after the second year, just when i can tell you you're terrible, you're in for life. it's reversed. you should be tenured for three years. geoffrey canada was a terrible teacher his first year. should he have been fired? everyone is bad. it's an art form. you cannot tell. it takes three years. they find it and start to connect with their kids. it is an art form. ironically,enure, data says it is not all that important. we won most of the teachers to be there working anyway. the extremely terrible teachers at that point could be weeded out after three years. the rest of them, they have to stay anyway. we need them all. this is not a vital, important issue. did they saye --

that, they violated -- >> [inaudible] yes, tenure violates -- come on. that does not say it's your fault, i don't know what else does. in the perfect world -- right now all the rules are set to contain bad behavior. that is what all the rules are set for, as opposed to flourishing of best practices. let's say that mrs. so-and-so is an amazing teacher. she should be able to teach first one up to get to assistant principal. everything should be flourishing. that has been proven to cause retention and school achievement to go way up. it is not actually the things we think it is. why do you think that -- why do

we think they are motivated by pay more than us? some of the most unselfish people out there working. after certain necessities, that is not a motivating factor. it is success, being heard, all the things that would motivate us. this conversation about tenure is confusing to me. them how to be navy seals, and then hold them accountable. then give them whatever they want, tenure and all of that. >> what can we do to get parents more involved in their children's education? >> as we implicated here are talked about lightly, the messaging outside the school is not great. if you have looked at the studies, those homes, inner-city low income homes are speaking millions of words less per year than high income homes.

there are no books on the shelves. we know that. in the data that i had for the book, i did not have enough data to say that changing the home willonment categorically help us close the achievement gap. i can tell you from being in the trenches and talking and seeing enough data so far to tell you, i guarantee you that will be the sixth one. about to beand it's proven. i will give you an example. project done in north carolina in the 1970's. they did quality early child education. aen done well, it inoculates child for three years. in this one, they went into the home every two weeks and taught

the parents how to do homework with the kids. those kids when tracked all the way through high school were graduating at much higher rates, going to college at much higher rates. much less dropout rates. the home environment had changed. it had been changed. they were inoculated for the rest of their lives. data?ave those pieces of i just don't have enough. i know there will be enough data. only good can come from involving them. can i mandated for the schools? no. this goes under the premise of if the home environment does not change, can you close the achievement gap? the answer to that is categorically yes. >> hollywood has a major influence over young americans and how they view the world.

sendlevision and films messages that make students devalue education? how can hollywood use its influence in a positive way? >> hmmm. hmmm. i have not really thought about this answer. i guess they are two separate parts of my brain, moviemaking and education. in general, we are giving the same messaging as everybody else. how many african-american intellectuals do we see in our movies? we always have morgan freeman as the president. i will give you that. [laughter] -- what is the normal thing? what is the messaging i'm guilty of and everyone is guilty of? we're playing on social norms of, this is what we expect from this group. the messaging is a societal

thing and we are complicit in it for sure. i don't know how much we can change it. it's a difficult question. , film has thew-up power to reflect and influence society. we now see increasing violence in films. where will it end? will movie fans reject this, or will we likely have to see the code reintroduced? thing -- i'm not an expert on violence in films. education gap, that is all have done for five years. when we get our films rated around the country, the u.s. is super prudish about sex. you showed a breast, that is r. world, rest of the sexuality is not a thing but violence is a thing. here you can kill any amount of people, pg.

bring the kids. not a problem. [laughter] it's a fascinating cultural thing where we are so desensitized to violence. and even glorify it, to some extent. it is an interesting thing culturally. it is different in other countries. countries,o other they will have a problem with the violence in my movies. it's an interesting societal thing. >> how did your work with cinematographer on the "sixth sense" and "signs" affect the tonal nature of your films? >> i'm a big fan of japanese cinema and art. we really got along. "silence of the lambs," that is one of my favorite movies.

minimalism -- we're both minimalists. the cinematographers i pick are more naturalists. they make it feel like a natural room, not blue lights with fans and things like that. i learned a lot from him. he has done three of my movies. it's more about the japanese cinema of it being subtle. if you come to our house, everything is very minimal. my brain gets a little bit messed up with too much stimuli. >> >> as a writer, at what point, if at any time, do you collaborate? is it usually a gut feeling when you conceive a new idea? >> you know, it's been fascinating. i tried something different here. if i'm doing an independent film. not trying to assign a pedgetive

-- pejorative to any type of film micking -- making. with this movie, i tried to get back to hearing my own voice a little bit. it was scary and fascinating, and maybe not unrelated to education, because what we're teaching children to do is listen to their voice. artists in their best form are listening to their voices. i didn't have playback when i was shooting the movie. when i shot the scene, i didn't get to see if i did it well. that's normal now, everybody does that. would say, just listen. out of my mouth comes the thing i didn't know. on that line you need to come forward. or this isn't about her anger. just quietly in that vain.

even so, like, with the script, i was very quiet with it. i held on to it, and i really thought, hmm, something is wrong. something is wrong. don't go, "hey, what's wrong?" even if she gives me the correct answer, i lost. i need to go, what's wrong? what's wrong? what's wrong? just like the body, oftentimes your knee hurts, it's not your knee, it's your hip. but as an expert in the field would say, it is not your knee, it's your hip, just to say, ah, that scene is not working. it is not that scene, it is this scene. and to intuitively get to that scene where you are going -- and then finally when you have to make a decision that you know you won't get everybody and have peace about that. and say, i'm sorry, it feels correct. i'm going to let go of this group. to have the courage to do that. to know why you are doing that. not being rebellious, but being,

this is true. hopefully when you see the movie, you might sense a kind of a clarity of voice. you don't have to like it, but you will sense a clarity that was president done by committee. >> we're almost out of time. before i ask you the last question, i have a couple house keeping matters to take care of. june 27 congressman john dingall of michigan. ieda 2nd, dr. thomas fr will address concerns about key health issues. august 1, the president of the republic of congo will discuss peace, security, and stability of the central african region in oil investments in his country.

next, i would like to prept our guest with the precisional press club mug. i don't know if you use it for good coffee or good chai, but we thank you for your visit with us today. finally, for the last question, what is your favorite movie of all time? and why? >> the tough question at the end. gosh. i mean, there is probably a new genra. probably, if i'm being -- taking everything into account, i think the first godfather is the best film ever made on every level. should i tell you why? you asked why, right? >> yes. who, rnalism we teach what, when, where, and why? -- keeping you activated

came organically from the piece. originally copolla was hired just because he was italian. and what i find is when artists forced to speak in a little bit more -- i don't want to say "commercial" because that's pejorative but into a vein that's a little bit more for everybody, end up not letting go of his voice. everybody thought francis was crazy giving it such drama and treating this subject with such clarity, and everyone else followed suit. like al paccino, they were about to fire him because he was so quiet. then they saw the scene where he does the assassination, and they were like, oh, that's what he's doing. they talked about giving humanity to every character, even villains.

an empowering story. it's in my room, that poster. >> thank you. how about a round of applause. [applause] >> next some of the speakers at today's iowa republican convention. we'll here from rand paul, bobby jingal, and rick santorum. >> this week on "prime minister's questions" british prime minister david cameron talks about islamic extremism in schools and the economy. and ed milliband questions the prime minister about the long wait time for passports. "prime minister's questions" on c-span.

>> for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room with congressional events and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the house. we're c-span created by cable tv 35 years ago and brought to you by your local cable or satellite tv provider. watch us on tv, follow us on facebook and twitter. the ery four years republican party convention is held in des moines. om kentucky honorable rand paul. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you.

i can tell you most everybody in washington has seen joanie earns t's add. and i can tell you that the purvares of pork are shaking in their boots and worried that joanie will come up there. i can also tell you that we're going to do everything to make sure that she can come up there. i don't see how iowa can send us a guy who disparages farming and disparages my friend chuck grassley. i don't see how that's going to happen. [cheers and applause] >> now, i don't know about you but i'm not so excited about the president freing the taliban. i'm not so excited about the president saying somehow they're no longer a danger. i'm not so excited about

hillary clinton saying oh, the taliban's of no danger to americans. so i said the other day, i was in texas. i said, you know, if this president likes to trade so much, we've got that marine on gun charges down in mexico. why don't we do a trade but this time instead of trading the taliban, why don't we trade them five democrats? [cheers and applause] john kerry, hillary clinton, nancy pelosi. i can come up with a list. but here's the funny thing about trying to tell a joke when you're in politics. immediately the reporters are like, seriously? did he just compare democrats to the taliban? so we had to issue a correction. so we sent out a tweet and we said, just kidding. except for pelosi.

i've got good news and bad thuse though from washington. the good news is your government's open. the bad news is your government's open and still borrowing $1 million every minute. the debt is spiraling out of control. if you've seen the debt clock.org? just look at the numbers and you'll be frightened for

if you're declared unessential, you don't have to show up but you're still paid. only in washington could you shut the government down and it costs more than keeping it open. completely insane. i asked for a report from my staff. what did the i.r.s. say? essential, unessential? 90% unessential. what did the e.p.a. say? 95% unessential. and i said we're getting somewhere here. maybe we're going to learn something. and then they actually went through some of the e.p.a. employees. one woman had not been to work in 20 years. she had had no contact no email

for five years. and you say well good we found out now she's been fired. no you don't get it. she's a federal employee. we can't even fire the people at the v.a. who have lied to us about our veterans made up these lists and allowed veterans to wait in a line and die. we captain fire them. this is how dysfunctional your government is. they discovered another woman at the e.p.a. who was selling jewelry and vitamins from her computer add and had employed 17 paid interns that were family members of hers. they found another guy had been down loading porn for six hours a day. and you think well certainly he was fired. he still works for the e.p.a. it's a disgrace. but my favorite is they found a guy named jonathan beal. he had been working at the e.p.a. for 11 years. he was jeana mccarthy's right-hand man. and they looked and he always was getting raises. he always got performance bonuses. his reviews were good. but he hadn't been to work in six months. so they asked him boss.

they actedly followed up and asked his boss. oh, the reason he is not here he's also a c.i.a. agent. and they were like really? he works for the e.p.a. and the c.i.a.? kind of an interesting combination. but then they called the c.i.a. and they said jonathan who? it turns out he had never worked for the c.i.a. but i imagine this guy makes $150,000 a year sitting at his apartment or his house next to the pool with a beer and he's like his boss calls and says are you coming in? no, i'm in istanbul on secret assignment. this is where your government is. it's completely crazy and completely out of control. so we went through this shutdown and you said, well, i guess that was terrible. all the government's shut down. right? no. two thirds of your government's anauto pilot. two thirds of your government is mandatory spending and never shuts down. this is medicare, social security, and medicaid.

so a third of your government is national defense and the other stuff we spend money on. so we did the right thing. we said we should pay our old jers. we can't have them in the field. so we opened up the military and paid. so now we're down to a sixth of got. about 16% was closed. you would have thought the world was ending and the sky was falling from all the talk. the president though was afraid you might not notice. so do you remember what the president did? he wrapped the world war ii monument. no telling how many employees it takes to wrap the world war ii monument. there is no entrance, there is no exit. nobody works at the world war ii monument but he wanted to make sure you knew you were going to pay a penalty if you messed with it. if you messed with the the president and said i'm not going to negotiate so he wraps the world war ii monument. but if you want an image to remember from the confrontation from the shutdown? from trying to get the president to do the responsible thing? if you want an image to remember, you remember the

world war ii veterans cutting the placards, cutting the barricades and throwing them on the lawn at the white house. cheers and applause] the democrats and the president they say woe is me. where would we cut? we can't find anywhere to cut. so i've been pointing out a few things and a few areas where he might consider it. we spent $1.8 million on rollup beef jerky. we spent $5 million studying the collective action of fish. we spent a half a million dollars developing a menu for mars. now, that is good job. if you've got a 26-year-old kid who can't find a job and you're looking for a job, this is a great job. pays $5,000 stipend, two weeks all expenses paid in hawaii. the prerequisites to get the job are difficult though.

you have to like food. so they sent these 20-something-year-old kids to hawaii with the assignment to develop a menu that's a half million dollar study to develop a menu for mars. you know what a butch of college kids came up with? pizza. we spent a quarter of a million developing a 3-d printer for pizza. so i'm madging are we going to be able to get the 3-d printer on the mars module? we're going to send a 3-d printer to mars. this is your government the total and complete dysfunction nalt of your government. but they can't cut anything. but realize two thirds of the problem are the enentitlements. and none of us are saying get rid of that. we're saying reform the entitlements. [applause] but here's the disappointing thing. and this is what discourages me about washington. we had a vote about four months

ago to try to cut $3 million. now, some will tell you, $3 million, that's peanuts. why bother? if you don't start somewhere, how are we ever going to get started? [applause] this was to cut $3 million for twiggy, the water skiing squirrel. now, i like dumb pet tricks and if you email me one i will look at it. but i'm not for having the taxpayers spend $3 million for twiggy the water skiing squirrel to support the selling of american walnuts in spain. and god love you if you've got a walnut farm but that's your job to advertise them, not the taxpayers. [applause] but we had a vote. and here's the disturbing thing. that's easy. this should be really easy. the vast majority of republicans, americans, democrats, should say when you have a $1 trillion annual deficit that we should be able

to cut twiggy the water skiing squirrel. but here's the disappointment. it failed. the majority of republicans voted to keep the money. and here's the other thing we need to know as republicans. it's not that we're against the safety net. but we think a safety net should be temporary and the able bodied should eventually get back to work. that's tough love. but as republicans, we can't be out there for what it takes, which is tough love, if we're not willing to stop corporate welfare. we've got to stop and end all the welfare at big business. t's crazy. when i think of this administration, i think of old mcdonald's farm. old mcdonald's farm of scandals. here a scandal, there a scandal, everywhere a scandal. but of all the scandals the one

i think that bothers me the most is benghazi. [cheers and applause] there's been a lot of discussion of the talking points. the democrats say well that's political. well, i'll tell you what's not political. if you are going to consider somebody to be your commander in chief, you have to have somebody who will secure the troops, protect the embassies, and who will send reinforcements. cheers and applause] the debacle in benghazi started in the very beginning at the very top with hillary clinton deciding that the benghazi consulate was more like paris than it was baghdad. it was a war zone and it was a mistake from the very beginning to have nobody protecting that consulate. [applause] six months in advance of the

attack on the consulate, there was a request made of hillary clinton for a plane to fly the plane around in case of emergency. guess what. that emergency did arise and the night we were looking for reinforcements in triply, do you know what we were doing? we were begging to let them have the libyans use one of their planes, which was an american plane that we paid for. but we had to beg the lip libyans because there was no plane because the state department refused to allow a plane to be there. this was something that was a terrible and tragic error. but a couple of days after hillary clinton state department turns down the plane. do you know what they have money for? they found $100,000 for a charging station for electric cars at the embassy in vienna. hey found $100,000 to send

comedians to india to make chy not war. they spent $5 million on crystal glassware. but didn't have enough money for security. hey spent $650,000 on facebook ads. seems they need more friends at the facebook for the state department. they spent $700,000 when they say i didn't have enough for security, they spent $700,000 on landscaping at the embassy in brussels. so all of this is going on. meanwhile colonel woods is there with a 16 man personnel team a month before the attacks and he said we need to stay. the british embassy is pulling out. there have been attacks on our complex. we need more security not less. hillary clinton's state department what do they say? no. so i finally got her in front of my committee on the way out. and i frankly said look, if i would have been president i

would have asked for your resignation. cheers and applause] and i asked her a question. i asked her a question. i said did you read the cables from the ambassador? she never read them. it's a dare licks of duty. it's something that should preclude hillary clinton from ever being considered as commarpped in chief. -- commander in chief. cheers and applause] thank you. but if you want that to happen, if you want a republican to be the next president of the united states, we are going to have to be a bigger, better, bolder party. there's a big debate going on,

though. some say for us to be bigger we have to dilute our message. we need to be democrat-like. we need to be more moderate to get more electoral votes. i couldn't disagree more. in fact, i think the core of our message we could be even more bold, more honest, more forthright. [cheers and applause] when ronald reagan won a landslide, he ran unabashedly on lowering tax rates for everyone that it would stimulate the economy and 20 million jobs were created. that's what we need again. it isn't about being tepid. in washington, you've got people in washington saying i'm for revenue neutral tax reform. i frankly if that's what we're

for i'll go back to being a doctor, back to kentucky, and continue. but that's not why i ran for office. to say oh mr. smith will pay a little more and mrs. jones will pay a little less. but the overall tax burden will be the same. let's be unabashedly for returning more money to iowa, leaving it here to create jobs. [cheers and applause] but how do we get bigger and better? i think we don't give up our core message. but part of our message has to reach out to people where they are. so i spent a lot of time in the last year going to historicically black colleges, going to predominantly hispanic audiences. going to berkeley. going to places republicans haven't gone before. but i'm not going there and changing my message. i'm going there with the same message. i spoke to the conservative

political action committee and i told them, you know what? we're conservatives and we believe in the second amendment but we also believe in the fourth amendment, we also believe in privacy. [cheers and applause] i took that exact message to berkeley. and i was received in both places. young people will vote for us. but it isn't that you don't meet young people and say i'm not voting for republican because they're for the balanced budget amendment. you don't meet african americans who say i'm against the balanced budget amendment. it's not where they are particularly young people. they don't have any money, any job. they don't care about regulations and taxes. but everyone of them has a cell phone and they think frankly it's none of the government's business what they do on their cell phone. [applause] there are ways we can reach out. but you've got to realize where people are. i'll bring up something that may not bring everybody

together just you can think about it. if you think about the war on drugs. i think drugs are a scurege. i think we've maybe gone too far that marijuana is a problem. and yet i also think it's a problem to lock people up for 10 and 15 and 20 years for youthful mistakes. if you look at the war on drugs, three out of four people in prison are black or brown. white kids are doing it, too. if you look at the surveys, white kids do it just as much as black and brown kids but the prisons are full because they don't get a good toirn, they live in poverty. it's easier to arrest them thoon in the suburbs. but i will tell you if you got into the african american community and ask them if you think the law is fair they'll tell you know. -- no. >> in 19 0 there were 200,000 kids with a dad in prison there's now 2 million. i'm not for saying no laws but i am saying that look, most of

us are christians or jews or of the jude yo christian faith. and it's like we believe in redemption. we believe in a second chance. should a 19-year-old kid get a second chance? i think yes. let's be the party that has compassion that doesn't say the behavior is right but says you know what? when you're done with your time, that you get the right to vote back. let's be the party that is for extending right to vote back to people who have paid their time, who have reformed their ways. [applause] so i say we don't need to dilute our message. but i think if we can take our message or aspects of our message to people where they are, people who live in poverty, the republican message should be you know what? we'll come to your town. we'll come to detroit. and we're not going to bring money from iowa, we're not going to bring money from kentucky. but we'll so dramatically lower your taxes that it would be a $1 billion stimulus for detroit by leaving money in drit that originated in detroit.

then we have something we can offer. but if you're for revenue neutral tax reform you're not bringing anything to detroit. touf believe that we can have less taxes and smaller government and that will help create jobs. we have to believe in what we once believed in. if we do that we'll be the dominant party again. we have a strong force here. but frankly the president won iowa twice. so we can't do the same old same old. the definition of insanity is thinking the same thing will get you different results. the real question we have as a party is we have to decide can we be true to our purpose, true to our core, true to our message, and figure out how to reach out to people? that's what we have to do. [applause] there was a painter by the name of robert hen ry about a hundred years ago. and he said, paint like a man

coming over the hill single. -- singing. i love the image of that. if we could be the party that proclaims our message with a passion of patrick henry but also proclaims our message, our core message that we truly believe boldly proclaim that message like a man coming over the hill singing, then i think we will be the dominant party again. i want to be part of that. and i hope you'll help me. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] . >> thank you all very, very much. thank you all very much. [applause] thank you all for that very

warm reception. i want to first of all start off by thanking my good friend your governor terry for the great job he is doing for the people of iowa. [applause] >> cutting taxes, growing the economy, reforming your educational system. he is going to do a great job if we give him another four years. let's hear another round of applause. [applause] >> you've got several great leaders here whether it's your senator chuck grassley, or steve king your congressman. i had the privilege of getting to know the next united states senator from the great state of iowa. isn't joni an amazing principled conservative? [applause] there are so many reasons to help her get elected. she will rein in taxes, rein in

government spending. but if you needed one more reason to get excited, how amazing come this november when we get to retire harry reid? we no longer have to call him the majority leader of the united states senate? [cheers and applause] i thought long and hard about what i wanted to share with you today. i want to share with you today my greatest concern, my greatest frustration, my greatest fear of the obama administration and his legacy. there is so much that worries me about president obama. i worry about $17 trillion of debt. i worry about an e.p.a. that's going to strangle our economy. i worry about more taxing, more spending, more borrowing. i worry about a diminished america on the world stage. i worry about an economic growth of 2% recovery. i worry about a culture that becomes more course day by day by day. but the thing that worries me the

but the thing that worries me the most, not only is the governor of the great state of louisiana, but as the father of three children, is this president's attempt to redefine the american dream. what do i mean by that? if you listen to this president long enough, if you watch his policy, you see a focus on class envy, a president intent on dividing us by ideology, age, gender, success, a president who talked about redistribution, a president who seems to believe that america is about equality of outcomes instead of equality of opportunity. i don't know about you, but that is not the american dream my parents taught me about. the american dream is not about growing the federal government, taxes, spending. the american dream is not about managing the slow decline of this great economy of this great country. the american dream is not about making us more and more like europe. the american dream is different.

the american dream is that the circumstances of your birth do not determine your outcomes as an adult. the american dream is you do not have to be born any rights it took to the right gender to th}) to the right parents to do well in this country. the american dream as if you work hard and get a great education, you can do better than your parents and grandparents. indeed, how many parents had told their young children, "if you work hard, you can be the first in our family to go to school. you can be the first in our family to be a small business octor, entrepreneur, dr whatever your dreams are." , a parents have told a boy or girl, any child in the world they can grow up to become president of the united states? unfortunately, we found out how true that was in 2008 and 2012. my parents taught me an american dream where our best days were

ahead of us, not behind us, where we are a forever young country, and i want to talk to you today how we have to fight to preserve that american dream for our children and grandchildren. i want to start by sharing with you why that american dream is so important to me. my parents, my dad especially, he has lived the american dream. my dad is one of nine kids, first and only one of his family that got past the fifth grade. grew up in a house without electricity and without running water. i know because we heard these stories every single day growing up. maybe you've got a parent or grandparent like that who is the first in your family, and what's amazing is nearly 50 years ago, my mom and dad came from halfway across the world -- they came from america because they were in search of the american dream. i want you to think about something -- there was no

internet back then. it was not that easy to get on a plane back then. international long distance phone calls were incredibly expensive. my parents had never been to america. my parents had never been to louisiana. my parents had been to louisiana -- my parents had never met anybody who had been to louisiana. but they had an unshakable faith that if you get there and work hard and get a great education, you can provide your children with a better quality of life. they knew the american dream was alive and well. they came nearly 50 years ago so that my mom could study at lsu. my dad -- he did not know anybody. book,ned up the phone went through the yellow pages and started calling company after company after company looking for a job. i don't know how many people turned him down or how many people laughed in his face or slammed the phone down, but after hours, days -- i don't

know, maybe even after weeks of finallyhone calls, he convinced a guide to take a chance on him. there was a guy at a railroad company that said, "you can start on monday." what i love about the rest of the story is you have to meet my dad to understand it. he had not even met his new job. he tells his boss who he has "that's great. i'll start monday. i don't have a car. i don't have a drivers license. you have to pick me up on the way to work monday." his boss was so taken by his enthusiasm and energy he did that. six months later, i was born in baton rouge, same hospital where my -- a couple of my kids were born. by the way, when i was born, i was what you would likely call -- politely call a pre-existing condition. there was no obama care or .nything like that back then

my dad did something that was pretty simple and pretty common back then. he went to the doctor and shook hands with the doctor and said, "i will send you a check every month until i pay this bill in full." no obamacare, no government programs, no paperwork, two guys in a hospital shaking hands, and that's just what you did. when my kids were born, we had great insurance. it took us hours to fill out the paperwork. it wasn't nearly that simple, but i don't know if that would work today. i asked my dad -- it was a simpler time back then. i said, "how do you pay for a baby on lay away? if you skip a payment, do they take the baby back?" .e said, "don't worry you are paid in full. no one is going to take you back ." the reason i tell you back is my -- the reason i tell you that is

my parents have lived the american dream. my dad would always tell my brother and me growing up that he was not leaving us an inheritance or a famous last name, but he said every single day we should get on our knees and thank god we were blessed to be born in the greatest country in the history of the world, the united states of america. [applause] my dad said what is so great is that if you are willing to work hard, if you get a great education, there's no limit on what you can do in this great country. there's so many things i could done.bout that we have i just signed a couple of bills on thursday helping to make sure thesiana continues to be most pro-life state in the country. [applause]

theut our own version of second amendment into our state constitution, but the thing i want to talk to you about today, and one of the things i think is the most -- one of the most important things we have done is we have fought to preserve the american dream for all church in -- for our children, and impart that means making sure every child has the chance to get a great education. if you say it's not fair to tell a child you have the chance to pursue the american dream if you are trapped in a failing school -- we have done several things. one of the most important things we have done is said we are going to let the dollars follow the child instead of making the child follow the dollars. [applause] 90% of our kids in new orleans are in charter schools. we have doubled the percentage between reading a graph on -- a reading and math on grade level in five years.

we have got one of the countries most expansive, ambitious, comprehensive, school chores -- choice programs so the parents can decide because every child learns differently. some children are better homeschooled. some children do better in public schools. some children do better in christian schools, parochial schools, online schools, dual enrollment programs. we trust our parents. unions did not like this much. one of them got up and said, "parents don't have a clue when it comes to making choices for their kids." i cannot summarize the debate at her between the left and the right. you see, they don't think we are smart enough to the size -- to decide what size soda we drink. they don't think we are smart enough to exercise our second amendment rights. they don't think we are smart enough to buy our own health insurance product and decide what we want to buy. they don't think we're smart enough to pick the schools for

our children or to exercise our first amendment rights. they took us to the state supreme court. we picketed. we won those fights. we have a program where we are saving taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. 93% of the taxpayers are happy with the program. it's growing by double digits. who could be opposed to giving children better education and more choices? .ric holder, that's who the department of justice, eric took us toally federal court to stop these children from having a chance to get a great education. i went to d.c. and called the 's attemptsion cynical, hypocritical, and immoral. [applause] i'm on president obama's christmas card list anymore, but that's ok. i said that these kids only have one chance to grow up.

i said it's immoral almost 50 years to the day of martin luther king's famous "i have a dream" speech to trap the children in failing schools, but it is also that the critical. i say it's hypocritical because you know and i know there's not a chance in the world eric holder or president obama would send their children to these failing schools they are trying to force louisiana kids to attend. [applause] and i'm glad they have the ability to send their kids to great schools. i just want the same ability for kids in the louisiana, iowa, and every state of this great country. you may wonder how we get to a point where our federal government is trying to trap kids in failing schools. i would argue this goes back to something president clinton said in the 1990's. remember, he said the era of big government is over. never before has somebody been

so wrong about something so important in our modern political history. david axelrod actually said something i was agree with -- i agree with. he was trying to defend president obama in the middle of one of the scandals. there have been so many it's hard to keep track, but this is what he said -- he said the federal government is so vast, so expansive, the president could not possibly be responsible. you know, he is exactly right. that is the problem -- the government is too fast and too expansive. we have seen things that i never would have believed would have happened in the united states of america. i can build a time machine and go back in time, if i were standing in front of you years ago before president obama had taken office, if you really believed that the federal government would run up a $17 trillion debt, would you have believed me? no. if i had gone back in time and asked if you really believe the federal government was going to

use the irs to go after conservative groups because of their beliefs, would you have believed me? no. if i had gone back in time and asked if you would really believe the department of justice would try to take away guns from law-abiding citizens while they provide guns to mexican drug cartels and fast and theory is, would you have believed me? no. if i had gone back in time and asked if you really believe that they would create a new, expensive entitlement program putting bureaucrats between our doctors and patients when we cannot afford the government we got, would you have believed me? no. if i had gone back in time and asked would you really believe when our ambassador was killed in libya, they would blame it on a youtube video, would you have believed me? no. i had fun back in time and said that our secretary of state would get so exasperated with the congress, with the senate for asking her about this she would actually say "what difference does it make," would you have believed me? if i had gone back in time and said the department of justice would be spying on ap reporters

in the press, would you have believed me? >> no. and here is perhaps one of the most dangerous overreach is a federal government power -- time and time again, we think we have seen the worst erie we have the federal government intruding into our religious liberties, one of the most dangerous assaults on constitutional freedoms by our founding fathers, can you believe that the obama administration found the supreme court threatening the green family and hobby lobby with fines of up to $1.3 million a day simply because they don't to buy use their money abortions for their employees? one of the most important fights we face as a country is to stand up for our first amendment religious liberty -- religious rights. [applause]

i knew the president did not like our second amendment rights . i thought he was ok with the first amendment. i guess he does not like those either. this president has the wrong idea about religion -- he thinks it starts and ends on sunday. the united states of america did not create religious liberty. religious liberty created the united states of america. it is the reason we live in this great country. [applause] you may have noticed there was a controversy over the "dynasty"

"duck a while ago -- dynasty" family and while ago. defenders wasst the governor of louisiana. you may have thought i defended them simply because the family is from louisiana. you may have thought i defended them simply because they are friends of mine. you may have thought i defended them because my little boys are big fans. you may have thought i defended him because i think it's great to have a tv show you can actually watch with your family, you know have to worry about the language and the images and all that other nonsense that comes up. [applause] the reason i defended them is of the left.tired i'm tired of their hypocrisy, tired of them saying they tolerate the bait and dissent. the reality is this -- they do tolerate debate and dissent for everybody except for those that have the temerity to disagree with them.

[applause] by the way, i don't think it's any coincidence the assault on religious liberty happened to be focused on even jellico christians in our society. i'm not generally in favor of lawsuits, but there is one lawsuit i would endorse -- we like to say that president obama is a smart man. we like to call him a constitutional scholar. i know he spent three years at harvard law school. i would encourage and recommend to him that he sues harvard law school to get his tuition money back. i'm not sure what he learned while he was there. [applause] i thought it was pretty ironic a few months ago at the national prayer request, the president spoke eloquently about the war on religious liberty, on christians being persecuted overseas -- and let's be clear -- there's a silent war on

religious liberty at home in america. there's a shooting war overseas. beingare men and women killed, executed, tortured for their beliefs overseas, and i'm not trying to compare the two, but it was disjointed to hear the president get up and speak so eloquently about the need to protect the rights of religious liberty, the freedoms, the ability of christians to worship on an international basis. i don't think he realized the irony that once again there was a grand canyon sized gap between what he says and what he does right here at home. saiddent obama basically if you like your religious liberty, you can keep your religious liberty. [applause] as i close, i just want to focus on the latest piece of insanity that now defines our foreign

policy -- apparently, the president has adopted a catch and release program when it s.mes to terrorist as i wrap up, i've got just three questions i want to ask, and i want to make sure i understand, want to make sure we are on the same page. the first question i got for you think the do you president of the united states should set the precedent that we now negotiate with terrorists? do you think the president of the united states should just unilaterally decide when and how he wants to obey or break united states laws and constitution? do you think the president of the united states should release five terrorists who oppose not only the united states of america but our way of life so they can go back and rejoin the fight against americans? as i think about this, it leads me to one inescapable just

difficult question. opinion on this as well -- are we witnessing the most liberal, ideological extreme administration we have seen in our lifetime right here in the united eighth of america? are we witnessing the most incompetent administration we have witnessed in our lifetime right here in these united states of america? [applause] i've thought about this long and hard. this is a tough question like which came first -- the chicken or the egg? the only answer i've been able to come up with, the best answer , actually comes from secretary clinton herself. to quote our secretary, "what difference does it make?"

[applause] i am here to tell you there's a revolution brewing. i am a complete optimist about the future of these united states of america. our founding fathers, our founding fathers trusted not in the brilliance of our federal government, not in the beautiful buildings and monuments of washington, d.c. -- they trusted in the brilliance of a free people. they knew if you got the government out of the way, if you freed the entrepreneurial spirit and the everyday love in hard work of moms and dads, that truly, the american dream would be alive and well. they knew and we know that we will leave more opportunities for our children and we --erited from our parents then we inherited from our parents. i know this -- there's a rebellion brewing in these united states of america. people don't want incremental change. we want a hostile takeover of washington, d.c. our best days are ahead of us.

god bless the united states of america. thank you very much for allowing me to speak with you today, and god bless the great state of iowa. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. back in great to be iowa. i am actually on vacation, and when i was asked to speak your today, i talked to my wife, and she said, "it's right in the middle of our two-week vacation," and i said that chuck grassley has always told me i should vacation in iowa more often, so here i am. i am honored and happy to be here. [applause] admit, i will not be here

long. i have a book i will be signing which you will be hearing about in a minute because -- because i want to talk to you about what is in that book. if you cannot make the book signing, i will be at my friend's reception later this afternoon. hope i get a chance to see .verybody i feel like i'm coming back home in many respects. had a wonderful experience a couple of years ago. i can tell you that it changed me. it changed our family. we have a very special place in our heart for the people of the state of iowa. last time i was talking to a group anywhere near this side was just down the road at stony creek inn on caucus night. that night, i got up and talked , and iy grandfather

talked about my grandfather's funeral. when i was a young man, the first person i had ever seen who .ad died was my funeral i knelt next to his casket. he was a coal miner, worked until he was 72 years old. i remember looking at his hands, these enormous hands of a coal miner who literally as an immigrant dug his way for freedom and opportunity for me and my family. the reason i talked about that that night and i continue to me, about it was because to he -- even though he was not a republican, he was a dang democrat, but that hard work, responsibility, take responsibility for yourself and create a better life for the next generation, that the great experience, that blue-collar

experience -- to me, that is the republican party. up,s ago when i was growing the republican party was the country club set. it was the corporate set. .t was the 1% if you look at the surveys right now, those folks are voting republican anymore. the 1% on the republicans, by and large. the areas we use to win, rich suburban areas -- they are not republican anymore. , you knowcross iowa the republicans i met were hard working people, folks who were not the corporate executives, onple who work for a living -- earn wages, small business people trying to piece things together, who believed in the inrican dream, who believed work and responsibility. that's the republican party.

that's who we are, but let's be honest -- that's not how we talk as republicans. that's not our message, as the republican establishment would .ave us dictate our message is all about corporatism and business. i remember at the convention, i spoke on a tuesday night at the national convention, and i walked into the arena, and there were placards on all the seats. do you know what the plaque richard reid? ."e built that >> do you know what the placards read? "we built that." at aent an entire night convention bringing out small business person at the large business personal one after another talking about how they .uilt their business not one time did we bring out a business owner and a worker to

talk about how they built their business. can win every business person's vote and still lose elections by landslides. we need workers if we are going to win. we need to start talking to workers if we are going to win. is who we are. that is who the workers in the republican party are. that's who the base of the republican party are. look at any of the surveys. as far as a lot of workers in america are concerned, we don't care about them because we don't talk about them. if our message is -- which it has been for quite some time, cut taxes, particularly focused on higher income individuals to create growth and opportunity, balance the budget, and cut part of the you are 80% of americans who do not get welfare benefits and are not the top income earners, where are you in this picture?

see, what is the most favorite word of every single person in america? their own name. deliver as get up and message and paint this beautiful picture of growth and economic prosperity, but as we paint that picture, they do not see themselves in this picture. we are not going to win elections then. i wrote this book "lou koller conservatives," and i'm traveling the country talking to candidates, and painting for candidates, and encouraging them -- i wrote this book "blue collar conservatives." start talking about average working americans. start -- stop talking about corporations and wall street and business. yes, we want to be the party of growth, but we also want to be the party that is pro-worker as

well as progrowth. how do we do this? well, it's very simple. one of the reasons i think we did as well as we did not just here in iowa but in ten other states which we won and others we came very close, is we went out and talked about the core things that connect to average working americans. things like energy and keeping energy costs down, not just so your bills are lower. but also to create jobs in energy but also to create manufacturing jobs. because lower energy costs result in a better opportunity for manufacturers to be profitable. and i went out with a whole plan on manufacturing, how we have to bring jobs made in america back in the lex con of the republican party.

[applause] and we need not just the rhetoric to say we want things made in america. we want policies that make that possible. americans can compete. we can compete with higher wages because we have better talent, we have better patent protections, cheaper energy. but we have higher taxes and higher regulations and higher litigation costs. and that's something government can do something about and that's something republicans should be talking about if we want to be successful in getting working men and women's votes in this country. we need to talk about manufacturing. when you talk about energy we need to talk be construction, rebuilding the infrastructure of america. we can do that by shifting resources not new tax bus shifting resources from the waste and the excess of this bloated federal budget. and state budgets.

and start putting people back to work. start talking about jobs, 70% of americans don't have college degrees. but if you listen to our rhetoric you would assume that they all do. because that's the jobs we're talking about. but we need to have good-paying jobs, family-sustaining jobs. in areas where folks who don't go to college can also raise a family. it connected with people. i'll give you a little statistic during the campaign. it was -- i had a meeting with governor romney's people shortly after the campaign. and they shared a survey with me. which sort of stunned me. but i noticed that all the exit polls were always wrong and they would come out about 6:00 and always underestimate how well i did. they started noticing that, too, state after state that they did better than what the exit polls showed. and we didn't do following, we didn't have any money to do polling. but they started asking the

question not just who you plan to vote for but when are you planning to vote? and what happened startled me. they show med a poll from the last state the campaign was in. and if you were going to vote before 6:00, governor romney and i were tied. if you were going to vote after excuse me. 5:00. if you were going to vote after 5:00 i was ahead by 21 points. over 6 million workers stayed home and didn't vote in the 2012 election. they wouldn't vote for barack obama. but they didn't think we cared. because we don't talk about them. and their lives. and it's not just about economics. because you know what? the folks struggling in america, the people whose wages are stagnant and inflation is keeping away. but there are other things going on in their life, too,

that's not getting ahead. do you know what the democrats are going to hit us with in the fall. you know what's coming. they telegraphed it and they did for 2016. income inequality. what's our answer? what are we going to say? cut capital gains taxes? what's our answer? well, let's look at their studies. because they actually did studies. you know what their studies showed? all the liberal colleges and think tanks did these studies on income inequality and guess what they found out two major things. number one, income inequality has not increased in america in the last 50 years. number two -- that doesn't mean that's good because that we have had a lot of income inequality. and we should be concerned about that. but what they found was the number one factor, the number one factor to determine whether people will rise in society or not is not education.

you know what it is? marriage and family. marriage and family. if you were raised in a two-parent family you do better. if you live in a two-parent family, the husband and the wife and the family do better. yet where are we as republicans? i'm not talking about going out and fighting the battle of redefining marriage. i'm talking about the battle of reclaiming marriage as an institution that we should be romoting in america. [applause] we have lost the marriage debate in america for one reason. because during our watch marriage has been redefined. marriage is now by most people's cal bration simply a romantic relationship between

two people that the government affirms. well, ladies and gentlemen, if that's all marriage is, then as far as i'm concerned anybody should be able to get married. but that's not what marriage is. at least that's not what it used to be. marriage used to be the union of a man and the woman for the purpose of coming together to have children to raise the next generation and give every child in america their birth right to be raised by their natural mother and natural father. cheers and applause] why can't we reclaim marriage? why can't we do what we did with a whole lot of other things? everybody knows you shouldn't text and drive. why? because everybody in society says don't do it. you know you're not supposed to smoke. you know you're supposed to drink -- not supposed to drink issuingrd beverages. none of those things have the health impact on children on adults that marriage does.

we need to be campaigning on the public good of marriage. and we need to have policies that promote the two things i just talked about. work and marriage. [applause] there was a study i talked about it all the time. if you do three things in america, if you do these three things you are almost guaranteed, 2% chance you will ever be in poverty in america. number one, work. number two, graduate from high school. and number three, get married before you have children. you do those three things in america you'll never be in poverty. now -- [applause] look to what the obama administration is doing on work and marriage. i was campaigning in wisconsin

and the state senator came up to me and told me that in wisconsin if you are married and have -- if you are unmarried and have two children, and you make $15,000 a year, you receive $38,000 in government benefits. if you marry, you lose them all. do you understand what that -- and that's not just wisconsin. it's in every state. it's more in some states. you know what that means? that government prohibits, makes it economically infeasible for single moms to marry. it makes it a bridge too far. because it's economically impossible to make it work. and the same thing with work. you heard all the talk about obamacare how it's a disincentive to work because the more you work the less your subsidies get. look at all the welfare programs. every single one of them, the more you work the lower your

benefits get. we have a government right now that is fixated on keeping people unmarried and not working. and we have to be the party of work and marriage if we want to be successful and if america is o be successful. i think we're going to have a great 2014 here in iowa. i think -- we have great candidates. the great governor. great senate candidate. great congressional candidates. i have no doubt 2014 is going to be a good year. simply because of how bad the president and his party is doing right now. but you know what? and i understand why candidates and all of you want to go out and just bang the president. it's fun. it's easy. it's getting easier every day. just look what's going on in iraq right now. his major foreign policy

accomplishment, al qaeda has been decimated. yeah, right. this president is a failure on every front. but ladies and gentlemen if we want to transform america, not the way he's talking about it, but back to the values that made this country the greatest country in the history of the world, the reason why people wanted to come here, then we have to have a positive agenda. and we don't have to do what the establishment says we have to do. we don't have to be more like them. we have to be true to the principles that made our country great. which are the principles of the republican platform. and are conservative principles. cheers and applause] we don't have to compromise in my opinion on anything. because what concervix is is simply this. what has worked. what we want is what we know has worked.

to create a great america. we don't have to go out and appeal to different interest groups because for diversity's sake. you want to appeal to recent immigrants? you know all almost all recent immigrants are working up the economic ladder. almost all are in blue collar or service related jobs. start talking to them not about immigration. we don't have to talk about immigration. if we do you know what we should talk about? how immigration is suppressing their wages. and keeping their wages down. and not allowing them and their family opportunity to rise in america. that's a message that doesn't say we have to bring in 2.5 million people a year and give amnesty to 13 million people. it's a message that we as republicans care about you as workers to keep your wages -- to have your wages be family sustaining wages and undermining those as the democrats want to do will

simply do one thing. put you more on the government payroll which makes you want to vote more like democrats. and that is not what anybody wants. ladies and gentlemen, we have a message for average working americans. we are the party of average working americans. we need to be that party not but we need to talk about it, we need to campaign on it, i had a meeting just this week with the prime minister of australia, tony abott. you know what he told me? he told me he campaigned -- and the reason he was able to win as a conservative in australia s he campaigned on blue collar values. on working people values. ladies and gentlemen, the people of america, the workers of america know that president

obama's policies have let them down. thai just have to know that we care. and the last election, 23% on people of the exit polls answered this question this way. they were asked the question what's the most important issue in the election for you for president? 23% said does he care about people like me? those people were all lower and middle income people. all lower and middle income people. a quarter of the electorate. you know what? our candidate got 19% of those votes. i know you care about working americans because you are working americans. but you need to demand your leaders to stop listening to the voices in the big cities who want to talk about capital gains and cuts for higher income individuals' taxes and start talking about creating growth and opportunity for all

working americans. then we will be a majority party not just in iowa but across this country for a long, long time to come. thank you very much. and god bless you. [applause] >> next discussion about the influence of former arizona senator barry goldwater on libertarianism. then film director m. night shyamalan on education. and then the nuclear director on compliance. a reporters roundtable on the news of the week with derek wallbank and domenico montanaro.

kimberly kagan at the latest and the violence in iraq. i can take your calls me to join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal, live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> when i started covering congress, you had people like baker.mills, howard people who were giants in their own way. the couple of those guys got themselves in trouble but overall, these were people who knew -- they were all very intelligent. they knew had a craft legislation. they all worked with whoever the president was whether it was their party or the other party. at the end of the day, they found a way to come together and

make decisions for the good of the country. today, you just don't see that anymore. i think the quality of members of congress and the house and senate in terms of their intelligence and their work ethic has diminished. there are still great people, shouldn't malign -- there are wonderful members on both sides but i think they are the minority. i think increasingly people are driven by the politics and by their own cell survival. -- sefl-lf survival. the hardest work they do is raising money. is not crafting deals. it is making speeches and positioning themselves to be reelected. rs is leaving washington behind. find out why sunday night at 8 p.m. >> a discussion about barry goldwater's influence on today's

libertarianism, the republican party, and the tea party. he was a longtime senator from arizona and the republican nominee for president in 1964. this is one hour. >> and now it is my great pleasure to introduce our moderator, mr. brahm resnik. [applause] >> and now it is my great pleasure to introduce our moderator, mr. brahm resnik. [applause] brahm resnik is an anchor and reporter for 12 news, the nbc affiliate in phoenix. e local, state, and federal levels, and has covered every policy issue of consequence in arizona from education to immigration. please give him a very warm welcome. [applause] >> great to be here. welcome to you all. can you hear me in back? everything working fine? good. let's start with introducing the

panel. robert robb became an editorial columnist for the "arizona republic" in 1999 and his columns generally appear three times a week. he also serves as a distinguished associate for the morrison institute at asu. robert robb. [applause] in the center, david weigel, political reporter for slate. for most of his career, starting at "reason" magazine, he covered the conservative movement, and was one of the first reporters to embed with ron paul's presidential campaign. >> yes. >> shout out to ron paul. a few of those tonight. [laughter] and reported from the rally in 2009. david weigel. [applause]

>> to my far right, historian michael rubinoff has been an asu faculty member for 18 years and first interviewed barry goldwater as a little boy in 1969. they met several more times including one of the final interviews goldwater granted before his retirement in 1986. michael rubinoff. [applause] before i ask these guys, a few questions for you folks -- how many people in the audience voted for barry goldwater at least once? [laughter] ok. did anyone vote for him in 1964? any goldwater family members in

the audience? i heard barry junior was out of town. he was here yesterday. we can say whatever we want. [laughter] it seems we are having a libertarian moment. rand paul is being taken seriously as a presidential candidate. after his dad, ron paul, cleared the way for his son. libertarians on the right and on the left see eye to eye on protecting privacy and legalizing marijuana. is this a moment that barry goldwater help to create? >> i do not think there is any question about that. the historically important barry goldwater who wrote "conscious of a conservative" and ran for established 1964 the libertarian viewpoint on

economic matters and limited government, and a proper sense of federalism. the later barry goldwater and his reaction against the religious right helped to lead the way to libertarianism on social issues, which has formed, sort of, the mix that does appeal to younger audiences, and also to what has been, historically, one of the swing votes in american politics -- people who are economically conservative, but socially progressive. >> david, i mentioned rand paul at the outset. i would like to hear your thoughts on that. who do you think that the capital today is the real air of of barry goldwater? >> i do think rand paul is. he brings his politics in similar ways to his detriment and his advantage. more to his advantage because unlike barry goldwater, paul always expresses his version of

libertarianism, privacy rights, restricting government, as a way to reach out to voters. he never calls it extremism. he tells republicans that they have shrunk the party and the only way to reach out to young people is to move away from social conservatism and things you were talking about. he repeats some of the mistakes because if you go back to his intimates -- i guess it was still the biggest mistake he made in politics -- when he stumbled about whether he voted -- would vote for the civil rights act, he made the same mistake barry goldwater did as describing it as something he would not oppose morally, but he had problems with it because he did not want to force people to do the right thing. that is how goldwater put it in 1964 after the argument was made

that the civil rights act was unconstitutional. paul is the heir in a positive way. the us figured out a lot of what has figuredd -- he out a lot of what goldwater did. he is quotable. a lot of the politics goldwater mastered, he has mastered. he makes some of the same the stakes were he comes to the edge of libertarianism where he can not -- he cannot quite tell a voter who is curious and not quite sure what they believe, that he will protect their rights. >> is that his political stance? is that what he really believes? >> i think it is. i have talked to him a lot. i talked to him on the 2007, 2008 campaign trail, and it is a utopian, libertarian view of the world than it is more popular than ever, more popular than when goldwater ran. the foreign policy side is so much easier for rand paul than it was for barry goldwater. he believes, as goldwater believed, that if you give

people freedom, they will create a more perfect, more fair society. he has not made a ton of mistakes like the civil rights mistake since then. he learned in being aggressive to reach out to groups. also, he still believes that he is personally convincing and those ideas are convincing. again, some of the same mistakes, more of the positive lessons have been imbued in rand paul. >> if barry goldwater would walk the halls of the capitol today, what would you make of the place? [laughter] >> he would be disappointed. i think his problems would be stemming from the extreme partisan nature of today's senate, and gone was the collegiality that he had known when he came in in 1963.

i remember having a meeting related to goldwater with george mcgovern, and this was in 1986, and he said to me that the goldwater who came back to washington after 1969 was far different than the goldwater who had been the crusading conservative senator and presidential candidate. he said he was once the most partisan of men, but he said after 1964, something happened, and he simply became different. that is probably, maybe where goldwater would differ with things today because he wanted to get things done when he went back to washington for his last three terms. today, he would say they not getting anything done. >> dig deeper on that. the common wisdom is carl hayden was the workhorse, barry goldwater was the show horse. i did not see too many legislative accomplishments you could link to very well -- barry

goldwater. i could be wrong. correct me. what was it that changed him -- the loss, the defeat, or something else going on, and what about the legislative piece? >> goldwater biographers, and a number of them, lee edwards, john judas, richard goldberg, they have noticed the presidential campaign where people trashed him beyond belief, where he said if everyone had said these things to me and i believe that, i would believe i was nuts. i think when he went back to washington, he said to people that i went into politics to pay the rent. he legislatively did that with the change of the control structure of the pentagon with the nichols-goldwater fact that he sponsored, and that change

things in the pentagon for that it is moving mobley -- more smoothly to integrate all of the armed services as opposed to where it stood before 1986. >> let's stay in the present. we'll go back to the past and a moment. everyone will have a chance to ask questions later on in the discussion. today, barry goldwater has become almost a utterly hero to cuddly hero to liberals. they like his stance on abortion, gay rights. do they have it all wrong? [laughter] >> there are three distinct phases of goldwater as a public figure and as a politician. the historically important barry goldwater, the author of

"conscience of a conservative," the presidential candidate in 1964, was very much a hard-right, libertarian conservative. he advocated eliminating the federal role in agriculture and in education and general social welfare programs. he also was an insurgent. he spoke scornfully and wrote scornfully about me too republicanism. even though he supported eisenhower over taft, he referred to eisenhower's warmed over new deal-ism. he was hard right and an insurgent. he ultimately became an establishment republican figure, probably best illustrated by his

endorsement of gerald ford over ronald reagan in the 1976 primary. then, in his senatorial career, in reaction to the rise of the social right -- roe v wade was not until 1973. the u.s. supreme court decision striking down school prayer was in 1962. so, the historically important barry goldwater did not really deal with those issues, and in 1980 actually ran as a pro-life candidate. it was not until the latter part that he developed this antagonism toward the social right and its influence on the republican party. then, the third phase of his career, rather than cuddily, i would say an iconic curmudgeon.

>> a cuddily curmudgeon. [laughter] >> he was an historically important figure, and the american people, over time, developed an affection for those iconic characters, those important historical figures, even if they were busy denouncing them at the time that actually had some degree of political importance. >> so they are remembering the later period. michael, you follow these closely. you agree with that? >> i think he nailed it. there are several phases. if there is something i can pick up on what david was saying, with rand paul, barry goldwater could speak with incredible self-righteousness which was

noted in "the making of the president" in 1964, where he sounded like an old testament-type of prophet, and if anyone comes closest to that in a homing time -- call me and kind of way --calming kind of way it would be rand paul. his logic, people thought barry goldwater was far right, and for this time that is probably where it was. mainstream, it is a very meandering stream. [laughter] i think rand paul is a refinement of that. it is a different age with, you know, video being done, whereas goldwater, he was not as exposed

until the media got on him in 1964 and then bingo, we had all sorts of earthquakes. >> is senator paul the kinder face of libertarianism, and also, how does he handle the social issues? >> the way goldwater interpreted this, socialism did not exist in the beginning of his career until roe v wade and then until the 1970's. rand paul is able to exist when the opposite has happened, and the momentum, poll number results, all of the factors that made social conservatives limited to gay marriage and abortion, all of that made it a winning issue for the party, and rand paul won elections in 2010, and since then he has seen support for gay marriage surging.

he has gone to states that might decide whether to vote for him as president in a relative -- republican primary and say up to you -- the media happens to like that. he is riding a wave that goldwater really did not get to ride. now i'm -- now, with the media, it is pretty similar. the media coverage of goldwater, in the 1990's was always from the frame of one republican telling it like it was, the same way rand paul is able to handle it. the difference is rand paul is on the ascent and republican party that worries that if it is that hard right on social issues

they cannot win. >> let's bring up foreign policy because there's some -- seems to be a distinct difference between goldwater and paul. talk about that and how paul interprets it. >> he rejects the term isolationist. ron paul rejected it as well, and there's a lot of video if he runs as president really freely associating why we intervene, etc. it happens that he has really taken off, again, on the right, since people turned against the war in afghanistan, against the surveillance state, development basically from 2009 and 2013. drone warfare, when he started talking about it, not terribly unpopular, not terribly known. he managed to describe, as a theoretical opposition to it -- many americans might have been vaguely aware that spying was happening, that jones were being used -- drones were being used.

he put it in a framework that -- if you were a republican at that time trying to come up with the best message for the party, you would probably come up with are doing with americans that they should worry that they will be targeted or spied on by this technology, but it has become quite popular. i have been in a lot of republican meetings and i have found republican meetings, conventions, conferences, things like that, attacking the nsa as an applause line, the approach to afghanistan as an applause line, and in the mississippi election, i would go to tea party meetings where they were trying to overthrow a conservative senator, and at the meetings they would speak about how america should not send people into a mission like

afghanistan again. paul has happened to emerge -- goldwater was running for president before we escalated vietnam. rand paul is emerging on the scene after 13 years of greater intervention in the world, greater fatigue with that at home, and putting it in a way that makes sense immediately to libertarians. to the surprise of a lot of people, it is more effective. >> what would have barry goldwater made of drones, the national security state that we seem to be living in? >> that is difficult to discern or predict. let me go back to where the natural libertarian position is, it and it is isolationism -- is not isolationism if you support free trade and integration, which most libertarians do.

but there was an interruption. that is sort of a natural ground for libertarians and the canada -- and looking at the u.s. role in the world, that we should turn to the founders vision of being a peaceful trading nation. core libertarian conservatives in the 1960's until the collapse of the soviet union in the late-1980's, and early-19 90's, was that this was a different threat. that expansionary communism was just different, and it required an aggressive u.s. response, and in fact, barry goldwater and libertarian conservatives of the time objected to the bipartisan foreign-policy of containment to try to keep the soviet union from expanding so that it would collapse naturally from its own internal contradictions. instead, they advocated a

liberation approach, where we should actively be trying to undermine and liberate, particularly the captive nations, in eastern europe. so, he was very much a pro-security, anti-communist guy, and probably facing that threat would have constants fairly aggressive surveillance, including internally, but without that overwhelming threat, my guess is that his instinctive belief in individual freedom, privacy, in chesterton's praise our right to be our own selves, that today he would be rand paul. but if the security threat, he

felt were serious enough, and many conservatives feel that is true of terrorism, he might come to a different conclusion. >> we will go back in time, and part of the fun in preparing for this is i read "conscience of a conservative" for the first time and i found this headline from his election to the senate in 1952 when he defeated ernest mcfarland, a democrat. this is the headline from "the washington post." the hustler kind of politician, fast talking, modern in the air age sense, 1952. one of the achievements was bringing us the republican party that we have today to an extent, it isn't it michael?

>> yes, it was not an age when people in arizona were inclined to vote for women governors, which shows just how far we have come. [laughter] he did the same when he ran for u.s. senate in 1952. one thing that a lot of people do not probably realize is goldwater was already well-known from his grand canyon camping movie that he did in color. he had shown it right around -- all around the state before world war ii so that when he ran in 1952, people had known the barry goldwater. arizona was a small population back then. he seemed to be very tacky, and we know his hobbies of ham radio and flying jet aircraft, that was actually a very apt way "the

washington post characterized them at an early time. he was 43 years old. >> talk about his influence on the republican party. what did they see here, what do they do to make the republican party the force that it is becoming? >> well, his family background was that his uncle was a democrat in the arizona legislature, but goldwater went through a transition as he became a young man, goes into world war ii, and comes out. when the phoenix city charter was redone after the war, he joined on the team and is elected to the city council and through a very interesting way of noting the fact that phoenix had been run rather corrupt, and they also said made it very efficient, and they did with low taxes and creating a more favorable business climate, and along with people like eugene,

bob's free and current boss, and publisher of "the republic" ways back, and people that had vision -- developers, among others -- who had this vision for a phoenix in a streamlined, postwar setting. goldwater caught that spirit. it meant get government off of our backs. lean and mean. i do not know if that was libertarian or conservative. goldwater would prefer to use the word conservatives. he transforms the republican party as a version of himself. then these others get elected behind him. it is like a small club which basically chose its officials and so forth in the three rooms.

the rumor barry goldwater was baptized in 1909 -- the room where barry goldwater was baptized in 1909. >> one of john rose's favorite stories was about barry coming in to try to talk them into running for congress, and as john would relate the story, he told them but i do not want to go to washington, and they said do not worry about it, john, you will not win. [laughter] and what of the interesting things of that period, the post-war period, phoenix almost doubled in size. all of those new residents became republicans. >> not really. >> did they plant a seed there?

>> they definitely planted a seed. barry goldwater did rewrite the history, but republicans did not gain more registrants than democrats in arizona until the mid-1980's, so arizona was voting republican far quicker than it actually became registered republican as the plurality party. >> i want to take a closer look at his politics and start with the book "conscience of a conservative," and sat with the word conservative. this was not a bunch of republicans getting together to put him on the national stage. >> in those days, libertarian and conservative were nearly synonymous. the conservatism that was

concocted in the hallways, the editorial rooms of "national review," had a very libertarian orientation with a belief that a spiritual life was key to a successful politics, and the "conscience of a conservative," goldwater echoed that sentiment. there was an atheistic dissent from that, but it was very much a minority. it was not until the development of social is use -- social issues that the split between libertarians and conservatives became pronounced and the terms ceased to be almost synonymous. >> here is the interesting thing in reading "conscience of a conservative." i thought if you tore the cover off the book, give it to me and told me -- without telling me who wrote it, i would say except

for the military part it reads like a tea party manifesto, almost word for word what we hear today from tea partiers. am i wrong on that? >> not at all, and the notion that barry goldwater did not leave the republican party, the republican party left barry goldwater ignores the historically important barry goldwater who advocated getting the government out of education, agriculture, welfare. in "conscience of a conservative" he expressed the point of view that what the constitution means is not just up to the u.s. supreme court to decide, which is one of the beliefs of the tea party that is routinely denounced to show how out of touch they are. so, i think the historically important barry goldwater has been lost in the remembrances of the iconic curmudgeon that he became later on in life.

>> would you think about that? is the tea party the true heir of barry goldwater? >> i keep mentioning lessons learned, and in a negative way, in the imagination of a conservative activist, the goldwater run broke the back of rockefeller republicans. and never quite built up that power again. the way george will always put it is goldwater won the election, but it took 15 years to count the votes. it does not mention the things that do not exist because they did not exist yet because barry goldwater had not run and led a landslide that brought in the democrats they give us medicare, medicaid, all of the urban programs, and a larger

government that even reagan and george bush who did not try quite as hard as reagan, were not able to undermine. the one thing the tea party took from goldwater was that if you take over the party structure, and they can do that easier than ever with the way money and politics work now, the way you can win a primary with reaching out to outside groups, and you will be proven right in the end even if you lose a couple of victories. i think they made that mistake again in 2009 by opposing obamacare completely, hoping they could grind down the senate. they made that mistake, and other actions have been lost -- other elections have been lost. more than that, the complete resistance to growing government, on the one hand they have shifted the debate to the right. on the other, they made this a mistake that was made in 1964, where you put -- i hate using these metaphors, but you go all in, and then you lose.

you say to voters that 2011 is a referendum on obamacare. if we win, we will repeal it. you do not win, you do not repeal it. the ratchet effect of the growth of the state was not halted by a goldwater-state -- style campaign and it is not been halted by a tea party-style campaign. >> i want to go to some of the troubling parts of his record. goldwater fell in with john birchers. at one point he said i need them politically. opposed the civil rights act. did not agree with brown versus the board of education. what does that tell us about the man, michael? >> i was at the gerald ford library doing research on ronald reagan in 2002 and i found a note that barry goldwater had handwritten to gerald ford in the fall of 1975 and it was very short and it said "i worry about some of the people backing

reagan. some of them are absolutely nuts, and i know that because they were backing me in 1964." [laughter] so, he at least could take a long view of who his supporters had been. [laughter] if you do read his comments on the john birch society from the 1960's, he was reluctant from jet -- to just throw them aside. one of his closest friends was an active member of the john burke society. it is true that he will back away from the mass of the presidential campaign. it seemed as if the john burke society was in one direction and barry goldwater was in another. it might have been that he needed them in the caucuses that helped to get his nomination, but they also discover -- discarded him for other heroes

after 1964. george wallace would loom big in 1968 and beyond. i think that was the parting of the ways, along with the fact that you mentioned the civil rights bill that he opposed unconstitutional grounds. i do not know if history has proven him right or wrong. he might have been on the losing edge, but he was on the right edge of so many other things that i do not think we should begrudge him on this. i actually had a student wants when i was talking about goldwater who said a professor told her that barry goldwater was a segregationist, and i corrected her, and i said i'm one of the few people that knew barry goldwater that you will ever meet and he was an integrationist, and his record was on supporting african-americans, and that is something that got lost.

>> there was the political, the votes that he took, and there was a school here that he supported -- and correct me if i am wrong, it was one of the first two integrate. >> george washington carver. it is still used as a district office. he competed -- contribute it to the urban league. he was an international guard. phoenix had a long segregated history. people do not realize that. goldwater was at the cutting edge of the end of world war ii. >> i think we're getting close to the time for audience questions. am i right, tonya? >> 10 more minutes. >> 10 more minutes. [laughter] don't worry, a lot more where that came from. let's put barry goldwater in

arizona in 2010, 1 of the experiments tonight, as b-10 70, where would barry goldwater have come down on that? >> again, the immigration issue developed in the 1990's and in the 2000's there was bipartisan support for the 1986 immigration reform led by ronald reagan. alan simpson was one of the co-authors of it. i do not enqueue can project where goldwater would have -- i do not think you can project where goldwater would have been on it. my suspicion is he would have been on the side of arizona as a welcoming place, embracing its latino heritage and would be troubled about that, but on the other hand i do not know that he

he would be indifferent to the effects of illegal immigration on local governments, and his strong sense of federalism would have rejected, or at least argued against the notion that this is exclusively a federal problem, which local governments are powerless to do anything about. i think there are crosscurrents. >> michael, what you think about that? >> i would have to agree. i think barry goldwater would have said we should be welcoming, but he also would have said the state has its own rights, which i think he felt very deeply about. i think he would have been badly conflicted, as i think with a lot of issues, although i have to say, looking at things nationally, i think you would have thought that obamacare -- he would say god-awful. i think if you look at state issues, he would be tortured back and forth, and certainly on immigration, i think, he probably would have had some

sympathy -- you have to note that he was very proud of his family's pioneering background from europe. i think he would say we have to be a welcoming society, not exclusionist. >> one of his legacies is he helped to give republicans the southern strategy that helped turn the south republican. is he responsible for that? is lyndon johnson responsible for that in a backhanded way? >> actually, republicans were in the south in 1964. for anti-catholic reasons, republicans were able to crack the south. it was really nixon that was able to run -- campaign in 1966,

run in 1968 as a centrist republican correction to goldwater. agnew perfected the outreach to the south that appealed to what goldwater -- i do not think was appealing to. goldwater had constitutional arguments that he asked for, reiterated, believe in. he believes and state rights without as many connotations. the nixon people understood the connotations and they really turned red. i don't think you can pin that on him despite that vote. i think it was really republicans who saw how rapidly the south had fallen away and took advantage of successive cycles. you were talking about the way goldwater actually felt. he was replaced by strategists who lacked some of those better intentions.

>> let's do a rand paul once around. does this guy have a chance if he decides to run for president? >> i think he might be an election cycle or two premature. i do believe that there is a growing sense of government's demonstrated incompetence on a wide number of avenues. in 2016, the social security disability fund will run out of iou's to reading, and the congress will have to decide what to do about that, and if nothing happens, social security disability benefits will be reduced. so, we will come face-to-face, beginning in 2016, with the inadequate financing of the modern welfare state.

the medicare hospital insurance trust fund will face the same problem in the early 2020's, so the country will have to face this moment, which will open the door for someone who has a more radical view of the extent to which we need to cut back the size and the scope of government, and the march of time, i think, would stand well for acceptance of his noninterventionist foreign policy, and for his more socially progressive views within a republican primary. so, my guess is he is premature in 2016, but 2020, 2024, someone with his set of views, and i think he is skillful at articulating them from particularly compared to his

father -- [laughter] has a chance to see that month -- seize that moment. we have some things to confront. i think rand paul is in a good position to articulate a direction that may be attractive over the course of time. >> do you agree with that and are there other rand paul-types? >> the paul movement, the liberty movement, with a -- what they preferred to be known as, they are cultivated people in the establishment has not been able to defeat the people they are cultivated. the congressman from michigan is being challenged by candidate north of the chamber of commerce. he is destroying him. that wasvement of 2013 almost passing a bill that would have stopped the nsa data collection. you cannot fight against a guy by saying he does not bring

enough money to the district. there'll be people in rand paul's wake. i think it is more likely than a candidate like rand paul, when you hit the white teeth of a vetting process, i don't think he will hold up. you have seen people who are very confident and successful at other levels. rudy giuliani, people like that, melt a little bit, when they are in the frankly, sometimes stupid barrage of questions you get is a presidential candidate, the questions about your background, associations. his father has talked to the john birch society. he is going further from that. they are the sorts of associations -- remember, for a moment the church barack obama went to almost took him out. [laughter] no, really. there will be problems with the way he