and a key fire was buckley. utley, who in his youth, many of you know have been quite fervent supporter, ally, of senator joseph mccarthy, who led a kind of vigilante attack on the government itself, the state department, the cia, the white house, the army, during the eisenhower years. buckley had without ever repudiating those views developed a very different approach to socty and its conflict. and it emerged during the upheaval in the 1960s. in the book, i qte a number remarkable columns bill buckley wrote during the 1968 campaign. and those of you here who have actually remember those years or are old enough to remember them, to remember the period of virtual anarchy in this country. to political asssinations and one president i the year. riots in both cities, chicago and miami were naonal conventions were held. and some of the political ferment in that election in a few months before when lyndon johnson, who as recently as 1966 had been described as, quote, the julius caesar of american politics, unquote. th

and then in 1965, buckley said, "enough." buckley himself had matured politically. he'd run for mayor of new york. he'd seen how politics really worked. and he said, "we can't allow ourselves to be discredited by our own fringe." so, he turned over his own magazine to a denunciation of the john birch society. more important, the columns he wrote denouncing what he called its "drivel" were circulated in advance to three of the great conservative republicans of the day, ronald reagan, barry goldwater, senator john tower, from your home state of texas, and tower read them on the floor of congress into the congressional record. in other words, the intellectual and political leaders of the right drew a line. and that's what we may not see if we don't have that kind of leadership on the right now. >> moyers: to what extent is race an irritant here? because, you know, i was in that era of the '60s, i was deeply troubled as we moved on to try to pass the civil rights act and the voting rights act of 1965 by william buckley's seeming embrace of white supremacy. it seemed to

and the first appeared in buckley itself. distinction is hard to draw between the interest the speaker addresses and whether it is a candidate or an issue, because issues are wrapped up in candidates. the corporation interest in the interest its fiduciary officers represent when it is the behalf of the corporation -- >> you're correct to say there was no distinction. the distinction requires the use of magic words, which is what they said in wisconsin right to life, also. both of them said there is distinction. nobody said there was no distinction that i'm aware of. >> the word of the court, which occurred repeatedly, is that the distinction dissolves with practical application. that addresses the very common- sense point that when you are addressing an issue, whether you are addressing a referendum matter, whether it is proposed legislation or candidate that is going to raise taxes on the corporation, those distinctions dissolves. is all first amendment freedom. >> i thought that buckley had narrowed the statute and still fo

buckley jr. and then later by the neo conservative includingrving kristol who had also been a follower. and you will see him. neoconservatism is an idea. this is a a single foundational premise, andt is a ver important one. i think what happens is at a certn point that alysis bens t dogma and it created a contradiction from conservatism. if one ss a culture and society and government dominated then one is almo logically predetermined, predestined to be at war with much of the institutions in the society itself. and i think once that notion to call i think the president personified most dramatically. then what had begun as a conservative critique became a kind of what we now call cultural war. and at that point conservatism ceased t see themselves engaged in a debate or conversation with liberals who might share about common in is with them. they cse instead of the politics of what i call cultural entity. so one of the beams in thbook, one of the most useful traces is when this entity was transcen

verek los that battle with buckley, there's no question about it. interesting that archivallism for those few who care -- it was actually verek who reviewed buckley's book in "the new york times" review and began a correspondence with him. they were kind of fridly adversaries, but owe in's -- jonah's right, the conservatism i'm talking about is very much like that. and there's no question it lost. i don't pretend -- i think jonah said other wordily -- worldly, somebody else said that too. yes, you did. maybe the econgmist in a resue of the book -- review of the book. i don't think that's so bad. i think we could use hat right now. .. >> abraham lincoln had it, roosevelt, reagan had it is not the worst thing. i will plead absolutely guilty to the charge in fact, i just think anybody. [laughter] >> we have one more short question. please wait for the microphone. >> my tendency not to say anything but i rise now because strauss has brightened brought into the conversation and improperly he had nothing to do with the buckley conservatism you're talking

that's what they say in buckley. so congress now says precisely that interest leads us to want to limit the expenditures that corporations can make on electionary communication in the last 30 days of a primary over the air, television, but not on radio, not on books, not on pamphlets, not on anything else. all right? so in what respect is there not conceptual, at least, a compelling interest and narrow tailoring? >> well, in the first place, i accept what the court said in buckley that expenditures do not raise that concern at all. congress has not made that finding. you're talking -- and you mentioned just a matter of radio and television, but in buckley versus vallejo, the court specifically said that that is the most important means of communicating. in an election. and the court used the words "indispensable." and what the court said in buckley versus vallejo is it compared a limitation on expenditures independent uncoordinated expenditures with the prohibition that the court addressed when it had a statute befor

that's what they say in buckley.s precisely that interest leads us to want to limit the expenditures that corporations can make on electionary communication in the last 30 days of a primary over the air, television, but not on radio, not on books, not on pamphlets, not on anything else. all right? so in what respect is there not conceptual, at least, a compelling interest and narrow tailoring? >> well, in the first place, i accept what the court said in buckley that expenditures do not raise that concern at all. congress has not made that finding. you're talking -- and you mentioned just a matter of radio and television, but in buckley versus vallejo, the court specifically said that that is the most important means of communicating. in an election. and the court used the words "indispensable." and what the court said in buckley versus vallejo is it compared a limitation on expenditures independent uncoordinated expenditures with the prohibition that the court addressed when it had a statute before it that said newsp

buckley, the american enterprise institute hosted this event. for more information visit aei dot org. >> in the beginning of the book you dedicate the first part of the book to the people of your country. the other part of the book you dedicate to your mom, martha. tell me about rtha johnson. >> i think that was of real force that shaped my life and the life of my siblings. my mother was one to talk as the basic things about endurance and commitment and honesty and hard work. she demonstrated her courage when our father, her husband, had a stre very early and she had to make ends meet to give us an education. she was a ptor. it deeply rooted in faith. and so we grew up in a family home based on prayer and faith and hard work. i think everything that represents the character in me really has come from her and we are bringing that to in our family. >> this was up portion of the book tv program. you can view the entire program and many others on line. coats said booktv.org. type the name of the author were booked into the search area in the upper l

you don't as buckley said of bush. you don't go into iraq and say we're going to bring democracy to these people and they're going to throw flowers at us and everything is going to be okay. you don't give inaugural addresses where you say we're gng to end tyranny on the globe. the president's words not mine. that's you topism. that's will sewn yan. so "the last best hope". >> struck me as aggressive also. >> it was. >> oddly weirdly aggressive. >> as you said mission aneb also. but here's the deal. one of the reasons republicans are having such a hard time right now is they are told and some republicans are thinking we've lost power because we haven't been conservative enough. no. .. >> only when absolutely necessary to protect u.s. interests, and when we do it, we throw everything that we've got at it, we kill the enemy, we achieve our objective, and we bring our men and women serving in uniform home. that was radical the $7 trillion spent on medicare over tast eight years, radical. because that's a program that's goi

they tried to argue under buckley fat the electioneering communication prohibition was unambiguously related to campaigns for federal office because studies indicated that the ads of rendering these periods where the functional equivalent of express advocacy. mcconnell upheld the corporate prohibition on his pace, and challenged the provision as applied. as we know, a statute can be constitutional on its face but have a certain unconstitutional applications that the court will prevent the government from applying in those particular circumstances. and here is what right to life argued. the corporate prohibition could not be applied to, even though its application generally was up help. the result of that case was a decision carving back the lectionary communication black out with application to broadcast ads to only those advertisements that had a deal to vote. that is, for the only reasonable operation instead it urged people to vote for or against a particular candidate. the problem faced after that case was that while the movie is a 90 minute documentary that wanted to run on tv,

. >> and to undercut buckley in so doing. >> i do not think so, because i think buckley was about individuals rather than corporations, and buckley was in 1976, not in 2009, after the very extensive record that was created. i see my time is up. >> one question that was highlighted in the prior argument, if congress could say no tv and radio ads, could also say no newspaper ads, no campaign biographies? the last time, the answer was yes, congress could, but it did not. is that still the government's answer? didn't. is that still the government's answer? >> the government's answer has changed, justice ginsburg. it is still true that bikra 203 which is the only statute involved in this case does not apply to this or anything other than broadcast. 441 b does on its face, apply to other media. and we took what the court's own reaction to some of those hypotheticals, very seriously. we went went back and considered the matter carefully. and the government's view is that although 441b does cover full-length books this would be quite good as applied challenge to any attempt to apply for 441 b in that

and that is that buckley stood for two propositions.hat a law must be clear rather than vague. and secondly, that the law -- that campaign finance laws could be only -- could be -- must be directed precisely to that spending that is unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular federal candidate. now, the result was the adoption of a series of tests by the supreme court in campaign finance laws to only that -- to only campaign financing, and to positively protect issue advocacy. now certainly mccain-feingold went beyond express advocacy and we would -- an many of us would argue the proper limits of the authority that congress has on regulating campaign finance, and the principle one was the electionry and communication prohibition, which established a blackout period before federal elections, where you go to federal prison if you mention the name of a candidate in a broadcast ad. now, mcconnell upheld this provision on its face, and as you could hear, the proponents of the electionry and communication did not try to overturn buc

. >> you talk about how moynihan and buckley came together even though they were on op sid sides sides. one quote i find interesting blindfolded you could find a liberal. who could step up to the plate and lead them to their good point in history and lead them for the u.s. >> that's the crisis right now. we don't see a strong leader in the republican party. when we look at federal governments who are most prominent, they are either defeated politicians like sarah palin who actually walked away from her job as governor of alaska or newt gingrich and john mccain who belong to an earlier era. at this point there is a vacuum no one has filled. just as important is when you mention figures like moynihan and buckley you are talking about intel lectures and the conservative movement doesn't have the level of thinkers it once did. it not only makes the case better for the right but make liberals think harder and examine their own ideas, too. that's what we need in the country today. >> a fascinating book. the death of conservativism and you have a book signing on the at sixth and i synagogue o

buckley, george wells. where are they whacks to any of you want to commt on the intellectual writings of people that might influence younger people to become part of this? because right now i feel are running out k those kind of people or at least that is my impression. and i don't know if anybody wants to comment on that. >> i would lov to take on that one and maybe it is an opportunity for a commercial. i see your fellow at the claremont institute. we published a clermt review of books under the directorship of d chaes keisler i think on a quarterly basis the clermont review of books is publishing bill buckley quality and commentary on our society and on the politof the day. we have in heritage and ayaan clermont an abundance of conservative intellectuals today offering contemporary address, addressing the issues of the day. that's available a i think that we need to turno fellows like my colleague tom phillips th regnery books, with red state, human events.com. it's outhe and available. we need to plug i

buckley, jr. this is a beautifully written autobiography by the founder of the american conservative movement. ethnic america, by thomas old, our foremost lack intellectual examines some of the ethnic groups, jewish, irish, german, afrin-american, that make up amera and suggests why some of had a greater impact than others. let me be clear about one thing. a book is a book is a book. it's not a snippet or a scrap or a fragment. a book contains thousands of words, hundreds of pages, which permit the author to develop thoroughly his ideas and his arguments. for his characters in a novel. a book doesn't have to be printed on paper. the success of audio books proves that. i would also like to see if you words about the kindle. amazons eleronic meter. the kindle is about the size of a book. it weighs less than a pound and it can hold more than 200 books, and offers access to several hundred thousand titles at about $10 a pop. but i must confess, i prefer the printed and bound book. there is something t

people like bill buckley said no way can you be part of our movement. where are the conservatives out there saying, don't bring a gun to a political meeting. this isn't the '30s in germany. thank you. >>> coming up -- nancy pelosi saying the climate in the country right now reminds her of the '70s in san francisco where there was gun violence against two top politicians who lost their lives because one man who was unbalanced was picking up the zeitgeist, the spirit in the air, which is dangerous. she gets very emotional. when we come back, we will get into what speaker pelosi is talking about. the heated rhetoric we're seeing right now that could lead to violence. you're watching "hardball" on msnbc. flavor lock lid. hear that? seals it tight. smells like fresh ground. fresh fresh fresh fre-- that's our favorite part. ...fresh! (announcer) taste why maxwell house is good to the last drop. new aches and pains, ...and new questions about which pain reliever is right for your body. tylenol 8 hour works with your body, with one layer that dissolves quickly.

people like bill buckley said no way can you be part of our movement. where are the conservatives out there saying, don't bring a gun to a political meeting. this isn't the '30s in germany. thank you. >>> coming up -- nancy pelosi saying the climate in the country right now reminds her of the '70s in san francisco where there was gun violence against two top politicians who lost their lives because one man who was unbalanced was picking up the zrvegs ze nirvegs t geist, the spirit in the air, which is dangerous. she gets very emotional. when we come back, we will get into what speaker pelosi is talking about. the heated rhetoric we're seeing right now that could lead to violence. you're watching "hardball" on msnbc. um bill-- why is dick butkus here? i hired him to speak. a lot of fortune 500 companies use him. but-- i'm your only employee. we're gonna start using fedex to ship globally-- that means billions of potential customers. we're gonna be huge. good morning! you know business is a lot like football... i just don't understand... i'm sorry dick bu

people like bill buckley said no way can you be part of our movement. where are the conservatives out there saying, don't bring a gun to a political meeting. this isn't the '30s in congressd drew westen. >>> coming up -- nancy pelosi saying the climate in the country right now reminds her of the '70s in san francisco where there was gun violence against two top politicians who lost their lives because one man who was unbalanced was picking up the zeit the guy, the spirit in the air, which is dangerous. is it getting that way now? she gets very emotional. when we come back, we will get into what speaker pelosi is talking about. the heated rhetoric we're seeing right now that could lead to violence. you're watching "hardball" on msnbc. e all... the only one that has bifidus regularis e all... and is clinically proven to help regulate your digestive system. activia light. ♪ activiaaa! so, at national, i go right past the counter... and you get to choose any car in the aisle. choose any car? you cannot be serious! okay. seriously, you choose. go national. g

there's a great line for a quote buckley in 2005 when news of the but george w. bush. he says, george w. bush is no conservative. he said conseatives, whether we like it or not, we conservatives are chained to reality, which that is out on on edmund burke. if you want to boil that message down, it ishat we are part of our time. we are chain to reality. we came to inaugural addresses-- you risbeck reality. you don't as buckley said of bush you don't go into iraq and say we are going to bring democracy to these people and they are going to throw flowers that us and everything is being going to be okay. you don't give inaugural addresses were you say we are going into tyranny on the globe, the president's words. that is utopianism. that is wilsonian. so, the last best hope. >> host: it certainly is aggressivelso. aggressive. >> guest: as you said the mission ineiationlso but here is the dl. one of the reasons republicans are having such a hard time right now is they are being told at some republicans are thinking, we have lost power because we haven't been conservative en

that was bill sapphire and big buckley were great wordsmiths. they didn't just use complicated words for the sake of complicated words. they want to teach people english and not like, you know and verbal crutches. he was a wonderful man, a real gentleman. i was shocked to hear that he died. i just heard from him last month. i knew nothing about his illness. >> here is another one. hype kron tree yak of history. he'll be remembered through his words and the fond memories here at fox. we were just showing brit hume doing his last interview. cal thomas, thank you so much. >> new evidence about just how hard the recession is hitting the federal government. social security will be paying out more in benefits than it actually collects. it's the first time that has happened since the 1980s and due to more older workers losing their jobs. >> gregg: f.b.i. releasing new videotape of the oklahoma city bombing. it's from security tapes, soundless recording showing people rushing from a nearby building after the bomb went off. it doesn't show the actual exp

anyways, our next guest is currently romancing chace crawford while playing the character bree buckleyrcia, everybody. come on. ♪ [ cheers and applause ] >> jimmy: wait. i heard that you were -- heard that you were at the yankee game when jeter broke lou gehrig's record. >> i was, in the rain. >> jimmy: yes. >> it was intense. >> jimmy: i was soaked. ah. >> my hair was out to here. >> jimmy: me too. [ laughter ] >> once it dried. because i was like, a little wet dog. >> jimmy: i was just soaking wet and i had these seats that were like amazing. >> fancy seats. >> jimmy: lorne michaels seats. yeah, well, hs had them for 20-something years. >> i know, i've seen those seats. >> jimmy: yeah, they're amazing but it's like, i didn't even want to look at jeter or anything because i didn't want to jinx him. >> no, you didn't want to -- yeah, throw him off. >> jimmy: yeah, but a-rod came and i think he doesn't like me. [ light laughter ] >> no, you know, i talked to him about it, it's fine. >> jimmy: really? >> yeah. >> jimmy: he was swinging his bat -- he came out and he's practicing his swing

buckley pushed the crazies out of the republican movement in the '50s.omebody today in the 21st century has to do the same. there's a responsible dissent in the republican movement. but it's being hijacked by a small number of lunatic who's have taken this over. >> is there more here, deeper opposition to president obama because there were plenty of things that president bush did in the latter years of his administration which upset genuine conservatives which, you know, busted the budget for future years or the deficit. >> if that's the case, then where was this deep-seated, you know, subtext during the election? when all of america, a lot of america was looking at barack obama as a unifier. and, you know, we didn't see the divisions then. he was the same guy then. race wasn't an issue then. it's policy that has done this. and guess what? maybe the democrats have got it wrong. maybe america doesn't want to be saddled with trillions of dollars of debt and don't want to move to the left and take over banks and auto companies. what if the democrats are wro

buckley.he republican party is an intellectual meltdown, there is no rational leadership, we have gone to the fringe, which is why rush limbaugh could insult a black guy named michael steele and michael steele ends up apologizing to the -- to the nut. >> well, i'll say this, reverend eugene rivers. the truth of the matter is that the republican party is a big ten, like the democratic party, and it's big enough to accomplish people with all kinds of idealogies, conservatives, moderates and liberals. and michael steele as the head of the party is doing the right thing, he's talking to people from every branch of the party. democrats have the same challenges, you have robert byrd, one of the most senior members in the u.s. senate is a democrat. people are talking to him. president obama talks to him, you probably talk to him. >> of course. >> so because people have been the way they have been in the past, doesn't mean you don't talk to them. >> that's called a concession, joe, very good, thank yo

buckley, drove out the republican society. >> what wow have the republicans drive out now?would have the republican leadership step up and say -- even though it's a small minority, the point is it's dominating the airwaves with newt gingrich and rush limbaugh -- >> let me inject in this, it's a very sad commentary in america where people can disagree with the president of the united states. it's the toughest job in the world, if you disagree with the president of the united states, because you're african-american, suddenly, you're racist. i disagree with a lot of his policies, but i think it's helpful to this country to suggest if you disagree with the president, you can have an honest dialogue. >> how about, ron, when members of your party don't step up and take on people like mark williams who called barack obama an indonesian welfare or thug. >> i don't want to go down that road? >> why not. why don't we take on newt gingrich. >> we had the first member of the ku klux klan in the united states senate. let's not get derailed. the point of the matter, the president of the

william buckley, mischievous man that he was, had a point with after listening to one of jimmy carter's harangs on the radio, said until that point, i didn't realize god was pa part of president obama's cabinet and a rather ferocious god at that. the reason this title of the book is slightly over queue cued, the american future, a history, was born of the conviction, there were certain moments, even though it was thought to be a no no to historians to project back from the present moments, if he is from the past, because of the way obama was, because the historical stories he liked to tell, because of the first for history, in american public culture. i must say, i think the first time i have realized this was when i was a young and you'll be astounded to hear, slightly -- although, in cambridge, i was having to teach. i remember tuesday morning, one tuesday morning in 1967, i taught in the morning and add laid steven son in the afternoon. haunted by what they would have made of each other actually. i don't think eloise would have gone for adelaide. i was leaning out the window and i sa

buckley said the conservative movement always had its share of noise makers and pyrotechnicses.er point, if we look where politics was conducted at the street level, the left that was doing in the late 1960s, that gave conservatives and the republican party to get back in power because they were the defender of institutions, of social order. >> there is one point i'm looking at because i'm a practical guy, eric cantor, sharp number two guy in the house from richmond, virginia. the guy is acting very cautious. he had a town meeting that was not crazy people yelling crazy things. it was civilized on the mark. he has the polls to show republicans if they want to get back into power, even though they have to be conservative, they have to be conservative grown-ups. >> well, sure. even when you have the statistic about twitter, we forget if you look at the reporting on this, it is older people not younger people who use twitter. it is interesting, too, that one surprisingly strong demographic for the republican party emerged in the 2008 election and everybody looked away because of th

on top of buckley and crystal and novak. one of the real guys, all those years running a column for "the new york times," speechwriter for nixon and agnew. years before that one of the most showboating great panache pr guys who created the kitchen debate in '59 with nixon and kruschev. thom, you're smiling. there's brezhnev to the right. he cut that event up where we got to show our commercialism at its best. >> i was smiling because i met bill safire in 1971 as a fill-in white house correspondent for "newsweek" magazine. i was 25 years old. and he was part of that murderer's row of speechwriters for richard nixon. pat buchanan, ray price, bill safire. they were fabulous. but what struck me was here was this guy who already had a reputation because of the kitchen -- kitchen debate there, but he was gentle, mild-mannered, soft-spoken, and then as he later learned -- well, his writing for -- >> okay. >> here it is. >> susan, i want to show you this. i'm showing a book. oftentimes, i do the safire political dictionary, language

intellect and the elites that actually deserve to be elites because they are the credible thinkers, the buckleys, the kirks of our side. and they have turned to the world net dailies and the people who sell conspiracy theories and fears and frankly the fevered swamps. >> i will say that as a liberal, i was interested in your critique. ly i will tell you honestly because i feel that it's really important for our country to have a good, solid, hohn nest left-right debate and a good, solid honest partisan debate and i'm concerned about what i see as the evolution of the craft of argument and adherence to the facts on the right. that's why it resonated with me. i'm wonder what reaction you had on the right from fellow conservatives to your critique? >> i've had mixed reaction. probably a third of people, mostly privately unfortunately, have told me they support it, they think this is -- we're going god's work. we're doing the important thing in rescuing the party from those lunatic fringes, from the peeve fevered swamps. a third of people said they probably agree but it's not their fight. they want

on top of buckley and crystal and novak. one of those real guys.ars before as a speechwriter for nixon. years before that is one of the best show boating men who created the kitchen debate with nixon and crew chef. he cooked that event up where we got to show our commercialism at its best. >> you know, chris, i was smiling because i met bill safire in 1971 as a fill in white house correspondent for "news week" magazine. i was 25 years old. he was part of that row of speech writers for richard nixon. pat buchanan, bill rice, bill safire. what struck me was here was this guy who already had a reputation because of the kitchen debate there but he was gentle, mild mannered, soft spoken. then as we later learned, well, his writing for -- >> susan, i want to show you this. i'm showing a book i used to use. oftentimes -- safire political dictionary that explains the language we use on shows like this. we came up with the term back then. i developed, obviously, use on that term. your thoughts on the passing, the loss of one of the real mansions in american

buckley said the conservative movement has had its share of noise makers and pyrotechnicians.the matter is much of the country isn't there. another point, too, if we look at where politics was conducted at the street level, it was the left that was doing in the late 1960's, that's what gave conservatives and the republican party the ticket to get back into office because they were the defender of institutions, of social order. >> there's one point that i'm looking at because i'm a practical guy, not a politician. eric cantor, number two guy in the house, very smart. the guy is acting very cautious. had a town hall meeting the other day that was not a bunch of fireworks and people yelling crazy things. civilized. on the mark. he's got the polls to show republicans if they want to get back into power, even though they have to be conservative, they have to be conservative grown-ups. >> that's exactly right. even when you have the statistic about twitter, we forget if you look at the reporting on this, it's actually older people and not younger people who use twitter. you know, it

since our decision in buckley, congress's power to prohibit corporations and unions from using treasury advertisements expressly advocating the election of candidates in federal elections has been firmly embedded in our law. so the supreme court in 2003 says this power has been upheld and is firmly embedded. the mcconnell cases followed by the wisconsin right-to-life case that jim was talking about, in which the court narrows the application of restrictions on corporate and labor union expenditures and reaffirms the mcgann, and that was just two years ago. we look a consequence is that we face here. if the ban on expenditures is overturned, let's start out may be with the universe of corporate wealth. in 2005, the irs estimated corp. said total net worth of 23.5 trillion dollars. no one is arguing at 23.5 trillion dollars is going to be ended up spent in campaigns, but that is the universe we are dealing with here. if you leave that, you provide corporations with the capacity to use untold wealth, to spend directly to campaigns, and in doing so, too clearly creates the opportunity to bu

again,hat is the central relationship that buckley unrstood between the state that as the state expandsof the state, the right to the individual contracts. >> host: classic republican era from reagan we almost all agreed to like this same government. >> guest: that is not trooper americans have not been given the altertive for our here even the most conservatives saying they want big government. we are fdr's children. that is not e case. guy ran in a district that had not elected a republican in since 1872. i think they hong the last republican. iran to abosh the federal education bureaucracy to get the money back to the states. iran to cut taxes and spending. it was a libertarian message. i got elected. not only did i get elected the 74 republicans talking about the same thing got elected. we wer a small government conservative says may be in shington and 50 or 75 years? >> host: but there is a message. >> guest: it we were elected a 94, reaed and 96 after shutting down the government to balance the budget. we were reelected 98, 2000, 2004, ain, while we were called radicals by the rig

buckley "national review" kind of wing and there was a battle post-new deal. but it's interesting to note that right after roosevelt got in there was an extreme action similar to what we're seeing where every critique of what roosevelt was doing was socialism, communism and all these fancy names, but there were also these vigilante minutemen showing up carrying their guns and that's what we are dealing with here. there's no solution, there's just these critiques of how the train is moving down the track and the american people want to go in another direction. but i wanted to share this story because this is what we are all talking about. i ran into this woman at the canfield fair, one of the biggest fairs in ohio. i stood there for four hours, four hours just south of youngstown, ohio and i had two people out of all the entire time come up to me and say, what are you doing with this socialist and also against the energy bill, so it was the right-wing talk radio crowd that was inundating them with this stuff, two people came up against this. but what this one w

and sarah writes a book, i tell you this is a family of literary lions, just like the buckleys, all this and more from the time-warner center in new york city tonight. >>> welcome, everybody, glad you're here for my opening night. make yourselves at home. we have got a lot to cover in an hour so let's just dive right in. when sarah palin quit her governor's job, people wondered what she had up that versace sleeve of hers. it was her new book, it's called "going rogue. ." is this why she quit to write a memoir. >> no, she actually had the book before hand but they moved the whole schedule up because she resigned and did have time to work on that book. i think she resigned because people up there in alaska were trying to stop any progress she was making so i think she felt it was time to move on. why did she use the word rogue in the title. it means dishonest, a vega bond, why not maverick? why the word rogue. >> i questioned that too, but that is basically what the mccain people were feeling, that she went rogue, wasn't staying within the campaign limits they set on her and thank goodness

buckley said about ronald reagan when his critics thought he was expanding too much in california and we now have the statement. i think he is going to take some sorts of steps. heather is right that there are many programs in place, that he is not acknowledging, he pushed the ball on important issue. since we are ordering 1/7 of our expand it demonstration projects for tort reform. why don't we do it couple states try out the public option there. let's pick a couple states, try mandated insurance there. why don't we expand this demonstration project. >> brian: didn't they do that in tennessee and wouldn't it a miserable failure. >> it has been a huge problem where it has been tried where ignoring the demonstration projects we have. if you just took health ware by itself. that 16% of the economy. that is larger than the entire economy of britain. and we're planning on doing that with a few house committees in a rushed way. >> in less than six weeks. >> i appreciate that this gentleman, our president has put these in words. but our experience with his words and his actions is that he i

when william buckley started "national review," it was right on the heels of the new deal with fdr. we stand up toward history yelling, stop. that is what i think that it means. the transaction should take place in the private sector. . you and i want to make a deal, we can determine one that benefits both of us. any time the government gives entitlements -- any time you give tax dollars, you cannot do that without taking it from someone else. for me, i think it goes back to getting back to the basic fundamentals of government that is of the people and serve the people, and do the things that people cannot do themselves, and only that. >> it is always great going last. what is the next question? i may want to go last next time. i don't have a lot to add to the definition. i guess my one addition i would make is that -- we pretty much agreed on things. we answer the question differently. if you had enough time to ask everybody in this audience this particular question, we would generally agree on a 80% of things. i think it is important as we think about the definition and how we app

when william f buckley, jr. started the national review in 1955, i think it was while on the heels with the new deal with fdr and in the mission statement it says we stand t thwart at history yelling stop! and that's basically what i think it ans. i believe transactions should take place in the private sector ere if you and i want to make a deal, we can determine one that benefits both of us. anytime government gives in these entitlement programs or in government expansions and things like that -- when you give tax dollars, you can't do that without taking it from someone else. and so for me, igree with what they've said. it goes back to getting back to the basic fundamentalof government that's of the people and they're to serve the people and do those things that the people simply can't do themselves. and only that. >> that's great always going last when you have -- what's the next question? i may want to go last next time? i mean, i agree and i don't have a lot to add to the definition of conservatism based up

the first thing i can cite is buckley vs. vallejo. guest: you are right in saying other countries would not tolerate this. they have much stricter finance laws. on the other hand, britain has a much less robust commitment to free speech. we have different traditions. the history of the supreme court decisions in this area, even think about two ends of the spectrum. corporations are allowed to put up campaign advertising supporting ballot initiatives. they have said that they can be stopped putting up ads supporting individual candidates. we do not regulate corporate speech in general, but we do regulate it in terms of specific candidates. on the other end of the spectrum, the supreme court said that contributions to candidates by individuals or corporations can be limited, but that the individual expenditures of people cannot. if george soros wants to put up millions of dollars in ads, he may. but so far, general motors may not. michael more wanted to advertise "fahrenheit 9/11" on television. there was no question he could show it in

it was before the buckley amendment and the supreme court upheld in not allowing unlimited contributionsn the freedom of speech. i think we do need public financing and get money out of politics. there is too much money in politics and campaign contributions. it is exactly as you say. 30 years ago were there were a number of members from either side of the aisle called on legislators. someone whose goal was on an issue like immigration or climate change to say that we need to legislate, get a solution. the trouble today is we're so partisan and polarized. there are so few votes on the republican side for things democrats propose and vice versa. the amount of money in politics has changed the game fundamentally. we have to change that. you name the issue, that is what drives it. members respond to the reality. if you have to raise that much money you have no choice. we need to change that. it is a problem in the make not only to climate change but also to other issues. host: let's take our last call from philadelphia. caller: thank you. your comments are interesting. you are an economist.

the first thing i can cite is buckley vs. vallejo. you are right in saying other countries would not tolerate this. they have much stricter finance laws. on the other hand, britain has a much less robust commitment to free speech. we have different traditions. the history of the supreme court decisions in this area, even think about two ends of the even think about two ends of the corporations are allowed to put up campaign ads supporting ballot initiatives, but has said so far at least that they can be stopped from putting up ads supporting individual candidates or not. so we do not regulate corporate speech in general about politics, but we do regulated as to particular candidates. on the other end of the spectrum, the supreme court said that contributions to candidates by individuals or corporations can be limited, but that individual expenditures of people, including rich people, cannot. so if george soros wants to put up millions of dollars in assets, he may, but so far at least, general motors may not. michael more wanted to adv