. >> 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.

goldwater in '64, mcgovern in '72, and mondale in '84. those were also it turns out the years in which incomes did the very best. we look back and we tell a story about candidate failure. about mondale promising to raise taxes and the government being supported by hippies and goldwater being an extremist. but you know, bill 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 bartels is 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 go

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

this is a party which decided starting in 1964 with goldwater and repeating it in 1980 with reagan, wervative party. we want to change washington very dramatically. i think governor romney has a more difficult challenge convincing people that a massachusetts governor is the guy who represents that core value disp. -- value. and bachmann rises and false, but the votes don't go to romney. pawlenty rises and fall, but the votes don't go to romney. perry rises and fall, but the votes don't go to romney. so 60 or 70% of the party that continues to look for the "not romney." i think it goes back to reagan and goldwater and the north eastern moderates and the rest of the party. mitt is a good guy. he would be a vastly better president than barack obama. i think the challenge he will face, whoever is in the final round, i hope it will be me, will be a philosophical distinction about where america needs to go. >> sean: mr. speaker, thanks for being with us. we will see you on the campaign trail. coming up, a shocking act of violence is alleged at an occupy wall street in ohio, while the anointe

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

the far right ring of the republican party essential essentially, and the same people who put bury goldwatero the republican nomination back in 1964, and it led to the greatest loss of republicans have had in the presidential race. that was the sort of thing that reality still exists, and it explains part of the reason why the more establishment republicans are worried that mitt romney has not excited the rank and file of the party more than he has. >> are you saying there are two republican parties at war here? >> well, there have always been two republican parties but compared to the democrats they look very unified. they don't make a sport out of internal debate like democrats do. >> the polls are interesting. one has haromney ahead, and the one has cain and romney neck and neck. there's a divide. there are no two people on the planet more emblematic of the divide than mitt romney and herman cain. maybe they should run together. and consuervatives will stay home. they are not going to go to the polls for herman cain because he doesn't look like he can do the jub. that's not my opinion, th

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

, 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

the notion really started as a republican tenet under goldwater. it was reagan who picked up the ball and ran with it and personal popularity to turn it into a more popular or more broadly accepted idea or ideology. this goes to the quote that i read you from roosevelt. of the -- roosevelt -- there was nothing wrong and nothing evil and everything right about the government stepping in when private enterprise -- in economics that is a keynesian point of view but the new dealers were prokeynesian because they were not familiar with john menard cane. his views were not widely known in the u.s. in the 1930s but they did understand when private enterprise and private sector was withdrawing from the economy that it was really the government -- government had no choice but to step in and roosevelt was very explicit about this. he didn't apologize for it. he thought that was his role and that was the role of government and that was the major flaw of the hoover administration. roosevelt and hoover shared some fundamental economic beliefs but where they rea

there's no more, you know, there's no more goldwater or reagan conservative left., look, he's creeped out by how bad all these candidates look. he's saying the same thing i'm saying. they're all running the primaries. they've forgotten there's a general election ahead. this kind of character does have appeal. this character you saw puffing on the -- he has appeal to those fringe nuts but not the general population. >> yeah. cain's chief of staff went on fox today and here's what he had to say about the ad. >> i tell you, you walk into a veterans bar in iowa and they're sitting around smoking and, you know, we are resonating with them. >> krystal, what about there? is there a measure of truth there? it looks to me like he's going after blue collar independent voters. >> this is another piece of their, we're the real, we're authentic, we're real, we're like you. it's also a slap at the nanny state, that we don't want the government to tell us what to do. cain actually had a hand in helping the tobacco lobbyists in the '90s so this isn't totally removed from what he's

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

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

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

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

problem, and that of course is something which has risen to needed since ronald reagan or innocence in goldwater point of view, the editor absolute point of view of what should or should not be done and the government itself turned out to be the problem as to how it was concerned and the solution whether he went or not is irrelevant in a way but the fact was even if they did work and let's say they do work the fact is that they said friedman said that is a bad idea because we don't want the state to be too big because that checks every individual choices and the basis for the undermining of the free choice and. >> host: what strikes me as interesting in the book is the extent to which you get into the personalities and how keynes and hayek interact with each other and you think about the debate today in politics and is a real shot and match to win on in the tea party right that endorses hayek in this vitriolic opposition to the keynesian paul krugman i guess being an obvious choice of the keynesian school of i think we can disagree with how much keynes would improve the position but there's a so

that's the problem, and that, of course, is something resinating since ronald reagan or maybe even goldwaterthe republican tradition, but, again, it's just outside of the family. it's the main tradition has been like the conservative party in britain of embracing everybody together, but the hayek's had a different point of view with an absolutist point of view of what should or should not be done, and government was the problem as far as hayek was concerned, and keynes's solutions whether they worked or not, and let's say they do, the fact is hayek said that's a bad idea because we don't want the state to be too big because that checks individual choices, and that's the bases of an underminding of free choice. >> host: what strikes me as very interesting in the book is the extent to which you get into the personalties 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 right that endorses hayek is in its opposition to keynes and like wise the keynes group being a voice of the school, so i

i think the notion, it really started as a republican tenet under goldwater, but it was reagan who picked up the ball and ran -- ran with it and, of course, had the personal popularity to turn it into a more popular or more broadly-accepted idea or ideology. this goes to, um, to the quote that i read to you from roosevelt. roosevelt never -- and it was fundamental to the new deal that there was nothing wrong and there was nothing evil and there was everything right about the government stepping in when private enterprise withdrew. now, that's a keynesian, in economics, that's a keynesian point of view, but the new dealers i would say were proto-caips yang because they weren't familiar with keynes until at least the late 1930s. but they did understand that when private enterprise and the private sector was withdrawing from the economy, that it was really the government's -- the government had no choice but to step in. and i think roosevelt was very explicit about this. he didn't apologize for it. he thought, in fact, that was his role, and that was the role of government. and that was the

. >> 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.

think it is vital that we all leave here with a common message, which conservatives have had since goldwaterreducing government, government is bad. please give me your understanding on what your frame would be. my friend is the common good versus corporate greed, or the public good, that which we pay for with our taxes, versus private greed. >> another way of saying that is something al gore said the last month of his campaign in 2000. you know al gore, the person who won the presidential election in 2000. in that last month, his ratings started to go up, because he started to talk about the reality many people understood in the depths of there being -- their being. that is the people versus the powerful. there is nothing wrong in having a lot of money in this country, but there is a lot of wrong in of using that money. -- in abusing that money. if you are looking at a way to frame it, another way of saying it is that the regressive forces in vision america as a society in which each person is on his own, or her own. but in reality, we are all in it together. even the very rich would do bett

think most people would argue that between the department of defense being established in 1947 in goldwater-nicholsan consider but afterwards, was a tremendous amount of maturation that took place in which most recent i think it was a tremendous precedents of osama bin laden of may issue. we we understood there was a lot of work and we had a great foundation. i would say from a high altitude standpoint there were three basic challenges. one was to get within the department a culture of jointness, shared understanding, and shared execution. which is part of any organization, and particularly important when you're bringing in constituents from a lot of different agencies, some of which had varying degrees of enthusiasm about being put into a large institute. you know, speak he's been very mild. >> so there was that element. second of was the vertical. how do you coordinate with state and local governments and private sector? again, probably more than any other cabinet department and certain and more than other security departments, dod and justice. at the very heart of dhs's mission was having a robu

they will travel along the northern sentences goldwater front.ek air show from 12:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m.. people are sort of a lineup to tour several naval ships dark along the embarcadero. if the week festivities continue october 10th with more stores and the second annual sleekly be challenged from 8:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. at golden gate park. the ships depart on tuesday. for a complete list of the bands and times, had to our web site, www.kron4.com fin and click on fleetweek. i am grant lodes, kron4 news. >> watch live coverage during fleetweek this saturday at 3:00 p.m.. bally will be right back as the kron4 morning news continues. here is a live look outside on the start monday morning, taking a look from the mt. tam cam as clouds are starting to gather. grain to the north and more on the impending storm. that is coming up as the kron4 morning news continues. but it is the second week in the involuntary manslaughter trial dr. conrad murray, being blamed for the medical malpractice leading to michael jackson's death in 2009. ricky vincent had more on w

there is no goldwater nichols for the interagency as some have urged but we have found a way to maket work in the field. simply put white iraq it is a tough fight in afghanistan. we can only succeed if we bring all elements of our smart power approach to bear. defense, development, diplomacy in a coordinated fashion. no one would have understood the complex challenges we have today and the complex responses they necessitate more than the person whose name graces this medal, george marshall. a general in the war, more than any other single individual he built the postwar peace through the marshall plan as the secretary of state. the plan that he enunciated in 1947 stabilized western europe. he understood economic growth was vital in building stable democracies, and that growth required investment. $13 billion was pumped into 17 countries over a forger period including our former adversaries germany and italy. our military and those of our allies won the war the marshall plan won the peace. the cost was very high, the lives in the war, the dollars in peace. that $13 billion translates

he's far enough down so, as chris said earlier, can they take the goldwater type risk, because they want to break with tradition, because the tea party's ascending and whatever. or do they do what they usually do what is go with the guy, chris, who is in line? >> well, i look at the map that tim russert would do so well. it's probably going to be ohio. there are guys that work with obama right now that think they can skip with dance with the one who brung you. i don't know how you win colorado if you don't win ohio, or north carolina if you don't win ohio. i think you have to start with the democrats. those angry white people that wear big coats to football games don't vote for you i don't know how you win. here's my value judgment, they shouldn't win because they don't represent the people they said they were doing to represent they don't deserve a second term. you got to represent the middle class working person who's very disappointed in the economy, or you failed. the idea you're going to go with the higher tech ore educated person, that's the theory they have that they can reach peo

even though a lot of people liked what goldwater was saying, they were afraid of them. that is what obama is going to try to do it all those millions and millions of dollars we talked about. if the republicans and up with a ticket where it hard to do -- i think mitt romney and mitch daniels as a republican ticket will not excite the tea party such but that will be very difficult ticket for obama to scare people about. host: let's hear from louisiana on the republican line peripatetic caller: -- let's hear from a sleazy and on the republican line. caller: would not be who all of our people if we could contact our congressman and have them sponsor a bill that would mandate equal trade with all countries? this bill would create manufacturing and america and create jobs and in that way solve all of these things we're talking about. guest: what do you mean by equal trade as opposed to fair trade? caller: we would have to sell in china the same amount of stuff we by and that they would have to sell the same about and dollar amounts and that because of affect us to bring our j