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.