Support. Without your support we wouldnt be where you are. The fiscal story weve been open for two weeks so wear a mask and stop by if youre in the area. Tonight, were excited to have with us Julian Zelizer celebrating the release of his book burning down the house. A professor of history and Public Affairs of Princeton University and cnn political analyst. Here is his most recent book. A haltline coshopped by the plymouth, president john and the battle for the best look. He had about with the guing guggenheim mountains and of america. Hell be joined by kevin cruz. Suburban history in the 20th Century America so just on conflicts of rights, race and religion, he is particularly interested in segregation and the Civil Rights Movement as well as the rights in the region, excuse me, provides the religious national and the making of modern. His book crease making one nation under god and Christian America and recently published. The president was honored as one of americas top young innovators, by the smithion magazines and one of the top historicio historians. And John Guggenheim fellowship, tongue twisters today. Juli julian. Well have a chat here and pretend that hundreds of people arent lurking in the background. It good to see you. You know, as we just heard we worked together on a book called faultlines, and thats to the present. And Newt Gingrich was a part of that. I think that a lot of people, americans, the audience we used worldwide. Probably only Newt Gingrich. He had two decades of political activism and a career in congress before that. Tell me about young Newt Gingrich. Or youngest Newt Gingrich. When he started in congress, what he was look and where he was coming from . Yes, first, welcome to everyone and thanks for joining us. Its nice to see people from all over, but gingrich was quite a character. He had been an army brad. You know, kind of grew up living in different parts of europe. His family was originally from outside of harrisburg, pennsylvania. Working class area that was republican and he ended up in georgia. He went to emery. He married his High School Math teacher and he then went to tulane where he got a ph. D. In history and study colonialism, colonial policy and then he moved to his first job because as we did. West georgia college. He never really liked academia. Within a year he wants to be the president of the college and the head of the department and he runs for congress and hes one of the first republicans in the area youve studied, in a democratic area and hes part of that cowho are the of residentials who want to make the south red instead of blue. Though these are modern color schemes. Its his third try and there was a Vicious Campaign to what he would do. His opponent virginia stafford. At one point she indicated shes going to move to d. C. Ab her family will live in the district and they can have his life and he could have the business. And he puts together above moral values and that was a low blow. Hes in congress and we can talk about it, but by the early 1980s, hes basically saying republicans need to do whatever is necessary to regain power after being the Minority Party since 1954 and he starts to do outlandish things as part of partis partisanship. And hes the ripping leader of, the society. Gel us about it. So he organizations. Hes not really an organization. He doesnt wan to be on committee he just wants to get his message out. Hes strategic enough to believe its a caw cushion of likeminded people who are willing to do something that he did and someone, another republican pretty eager to take on the democrats and stop listening to always calls for bipartisan. He has a small cohort and starts over time, started with 12 and they would grow. And when gingrich, how about that interview . Theyre part of that team. In some way theyre foot shoulders ford reagan revolution, the most aggressive bunch and theyre trying to shake up their own party saying we have to do things in ways that are outside of the washington box if were going to win. Two things are standing in our way, the democrats and republicans . Thats right, and the tension was, in march of this period that i write about, the house normal leader, a guy named michael, hes been there for a while. Doesnt like the sape the phones. He believes in bipartisanship and he hated him almost as almost as tip oneil and jim rice. And gingrich gets around the leadership kind of blocking him, which is getting all about. And tell us about the media. Learn how he tried to get that new college out . Why this is before the conservative world that we know exists. There is conservative talk radio and its extended during my story. Fox news doesnt exist yet. Theres no internet, websites like breitbart. So he uses the Mainstream Media as its called today. Now for newspapers, Cable Television as its school. And one of the stories they tell in the book which i used to talk about, we had the class and i would tell the story and i realized its probably a good book here. It was in 1984 and he and his group, a conservative opportunity society, they realized at the end of the day, anyone who had to go to the front of the house, the chamber and make a peach, ear called one minute. And so they began going to the floor and they made these features and they were blistering. They started to say democrats are weak on defense. Democrats dont support reagans war with communism. And with a new cspan, they named a democrat, eddie bolen, how do you respond to this . Whats your answer . And the chime ber was silent. If you were watching on c spahn. It looks like 0 no one knows, and the rules are put the cameras on the speaker. And tip oneill gets so mad, speaker of the house, he bursts in and he ordered panning the chamber, no one is there. And gingrich turns it against him. Look be tip oneill, hes the party thats corrupt and establishment. And oneill gets angry remember, and he has a speech and lowest in his career what gingrich was doing to the democrats and the republicans had his comments struck from the record saying the spe speak speaking unappropriatery. And all the networks were covering it, abc, nbc, cbs, and thats ultimately what gingrich wanted and he couldnt be more pleased. He used the stories to the media and around his own partys warning and sneer what the democrats are about. You mentioned reagans sparring partner in the 80s. Theres this, i guess, somewhat of a myth of the kind of clubby relationship they had. They were two old irish politicians who got along after hours. Gingrich blows all that up, right . So how does gingrich and the people around him really impact that relationship that reagan and oneill had in both fact and fiction . Yeah, i mean, theres a lot of fiction to that. He didnt like what reagan was doing to the country and thought he was much too far to the right in terms of Economic Policy and social policy, but it was true to i think that leaders in both parties, the bob michaels, tip oneill. They balanced the power with government. And they were making that tradeoff and helped them understand when are you going too far . They didnt want to go so far they would destroy the institutions and procedures and the relationships that were simply necessary to govern. Gingrich said slow it out of the window. Hed write not without bipartisan, and he said and to teach republicans to be more aggressive, to be more confrontational, to stop negotiating with the republicans. And this starts as a hes seen as a mccarthyite, really, thats how people talk about him. But what happens in the 80s, its interesting. Gradually more and more republicans are listening to him. The more he has the task particulars, the more. And whats costly there. Do i want it so much and enter into alliances and people who are dangerous to the institution. There are parallels between gingrichs rise and atwater, in 88. Whats their relationship like . Its an important relationship and they directly come into contact so the heart of the book that i hope everyone buys and enjoys from the strand. But the harder the book resolves around din grinch, after this incident and conflict with the democrats, in 1987 tip oneill retired and theres a new speaker, tim rice, majority leader from texas. He was an old school democrat. He was a liberal and he believed he was defending chance. And it was a good target for gingrich who wanted to focus on the theme that democrats were a crept establishment. And there are stories with question, with people in the district. And in both of the groups that he spoke to, and there were these a bit odd stories or didnt sit quite right. So gingrich uses these and he whips washington up into a frenzy, saying that jim wright is the most corrupt speaker ever in american history. It was really a pretty small story about misbehavior or questionable behavior. So thats the heart of the story. Then in 1988, this is another time that the Party Establishment sees the value of gingrich. Who is running for president. George h. W. Bush and the vicepresident. And is opponent, mike dukakis says hes too easy, the reagan administration. Iran can tra sn that controversy, and lee atwater was putting together a campaign displaying racial backlash, a character assassination kind of campaign. In may when bush is struggling in the poles, he picks up on this story and convinces bush to talk about jim wright all the time and take this story that had been on the fringes and mainstream it into the campaign. Atwater saw politics like gingri gingrich. It was about story telling. Gingrich was a historian that understood what it was about. And lee did thewater was a fan of wrestling and politics should be run accordingly. I want to go back, for people who dont follow the story, the thought in the late 80s, there was a House Speaker who was a liberal texan, democrat its going to seem like a he was older born in 1922. And gingrich born in 1943, so hes older. Hes very much a democrat who sub describes to what the new deal represented, pretty much on board with the gray society. He did have moments on the civil rights. And he believes its going to cost him his seat. Later apologetic about this and thought it was one of the great mistakes of his career. But by the 70s and 80s, hes pretty liberal. A little hawkish on foreign policy, but he accepts most of what lynn done fdr through Lyndon Johnson had put together. So, yes, its hard to imagine a Texas Democrat like that but thats who he was. And he very much saw Ronald Reagan as a danger, and this is a Counter Point some of the mythology of 1980s. He really thought that reagan was pretty right wong and taking steps dangerous to the tab brick of the country and overseas. And the support of the nicaragua and an opportunity to negotiate peace. He pursues on his own that reagan didnt care about. He wasnt someone well liked personally. Even democrats didnt like him. He was cold, he was removed and that hurt him and he was old school. Pr pre how some of the things would look in the ideas of the media and washington. He wasnt corrupt, but he operated in that area of gray that many politicians did which could be used against him once. And the irony of Newt Gingrich lobbing charges. And since his own life was, shall we say, riddled with some of its own problems. Talk about that. How did gingrichs own character issues surface here . He had lots of character issues, not only did they have them, they were public. They were written in the media. There are two dreams of problems. One, he has the relationship, a difficult divorce with his High School Math teacher and there was a story about it in mother jones 1984 trying to capture what gingrich was like personally. One of the stories that caught peoples eye, while his wife was in the hospital for cancer surgery, he came to discuss divorce with her. And in the article, actually kind of whipped out the papers which wasnt exactly true although he did have these discussions in the hospital and he was also known to be someone with a roving eye and who had an affair and this was known in washington and matter given that he was part of this Huge Movement with the northerly majority at its business. At the time hes going after speaker wright telling his books to make money. He himself is being charged from Interest Groups on what he wrote. And at the climatic moments of this where he is bringing him down. He doesnt care, a remarkable part of his psychology. When he told them, its the same, its different. We can see with the democrats its much more damaging. Winning that one of the gifts that gingrich got was not interesting a republican president in office and running basically against a democratic president in bill clinton. How does gingrich make hay out of the early years of the Clinton Presidency . Thats a good its a good connection with the two decades. In some ways jim wright comes first and bill clinton second. One of the most remarkable parts of the book, just to move back wards eastern, how consistent and strategic he was and how he would attack the democrats. And its not liberals versus conservatives a lot of this is anger, in the electorate, he turns the watergate story against that and he comes back to this because he thinks it will resonate. His populist message. And wright becomes of the embodiment in his mind of everything hes been saying since 1974. He draws a picture, creates a character and then brings him do down. And i think that after bill clinton was elected he very much attempts to do the same with bill clinton. He made bill clinton the embodiment, not so much of a corrupt democratic establishment, hed moved on to a more morally corrupt and whatever he wanted to focus on, i think he nighed to do the same. Im sure his experience with wright emboldened him, that is to say we can move forward with impeachment and it may very well work. The big moment for gingrich of course was 1994, right . So talk about how that Campaign Takes shape. Was it a national election, and what kind of role did it may and how did gingrich spin that . No, it is an important election and one of the things that gingrich does, he national nieses the mid term complains effectively and he uses the things he learned in the 80s, why and the most famous element of the campaign for everyone who studied it as a contract in america, its something of a media gimmick. It was a set of promises that republicans were making and if they won they would enact them. That was their first 100 days. And it was a tearout guide. There was a rally on the steps of the capital with republicans either to talk about the america. And you see him put together conservative politics with a medial centered politics that plays great waves on the republicans stories were going to tell about their opponent and the language theyre going to usement and when republicans take over in 94. Its a big deal in washington. Its the First Time Since 1954 when eisenhower is in office, that democrats controlled both chambers of republicans controlled both chambers of congress and its almost the second step of the reagan revolution in their minds. For conservatives its a big moment and back when gingrich could bring all the tools and strategies, and the rhetorical weapons he had been working on since the 80s, intoed into the very top, speaker of the house. You mentioned the 1994 campaign and thats one of the important things that weve talked about. Talk about the frank lutzs memo. How cost that affect that and how the Republican Party went forward . Its a fascinating memo. You can still google it if you want to look at it yourself. Before that, that memo comes out in 1990. Gingrichs language through the 80s had been pretty remark and and he called the democrats basically accused them of un patriotic actions. And he basically made me a criminal. And shape them in a way, and by using language like that the media could nt resist. And he said that the media liked indiana jones, the adventure and the thrill. So this memo comes out in 1990. Gingrich controlled something called go pac which he took over in 1984. It was a defunct Political Action committee essentially and he rebuilt it and use it had to distribute audio cassettes to republicans, teaching them what to do in memos. And this memo in 1990 was written and said to republican candidates, if you want to speak like newt these are the words you need to use talking about democrats. Sick, traitor, slime, radical. Really, words even today, you kind of step back, but it was very important and i think through gingrich and his use of those words, not as a bomb throw thrower politically. Just looking at certain twitter feed he won out and his style resonates. So gingrich legitimizes that language and legitimizes to an extent, george w. Bush had as well. And people like russ limbaugh. And what about gingrichs with the media and in the 90s when limbaugh is at his peak and fox news is formed in 96, and what is with this media. Very close. And when conservative talk radio is flourishing in 87, 88, 89 after the fairness doctrine is dismantled and gingrich relies on what hosts are saying about the people like jim wright. Theyre tough on him and they amplify the mental. Theres an effort to raise congressional salaries in 1989. So jim wright is in the middle of it and conservative talk radio has a revolt. They call it a Tea Party Revolt by the way, all over the country, theyre lashing out and helps gingrich in this cause. And gingrich is in those years,very died tied into talk radio. There was the origins of crossfire on cnn. Then as the speaker, hes very close to people like rush, literally, they coordinate messages for the day and he depends on conservative talk radio and fox on the tell end, during his battle against bill clinton, but whats interesting, he comes first and i say we often think as conservative media, as the origins of this very smashmouth form of rhetoric, but in fact, i think that roger ailes and some of the founders were already looking at what republicans had done before they came on the scene and mimicked some of them. They mimicked that memo how they broadcast the news. Its a shakespearean story, yes at some level in that year he is as a speaker and bringing together all these tactics and now we have a cohort of republicans that is much greater than congressional opportunity, the conservative opportunity society, the majority behind and i think he has a president and what that impeachment is about stems from the affair that the president had with Monica Lewinsky and speaking about, it will bring him down rather than bill clinton, at one level a lot of the politics and the battles exposed that gingrich had a really fierce temper and was not particularly likable person but more importantly 1998 and the midterms, in the middle of the impeachment, republicans did poorly in the Midterm Election and a lot of republicans are unhappy because of this and just as important, he is yet and another romance, another affair as the republicans are going after bill clinton for the same sort of issue, so the republicans get rid of him, on the one hand its the downfall in the other hand its kind of fitting because he was the one to show that leaders were not going to have the power very long and leaders can be brought down, it was almost predictable that at some point you would have the same fate. So he stands in a range of speakers, we talk about oneill, right, gingrich, the ones that have come after him, what do you rank the postworld war ii speakers. I dont think a speaker in that particular position, not one of the most influential speakers, i think certainly if you compare him with democrats like sam who is a speaker for much of the late new deal through the early 1960s, he is much more consequential in terms of legislation and the big debate of the period in nancy pelosi has been more consequential and in some ways john weiner in transforming the caucus with what obama is doing and i dont think that was his high point and becoming speaker in some ways, he already has transform the party before he comes speaker, he has already popularized and legitimated the new form of republican partisanship and speaker is kind of the icing on the cake of what he had already done in the most important part of the speakership, he institutionalizes all these ideas, his main speaker is what would put him at a high place in terms of the ranking because it signals there was any Republican Party in town and gingrich was the voice he was the establishment and it was very consequential the legislative battle that he thought was clinton. One last question and then well open it up to the q a, if you have a question please type it in and ill ask him for you. Enter preempt the early questions i know its when you get and its on everyones mind, whats gingrich connection to the Republican Party and the Trump Administration today, his wife is the ambassador to the vatican, he is certainly been a surrogate for trump on fox news and conservative radio, how much of a connection do you see between that, is this really the result of what he did . I think the latter, i think a broad level, President Trump is in this Republican Party because of the gingrich party, i think a lot of the way trump approaches his politics and a lot of the verbal kind of record that we have seen and his willingness to totally break procedures and normal and pretty aggressively abnormal ways, that all comes from the logic of the party that gingrich help to build, at that level theres a lot of connection between him, even costly when you hear from the establishment thats out against conservatives and something that gingrich really centered his rhetoric on, then his personal connection such as his wife, gingrich was one of the final possible selections of Vice President to start a book without story where hes being considered an indiana meeting with all the trump people in the family members and advisors in indian gingrich goes on Fox Television while hes still being considered and he tells sean hannity in an interview he says i dont know if im going to get picked two tires on a ticket might be too much, he almost says too much we gingrich that is not his own interest to say, then he Kellyanne Conway was one of gingrichs top and he ran for president in 2012, and she tried to show gingrich the same message as trump but gingrichs harder to stay discipline then trump and donald trump amazing. Right, and hes becoming president , he is on Fox Television all the time and trying to articulate why this presidency is important and he has written five books about trump, about understanding trump and white Trump America is great for the nation and why his reelection is so important for our future, he was praising the monument on fox, really a milestone speech in the countrys history, the two are very, very involved, im not surprised but i look back at the connection. Awesome, lets go to the questions, lets go to the chat in the q a. Our first run comes from ireland, he has a question, is it safe to say from gingrichs wedge issues in the fox news that we recognize today orders that get good grades too much credit . It doesnt, thats a very fair argument, roger ailes is a republican consultant in the 1980s before he does fox so is watching very closely very cognitive of the kind of politics that is working for gingrich, hes there throughout everything i write about and i think this is very much on his mind and they were interested in producing information that would help the gop but also producing conservative information that would attract viewers, this is important to him and what he understood as the kind of language he is seen from gingrich and his allies was functional. I dont think thats a stretch at all, it is interesting the sequence and the politicians come first and the media came second, now they were together in the current. Our next question comes from two different people with the same question patty barnes and steve asking to compare and contrast gingrichs policies to mcconnells politics, what is a relationship like, are they on the same page or are they different. The personal relationship i dont know much about but in terms of how mcconnell practices both when he was minority and majority leader and its very gingrich like, meaning the basic premise is gingrich partisanship is partisanship takes precedence over everything, over everything. This was a big step, i know today sounds obvious but the idea of putting aside the concerns of governance and putting aside of whether our institutions will work, thats a big deal to do, i think mcconnell, if you want to understand anything about mcconnell, he thinks about partisan power all the time and people are always surprised at what he does, whether not allowing a Supreme Court nominee to meet with senators as we saw during the Obama Presidency or using government set engine shutdown is a tool for the gop, thats right out of the gingrich playbook, that is the logic of what gingrich was saying, i think mcconnell is a perfect example, not with the rhetoric, he is quiet, he doesnt like to be blasting the words on the floor but in terms of the procedure, this is the kind of stuff gingrich was calling for. On the flipside john asked were there any democratic members by the good strategy to combat gingrich, if so, what was it. That is an important questi question, my book is as much about democrats as gingrich and one of the interesting elements of the book is that a lot of democrats in the 80s did not see where this was going including jim wright, he did not totally understand what he was up to and how far he would go when gingrich was law bullying rhetorical bomb saying hes the most corrupt person ever, he would answer and very technical legal explanations of what he did to violate any laws and he didnt understand reporters were not going to say much about that, and finally the prime moment, he did not have to resign, what happened Many Democrats are scared and basically they start to pressure him privately to step down and they start to tell the media maybe he should go and that was a strategy they thought would work, and it did not work because the whole point is the republicans were not going to stop when this was done and they kept going, there were a few democrats who urge their party to be tougher, there was one democrat Darrell Anthony and alexander, they wrote off beds at the high point of the scandal saying we have to hit back, we have to tell the public what gingrich is about, we dont have to have speaker right resign, he should not resign and we really have to fight fire with fire, the parties are different i dont think they are willing to do that in mass and i think thats part of the challenge that they faced ever since. That leads into another question by chris martin, is it likely the Democratic Party will have a speaker like gingrich or the majority leader like mcconnell in the near future . At some level no, i think the parties are different and people often ask me why do you have republicans and why are they so much fiercer and what theyre willing to do and i think there is an answer that goes to what the parties are about, not a normal answer, democrats believe in government, government is essential to the platform, policy, whole worldview and a partisanship is so fierce, it undermines the ability of government to work, it undermines the ability of politicians to craft policies, that does not work well for democrats, there are always going to be checked by the fear of destroying what is so important to them, republicans have at least presented themselves with an antigovernment party in there much more comfortable with the government that is not growing and even dysfunctional because it fits at an antigovernment and dysfunctional government makes sense and thats what theyre saying it always is. I think republicans and future republicans are much more willing to go there and to take those risks because are not dependent on washington. We see that right now in the middle of this pandemic, i do think i can still be a tougher partisan, being a tough partisan does not mean and destructive partisan and i imagine younger democrats that the aoc and from 2018, they have now come of age watching as the Republican Party, i think theyll be more inclined to use the media more effectively in kickback when the republicans attack, they will never go to the same place, i think the parties are imbalanced that way. That leads into another question from an anonymous attendee, its a good question, about gingrich, the politician, can you speak to the structural factors . There is lots of structural factors, for example, republicans are doing well in the 1980s and starting to game steam on capitol hill because a lot of the corporate world has set up shop in washington during the 1970s and theyre starting to redirect Campaign Funds to the gop, which is much more sympathetic to what they were looking for, to deregulation, supply, tax cut and that money is very important to the Republican Party, the democrats are not pristine and they want the argument in my book because they dont go far enough in the 70s responding to watergate, the Democratic Party structurally filled with problems, they too are taking a lot of money, they do have relationship with lobbyist, you can always pick any member, this person must be corrupt, but also stems from structural problems, since his rise in the years, this other key structural elements such as the perfection of gerrymandering, combined with the Huge National investment, by the gop and state politics and to make sure the states in 2010 woodcraft districts would solidify very red republicans for the foreseeable future. But i did want to tell the story focusing on people and turning points, it was important, i spent a lot of my time, many of us talking about the big factors behind partisanship, how the media changes, we did this in her book, how the parties realign, how voters, all of which are crucial but also about individual leaders who push politics in a certain direction, its about moments when jim wright falls from power that legitimates a new style of politics. Thats why wanted to tell this in a more human way and really hone in on the individuals that mattered at this moment. Speaking a partisanship, could too much partisanship break both parties . Sure, of course, partisanship under straining is a dangerous thing, some partisanship is clearly good to have coherent ideas, i think a lot of people want parties that stand for something rather than just a watereddown idea, as partisanship is a priority and both parties go in the democrats finally saying theyre just arguing, were going all out, they will just destroy the ability of the institution to work, any semblance we have now a policymaking in the middle of the pandemic, that would be gone, all you have is totally politicized for every crisis we think whether big crises, pandemic and criminal Justice Reform or small crises in passing a budget so the government can pay for what they said they were going to pay for and that is destructive, i dont believe theres no cost all partisanship. Assuming partisanship continues, theres a great question hear from vanessa, who do you think the republicans are grooming to be the next green grange or mcconnell . It sounds like tucker kirsten is going to run for president , maybe thats our answer, im not sure there are grooming people from within, they are ted cruz, who still remained even though they have been isolated, big voices in the party, a cleaned up version of what donald trump is trying to do, but with a little more those are some of the figures i like to but as this continues i think theyre also looking outside traditional politics from the people who are the future and i think Tucker Carlson is kind of a joke, but you know our president really came out of the Reality Television and i would not be surprised if some of these outlets are ground where the trying to find new voices towards a party and there are younger members to him scott who im sure some republicans are looking for newer voices who dont simply replicate for everything that has been done. I know giving a lot of answers, tom cotton like ted cruz, they are trumps, they just do it in a more polished way in right now those of the voices that are being groomed although im sure the party will live broadly. We have time for one more and then ill go on with my own question, i know the answer to this. The question from an anonymous attendee, did you interview new green grange herself. My question is are you bracing for Newt Gingrich is response to the book. On the first question i did not come i tried many times and each time i had a meeting it was during the secretary postponed or canceled so after several years i finally gave up, i did have lunch with him many years ago when he was at princeton but before i was writing this book with a group of people but i dont know more important, his lawyer granted me access to his archives and for his story in the heart and soul of what we do, his papers were unbelievable, they are the best congressional papers ever use in their strategy memos, they have handwritten notes from him, they of communication within the party, its a kind of a material i am usually searching for and do not find in it was all there in front of me, i did not get to speak to them about the book but i actually got firsthand all of the documentation from the. And i met with jim wright and his archives are good as well, in terms of breakoff, i am right about people who are alive and i understand they all have different interpretations and im sure, at some level he will not disagree with what i wrote but he did the right thing and im sure he said this at the time, jim wright was corrupt, he will hold to the argument, i am not bracing myself but im curious how and if you respond, right now hes very focused on q20 in his book. I have no doubt youll hear from him in time. I want to think everyone for coming out again, the book is terrific, burning down the house, it is not actually a collection of talking head stories, its about Newt Gingrich, a great title integrate book, we put a link for you to buy from the strand from this event, its in the chat room there, you can get it, alternate back over to andrew, thank you for coming out. Thank you. That was so wonderful and so much information in an hour, i love it. Do you have any final i know youre just beginning to share your book that was published, is unlike anything you would want to send out before we sign off. Thank you to kevin and you andrea and everyone who put it together, obviously everyone who has the team behind it and they have a great team of editors and publishers and obviously thank you to my family which is been instrumental for allowing me and helping me get through. Perfectly said, thank you for this evening its been really wonderful and thank you everyone who is watching on facebook, you have been really participatory, thank you for that and have a great evening. Thank you. Weeknights this month were featuring book tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan2, tonight starting at eight eastern, New York Times journalist reported on a girl scout troop which was started for girls living in a homeless shelter in new york city, to spark the creation of similar trips around the country, then American Interest contributed editor tara offers her thoughts on why some americans are moving away from traditional religion, later journalist Erica Barnett looked at addiction in america and discussed her own struggle with alcoholism, enjoy book tv on cspan2. You are watching book tv on cspan2, every weekend with the latest on Fiction Books and authors. Cspan2, created by americas Television Cable company as a Public Service and brought to you today by your television provider. In this week the public a affairs we bring you former speaker of the house and great friend to the Reagan Foundation Newt Gingrich, in fact this is speaker gingrich is tenth appearance with the Reagan Foundation and we look forward to having you for the next ten, back in the 1980s and 1990s, Newt Gingrich climbed his weight to the public leadership by refusing to accept the republican
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.