8, it was number four on issues americans thought the president should address. in 2012, it was number two second only to jobs. corruption in the way our and while everyone was thinking about rob lowboy of a check that time -- rob glaser, and while everyone is singing at the coke brothers -- the koch brothers. or whatever favorite person you want to point to, that was number two. if you look at the websites of romney and obama, nowhere in the discussion of issues did they even mention the problem. i had a researcher look at it and is the first time in as far as we can see, when an issue in the top 10 of gallup's list was not mentioned by either candidate in the address of policy issues a promise to take up. they don't want to talk about this issue. it's too embarrassing to talk about this issue.

it is hypocritical to talk about this issue, so they will avoided -- avoid it as much as they can. the challenge in 2016 is how to get them to talk about this issue as they go around and engage in the rain dance to convince people to support them about what ever issue they want to get people to support them for. the challenge is how do we get to turn the table and force them to consider what they'd rather not consider? how do we get them to address a topic which they would rather not have to address? that's the objective of the new hampshire rebellion. by rebellion, that does not mean rebelling against the government, it is to rebel against this agenda the politicians will bring in the -- and the presidential candidates will bring. forcing them to say how are you going to end this system of

corruption in washington by getting people to ask this question again and again and new hampshire. new hampshire is a prime target for this. it is a critical presidential primary and it is also a state an important precedent related to this issue. in june of 1999, john mccain went to new hampshire and made the system of corruption in washington the focus of his campaign and the focus led to him winning the primary in new hampshire. but just before he had done that, new hampshire had a tie to this issue that was much more powerful for many of the people who continue to talk about it. the tie was this woman -- a woman named doris haddock who on generate first 1999, january 1

1999, started a walk in los angeles to cross the country to washington dc, 3200 miles. she began at the age of 88. she arrived at the age of 90 walking into washington, there were hundreds of people following her, including a lot of congressman who had gotten out of the cars and drove the last mile. celebrating the incredible importance she had focused on addressing what was then for her the fundamental issue, the corruption of the system of campaign finance reform. the new hampshire rebellion seeks to revive this by remixing the granny d walk. nobody has a time for 3200 miles. last year, we did the first instance of this walk across new hampshire in january. she walked longer, we walked colder, a total of 190 miles -- did i mention in january? a walk which totaled 210 people

across the course of the walk, reaching tens of thousands of new recruits in new hampshire who have signed up to join this cause and forced candidates to talk about this issue in the primary and reaching a million people in the state and around the state of new hampshire talking about and focused on this issue. this january 11, the anniversary of her death, the second of these walks happen. this time, not just one, there there will be four routes converging in concord on the 21st, which is the fifth anniversary of the supreme court's contribution to this mess, the case of citizens united. the objective here is to recruit 50,000 committed voters in new hampshire to ask this one question -- how are you going to end this system of

corruption in washington? the theory is if enough ask that question and if the race is sufficiently competitive, it creates an opportunity on the republican side certainly and maybe on the democratic side for a candidate to pick this issue up and if they pick it up and make it an issue, there is a chance that it becomes an issue in the presidential election. would that be enough? in my book, "republic lost" i was skeptical it would be enough. i also describe what you could think of as the regent precedent. the idea of this was if it's impossible for people to believe ordinary politicians will really take this issue up, what we need is not an ordinary politician. imagine somebody like gates or david souter or christine whitman or -- just

imagine the voice. a non-politician who committed to run for president with one promise -- that when elected they would do one thing to pass whatever the reform is that person thought was essential and then promise to resign. that's it. do one thing, a regent -- the regent is there while the children grow up. so washington is filled with lots of children. so we are going to force you to grow up by taking away this corrupting influence and i step aside and the ordinary politician, the vice president becomes the president. the critical thing about this idea is there's no ambiguity if that person was elected why that person was elected. barack obama says i was elected for 44,000 different reasons but this is one person elected for one reason and there's no reason for congress pushing back against it because it's clear

what the american people have said and it was the plenty of dissension to give that person what they wanted because it is easy to get rid of that person. once you give them the bill, they've got to go home and you can get back to ordinary politics as usual. this regent president system, if we could find such a leader to step up and take this challenge, i think would do it and would actually bring about the kind of reform we need. maybe it's possible to do it without but the key is to recognize we need the president in this mix. we need to move the congress, we need to scare the congress, we need the president to lead. three parts to make possible this change. because this change is possible. it takes one statute. i think we need 15 senators to -- and 45 senators to switch.

it's possible if people like you stand up and focus not just on the simple injustice, the injustice of the corrupt criminal, but the real justice that we've got to bring back to the system, to the equality of citizens which this system has lost. it is my view, it is my life , it is this passion that this boy started me on that we can get back. it is possible. but the key here is an old harvey milk strategy -- it's possible if we give people hope that there is something that can be done. not hope in the sense our friend obama has abused the term, but hope in the sense of what vaclav havel described. here's what he said about hope.

hope is a state of mind, not of the world. it is a dimension of the soul, it is not prognostication. it's an orientation of the spirit and an orientation of the heart. hope is not the same thing as joy that things are going well or a willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously heading for success but an ability to work for something because it is good. hope is definitely not the same thing as optimism. it is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense. if something does make sense here, it is my view this republic makes sense that the ideal that 225 years of struggling have evolved makes sense here. there is something to hope for

and there is something even to be optimistic about, that if we organize in the way we now have the capacity to organize, there is the chance, not the certain ty, the chance that we can restore this inequality of citizenship again, for once, maybe it has never been here then for once, but for all of us, that is our obligation -- a moral obligation as an obligation that can inspire all if it is understood to be something that speaks to the best of our tradition, which is including and expanding and building a democracy. that expands the capacity that we have. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you, i'm happy to take questions, eager to take questions which i understand there are mics at both sides. >> sitting in the middle, please come to the aisle, thank you. question over here. >> so thanks for a great talk. my question is related to how

you get everybody and their individual issues to align this greater issue, right, whether it's either health care environment, the lists go on. it seems like there is an emotional piece. how do i place my emotional fervor around climate change and if leslie, the bigger issue is the first issue. it's hard for me to get emotional about this bigger one and take that same emotion and pour it into this underlying piece. that is my discussion, my question. >> right. so and this is a general problem that people have described around this reform movement for many years. i think the first step is to recognize something about how you cannot get what you want. i don't think it's enough to think about how i can't get what i want.

i don't think the personal selfish perspective is sufficient here, even if your selfish perspective is about a public policy issue that you think is great for the world. i think the other part about it is to recognize why it is wrong and when you see why it is wrong, when you see that it is wrong because it has disenfranchised us. it has taken from ordinary americans a fundamental part of what a democracy is, equal representation, it has taken that away. there is a certain anger that grows with that. think about the protest in hong kong again. that was a purely procedural protest, purely about procedural issues, they didn't have the democracy yet. the very idea that they would be excluded from the first stage of the election was enough to motivate them to say to hell with this, we are not going to accept this as a democracy. and so the conception of it being unjust and wrong was what

motivated as much as them thinking they couldn't even map out from the perspective you were talking about which issues they wouldn't get past, right. it was the injustice, the immorality about that way of thinking about it. i think it's not hard to see why our system is like that. what's hard to do is to get people to be as passionate about changing it, not because they don't see it's wrong, but because they don't see it's possible to change it. and so if you, if we can find the way to link the recognition, heck, i'm not going to get anything anyway, with, and there is some thing, this is insult added to injury. then i think there is a chance to begin to coordinate. now i don't want to convince you to give up your work on solar or climate change. those are incredibly important issues. regardless of what the issue is, i don't want to convince you to give it up.

i do want to convince you to tithe. i want you to give 10% to this cause. if you can get everybody to tithe, to give 10% to this cause, then there is enough to imagine this cause taking on the fight that it has to take on. and this fight in the end is actually not as hard as other fights we have taken on and won. for example, racism, which, of course, we haven't won, but we spent a long time making extraordinary progress with a really hard problem because you don't just wake up and no longer -- are no longer racist. it takes generations to put that out of the d.n.a. of a society. this issue is just the problem of the incense incentives of running a campaign. there is no candidate running for congress today who would lament giving up the world where they sit like a pigeon in a cage

and peck on the phone to get the person at the other end to give them the money they need. nobody likes this system. it's just about creating the incentives where they can see they can win in a different way. so this is not as hard a problem in some very important sense. i think if we can get justice recognition beyond the simple injustice, something beyond the simple injustice, i hope, i think that's the only way we can make the progress happen. >> you have been fighting for the mic again. >> i don't have any additional questions. thank you, i'm convinced on like the tithe of the 10%. i've been convinced for some time. it was just hard to -- not just do both, but that there's an emotional piece there and i think there is something great about everybody working together on that underlying piece, so thank you. >> thank you. >> next question on this side. >> hi, i can't think historically of any government

that isn't built to protect the interests of the elite and even then the grass where there was better income distribution -- that was where silverlight's -- civil rights were certainly not in place for many, many people who lived in this country. i'm wondering if you could address that and whether some of the people's movements in this country, the occupy movements or the current marches all over the country after the shooting deaths aren't a more effective way of scaring politicians. >> i don't think there is a golden history. there are particular periods which worked better, but didn't work better for all issues. even at a time when i think congress was not as captured by money as i think it is now, it certainly was incapable of dealing with civil rights because of the vietnam power of democrats in the senate from the south. so there is never a point in our history where you can look back and say things were just grand.

what do we want to thank follows from that point? because i do think we can see in our history ideals which still resonate with us, many that we have discarded fortunately like disenfranchisement of women or the failure to recognize the equality of race. those are gone as ideals. but the ideal of this equality of citizenship was from the founding an ideal which we can still collect and use. madison, when he described our democracy, he said we would have a branch that would be "dependent on the people alone." we do not have that now. we have dependent on the people plus dependent on these funders. the one on to be clear and he meant "not the rich more than the poor." so that is an ideal that we can use to point to the democracy we should be pushing

for. now, you ask a fair question. are more radical revolutionary changes more effective? and so far, i do not think so. now that anything has been affected, but so far i think that we have seen is that when pushed to the extreme like that, this enormously powerful system responds in an incredibly brutal way. we could look at what happened in even occupy east bay or forget occupy. think about the brutality of the response to what aaron did. this system is enormously powerful for dealing with what they view as deviation. that is what commits me to inside the norm -- the morals of the system -- we have to use the system to change it. now, i'm happy to be proven

wrong and the more radical solution to achieve what we all are aiming for. i'm not saying that people should give up on the more radical, but i think we need to recognize a path that doesn't require tearing down everything. there is the path. i think it's possible and doesn't require, indeed even invite people to give up fundamental commitments. i could give a version of this talk to a group of republican, -- conservative republicans and i think find a way to show them as much the commitment of ending the corruption of the system as much as people care about climate change or whatever people on the left would care about. i don't think it is as extreme in the brutality in this system which could be done if we found a way to speak across the divisions and push in a way that united in the way that i'm

trying to describe. >> question over here on the right. >> i guess i want to go back to the article 5 conventions that you were talking about earlier. what i get from a lot of the political changes that were promised like financial reform campaign finance reform, we get promised one thing and it works it's way through and by the time it's done, it's gutted of any actual power or real meaning. my question is what does this amendment you're envisioning look like and how do we get the change that we're actually demanding? >> so you're describing the product of a system where money has an enormous influence because it's learned how to exercise its influence over the system. the thing they are afraid of when talking about an article 5 convention, no one knows how to control over that entity.

that is not to say there is no reason to believe that that entity would produce fantastic ideas. in fact, there is a lot of reason to worry about that entity producing terrible ideas. what i described here wasn't the product that the great ideas would come out of that process but instead that that process puts enormous pressure on congress to try to stop that process and it does that by giving the political movements what they want. so the last time we came close was a balanced budget convention calls in the 1970's and 1980's. we became very close. congress adopted a whole series of reforms that responded to that push and stopped the push by that response and so all that i'm saying right now is that we should recognize this as another tool to create the kind of pressure for reform that right now doesn't seem to exist because they're happy to run the

system the way the system has been run for the last 20 years. and the best evidence of that is, we have an election, the first thing that happened after the election is a passage of a bill that basically undoes the financial reform that the dodd frank, critical part of the financial reform -- the derivatives, raises the contributions you can make to parties from individuals so you can give millions of dollars to parties that you couldn't before. all of that is done by democrats and republicans recognizing they need to do this to return the favor to those that just brought them to power. that can't change unless they are terrified about the consequences of that. one dimension of that terror is coming from that unspecified power from an article 5 convention. >> next question on the side. >> thank you so much for your time and all of your work on this issue. at the crux of it, you said we

need 15 senators and 45 representatives to flip. i think it is feasible and tough in this pulls live -- polarized political environment. two questions from that, tactically is it better to insulate this issue from the p are best policy -- here based politics or try to channel those forces behind this issue? second, most more thanly on a more actionable level, to build trust between members of congress to try and bridge that gap, what sort of informal mechanisms or institutions can we establish? exchanging constituent letters to the editor, it may be too california for you, but maybe a group meditation session. [laughter] >> look, i was here for nine years. i can get the meditation stuff too. this is a really critical point that it is hard especially for progressives to embrace that we need more than progressives to win. that's not to say we have to

compromise anything, but to the -- but it is to say that we have to recognize that fundamental reform only ever happened at the constitutional level if it's cross partisan. that's to say i don't want to get these 15 senators not by saying we're going to kick out 15 republicans and get 15 democrats even if democrats would love that, we only get 15 senators or 10 maybe, maybe it's enough for 10 if we can get republicans to begin to talk about this issue. what we know is that if you talk, get republicans in a context where they're not worried about losing the seat to a democrat. to choose between a republican candidate who cares about reform and a renteria candidate who doesn't, the reform candidate does better. the strategy that suggests is begin to think about safe republican seats where there is a chance to talk about republicans who care about reform. so one example is dave bratt who

beat eric cantor, a completely safe republican seat, a guy who spent almost no money called eric cantor a crony capitalists. those are fighting words for a right-wing republican -- crony capitalists is evil. that's exactly what this corruption is, it's the production of crony capitalism. it corrupts government and capitalism. that is what right-wing republicans think about it. that credible fight complicated by other issues like immigration that people on the left are very upset about, i am too, that way of framing it makes it a credible republican concern as well. i think the only way we win is if eight to 10 republican victories happen around this not because democrats have beaten them, but because republicans have begun to generate their own version of this. this election cycle, the pac supported the only republican

candidate in a nation to make elections funding and to propose public funding of elections. that was an essential part of what jim rubin's campaign in new hampshire was about. and that influence has now begun to spread. republicans have talked about introducing a very large voucher bill, a $200 voucher bill which would radically change the way these campaigns are funded. this is the slow progress for things happening on the rye. -- for things to happen on the right. if a slice of republicans, not 40, 50, 20, even 10% were to begin to open up the possibility of that as a feature of their platform, then the coalition to win is possible. that's how it's always been. think about the progressive era -- teddy roosevelt is a republican. bob will follow it is a republican. -- bob lafollette is a republican. taft is a republican. the progressive movement is

democrats and republicans, not just a bunch of democrats. democrats have very conservative southern democrats who are not progressive in any sense at all. so that recognition of the need to find a way to knit together different political perspectives focused on this fundamental issue is what we have to discover. it is so counterintuitive to us and it's not even clear organizationally, it's possible i often think that the business model of progressive organizations is inconsistent with the business model of winning because the way we want to talk about this issue is designed to make the other side hate us. so we want to talk about it, how terrible corporations are and how evil it is to have money in the system. those of might be true statements, but if you talk like that, you're certain turn off 40% of americans of what you're talking about. is there an authentic and true way to talk about this that doesn't necessarily turn them off? the parallel that becomes more

and more parallel to me about this is think about the civil rights movement. so the late 1950's and early 1960's, there is a fundamental divide in the civil rights movement. one part, the part we associate now with malcolm x thinks the way to win is to build as much fury american african-americans -- among african-americans for their cause as possible. if that includes violence, it includes violence. god knows there has been violence for hundreds of years against african-americans. that's what it takes, that's what it takes. the other part of the movement which we now associate with martin luther king is the part that says, look, we have to speak so the other side can hear us. if we go out there and engage in violence, the other side doesn't listen anymore. they say let's deal with the violence. if they go out there with nonviolence, engage in a way that celebrates the best of our traditions, they have to listen to us. so when you watched -- our

parents and grand parents watched african-americans being hosed and bullied with dogs and beaten on the bridge in selma, they responded by recognizing this was inconsistent with values that they had. they were speaking in a way the other side had to hear. i think that's what we have to do here. we have to find a way to talk so the other side has to listen and hears us and agrees. as i have done this, i have spoken to people on the right about this and there are people here on the right, there is a recognition that this common problem -- this is a common problem. we have a common enemy even if we don't have common ends. we have to find a way to organize against that common enemy and that objective includes recognizing, it's not about beating republicans. it's about bringing republicans and democrats to recognize the corruption of the system. >> question over here on the right.

>> i loved your speech tonight. i have been with you for eight months and i'm sticking with you, but i've a question because the first half of a talk explained that i've absolutely no chance of making any change. i'm in the bottom 90%. the top .02% can veto any issue they want to veto. the second half you explained to me that in three or four years we could probably push through the one issue that the the top of .2% most wants to veto. what you left out was what the top 2% was going to do to stop us. that's also what got left out before the last election. i didn't hear much about it. i'm not going to ask you to fill in that blank. what i'm going to ask you to do ask you why is you don't remove the filter between the top of mayday and the bottom of mayday because i cannot find out what

your discussion intellectually up top and how you make your decisions and i cannot contribute to it. i have tried. you have nice people that deal with my emails, but there is a real strong block just like in our democracy. >> well, let's separate the issues for a second. let's talk about how it's feasible first that the group that is disadvantage, the bottom 90% or whatever you want to call it, can mobilize and have power to destroy the thing which the top might care to most preserve. let me start by reinforcing the intuition that it's a really incredibly hard problem. my friend, jim cooper, a democrat from tennessee, described capitol hill as a farm league for k street, k street where the lobbyists work. what he means is there is a

common business model among members of congress and staffers in congress to become lobbyist. they make more money, they make tons of money as lobbyists. the annual salary increase was 1,452%. if you're on the inside and you imagine your future as a lobbyist, somebody comes along and they say yeah, we have an idea of changing the system fundamentally so lobbyists can't be paid that much anymore, you're not likely to be encouraged to support that reform. the insiders have very strong power to resist that reform. i completely agree with you. it might well be that there is nothing to be done, might well be. so what do you do in the face of what might well be? i get from many people all the time the argument can't be done, so don't do anything about it.

that's a really tempting idea because it's really costly to do something about it. it's really painful. it's really hard. i have got young kids. they're not happy that i'm trying to do something about it. let me tell you, when i look at the temperature in new hampshire next week and this is a nice idea, let's not do anything about it. something you might know when i was a kid, i was a republican. i grew up, but i was a republican when i was a kid. [laughter] here is what you hear republicans say all the time. we love our country. as i have gotten up and grown up and being a liberal, i hear liberals say it, too, it's not just republicans. we used to chant that, we love our country, love our country. as i have become a law professor and looked at the great parts of our tradition standing next to the terrible parts, but the

great parts, i feel that love, i feel that love. what i know about love and you know about love is what love means is you never give up regardless of what you face. i wrote this at the end of my book, the story of this woman standing before me in a dartmouth speech saying you convinced me, professor, there is nothing that can be done. it is hopeless. there is no change we could ever achieve. as i said in the book, i was terrified it was a total fail because i don't want to produce that reaction in people, but the image that came to me was of my son, my then only son who i love and imagine a doctor saying to you your son has terminal brain cancer and there is nothing you can do. so what would you do? >> you have avoided my question entirely. i agree with everything you said.

>> i have taken the first part which i'm saying what would we do. >> i said that wasn't my question. >> so you don't want me to continue the story. [laughter] >> low strike a deal. quid pro quo. great. so the point to this is, should be obvious, the point is if you feel this, you're going to do their going to do this regardless and we are going to work and you said you are going to work, too. the second part, how do you organize and regulate this one entity trying to help in this project? >> i think we're not permitted inside right now and we will win if you harness the rest of us. >> right. so what i described and dropped the sxsw project on top of was a

process that will invite exactly this project to figure out how we recruit. i think the only -- there is no justification. the only explanation that i would offer is just understanding the incredibly -- incredible constraints of ginning up and executing in a month a project that tried to take on what we tried to take on. there is a million mistakes to learn from. we're trying to learn at least from half of those mistakes as quickly as we can. i eagerly want to find a way to bring in as many as possible. but i also know from the staff that was there, that there is only so many hours and only so much we couldn't get it done. i take your question and that i answer it as a pledge from you as a quid pro quo that you step up and be a part of that. that's exactly what i profess the shift has to be. it's how to recruit people to do

the work person to person as opposed to how do we recruit television stations to do the work and -- yes, i agree, thank you. >> we have time for one last question, but before we get to that, i just want to invite everybody immediately after the program to join us in the atrium for a dessert reception and it book signing. we have time for one last brief question. >> i am both a donor to mayday and a donor to the pack. in 2008 as getting marijuana will -- legalize was a sideshow, ignored, presidential candidates did not want to talk about it. and because of the ballot proposition, we now have five states in which it is now legal. i'm curious about how come a similar strategy isn't being used for campaign fans reform so

-- campaign finance reform so the state has a real system and, wow, this works really well, we can emulate this in other states and get something on the ground kneeled instead of waiting for congress. >> is a great strategy. it's being pursued to push at the state level to create, and the local level, to create the these anticorruption ordinances. they succeeded in tallahassee and they're pushing ones in montana. i totally support this idea. i also believe we don't have time. we don't have time for 40 states to come around to get their local house in order before we take on the challenge of congress. we don't have time because we don't have the opportunity, a way to address the issues to motivate everybody to want to turn out and do something here like climate change or health care or equality or some way of finding a common purpose, again, these are not things that can wait. so as much as i am eager to see those things succeed, i would

not say that means we shift our focus and not also try to pursue this. we recognize that that might mean those don't move as quickly, but i think as they move together, they feed on each other. i think what we saw out of the victory in tallahassee was an extraordinary revival of the belief in part of the country that there was change possible. that helps us to work at the national level, too. so it's a great strategy. it's just one more complementing strategy we got to be able to adopt. i'm incredibly grateful you would come out and spend your time with this. i'm hopeful that you will carry some of this forward to others and join at least one of these maybe two, all three, and yes, there are some boots left in new hampshire waiting for people to fill them, so come join us if you would like. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. [applause]

>> looking live at the u.s. capitol with congress out this week for the present days recess. the associated press reported that california represented just gone has announced that she will not seek reelection next year citing frustration with washington's partisan gridlock and says that she would seek local office in los angeles. she has served in the house since 2011 when she won a special election to replace fellow democrat jane harman. also news from washington, "the wall street journal" has president obama appointing joseph clancy to leave the secret service. he has been interim chief since october. we will take you live to chicago for former governor and

potential 2016 presidential candidate will be speaking to the lunchtime meeting in chicago on global affairs. mr. bush will be speaking shortly. we will have live conference. part of this morning's washington journal. host: we turn to our immigration debate and alan gomez. he is covering this issue for a long time. let us first talk about were taxes and these 25 other states appealing. what were they suing over on the presence executive action? guest: the present announced act in november that he would create this program to protect the 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation. what the states were doing were trying to block that program. their argument is that by doing that -- by the president doing that and protecting these millions of undocumented

immigrants, though states would bear the cost of allowing them to be here. they've had to get driver's licenses, help them with medical care, give them free schooling public schools k-12, they are saying that the president doing this is overstepping the constitutional authority to do that. a are the ones that are going to be hurt by it. that is why 26 of them got together to see the administration. host: here's the governor of texas, republican greg abbott on the immigration really. he says that we live in a nation governed by a system of checks and balances and the presence attempt to bypass the will of the american people was successfully checked today. why this texas judge question mark why did he go before that court and what this judge say? guest: immigration advocates say this will be a bit of judge shopping. this was a conservative judge and his rulings in the past have

an incredibly critical of the president and the department of homeland security and how they do not implement immigration reform in this country. the 50-50 chance on whether they would get that judge -- they got him. to use that question of the driver's license to really drive the home of the states did have standing to sue the federal government, they say that now basically you save about $26 and texas get a drivers license, the state subsidizes the rest of the cost to get veterans license. now, we are going to have a pay for those costs. with the judge ruled is not on the merits of whether the president did was constitutional or not. he just ruled that we should stop this so that we can have that hearing in court. the texas governor may have over spoken just a little bit because he did not actually strike down the merits of what the president has done. all it does is the land so that they can be time for a full hearing about the legality of the president's move. host: does it answer the question about constitutionality? guest: not yet. that is something that the judge

or the fifth circuit court of appeals will have to answer. host: if the white house seeks an emergency stay and they said they will make that decision in the next couple days, how does that all work out? what happens? guest: what happens is that we are not ruling on the basis of whether what the president did was constitutional or not. this is just a question of delaying the program. i was they, all these applications are about to start being processed on wednesday. what happens now is that the ghost of the -- a ghost to the fifth sort -- the circuit court of appeals. the fifth circuit is traditionally conservative appeals court. they have ruled in the past on those immigration issues. a ruling that they had in 2012 actually wrote about the idea of the federal government exclusive authority over immigration regulation in the country. a lot of folks think that as soon as he gets there that it

could strike it down. host: and then what? guest: and that we keep going up the ladder. this could eventually get up to the spring court. some think it might because it is a very critical question that we haven't facing this country for a few years now and that the court has weighed in on from time to time. that question of federal supremacy versus immigration law. if you remember the arizona law from a few years ago, they try to enact their own immigration enforcement scheme in arizona. the supreme court struck down the majority of that law and saying that the federal government has the exclusive purview to enforce immigration law and that moves possibly like this confident that ability. host: who gets impacted by this injunction by the texas judge? guest: it could be up to 5 million people who have applied for deportation protections. what the program has done is allow them to apply to the federal government and if they meet certain criteria, they get a pretty clean criminal record.

they've been paying -- they have been in the country for a certain. of time. they could be protected from deportation for period of three years. the president did something like that a few years ago that has approved over 600,000 undocumented immigrants were brought to the country as children. this basically would've been a massive expansion of that. there are literally millions of people who could have started applying in these next couple of months that now are stuck in this weird limbo. they're sitting there not sure what to do. and a lot of them had their paperwork ready and applications ready to go. and it was up yesterday and found out that they have to wait. host: that is your story in "usa today." many immigrants confused after judges late-night order. he featured some people. you talking about mario blue boy -- who walk. he had pay stubs and it sounds

like she and others were really following this court closely and what the judge would decide with her husband waking up to tell her the decision. guest: it is incredible. there followed it incredibly closely and talking with the housecleaner in a nanny. she was telling me about the judicial record down the southern district of texas. they were following it incredibly closely. the woman that you mentioned -- she has been here since 2001. she came here from argentina after that country's economy collapsed. she is been a undocumented immigrant in the country ever since. for her and millions like her, whatever you think about whether this is a good idea or not put yourself in her shoes for a second. they've been sitting there watching this congress repeatedly tried to get in immigration solution that would deal with a situation and obviously that has failed time and time again. so now, they had the president saying, ok, i'm going to take this step and protect all of you. and then at the very last second, just about 24 hours

before they were about to turn in those applications, boom, a gets taken away from them. some of them are actually giving up and saying, i'm sick of this, i'm sick of being teased. i'm sick of getting that close and losing everything. there's a lot of people who are incredibly depressed yesterday. by the end of the day, i really have a sense that the message that they were trying to derive to other undocumented immigrants was to continue getting the paperwork ready, to be ready for that moment whether it is the fifth circuit court of appeals or some other court that reverses the judge's ruling. and they will get a lot of people applying for the program. host: let us listen to what eric holder had to say. he was asked about this texas ruling yesterday at the national press club. [video clip] >> we are still looking at the process and the steps that we might take. they will ultimately make that decision and consultation. i think we have to look at this decision for what it is.

it is a decision by one federal district court judge. i expect that this is a matter that will ultimately be decided by a higher court, if not the supreme court, then the federal court of appeals. i think it has to be seen in that context. this i would view as an instant step in a process that has more to play out. host: alan gomez, what you make of what the attorney general had to say? guest: i think much like these undocumented immigrants i were watching the case, the white house was aware that this is likely a possibility. the judge that george w. bush appointed was definitely on the conservative side of things. you read this opinion that he released. it was very well thought out very detailed, abortive, when hundred 23 page opinion. throughout, he calls the president disingenuous and what he calls was not a big change the immigration laws. i won point, he said that the

move indoors the dictates of congress, but actively asked to afford them. it was a very strongly worded opinion. it is not very subtle -- sort of what his views are on this idea of the president making these moves. throughout his opinion, he cites all the costs that these states will suffer because of these legalize undocumented immigrants on health care, education, unemployment benefits. a lot of immigration advocates were very upset because he did not want to include any of the economic benefits that these legalize undocumented immigrants would bring. it would have better jobs. in a better education. it would be able to pay more taxes and a more to the system. i do not think anyone in the white house was surprised by this ruling. they just have the array to see what the next step is. host: president obama yesterday that the laws on our side. what kind of pressures he feeling from immigration groups to do something quickly? guest: i think everyone

understands that there is a certain -- what a guest to these levels of legal technicalities they're going to get a little deference. for a long time, the a document immigrant community has been bashing the president. a coffin the reporter in chief -- they have called him he did porter in chief. he has maintained the structure in the court that the ports thousands of immigrants a year. he has been very difficult on that. after november that he enough that he was moving to protect the 5 million -- >> we take you live now to chicago. the global council on global affairs with former governor jeb bush. cracks i was excited to have a hundred people come. it is a little intimidating with all the friends of the press. but i'm delighted to be here. thank you for the invite. secretary paulson, it is always good to see you. many of my friends here in chicago, it is a joy to be here.

this shows why commitment that both my wife and i are committed to illinois when a floridian leaves florida in february. [laughter] thank you very much. i want to thank the members of the chicago council who have served in the military. your service and the service of the men and women who are currently serving is an inspiration to all of us in the bush family. my goal today is to explore how america can regain its leadership in the world. and why that leadership is more necessary than ever. american leadership rejected consistently and grounded in principle has been a benefit to the world. in the post-world war ii era united states has helped hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. there secured liberty for an equal number and it has been a force for peace and security. only our exceptional country can make that claim.

this is happened because our presidents, both republican and democrat, have accepted the response abilities american power in the world with the belief that we are a force for good. i have doubts whether this administration believes american power is such a force. under this administration, we are inconsistent and indecisive. we have lost the trust and confidence of our friends. we definitely no longer inspired fear and our enemies. the problem is perhaps best and mistreated by this administration's approach to iraq. we have had 35 years of experience with -- excuse me, iran. we have had 35 years of experience with iran's rulers. they have attacked american troops directly and through their surrogates. they have used terror as a tool of intimidation. today, for world capitals are now heavily influenced by iran and its proxies. baghdad, damascus, beirut, and

some nine. their ambitions are clear and their capabilities are growing. for many years, they have been developing long-range -- missile capabilities and their long-range nuclear program. during those years, america has opposes efforts. but the obama administration has launched where the goal has shifted. the ministration seeks to merely to regulate nuclear enrichment. nuclear weapons in iran was once a unifying issue within american foreign-policy. leaders of both parties agreed to it. what he launched his negotiations, president obama said that that was the goal -- to stop iran's nuclear program. now we are told that the goal has changed. the point of these negotiations is to solve the problem -- it is to manage it. iran's intent is clear. their leaders have openly expressed a call for the annihilation of these date of

israel. this is a threat to israel and to the united states. we could face large-scale proliferation issues throughout the region if iran has the ability to launch a nuclear weapon. iran's neighbors will want their own nuclear capability because it is an existential threat. people have lost confidence in the administration's efforts in relations to iran. congress to pass bills to sanctions and require approval in agreement if someone the breach -- if one should be rich. my hope is that the administration would rise and eat this defining foreign-policy issue of our time. so far, they are unequal to the task. look elsewhere in the region and the globe. everywhere you look, you see the world slipping out of control. we see the rise of nonstate terror organizations like isis or boko haram growing and parts

of the world. we see the breakdown of states like iraq and syria and the rise of tribalism and warfare of unspeakable brutality. that the heading of egyptian coptic christians two days ago -- the wiping out a millennia old christian communities in iraq and syria, the heading of americans, japanese and europeans, all graphically displayed for us to watch on video. and the burning alive of a jordanian pilot. some of the work -- worst violence is perpetrated by radical muslims against other muslims. we were set with russia when it subverts its neighbors. we see the new threats of cyber warfare challenging our national security and our businesses. in asia, territorial conflicts loom under the surface. the great irony of the obama presidency is this -- someone who came to office, sing greater engagement with the world has left america less influential in the world.

the work to restore america's leadership in the world will take a concerted effort. the commitment of new leaders and the sheer sense that america is often at its best when it is tested. the united states has an undiminished ability to shape events and build alliances a free people. we can project power and enforce peaceful stability and far-off areas of the globe. to do so, we need to root are foreign-policy and a set of priorities and principles. of course, we must look to the challenges of specific regions and nations. each situation will require its own approach. but we must not lose sight of the bigger picture. today, i want to outline those principles which will make that possible and help america return to the responsibilities that come with being the world's leading power. i come to these issues with a great deal of thought and experience. one of my most formative experiences was when my wife and i at the age of 24 accepted the

responsibility of opening up at -- in office in caracas, venezuela. we had an 18-month-old and we went down there and caracas was this booming place. we lived overseas and live outside of our beloved country. we learned how to use something that our parents used -- diapers because pampers cost a dollar a diaper. i do not make enough money at the time to provide for that. that was ok except we got one hour -- water one hour three times a day. we had these personal challenges that were exciting be on believed and saw america from the outside. we saw venezuela moving away from united states as part of the so-called "nonaligned nations movement." many of them were pulling away as well. i lived overseas in the carter era when we saw firsthand what it was like to see the united

states, this incredible country, lose the respective countries because of a week and fast living foreign-policy. later on as governor, i have a chance to lead 15 trade missions and given florida's footprint and need western hemisphere, i was actively involved in we let the largest delegations for example, of any state from the u.s. to mexico, where 500 people participated. i have visited israel five times. in those meetings, i have had the incredible joy of seeing the spirit of israel. on my highlight reel of life, i will have a trade agreement signed by the secretary of commerce of the state of florida and ariel sharon. it was one of the greatest result my life to do that. being able to create prosperity

turn israel into the first world country. if you go to israel, you see the incredible geography. geography we take for granted here. big countries with oceans as our borders have a totally different mentality than a country literally 10 miles away from countries all around the region, most of whom have never except accepted israel's right to exist. i have forced myself to visit asia four times a year to learn about the dynamic region. it is a dynamic region because it's modeled on our system and was turned into a uniquely asian experience. our allies watch with anticipation because of a lack of american engagement in the region and the rise of chinese ambition. i've seen

firsthand the difference of power -- in power. as you might know, i have been fortunate to have a father and brother who helped shape america's foreign-policy from the oval office. my views will be held in comparison to theirs. this is a fascinating thing in the political world for some reason. for the record, i love my brother, i love my dad i love my mother as well, hope that's ok. [laughter] and i admire their service to the nation. but i am my own man. each president learns from those who came before, their principles, their adjustments. one thing we know is this. every president inherits a changing world and changing circumstances. in the gulf war

timeframe, heart of the anyone knew that the internet existed or who al qaeda was -- hardly anyone knew what the internet -- that the internet existed or who al qaeda was. i want to share with you the approaches i think are necessary today. these are the principles i believe are critical to put america back on the road for firm global leadership. we cannot be a force if our economy does not grow. our aspiration should be growth for as long as the eye can see. imagine a country growing at 4%. the middle would begin to see rising incomes. we would be significantly more optimistic about the future. americans would think there to learn would have more opportunities than they had -- their children would have more

opportunities than they had. we are one of the only countries that can execute on a plan to make that happen. we need to fix how we can regulate tax, get our fiscal house in order reforming a broken immigration system, how we transform our education system and how we make sure that we move our training programs into the 21st century. all of these things are important. fixing our retirement system which will overwhelm all of the long-term spending that is so important to sustain human growth, research and development, and infrastructure. you must fix our entitlement -- we must fix our entitlement problems. you must focus on trade. congress should give the president trade authority.

the good news is, we are probably the only country that can make this assertion, if we're serious about it, to become young and dynamic again. the united states would be in that category forgot that right -- if we get that right. one other thing about our economic progress that directly ties to foreign-policy. in our midst today is an energy revolution that is perhaps the most exciting news that we have. it is possible for america to be energy secure with north american resources in relatively short order. if the creature does have a g around this we would create economic activity and hundreds of billions of

dollars. we would play significant role in dealing with countries that use their oil for blackmail for political purposes. as we go our ability -- grow our ability to produce gas we lessen the dependency of other countries and economic might, wherether it is venezuela or russia. we make sure that we do not stifle the energy revolution in our own country and coordinating all of this with our strongest trading partner canada will yield a economic powerhouse in this region that could compete with any region in the world. one final point about economic growth. free people, free

markets, free ideas, implement it faithfully, such a powerful example of what is possible to the rest of the world. as people lose confidence around the world in capitalism and democracy that underpins capitalism, they move in different directions very if they see america at its best, growing with a tremendous austerity, they will emulate that system as that will bring about a more peaceful world. the second and supply believe in us that our words and actions must match. the entire world -- so the entire world knows that we say what we mean and mean what we say. it should be there. his administration talks with the word -- this administration talks, but the words fade. hashtags campaigns replace actual campaigns.

the examples keep piling up. president obama called isis the junior varsity. when they comprised of fighting force of more than 200,000 -- more than 20,000 battle ready men. his administration has lobbed insult at prime minister netanyahu and his cabinet with incredible regularity. we see a careless regard to the long-term interests of america and the world. instead, we see an effort to win the political new cycle. i want to take a moment to talk about the controversy surrounding measurement of time benjamin netanyahu's speech. i am interested in hearing

what he has to say. i think it will be important for the american people to get that perspective of our closest ally in the region. i am surprised to hear the administration is upset. if we want to build confidence and trust in the american position, we have to listen. we should strive to make it bipartisan again. the president needs to set a strategy to be clear about it, not overcommit or overpromise but always strive to deliver. the third principle is that the president's word needs to be backed up by the greatest military force in the world. i grew up in the 80's politically where i watched ronald reagan and my dad, with

incredible people serving by their side in a bipartisan fashion. the slogan that drove the foreign-policy of the 80's was peace through strength. military power must be rebuilt to provide for the common defense. it is a primary duty of the government under the constitution. due to budget cuts, we are on the path of only spending two and a half percent of gdp on defense by the end of this decade. this is really dangerous. the president should call on leaders of both parties to fix the budget and to address the shortfalls in our defense spending. he should show leadership and commitment to solving this problem. the next president should launch a strategic review of our military strategy so we meet needs with capability. our military is not a discretionary expense. it is an essential --

it is essential. these of military power is one of the most serious decisions a president has to make. having a military equal to any threat is not only essential to the commander-in-chief, it makes it less likely we will have to put our men and women in uniform in harms way. i believe that weakness invites war. strength encourages peace. america needs to strengthen the alliances and relationships that foster peace. you have lied on these alliances that have been understated perhaps for the american people, that they have been a huge part of the reason that people have had the chance to rise up. america needs to lead and we cannot do it alone. we need to strengthen nato. our

relationships with japan and australia and with our neighbors have to be rebuilt. we will not be successful unless we invest in the much-needed coalitions and partnerships, and developed the personal relationships that make it possible to garner worldwide support against the great threats we face today, most to particularly islamic extremists. they should be no comfort, success, or future standing against the u.s. while certain nations will always seek to challenge our country, you must be prepared to address the new asymmetric,

non-state-sponsored vets that consume the news and have -- non-state-sponsored threats that consume the news. these threats come nearly every day, in the form of the most evil and horrific acts on innocent lives. hostages on an airplane or subway, office workers shoppers children out of school cartoonists at their drafting tables, or christians simply practicing their faith. al qaeda, taliban, and others set their sights on the softest of targets. you must be prepared for a long time commitment to fight these battles. it requires funds on many levels but most of all -- it requires

fights on many levels. for the life of me, i do not understand the debate has gotten off track, but we're not understanding are protecting. this is a hugely important program to use the technologies keep us safe. it requires" nation with allies and a rigorous homeland effort including border security. the threats of the 21st century will not be the same as the threats of the 20th and it is critical that we adapt. our foreign policy must be rooted in a critical principle, let us call it liberty diplomacy. we declared the power in our country rested with the individual and not the other way around. that liberty was natural

and self evident. free speech free markets, free press, and religious freedom. america's experience affirms the power of human liberty not just because america has thrived, but because the world has thrived from it as well. i think of the example of dr. lee from korea. in the 1950's, he fled the north to fight alongside american troops for the south. when the war was concluded, he saidtudied medicine. his work led him to identify and isolate a virus and develop a vaccine. america's defense of korea was not without sacrifice. thwe war, some historians say, ended in a draw. but do not

tell that to dr. lee. korea has gone from the most desolate country to a first world country. it has world-class businesses that have embraced korean technologies. the stakes could not be clearer. for those who doubt me, consider the testimony of the very few people who escaped the modern concentration camps of north korea. our commitment to korea will bear through for generations. in europe, in africa, and asia, tens of millions of people can tell their own story of american goodness of the life saved, of the life liberated, of a life of freedom, because america chose to lead and sacrifice and chose to be freedom's greatest

defender. we do this work for others and we also do it for ourselves. time and time again, we have learned that if we withdraw from the defense of liberty elsewhere the battle eventually comes to us anyway. in our cities and streets, and in our skies. the enemies of freedom will never be content to live in their own dark corner of the globe. you must eventually strike out at america and they often do. america does not have that luxury -- the luxury of withdrawing from the world. we have no reason to apologize for our leadership, or our interest in serving the cause of global security and peace and human freedom. nothing and no one can replace strong american leadership. thank you all, i appreciate the chance of being here. [applause]

[applause] thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i know everyone in the room appreciates the depth of your remarks. he took us on a principled world tour. let's start a little closer to home. let's start with cuba. the rationale for the reset -- we have 50 years of failed policy, it is time for a fresh approach, because the previous policies

have not worked. we are going to establish a relationship with the country that is to governed by the castro's -- still governed by the castros. >> i would not call it a reset. i would call it bad negotiation. we got nothing in return. allen gross was held hostage and languishing in prison. his wife believed if he stayed much longer, he would have died. or spies convicted in our -- four spies convicted in our judicial system. education trips have been expanded. the president has the authority

to do so. nothing in return. they get subsidized oil from venezuela and american tourists. all of that goes to the coffers to support the regime. the notion that you're going to have freedom outbreak in cuba, i think it is false. i think it is incorrect. is it important to engage the cubans? sure, i think it is more than appropriate. but to do so secretly in that anything in return, we already are seeing the results. the first formal talks -- the cubans began to renegotiate what their expectations are and ask for more in return as they

negate the ability to do anything that would treat a trade-off. i think it is the wrong thing to do. had they waited, where they serious about creating the climate for a freakree cuba, they would have seen significant financial strains that would've brought cuba to the table. if venezuela collapses, the first thing that happens is that they will have to pull back from the program they have which subsidizes significantly the cuban regime. cuba would probably have to pull back on the number of state security forces that are in venezuela to prop up the regime. >> let's stay in latin america, as a reference point for your principled address and the

application of the principles of freedom and democracy, economic growth. and the extent to which success in the u.s. and also economic success relative to our allies makes them strong worthy allies. what is it that you think creates such -- such difficulty for latin america? >> half of latin america has embraced freedom as it relates to consistency of the rule of law, allowing for a thriving civil society, of creating better economic conditions so people can rise up, commitments many of these countries may have seen. we have seen significant gains of people completely isolated for now -- who are now blooming

out of abject poverty. you can see significant economic growth. chile, colombia, mexico, to a certain extent. these are countries in their ascendancy. the ones who have accepted state dominated socialism are the ones who have problems. it is a reminder of the obvious. free market capitalism provides opportunities for people. the u.s. has pulled back from the region. the boys are being filled by new actors, -- the voids are being filled by new actors notably china. our withdrawal from the region is not appropriate. i think the

focus ultimately needs to get back to a free trade agreement of the americas, for the u.s. would benefit. if you go back home today and look at a map and look at where i live, it would be at the center of the universe of that trade agreement. there are huge opportunities. another example where engagement has been hisa spectacular success. in columbia, this was a plan to deal with the social turmoil in columbia where the drug cartel and violence was significant. the previous administration made a significant effort to provide technical and non-terry support

economic support. the president made a real commitment to open up the economy, to allow people -- to liberate the economy. it was a huge victory. we should apply that same type of approach right now. the president has actually propose d that for the northern triangle states, which have a similar situation, perhaps more grave. the drug cartels make it hard for people to consider investing there. the middle is getting squeezed and the poor feel disconnected. that has bipartisan support. during my brother's

administration, it had support from both sides of congress. if the president is serious and goes to congress, he will get support. >> if we stay with your principles and move across the atlantic and think in context of economic growth, robust allies - - >> now we are getting in trouble. >> we would need them to be economically robust. we would need them to share our values and ideals. we would need a sense of cohesion. to confront circumstances such as russia and ukraine. had he think about the relative strengths of nato, reliance -- how do you think about the relative strength of nato, the alliance in confronting this threat?

>> if you consider nato's long life, it has been a significant force for good in the world. as people in most of europe now see the world, they see it deeply pessimistic. frankly, it is directly related to our own country. we have similar kinds of feelings, less so, perhaps in than europe. growth above all else must be the strategy of the next president. it will create optimism that allows for looking over the horizon and thinking

longer-term. there has not been a country in the post crash near a that is made the -- post crash era that has made the adjustments to promote growth. japan has gotten close massive stimulation by the central bank. the hard-won was adjusting their entitlement system or whatever they call it, the social contract, hasn't happened. uk has made some adjustments. that is the big challenge. i think we're going to see a hollowed core in europe or must we start to see strategies to create high sustained economic growth again.

it is one of the big challenges. it is why immigration reform for our country so hugely important. race is not a unified in this country. we are 34 different kinds of flavors. the u.s. has the potential of being young and dynamic again. if europe embraced that approach, they could see economic growth as well. if it doesn't happen, i think you're going to see nato being a place where there might be a lot of conversation going on but not a force that will intimidate anyone. the treaty obligation of helping our fellow nato members will be hollow as well. the minute that happens, you create real insurgency that could lead to

miss cancellations by people in the region -- you create -- >> what is your sense of what we should be discussing, with respect to our perspective of mr. putin and the germans and other european democracies who do not have the benefit of the oceans you described. he is physically proximate to them. >> they have centuries of war. they have a different attitude about this, for sure. the first up for the u.s. is to recommit to rebuilding our own military

and making a commitment that we are committed to doing this. we want to rebuild nato. it is hard for us to go electric europe about their declining commitment -- to go lecture europe about their declining commitment when we are doing the same. need to give the europeans the sense that you are not disengaging -- we are not disengaging. we have to engage with the germans particularly, because they are the most important power in europe. and other countries as well, to say that we have their back and are going to be here for the long haul. i don't know what the effect is, it is hard to be on the road, but the president did make a

commitment. i think that is the appropriate thing to do. to show commitment that we are serious about the nato alliance is important. the worst thing would be to announce it and not do it. i'm going to assume that it is being done. there is no price and the fact in -- there is no price in plumestin's world. there needs to be a price. there is a calculation on each of these actions. if the cost is too high for russia, it will create a deterrent effect. rather than react we ought to state what the sanctions are going to be. finally, i

would suggest ukraine is not immediately in our national interests, it is not in our neighborhood but it is important in a lot of ways and to ignore their request for military support and they are being invaded, is that is what is happening just seems feckless -- because that is what is happening, just seems feckless. you create a better climate for pushing russia back. they have structure problems as well. these countries have economic problems that could play out if we were more patient. >> let's talk a bit about another tough neighborhood. let's move from europe to the middle east. >> is there a good neighborhood

week ago two temporarily -- we can go to, temporarily? >> you are in one. [applause] >> good point. [laughter] >> it's hard to know where to start. let's take freedom and democracy and the arab spring but has to be now seen as a mis-judgment about what would into following the arab spring, from egypt to tunisia. >> tunisia has worked out. >> writes. right. we would be remiss to celebrate tunisia and move on.

whether or not the saudis become a western-style democracy anytime soon, in that neighborhood, it has historically been true that you take your friends and allies rather as they come and understand that you have alignments of different sorts strategically. we got away from that of it in egypt. it has resulted in a bit of a confused state as to who it is we would actually wish were there. we don't have the strong egypt we once had which created a significant buffer to iran. what is your sense of how we harmonize our ideological views

and having a secure ally that thinks differently than we do? >> this is your best question so far. [laughter] this is a question we need to think about a lot. foreign policy is not one thing. american values and american liberty is a force for good in the world. if we could create the freest world, we would have less threats, less violence, less terrorism and many other things. but to get there, it is a long-term world, challenge and different in every country. i would say we got to truong in egypt. we got -- we got it's wrong in egypt. and now we are pulling back support. i

just know if you saw this a month ago, but he gave a speech about muslim extremesism. he said it was their responsibility to fight against it. we have to be practical and balance our belief in liberty with the belief that security and engagement will create the possibilities for the egyptians to create more freedom. if we pull back and are diffident, and say you are not on our team, we get the result you see. egypt welcoming putin to cairo which they did last week. 1973, henry kissinger and richard nixon, and a brilliant stroke of foreign policy, pulled

sadat in. now we see russia invited back in because of our disengagement. there has to be a balance. sadati have been critical of the president a lot here. this is a problem of presidents past as well, if you have an election you are democracy. hamas had an election, hezbollah, these groups are not supportive of democracy, the use the election -- they use the election process to take away freedom from people. we consistently think an american foreign-policy that if you check the box, it is ok. we have to

assess that as well. in the cases egypt, they can play a constructive role. we should be engaging with them. they could've brought about a more lasting peace. we are consistently disrespecting the allies that make a huge difference in the region and i think we have to rearrange that again. >> bespoke in your speech to having been -- you spoke in your speech to having been in an extraordinary vantage point in your life. among your father and his close circle of advisers, your brother and his close circle of advisers, and the quality of service that so many

of those people are few to have contributed to those years. there is a perception that the same quality, even if you sort of have a point of comparison, no longer exists. do think that is true? or do we look at the rearview mirror with rose tinted glasses? >> we see things and always view it negatively. i can like i should be the marine psychologist in the geico ad. he throws the kleenex at the guy. get over it. we should not be as pessimistic

as we are. we are on the verge of the greatest time to be alive. [applause] the president has had counted people around him. he has not empowered them to do their jobs. he has taken away power from the departments that are responsible for defending the homeland and protecting -- creating the military strategy and foreign-policy strategy. it has become more centralized in the white house. i think that was a mistake. but the talent is there. granted, if you think about of people that served in previous administrations. henry kissinger, schultz, madeleine albright all testified last week. these are incredibly counted people. but we have those people.

i'm not worried about that it at all. >> so the new bush cabinet would have no difficulties? >> that is 15 yard penalty -- a 15 yard penalty. [laughter] >> that wasn't my best question right? [laughter] one could easily conclude that a discussion of sovereign states, the way we have been proceeding, is much easier than a discussion of the isis phenomenon. you mentioned it in your speech. what to make of this, a stateless entity, carving out territory to incorporate it into an image of what they perceive

to be a caliphate. how do you -- what type of diplomacy deal by here -- do you apply here? >> no diplomacy. with them directly? the strategy needs to be restrained them, tighten the news, and take them out -- tighten the no ose, and take them out. it has to be done in concert with folks in the region. look at jordan. its population has grown with refugees from syria and iraq and previous wars with israel. this country is a powder keg. similarly, other countries in the region are seeing real

challenges, whether it is turkey or the persian gulf states. these are big security threats in the region and we need to create a coalition led by the u.s. because only the u.s. could lead something like this, but in total concert with the neighborhood. it is made more compensated by our pullback -- complicated by our pullback. on top of that, the shiite-sunni issue gets complicated. the president has a huge challenge here. part of it is his own making. part of it are trends that have existed for a long while. but we have to be engaged. if we think this is going to be contained in a particular part of geography which some

americans believe, there will be a big a dy with a big awakening. >> what do you think about tribalism? beyond that, what about the dissolution of sovereign states in the middle east and the return to tribalism? >> i think that was be horrific. it would be a mistake to think that isis is not what it is. it is violent, extreme islamic terrorism. the more we try to ignore that reality, the less likely it is that we are going to develop the appropriate

strategy to garner the support of the muslim world to do what i said, tighten the noose and take them out. it is important. people in our country, including the president, struggle with noothis. our strategy would be more decisive if we accepted letter what it is. i have read articles about whatever the 1915 breakdown of the middle east and how that no longer is a viable deal. i would like to know what the options are. >> we see -- but i meant to say is that isis allows barbaric acts. boko haram and the others throughout africa

seems less so. how do you establish a dialogue with such a phenomenon? >> let's go to iraq. there were mistakes for sure. using information that turned out not to be accurate. not creating an environment of security after the successful taking out of hussein was a mistake. iraqis wanted security more than anything else. my brothers administration, through the -- there is no support for this, it was hugely successful and created the stability that when the new

president came in, he could have built on to create a fragile but more secure situation. that when we created the void. when you have a failed state or a weak state and you leave, the first thing that happened, maliki turned to iran. iran's influence has replaced the united states's in a significant way. if you're serious about protecting the status of nationstates, you have to protect the integrity. isis did not exist 3 or 4 years ago. the guy who is the leader was in a prison in southern iraq. >> with that, we have 15 minutes to go. i have no doubt that the

governor's speech and answers to my questions have provoked -- >> great questions. >> except for the one. [laughter] have provoked comments from the audience. raise your hand. you have to wait for the microphone. how about this one right here. kimi get a microphone -- can we get a microphone? >> thank you for this wonderful talk. my name is professor bernadette. i'm interested about the comments you have made about our recent engagement with cuba, that patients would have yielded a better result. that struck me as strange because we have been patient for over half a century. is

sounded to me that you were saying the catalyst is going to be the oil prices. but we know the collapse of the soviet union did not do it. why do we have cause to think that the change of the oil prices and venezuela is going to do it? why not have the kurds to say that this has been a failed policy for over half a century we need to do something -- why not have the courage to say that this has been a failed policy for over half a century, we need to do something fresh? >> absolutely. first of all, the embargo cannot be lifted by the president. it has to be lifted by change in law in congress. the president can only tinker around the margins. there is

very little support for lifting the embargo among many of the leaders in the democratic party that are engaged in this subject. what i am saying is that if the objective is freedom in cuba, if that's was the objective of this negotiation, i hope it was, because that isis a legitimate goal, then it's prolongs the -- and then it regime's existence. it is similar to iran.there is a feeling that if we do not put too many conditions on our negotiations, they will end up being a democracy over time, that repression will subside. but you have to create the environment for that happens. in the case of cuba, no one

honestly believes that this is just going to happen by osmosis. lift the embargo, lift everything, very few people -- i do think it happens unless you negotiated in a way that creates the conditions for it to happen. the venezuelan point is this. venezuela replaced russia as the main provider of aid to cuba. cuba has lived on five or six lives here by beinge. not opening up our piggy banks -- 95% of which will go to the regime, not the cuban people, i thought it was a mistake. >> bill, how about you? >> governor, first, thank you

for your comments. i want to focus on one of your principles with which i agree. that economic strength can lead to political strength. if we take that to asia, let's talk about china. second largest economy in the world and soon to be the largest. there is no question that they had taken the growing economy and have tried to project political strength. the president talks about a pivot to asia but has done very little. what should we be doing differg differently? >> i think the term pivot was probably a mistake. tickets are in the eye of the beholder -- pivots are in the high ofe eye of the

beholder. people in the region say that you only talk about pivots in our region, not washington. if people do not think it is a serious move, it will not achieve the desired result. and second, the rest of the world wonders, mi the pit -- am i the pivot-ee? [laughter] it cannot just be talked about. it has to be real. engagement with china is equally important. we have to create confidence with our traditional allies, japan, korea, australia. but we also have to have an ongoing, deep relationship with china. one point about the queue ae cuba

deal. we got something in return. just from a negotiating point of view, this was poorly handled as it relates to cuba. china, we have to stay engaged. my experience, and it pales in comparison to many in the room, is that it is easy to create misunderstanding. going forward, it is the most complex, important relationship that the u.s. has. >> right here, please.

coming your way, right behind you. please>> governor, thank you very much. we live in a city where two miles south of here babies born have a different life expectancy . look and do differently in the new white house -- what can we do differently in the new white house? >> the question of poverty is a huge problem. that baby he or she, is going to be really cold. [laughter]

but unless there is a change, that's baby will never have a job. the world that we are heading into creates exponential increases in automation. when a child grows up, -- living a life of purpose and meaning is going to be altered in many ways. is huge challenge -- it is a huge challenge. our policies have not worked to lift people out of poverty. put aside who the president is, this is not exclusively a white house or federal issue. as society it goes beyond transfer payments. it goes to how do you love a child with your heart and soul

and teach the habits that yield success. how do you teach people great and determination and give them the tools for a much better education, so they can dream bigger dreams and not feel so disengaged the they do not even try. the health issues are easier then the permanency of poverty. if you're born in america today you're more likely to stay poor than any time in modern history. if you're born rich, you and your family, it is the greatest time to be alive. our policy is not focused on how to address these issues. that is a work in progress, for sure. a great question.

>> the gentleman in front of me. right here. >> thank you. mr. bush, just to play devil's advocate, if iran wanted nuclear weapons, why couldn't they just go to one of the bad boys in the neighborhood like north korea or pakistan or russia? it is an argument that is also being used for proliferation. if you want to weapon may already -- if you bought a weapon -- if you bought a weapon made already, you don't have to hide it or tested. weaponit. >> it is a scary question. i don't know if you follow the story of the pakistani nuclear

scientist who stole technologies from europe, brought it back. he is a national hero in pakistan. he lives in the open. he created the capacity to do just as you are describing in pakistan and was caught trying to export that technology to where ? iran and libya. what you are describing is not something -- they have tried. you have absolutely tried -- they have absolutely tried. we have to be real about this. they are trying. that is why engagement in the proliferation efforts that are ongoing are hugely important. l ook, the more i get i