tv After Words CSPAN August 21, 2015 10:52pm-11:51pm EDT
organized around the economic interests that is their job to collectively bargain and in the case of florida the represent the teachers and other public school employees that do it well for higher accountability for what we did i did not expect that and i did not get that. there was a fight that required to stay the course and execution of the law it was eight long years to get the results that we have been teachers generally have moved to the benefits of the new system but the result could not and to this day they are trying to block reforms not just in florida but around the country. sometimes you find common
ground but when you don't you have to sort that out politically i got elected to continue to do what i was doing the also to allow us to have enough time now all the states are emulating that around the country. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> what is the question? [laughter] i am optimistic there is a growing consensus to push the views of the political system that people are
getting free and frustrated that they see the need for a new message to go back to the place to be reform at the heart of what we believe and if you do that part then you will be carried by the american people not just one elected official. [laughter] we cannot wait until 2016 to change the direction of the country. it has to start now. [applause] >> one more question. >> i am a recent immigrant
here. [applause] i am wondering what about the children of illegals? what about the finish there is education? then they stay here or leave? >> right now the law is the president doesn't have the executive power but it is unchallenged but unilaterally has suspended the period of time for the students you are describing
but it doesn't offer a permanent of solution to this with a path to citizenship for those to break the law the children cannot be penalized for that i'm not sure you're talking about anybody that you know, you are under those suggestions that are discussed right now of the person that you described in that relationship over time to get a ged. does that answer your question?
in essence is the cable industry bringing us there. word looking for great characters, you really want your viewers to be able to identify with these people that we're talking about. >> it's an experience with the program that we are taking people on the road to places where they can touch things, see things, and learn about not just the local history but the national story. >> if someone is watching it it should be enticing enough that they can get the idea of the story but also know that this is just in our backyard let's go see it. they have viewers say oh yeah i know that place just for watching our peace. >> the mission of c-span from all of our coverage leads into everything that we do. you have to be up to communicate the neck message about the network in order to do this job. it stunned the one thing we wanted it to do witches build a relationship with the city in
our cable partners and gather some great programming for history to be. >> watch the city store at the c-span network to see where we are going next going next see her schedule at c-span.org/cities to her. >> up next on c-span twos book tv rick santorum, nile gop presidential candidate talks about his book a blue collar conservatives, recommitting to america that works. in may of 2014 he spoke with tucker carlson, mr. santorum argues that the working class has been abandoned by democrats and republicans. >> rick santorum thank you for joining us some up the book. >> there's a whole group of people in america that is being ignored, left behind, not included in the discussion for
either party. particularly though i would argue the republican party and that's ivory call blue collar conservatives, folks out there that are working people, most don't have college degrees, folks that really still understand the value of work and the importance of work and responsibility. people understand the importance of family and faith, i believe in freedom and limited government. you say a lot of those are conservatives republican voters and in many cases they are not, all lot are not voting at all because they don't really see either party talking to them about concerns they have in trying to create an opportunity for them to live the american dream. you look at the democratic party, they talk about these voters a lot, in fact they talk about how they can get them certain things like free healthcare, subsidize health
care, increasing their wages with minimum wage increases, a whole laundry laundry list of things that government benefits that they are trying to help, but of course most of these folks don't want to be on a government program. they want to work, they want jobs that are well-paying jobs that create opportunity for them to support themselves and their family, that sounds like more of republican voters. republicans the economic message, we have seen us the year, we talk about economists, were wrapped up in the rightness of our petition we talk about balancing the budget, cutting taxes for high income individuals to create jobs, and cutting government and particularly a lot of benefits if you're the average american listening to this economic plan you say, where my in that plan? what are you doing for me, people who are seeing their wages stagnating and not seen increases and that's really who this book is written for.
for republicans to understand why they are not succeeding in getting these of boats. host: it's perplexing because some of these voters seem winnable by republican so why wouldn't they be talking to and about working-class voters. guest: because it really requires you to not say macro but micro, that's a very difficult thing for republicans, the id on economics is a rising tide lifts all the votes. i agree i agree re- rising tide lifts all boats unless that boat has añr hole in it, then that rising tide is a very dangerous dangerous thing because when the tide rises your boat sinks and you are not in a very good situation. it depends on how high the titus. so you have a lot of people have holes in their boats to people who don't have skills and not having education, maybe having a
drug or substance abuse problem, maybe having palms at home are difficult families, there's a whole laundry list of things and all of us have some holes in our boats. there are many americans who don't see this rising tide necessarily helping them so what i have done in this book, what i tried tried to do on the campaign's address areas where blue-collar america, where average americans can see some direct economic benefits and there some opportunity for them that's why talk a lot about specific sectors of the economy where large portions of these types of workers will find employment that is actually going to be family sustained employment in the areas of energy, manufacturing, and related industries. the focus on the other side because it's not just economics, one of the problems is culture
and families and communities breaking down, so we talk a lot about the importance of marriage and the family as a part of building that held the american dream. host: pres. obama has talked a lot about income inequality and its rise, is he right and should republicans be echoing that? guest: the question still bear out the rhetoric, the fact is things haven't changed, but they haven't gotten better and i think that's really the issue. relative to europe and canada the opportunity of mobility in america is not as good as it is in some of those countries. while the idea that there is this exploding gap of income equality is not the seri blown up by the fact, the fact is there are serious problems in america that need to be addressed and there are people in america who are not getting ahead. instead of arguing the debate as
to whether we are better or worse, let's just focus on the fact that millions of americans out there who are not seeing their quality of life improve and what can we do to address those. there there are things we can do, everything from looking at the economy, looking at the culture, looking at education. one of the things i talk about in the book is providing vocational education, career tracks other than crew tracks that lead to college. 70% of americans don't have college degrees and that numbers and going to change much. what are we doing to provide the necessary skills and high to provide the necessary skills in high school, as well as technical schools after high school to provide the skills necessary for people to work with their hands as well as their head. spee1 how did all this happen? what happened to happened to working-class america to rule america hasn't the rising stock market is obviously on fire but it hasn't helped a lot of people in the interior of the country, what is it? guest: it's a variety of things, the economy has changed we have
a much more globalization, open market when that happens. there's competition from overseas, and overall the argument is an illegitimate argument to be made that america does better when we have that competition from overseas and crashed on prices because prices are lower for everybody. competition as we all know is a good thing, globalization is a positive but is also a negative if you're the person who is losing their job as a result of this competition. i make the argument that look i'm not against globalization, i understand the global economy but we have to be understanding of the impact case by case of agreements and other agreements we have to the american worker. i voted for a lot of tree grade agreements, i didn't vote for nafta because i thought it would be very devastating more than it would be helpful. in my opinion that's been borne
out at least it hasn't improved the situation for america. we need to look at free-trade agreements and the fact that america is not being competitive because our taxes are higher, we have the highest tax in the world, we have a hostile regulatory environment in this country that has gotten worse under this administration, look at the litigation environment here, look at the educational gaps we have here, look at the training for manufacturing and those types of jobs. the role of government has played in making its on competitive is pretty profound. one of the reasons i wrote the book is because america manufactures can be competitive in a global economy if the government creates a level playing field vis-à-vis our competitors and so i have a laundry list of things that go through in the book that talk about how we can do just that.
host: it's early hasn't helped him america manufacturing, you almost never hear anybody complain about that, why? guest: because most people aren't in manufacturing, they haven't lost their jobs or are getting lower paid jobs. it's a very small percentage of americans are actually participating in manufacturing, substantially less than it was before. if you are professional or someone who works in service industry and you're looking at getting something for substantially lower-priced because it's been manufactured overseas, you're, you're happy to go to walmart. but as you know walmart is now very focused and we ran a bad campaign for the last year upon there trying to move things back here to america and try to encourage manufacturing here in this country. i think those were benefiting
greatly like walmart from this globalization, and having these products made oversee, see the benefit of having these products made here. there's a famous conversation a famous conversation that occurred between henry ford and walter reuther and the head of the union that ford had to deal with, he was walking through the plant and showed reuther a machine, he said this machine is going to replace how many of your workers. ruth responded while that's great but how many cars as this machine gonna buy. so that's really the tension here that yes we can replace workers with foreign competition with automation, but you have to have wages to buy these products here in america. there is an understanding now that walmart and many others that we need to look to how we can be competitive. i'm not looking to reap the game, if you look at the
proposal in the book they're conservative and orientation, they're not big and subsidies, their tax cuts, regulatory cuts, regulatory reform, education which government is heavily involved in. things that we can do all consists of what i called with conservative politics and conservative philosophy that give us the opportunity to be competitive. host: why not rigged the game, what why wouldn't the u.s. government to all its can't help america even at the expense of other countries? spee2 will first of all you have trade rules they have to deal with, we do deal globally so when it comes to trade laws that's one area where i don't get into that much because we start linking with trade laws to use have retaliatory efforts on the part of the other countries particularly china. so i think you have to be very careful that you structure it as a level playing field and you do a consistent with the trade laws
that are in place and the limitation of what those countries can do to favor manufacturing of one country over another. host: you don't it mention immigration in the book, if you persistently high on unemployment you have usually don't have a labor shorter, why would you import 1 million low-wage workers from other countries into our country every year? how does that help? guest: i do talk about the importance of having a trained labor force but you're right, certainly with illegal immigration, illegal immigration is anything that we would do in my opinion that would solve the problem of illegal immigration by bringing in any form of amnesty to these workers will flood label markets in this country with more low-wage workers. we have an immigration policy that is today fairly generous
immigration policy and we need to in examine that policy and see how it impacts the american worker, where we are bringing people in from, what are what are the skill levels of the people we are bringing in, and settling factor that in when it comes to the labor markets of this country. i don't thing we do that candidly, we have done it in the past is something that immigration policy has dealt with throughout the course of american history so it's not something we should be afraid to do, we should look at it from the standpoint of the people in this country making sure they have the opportunity. my focus is not an immigration policy per se, i think there is a point to be made but i specifically didn't want to deal with the whole concept of illegal immigration because to me, look barack obama had two years as president of the united states with complete control,
super majority control in the house and senate could have passed any illegal immigration law that he wanted and he never proposed a bill. to me that says this issue is not of political issue, it is a policy issue, it is a purely political issue. it it's an issue that the republicans in the mama wants to use to drive a wedge between republicans and hispanics. so my position is we do not play that game. this is what my position has been, first and foremost let secure the border, let's take this problem of say 12 million illegal immigrants from this country and make it a finite problem, a resolvable problem. if you don't control the border to the point where you won't have another flood of it immigrants then you create another problem because you now have 12 more million immigrants in this country because you have granted amnesty to the existing
group. from my perspective let's have a discussion, and i just did on illegal immigration and how we mess that up to make that work for the country but leave the other immigration aside. host: no one admits to liking illegal immigration let's just take the legal sigh, the democrats are for it because these people become citizens and become democratic voters, the republicans don't like it because they get rich from cheap labor. but why is it good for the average person working at walmart in the middle of the country why is it good for him to have to compete with someone from another country who just got here who will work for much lower wages, why second from question mark. guest: one of the reasons is legal immigration is a good thing is because our country isn't growing. we are now below replacement rate of the population in this country. i think there is something to be
said legal immigrants do bring a vitality to this country and so legal immigration is still a positive thing, but for for immigration i don't think we would be growing. i think there's lots of room in america and if we want to be a country that continues to grow and expand that the positive thing, i think is a positive thing for market, so yes of these people competing for jobs yes, but they are also consuming. if they are working and buying products, i don't see i don't see that is necessarily a zero-sum game if you people come here legally and do so in a way make sure that you are getting friday of workers and skill levels to be competitive. they are also consumers and i don't think that's a bad thing. host: so if i'm an employer and hire someone, and immigrants are not, and i'm paying minimum pay minimum wage, no one can live on that. so the slack is taken up by tax
payers in social welfare programs that we have, the taxpayer pays for that person in effect to be able to live. why should employers get what is in reality, subsidy for taxpayers. guest: will the cheap labor is labor based upon what the based upon what the labor brings. it's not we have made the decision that if someone is making a certain amount of money we are going to provide support for them, income support, food stamps or whatever the case may be. that is a decision that is separate from the business decision. i don't think were subsidizing cheap labor i think were basically saying that this is the value of businesses said that cheap labor brings to the enterprise and if we are driving up the cost of that by higher minimum wage laws which president obama is proposing, which i oppose, then what we are
doing is driving the cost of labor up which will result in unemployment and loss of jobs. host: there's a study that came out this weekend that show the top 25 hedge fund managers made for themselves about $29 billion last year. twenty-five people made $29 billion when you when you hear that what's your reaction? guest: my reaction is the capitalist system works very well for people who have resources. in fact president obama's world of economics is one that encourages that, why because he has pushed forward all of this policy that favors favors and provides backstops for people who take big risk and at those risks don't come true than the federal government backs them up. we have created a tremendous opportunity for wall street to do very, very well in this administration and not a particularly strong effort to
help main street are small-town and rural america. i'm not surprised to hear those numbers, that is part of the american dream. i have concerns that when you look at the tax on capital versus the cap tax on labor, what ronald ragan attempted to do in the 1986 tax act was to state backed up and say if you want less of something tax it, if you want more of something subsidize it. we subsidize the b of the via vis-à-vis labor this is exactly what we suggest just by having low capital gains tax. in fact republicans would say were eliminated capital gains tax than what you're going to do is say please keep investing in capital, keep investing in things because you're going to get a huge subsidy for doing so. if you invest in labor and employee people then you'll
accomplish the same purpose and get a return on your money and you're going to be taxed heavily for that you will have regulations, it it will be costly for you. so what ragan didn't 86 was a lower that to 28%, you had labor and capital being priced at the same thing for the standpoint of taxes which encourages investment of labor and employment. today, we have a tech structure with 40% and regulatory environment and obama administration has created you have an economy that greatly favors capital over labor and that is why you're seeing high unemployment rates persisted. host: it also sends a message to the tax code that we don't value work. your sucker if your work, why would you work for a wage when you're paying twice the tax rate of someone investing money. guest: yes about the secretary warren buffett is making
millions and paying 15% tax on it. the secretary although she gets a nice salary she's paying 40% at the top rate. it doesn't make sense. i'm someone who has been very blessed, i love to work on my work hard, i get very little in way of investment so i can't remember the last time i paid a gain on capital investment. i have a fair amount of income coming in for labor and guess what, i get taxed to the hilt. so you just have to work that much harder. you have seven kids you have no choice but for a lot of people they just they what's the the point? why am i doing this? so it is a discouragement for a lot of people. host: at a certain point out your risk social instability question mark. guest: the point they are making is when you have people who are
making huge amounts of money like hedge fund operators and they will all get taxed at 15%, for the quote work they did. if you're working for that hedge fund operator and you're the secretary or the administrator, you're paying 25 to 40% depending on your income and you say will how is that fair? i would make the argument, ronald ragan made the argument that it really isn't fair. we fair. we shouldn't be rewarding one over the other and part of the approach in the book, i don't really get into it in detail with a conference of tax policy, what i approach in the book is lowering marginal rate is more effective than increasing the demand for labor. a big part of what i'm suggesting is taking tax code simpler and lowering that marginal rates is very important. host: your famous as a social conservative and you're described that way yet this book
does not really tackle abortion or gay marriage for example. neither one is in the index why is that? guest: well i'm not as social conservative because i'm one of the conservatives who are willing to talk about these issue. most conservative when these issues come up they dive under the table. so it's sort of funny that you are known as a social conservative because the one of the few folks who answers questions on the subject and is willing to articulate a vision. in this book we do talk about a culture, i do as we mentioned earlier the importance of the family and marriage as an economic good for society. the word economy comes from the word which means home, home is the first economy, it's the first hospital, is the first school, it's the first everything. it is essential foundational building block of society.
family as an important part of the economic well-being of our country and that we as americans are losing this foundation building block. 40% of children are being born outside of marriage. if you look at the numbers, i'm sure you know these, you go into a prison of america and you find that 85% of the men in the 5% of the men in the prison were raised in homes without a dad. we know the social consequences of large segments of society where children don't have dad's work where marriage is impossible anymore. it's not a positive thing, economically for those families or for the country generally. so the question i dress in the book is what do we do about that?
is there anything that the government, or public policy can do? the answer is clearly yes there are lots of things we can do. they are important they are important for us to do if you look at the left who, in their sincere compassion to help people were struggling, particularly single moms they structured all these programs that depend on you not being married. i'm sure that's not the way they designed it but that effect is and i use this example in the book, in wisconsin if you are single mother with two children and you are earn $15000 per year working part-time you get $38,000 in welfare benefits. in welfare benefits. if you get married, you lose them all. so if you get married, your your husband would have to make 50-gram plus a year to get married well i'm sure that's possible but it's not highly likely.
what happens is we created a marriage trap. we created barriers for marriage for the very people who it's important, and for many of them to have a stable and relationship with a man if it helps with raising other children. instead what we do is encourage that mother economically either not to get involved or if she does, have a very dangerous relationship with having a man live in the home and of course you know the most dangerous relationship about the mother and the children of that mother. we are doing things that are destructive of families all in the name of helping people when in fact we have to change these incentives to create incentives for people, or at at least stop the barriers for marriage. host: president clinton's has every single time call for people to get married as a solution to poverty but why don't republicans talk about this question mark i can't remember the last time a republican candidate talk specifically about tailoring policy to encourage marriage. guest: i do, and i did. i did in the last election i talked about it i talked about
that woman in wisconsin and i campaigned in wisconsin. i actually use that repeatedly. i have, you may remember i wrote a book in 2005 called it takes a family, it was a direct response to humility hillary clinton when she said it takes a village. i do believe families the building block of society and marriage is essential public good, not just with the work that's been done by arthur brooks and others who talk about the issue of happiness and look at studies over time of what makes people happy. i addresses in the book, it's not even close, mary people are by far happier than single people. they have better economic prospects, their children do better educationally, they do less drugs, less crime, all sorts crime, all sorts of societal benefits. you're right, republicans have
been downright hostile to embracing that a talking about that because they don't want to be seen as moralized. they don't want to be seen as telling people how to live their lives, no one is telling anybody how to live their lives, what we are saying is any more than what were saying you shouldn't smoke, the government all the time is same messages coming out saying smoking is bad for you or texting and driving is bad for you, or hiring veterans is a good thing to do. we recognize certain public goods and as a government, and as as a society we get behind them. what i suggest in the book is the popular culture, talking holiday hollywood, the news media, entertainment industry, educational industry, industry, educational industry, in fact public schools and private and colleges, businesses, labor this is something we should all agree with. we want to develop a positive marriage culture in
america. host: so do you think it's a fear of seeming unfashionable? anybody who has googled note the numbers are and you think they just don't want to see them. guest: they don't want to be seen as moralizing, i guess when i talk about it that the pushback i get. like what are are you telling people that single moms are bad, i'm nothing anybody as bad i'm saying were in a situation where marriage is failing. it's failing as an institution and one of the reasons we are seeing an attempt to redefine it is because we sort of lost what it is. it is important for us to reclaim marriage for what it is and not just the romantic relationship between two people though it is certainly part of that it's not just a contract where people receive benefits because that relationship, marriage is unique and provides a unique benefit to society which is the joining of a man and woman together who are the
only two that can have children that are their children and have the natural mother and natural father raise those children. i do that in a home that is supportive. it does bring something unique and it is a good for the public to have children raised in that environment, it is also a very important good for men and women, not just for happiness but for a whole host of other reasons where that relationship has benefits to men and women. i don't think there's any reason to shy away from it, in fact what i'm hearing and seeing as many of the left are recognizing this, there there seen the statistics that came out in the last six months where you had all this talk about income equality and every single study
that talked about income inequality came to the same conclusion. the number one factor that overcomes income equality is marriage. if people get married before the have children, if people who are married stay married that it in fact results in a better economic conditions than someone who is either single or a single mother, singled at her divorce. host: your say were attempting to redefine marriage i think maybe that debate is all over do you think in 20 years that gay marriage may not be the law of the land. guest: i think this is a very similar debate that went on with abortion. forty years ago the supreme court came down and decided that abortion was right, abortion was legal, it was a public good, something good, something that should be pervasive and accepted. if you looked at this generation of young people, i think according to most of the polls i have seen, the youngest cohort in the poll are the most pro-life right now. right now you're recognizing that just because the court said it so, just because it was
something affirmed or approved by the supreme court doesn't mean that society is going to accept it at least not in the case of abortion is not true. you taking a human life and more more people are recognizing the horror of taking that innocent life and are pushing back. i think the same thing will happen with the issue of marriage. as i said we have lost the definition of marriage because we have lost what marriage is. i think it's going to take may be losing something is in the consequence and not then the consequence of to realize maybe we have made a mistake here and pull it back. host: it seems like you have a real problem with libertarians, i i remember you are on fox a few years ago and called ron
paul, quote disgusting. in the book you take shots at libertarians what objections do you have? guest: i talked called him about his attacks on me, he was saying things that were ridiculous and out right lies about me and my record. and i called him disgusting. i don't think ron paul personal is disgusting what he was doing was. i do have concerns about the impact of libertarians on the conservative movement because i don't think it's consistent with conservative thought. i think the idea that libertarians and i'm not talking about libertarian conservatives because there are conservatives who are little stronger on some of these issues in particular leave the issue of constitutional limitations and i respect that we have been very healthy debate in the republican
party to the role of government and what the government does to the issues of privacy, i think those are important issues. libertarian conservatives that are not a big concern but libertarians and folks who pretend to be libertarian conservatives are trying to change what conservatism is. there have a lot more problem than from their isolation view of how we approach national security, i think we have seen in the last five years of the obama administration white isolationism in america is taken a backseat would mean to the world into our own security. the best example of why won't work as the last five yet they maintain. the other area i am concerned about is the fundamental idea of how libertarian is a miss based upon, i think think it's based on a flawed view of man.
i think ultimately the libertarian view is that people are free to do whatever they want to do and government is reviewed and people have this freedom to exercise their own will that the world would be a better place. i don't buy that, i don't understand why you've seen anything in human history that would suggest that would result in a good and decent, and virtuous society. society. they believe, i think the fundamental understanding is that humans are essentially good and if left to their own desire things would be fine. i believe my man has basically fallen and needs to have family and civic institutions in the government to have laws in place and conventions in place to shape and mold that individual. host: interesting. everyone agrees their have been problems with the application of iraq in the last decade.
but the last decision to invade iraq, do you think that was a good decision? guest: i can answer this to ace, at the time i made the decision i thought it was the right decision, and i look back and the only 1i know i knew at the time i would've made the same decision. knowing now what happened and how the occupation and having involvement in that area of the world and the complexities of dealing with the radical islamists and frankly just the muslim culture, i certainly going forward would be a lot more cautious about him being engaged in those type of activities in the future. we need to learn a lesson that once the long-term prospects of doing what we had attempted to do when going into iraq is not
i'm not optimistic about positive results about going and taking that type of approach again. host: do you think others have learned that lesson? no one has been ostracized. guest: i think it's different to suggest that what we attempted this is not been done we've never done this before. so the idea that says well these people were wrong and they should be ostracized, i think a a lot of them and i've talked to many of them, are little chastened in venturing again into something like that. i don't think it's the people in the initial invasion and managing that war are necessarily the people who are
going to finish it out. when you look at the fact that maybe there's other administration that have less of a stomach stomach for finishing the job and doing it right, you have to take that into consideration when you engage in the first place. host: you free seven children, seems like you've done a good job at it. do you think of attrition and apology play a role, if you make a mistake even if you do with the best of intention if you really screw something up, should you apologize? shouldn't there be a role be a role for public humiliation and sanction, isn't that all part of, you know she apologize. guest: i don't think they should apologize i think they should be candid at about the failures that took place. i don't you look look at iraq today and say that's a success. but that doesn't mean you have to take out the whips and start flogging your back to the public square. the decisions that were made at
the time were under a very different set of circumstances and limited understanding of how that interaction with woodwork. i don't think attrition is necessary, i think honesty and analysis of what happened and what we should do going forward would be much better more appropriate fact. host: one of the assumption at that time was democracy is the best system for everyone and democratic countries tend to be more peaceful. they don't attack one another, do you still believe that question work. guest: i still believe that, the question is how applicable is it in various cultures. i i think we have to recognize that there are certain cultures where this type of idea is more difficult to plant and sustained than others of the world. world. i think we have to be realistic and where we apply that. the idea is still the right idea and i think it's true the question is is it possible, and
to what extent are we willing to sacrifice to sustain a presence in an area to finish the job. i believe we have found that that is not going to be possible in that area of the world. spee1 if that id is true then shouldn't we be pushing, advocating and should we have some authority in this area for example saudi arabia could be a democratic society or jordan, would would that be better for us? guest: i think the question is not that's better for us or not, i think the idea and the goal is a good one the question is how do you get there and how to long do you take, and what measures you take. i think you mentioned egypt. i don't egypt was ready for
elections, you look at a lot of these countries and you make the assumption, look at the united states were we ready for an election when the united states was formed to have everyone in the united states well? will our founders and think so, they limited the people who could vote in an election. it was a decision that was made to make sure there is some continuity and stability within the government that was consistent with the values of the government was founded upon. we can't go out and say well the objective and was a free election, that should've never been the objective. democracy is something is appropriate to come when it's appropriate to come. we have have to work with individual situations to ultimately and it could take 100 years to get there but the idea of rushing into these types of freedoms and elections, i think was that the road right approach. host: what do you think we should do in afghanistan now question work. guest: i think maintaining some type of presence there, we've certainly learned our lessons from iraq that leaving is the worst of all possible situations.
now we have chaos again in a dangerous alliance between iran and iraq. civil unrest, terrorism, terrorist groups, is not a positive situation so to the extent to which we can continue to support the afghan military. again, it's the stomach for the long haul and having the involvement that it provide some sort of possibility for stability in the future. but when we say it's hopeless and we leave, then you go back to the situation that caused you to get there in the first place. host: this book makes me assume that you're running again because it lays out a pretty call current worldview, do you agree or disagree, that suggests to me that you are entering the likely for your run again?
guest: will entering public like doesn't nastily mean you're running, but i'm out there in the public's. host: i mean running for office. guest: i've been very clear that it something that i'm actively considering, trying to gauge both the level of support that's out there but also trying to figure out, being being the father of seven kids four of whom are at home, having just finished up two years ago it takes a toll. you have to measure all of those things that both politically and personally. i have a concerned about the future of this country, i think i bring something different to the table and so we are going to actively consider whether this is something we should do and we'll make a decision sometime next year. host: you have little kids at home. guest: yes our children, we have a little little girl was going to be six in may, that's our
youngest. we have a 23-year-old is our oldest. so still relatively young and they still need their dad around and that's my challenge and something that we think about and pray about trying to discern whether to know what's the right thing to do for our family and our country. host: how far hard is it on your family to run for president? guest: well you're absent, you're just not there for long. of time. you can bring you can bring kids on the campaign trail, and we did, our two oldest kids were traveling with us a bit and now some of our other children would be in position to be more of that. we saw of younger kids and as you know, our youngest are six-year-old, has a disability and requires constant care. those are the things, i know people look at politicians and say well it's all political and
loudly than what they should. >> host: hmm. i know that candidates or potential candidates are always hesitant to critique other candidates. but who are you impressed by of the people would might run for president? anyone? sunny thought in 2012 we had a bunch of really good people, and -- >> host: you did? >> guest: i thought we do. they were good folks. running for president is hard, tucker. you look at folks and say, this person didn't do very well, that person didn't do well. it's hard. i would say don't try this at home. you look at candidates who have dropped in, someone like a rick perry last time, dropped in and found out, wow, this is -- we're not in texas anymore. we're in -- this is a very tough environment, and it's day in and day out. you have to be mentally and physically and emotionally prepared for it. and so i guarantee you that two
years from now, when you-looking at the republican field, you'll see, gee, that wasn't quite as good a field as we thought it would be. because it's a hard thing to do, and everybody has faults, everybody has weaknesses and they get shown very clearly in a presidential race. >> host: i'm sure you'll say this isn't true, but my perception after reading this book you had some measure of contempt for mitt romney. don't seem impressed by him. there's talk his -- a couple of his aides were talking up the possibility of another run by him for president. that do you think of that? sunny i don't think i was unkind to mitt romney in the book. i think he was miscast, the wrong counties. i supported him in 2008. i wait as different election. but in the 2012 election he was just not the right candidate. he was at the time of the 99% 1% we did not need to nominate a wall street multimillionaire,
one percenter, who unfortunately never was able to even throughout the primary never able to deal with and get comfortable with his wealth and how to explain that and his success. and on top of that the whole issue of obamacare and the fact we had a candidate who took the most important issue that helped is win the 2010 election, probably well help us win the 2014 election, but when the leaks was up for the important who instituted obamacare, we never talked about it. we just had in my opinion, the reason i was so passionate about running and got engaged in the campaign -- we needed someone who was better on those two fronts and, i thought a guy who group up in a steel town, on of an immigrant. wasn't for the wall street bailouts, who actually had put forth a lot of good free market private sector ideas on health care would be a better choice. >> host: what do you think of
jeb? >> guest: i don't know jeb that well. i look at his record as governor of florida. seems like a solid record. i think he is a good and decent man i don't really know that much more. >> host: now, as you know, romney won of the seven biggest states he won only one, texas, and if republicans don't win texas, i don't think there's a way they can get to the required number of electoral votes. >> guest: very hard. >> host: so a lot of people who are watching this carefully believe texas could easily go blue, become a democratic state over the next ten years. at that point, would the republican party cease to be national party in practical terms? >> guest: that's why it's important that we expand the base of the republican party. if you look at what ronald reagan did, in 1980 and 1984, winning all these states, you say that's not possible again. it's not possible given where the republican party has positioned itself, but it's very
possible if we position ourselves and identify with the great middle of america, who is looking for someone who has a plan to make life better for them. it's really the reason i wrote the book to speak from the people across america, those of us who have these sets of values, but also speak to the republican establishment that we have to stop focused on, i think, extraneous issues. the idea that we have to abandon the family and i ban don life. well, the people i'm talking about happen to share our values on those, and they're willing to vote for us if we can show we care about them. i cite in the book, in the exit polls, there was 23% of the population on the exit polls said the number one issue for them was does he care about people like me? and barack obama got 81% of