impractical and even extreme to business as usual republicans. this is inevitable. in order to change things, you have to take positions even if they seem extreme. positions -- >> it is the nature of change and it is already changing something. whether it is -- what is changing is the republican party. without the tea party, there would be no ted cruz, no rand paul, no mike lee. if the tea party were not challenging the rest public and -- the republican establishment and causing conflict, we would have no reason for being. stand on that cruz's the senate floor not only increases the chances of but itcan victory, enhanced them. it lit a fire under the base. it show the rank-and-file that there are republicans ready to fight. the thing our voters most want

to see is a republican who is ready to fight. both mccain and romney lost because they failed to create the passion among republican voters that gets them to the polls. too many republicans, too many conservatives sat on their hands. and why not? since both mccain and romney assured them that obama was a, quote, "good man." no, he isn't. he is a compulsive, brazen liar. [applause] ball a human wrecking blasting the structures and foundations of a great nation. is how farn we ask the tea party can succeed if the caucus is in the republican party. can republicans like boehner and mcconnell be changed, that is if they are not unseated by primaries or by votes in their caucuses? [applause]

both men have a businessman mentality and can appreciate the realities of power, so my answer is yes. andhe grassroots mobilizes the tea party gains critical mass, they can be changed. that's what politics is about. that is what the democratic party is about. they leveraged it and transformed it into an anti-american, anti-free market, anti-constitution party. how can we fight fire with fire? how do we answer this thing when they call us names? it is very easy. every inner city in america's controlled by the democratic party and has been for 50 years. the democratic party has its boot heels on the necks of poor, black, and hispanic people in every major inner city in america. they are crushing the life out of millions of poor black and

in the publicren school traps which they run as a jobs program for adults and the slush fund for the democratic party. for the republican party, for conservatives generally, to fight the democrats, you have to take the battle to the enemy camp. you have to tar and feather them. it is very unpleasant. and people who are not ready for unpleasantness should not be in politics anyway. [laughter] it is taking up the cause of the victims and indicting per pieces for their crimes -- and indicting progressives for their crimes, fighting fire with fire. the one thing it does not mean is business as usual. [applause] >> there is a reason david is america's favorite renegade leftist.

[laughter] let me start by first of all banking you for invite -- of all thanking you for inviting me and for being here. what you are doing is incredibly important. i'm going to hold this up. this is a study from the new york times -- "the new york times" in 1976. ronald reagan challenged terrell ford, the establishment republican president -- chal lenged gerald ford, the establishment republican president. one of the republican establishment arguments at the time was only an establishment, moderate republican can win. we've heard this argument many times. and of course, president ford lost. about a month after that defeat, the "new york times" sat down with then governor reagan. "reagan urgesays,

party to save itself by declaring its conservative beliefs." ardor --"a political party is not a -- let me begin with a reagan joke. about the greatlk baseball manager, frankie fish, who sent a rookie out to play centerfield. the rookie promptly dropped the first fly ball that was hit to him. on the next lake, he let a grounder go between his feet. then he threw the ball to the wrong base. frankie came out of the dugout, took the glove, and said, i'll show you how to play this position. he missed it completely, fell down when he tried to chase it, and told the rookie, you've got

centerfield so screwed up, nobody can play it. [laughter] now, with that in mind, let me tell you a couple of stories here. let me begin with the first story that revolves around something called the children's television act. the time is 1988. the children's television act was of course a liberal mission. they wanted to inject the federal government into what kids were seeing on saturday mornings and in evening hours. the way they were going to do this was to limit the amount of commercial advertising that could be allowed during children's television programming. it would be 12 minutes per hour during the week and 10.5 minutes per hour on saturday morning. of liberalscouple sitting somewhere saying i think it ought to be 11 minutes, it ought to be 10.5. ok.

it is 10.5. they put this in legislation and they get it passed by the house and the senate, which were in the hands of the democrats at the time. why were they doing this? those commercials were getting them up in the morning. they wanted froot loops, tony the tiger frosted flakes, even the toys, g.i. joe, just unbelievable. america was awash in, mommy, i want, i want, i want. the answer was to make uncle sam dr. no. it passed this legislation and sent it to president reagan. he took a look at this and said, well -- [laughter] you can imagine the polite nod of the head as he is laughing in the oval office. he spoke about how it was filled with laudable goals. but as far as he was concerned, this was a serious constitutional issue that was raised about the ability, "of

the federal government to oversee the programming decisions of television broadcasters, not to mention the red flag about those," and he meant prospective government regulators, "who might discourage the creation of programs that might not satisfy the tastes of agency officials, government bureaucrats responsible for considering license renewals." that conservative principle at work, ronald reagan will -- vetoed the bill. done. no, this is washington. some things never die. 22 months later after ronald reagan's veto, the bill was passed yet again by the house and senate, both in democrats' hands still. what was the change? we were now in the presidency of george herbert walker bush, the 41st presidency. in the way of the world at the staffhouse, you have

members frantically sending memos to one another about different things. the president should do a, b, or c. then you have these discussions. there was a reagan staffer who is still in the bush white house. he does -- he sees and hears that the president is going to sign this bill. he is apoplectic. he follows up. he goes to a senior bush colleague and says, why would a man who campaigned as ronald reagan's republican eric ever consider signing such a thing -- republican heir ever consider signing such a thing? it speaks of dangerous government regulation. it is a classic representation of the gop establishment and tea party problem of today. it sounds like a couple of bickering spouses.

there is this account written by a reagan and bush alumni, written on the bush administration, called white house daze. the bushy says to the reaganite, the votes aren't there in the house or senate to sustain a veto. he tells the reaganite, that he didn't "appreciate or understand the problem." after all, he had four kids. and those saturday morning ads on tv were awful. something had to be done about it. wasn't it the bush guy's parenting job to deal with the issue? why not turn off the television set if it is a real problem? kids don't buy tvs.

parents buy tvs. but this guy was not that easy. his kids went to the homes of other kids. he had no control over what went on in somebody else's house. the reaganite persisted bravely. talk to the parents of the other kids if this is a problem. if the situation is out of control, which i seriously doubt, keep your kids at home. on went the regular -- the reaganite, talking about how parental values and more involvement was supposed to be a hallmark of the bush administration. the phone rings and they are interrupted. the bush guy has to go. the end result? president bush refused to sign the bill, but he refused to veto the bill. he just let it become law without his signature. why the refusal to veto? because the reagan guy was told that the subject was closed.

it might get overridden and thus make the president look bad. the was an opportunity for principles to stand on a small issue. it was completely blown. the children's television act is now embedded in the tower of babel that is the government bureaucracy. forcing television broadcasters to play "mother may i" with the fcc. 2003, the second bush administration, bush 43, they made much of what they called compassionate conservativism. one of the things -- karl rove has written about this in light -- at length. they campaigned on something called no child left behind. they wanted to get moderate suburban couples with kids. grandly, losing the vote to al gore -- popular vote

to al gore. it was a small matter of 537 votes in florida and five supreme court justices, but hey. this was a winning issue for them. --y craft this legislation passed this legislation with the help of that great senator ted kennedy and, somewhat obscure at the time, john boehner. this is now law. it is adding billions and billions to the debt that george will was speaking of last night. there are all kinds of republican lobbyists who make a fair amount of change in washington making sure that this gets refunded over and over again. i would point out that ronald reagan had a position on federal education and he ran on it in 1980. it was "abolish the department of education," the whole thing. [applause] do something else with the money, maybe give it back to the

taxpayers. get rid of it. he campaigned on that and won 44 states. the supremeed court. he didn't need votes in florida. in 1984.d 49 states what i'm saying is the tea party is basically carrying the reagan message here. and it is not something that is alone in america. one of the things we all know is that ronald reagan was great friends with margaret thatcher. margaret thatcher went through this battle in britain with the equivalent of the conservative party, the tory establishment there. i want to quote an article she wrote when she declared her candidacy for party leader. "one of the reasons for our electoral failure is that people believe too many conservatives, c, the -- capital

conservative party, have you come socialists already. britain's progress toward two stepshas sent us forward with half a step back. why would anyone support a party that seems to have the courage and no convictions? " -- no convictions?" -- socialist ratchet had consisted of sharp swings to the left followed by periods when the left was arrested but never reversed. to translate into our terms and the republican party in america, what happens is the democratic party wins. they move america here. we elect republican presidents who sit here and say we will just manage this. we lose an election. another democrat comes in. fatal for great

britain. this was what caused margaret thatcher -- when we look at things like the children's television act or no child left behind or any number of things, we should be looking and asking the question, are we moving the socialist ratchet? most of the time the answer is yes. of the this is one reasons why outsiders are so much in favor in the republican party. you get in -- outside of washington, d.c., and pick in washington, the reporter said the other day that ted cruz needs to take a food taster with him when he goes to senate republican lunches. how do we stop this? there is a considerable difference between abolishing the department of education and adding no child left behind to expand the power and the reach of the education department. there is a considerable difference between be telling the children's television act on

constitutional grounds and letting it become law it is you are afraid to veto it and possibly make the president look bad. what these stories illustrate is that, among other things, or is it abide between the gop establishment and rank-and-file conservatives that is a real one -- there is a divide between the gop establishment and rank-and-file conservatives that is a real one. everett dirksen held the same job 20 years earlier. in 1980 andresident he lost badly to ronald reagan. howard baker was spotted standing at the rim of the convention floor looking out at all these jubilant reagan delegates. he said aloud, "these aren't my people." why is this? reagan brought new people

into the republican party. thearet thatcher said problem with the conservative party in great britain was that they were into consensus politics. ongaret thatcher was death consensus politics. it always led to moving the party left. stick to principle. never shy from it. and one other thing i would suggest is, our friend mark has a book out called "the liberty amendment's." i hope you are familiar with it. i hope all of you in the colorado legislature have a chance to look at it and talk to people in other legislatures around the country. fromg power from -- back the federal government to the states is one way to do it. [applause] ronald reagan made that famous speech in 1964 that was called "a time for choosing." i think we are at that point again and we can do this. thank you. [applause]

>> i regard myself as a reagan people ask when that -- when people ask me to define myself in republican terms. ronald reagan is one of my heroes. so is margaret thatcher. margaret thatcher did a phenomenal job in turning around the trajectory of the united thatom, and her reward for , much like the reward for winston churchill, was that ultimately she was turned out of power. a classic example of someone who was right by my perspective, and by i suspect everybody in the room, i don't mean right of center, i mean correct, who was rejected by the british body politic.

a conservative who stands on his or her principles, the most conservative will always be elected. how did that turn out in 1964 with goldwater? how did it turn out with sharron angle and christine o'donnell and todd akin question mark it simply isn't true. i wish it was true, but it simply isn't true. how many people in this hall regard yourselves as a firm tea party last -- firm tea partyist? is that less than a majority? you tell me. >> less than a majority that have hands up. there are more going up. >> i'm glad to hear that. if everybody in this room had raised his or her hand saying unanimously we are all members of the tea party, we'd be in a lot of trouble. and it is not because i disagree

with the tea party vision. i agree -- i embrace it. i've always embraced it. this discussion is about thomas i think, unity and winning about, i think, unity and winning elections. that's my goal -- unity and winning elections. [applause] let me define my terms. when i call myself an ideologue, a negativen that as or pejorative. i'm ideological. i have a philosophy and vision. i have principles. how many people in this room are ideological? just about everybody. room -- people in this this is great: we are doing right now. -- this is great polling we are doing right now. how many of you believe that the majority of americans are ideological?

very few. i agree with this majority. a majority of americans are not ideological. having a night -- an ideology and a philosophy and division of the way the world works requires a lot of hard work and research and self-education -- and a vision of the way the world works requires a lot of hard work and research and self-education. it is not as easy as spending time watching television or going to nascar races or bronco games, whatever you like to do. americans are not ideological, which is sadly why ideological appeals don't always resonate with americans. if you in this room represented -- if you were for representation of the american body politic, we would have no problem. you are not and neither am i. .deology is about ideas politics is about winning elections. you only win elections in the aggregate.

when you take a look at this great nation of ours, 435 congressional districts and 100 senate seats, in order to be a majority party, you have to put together a majority coalition. this is a two-party system. it is going to stay at two-party system for a long time to come. no minor party is going to emerge and suddenly displace one of the two major parties, the democrats or republicans, not in my judgment anytime soon. you remember ross perot. he lost that election in 1992 helping bill clinton get elected . and he got something like 20% of the popular vote. he got zero electoral college votes. why? because our constitution is biased in favor of a two-party system. you have to win a state to get

its electoral college votes and ross perot did not win one single state. party, what was the name of the ross perot party? the reform party, thank you. the reform party sought to survive the failed ross perot presidential attempt and hung around for a while, but ultimately dissipated. there is an old expression, what if you gave a party and nobody came? a more contemporary paraphrase you had a teaif party and less than a plurality came? theanswer might be that plurality that did get more votes than any other party would be the governing party. it is all about being the governing party in this country of ours.

i like so much of what ted cruz stands for. i like his courage, his principles. i don't like all of his tactics and strategies. and the holding obama's feet to the fire because any rational person would compromise on a continuing resolution -- that strategy failed because obama is not a compromiser and he is not politically rational. he is obstinate. he is not going to cave and he certainly wasn't going to give away obama care, his singular achievement. talking about ted cruz -- as i said, there are 430 five separate congressional districts in the united states of america, each one with its own character, its own demographics.

how many of those 435 congressional districts did ted -- how many of those districts do you think he could win? somebody throw out a number. >> 230. >> it would be a miracle if he could win in 60 in my judgment. of those 435 congressional districts, maybe 50 of them are competitive and up for grabs. that means you have a 385 380 five-- you have districts that would vote solidly for either a democrat or a republican. and i don't mean either or -- either/or. that governing electoral majority in the u.s. house would be determined by which of the two major parties get which of those 50 swing districts. and if you want to -- if you aspire to be a major political

party that governs in this country, you cannot be purist or dogmatic. i wish that weren't true. i wish a majority of americans shared my vision. i won't go so far as to say dogmatism, but my fundamental principles, but they don't. the republican party is not a minor party, but it is a republican -- it is on entirety -- it is a minority party in the united states. the democratic party is also a minority party. thosee have all of independent, unaffiliated voters . elections are determined on the basis of who can win the swing voters. you can win an election on platitudes. barack obama didn't say that with his -- barack obama

with histed that hope and change platform. but you cannot govern with -- he is perhaps the worst governing president in the history of the country. he has no concept of how to govern. george will yesterday, toward the end of the program, in answering the question, along the lines of is there any hope for the country -- george said when he talked about the american public that the american public still stands for those fundamental values, especially freedom. this collective notion of the american public that so many people do from both parties -- you hear some democrats stand up, advocating this, that, or the other thing, then invoking,

"we the people" believe this should be. which people? won, heugh barack obama wasn't elected unanimously. an awful lot of people voted against him. and the republican will stand up in colorado and say we the people of colorado want such and such. which people of colorado? or is a majority of democrats in each house of the colorado -- there is a majority of democrats in each house of the colorado congress of the legislature. there is no such thing as we the people as if americans all agreed. we've never all agreed. we didn't even agree at the time of the resolution asked the revolution. -- we didn't even agree at the time of the revolution. crafted --tution was when the constitution was crafted and when it needed to be ratified, you needed to get the ends -- the consent of those 13 colonies to ratify the

constitution, the 13 new states, and they were split right up the middle on slavery. the southern states, the slave states, and the northern states. thecompromise was -- constitution was a compromise on slavery because it couldn't be resolved. it was later resolved 80 years from then during the civil war. but if those members of the continental congress weren't able to get together and compromise on the issue of slavery by kicking the can down the road, we didn't ever ratify the constitution. party, as i said earlier is a minority party, but a major minority party. the tea party element is a minority of the republican coalition. and within that tea party element, they are not monolithic . i talked to dozens, hundreds of

tea party people who disagree with other tea party people, as well it should be. but on a vast majority of things, republicans and tea party activists agree. and thee politics tactics and the strategy where we disagree. ayn rand once said, if you have a fundamental conflict, you and someone else, the first thing you should check is your premises. what is the fundamental premise that this talk it -- this topic is based on? what will be a successful strategy for winning? at premise is where does the american -- that premise is where does the american public sit? the american public willing to embrace uncompromised tea party principles? i'm sorry to say no. don rumsfeld says you go to war

with the army you have. you go to elections with the american public we have. and the american public is not ideological and they are soft. i like to believe we are a right-center country, but we are not as right-center as we were when ronald reagan was elected. that was a wonderful time. reagan was elected on the heels of a failed presidency, jimmy carter, with americans held hostage in tehran, with the soviet union on a roll, with hubble digit inflation and interest rates -- with double digit inflation and interest rates. ironically, barack obama was elected on what the public perceived to be -- on the heels of what the public perceived to be a failed presidency. his business about republican establishment is a great overstatement -- this business about republican establishment is a great overstatement. we have 50 different republican parties and 50 different states and they have different characters.

-- in many of the congressional districts, the rocksolid reaganite conservative can win. in some of those congressional districts and states, only a more compromising, softer republican can't possibly win. -- can possibly win. i hope that mike coffman is able to win. [applause] i'm very familiar with his voting record. it is solidly conservative. i should note that mike coffman is a traitor to the united states. something called the tea party leadership fund has said. they branded mike coffman as a traitor because he voted to jettison that losing republican strategy about a government

shutdown. other names you recognize because they are in this room, congressman scott tipton, according to the tea party leadership fund. they are not traitors. that was a bad strategy. we can agree or disagree about the merits of the strategy, but it is not traitorous. this kind of languages district it, self-destructive -- this kind of language is self-destructive. we have defined each battle based on the rules of the battlefield and those congressional districts and states. he said politicians will always disappoint. of course they will. the republican party is a name parfitt party -- is an imperfect

party ideologically, but i am a partisan republican. i believe in limited government, constitutionalism, individual liberty. that i have to support a republican in some races who is not up to my standards, because if i were to run in some of those races, i couldn't win either. that is the reality of politics. that is why it is essential that the tea party recognize its limitations and pull together to form a majority coalition. the republican party has already been pulled to the right by the tea party. i'm delighted to observe that. taking back to 2006, bush was still president. in that last midterm election in his second term, republicans got murdered. we lost our majority control of the united states congress. we did, because a lot of

so-called blue dog democrats won in districts that -- more conservative democrats. even though there is a left-wing element to the party, they learned their lesson from the 2000 presidential election, when something like 6% of the people in florida voted for ralph nader for president, giving george bush enough electoral college votes to carry florida. a lot of people voted for green party candidates on the left side. after 2000, they learned their lesson. that indemonstrated 2006 when they supported blue dog democrats, not left-wing democrats. after that devastating loss in 2006 and in 2008, republicans made a comeback in 2010. won inty candidates those same swing districts for blue dog democrats -- where blue

dog democrats had won. i was delighted to see that, but tea party candidates can't win in every district. the tea party has succeeded in shifting the republican party to the right in congress. this is not your father's oldsmobile in congress. that perfect tea party candidate is not the perfect candidate for every congressional district. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, mike. to our panel. i'm going to start off with a question. the tea party is discussed as a noun, as though it is an entity that one may join and be a member. many candidates -- i often get

asked are you a member of the tea party. for the life of me, i wouldn't know where to sign up to be one if i wanted to, which raises the question, can that be defined? what concerns ought there be -- t who gets to define you read a memo from an organization that uses tea party in its organizational title. there are several of those. there are dozens of those. the difficulty is some renegade group could take the tea party banner and say we represent the essence of the tea party and malign it. the media is always looking at the big rally. they are trying to find the one guy who has the race -- racist statement to put on national news. what exactly is this group

question mark is it a movement? if it is some big, nebulous thing, is it capable or possible of putting forward actual proposals? actual ,> i will take a crack at that as probably the closest thing on this stage to a card-carrying member of the tea party. the media at some point was trying to figure out what to call this thing. they started calling it capital wereital party, as if it party,tal tea, capital as if it were a party. it is a social movement based on a simple set of values. any tea party crowd will say that limited freedom, constitutional responsibly of government, and fiscal response ability -- that is how they self organized.

they are morphing into something else. it started as a protest movement. it became a get out to vote movement in 2010. it is much broader today. it is the liberty movement. it is a mash-up of old-school conservatives. agree on a couple of things that really matter. they disagree on a lot of other stuff. what the tea party really is is the tip of the spear on a fundamental shift in american politics. it is -- it no longer really is a two-party system. it is not the dnc and rnc. it is something that is more empowering of individuals. people have better information. they don't rely on "the new york times" anymore. i know tea party moms in florida who have larger facebook pages than the local gop. think about the marginal cost of organizing and how that changes everything.

i would also argue that those values are not far right. a lot of tea party years -- tea thaters are in growing class of independents that are fed up with party ship on both sides. >> you can say it is not a two-party system anymore, and that might be your future for the future, but it is a t -- it is a two-party system. democrats.rned by after the next election, we will be governed by democrats or republicans. ideological groups like the tea party, if they want to have an influence in governing, they will adhere themselves to one of those two parties. we will be governed by one of those two parties. if the tea party were to form a party of its own, it would be marginalized. it might get more support than the green party or the american socialist workers party, but --

i'm sorry to say that the vast majority of americans aren't up to the rigors of libertarianism or tea party is him -- tea partyism. >> let me address that for just a second. if you look at the majority party today, it is independent, not democrats or republicans, but we are in the process -- i would argue that the republican party is actually ours, small arm, republican. , republican. it is the people who have abandoned the basic principles that either need to find a better home or rediscover what it is they believe. >> and that's the point i had been making. [applause] it is about revitalizing the republican party. when governor cuomo in new york said that there is no place in of york for conservatives various stripes, as he defined

them -- how imperial. i'm a republican. i never thought of myself as an establishment republican, but i guess i've become one. maybe i'm an elder statesman right now. the republican party cannot win without support from the tea party. the republican party cannot win by -- be a governing party without support from social issue conservatives. we all need to come together and form a majority coalition. we want to win. >> in 2010, i think we helped create what was the largest republican landslide since the some gop experts turned around and blamed us for not doing better. i think there is some confusion about this. i think the 2010 model matters. i don't think it was an ideological race. i think we ran on issues. we ran against a government takeover of obamacare.

if you look at the history of the republican party, we were not running bob dole for president again and again. we actually do something. we win. we win based on values and issues. i don't think it is ideologically right or left. it is an alternative. >> drawn a line in the sand to let people know where you stand. in terms of the government shutdown -- i would recall for people in 1987, the democrats in the house and senate passed the quote unquote "clean water bill," which was filled with pork. president reagan made up his mind to veto the bill. he went to house republicans. he was being castigated on the pro -- oor as being a he wanted dirty air and water and all this sort of thing. he calls in the house republican leadership and says i want to veto this bill. he goes through his reasons. they said, don't do that. the bones are there -- the votes

aren't there to sustain it. he says i understand i will lose because of the democrats, but i want your support. he got support from only 26 republicans in the house to sustain his veto. thatnt back to the mansion night and wrote in his diary that he made his pitch and what these folks didn't seem to understand is that you have to draw a line before "the dems and let peoplecans" to know where we take a stand on an issue. if you're going to lose an issue -- he is the sitting president of the united states, he lost the battle. he made it abundantly clear where he stood. two years later, his successor, running on his coattails, was elected to elect a republican president -- elected in the last landslide to elect a republican president. that is what the tea party does. >> i'm a big fan of ronald reagan, too, but he was a major compromise or two he had a huge

-- compromiser. he had a huge expansion of medicare. his genius was picking his fights. it was taxes and the evil empire. and compromise on a lot of other things. a lot of this is a rhetorical battle. the beltway.ide i live in california. i am most appalled by the attacks by the republican .stablishment i have a lot of respect for their political intelligence, but the attacks on the tea party -- it is the language. i long for the day when i can see republicans fight democrats with the same level of vitriol

and nastiness that they fight each other. [applause] that -- i think what i said about the business mentality -- i've watched this for years. it came out of the left. i have this fight mentality. that's where i was brought up. i was a little kid at a little kid at the breakfast table and we would have these big the lyrical arguments. solidarityd fighting -- have these big political arguments. i understand fighting solidarity. it is this that is lacking. if we would focus more on attacking the democrats, call people traitors -- ron johnson, who was elected by the tea party and is a wonderful person, legislator, he voted

against ted cruz on that issue. when i hear trader applied -- itor applied to those who deserve it, such as democrats -- they sabotaged that war for five years, destroyed national bushity programs, and the white house never held their feet to the fire and said you are betraying our men and women in the field. they got americans killed. no question about it. nobody said anything. christine o'donnell -- somebody in hollywood asked me to go out and do speeches for her. and i gave. the woman is a blithering idiot. [laughter] i don't know how she got to be the candidate, but i know that

the republicans in delaware -- thee -- i don't republicans in delaware despise -- i don't remember the guy. castle.castle -- mike we have a problem. dole, mccain, romney -- >> and we are surprised. >> i think this is hugely healthy -- a hugely healthy development. the storiest of about splits and divorces comes from the media, which is very unfriendly to us, and from people who are threatened, like boehner. he should be out. >> the tea party got started and it was immediately disrespected

by the liberal media and by the democrats. they called it an astroturf movement. he pretended that people were pulling the strings and it wasn't spontaneous. of course it was spontaneous. it was sincere. it was legitimate. their strategy became to turn the republican and tea party against each other and they have continued to advance that strategy in their own interest. we have to be careful not to fall into that trap. >> we do have to be careful. i would agree. i can say this. this is fact. of that environment of veto, the clean water bill i was talking about, reagan also wrote in his diary, we had more rabbits when we needed tigers. i would suggest go with rabbits and tigers. >> we need both. rick -- ted cruz can be a tiger. everybody can't be a ted cruz if we want to be a majority party. >> i want to get to the point that really brings in the

purpose and the vision of this of theleadership program rockies, as it relates to some key elements of the discussion here today. ronald reagan had been consistent in an on message as the principal conservative for many years. i can't remember who said it, but it was not until the 1980's, 1980 and that campaign in particular, that his message ended up resonating with the hadtry in a way that it not, at least not to the same extent prior to hear that tended to be a function of a long chain of failures of the carter administration and an enormous level of discomfort and discouragement among the american people. the key element is he used that campaign and his presidency to combat what you pointed out. that is the majority of americans are not ideological right now. reagan became more than just a

leader. he became an educator for the american people and in so created his majority in the country, simultaneous to his success in office and as a candidate. it seems to me that that scenario may be presenting itself right now as well with the failures of the current administration, growing discomfort, growing disillusionment among the american people. and we are all hungry for that messenger who is going to clarify principles for the country and do so in a way that establishes a certain level of credibility. the frustration i think we see right now and this discussion about the tea party is the tea party does very well articulating what is very wrong with the health care plan is bad. what is the plan we should be for? we can all agree that the u.s. department of education, no child left behind, the obama strategy with race to the top and so on, is a bad idea. what is the conservative message

we can rally around? no one has really articulated that particularly clearly. tax policy, consumption tax -- what is it? that moment that allowed reagan to rise to the top and the way that we all are -- still praising him today, right now in this discussion -- that moment exists. the way to convey that message is the big question. >> i love the passion and commitment of the tea party, but passion doesn't always channel it -- you're a the advice john f. kennedy got from his father, "i'll get mad, get even. -- you remember the advice john f. kennedy got from his father, "don't get mad, get even." now is the time to get even. [applause] >> i found myself in heated agreement with my old friend like rosen and david horowitz --

and david mike rosen horowitz. maybe i can sharpen the central problem here with two short propositions and throw it back to the panel for further review, like your nfl refs "under the hood." he is saying majorities are always heterogenous by their nature. that is not new. that has always been true in american politics. the most successful, durable coalition ever was the new deal coalition. its constituent parts made no sense next to each other except on election day. go back and look at the late 30's and see people on the far left and see them complaining bitterly that the new deal wasn't far left enough, serious people -- party in the a tea 30's, we should call them the red bulls. campaign, like the spirit of the tea party, what

does he have to do to put himself over the top? he thinks he has to name richard swygert as his running mate. hit damaged -- that damaged him in with conservatives. the letters are about two feet tall. what do we get in 1980? george h.w. bush. a catastrophic mistake in my opinion. politics is a crapshoot. it is not possible to tell prospectively how things are going to work out. which leads the proposition number two. the old axiom, "perfect is the enemy of the good." thateft completely ignore in the 1960's and 1970's as they were wrecking the democratic party. it damaged the party for two decades until they learned to live better, which is why they are back on top today -- to lie better, which is why they are back on top today. issues aren't on the ballot. people are on the ballot.

you have to get people who can sell the ideas. the ideas don't sell themselves in a vacuum. [applause] >> i agree. this thing about the education department, i had a friend who was a democratic party strategist, who is a closet conservative, looking to get off their reservation. he said the you guys don't know how to fight these political wars. you don't say you want to abolish the education department because all they hear is you are against education. what you do is you increase the education department's budget, but in the fine print am a take away all of its powers. -- in the fine print, take away all of its powers. [laughter] machiavellian.l,

they have to lie because their agenda would never wash with the american people. i think it is the battle that will reap -- that will unite the republican party. that's why i was so happy to see lee's,ise -- cruz's, lots of them now. the fights over benghazi. all of these issues. , people getht excited and they get passionate and they come out and there is a cause. we should be very careful about -- there are principles that definitely divide us from our political enemies. but be very careful about what those principles are. he talked about george h.w. bush squandering much of the reagan legacy, and i couldn't agree more.

i remember the first thing the george h.w. bush -- i like the man personally -- said, and i cringed when i heard, he said, "we need to be a kinder and gentler america." implicitly, "kinder and gentler" than ronald reagan. the republican party isn't yet up to tea party standards and i don't think ever will be because of soft districts, but it really has changed. the days of rockefeller republicans -- that wing of the party is gone. the lowell rikers and john chafee's are gone. a soft republican is a different definition today of what it was 30 years ago. two liberal women senators, wasn'tnd collins, i happy with them. they gave us two votes in the senate. those are the only kind of people maine would elect. >> the reagan era was terrific,

but there is more to it. life is still to be lived. the importance of the goldwater campaign was to begin to turn the party around and set this on the track so that we are at a point where there are lots of goldwater's and reagan's out there. this is not going to end this year or next year or as far as i can see ever. we have to show up for battle every day. >> we are over on time. questionsthose great -- for those great questions that are not going to be asked. let's give a great round of applause for our panel and the discussion. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> very well done, thank you guys. >> tonight an c-span q&a with

ibis sanchez-serrano followed by question time with david cameron and the house of commons and rand paul on government urveillance. >> this week on q&a, business man and author ibis sanchez-serrano discusses his book from the laboratory bench to the patient's bedside, "the world's healthcare crisis". >> ibis sanchez-serrano, what's the reason that you say that 90% of all online drugs, meaning prescription drugs are fake? >> there has been a study of the pharmaceut