tv [untitled] CSPAN June 30, 2009 1:00am-1:30am EDT
that people can use which is why we have our news you can't use, but you've got to do this news you can use segments and mark parris helton and more this and more that. and decided to go camping the enhanced pipeline and ray decided instead of a shrinking news hole we were going to expand out to three hours and talk politics, going to talk foreign-policy, going to talk issues of war and peace, economics, and we found a very early on was the fad that the
deeper the topic, the deeper we done the, the more i thought after i walked off the set -- every time i would walk off the set and say that was a great segment, that was fascinating but it is not going to great because it was just too deep. for the viewers that two-minute and it always was this the highest rated segments. i can guarantee you yupik the times you are on the show and whenever you walk of the show saying that was a really intelligent discussion that's going to be the highest-rated segment of the day. and it is so different from not only what is going on in morning news shows, but all across the tv dial. and again in the newspapers you have everybody ringing their hands, it is kind of like conservatives are in their hands saying where do we go, what do we do? i remember ronald reagan said conservatives' concern.
down -- a radical concept. well, news hosts should deliver news. now there is just a great cover for its. >> host: they are starved borat. >> guest: they are and i had a long line where i was signing books for an arrow and had to cut it off and everybody that came up said the same thing. except for the one lady who said i was cute and i hunter and thank your. in but the other one said thank you so much, i can to get serious news for three hours or two hours or one hour anywhere else. >> host: serious genuine conversation. >> guest: right in having a conversation -- there is a second party as you know we don't shout and scream and. this is in the last verse is the right, this is an crossfire. >> host: it is very genial and seville on this and actually and the sat is: people who disagree
on things. it is a funny thing. a town of peace on a seventh action is there. also helpfulness. i always notice on tv or on some shows where people there is an anchor, there are guests and there is an interviewer, they spend some time trying to settle a undermine a tether and my sense of "morning joe" is there is no subtle undermining going on. >> guest: not only that, it is not allowed period we have had chess has a critical things other people and i have taken them off to the side and i think my exact words have been, dude, if you want to come back on the show again into everybody up there with respect to. if you don't want to come back on the show again, keep zinging. we have got no problem. >> host: you have done that really? >> guest: we don't care who is, first of all, we don't care because we have such tremendous guests that if one person wants to go in and saw somebody else we can do without them, but it
undermines what the show is all about. but i have done that, chris has been done that and pick up the fonda and is not just a tax. if people step over others. one guest keeps cutting off other guests, chris will call him up and said that is not our show. do that summer else but not on our show. >> host: to congressmen and senators and governors call you to be on the show or do you guys call them? did chuck schumer or john cornyn call and sat want to talk about such-and-such can be on it? where do you normally each day, chris our: them and saying on the issues? >> guest: there are a lot of congressmen and senators and a book writers and columnists that call up and want to be on the show which is really nice.
in our problem is in the rotation of gas. how do all these people want to be on the show, where we put them and sometimes we cram too many on in one morning and then you have a news race and that is a great challenge. that is when you stop talking and i start playing train conductor. let me say one nice thing about chuck schumer because i have slammed him an awful lot. chuck schumer is a guy who would not come on the show because i went after him really hard and actually on this show also about miguel estrada and some of the other judges that were elevated specifically because they were hispanic african-american and i went after him an awful lot and he actually called up and said i want to be on man-to-man with gel and he did appear ago we talked and while i disagree with him on probably 9% and disagrees with me 90% of the issues we got
a respect that goes back and forth. i think that is one makes the show work. >> host: joe, what have you learned about politicians since you started interviewing them on tv? used to be one of them, you knew certain things as a political figure, he used to be the guy in the house who is going for the foreman a pop on hardball, now you are the guy who is entering the guy doing the formative a pop on morning joe? what have you learned since being on the other side of the table about politicians and that you have a known? >> guest: i should not say this. thank you so much, connie chung said to newt gingrich's mother, just between you and me. there are notable exceptions, but i am surprised my how bad a lot of politicians are at getting their message across. how effective they are.
>> host: effective because they don't know how to to mitigate or are they not that bright or not to that well read on their subjects to or are they in an ideological or philosophical to graft? what is their problem? >> guest: you tell me, has the quality of senator gone down over the past 20 years? >> guest: i don't know, the quality of house guy gone down prexy used to be in their. >> guest: i don't know. i am surprised by some questions that have that can be inserted by leaders of both parties appear gum. i work with nancy pelosi a good bit. we interviewed her and i was surprised by some of the answers. i was surprised and how terribly she handled the cia issued. john boehner, again these are people i genuinely like, but surprised by how republicans have been simmering and staggering. john boehner is asking the press
conference other going to be any more bailouts and his answer is that's a good question. in i was suppose that the head of the republican party and house of representatives should probably have a world do and whether should be more of a loss in the future are not. and so i have been surprised there are exceptions. there are people that come on both sides that are very good at what they do and don't just talk and news clips talking points. >> host: when you think of smart politician right now were let's pejoratively say it smart and intelligent political figure in america, is there one person you think of right away? >> guest: no. i think on the house side, the house republicans signed i think paul ryan is a guy that i really impressed with. he is a conservative that doesn't scare the kids.
>> host: you hear a lot about him, he's having a moment. >> guest: use of wisconsin guy and i'm a believer that if we republicans are going to win outside the south that might be good two have leaders and don't talk with a southern accent. this comes from a guy who lives in atlanta, alabama, mississippi and florida and am a southern conservative. but right now we are getting routed in new england, the new west, the pacific northwest, because unpeopled think of the republican party they think of newt gingrich, george w. bush, tom delay, dick armey, guys with texas twang. >> host: what is wrong with that? >> guest: well, ronald reagan and barack obama both have been able to find in the middle of american political liability --
life and maybe it is a western sensibility. i'm not exactly sure what it is, but we just can't be confined in the south. you know, why did ronald reagan at venice summit people in europe? because of the time even though he was right and was proven right and i think he freed about 100 million europeans, there was that cowboys swagger that scare them. even reagan who i ever not saw that in him, but george w. bush had that swagger. the same with delay and it just doesn't translate well in new england. >> host: let's get to the book. i have a million questions. let me process that with this, when you were a young one coming up, a young man living in florida, at some point you became political and added decision to be a conservative
and a decision to be a republican or started yourself thinking of yourself as a conservative. briefly, how did that happen? what went into the making of a conservative in your case? >> guest: i think in my case it was a time that i got interested in politics. jimmy carter was president. >> host: you were a young man in. >> guest: i was 1718. my senior year. we have a iranian hostage crisis, inflation was a 21%, america was inapt and i talk about in the book where ron dellums, the liberal liberal from berkeley, california actually came up to me and said, but i don't understand, why is it all you cats with energy, you are all conservatives. back in my day you would have been on my side. i thought about and and i said, you know, when you think of the
republican party you think of vietnam, you think of watergate, uc conservatives as opponents to civil-rights, i understand that. and i grew up in your time perhaps i would have been a liberal teaching in berkeley and when i think of democrats i think of jimmy carter, the iranian hostage crisis, malaise, why the hell would i want to be a democrat? of course, reagan came in and there are a lot of us -- i mean, i've played in bands with guys with. down to their belts who smokes pot as much as i drank milk and in these guys like to bring in. it was because at that time we will end one day from jimmy carter became president and the american not being able to do anything with the iranian hostage crisis to the next day ronald reagan being sworn in in the eye radiance saying take them, we don't want them anymore. and reagan came in and it was so confident, that is one part of
it. also i grew up in the shadow of the ill effects of the 1960's. my sister who it is fine, but my sister had a lot of friends, she listens to jefferson airplane and my parents would go downstairs and five different things in her room every night. i would hear the screaming and yelling which all is very natural, but things as he knew very radical in 1971 and 72 and 73. and we were very conservative baptist family. but i saw not in my sister because my sister was doing wonderfully and has done wonderfully, but in all of her friends. some of them getting knocked out by drugs, some of them getting knocked up, getting pregnant, just to the chaos. and i was six years under then my sister. i saw everything through my
parents size. i saw them looking out the window even in atlanta, georgia looking at kids who have been voiced as three years earlier suddenly with here down to their backs and ripped up close and them being horrified and i saw it through them. in -- my 21 year old son drinks beer and will go out and have dinner and everything, and order a beer and i will still be ordering ice-t and i say why did you ever drink beer and i said i don't know. i just associated -- it has nothing to do by the way with me thinking that you're is evil, i am very as you probably know him very open-minded. im more conservative politically than i am personally. and i just think that there was such a reaction against the radicalism that again i talk
about the wonder years, the wonder years changed rick quickly. it was the reaction to that. >> host: use of the downside of the '60s and did not love it. a lot of people who were young and graceful in those days saw other alderson brothers and sisters go a little while for a while and did not have this great impression of the '60s as the older ones didn't. >> guest: and all of my friends my age didn't grow up looking at our older brothers and sisters and cousins going, cool, instead of what losers. then we go out and play with cobol. it was just a lot of that so i think personally that was a reaction to the '60s that i think a lot of parents have also unlike ronald reagan in 1918. >> host: let's do the book, "the last best hope", what is the last best hope in the title? is in america from a conservatism, the republican party, is a the american people? what is the last best hope, the
title of your book? >> guest: conservatism not define the way we divided over the past 25 years but conservatism the way it has been defined over the past two centuries by russell kirk, by bill buckley. is a great line were echoed the buckley in 2005 asked about george w. bush and he says, george w. bush is no conservative. he said conservatives whether we like it or not we conservatives are chained to reality with to that is what two help me out on the edmund burke. if you want to foil that message down it is matt we are part of our time, we are chained to reality. we can give inaugural addresses -- you respect reality. you don't as buckley said of bush, you don't go into iraq and
say you are going to bring democracy to these people and are going to throw flowers at us and everything's going to be okay. you don't give inaugural addresses where we're going in tyrrany on the globe, the president's words, that is utopianism that is wilsonian. in so the last best hope. >> host: oddly where the aggressive. >> guest: as you said messages inebriation also. but here is the deal, it is one of the reasons republicans are having such a hard time i now is that they are being told and some republicans are thinking have lost power because we haven't been conservative enough. no, that is not the case. it is also not the case that they lost power because never too radical. they weren't conservative, they
were radical. when you take $150 billion surplus which is what we had when we left congress in 2001 and turned into one by $5 trillion deficit that is not conservative, that is radical. the when you have inaugural addresses where you decided it to the united states army responsibility to end tyrrany across the globe, you have gone so are beyond the weinberger doctrine and the powell doctrine that says we, shore only when absolutely necessary to protect u.s. interests and when we do we throw everything that we have at it, we kill the enemy, we achieved our objective and we bring our men and women serving in uniform home. that was radical. the $7 trillion spin on medicare over the past eight years radical. it is a program that is going bankrupt and the republicans had
a $7 trillion burning to that debt. in so this is how we've got to show restraint and understand the realities that are in front of us in conservatism is the answer. i believe and i talked about in this book we are coming entrusting i am right on this. we are coming upon a great conservative era of in american politics. how of the? because we have no choice. we are out of money, we're going to have to make tough decisions in regard because of what george w. bush did but especially because what barack obama is doing. the spending is remarkable. he has admitted we are out of money, he has admitted his own budget creates deficits that are unsustainable but even as he admits that he is talking about spending more money. it is insanity. george w. bush may have been a radical with tax dollar is above
barack obama is actually making him seem like a flea the new england miser. in. >> host: you have been quoted as saying george w. bush that the french and the conservative coalition, damage to the republican party, heard to america's image of the world. i think a book party you call that the big trifecta of. the republican party, however, it is my impression is not in love and with hearing such criticism of george w. bush. what is that about? what is the position of bush now with regard to the comeback of the republican party. and what do you do -- how does the republican party get away from bush? >> guest: i don't know. again i wrote a book five years ago predicting that george w. bush spending was going to wreck the american majority and was
going to cripple the u.s. economy. republicans loth me for writing that book in 2004. >> host: you think they get mad if you? >> guest: yes, i kept writing about it in 2006 and expanded. >> , the washington post asked me to write an op-ed in a suggestion for a republican congressman had to stay in power into the us and six so you're going to have to tell the truth about your president emmet is going to cause a mill town economically and that he has done everything wrong and iraq. that we need to send more troops there, we need to narrow the mission. he get so angry with me that the white house and i read about this in the book fourth when the governor asked me to go speak at an event the white house said if the levees between at that event it would pull support for the governor and the state was a big enough for george w. bush and joe scarborough. i think george bush have more concerns that you're then me and
sure enough republicans lost, lost control and at that point george w. bush had his road to damascus moment or he did what i was suggesting and send more troops. and then he started criticize same big government spending. but it was too late. i think we have to tell the truth. and i personally like george w. bush and i always have. but he read to the conservative movement. if anybody can dispute that i love to hear their arguments. >> host: we are going to talk more about a comeback of the republican party and what mr. obama is up to but we are going to break for just a moment, we will be back. and part two of our interview, are we a center-right country? >> guest: we are and we have always been a center-right country.
always americans -- and there is this great line and i never forgot it in david stockman spoke about the triumph of politics when he was complaining about how the reagan revolution when off-track. i have never forgotten in end stockman was 100 percent right. when he said at the end of the book americans don't like revolutions, americans still want revolutions. they want evolutions which was actually paul mccartney's theory of the beatles. he said never give them a revolution, and give them an evolution. you don't go from meet the beatles to sergeant pepper. it is very murky and and very bright. i quoted gary wills was writing for the national review in 1968 and he said the morning after nixon won the liberal establishment it woke up this
morning. not being needed by middle america. the and not being needed by a midamerica this is very values they had ridiculed in the previous years. the democratic party of. the democratic party had moved far less. they have certainly been leftist in many respects. >> host: but to a dramatic and over the top. >> guest: i remember you talking once about the violent devos of the peace movement. everything was just so intense. >> host: i remember when i was a kid in college and lbj how many kids did you kill today was not really a peace filled question. >> guest: henry kissinger, henry lawes, people die -- there was an anchor in an instant and
scared middle america. i am not talking politically. >> host: is scared some people who were 12 looking at the 20 year-old. >> guest: just like with me later. and you could say the same thing about barack obama in 2008 and i talk about how in the world today guy who was arguably the most liberal member of the united states sent become seen as the same choice in 2008? because barack obama temperamentally seemed like a safe choice, seemed like is a free choice and a john mccain who some people asked is he too old, is this guy who says on the day that lehman brothers collapses in the market is going on a free fall that the fundamentals of the economy are sound? whether they were or not. >> host: seemed to mark a serious and the cayman? >> guest: i think also only because john mccain was forest,
i think he will use by his republican base to take positions he really did not believe. jill, baby, drill -- not john mccain and. really the first green republican and in the past 25 years in the seventh to step forum and to make some great steps for it on the green issue. now but barack obama seemed like this and when i say that there are a lot of my conservative friends said how can you say that. i am not looking to an ideological lens. this is about temperaments, this is per canada. it is about russell kirk talking about how conservatives concerned, how conservatives established social order and how americans don't want to starting to far one way or another. >> host: this is a guy to work in tv and cares about how things
look and sima and the impression given. sometimes i think the world and america understood george w. bush to be your right wing super conservative as opposed to how you characterize them and the world saw him as writing in super conservative because he seemed like someone white male from texas as you were saying who was a little bit to become a little bit like this. >> guest: bring in done. >> host: so he seems in his entire picture different from his policy is. obama may benefit in the same way and that he seems not radical, non sharp as into jagged and ended, not dramatic and very cool in his presentation and very, and yet he is taken over the u.s. auto
industry and big things are happening. he doesn't seem like someone dramatic. >> guest: who does that remind you of? ronald reagan who used to drive the left crazy because. ronald reagan is a right wing mats and the reagan was said there and smile and say there they go again appear in a barack obama. >> host: maybe this is -- was doing the same things. >> guest: he seems timberlake meant -- temperamentally coal. >> host: will we look back and think of his time as far left? >> guest: listen, this guy has moved aggressively to take up the auto industry. he fired the cdl of gm.
he has passed a budget that iraq's up more data over the next eight years than all 43 of his predecessors combined. he has passed budgets that the director of the ceo has the lead democrat appointed, the director of the congressional budget office said that his budgets are unsustainable. in other words, they will wreck the economy, that the top democrat in the senate budget committee said in these deficits will destroy america. what does the president to? he passes these budgets, people like me say these are unsustainable and cripple the economy. everybody on the left calls me a right wing in not in any york times calls mean the leader of the republican attacks gone into this later president