tv Book TV After Words CSPAN March 14, 2010 12:00pm-12:59pm EDT
made our foes, if you will, continue headlong and in some cases in a course that's not helpful to the world. you have both iran pursuing its nuclear folly headlong, north korea, of course, did nuclear tests. even as the president was speaking carried out various tests. this is, in my opinion, an indication that they felt the president was not going to be a strong defender of american values and american principles, human rights, democracy, free trade, free enterprise, those words of apology and those statements i think have emboldened those who find us as a weakened enemy. :
people should realize becoming nuclear should have been enormous perrault and that is the material might to get out and we used in the united states may respond against that nation as it would against reused that nuclear device. >> host: you think the ayatollah would be fearful? >> i think the people of iran would grow in recognition that becoming a nuclear nation is not solely a matter of pride, but becoming a nuclear nation has associated with it an enormous downside, there is a risk to being in nuclear that somehow if you're regime does not carefully the -- manager of fissile material you're nation could be retaliation. the people need to realize the downside to become a nuclear nation i also wish this president of the prior president had been
successful in dissuading iran from exacting and enacting very tough sanctions. the iranian citizens and business people and political leaders ought to know when you violate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty will be severe. those are actively employed to be very crippling sanctions to put in place those types of actions. >> host: but you say the leading military power in the role but the same time you say there is a need for increased spending. and urie -- and you worry there is not enough defense spending. you tell a funny story that a guy that says more than half of the budget but when you break it down to include money spent by the chinese and the like, they outspend us and others try to
diminish our lead of military might. >> guest: you can understand the sentiments of other nations they would like to get stronger berkeley will not dissuade the chinese to say they will build the military but we need to make an honest assessment of the threats but from what our military is called to all-out but then a nation of like china or russia or other nations of the world and to protect ourselves, in response to the humanitarian crisis and have a nuclear deterrent against the nuclear threat, the list goes on and on of various challenges the military has. in my view, it requires an annual budget of roughly 4 percent of gdp right now 3.8% and total federal spending is over time approximately 20% of gdp.
so it should be 20% i apologize for taking that course but sometimes we say we are spending so much more than any other nation in the world, why should we spend any more than the military? they spend far less. but actually, if you go behind the numbers, they don't report all military spending and the cost for instance of standing of the army, not a volunteer army the cost as much lower. if you look at a comparable basis china is suspending 10% that have level of the of the united states if we did with the same cost for the various resources. and russia likewise is spending a good deal more than a report which suggest we really cannot continue to pare down the military might we must be confident that we
and our friends in interest can be protected around the world with. >> host: you outlined in the book and the title of the book is "no apology" the case for american greenness." competing powers russia, china, i ran, and the jihadist when it comes to russia you say in fact, it is building on the energy economy to become richer and more powerful. china becomes more of the authoritarian state and then of course, you have i written conquest and compulsions. >> guest: i think following the collapse of the soviet union and the demise of the power after the success of the cold war strategy, we had a glorious period of time where we thought they lost in the world would be safe.
one said this is america is holiday from history we wish you history would stop at the where -- weigh in has been in the past but the truth is some of these seven great ambitions of becoming the world's superpowers if not the dominant player. you mentioned first russia we thought they have lost and we had one and did not need to worry about them again. but the energy resources are so extraordinarily rich we're able to use but wealth they have for natural gas they sold more energy last year than in saudi arabia. they're using that extraordinary wealth hundreds of billions of dollars per year in revenue to help rebuild the military that could be competitive with their own. it is a long way but that is what they are intending to do. >> if you say it will give
them more control. >> as rochelle looks at their strategy an attempt to reassert themselves as the leading or at least one of the leading players on the world stage they recognize energy is the key to the reassertion of that kind of status and that means of only their own extraction but the pipeline going to europe and other places they could control all the power they would have more monopoly power if they have relations with iran and if there were to become the superpower of the middle east, they might have more influence likewise venezuela to make grow efforts to get close to venezuela. again it is an energy rich nation. that contemplates that the power associated with energy. but china on the other hand, have adopted aspects of free
enterprise not just follow the rules rules and guidelines of a fair and balanced system but they are winning a lot of respects of the welfare creating that has allowed them to ramp up the military in a way of the german built up the second world war. they built the capacity to create their own fighter aircraft to go up against our of 16 he will be a serious contender militarily and the jihadist don't have the capacity use the wealth, resources or the military might but they don't intend to go head-to-head but instead to terrorize and cause the dictate or destruction of the system of selective or group led type approaches.
>> when you stop now and think about china or russia of the escalating forces, use a wait a second the united states must remember the goal is not to be popular, but strong. that is the bottom line but yet you talk about the increased use of what you call soft power that is specific in terms of selling america to poor countries to areas where i think you can describe example the russia, the chinese somalia, where people are impoverished looking for work open to radical idea is to become a jihadist. how this soft power figure into your calculation? >> it is a very effective tool with western about what -- values from the road is good to have a strong fist, if you will as teddy roosevelt said speak softly and carry a big stick. soft power but the
availability to influence and adopt principles that are peaceful and promote human rights is critical for our country and i think we vastly under use the resources we have. we are an extraordinarily wealthy nation we want access to the market and two our technology, health care technology and education skills the we can provide in a way that nations would think more kindly of us and work with us. but i kept hearing when i was in latin america about the miracle cure or the miracle operation. what is that? they said fidel castro provides cataract surgery to people he has surgeon's that travel around latin america and brings site to people. i said he does that for a tiny fraction of the investment we make and he is appreciated because he has branded it so effectively
but we're great at some branding of we can sell coca-cola and pepsi all over the world for half a day's wage for a can of coke real we're not selling democracy as well as we could or our values or the things america has done. rather than apologizing for who we are and what we accomplished, i think we should draw on the best of the soft power that we could be exercising. with the values to enhance their lives and promote the stability. >> when it comes to writing about global warming what you say is wait a second look at developing countries and in specific look at china. it cannot be trusted to put it in a limit on the emissions of greenhouse gases because they have such a strong belief of economic
growth. that is what they're all about but you say it would be futile on the international stage to unilaterally say we'll put some place on cap-and-trade standards if we compete with the chinese? what does that say about our commitment to limiting global warming? >> guest: they do not call in america warming but they call it global warming and if if the primary concern is global warming look at the missions on a global basis and make sure the actions undertaken too not just put america and american workers at a disadvantage but instead may can just met and changes for the entire planet that is where the president's cap-and-trade plan which would only end up affecting americans would the largest emitter is the largest users of energy would say why build a new factory in america? why keep a factory in america going when i can pay far more expensive prices for energy in this country?
why not go to other nations like brazil, indonesia, china or india that do not have the cap-and-trade cost and therefore be more effective and cost-effective? >> host: what about the american leadership acting as a role model? >> guest: if the role model causes the largest the matters of the world china and other developing nations, to smile and say they made our life easier they are cutting and cutting as we grow we have not help the world that is not the leadership the world needs in. we can pursue a course which in my view perhaps has a more compelling reason to pursue it to that is pursue a course of energy independence. the course that would allow us to become energy independent has eight important byproduct production of greenhouse gases we need to use a lot more natural guest that is a
lot less co2 emitting energy source then cool we need more nuclear power plants. fad is a non emitter of co2. we have a way of making america a far more leadership role in the world without the same time putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage with nations that are competing for the very jobs our workers want. >> host: going back to soft power, when you talk about muslims you make the case that the ideology is really evo on many levels. the notion of moderate it does not conform with what you read in the karan. you see instructions for looking to capture or takeover not to proselytize but to go out and conquer.
you say people don't recognize this as part of what muslims teach. >> host. >> guest: i would apply that principle to muslims as a group by think and by as great majority of muslims it is a religion which does not seek to dominate the neighbor or two carry-on jihad against the west but there is a strain of islam that is referred to different names but i referred to radical by linda jihadist of that traces the roots to intellectual scholars that believe the role of the role of the karan is an aggressive conquering approach that a great majority of muslims, in my view, do not accept but that is of course, led by names like osama bin laden.
they seek to draw support from muslim youth and others in most people reject that. looking in afghanistan the majority of the people there would be delighted if they never saw al qaeda for the taliban again. but nonetheless, the theology does exist. it is a theology which looks at us as somehow being very evil. it is a theology that says it is wrong and a threat. they see democracy itself is blasphemy. of the law, sure i and should come from god and the idea that individuals will create their own law through a democratic process in their view is a form of blasphemy. almost everything we do from their perspective is contrary to their view how god wants things to be and as a result they take of pilot needs the modern
movement within the muslim world. think and to support governments and to help them to reject the violent extreme. >> host: why aren't the government's doing it themselves? >> guest: many are. the philippine government for instance was dealing with an al qaeda like movement and was finding it very difficult, and several thousand members this group that was terrorizing the people love the philippines and the military was invited to work in partnership with the philippine military training exercises and carrying out humanitarian efforts among the people in the committees or the islands where the most active and this kind of soft
power application by the military or special forces in intelligence sources we were able to turn the tide and the numbers have been reported down in the hundreds. >> host: by the way you give a real toast to special forces and say we need to do more with a smaller footprint in terms of taking action. but not looking so much at the philippines but at a place like saudi arabia why you think they seem tolerant of this kind of radical violent faith? >> i don't know of the monarchy in saudi arabia is enthusiastic about the violence. they realized by having funded over the years which preaches this extreme the form of islam we put ourselves in great danger.
i had someone mentioned to me once they pay the campbell to eat them last. [laughter] the support of radical islam of the monarchy over the years may well have ended at being a significant threat to the monarchy itself. i think in the world of islam there are so many different strains of suni in shia but net national interest in sochi autism takes very different shapes with different places. but nonetheless the strain presents a threat to local governments and local muslim governments which these jihadist do not believe sufficiently are fundamentalist and a threat to the entire world. >> host: on the book tour i anders trannineteen our 20 states including district of columbia and the states
include new hampshire hampshire, iowa, misery comment people will say it looks like you are on a campaign tour the one line of the book that is so critical that given all the foreign policy issues this president seeks to transcend the american values and interest as opposed to being an advocate for american values and interest that would seem to be almost a campaign slogan. reduced in size. [laughter] but the idea is that you believe we need an american president who stands for america and you do not see that in this president obama who seeks to be a larger than america's back any time a president of united states travels the world and is critical of the united states, it will lead to the kinds of stories that came
out of the british pressing this president has been more critical of his own country than any other american president in history that creates a very real impression that he thinks he is above america and the history and there is something he needs to distance himself. following the second world war truman said american would adopt a new strategy having tried isolationism and having been drawn into two world wars despite that, they said america needs to be active in the world but we also need to promote our values, human rights, democracy, free trade come of freedom, and be strong standing with our allies and foes river they may exist those are principles of foreign policy i think the president has question in his first year and he would be wise to return to them when i read his stake to the streets in protest the election that was unfair i think our president should have spoken out clearly and sharply and
say we support voices of freedom wherever they are. you can imagine ronald reagan or bill clinton would have had something to say in my view. >> host: you say this president in a way is failing too properly promotes america to the world? >> i think when you try to distance yourself from american history, when you suggest somehow america needs to apologize to the world, that elevates the individual that makes the apology increase favor with those who are in the other crowd but it does not stand as a strong indication that america has values that we recognize our enduring and right for us and others who are willing to obtain them. that does not mean we forced our will on other nations but it does mean that we
stand beside those. >> host: when you hear the criticism that came from the bush administration in terms to find the failure of mass destruction or cowboy diplomacy being too aggressive or highhanded or come and get them don't you think there are those who might be wary of an aggressive foreign policy? >> guest: there is a middle posture where one does not have to be seen as being timid of defensive values that i think this president is seeing are moving to excess and you don't want to speak loudly and carry a small stick. there is a posture of showing american strength and commitment and values and ideals standing with our friends and allies and i think president bush did so time and again made it clear he would stand with the allies and the people that
oppose us would receive the strong response of america. we were hit on 9/11 and he took out the taliban in afghanistan. we believed we had a threat from saddam hussein who by the way could have removed the threat instantly by saying, and all of my facilities are open. the international inspectors can look in the palaces or the military area or anywhere they want to go. he did not do that. he could have done that and it would not have suffered the fate he did had he been willing to open up his nation to that kind of inspection. with that being said i respect president bush strings to defend this country and i think president obama will have to move in that course or he will be seen as a weak president on the international stage. >> host: we will take a break.
mitt romney new book is called "no apology" the case for american greatness." >> rear at the cpac conference talking about the new book called battlefields blessings. >> it is stories of faith and courage from iraq and afghanistan we interviewed 60 men and women from the military to get their first and accounts of their experiences and in the book is for matted into 365 stories a you can read wine every day if you want and really get a good glimpse of how people have lived lousy for liberty on our behalf and iraq and afghanistan.
>> host: have you been to cpac before? >> guest: yes. it is a great place to talk about the founding of our nation and also what people are doing today for the cause of liberty and freedom. >> host: this seems like your books run in a series or do they follow a pattern. >> guest: the series is called battlefields and blessings there are four books in the series. one is on the revolution, one on the civil war, world war ii, iraq and afghanistan, vietnam i think is of the process and others. and it is very much a rich series to gather the top people have stood for freedom too despite courage to throw the generations and there are so many similarities. times change but courage is one of those things and face as well. >> touted to get started
doing this series? >> by publisher wanted to do this series and i wanted to get started on the founding of our country and revolution broker we had to do iraq and afghanistan i felt i could put a lot of passion and energy into but in this book we interviewed so many people just to get the variety of men and women too really get a good deep perspective and a far-reaching perspective on some of those experiences that people have had in iraq and afghanistan and how they try and in the face of tremendous adversity. >> host: do you write for other venues or do have a blog? >> i have a website jane kozak.com and also some of the first lady's so it is a good mix of history. >> host: thank you very
much >> host: we're back with governor mitt romney he is the author of a new book, "no apology" the case for american greatness." you describe the book as a display of europe's position on key issues barely it is an intellectual journey on your part. so many of the books you have read or ideas, but not a very personal book in some ways. for just for a second less talk about the personal one of the things that caught my eye your dad was born in mexico? >> guest: his parents had escaped persecution of folks of the mormon faith. and i guess it was his grandfather or parents had moved to mexico and while there they were enjoying a pretty good and comfortable life and there was a
revolution and disruption so my dad was five for six years old apac up and got on a trade and came back to el paso and ultimately moved to idaho, california, salt lake city, from then his dad was not prosperous and went bankrupt more than one's. in the construction business and my dad was a labor putting up costs and plaster the precursor of full board. he never put enough time or money together to complete college but went on to have a very successful career in politics. >> host: did he run for president? >> guest: that is a good question. they strutted this as some links in 1968. the constitution says that a president must be a natural born citizen. the was not naturalized by virtue of the fact both of his parents were both u.s.
citizens and therefore could become united states president in the same way a service man or woman living abroad and had a child abroad that china would not be prevented from becoming a u.s. president having been born on foreign soil because in this case that child would become a u.s. citizen by birth. >> host: he went on not only to be governor but hud secretary for president nixon. and you detail how he was such a saving voice in terms of american motors, the grumman. [laughter] you are not too proud to have a gremlin in your driveway youth saw people driving big fancy cars but it made him rich and he was very successful. >> guest: when he came into american motors, the company had selected him some years before as the vice president. but the chief executive officer was george mason. when it was formed with the
merger of nash, george mason shortly thereafter passed away and the board elected my father to become president the stock went down dramatically think it dropped to about $5.50 per share and a couple years it was trading at over $90 per share. i am pretty proud of the job that he did he could turn the company around and short the financial base and get out the products people wanted. that allowed him too obviously save a lot of jobs and create a successful enterprise but i am afraid the rambler that he to be and is gone but the jeep is still around it is different from when he ran the enterprise. >> host: one of the things from the start of the book you said when your dad was running he characterized the campaign like of miniskirts short and revealing and you
say your campaign in 2008 was longer but also revealing. what did you learn? >> to learn a lot about just how challenging it is to be in a presidential campaign. there are mistakes made as well. i was defined in people's minds to a great degree of the questions that were asked by a others and the media. for instance in the debates i think we had 13 presidential debates on the republican side. how i respond to those questions is how i was defined for you like to define yourself by the things you want to talk about not by what other people want to ask you. that is part of the difficulty of the campaign and the blessing to write the book you can lay out these are the things i believe the country needs to do. i can get beyond the questions they get into the meat of the concern. >> host: president obama wrote the book and john
mccain wrote a book and many presidential candidates right to books before they run for office. i am thinking when you talk about your father's campaign and your own campaign, one issue on a personal basis would be your religious faith. do you think that is a problem? you don't talk about this in the book your open you are a mormon. >> guest: this is my concerns about the economy, the foundation of our economic strength and my concern we're weakening that foundation and imperiling our future. i don't get into a lot of political interest i do not even get into social issues or homeland security because it does not relate to the economic foundations of i thought was appropriate but s to my views of my face, i am proud of my religion. i don't try to distance myself. i am sure for some people it
is a problem because they don't know the face very well. for others to value the fact i am a person of religious belief. but the great majority of american people don't care what it belongs to. they are pleased to select somebody based on their skills or experience or views on the most important issues that may exist. >> host: you don't think you may be pollyanna? i know the last campaign one open-air was mocking of mormanism and the devil is jesus' brother and especially the evangelical seem to view mormons as not a christian faith. >> guest: there will be some people that is an issue. and i will not be able to do very much about that. that is just the reality others it is an advantage of
i am who i am and people can accepted or rejected. i read my best campaign and that is why i gave the speech that i did prepare related to religious diversity in america. after all in the nature of the founding of this country people seeking opportunity also seeking religious freedom and we welcome and prize the religious freedom that exists and it would be a hollow concept if we only allowed certain people to serve in public office or other positions of responsibility based upon a religious test that was particularly and specifically prohibited by the founders. i don't think that is an issue for the country. i hope it will not be whether or not i do, time will tell but that was not a part of my campaign. i've found other things to do wrong. senator mccain did an
effective job to touch the american people as the process was proceeding. >> host: where you stand on abortion? >> guest: i am pro-life. >> host: is it clear to the base of the party you are strongly pro-life? >> guest: i believe so. says the time i was serving as governor and i faced an issue their related to life i came down on the side of life and wrote to the op-ed about my position and it has not changed since that time and i think people understand where i stand. >> host: on the economy summing people see it as a very capable businessman and this is your second book. the first was about your experience running the salt lake olympic committee and your success. then the question is how many americans at this point* in our history are anxious about the economy and see it as a problem? the question would be to
president bush as president obama, pursue policies that you feel would help to revive the american economy because that is a pillar of global spending? >> we are facing short-term economic distress and long-term economic weakness. and a combination is particularly troubling. the short-term crisis that we face is a result of many people and many failures. is popular to say it is only wall street but wall street is certainly to a large degree to blame for what happened but so is main street and the mortgage bankers decade mortgages to people that had no capacity to pay them and so are the individuals far in excess of what they could pay. so are the regulators who did not see what was happening to blow the whistle. so were the rating agencies that said these instruments that wall street was selling
were somehow highly secure. and even the president i am sure he said the buck stops here and shares responsibility as well for president bush for the economic distress which has occurred. i think this president, president obama, has not been effective as he could have been to get out of distress he has frankly scare the heck out of the private sector. when you say you raise taxes next year that scares new investors and when you say we have cap-and-trade during the energy intensive industry that will cause you to pull back. when you say we will have cared check to have the right to vote for the union but a trillion dollar deficit, obviously fights the financial sector, it is a policy which has not been as effective as it could have been, but longer-term, the foundations of economic vitality relate
to the entrepreneurialism of america the base and the family formation that parents make of children and our energy dependence and come together 64 the basis of our economic vitality. those are very much in distress. not only do we have the near term problems. the will come out of the recession but we will not be strong unless we address the fundamental problems. >> host: you think we're on our way out? there could be a double-dip? >> guest: it is hard to predict whether there will be another downturn, but we will come out. there is nothing permanent about recessions. think the president could have helped us get out faster and kept us from having 10 percent unemployment, i think that number will hang around an
albatross around his neck spending $787 billion saying he could hold on employment at 8% and if we did not spend it it would go 10 percent but it did. it was not as effective as it needed to be. but we will come out of the recession. will america continue to lead the world of productivity per person and gdp per capita or encumber capita? only if we have the foundation and fundamental strength of a leading highly productive economy and something in which energy, education, health care, the entitlement problems call into question. >> host: it is interesting to go into the specifics you praised secretary paulson and the bush should lustration for helping to build up the bank's, the t.a.r.p of money but then you are highly critical of secretary geithner for continuing what looks to be the same policies.
explained. >> guest: no question in my mind that at the time president bush said we are in real distress and we could have a financial calamity. it was essential to do something to provide confidence to the people around the world america's banks would go under. there was a real -- very real rescued have a casket a bank failures and we could all smelling have virtually every bank in the nation go out of business and the savings gone and the dollar worthless we could have had a true financial system collapse and t.a.r.p kept that from happening but it was not implemented terribly well. i mean to say senator paul send it a perfectly as secretary geithner did it entirely terribly. the both made some mistakes and did some things but under geithner was then said
to be and or the master for a long period of time, over one year, the process has been opaque as to which things got money and why and who got it and what the provisions would be to provide those funds. think for instance if you put money in that the bank the shareholders should have been wiped out of the government steps in why does the shareholders keep the ownership? they should have to pay very dearly and when the government came in the taxpayers should and got a healthy stake and not a majority stake. i have a number of criticisms on how the plan was implemented. was it needed to keep the financial system from collapsing? yes. those people cannot say it is terrible and to build the wall street, and i did not hear a lot of those voices at the time we thought we were going over the cliff. the benefit of hindsight now
we have come back they say we did not need it but at that point* there were a lot of people who had battles and concerned about where we were headed and did what was politically unattractive to make sure they did not have the calamity that would devastate not just wall street but every street in america. >> host: the son of a car guy was a smart to bail out the big car companies? >> guest: when the day trait ceos showed up in washington saying give us money the right answer is no. you need to have eight managed bankruptcy process to shed the cost of debt so you can re-emerge as a stronger entity that is the right call course ultimately. and that is what was taken and now detroit is on much stronger footing as a result of those bankruptcies carry
out but washington spent tens of billions of dollars unnecessarily wasted instead of the company's management teams and the board's guiding them bankruptcy process the government guided the process. it was the right solution but only after we wasted a lot of money. >> host: i am wondering if you think somehow the tea party movement and people on the right in this country who look at the bailout of not only the car companies but the banks and say washington is too big and too intrusive and the notion of too big to fail lines the pockets of the executives of those who take huge bonuses without any concern for the little man of main street america. >> there's no question this idea of too big to fail should not be part of our lexicon. if a major institution is on the brink of disaster either let them go bankrupt as
three ultimately did with gm going to the bankruptcy process that is what should have been. it does not mean close the doors everybody gets fired it means the shareholders are near the wiped out. if under the shareholders at the enterprise has failed and should not be bailed out and the executive should not be buildout and ford has done the right 57 with the extension of ford the other companies might have gone toe was up. >> guest: the with there manage bankruptcy and shed the excess of cost and emerging out. that is the right course. >> host: with tremendous help with the government. >> guest: post bankruptcy can help them to thrive but the tens of millions that went in prior could have been better spent. >> host: so than what about the reaction that is not at the base of so much the two-party movement that the government should not be
helping out car companies are failing financial institutions on wall street? >> guest: no question the perspective of those that of the country that things that government is too intrusive and too big is absolutely right. no question it has grown to be a massive player much larger than the founders would have ever imagined and i think people like myself think make sense for write now the portion of the gdp made up by the government is roughly 33%. that is excessive and it should be less them back. but then we can go through item by item they need to defend the country come and manage the judicial system, a certain safety net features that the government can provide that we can agree on then we can go piece by piece saying was that there right? we will not agree on all of those actions. but i can tell you with
regards to the car companies , the right course was to move to the bankruptcy upfront and they got there and with regards to t.a.r.p, that is something that should be ended there's no reason for that government to continue to use that money. we backed away from the cliff the financial institutions do not collapse but it is essential to keep our entire system from collapsing. >> host: talking about unemployment numbers they seem to be stable act 10%. you are in a protectionist protectionist, you believe in free trade and opening a trade but isn't that again that people would say we need to protect the american family and look after those two are unemployed objectionable? >> guest: they might but if you think about what happens around the globe and history they realize
protectionism has always been associated with peril. the nation's separate barriers around themselves find themselves falling into deeper and deeper financial while. there are a number of people that feel the protectionism was put in place at the advent of the great depression was one of the reasons we went into the depression and one of the reasons america sells a lot of stuff to the people of we put walls up it not only keeps out foreign goods figures american goods from going other places and there are a lot of good paying jobs and growth in this country of the things that go elsewhere. you have to realize what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. >> guest: in. >> host: you talk about the worst generation that we don't manage debt two and the chinese told so much of our debt and other countries to have protectionist practices, our competitors.
how do you put those ideas together? >> guest: my view on america's worst generation i put a question mark after that because i wanted to if you will alarm "the reader" when they get to that. what is he saying? i want to point* negative if we don't change course, we will very seriously imperil the future of this nation and the ability to defend freedom and protect our prosperity. the overspending we are carrying out and borrowing from china this is very much one of those elements. the inability and unwillingness to do with entitlements to make them sustainable use us with tens of trillions of dollars of obligations. the failure to do with the failing schools, energy dependence come with these likewise are elements that are frightening are disconcerting to those to make sure the future is bright. i don't think for a minute
the way to do with these challenges is to point* and say it is someone else's fault. china, brazil, immigrants, a trade, let's be honest about our own problems and deal directly. it is not easy. it is hard work. but scapegoating has never created a great nation or a strong economy. there are nations that try to protect themselves and cheech. no question if there was somehow magic to keep other people's goods and but allow evergood's to go out everybody would be for that and some nations tried to pull that off. when they do we have to make sure they don't get away with it. people watch america too closely to think we can keep foreign goods out as ours. >> host: when you hear from members of the tea party do think it is fair when you hear them say obama is a socialist? >> guest: i don't use at this point* to use that term
to apply to the president or people i disagree with. but i do think there are those in his party and i cannot speak for the president himself, who would like to see a health care system like the socialized medicine system that exist in europe. the president may as well for all i know. that would be very detrimental way for the health care system to move. r1 us step away from the fact that i think there's a great effort to socialize the medical system in this country. with very serious implications for our economic future and our well-being from the health standpoint. >> host: you wrapup by talking buy a new commitment to citizenship among americans and do suggest we find common cause and do less of special interest politics. you talk about the optimism you believe as part of the american
character, hardware, a deep religious faith, but you must be aware of people are asked by political pollsters it is up 60 or 70 or 80% say we're headed in the wrong direction. >> guest: i think there are absolutely right for the we should get it at 100%. that is what this book says. washington politicians have put us on the road to decline. they are taking america and the wrong direction. the massive growth of government, and ability to deal with energy, the failure of our schools, immigration system, will come the best and brightest innovators but instead open borders, all of these elements together are imperiling our future. the american people when confronted with the truth to the right thing interesting that happen. the reason the two parties are gathering it is because
we have been the silent majority too long. that is a movement which is giving some encouragement and people are paying attention and recognizing the consequences of continuing down the washington driven path. those consequences are not good for the country. >> host: do you fear the passion of the two-party movement might lead them away from a businessman who has the massachusetts background, and liberal, governor you are more of the direction of syrup a land or the populist? >> guest: i cannot tell you where it will lead. i welcome the energy and passion that seems to be part of the american political scene right now. that is a good thing. whether i am part of the scene or not come only time will tell. but we have some great leaders in the republican party who i think will capture the imagination of the majority of the american
people and unless it is dramatically changed in the next few years, his course will be in the short with only one term and who elect their president to bring us back to a center-right coalition of republicans and democrats who can take the action necessary to preserve america's greatness. >> host: in his new book, the second book called "no apology" the case for american greatness" governor ronny thank you so much for joining us on afterwards. >> guest: it is good to be with you. >> weir at the cpac conference talking with one of the authors of game change. can you tell us to do get the reaction you thought you would get when you wrote the book? >> every author hopes it has some success but john and i were proud and pleased rewrote the exact book we set out to right from the very first conversation. it is nice and it is good to
say we had more success than we hoped for. >> host: anything unexpected come from the reaction? >> guest: one of the things we did not know that we would achieve that the book has been well received by both the left and the right. most political books being sold here inspire people on the far left or the far right. our hope was to call the story of the 2008 presidential campaign with three characters and plot but a factual journalistic point* of real progress to come to meetings like this also having done talk radio and cable tv we have been heartened and pleasantly surprised by the five people are not the ring it as a partisan weapon to be used by one side or the other but a great story that we hope we hold well enough. >> host: did any of the subjects in the book contact
you after being published? >> guest: just we make a plane to be specific but without exception all the contacts we have had from the people we have brought about have been positive people may not like every little thing but they have been pleased with the overall portrait and have been very nice about that. >> host: do you know, your next project? >> maybe. right now the goal is to sell the book and right now the strong emphasis although it is about political rampage campaign is not a book about politics or politicians as much as interesting people who happen to be involved in politics but it is about married couples involved in a great competition under a lot of pressure. the hope now is rather than thinking about the next project to extend the book is a guy that went to think
about politics but a great story. >> host: are you able to read any books will you are on the road? >> guest: someone very smart told me you have a choice these days you can read some of the web for newspapers and/or magazines or you can read books. i read a lot of newspapers and magazines. right now my book reading is not at its peak. >> host: thank you very much for your time. >> we're live at day #2 tucson festival of books hosted by the university of arizona. today's lynette begins with douglas stanton author of horse soldiers and next the panel of how to write history that includes outside magazine editor-at-large hampton sides former fort worth star star-telegram and agency founder james donovan then retired general anthony