they had heavily criticized barry goldwater and johnson just recycled their criticisms in the general election. that's exactly what the obama people will do if romney is the nominee or for that matter any of the republican nominees will have been heavily criticized by their opponents. >> it's been said many times that he is the nominee that they think would be strongest against the president, and now in four early state polls done by "time" and cnn, mitt romney is leading in every state. do you think it was just a matter of time before we saw him rise backs to the top, nia? >> i think there was a quiet coalescing around mitt romney when chris christy decided not to get in, perry imploded around some of these day bates. you've soon him come to d.c. and meet with congressional leaders flp is slow walk but a steady walk to romney over these many weeks. it's not a surprise the polls show him ahead. cain is slipping. he was ahead in some of these polls early on but he seems to be stumbling. surprise for some that he's leading or close in south carolina.ç that was supposed to be prime coun

. >> in your book you have checkers as well on barry goldwater and robert. >> i choose the because their senators who are good indicators of the public opinion at crucial moments of course was the nominee for president, 64 he ran and he represents an era in the 30's and 40's where midwestern republicans were antiinterventionist and one of the stories in the book is how the eventually did in the end of that tradition and you had the success of eisenhower and the republicans but it took a long times and in some ways if you think about somebody like ron hall he's in a tradition i choose goldwater because he was an important figure of the republican party to become more conservative, more western and more hawkish on foreign policy sleaze and though he lost the presidential election and he pointed the way toward other nominees like reagan and bush 43. >> robert taft for and for president why? one, twice cracks >> he ran 48, 52, yes. >> was he not be elected because of the isolationist policy? >> that is one of the reasons. i think especially for more moderate republicans the sort of establish

. >> in your book you have chapters as well on barry goldwater and robert taft. does the senators to look particularly good indicators of republican opinion, conservative republican opinion. goldwater, of course, was the republican nominee for president. floridian taft. half represents the 30's and 40's where most republicans, especially midwest republicans, anti interventionist. one of the main stories in the book is so republicans eventually abandoned that tradition. you have the success of eisenhower and republicans by the 50's, but it took a long time. in some ways it is never completely safe. ron paul today, kind of and that after patrician. nigel's -- says cool water because it was such an important figure as the republican party moves to become more conservative, southern, western, and more hawkish with foreign policy. that is what cold water was. a very important transition figure even though he lost the presidential election, and he pointed the way toward the republican nominee like reagan and bush 43. >> robert taft ran for president. >> he ran and 52.

that have strong core values even if they are a little outside of the mainstream you know maybe barry goldwater was too far outside of the mainstream. and unarguably george mcgovern but if if they're. within the boundaries of it. people followed them through and you know even people who strongly disagreed with george bush never had any doubt about where he stood or at least that's the myth that we've been left with and he and same with reagan you know created that image that impression is there in your opinion you're a democratic strategist is there a sense among the amount of american populace that president obama and or the democratic party or poll with. i have a ground on which they stand that doesn't i think there is the problem is that you can give us as democrats seventy percent approval of the things that we want to accomplish we want to make the wealthy and the big corporations pay their fair share seventy five eighty percent of the american people support that nearly two thirds of republicans in some polls support that and yet we can squander that so our big problem is not sticking to

took me to the arizona state fair to pass out barry goldwater literature when he was running for the united states senate against earnest mcfarland. that was my first political event in my life. >> greta: what a difference it makes. >> exactly. >> greta: who would guess you would be vice president and be back here. >> be back at the arizona state fair. when i knew you were going to be here and you invited me i said absolutely i want to come see greta and help fox and come back to the arizona state fair. >> greta: great to see you. a lot going on in the world today your thoughts. qaddafi is dead. how does that change things? >> i don't think it's going to change things much immediately. the focus right now is, you know, who is going to succeed qaddafi. this transitional government there we really don't know who the leader a lot of fighting. jocking for positions. the radicals and al qaeda and those supporters will try to move in to have a lot of say in this next government. we don't know how it's going to turn out that was one of the big questions everyone had. okay, fine, let's get r

trench, whatever word you want to use, the role of the federal government since ronald reagan or barry goldwatern 1976. look at the flat tax proposal rick perry was talking about. in 1996, steve forbes held up the same postcard and made that the centerpiece of his campaign. ultimately it took down his it was perferated by others. bat buchanan. rick perry tried to respond to the most obvious vulnerabilities of the plan for allowing reductions to remain for mortgage, state and local taxes, and allowing people to stay within the existing system if they want. fredricka, the idea it makes it more simple is belied by the last point. under the perry version, everyone would have to figure out their taxes twice. they'd have to figure them out under the existing system and new system. presumably they'd want to pick the one that would save them the most money. it has the same issue the forbes plan did. the overriding issue. it means big tax cuts for people at the top. would eliminate the state tax, cut the top rate from 35% to 20%. big tax cut for people at the top. that means either you have to raise taxe

back to barry goldwater and nelson rockefeller.the reasons the race is so volatile, it is clearly evolving along two separate tracks. in your cnn polling, about half the party identifies as supporters of the tea party. the other half of the republican electorate say they are neutral or opposed to the tea party. and they are moving in very different ways. the nontea party side of the party. they are moving pretty steadily toward mitt romney. he was at 16 to 18% in your polling in sxaug accept. 24% in late accepseptember. meanwhile he's stuck with 17 or 18% with the tea party side. most don't want him but they've been bouncing around. early on, michele bachmann had a spike. then rick perry was at 35, 36%. now herman cain as perihas collapsed at 10%. it is hard to imagine that's where the wheel will stop turning with that side of the party. >> if mitt romney does not get the tea party, does it matter? can he still win the nomination and potentially the election? >> well, i think he can win the nomination without the tea party. if no o

problem, and that of course is something which has resonated since ronald reagan or even since barry goldwater in the republican tradition. but again, it's this side of the family that is the main tradition in republicanism has been like the conservative party of britain, embracing everybody together. but the hayekian had a different point of view about what should or should not be done and the government itself turned out to be the problem and because keynes is' solutions worked or not the fact was even if they did work and let's say they do work the fact is that he says, and friedman says that's a bad idea because we don't want the state to be too big because that checks are individual choices and that is the basis of the undermining of the free choice. >> host: what strikes me as interesting in the book is the extent to which you get into the personalities and how they interact with each other and you think about the debate in politics and there is a real shouting match going on in the tea party right to the endorses hayek as vitriolic opposition to keynes and paul krugman being an obvious

and another won, nelson rockefeller won the oregon primary, and still another, arizona senator barry goldwaterthis has been a political season much like that. one candidate after another, popping up then flattening out. could it be that we're watching the same situation now as in '64? when the republican party lost big? the republicans aren't happy with their presumed candidate so they're shopping around for someone else. anyone else. one difference is the timing, of course, with the caucuses and the primaries pushed up to new years. the election campaign this time is being fought out months ahead of when it was in '64. what's the same in the relentless rejection of the front-runner. the only question is whether mitt romney can lose the nomination

that, of course, is something which has resonated since ronald reagan, or maybe even since barry goldwater in the republican tradition. it's the distant sight of the family, the main tradition of republicanism. but the high i can set a different point of view. that an absolutist point of you about what should or should not be done. government itself turned out to be a problem as far as hayek was concerned. but because keynes solutions was irrelevant to the fact was even if they did were, let's say the war, the fact is hayek said that's a bad idea because they don't want the state to be too big because that checks for individual choices and that is the basis of free choice. >> host: what strikes me in the book to the extent you get into the personalities and how keynes and hayek interacted with each other. you think about the debate today in politics and there's a real shouting match going on, the tea party ride that endorses hayek and have opposition is to keynes and likewise the keynesian kirkman being an obvious voice to the keynesian school. although i think we disagree how much keynes

romney and his aides were concerned the governor would not be able to win re-election with senator barry goldwatert the top of the republican ticket so they recruited peterson to run against bill hart knowing she would do what she could to keep the party unified that year. despite her -- peterson ran a credible campaign however the press coverage of her campaign was also relegated to the women's -- and laden with images that would make us cringe today. for instance, a "detroit free press" editorial that was headlined millinery in state to raise said peterson was quote a straight from the shoulder political pro-who will be as hard to deal with as a wife who wants a new dress. [laughter] another reporter wrote quote, the rustle of political petticoats will set the scene and another story said that peterson had an endorsement from a former president eisenhower quote tucked firmly in her handbag. peterson recalled at the time such comments didn't bother her much because there wasn't much he could do about them, but later in life as her feminism or church or recognize the denigrating stereotypes in whi

so this is not, you know, nelson rockefeller against barry goldwater.ly just a question of, does the tea party, does the conservative base of the republican party, you know, feel that they can trust and have confidence in romney to be that same conservative as president, versus moderate, saying, you know, we think he's faking it. >> well, matt kibbe doesn't. the man's sitting right here and doesn't have any confidence in the guy. >> well, think about the other thing that's going on is the senate is in play, and there are a historic number of targets that we can go after as tea partyers, not just in a general, where we think we'll pick up enough seats to take the senate, but in the primaries. >> so you think you can control the next president, no matter who he is? >> you're going to have a more energized house and a more energized senate. >> i think you may have a point. here's a column in the newspaper, d.r. turk said, the base of the republican party has turned on mitt romney because he's the anti-tea party, anti-talk radio, anti-anti-government candid

clinton got re-elected after raising taxes and ronald reagan, he got elected despite all of barry goldwater's opinions. so yeah, candidates matter but sometimes in their campaigns they confuse us. doesn't it seem awfully coincidental that the biggest blowouts happen in the years with the biggest income growth? doesn't that make you wonder? and then if you look internationally, if you widen the perspective, it's true there too. larry barpels a political scientist at vanderbilt university looked at 31 elections held in 26 countries after the '07 financial crisis. he found, and i quote, "voters consistently punished incumbent governments for bad economic conditions with little apparent regard for the ideology of the government. so if you were a conservative politician in charge of some european country when lehman went down, sorry, you're out. if you were a liberal leader, you didn't know better. voters didn't care that it wasn't really your fault or that you gave good speeches or that they had liked you a few years before. campaign ads don't trump unemployment. but now it looks like europe migh

hampshire and another won, nelson rockefeller won the oregon primary and still another one senator barry goldwater been a political season much like that. one candidate after another, popping up and then flattening out. could it be that we're watching the same situation now as in '64? the republicans don't seem to be happen wet presumed candidate, that's romney, so they are shopping around for someone, anyone else. one difference is the timing, of course, with the caucuses and the primaries pushed up to new year's this time. the election is being fought months ahead than it was in 5064. what's the same in the relentless rejection of the front-runner. the only question is whether mitt romney can lose the nomination fight to nobody. it will take somebody, of course, winning it for him to lose it. that alone seems to make it look good for romney. they don't like any of the other candidates that have b

. >> now you supported and were close to barry goldwater. >> yes, i was. >> what was he? >> a libertarian. >> in philosophy not in party. >> what is bill clinton? >> oh, he's a socialist. >> defined as being what? >> as somebody who believes that the way to achieve good things is to have government do it. you can't think of a more socialist program than the health care program that he wanted, tried to get us to adopt. >> you said earlier in the discussion, what we're talking about rutgers, that the worst way to go is to take care of the bottom up. >> not to take care of it in giving them a minimum income. but the belief -- that the progress of society is going to come from the bottom. >> so how do you take care of someone who is in the lower third? >> in my book, capitalism and freedom, i propose something called a negative income tax. of getting rid of all of the welfare programs we now have. but replace it, by essentially a minimum income. >> but you also say that's not going to happen very quickly. >> we're moving toward that. the earned income credit is in that line.