wallace as a state senator, "birmingham news" embarked on a series of articles, editorials and op-eds on why i should disof why myself from the case. mr. siegelman and i were old political cronies from my days in the senate, said the news. my daughter's law firm was hired by then governor siegelman to represent him in the case that was filed at least eight years before he became governor, a job discrimination case against the state. i was prejudiced against the government because my sister had been prosecuted in the central district of california on some fraud charges. ten years earlier. i found the characterization of the government of my relationship with mr. siegelman rather interesting because when i was in the then all democratic alabama state senate, mr. siegelman was in one section of the democratic party, i was in another. in fact, his faction was the one that supported another lawyer for the judgeship that i ultimately got. within my first three months on the bench, i had enjoined him from failing to include the whig party candidate on the statewide ballot. in the mid '90s, h

wallace, there have been david duke even in his little burst in louisiana was a demagogue. and there have also been in history when i talk about this beneficial, paradoxically you can have a demagogue if the definition is a test to establish rules but if they are unjust. there is a chapter of british history where demagogue was used as a term of praise. you have some demagogues offer something to the people and they can do good. of most of the time the term accurately is a negative or harsh for somebody who really does threaten the system that we hold dear. >> so what is the example of a good demagogue and why? >> the head of solidarity in poland when they were overturning the regime, the soviet regime it was a beneficial demagogue, boris yeltsin at the beginning was beneficial. then you had there are the paradox, huey long was a very dangerous figure in american politics but also did paved highways and build hospitals and build schools and give textbooks so is rooted on his own ambition and his boundless willingness to manipulate that for his own benefit but also been doin

wallace, david duke even with his little burst and louisiana was a demagogue. and there also have been in history when i talk about is the paradoxical eight you can have a demagogue if the definition is they cast aside the rules of they are unjust. there is a chapter of british history were demagogue was used as a term of praise. so you have some demagogues offer something to people and they can do good in a paradox way but most of the time the term accurately is a negative or a harsh of some way that does threaten. >> host: what is an example of a good demagogue and why? >> guest: the woman in charge of solidarity apple went that was a beneficial boris yeltsin in russia was beneficial, then there is a paradox huey long was a very dangerous figure in american politics but he also paved highways and build public hospitals and build schools and gave textbooks of his relationship was routed on his own ambition and his boundless willingness to manipulate them for his own benefit but also rooted in doing good things for thousands of people. >> host: the fight to sav

joseph mccarthy, george wallace, david duke has a burst, in louisiana, was a demagogue. and in history, when i talk about -- is beneficial, paradoxically you can have a demagogue, they test establish rules. if the rules are on just a, there's a chapter of british history where a demagogue was used as a term of praise. some demagogues' offer something. they can do good. most of the time, the term accurately is negative for harsh. >> since you brought it up, what is an example of a good demagogue and why? >> the head of solidarity in poland when they were overturning the regime, the soviet regime, that was the beneficial demagogue, boris yeltsin in russia, a beneficial demagogue. there are a paradoxes, qe long was a dangerous figure in american politics but he paved highways, built public hospitals, public schools. his relationship to the people was routed on his boundless willingness to manipulate them for his own benefit but also in doing good things for thousands of people. >> the fight to save democracy from its worst enemies, the subtitle of your book, who is fighting

i don't mean george wallace or even you a long. some really bad guy. what if he comes along and the first thing he does and i quote -- abundant that used to work for jimmy carter and george mcgovern -- pat was quoted in the book as saying what happens when that demagogue comes along? and looks out at the crowd and says, his first campaign speech, using those people over there comes a those cameras, they are the media, they are out to stop me -- you know why? because they are out to stop du. everybody is going to believe him and then at the demagogue will get away with murder. that is why liberals should care, not just the opening of a movie. that could happen in this country and liberals need to care as much as anybody else cares. we're all in this together, we all need a strong where mainstream media but they are going down the train in their bringing it on themselves. >> thank you, mr. goldberg, why don't we have our own media? we have our own universities, instructor, they seem to have the medial in the tank. >> the tilda right. >> but that is waver

wallace or voted a very strongly for wallace. he carried many of those, he outran john kerry as a matter a percentage and when you compare his boat to barack obama not only did obama do as it has been no significant worse on percentage basis, he got fewer votes despite a massive increase in turn out so you can see in rural tennessee white democrats because there are no blacks in these places, voting for a black democrat in 2006 and against another different black democrat in 2008. even the girl south has changed so the question is back to the professor, how you view that? do you view that with as long as there is one iota of racism protection is still required? do you view that the way michael to use that as a sign of the voting rights act succeeding completely and therefore all protection as a legal mandate ought to be set aside or do you view that as a team messy ambivalent model from a pitcher of in coherence to which some fear he needs to be provided by a flexible and dynamic clockworks [laughter] >> that is a question for am