t.r.'s last years because i think that single tragedy destroyed theodore roosevelt himself and was the cause of his death just a few months later at the age of 60. >> the movie "the rise of theodore roosevelt" when is it coming out? >> it's been under option by the various producers for 30 years, but now very encouragingly it's been taken over by a producer who is interested, taylor hackford, the very eminent hollywood director in doing it, and i believe they are talking to hbo. that's the latest. >> and how about the other two books? any interest in doing movies about them? >> no. >> and what about the books? i have a hardback copy of your first book reissued, what's the status, are they reissuing all your books this year? >> yes. "the rise of theodore roosevelt" is reissued in hardback. there's three of them. the complete trilogy is going to be available this season, as an irresistible gift. >> i want to go to an episode -- i find so many people don't know about, although we've talked ab

david brooks and i both like t.r. and he cleanlys that i like the quasi-socialist t.r. and he likes theatotic t.r. and there's a lot. and they're all -- they're all there. >> or fight or struggle for the soul of t.r. >> right. so i think that was a very important point.. i think your question has an assumption that's correct, which is he has not been consistent in the course of this year. this does seem to be a course direction on his part. and i thief a good wanly. and i think it's the right direction for him to go in. it is consistent with who he has been as a person and politically overtime. if you go back to both the '08 campaign and what he was before the '08 campaign. so i have a sense that this speech is part of a template that he's going to stick with. and that he believes -- and i think he's probably right about this. and i think some of his opponents think he's right about this, that the bigger you make the election, the more it is about a very large choice, the easier it is for him to argue that, yes, there are sill problems with the economy that i haven't so

t.r. model, these kind of things. >> that's the white house. >> i think the more interesting question is not whether t.r. -- in particular, is does this movement back this argument, is this consistent with his argument, per se, which is as he chooses to go to the progressive speaker here as opposed to other options he would have had which i think would have been much more powerfully unifying, especially in this race. but he chose to do this. and presidential speeches aren't, you know, chosen for no good reason. and these are serious questions. and i don't think he was merely passing through the precincts of kansas looking for a place to give a speech. there was some unseriousness to it which i think we pointed to. to suggest and the way it's written suggests that this is very much in line with his own thinking. and there's a lot more there to pull out. it's consistent with his earlier comments going back before he was president, before he comes in, talking about, you know, the transformati

t.r.'s speech. much to the relief of his advisers, i should add, who knew that t.r. regarded himself as a historian, although the corporations of the day weren't about to pay him for his historic advice. the new nationalism speech would be described by one of t.r.'s many biographers, george mallory, as, quote, the most radical speech ever given by an ex-president. his concepts to the extent of which a powerful federal government could regulate and use private property in the interest of the whole and his declarations about-- when viewe eyes of 1910 were nothing short of revolutionary. december 6th, 2011, president barack obama returned to osawatomie and standing on a platform somewhat more secure than a kitchen table explicitly embraced the underlying philosophy of t.r.'s new nationalism. why a democrat, a member of a party which customarily recurs to the other roosevelt, especially in hard times, should have in this instance embraced the republican roosevelt will no doubt be explored today

t.r.'s bull moose campaign. true to his ruthless practicing -- pragmatish, as one put it, obama states more of guard than progressiveness. in contrast, roosevelt politica. t.r.'s speech was much more comprehensive, not just economic but also to citizenship, conservation and america's role in the world. furthermore, whereas obama's speech avoided what jim caesar calls foundational concept, t.r. framed his call for ambitious reform as all consequential fundamental principles of the declaration, the constitution and the progression between them. the 1910 speech was delivered at the dedication, as bill mentioned, of the john brown battlefield. t.r. condemned the violent tactics of brown's plight in bloody kansas. he compared that plight to his own plight. he said in name we had the decoration of independent unde independence in 1776. but we didn't give the word acts until 1865, until the of the 13th amendment.rial revo price no greater than the civil war, showed alignment. a more f definition o

and that to this desire of t.r. to come back and articulate the hopes and aspir spispirations progressives that was getting stronger and stronger. but it wasn't until he actually returned in the spring of 1910 to discover how he'd been missed during his year abroad and how urgent the political priorities were that he reluctantly allowed himself to be coaxed back into politics. >> who was pushing him? >> at first it was governor hughes of new york who is a progressive governor, who needed political help then. i won't go into the details. but t.r. reluctantly agreed to do him a favor and help him campaign for primary reform. and by making that fateful decision to help out a struggling governor, he found himself sucked back into party politics. and by the fall of that year, was articulating all the new principles of progressivism. >> when did he signal that he was ready to go? >> to run for the presidency? >> yeah. >> he signaled that in january of 1912. by then the pressure for him to run was so enormous that he reall

and i think that by going back to t.r. rather than fdr, president obama was underscoring that there is a tradition of national action in our history. and it is the tradition that on the whole has served us better. what did t.r. talk about in the osawatomie speech? is it irrelevant to today? well, he had a whole lot to say about the influence of corporate money on political campaigns. and if you go back and read what he said about that and look at the current situation we are in, it was indeed highly relevant. he also talked a lot about, and as sid makes clear in his book, made it a central element of his campaign, he talked about overreaching activist conservative courts. and i believe as, for example, the citizens united decision might suggest, that that, too, is a central issue in american life today. he talked about concentrated economic power. there are sections of this speech that would go down very well if done through the human microphone of the occupy wall street movement. and he spoke of the fears of the middle cl

by turning to t.r.'s new nationalist model, imperfect as it is, obama's revealed that his ant kree dent actually goes back to the progressive model. following his party backed with roots. the implication would continue that transformation of america through its various waves and phases over the 20th century, let's call it now a fair society, as a suring not equal opportunity, but fair outcome. those of us who take the arguments of american political thoughts seriously like to look at politics by way of analysis. in the republican primary, for instance, we see newt gingrich challenging t.r.'s disdain for predatory wealth as well as his pub -- populist attacks on the judiciaeudiciarjudiciary, p abolish circuit courts. marshals round up judges refusing to testify before congress. just the kind of argument that brought republicans to break with t.r. and that caused him to bolt his party and run as a progressive independent. then, of course, there is ron paul who has challenged the isolationist ghosts. which

just the kind of argument that brought republicans to break with t.r. and that caused him to bolt his party and run as a progressive independent. then, of course, there is ron paul who has challenged the isolationist ghosts. which would explain why he's doing so well in iowa. but these are mere amateurs. president obama's government fairness program seems to be the central idea of administration and his authority. this is a risky strategy. one thing it's a hard sell to the american people. the gallup survey just a few days ago respondents were asked to categorize three economic objectives extremely important, very important, somewhat important or not important. in the extremely very important category, grow an expanding economy, 82%. increase the quality of opportunity for people who get ahead, 70%. reduce the income and wealth gap between rich and poor, 46%. if anything, americans have become more skeptical of government exclusions rather than less. and even less -- they're even less likely to embrace a new birth of progressive reformism that some, i t

there was the old story that t.r. wanted to be the groom at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. in europe he was treated as though he were still president, everybody fully expected he's going to go back to the united states and probably be president again. and he met with the leaders of the time. and, in fact, this was sort of an introduction. i'm doing a book right now about roosevelt and the great war. and in europe he met, for example, kaiser wilhelm of germany, sort of loose cannon, bombastic leader like himself. they were very, actually, very similar. he, he got to be the first, the only civilian to have the german army parade in front of him. he sat on the horse back with wilhelm, you know, for several hours, and they had a meeting at one of the palaces, and it was -- and then he went to england, and he was actually working for -- one of the things he did in europe was he was working for andrew carnegie, the world's wealthiest man. carnegie had this dream of world peace, and so while he was in europe,

that's t.r.zoo in scotland, and she is a big panda who loves to literally roll in the hay. >> whoa. whoa. just fell off a step. >> she slipped off the step. >> yeah. >> she's, like, i'm going to climb back up there, because she's going to do it again. >> this is the darn cutest thing ever. she falls off the step and lands on her little bottom. that's awesome. >> she's, like, this hay is irresistible. i should roll in it. >> usually a roll in the hey involves two people. >> that's what you do when you are alone. this is a single roll in the hay. >> roll in the hay by yourself, don't do it too often. you might go blind. >> well, she's already got hairy paws, so we don't have to worry about that. >> all right. two sex jokes. all right. >> that's it. >> i think that about does it. >>> angry rottweiler. angry rotweiller. angry rottweiler. [ growling ] >>> this next story is all about no excuses. a few months ago i talked to you about kyle menard. he was preparing to hike mount kilimanjaro. he summited

financial tales be removed for piers 26 and 28 if the city identifies another fundamental commack and t.r. would be the prime tool for accomplishing that. we are looking for to explore that idea further. >> i would be happy to help further that conversation. it is a good way to help finance historic preservation. i would be interested in your thoughts at that could be a creative solution. the last thing i want to mention is what the chair woman referred to, given that the port has already stated they are ok with sea wall 351 coming out of item nine, if that was an issue we could get off the table today so it is one less thing we have to focus on in the next week. i would be happy if the budget committee were to do that today. isupervisor chu: thank you for your comments. i like to entertain a motion to amend the item 9, strike lines 18 and 19, sea wall 351. if we can strike that language, and also a motion to continue both items, 1 as amended, to next week's meeting. ok, we have that motion, second, and we do that without objection. thank you. do we have other items before us today? >> it

they'll talk about t.r., jefferson.y get put to the back of the bus? >> certainly in historians' minds, he's still way up in the front of the bus. he created precedence for the presidency. the whole idea you only have two terms, not more than that. don't worry about him, he's doing fine with history. but i think the important thing in terms of the rick santorum thing and the social issues you were talking about in the last hour is that what the framers wanted was a country where there would be freedom from religion and for religion. and the idea that somehow they were going to be asking who is the better christian? who is really religious in this race? even ronald reagan during his conservative time, there was no way in 1984 he was talking about the kind of issues that have now gone beyond the consensus of where the country's at. contraception as you were talking about earlier, women's rights, gay rights, we've moved beyond these social issues that the republican party is talking about. and you're right. if they go too

. >> we're talking about t.r. >> t.r. and woodrow wilson. progressive. 70% of americans voted for those two together. wilson beat t.r. but that was the last moment when the revulsion from this grew to the level they did something about it. >> what we have is a system that basically works under the leadership of the president and you're going to have to find a president who knows how to work on a bipartisan basis. i thought reagan by the way, and i was very surprised at this, worked wonderfully on a bipartisan basis. just one example, in 1983 reagan and tip o'neill reformed the social security system. they both took the credit and the blame and that was a huge step. we haven't been able to do anything like that since then and it takes that kind of leadership and personal relationship to make it happen. we don't have that. >> professor, isn't the problem that in 1983 ronald reagan could say to the republicans keep your mouth shut? >> yeah. >> tip o'neill could do the same thing. i remember hearing this great -- reading this great tip o'neill s