dr. perry has focused on that significantly, particularly with a focus on young people and bringing them to understand it better. he has had a distinguished career in academia. he ought many of us what we know about this subject. and many others as well. and tried to spread the knowledge more widely within the academic community as well. governor, i think governor brown, of course has not shied away from working on trying to solve problems that he sees. and he has done things that make it clear to people how dramatic these problems are. when california faced its water crisis more than a year ago, reason just complaining about it and whining and so forth, he immediately put in place a 25% reduction. everyone said it wouldn't work. in fact it did work. and he knew that it was going to work. this is the kind of energy that we all hoped to see put on the nuclear program as we go forward. the same thing is true about dr. perry. he has for many years focused on the issue at its core. of course with s

in her opinion piece, dr. perryushed back against republicans' claims that presidents have not historically nominated presidents during an election year. according to her -- quote -- "14 presidents have been appointed appointed -- 14 presidents have appointed 21 justices during presidential election years. 14 out of 44 presidents have appointed supreme court justices in an election year. that's about a third of all u.s. presidents have appointed nominees during an election year. amy howell, an expert on the supreme court and editor of something called scotus, supreme court of the united states blog said past senates have considered election-year nominees. she writes -- and i quote -- "historical record does not reveal any instances, any instances since the late 1900 of the president failing to nominate or the senate failing to confirm a nominee in an election year because of the impending election." close quote. they're using one inappropriate statement or excuse after another to explain why they shouldn't have to d

perry people he had executed. these debates get interactive with the audience. at least we haven't had an audience like that yet. >> stay with us. dr ben carson just announcing is he suspending presidential campaign. is he going to endorse one of the full remaining. dr. carson spoke to us just before suspending campaign before his speech at cpac. >> how would you describe this experience for you? >> it was very good to be able to get all over the country to meet soqmany americans. it's a little disheartening to see how discouraged and fearful and angry people are. but we obviously are going to have to find a way to fix that. and i still believe that it's fixable. but, you know, we have to use our brains. we have to be logical and intellectual about it and not vote out of fear and anger. >> how do you vote? >> i vote on the criteria. i look at what things has the person accomplished in their life? because if you are going to be president of the united states, you need to have a long record of significant accomplishment. and then you need to ask the question, you know, what has person done for america? your life should demonstrate th

dr. king who chose to combat lbj on vietnam. it will be fascinating to watch people say, i have principle, and conviction. i'm voting for this guy. in "the new york times" this morning. rick perry, saying it would be better for republicans to lose than to win with donald trump at the head of the ticket. >> it's conscience. >> you know, this -- everybody is talking about the 1860 convention as the metaphor. i think it looks more like 1912 or 1964. where a lot of republicans who are on the conservative side roosevelt's third party candidacy fail and get clobbered in the election to live to fight another day. in 1964, what is odd here, the party has moved so far to the right in '64, what you have now is moderate conservatives or actually pretty conservative conservatives, ted cruz is no moderate, saying donald trump is too extreme for the republican party. there is principle here. but there are multiple principles at stake. some don't back trump because he's conservative. some oppose trump because of the outlandish things he says. >> if donald trump gets the nomination, can you support him? >> we're not there yet. we'll have to wait and see and take a cold-eyed look at it. it woul