LET ME ASK ABOUT REAGAN FOR A SECOND.
DEMOCRATS, YOU KNOW, AND REPUBLICANS HAVE HAD REASONS
WHY THEY LIKE RONALD REAGAN.
BUT DOES TODAY A MODERN REPUBLICAN PARTY REFLECT
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT REAGAN DID.
REAGAN RAISED TAXES, OKAY.
REAGAN ACTUALLY HAD A AMNESTY PROGRAMMING FOR
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS WOULD ALLOW REAGAN TO BE
NOMINATED TODAY.
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) SO TO WHAT LEVEL CAN YOU
WHEN YOU SAY YOU EMULATE WRONG ALD REAGAN, THAT WAS A
PERIOD OF TIME WHEN HE WAS WILLING TO WORK WITH TIP
O'NEILL TO GET THINGS DONE.
ISN'T THAT WHAT PEOPLE WANT MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, IS
NOT JUST PRINCIPLESES BACK?
>> WELL, I TELL YOU, NUMBER ONE AS I TRAVEL THE COUNTRY,
I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYONE SAYING THE THING WE WANT OF
REPUBLICANS IS TO GIVE IN MORE TO BARACK OBAMA AND THE
DIRECTION WE'RE GOING.
I DON'T HEAR THAT ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
>> Stephen: BUT ARE THOSE ASPECTS OF REAGAN SOMETHING
YOU COULD AGREE WITH?
>> RAISING TAXES AND AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
COULD YOU AGREE WITH REAGAN ON THOSE TWO THINGS?
>> NO, OF COURSE NOT.
>> Stephen: ALL RIGHT.
>> BUT RONALD REAGAN ALSO SIGNED THE LARGEST TAX CUT
IN HISTORY.
HE REDUCED GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS FROM WASHINGTON.
>> Stephen: HE DID.
>> AND ECONOMIC GROWTH EXPLODED.
YOU KNOW, WHEN REAGAN CAME IN, FROM 1978 TO 1982
ECONOMIC GROWTH AVERAGED LESS THAN 1 PERCENT A YEAR.
THERE IS ONLY ONE OTHER FOUR-YEAR PERIOD WHERE THAT
IS TRUE.
THAT IS TRUE FROM 2008 TO 2012 AND WHAT REAGAN DID, HE
CUT TAXES.
HE CUT REGULATIONS, HE UNCHAINED SMALL BUSINESSES,
AND ECONOMIC GROWTH BOOMED.
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WERE LIFTED OUT OF POVERTY AND
PROSPERITY IN THE MIDDLE CLASS.
>> Stephen: BUT WHEN CONDITIONS CHANGED IN THE
COUNTRY, HE REVERSED HIS WORLD'S LARGEST TAX CUT AND
RAISED TAXES WHEN REVENUES DID NOT MATCH THE
EXPECTATIONS.
SO IT IS A MATTER OF COMPROMISING.
(APPLAUSE) >> Stephen: WILL YOU BE
WILLING TO COMPROMISE WITH THE OTHER SIDE?
BECAUSE I WILL SAY THAT IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT
YOUR PLAN MIGHT BE THE RIGHT ONE IF IT TURNS OUT NOT TO
BE THE RIGHT ONE, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO COMPROMISE
WITH THE OTHER SIDE, CHANGE YOUR MIND AND DO SOMETHING
THAT THE OTHER SIDE WANTS.
AND NOT FEEL LIKE YOU CAPITULATED WITH THE DEVIL.
>> SO MY ATTITUDE,.
>> Stephen: IS IT POSSIBLE.
BECAUSE YOU'RE A RELIGIOUS MAN.
YOU'RE A RELIGIOUS MAN.
AND I DABBLE.
WOULD YOU BELIEVE THAT IT'S IMPORTANT NOT TO CALL THE
OTHER SIDE THE DEVIL?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THERE'S NOTHING DIABOLICAL ABOUT YOU.
>> Stephen: WHAT ABOUT EURO UPON EPTS POLITICALLY, ARE
THEY DIABOLICAL.
>> OF COURSE NOT.
AND MY RESPONSE IN POLITICS IS WHEN OTHERS THROW ROCKS
AT INSULT, I DON'T RESPOND IN KIND.
AND IN FACT -- >> THAT'S TRUE.
YOU HAVEN'T.
>> THAT'S TRUE OF BOTH REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS AM
WHEN OTHERS ATTACK ME, I MAKE A POINT ON KEEPING THE
FOCUS ON SUBSTANCE.
KEEPING THE FOCUS ON HOW DO WE TURN THIS COUNTRY AROUND.
PEOPLE ARE FED UP.
WHAT THEY WANT IS JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH.
AND YOU KNOW, YOU MENTIONED BEFORE, YOU KNOW, YOU SAY
CRUZ YOU ARE A VERY CONSERVATIVE GUY.
LISTEN, WHAT I AM FIGHTING FOR ARE SIMPLE PRINCIPLESES,
LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS, STOP BANKRUPTING OUR KIDS AND
GRANDKIDS.
FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION.
>> Stephen: AND NO GAY MARRIAGE, AND NO GAY
MARRIAGE.
>> NO, ACTUALLY, LET'S BE PRECISE.
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, MARRIAGE IS A QUESTION FOR
THE STATES.
IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE MARRIAGE LAW.
>> Stephen: IT DOESN'T MENTION MARRIAGE IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
>> WE HAVE HAD A COUNTRY FOR OVER 200 YEARS.
(APPLAUSE) >> Stephen: YOU MAY BE RIGHT,
YOU MAY BE RIGHT BUT IT DOESN'T MENTION MARRIAGE IN
THE CONSTITUTION.
>> THAT'S EXACTLY WHY IT IS A QUESTION FOR THE STATE,.
BECAUSE THE 10th AMENDMENT SAYS IF IT DOESN'T MENTION
IT, IT'S A QUESTION FOR THE STATES.
THAT'S IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
EVERYTHING THAT IS NOT MENTIONED IS LEFT TO THE
STATES SO IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE MARRIAGE LAWS --
>> I'M ASKING WHAT YOU WANT.
>> I BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY.
I BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD-- NO,
NO, GUYS, GUYS, HOWEVER YOU FEEL, HE'S MY GUEST, SO
PLEASE DON'T BOO HIM.
>> I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD ENTRUST GOVERNING OUR
SOCIETY TO FIVE UNELECTED LAWYERS IN WASHINGTON.
WHY WOULD YOU POSSIBLY HANOVER THE RIGHTS OF 320
MILLION AMERICANS TO FIVE LAWYERS IN WASHINGTON TO SAY
WE'RE GOING TO DECIDE THE RULES THAT GOVERN YOU.
IF YOU WANT TO WIN AN ISSUE, GO TO THE BALLOT BOX AND WIN
AT THE BALLOT BOX.
THAT'S THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION WAS DESIGNED.