congressman steve's police of others arena and seeking to move into leadership. be conducted will by secret ballot with no record of how lawmakers vote. >> earlier today, secretary of state john kerry said protecting oceans is vital for national security and food. the state department hosted the conference with government officials and scientists discussing the protection of the ocean ecosystem. here is a portion. >> i want us to walk away from this conference with more than ideas. i want us to walk away from here with the plan. a plan that puts an end to overfishing through new rules based on the best available science. and may i add that one of the things that senator ted stevens of alaska who teamed up with me on the commerce committee in the

senate? one of the things we are always fighting is getting better science so we can convince fishermen and convince countries, governments, of the imperative of didn't -- of making decisions. hear "we don't and that there" are plenty of stocks out there and there's there is no reason to be restrictive. we need science. and globally we need to put our heart -- heads together and budget for the capacity to be able to do what we need to do to convince people of the urgency of this. we need a plan that requires fishery to use dear and andniques -- gear techniques to dramatically reduce the other amount of species that are caught by accident and discarded, a plan to end subsidies, which only promotes overfishing. a plan that makes it near

impossible for illegally caught fish to actually come to the market anywhere, whether in boston or beijing or barcelona or any other city that does not begin with a "b." let's develop a plan that protects more marine habitats. we will have an announcement regarding that. i believe president obama will make such an announcement. today, less than two percent of our ocean is considered a marine protected area. where there are some restrictions on human activity in order to prevent contaminating the ecosystem, less than two percent of the entire ocean. doesn't anyone here believe we can do better than that? let's start, perhaps by bringing a number up to 10% or more as soon as possible. let's develop a plan that does more to reduce the flow of

plastic and other debris from entering into the ocean. seeing the massive array of garbage in the pacific and elsewhere. we need a plan that helps cut down the nutrient pollution that runs off of land and is miles from the shore, and that contributes to the dead zones that i mentioned earlier. something about that when i was running for president learn about the flow of nutrients that go down from the mississippi into the gulf and we have a great dead zone as a result. we need a better understanding of the acidification affect that carbon pollution is having on our ocean. in the antarctic, for instance, there was a regurgitation of carbon dioxide. have we reached the saturation point? i don't know, but i know it is a question that is critical to our capacity to deal with crime and change and to maintain the oceans. we ought to be able to know

where it is happening, how quickly it is happening, so we can find the best way to slow it down. we need to push harder, all of us, for a u.n. agreement to fight carbon pollution in the first place, because the science proves that is the only way we will have the chance of reducing the impacts of climate change, which is one of the greatest threats facing not just our ocean, but ironfire planet. >> you can watch all of secretary of -- our entire planet. >> you can watch all of secretary of state john kerry's comments at the ocean conservation conference anytime at www.c-span.org. also, look for it in tonight's programming on our c-span networks. over 90% of have the market. today, the cable industry has only little over 50%. the business has matured. you either have to do one of two things, either lower costs to keep your margins good, or you have to find new sources of revenue. i think they are attacking both

of those things, but to focus on the revenue side, i think, one, looking for new ways to delight consumers. if you look at comcast and the platform, if you can make video and the manned -- ,ideo-on-demand more attractive and innovate what you have. takingo see them advantage of broadband. that is a blessed source of new business opportunity for our industry. it is growing faster. it still has a huge, addressable market. it still has good economics. forit is a good business the clicks the rapid change in telecommunications technology advances and the future of the industry with the national cable and telecommunications association president michael powell on the communicators on c-span2 at 8 p.m. eastern. up next, rand paul of kentucky,

bobby jindal of louisiana, and rick santorum. they appeared at the iowa onublican party convention saturday, an event held every two years. up first, senator rand paul. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. [applause] i can tell you most everybody thank you. i can tell you, most everyone in earn'ston has seen joni dad. 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] .

>> more now from the iowa republican party conference. up next, governor bobby jindal of louisiana. his conference to lace in des moines on saturday. [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]

>> and now the final speech from this iowa republican party conference. rick santorum, who ran unsuccessfully for the 2012 nomination. i would traditionally holds the first nation caucuses. -- first in the nation caucuses. [applause] 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] >> religion is a powerful identity-forming a innocent. part of human society is figuring out who is us and who is them, who is my group and who is the out group. religiongend -- answers that question easily. if you go to the same church as i do, then you are us, and if you do not, then you are then. you can see easily how that kind of us-them in group-out group mindset could easily lead to

extremism, marginalization. as i remind people, religion maybe the most powerful form of identity formation, but just as powerful in how do you know who is us and them> if you are fighting for me, your us. if you're fighting against me, you are then. -- from being religion being they have been much more aligned than we would like them to be. aslan, sunday, july 6. august 3, ron paul. mary frances berry.

and then we are discussing "the forgotten man." "book tv," television for serious readers. on thursday house republicans will gather to elect a new majority leader, replacing eric cantor. and possibly other leadership posts. kevin mccarthy will face off and thereul labrador, is also the possibility of new candidates. if congressman mccarthy wins, republicans will have to fill his majority whip post. roskam oft lease, ofinois, and stutzman indiana are in line.

some say barry goldwater's brand definertarianism helped -- in the mid-20th century. this panel includes one of the first reporters to embed with presidential candidate. political reporter is the moderator. >> 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. he has reported on politics and government at the 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 by 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. >> shoutout 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 17 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 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 family members in the audience? i heard barry jr. 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. 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 helped to create? >> i do not think there is any question about that. the historically important, barry goldwater, who wrote "conscience of a conservative" and ran for governor, established a libertarian viewpoint on limited government, and a proper sense of federalism. the later barry goldwater in his reaction against the religious right help 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 heir of barry goldwater? >> i do think rand paul is. he brings his politics in similar ways to his detriment and to 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 intimate -- i guess it was still the biggest mistake he made in politics -- when he stumbled about whether he would vote for the civil rights act, he made the same mistake barry goldwater

did as discredited something he would not oppose morally, but something 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. 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 a 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 sort of 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. -- in 1953. 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 showhorse. i did not see too many legislative accomplishments you can link to 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? >> the goldwater biographers, and a number of them, lee edwards, john judas, richard goldberg, have noted 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 act that he sponsored, and that changed things in the pentagon for that it is moving 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 in a moment. everyone will have a chance to ask questions later on in the discussion. today, barry goldwater has become almost cuddly hero to liberals. they like his stance on abortion, gay rights.

do the liberals 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 all 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 ideal-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 in the republican party. then, the third phase of his career, rather than cuddly, i would say an iconic curmudgeon. >> the cuddly curmudgeon. >> 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.

do you agree with that? >> i think he nailed it. there are several phases. if there is one thing i can pick up on what david was saying, with rand paul, barry goldwater if you heard him prior to 1964 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 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. 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, social issues 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 republican primary and say up to you guys. the media happens to like that. he is riding a wave that goldwater really did not get to ride. 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 in a 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 seems to be a distinct difference between goldwater and paul. talk about that and how paul interprets it. >> he rejects the term isolationist. rand 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 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 arguing 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. rand paul is emerging on the scene after 13 years of greater intervention in the world and putting it in a way that makes sense to libertarians that surprises a lot of people, stating it so defectively -- so effectively. drones, the national security state we seem to be living in -- to discerndifficult

or predict. theme go back to where libertarian position is. if you support free trade and generous immigration which most libertarians do, that there was an interruption. that is a natural ground for and looking at the u.s. role in the world that we 'hould return 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 1990'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, in privacy, in chesterton's phrase, the right to be our own selves, that today he would be where rand paul is. 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 goldwater's election to the senate in 1952 when he defeated ernest mcfarland, a democrat. this is the headline from "the washington post." "air-age hustler tops majority

leader." the hustler kind of politician, fast talking, modern in the air age sense, 1952, one of the achievements was bringing us the republican party 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 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 impact on the republican party. what did they see here, what do they do to make the republican party the force that it has become here? >> 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 was 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 current boss, and publisher of "the republic" way back, and people who 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 "conservative." 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 vestry 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 one 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 rewrote 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 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 polity, and the and in "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 issues that the split between libertarians and

conservatives became pronounced and the terms ceased to be almost synonymous. >> here is the interesting thing about reading "conscience of a conservative." i thought if you tore the cover off the book, gave 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 in 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, and 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 do 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. they 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 gave 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 want to 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 pyrric 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 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-style campaign and it has 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 vs. 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. if you do read his comments on the john birch society from the 1960's, he was reluctant from -- to just throw them aside. one of his closest friends was an active member of the john

birch society. it is true that he will back away from the mass of the presidential campaign. it seemed as if the john burch 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 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 am not sure if history has proven him right or wrong. he might have been on the losing edge of history, 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 of 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 to integrate. >> george washington carver. it is still used as a district office. he contributed to the phoenix 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, one of the experiments tonight, sb-1070, 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 think you can project where goldwater would have been on it.

my suspicion is he would be 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 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 he would have thought that obamacare is the most god-awful thing to put on the country. 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 of his candidacy 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 before 1964. for anti-catholic reasons, republicans were able to crack the south. it was really nixon who was able to campaign in 1966, run in 1968 as a centrist republican correctionist 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, he reiterated, he believed in. he believes and state rights he believed in state rights

without as many connotations. the nixon people understood the connotations and they really turned it red. 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 round. does this is 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 redeem, 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 is goign to 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, particularly compared to his father -- [laughter] has a chance to seize that moment. we have some things to confront. i think rand paul is in a good position to articulate a direction that might 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, what they preferred to be known as, in michigan there is a challenge by

a candidate north of the chamber of commerce. you cannot run 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 presidential vetting process will not hold up. you have seen people 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 as a presidential candidate, the questions about your background, questions about your associations. his father has talked to the

john birch society. he has gotten further from that. they are the sorts of associations -- remember, for a moment the church barack obama went to almost took him out. no, really. there will be problems with the way he deals with certain questions. who knows what will come up that he could fumble? i remember a time when we were covering rick perry's 20-point lead in the presidential primary and he blew four questions and it destroyed him. i think there is a bigger donor class that believes in these things, and the rising millennial vote, when you are asking them if government can't hack it, they have seen government as post-9/11 and obamacare.