playing the game. i wanted americans to feel good about our country again. i wanted people to get up in the morning and feel like they

could play the game. and have their dreams, and purse their dreams, and that their kids would have a chance to chase their dreams. we designed this economic plan for the realities of that time. but the values behind it, the idea that we needed a society where there was opportunity for all, which is another way of saying we should be shooting for shared prosperity, that there was responsibility from all, which is another way of saying we all ought to carry some load, that there was opportunity for all, which is another way of saying we can't afford to be divided. we need to create an environment that widens the circle of opportunity that includes more people in our family and in my opinion, has a totally different attitude toward immigration than a lot of people do today. i don't think that americans are being kept out of work because there are illegal immigrants in the country.

i think it is a big mistake. [applause] but it is very important to recognize that basically as you have heard from these two panels, our economic strategy began but did not end with trying to get hold of the debt and turn it around, the deficits. and to equalize the chances in life bypassing the earned income tax credit. most everything that was said up here is consistent with my memory, except i checked one thing with bob reuben. the reason the senators were saying, as laura said, they waned a $500 billion reduction in debt, is that what we were all being told by the bond market people. i used to give reuben hell, saying why should a 30-year-old bond trader be able to force me

to raise the gas tax and put some of my congressmen in danger? why should we take this seriously until we see a middle-class pummeled for 12 years suffer a little more so wall street can say it counts? and we had all these people, these talking heads, on respectable networks, they were saying bill clinton is not a serious president unless he really sticks it to the middle-class. that is how you prove you are a reputable person. it is not like these people hasn't had their income going down for 12 years. show us you are a real man and punish those people. you are laughing now, but if you could go back and look at the commentary of the time, it was terrible. the last eight years i served as governor, we were one of the

few states who grew manufacturing jobs. why do people in washington say you are not a real man unless you stick it to the middle-class? could it be they were not in the middle-class anymore, those who were saying that. but anyway, it was a weird time. i have to acknowledge that the lack of presence here of the man who was handling our congressional lobbying passed away after a very brave battle with brain cancer. we had a memorial service for him, and he was a funny guy. he would say how to get the votes for this? i would say reuben says the bond market says we have to bring the deficit down $500 billion. tell me again how many votes the bond market has in congress? and we had all these conversations. then we had the crazy thing. the b.t.u. tax, it is a

travesty that the senate wouldn't vote for it because it was really a carbon tax. it was really a carbon tax, and it was not concentrated on gasoline. it was spread broadly throughout all energy use. it would have been much easier to pay, much less burdenen some, even though the gas tax didn't amount to much because the oil prices were so low and gas was low. so marjorie had to walk that plank because some of the congressmen said well, i said i wouldn't vote for a gas tax, i am not going to do it. even if it sinks the economy, yes, i'm not going to do it. there was a lot of zany, crazy stuff, but it is important to back up and see the big picture. the big picture is this. we had a growing middle-class and a booming economy, although

we had some recessions from the end of world war ii to 1981. in 1981 we began the era of anti-government. president reagan's inaugural address said in this era, the government is the problem. that was code word for most of these years, except for 1995 and 2011, that was code for saying taxes are the problem, regulations are the problem. that is always the problem. and the answer, therefore, is always less of it. this there was a sudden discovery of being concerned about spending levels when a democrat got in the white house . it happened in 1995.

it happened in 2011. but if you look at it, it is basically -- beginning in 1982 we did something our country had never done before. we had never consistently run big deficits in peace time before. not ever. and in the beginning, it worked because at the only had there are 1 trillion accumulated debt in 1981, and almost all of it was held by americans. so we could take on some extra debt. and from 1981 through 1992, we took on debt. we went from a $1 trillion national debt to a $4.5 trillion national debt because it turned out that both parties and the white house wanted to keep on spending. they just stopped paying for it . it was great.

that is like going to the candy store and eating all the candy you want, and you never have to go to the dentist. the problem is -- and i guess if i were totally cynical, i would be happy about this because that is what elected me president. it amounted to a decade-long stimulus program. not unlike president obama's stimulus program, which worked much longer than people say it did. it worked fine for the first eight or nine years. we had never done that before. in normal economic times. but then the competition for money between the private and the public sector got sufficiently vigorous that interest rates went up, and the value of the dollar had to be

kept high so we could attract foreign investors to buy our debt, and it was a killer for american manufacturing jobs. the first president bush had to bear the burden of what he had rightly called voodoo economics. i felt bad about it at the time, and we have become very good friend since we have both been out of office. but i liked him at the time. it was a cruel historical irony that he had to bear the brunt of a theory he knew was wrong in 1980, and said so, because it violated the law of economics. people ask me what new idea did you and your group bring to washington? i say arithmetic. [laughter] me and einstein, we really broke new ground. [laughter] i just figured if 2 and 2 was 4 in little rock, it probably

still would be by the time we got here. we are laughing now, but it is very, very different now. but the underlying goals of building a society of shared prosperity and shared responsibility, and a community where everybody plays a role, that is still the same. and it is more important than ever because the world is growing ever more interdidn't. so the first part of our effort, we took a gamble, that even though the economy was weak, if we cut spending and raised revenues, that it was lower interest rates enough that there would be an investment boom and private sector led growth. 92% of the jobs created were private sector jobs, the highest in 50 years. because there was more growth than we thought, the budget was

90% balanced by the time we had the balanced budget bill. that is one of the reasons they could get from the republicans the children's health insurance bill, and we could give to them a reduction in the capital gains rate, and we could both agree on a child tax credit and more credit for adopting children and special needs children. the work was done. i saw a hilarious article in one of the press outlets of primarily the conservative outlets, trying to show that nothing we did had anything to do with the balancing the bug. they pointed to a congressional budget office study starting from -- looking at 1997 through 2001 saying the net effect of all that just on the numbers was to add $10 billion to the debt, which is like 3.5 cents compared to the numbers we are talking about today. all they did was prove how

important the vote in 1993 was. that was the work that balanced the budgets, or did 90% of it. so all these people who are saying it didn't, the point is by then we had different growth estimates, and we had a very good balanced budget plan and produced four surpluses in a row. but the american people, and this is probably my fault, although i did my best, and others never really understood there was a different between invest and groment economics and trickle down economics. so in 2001, in the face of all the evidence of what worked better, we went back to trickle down economics and doubled the debt of the country again before the financial meltdown. so the question that we face today is what is today's version of getting back to shared prosperity and shared

responsibility? i would like to say just a couple of things. first of all, i wish i had been able to make our economic plan permanent, especially after marjorie's sacrifice, for which i did give my first born to her son in marriage, for which i am very grateful. but it didn't. and it didn't because there is a persistent appeal to this anti-government philosophy. what did bruce reed say, the idea that the government would mess up a two-car funeral is still alive and well. part of it is he core of our

history. we were, after all, organized in reaction to an unaccountable, overreaching british empire. we did, after all, have founding fathers, who thought the most important thing they could do is to both limit and divide the government. so they decided to give us a bill of rights, executive, legislative and judicial branch, and state and national government. they were worried about abuse of power. every one of us, number one, believes that criticizing the government is a part of our birth right as citizens. we can all think of a tax we thought was too high, a regulation we thought was dumb, a law we disagree with, an official we thought went overboard in the exercise of authority. every one of us can.

so we americans of always of a divided mind about how much government is enough and how much government is too much. the dividing line between enough and too much has traditionally, at least in the modern era defined the parameters of the debate between liberals and conservatives or republicans and democrats. but this dominant undercurrent since the 1980 election that government is the problem has been an irresistable paradigm for people discussing this and reporting on it. i read the papers and see a conservative as someone who is defined as someone who takes the anti-government position, whatever that is. no matter how radical or how unconventionally conservative it is. and therefore anyone who sta

degrees with that becomes a liberal. it makes it easy for reporting, but it is a distortion of the traditional political philosophies and what i was trying to bring an end to with the three speeches here and with the way we governed, trying to break out of the government is the solution, the government is the problem.

. .

at some point, the democrats in the senate blocked on how to a number. they said we will not vote for your plan if it is a dollar less than $500 billion of deficit reduction. a meaningless number from an economic point of view. it is not going to make a difference. the politics were unbelievable. to get the 500 billion and protect the kind of investment which is consistent with the president's core values, we had to scale back some of them. one of the things was to go to a policy approach with the

president did not like. the was to make the task increases on the people who lived in the district retroactive. that is not good policy. we knew it was not good. we believed in the package and you could not get it through without that number. that is the kind of balancing act that was required. >> let me turn to you, bruce. they mentioned the speech that is given here a few years ago. i looked it that one. it was a full and jets a whit. a lot of the meat of that

speech was around the other side of the equation that to the -- the call to the citizens, and a call to action and to sacrifice and to be good citizens and do it they need to. did those pieces work together? were they on the same wavelength in terms of the political ability to sell a new role for government? >> i think they did. there was a fundamental breakdown of trust in every institution. washington had failed. people have lost trust. they had been told by republican presidents the that they could not run the -- there was just

inherent suspicion about whether they could trust what we were going to do. one of the things was to build back that trust. that responsibility begins at the top. we ask more of ourselves. we cut back on perks. we did a number of things to try to restore confidence. also meant that opportunity and responsibility has to be linked. you could not make a bunch of promises without asking people to do their part. i think that was a breakthrough in progressive thought. it brought back to the roosevelt tradition that there is no free lunch. that if you want an affirmative role for government, you also

have to ask people to make the most of it and to do their part. i think what the president did on reform and other areas where he was asking too -- people to do their share of the load help the lot. the decline of the middle-class was beyond the capacity of washington acting on its own to solve. we needed a collective effort. >> one of the elements of that was maybe the most controversial was welfare reform. i have written about this as focusing on the centrality to organize people's lives. it was a tough sell on capitol hill. you were up there working the issue. to there had been the

experience, particularly among presidents, and at the end of the day, how did you bring democrats on in order to support what became a comprehensive welfare reform proposal? >> there is a little irony in how it works. part of the answer is when we had people threatening to abandon us and leave the administration, that brought some added credibility of support on the center. i think it also should be said that we got a little more help from the republican side that we may have anticipated. part of that is because at that point, we had much more

credibility in terms of our ability to predict outcomes. it goes back to what the president would flow from the 1993 budget plan. >> we have an expanding work force that absorb a lot of people. marjorie, you talked about your district and the fact that the high and a tax cut, raising the rates on the wealthiest americans were concentrated in the district. there were a couple of other provisions. one of which was controversial as it was being debated which was raising the gas tax. which hit to the middle-class. how much was that a factor in the politics that succeeded it?

we ended up losing the house in 1994. there were a lot of factors. how much to you think people could not tolerate that small increase? >> i think that was a good argument. it had no shelf life whatsoever. i would go into these meetings and talk about entitlements and all of these things. that was brought up in my district. it was brought up rarely. there was an argument on the floor that's night when he decided -- it did not resonate as much as the tax increase. the people did not turn out

concerned about that. as it progressed, -- >> i remember the secretary saying this is the way to go because no one will remember this in a year. there has been a debate. >> i remember democrats saying if it goes to 6% i cannot vote for it. we were going to lose at least seven votes because as a when from 4.3 to four 0.6, it was tipping the scale. >> i believe they were suggesting ridiculous numbers like 10 cents and were being looked at as, go back into your models. this is not going to work. >> you remember we started this process with a more sensible energy tax. it was going to raise a

meaningful amount of revenue. that got whittled down and cut to pieces and finally abandoned. the heir apparent was this puny gasoline tax. marjorie is remembering as well. i remember there was at least one vote we were going to lose in the senate. we did not all have -- have a lot of spare votes. this was crazy. i do remember lloyd bentsen saying what to remember, who in the world is going to remember a year from now whether we raised it 4.7 cents or four 0.3 cents? it moves more than that in a day. it has nothing to do with

taxation. i think people that were looking for a reason to be against the package, to accuse president clinton of being tax happy and so on, they latched onto this completely trivial thing. the upper income bracket, it was not trivial. this was completely trivial. especially when you get down to a 10th of a penny. it came really close to floundering on a few tenths of a cent. >> you just brought up the internet bubble. you have studied this. i wonder if you would comment on whether using a macro economic approach resulted in the deficit reduction. >> i think the charge that if

you take it to the level -- you did nothing significant. that said, if you go to later, get into 1998, how did we get to this surge of revenue? it turned deficits into surpluses. it was not really the budget agreement as good as it was. it was the tremendous capital gains revenues that flowed from the stock market bubble. it was not just the internet. prior to that, unless you just want to close your eyes to reality and write a fantasy history, there could be very little doubt that the early bond market in the early part of the

clintons administration -- you could see it as things were announced and voted down. unless you just want to rule that out of your thought process, it is as plain as the nose on your face. i said we did not want to overstate this budget plan in 1993. we're not forecasting a surplus by 1998. it never crossed our mind that we would get that. it never crossed our mind the unemployment rate would get down to 3.9%. they would have thought we were a bunch of loonies. these things did happen and that tech bubble had a lot to do with a happening. in the end, there was some of this rioting of the wave. >> having real wages have

something to do with it. >> the blow back is, the reason we saw this is because of the republicans. they took over. thank you. >> these are the same republicans they used to ridicule al gore for inventing the internet but he did not do it but he did push it. >> i think the 2001 budget puts into perspective the fiscal discipline. we are out of time but i want to give bruce, since you are sitting in a position of power and authority, the final word on the take away from all of this. >> i think the most important lesson is that it is possible to cut and invest at the same time. for decades the parties have been arguing you had to do one. theyou're worried about

competitiveness, you need to focus more on the future. >> join me in thanking a terrific panel and thinking [unintelligible] [applause] >> today, the upcoming rally on the west lawn of the u.s. capitol. also a discussion on president obama's program to help with the cost of student loans with kelley field. later, george ayittey talks about his latest book about defeating dictators.

>> the saudi prince said the right choice was made in the succession process. he was referring to his decision to make the interior minister crown prince after the death saturday of his predecessor. he made those remarks at the national council on u.s.-arab relations. this is about 20 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, may i have your attention. continue to eat and enjoy the meal. we are most grateful for it has been hosted by the u.s.-uae business council. fewer americans are aware of it and its role in world affairs than it needs to be the case. it is a confederation, a form of government that united states has tried to establish and accomplished twice in its

history. it has failed ignominiously on both occasions. it has proven the lie that arabs are more dis-united than they are united. that their differences divide them from achieving laudable accomplishments. as speaker, here has been a participant drop the life of this regional experiments in engineering. he is no stranger to the united states or to anyone in this room. he was born on february 15, 1945. one does not put a that specificity of the detail in a

resume or curriculum the tape. -- vitae. in this case, it was not only the day after valentine's day, it was also the day after the historic meeting between the speakers grandfather franklin allen -- franklin delano roosevelt. which sealed what had already begun to be a seed. it had begun to bud and would, in time, bloom. it would also block some. -- blossom. with regard to this special bilateral relationship. he came to his position of leadership and influence in the positions and policies as part of his noble family. they lost one of their most

prominent members in the last two weeks. the prince it did his formative education at lawrenceville, new jersey. not far from princeton. he also did his undergraduate work at georgetown university. so many people in this audience also went to school there. shortly after returning to the kingdom, and he was appointed adviser in the royal court. then, as the director general of the general intelligence directorate, which is the kingdom's primary a foreign intelligence organization, and for the better part of a quarter century he held that

position through no end of troubling times and challenges from morocco, algeria, an alexandria and everywhere in between. he then became ambassador to the court of st. james in great britain where it was discovered what was always there -- he was a natural in the area of people to people relations. and going to affairs and biggin -- affairs big and small in all of the corners of great britain. and of being an effective speaker as a he has become ever since then in these conferences on arab-u.s. relations, policy makers. this may be his fifth time

coming to speak with us. please welcome his royal highness, prince turki al faisal. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. thank you. thank you very much. i am overwhelmed. thank you very much. thank you. i am truly overwhelmed by your reception.

i thank you for it. i have come back and attended the sad occasion of the death. i must tell you that for me, the special relationship i had with him, he was my mentor. my first job was with him. throughout his career he was always an example of humility and diligence. two qualities i hope the rest of us will learn and to keep. this is also a happy occasion because the kingdom has a new crown prince. i am sure all of you have read about him.

when i was in the intelligence department, i worked closely with his royal highness and i can tell you that the right to choice was made. it was made up by the council. which was established five years ago by king abdallah to oversee the succession in the kingdom. in spite of all of the predictions of a beltway experts, the council performed exceptionally well. there is unanimity in the selection when the king nominated him. there may be those of you who, despite the introduction of me, still do not know who i am.

to those i would say that if you read the washington post and the washington institute and others, i am that humorless, pathetic irrelevant person. [laughter] but at least i had the distinction of being a skilled diplomat. i had thought of preparing a speech like the one i delivered last year but it really the occasion calls for something off the cuff and something from the heart without much thinking and preparation. i agree that perhaps i am a humorless. but what is there to be humorous about?

particularly when it comes to are part of the world. were we still see longstanding conflicts going on. new potential for conflict coming about, and the turmoil and the troubles that several of our neighboring countries have gone through in the past year. the bloodshed and killing in civil war. not much to be humorous about. nonetheless, that's does not give us the excuse not to work and not to try to overcome these challenges. as the people of libya have shown, when people put their minds to the task, they can withstand all of the challenges and suffer of the sacrifices.

in the end, they achieved a victory. i applaud the ambassador of libya who is here and, through him, the people of libya. if we go from libya to syria, we see a situation where the bloodshed continues. in spite of the efforts, whether by individual leaders like the king of saudi arabia or the arab league or the international community, the government of syria is bent on continuing its merciless and bloody attack on its own people. if we go to yemen, we find a similar situation where, despite all of the efforts in trying to beat -- bring peace to the country, who devised a transition plan to achieve

peace, yet the bloodshed continues. in bahrain, it went through a turmoil that it does not deserve. we all know them. and other religions. they are a people of peace. they are a people of commerce. and a people of enlightenment. they do not deserve to go through the troubles they have had. when bahrain ask for support from the countries in meeting the challenges of its peoples, that support was in the form of military units that went there not to quell demonstrations or two of arrested the demonstrators, but to protect

the infrastructure facilities. bahrain is not a wealthy country. they do not have oil to sell. they refine it and then sell it on the market. the refinery is an important and life giving institution. the units that went from a saudi arabia and qatar went to there to protect the refinery, the airport, the seaport, and the commercial center. none of them were involved in any quelling of rioters. if you take a satellite picture, you will see that there containments are were those installations are.

these are very strict orders by the leaders to the commanders of the forces that went to bahrain. remaining in all of this turmoil, and not mentioning iraq and its unresolved and work in progress developments, with a government that is still not representative of all of the people, but clear and apparent interference from iran. with united states coming to withdraw its forces from iraq, i have maintained that there is a need for a resolution

declaring iraq's territorial environment. it is a world responsibility to protect the territorial -- territorial integrity of iraq. it is the responsibility of the united states, having undertaken that invasion, to push that resolution through and to see that the rest of the world abides by it. this will not only quell any internal centrifugal ambitions within the iraqi society, but it will also hopefully challenge any outside ambitions that may develop on the territorial integrity of iraq. if we go from there to the