and we are in our final half hour. i'm delighted to introduce you to our last author of this two days, elizabeth price-foley, who has written a book on the tea party, "tea party: three principles." you make the point that the tea party is not a party, it is a movement. what's the distinction that's worth knowing about? >> guest: well, yeah. it's not the party in the sense that it has no interest in anointing some sort of central leader. it really is a movement that's defined by what i talk about in the book, three very clear, very old constitutional principles. so you've noticed that the tea party, you know, through the november 2010 elections and continuing to today has been sort of ruthless about throwing its support behind candidates who espouse these principles, and they don't really care much whether those candidates have an r or d after their name, and they certainly don't seem to care that they might be well-entrenched, well-funded incumbent republicans. all they care about is getting their principles embraced by our politicians. >> host: and, in fact, the -- you say the media makes a mistake by thinking that the tea party is nonexistent in this cycle, that because we don't see an organized movement that, in fact, their influence is waning. what are you finding? >> guest: yeah. i think the tea party is still very much sort of alive and well, living in the suburbs, if you will. i've been to several events in recent months, and even though they're not sort of marching in the streets anymore, a lot of people think they're dormant or perhaps even dead because of that. but when i talk to them, their response has been been there, done that. we're trying to mature as a movement, we're trying to spend our time wisely and infiltrate, you know, the existing establishment, the existing system to get them to come our way. so i do think come november a lot of people are going to be surprised. they're going to show up in droves, and a lot of them, frankly, are going to be pulling that lever not so much because they love, for example, mitt romney who appears to be the nominee for the republicans, but because they're opposed to president obama's policies. so you'll see a lot of anti-obama votes just like you saw a lot of anti-bush votes in 2008. >> host: elizabeth foley lives in the miami, and she's a constitutional law professor. this is her third book, and we'd like very much to involve grow in the conversation, and we have about 25 minutes to do so. east/central time zones, mountain and pacific time zes, and if you'd like to send us a question by e-mail or tweet us a question, do that as well. well, so people understand your perspective, tell us more than i just did about yourself. >> guest: yeah. well, you know, i'm a constitutional law professor by trade, i've been teaching it for 15 years, and i have to tell you, sotime around the spring/summer of 2009, i give public speeches to various groups, rotarians, people like that, i had a bunch of people coming up to me afterwards with pocket constitutions. i rarely see them outside of a law school building, and i started seeing them all the time, and these people were asking me sort of intelligent questions about very specific clauses. and it dawned on me about three months into that that these were the tea partiers that i'd been hearing about. and they just defied the stereotype that i'd been reading about in the mainstream media, so i wanted to do a lot more research about who they early were and what made them tick, and it turns out they are a movement of constitutional conservativism and fiscal conservativism. they're not the conservatives of the reagan era. they don't seem to be interested in gay marriage or abortion, and as a constitutional law professor, that intrigued me that ordinary americans were finally interested in our constitution. >> host: you yourself have gone through a political journey in your lifetime. you talked about the fact that you worked on capitol hill and worked for democrats, so tell me about your own migration and thinking over time. >> guest: yeah. it was sort of a slow metamorphosis. it wasn't like i woke up and i'd changed. but i went to law school after having worked on the hill, so when i worked on the hill, i did what my boss told me to do like most good hill staffers do, and i didn't really think much about the constitution. i certainly didn't think about whether or not congress had the constitutional authority to enact the bills that i was writing on behalf of my bosses. and then i went to law school, and i realized for the first time in my life that our federal congress doesn't have the power to pass any kind of law it wants. i thought they did, and i graduated from a top-tier university in this country. and if i don't, if i didn't know that after being highly educated, i bet a lot of other people didn't either. it took law school for me to realize that. and i think once you realize that, that we have a constitution of limited and enumerated powers only, you have to sort of take that more seriously. and from there, you know, still being someone who cared about liberty rather than becoming a pure conservative, i decided i was sort of more of a libertarian. >> host: the tea party, its critics suggest that it is racist, and you've spent time with people. what is your conclusion about them overall? i mean, it's hard to generalize about a movement with thousands of people, but -- >> guest: yeah. it's an umbrella organization. i think that's one of the biggest sort of disservices we've done to the tea party. here's a group that demographically has the same percentage of non-whites as the general population in this country. most people don't realize that. they think they're disproportionately white. it's simply not true. they also when you look at what they care about, what they care abouis limited government. they care about reining in sort of unbridled power and unbridled spending. and so they're not motivated by race. yes, thai opposed -- they're opposed to president obama's policies, they're very frustrated and angry at the bailout, bailout, bailout, and then they're also frustrated -- i think the straw that broke the camel's back, if you will, was health care reform. but their opposition wasn't based upon the fact that the president was black as a lot of people seem to think it was, but because they didn't agree with that policy. so i think the problem is one of the reasons why i wanted to write this book is that we've within avoid -- been avoiding talking about the substance of the tea party. every other tea party avoids that 800-pound gorilla in the room. i wanted to talk to people about those constitutional principles that the tea partiers care so much about. and by, you know, distracting based on race, we avoid that, i think, more difficult conversation. >> host: let's take some calls for you. joshua is watching us in long island and, joshua, you're on. good afternoon. joshua, you there? >> caller: oh, yes, i'm sorry. hello. first of all, thanks -- i just want to thank you for the programming this afternoon. i'm a regular listener of booktv and american history tv, and i quite enjoy it. you know, i want to talk about the tea party. i know you're, you've spoken about, you know, some of the intellectual principles of the tea party, but i think you're speaking a lot about some of the core policymakers. but then there are, i feel there's also this group of followers that kind of without any intellectual rigor kind of hear these buzz words, you know, constitutionalism and small government and just kind of follow along. and i think it's those are the people that are making, that are problematic with today's political, you know, the lack of intellectual rigor in today's political arena. i think they really don't know the issues, they don't know the specifics, and they're quite following along and sarah palin's an example of that, that people blindly follow these buzz-word policies and don't really know the specifics. and i think that's really bringing our political system down to a unfortunate level. >> guest: yeah. i mean, obviously, i would disagree with that. i don't know how many tea party events you've been to, but the general format of the tea party events -- and i've been to lots -- is that they are basically sort of book clubs. they read the federalist papers, they read the anti-federalist papers, they read volumes of letters by the founders and more modern books such as mine, um, and so i think they're trying very hard to educate themselves, and i think that they're probably better versed than most americans on the constitution. and if you look at the polling data, the tea partiers actually are slightly better educated than the average american. so again, i think you're dealing more in stereotypes than actualities. >> host: next is a call from cal in yonkers, new york. you're on, carl. >> caller: okay. ms. foley? >> host: yes, go ahead. >> caller: okay. yes, i had a question for ms. foley, if she believed there was a salient moment in the genesis of the tea party movement, or did she feel that there was an underground that goes farther back than the single event or a single ramification in the twist between left and right, old politics and new politics? it seems as if they've drawn much of their spirit from, as you say, from earlier constitutional precedents, earlier constitutional movements, but i also feel that there must have been an event perhaps in the last 10 or 15 years that really struck the verve to create the movement as you've written or as it expresses itself today. any comment, ms. foley, on that question? .. and he started ranch and raving about how we are bailing out the losers mortgages. and all the traitors behind him arrested and chairs and a couple behind that we had our first tax day tea party at rallies. so i don't think it was one thing, but i think is concerned about loss of the constitution of the erosion of the constitution has been for a long time. frankly since the battle over the bank of the united states in the late 1700s. let's go glenn beck makes frequent experiences in her book. since his big rally on the mall, what has happened quite >> guest: i think i mentioned it briefly twice. but you know, i think he ws one of the organizers behind one of the big rallies, the largest one in the mall in the. and i think he is one of many disorders commentators who are kind of interested in the tea party and can tune you to give them some ai time and a little bit more play in the mainstream. but he certainly not the father of the tea party. if you talk to tea partiers, they don't want a father. they don't want a central leader. they want to be grassroots and dispersed and i want to stay out of formal politics. >> host: next is tina and mesquite, texas. >> caller: hi, how are you doing? first point is growing up in the 60s and integration noa and how to go through some of the oppression and the issues. as i listened to the tea partiers, they remind me of that area and even though it wrapped up in intellectual conversation about the concerns of constitution, it seems to me as a person of color, if i lived in the tea party world, i would not have rights and it would be from terms of my inability to compete, if you will. and i frankly find it disturbing, even more so as i hear people say were not about bigotry, not about hate but yet every dang being displayed a gun says the opposite. and yes, i agree there are very intelligent people come up as a person of color there are huge symbols of color i don't believe them. >> host: thanks, tina. i think that's unfortunate. i wish he would attend a tea party event. you'd be hope welcome with open arms. there's nothing racist. and about the principles they espouse. there is nothing about limited government would keep you from achieving. there is nothing about defending u.s. sovereignty that would keep you from achieving a nothing about constitutional rationalism that would keep you from achieving. he's our american principles, not by people working people are purple people are polkadotted people. they're american principles about our constitution that come from our constitution. i'm sorry you feel that way, but i think you're misinformed. i don't think it ever attended a tea party event in if you have a don't think you feel that way. post the next is michael in seattle. >> caller: professor foley, i would like to ask you three quick questions. first of all, who is a better president, clinton or bush? and wouldn't you agree facing these record $1.3 trillion deficit is because president bush was by far the most fiscally irresponsible president ever? let's have a quick review. when president clinton came into office he inherited 293 billion raise taxes and left a record $5.6 trillion project that surplus and president bush squandered the entire surplus with $2 trillion of irresponsible budget busting tax cutnto unpaid wars, even a staunch conservative like joe scarborough concedes president bush has the worst fiscal track record of any president. did you vote for president bush? would you agree? >> guest: let's get a response from our guests. >> guest: if i like clinton or bush, the clinton batter. i think you're missing the point here, and a tea party again is not republican. i personally don't consider myself to be a republican. i think most are independent. some are republican because they are conservatives and republican is more likely conservatives and then the democrat party at this moment in history. i am not here to defend the republican party and neither is tea party movement. i think you are confusing the are confusing republicanism a tea party is on. >> host: but many agree the analysis the college is made of the bush president? >> guest: i cannot tell you how many have been to rate their frail as arguably against president bush and his failure to carry the mantle of limited government as they did against president obama. i mean, they have no sympathy or wish to bring president bush back. >> host: what did you find out about the tea party and money? >> guest: i don't know much about tea party and money as most groups don't get any money. they are grassroots organizations. a bunch of national tea party groups you can google and see right-click and i have no idea where they get money from. frankly that is not the tea party. those are people raising money for their own groups. it's a bunch of grassroots organizations in neighborhood and they don't get money. gop organizations that would like to bring them into a cross? >> guest: .i. know they get any super pack money. big national organizations have super packs are participating super packs. but they're just calling themselves tea party groups. they are not the tea party. the tea party as ordinary people living in your neighborhood. >> host: neck is regina and berkeley, california. >> caller: hi, how are you? i am enjoying your show. i wanted to -- ms. foley, some of the process that i've seen in my neighborhood appear to be angry, confrontational as well as angry. and i am wondering icy racist image as in their protests and i am wondering why that is. and a smile, i would like to know, i tried to understand their issues and what they're about and i think he gave an excellent explanation of that today. but why do they not -- do they associate with the 99%? and if so -- if not, why not? 99% versus the 1%? of the 99% would be all the rest of the public is opposed to the 1% of wealthy people? >> guest: i assume that she party does not consider itself to be aligned with the 1% of the wealthiest americans because they are not in the top 1% of wealthy americans. i'm not sure what matters. >> host: have a angry computational? >> guest: the fact the constitution is disregarded their very angry at the policies implemented by the obama administration. so yes, a lot of angst and anger there. as there is on the other side of the isle that occupy wall street, which is a guest week get the 99%, 1% information from. there's a lot of anger amongst americans right now. they are focusing different places. across theological section right now. >> host: next is afraid to come upgraded, pennsylvania. >> caller: hi, yes, ma'am. doesn't it say that all men are crted equal in the constitution? >> guest: declaration of independence actually. >> caller: anyway, nor does it say that the government is to make someone equal to everybody else. i mean, i am really tired of liberals and democrats, and deadbeats pushing their so-called civil rights were pushing on other people's so-called civil rights. we are supposed to pay for schools, illegal immigrants. they never go to the bylaws of immigration saying that their automatic citizen. they always run to the equal rights and civil rights and staff. but if they go to the morals, they find out they really don't have the right of citizenship and staff. thank you. >> host: marcon at thank you. and his sentiment reflects the tea party issues. >> host: i have no idea what the heck he's talking about, but i would say i like civil rights. i think civil rights are great. everyone should be treated equally by the government and i think more importantly there's a government that wants to use taxing and spending power which is an enumerated power to enact programs like medicare and social security, then great. we can have that debate in the arena of politics and political branches. but there's a difference between that and using power regulate interstate commerce and enforce people to buy commerce. there's serious constitutional differences between some of the things that have tried to be done by the obama administration today versus things in the past. a lot of people just been too brought of a brush with the tea party. they don't understand the tea parties concerns earlier cons to too small. they are subtle, but important people don't understand the constitution anymore. much less what they mean. how are we ever going to have a serious and important substantive discourse about what is right in what is wrong with this country unless we know these things? >> guest: unanimous view of the politicians back when the tea party you came in at 2010. marco rubio been one of those. senator rubio is being -- names is a possible vice president pick from that romney. they see is that selection, what does that suggest? you talk about principles that are so important. how do you complement that romney's residency and the comedic spectrogram? >> guest: marco rubio is the one the political scene. a lot of people don't know much about him. the tea party generally like sinister republicans generally. my senator from the state of florida has a nice story to tell. he came against all odds inserted rows up in the ranks of this country. disagree or her radio alger story. it's too early to tell whether he's going to add anything to romney candidacy or not. much less whether romney is going to actually pick him. the important thing is, is romney a tea party candidate? the surprising thing is if he's kind of a boring speaker, but if you cannot taste it through speeches after the primaries and highlight the words he uses most often, uses words like founding fathers and constitution. so he's walking the walk and talking the talk in the tea party and that's beginning to resonate. his only problem is on many levels they don't really believe him. he is saying that they don't believe him. post another color named mark, this one from boston. >> caller: good evening, how are you. professor foley, since you're a constitution professor yourself, i've heard arius reports that the president's history and that capacity and also that he may have been an editor of harvard law review. what can you tell us about that possibility? >> guest: i do know a lot about a day. he was a senior tester chicago law school. it's not tenure-track it would normally not be called a constitutional law professor. he is sort of morphing adjunct fester, someone who does a part-time while community organizer. whenever a character characterize president upon as a law scholar by any stretch of imagination. he went to moscow that many people go to law school and don't know much about the constitution either. you only take one course in moscow called constitutional law, a one semester course. if you don't study much after that, frankly don't know much why do people graduate from undergraduate. postcode this question or an e-mail who writes i hear a lot about the tea party in the news about the constitution related to fiscal mandates, bailouts, limited government can't do little or nothing about increasing encroachment of government on rights to privacy and free expression. am i correct in my inspection? >> guest: major encroachment to privacy rit now, but that is not part of the contract from america. it may be phase two is the politically mature, and right now they believe they have bigger fish to fry and not privacy. >> host: nexus of rain and video, missouri. lorraine, are you dare? >> guest: yes, i'm there. you have the last question. >> caller: just a comment. talking about the constitution and the tea party. the all mighty wind that talks about the constitution follows the constitution is ron paul in the tea party people are not behind ron paul. so for me, it is ron paul or no one. that is my comment. >> host: thanks so much. >> guest: ron paul and tea party. and the polling data early on he was getting a third of tea party support. that's dropped off over time. one of the reasons is one of the principles is unapologetic sovereignty. mr. paul has sort of interesting views u.s. sovereignty. they don't align very well believe it or not what the tea party and makes them different from his son, randy paul on that. so it's not going to be the darling of the tea party. we should expect anyone. mr. paul al-aqsa tea party support, but over time he's not going to be the candidate. they are looking for someone else who might be electable. >> host: so as far as you can tell, the tea parties hereto say? >> guest: they will show up in november and will be part of our political scene well beyond 2012. >> host: the book we talk about, elizabeth foley's book is "the tea party: three principles" available wherever you buy your