signatures to register so let's get the lowdown then from us green party communications manager michael o'neillhe's with us now and get off the main she michael i suppose the question is what evidence is there to back up those claims that republicans did actually back the green candidates in montana. well. i think that it's important take a step back and look at that this was a valid petition that was filed people were asked if they wanted to sign a petition to have green party candidates on the ballot in the general election in november now we are not naive about republican motives for wanting to circulate a petition for a 3rd party or an independent candidate however. the logic of those republican operatives is that a candidate can take votes away from another candidate and the greens reject that argument it's impossible to take away a vote from a candidate until that vote has been cast until the vote has been cast the vote belongs to the voter and so if these voters signed a valid petition of their own free will but they want to see green party candidates on the ballot in november that petit

green party is michael o'neill believes most media coverage of the big conventions is biased. i think that each. corporate cable news network has their own constituency and their own marketing demographic that they are catering to and so you will have fox news which will be very aggressive about reporting on allegedly wrongdoings on the part of the democratic party and then you'll have m s n b c or c.n.n. which will be very aggressive about providing documentation on the wrongdoings of donald trump and the republicans meanwhile c.n.n. and that sunday she will ignore the rank injustices and undemocratic practices of the democratic party so they're not really engaging in news they just have a market that they've identified that they are catering to and the idea of a complete objectivity i don't think is useful but also the idea of just tailoring your news coverage specifically to make your particular slice of the american people feel good is also a negative trend. a modern center ne there's a lease being blamed for a local spike in covert infections more than 200 people have cal

policy and social policy, but it was true to i think that leaders in both parties, the bob michaels, tip o'neill. they balanced the power with government. and they were making that trade-off and helped them understand when are you going too far? they didn't want to go so far they would destroy the institutions and procedures and the relationships that were simply necessary to govern. gingrich said slow it out of the window. he'd write not without bipartisan, and he said-- and to teach republicans to be more aggressive, to be more confrontational, to stop negotiating with the republicans. and this starts as a-- he's seen as a mccarthyite, really, that's how people talk about him. but what happens in the '80s, it's interesting. gradually more and more republicans are listening to him. the more he has the task particulars, the more. and what's costly there. do i want it so much and enter into alliances and people who are dangerous to the institution. >> there are parallels between gingrich's rise and atwater, in '88. what's their relationship like? >> it's an important relationship and they directl

o'neill had? >> didn't like what reagan was doing to the country's much too far to the right in terms of economic and social policy. it was true that leaders in both parties, the bob michaels, tip o'neill, did balance the with the needs of governance. they were always making this trade-off. that help them understand when you going too far? they didn't want to go so far that were simply necessary to govern gingrich said throw that out the window he would write memos to other enough with bipartisanship enough with civility. all that means is going to keep losing and the democrats again keep having their power. you have to teach republicans to be more aggressive to be more confrontational. stop negotiating with the republican. it starts, and that's how people talk about him but what happens in the 80s, gradually more and more republicans start listening to him. and the more success he has with these tactics the more intrigued they are by him because they want to have power. on they started to think about that trade-off that can be costly in american politics do i want power so much i enter into alliances of people i know can meet dangers to the institution. with the rise of l

but it was true that i think leaders in both parties, the bob michaels, tip o'neill, they balance the partisanship with the needs of governance and they were always making this trade-off, and that help them understand when are you going too far. they didn't want to go so far that they start to destroy the institutions and the procedures and the relationships that were simply necessary to govern. gingrich said through all that out the window. he would write memos to other republicans say enough with bipartisanship, enough with civility. all let me just will keep losing a democrats will keep touting their power. he writes bob michael you to teach republicans he says to be more aggressive, to be more confrontational. to stop negotiating with the republican. it starts as, he is seen as a mccarthyite really. that's a people talk about him here but what happens in the '80s it's interesting, gradually more and more republicans start listening to him. the more success he has with these tactics, the more intrigue they are by him because they want to have power. they start to think about trade-

but it was true that i think leaders in both parties, the bob michaels, the tip o'neills, they balanced the partisanship with the need for government. and they always were making this trade-up, and that helped them understand when are you going too far. they didn't want to go so far that thaw start to destroy the procedures and the relationships that were simply necessary to govern. gingrich said throw all that out the window. he was writing memos to other republics saying enough with bipartisanship, enough with civility. all that means is we're going to keep losing, and democrats are going to keep flouting their power. and he said you have to teach republicans to be more aggressive, to be more confrontational, to stop negotiating with the republicans. and this, you know, it starts as a, he's seen as a mccarthyite really. that's how people talk about him. what happens in the '80s, it's kind of interesting, gradually, more and more republicans start listening to him, and the more success he has with these tactics, the more intrigue they are with him because they want to have power. and t

bob michael, he's get along kind of republic, is been there a while, he believes in working with democrats and believes in bipartisanship. gingrich hated him in many ways as much as he hated o'neillnd speaker jim right. >> around the party leadership instead of blocking him to get the message out, because about the media, right? talk about using the media of the 1980s to get that message out. >> that is a big part of the book. this was really before the conservative media world we know exists. there is conservative talk rad radio, my story doesn't exist yet, there's no internet website yet like breitbart so he uses the mainstream media, newspapers, cable television as his tool so one of the stories we tell in the book, which i used to tell, kevin and i taught a class and i would always tell this story and i realize it's probably a good book care. it is in 1984 and he and his group, the conservative opportunity society, they relate of the end of the day, anyone is allowed to go at the front of the house and make a speech. one minute speech, special order speeches. they're not reserved for people just with power and anyone can do it. they started going to the floor and they make th