have built-in backdoors -- that could have a longer-term impact on us than what ever diplomatic outflows are. >> i think the edward snowden affair illustrates something very important about presidencies. you don't control the world. you don't control events. in this case, president obama found in the first year of his second term and maybe the entire four years of his second term, have been hijacked by a very young, contract employee of booz allen who decided to spill the beans on american espionage activities around the world. there is not much the president can do to pull it back. it's all out there and more is coming out all the time. he can try to present his point of view of who edward snowden is, that he is a thief, maybe a traitor, maybe a defector, but edward snowden can push back. he will be on tv again tomorrow. it's an illustration of the fundamental points you made at the beginning about the limits of power not just of the united states but of the american presidency in general. we may come back and look at the second obama administration and say there was -- it was undermined by an event, an individual out of his control which reminds us of the second bush administration was in many ways destroyed by a hurricane that the president had no control over. his response was in it but he did not control the hurricane. the broader question of euros -- of european-u.s. relations -- it is the perception in europe that the national security agency is listening to every phone conversation, is watching every tweet and every text message, all that is ridiculous. the nsa would have to have two or 3 million employees to be able to read all of that stuff. that would be a monumental waste of american tax dollars but that is the perception that's out there. it's hard to push that perception back and it creates a dramatic in european politics which is working against us in a very serious way about things like the u.s.-eu trade agreement. >> there is also the perception that high-tech american companies cooperated with the nsa over the last couple of years. that is usually potentially damaging to overseas companies that say they don't want to deal with those companies. one of the big bets was could the president get out in front of this in a way that would position him to manage the damage from edward snowden but also to protect american companies but preserved the internet that has been very successful for american economic interests? >> could you imagine the next year, a situation where resident putin comes to the conclusion that edward snowden -- that hosting edward snowden is no longer in his interests? >> no, i don't think so. mr. putin spent his formative years in the intelligence service and for whatever reason the russians turn mr. snowden back to the u.s. what message does that send to any potential defector that they hope to welcome in the future? for mr. putin i think that would be the sort of measure he would not want to take to make life more obligated for his intelligence folks. >> right back here -- >> i have a question related to after dennis 10. i think americans are very perplexed because they see a qaeda in iraq and syria, in yemen and they see the concentration of pakistan. what is our real interest in maintaining a large force in afghanistan with respect to these other problems? >> first of all, the large force you are talking about is something like 10,000 so we are not talking about maintaining at the level it is. we can debate what is a large force. if afghanistan significantly deteriorates in terms of security and political processes , the chances are substantial. this will enable the return of activity -- of terrorist activity to afghanistan. there is the physical possibility of safe havens for terrorist groups with global reach an international ambitions. you asked me about negotiations with the taliban and. the key question of negotiations is to what extent the taliban separate from al qaeda? is it to mystically oriented or inevitably linked to al qaeda in ways it cannot break the chain? my view is that it is domestically oriented. nevertheless, it owes a lot of that's just debts -- debts to al qaeda. the taliban leadership clearly realizes it has held onto afghanistan because of al qaeda. they said it was the plank? . they would play a game of providing support for al qaeda but that does not mean that they would really limit all engagement. it is the issue of physical security. the other issue is the imagery, the psychological boost this would give to other terrorist groups around the world. this would be the second time when the great power was defeated and they would portray it as that in afghanistan. there might be physical cooperation but there might still be a sense that sufficient violence and cruelty toward people pays off. it might sustain groups and support groups elsewhere neither of which is desirable. it does not mean we should fight every terrorist group in the world. does not mean we should deploy drones everywhere in the world. it means we need to calculate carefully when we are prematurely liquidating commitments we had. at the end, the leverage will be critical with us being very selective about taking a commitment but also delivering on the commitment and upholding the threats and promises we have made. >> to expand the question -- i think some of the issues with respect to al qaeda and the taliban and afghanistan have parallels in the broader middle east. in your question, you noted we see elk qaeda popping up in yemen -- we see al qaeda popping up in yemen and syria and there are al qaeda affiliates present in a number of spots around the middle east. there are also a lot of localized violent extremists who may see an advantage in embracing the al qaeda brand but whose concerns and sources of support and whose targets are primarily localized. it's very important that the united states, as it parses these threats, continues to carefully make distinctions and different nations -- differentiations. when i look at the trajectory of u.s. policy and where it's headed, across north africa and egypt, syria, and iraq and then into yemen where we don't have a clear orientation towards the broad transformation that is occurring in the arab middle east but we have a lot of worries about specific things we see including violent extremism. there is a danger that in responding day by day to those urgent security imperatives, we end up re-creating precisely the paradigm that president obama came into office wanting to dismantle of a sort of broadscale war on terrorism that drives our policy and drives the way we are perceived in the region and drives the way we structure our relationships in a region that is undergoing tremendous change. well there are real threats, it's important for us to be able to distinguish what is local what is transnational, what is targeting us and what's not. i would love to hear bruce's views on this. >> i want to come back to the metamorphosis of al qaeda. as a result of the arab awakening, we have seen that al qaeda got a rebirth. ironically, it came exactly at the moment that the obama administration's policy against al qaeda produced its greatest success, the death of osama bin laden. i'm in agreement with everything you said about the importance of keeping an american presence in afghanistan for afghan reasons. the administration is unable to make the real case to the american people which is the reason we need 10,000 american troops in afghanistan is to continue the drone war in pakistan. that is the vital national security interest of the united states. we don't want to see al qaeda in pakistan rebuilt like we saw al qaeda rebuild in iraq. the drones are not the answer to the problem. but they are surely a very good weapon to have in your hand when you deal with al qaeda. my concern is if the united states gives up that weapon in afghanistan by having no bases of operation after 2014, we will see al qaeda rebuild and regenerate as fast as we saw it regenerate in iraq. >> is there an alternative? if we lost the main base in afghanistan, is there an alternative either from elsewhere in the region, given the extended reach of drones? you might not need to launch them from afghanistan. >> the technology is not there. the geography does not change. you can launch drone operations over the northern part of pakistan where al qaeda operates from afghanistan, iran, i don't think so, i, i don't think so. if you launch them from the arabian sea, they are likely to be as unsuccessful as desert 1 was in launching missions. the irony is it is a covert operation. it is a covert operation everyone talks about and you can go to websites and see every attack laid out. because it's a covert operation the administration has its hands tied in the does not amount in public. >> the least covert rogue rim in american history. right here -- >> since we have our middle east and asian experts here, this question relates to our geopolitical posture in the gulf and elsewhere. do you feel the oil-producing states in the gulf have dealt with what is implied by the increasing overwhelming demand for oil and gas in the gulf is going to be in asia and not in europe and have they begun to think about how that will change their strategic posture with the asian nations that will be the bulk of their revenues? likewise for the asian experts do you think south korea, japan, china, india and others have really come to terms that as they become more important dependent from the gulf that they have to assume the strategic posture to protect the sea lanes and they cannot count on americans to do it or ? our strategic interests in the region will lie elsewhere, i believe. >> i just came back from the gulf -- i had a chance to hear from folks about this directly. i would say a couple of things -- some of the disputes over the talks with iran that bruce was talking about in his piece with u.s.-saudi relationship, there is an underlying anxiety there in the gulf which is about the point you're making. what are u.s. interests in the region where we are used to having u.s. security clearance in an era where you don't meet our energy anymore? the rest of the world is free riding on the american investment in gulf security. that underlying anxiety is coming from the recognition of this broad shift. in their most honest moments, they recognize that they don't have a mechanism for maintaining regional order themselves without an external great power. they have never done it. they don't have the capacity themselves. we have tried in various ways to help build capacity but it is nowhere near there yet. i think they acknowledge also that, from their perspective the chinese or the indians or other rising powers, are at least a couple of decades away from having the capability to take on any kind of role like that even if they are interested in doing so. they feel deep-seated anxiety that maybe the u.s. is turning away and there is no alternative. my own view is that i don't think we are turning away. in many ways because of the crises in the region and because of our enduring interests we are kind of nailed to the ground in the middle east right now. the broader trend that you are describing is one that i think we'll continue to raise questions in these relationships and disputes in the years to come. >> let's hear suzanne on this. one of the concerns in the region is that if there is a deal with the iranians, then iran is free to go off and become the kind of power in the region that it imagines itself to be. >> there are lots of folks who want to jump in on this. the gulf states are perennially insecure. that reflects their capacity but also reflects the sort of worldview that is ingrained from centuries of relationships with outside greater powers. this sort of discourse always happens on the free rider issues are always there. we have no -- we have never been more dependent on gulf oil. we had a major security commitment and we made our investments and to gulf security at a time when europe was far more dependent on gulf exports than we were. i believe it is integral to the american vision of itself as a superpower to maintain an investment in the free and reasonable them a reliable flow of energy from the major producers of energy around the world. i think that will endure as long as we maintain our commitment to being a world superpower. in terms of how iran factors in it's an important issue. the iranian negotiation heightens all these insecurities and fears within the gulf states. ultimately, there is no outcome to the nuclear negotiation that will lead to iran's revival as either a regional strategic power or regional economic power. the nuclear negotiations themselves are unlikely. it is almost impossible to conceive of any scenario under which the nuclear negotiations lead to the lifting of a comprehensive u.s. embargo on iran which is the major hit on an investment for the energy sector and for technology. the fact that iran has not been able to access lng is why iran is a net importer of gas despite having some of the largest gas reserves in the world and despite being one of the early adapters to transregional gas trade back in the 1960s and 1970s. you have a situation in which iran loses as a result of sanctions and the constraints they are under today will remain in place for the foreseeable future despite some prospect that the rest of the world begin to come back to iran. >> let me offer a few thoughts -- it seems to me in varying ways that all the states are mindful of how the ground is shifting. the very fact of diminished u.s. dependence raises questions about whether the united states come over the longer haul, despite its interests in having a sense of global order and the state the u.s. has a much global governance that over time, we would seek some kind of diminution of american involvement or that others would have to pick up the slack. the problem is, i don't income on those who are most aware of their energy security, i would put china high on the list recognize it would -- it will be a long-term process before they can really be ready to take on this role. if we look in that longer-term sense that has been alluded to i think that is likely where we are headed. the chinese are now making a commitment to a carrier program. it will not be massive but any carrier program entails huge commitments of money and the ability to conceptualize a larger sense of strategy of involvement that not only chinese entrants but the interests of others would be involved. the other side of this is looking for other alternatives that are land-based. you see this in northeast asia the efforts of the russians to find some kind of means by which , with japan, with korea, and china, that they can be a much more substantial energy supplier. they are to some extent already. if i were sitting in the shoes of a regional leader, i would be looking for as many alternatives as i could but i certainly would not promise my policy on the expectation that, over the longer run, the united states would be able to do this on some. >> we have time for one more quick question and quick answer. that lady right there -- the microphone is coming to you -- >> thank you. i would like to focus on ukraine. how can we avoid the nightmare scenario in the ukraine? many say the u.s. response has been negligent or minimal. what should this administration do? >> you have to understand that this crisis will be resolved by ukrainians in ukraine. the thing the united states and europe could be doing now and should be doing now is trying to apply some pressure to ensure the authorities avoid the use of force. yesterday, the u.s. government said visas of those connected should be revoked. i would recommend going beyond that and say target some of the potential visa sanctions to say we are encouraging the government to get into a good- faith negotiation that includes compromise to address some of the opposition's concerns. you have seen president yanukov ich say several times he is prepared to have a dialogue. not much came out of that. even as we speak, are there ways the west can crank up pressure? by targeting visa and financial sections, the inner circle around the resident -- around the president, unless you start doing things, we will lose access. the united states can have some impact here. anytime it is talked about in congress, it gets a lot of press in ukraine but it will be important that the europeans long. the europeans have influence that the americans do not. the europeans have not been able to come up with a united stance on this question. >> i want to thank all of your coming and thank our panel for their excellent papers. if you haven't had a chance to read, it distributed -- it got disturbed it yesterday and you. i look forward to seeing at the end of the year how many of these turn out. i want to remind you all, thanks again. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> yesterday, former republican governor mike huckabee talked about elections and politics at his party's winter meeting. that is next on c-span. "washington journal" begins of the top of the order -- our and we will look back at and scam and eight cut to the veteran benefits. "washington journal" is live at 7 a.m. eastern. homeland security department secretary jeh johnson will talk about security concerns at the u.s. conference of mayors. we will hear from the conference committee chairman bill shuster with live coverage at 10:45 a.m. eastern here on c-span. in the afternoon, south carolina senator tim scott will deliver remarks to the republican national and it is winter meeting. that is live at 1230 eastern. >> now, former arkansas governor and 2008 republican residential primary candidate mike huckabee. he talks about the health care law and women voters. this is 30 minutes. [applause] >> thank you, thank you. thank you very much. when i got the introduction, he talked about all the things i was doing and i got nervous about what the end would be. one of these days, he will find something he is good at. [laughter] an honor to be here. thanks to all of you for braving the weather. he was talking about the musician part of me. last night, i was in anaheim california, playing on stage with new york yankees bernie williams who is an amazing guitar player and skunk baxter from the doobie brothers are in [laughter] i wanted to bring them with me. you would have loved them. but then i would have had to play with them and you would not have love that. i'm headed right back there as soon as i finish speaking today. i have to be back in california this afternoon and then tomorrow, i will be there for some more meetings with an organization that provides musical and sermons for children. then i will take the redeye from california to new york tomorrow night to do my show at fox. funeral services will be held monday. [laughter] in the course of all this, i had unfortunate incident, i lost my iphone. i got it back. i called the nsa and they knew exactly where it was. [laughter] [applause] they even put all my e-mails back in, it was very nice of them. [laughter] i cannot begin my comments to you today without saying a heartfelt word of deep thanks to chairman rights for this who showed an extraordinary level of conviction and courage that i think so many of us appreciate. that is that it would have been very easy for him to go ahead with the meeting yesterday but in a show of true solidarity with so many people in our party who are passionate about the sanctity of every human life the chairman did a marvelous thing in postponing the event so people could participate. [applause] reince preibus, thank you. i think it's time republicans no longer accept listening to the democrats talk about a war on women. the fact is -- [applause] the republicans don't have a war on women. they have a war for women. for them to be empowered to be something other than victims of their gender. women i know are outraged and the democrats think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have the government or by birth-control medication. women i know are smart educated, intelligent, capable of doing anything anyone else can do. our party stands for the recognition of the equality of women and the capacity of women. that's not a war on them, it's a war for them. if the democrats want to insult the women of america by making them believe that they are helpless without uncle sugar coming in and providing a protrusion each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or the reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it -- let us take that discussion all across america because women are far more than the democrats have played them to be and women across america need to stand up and say enough of that nonsense. i think it's time we leave that discussion. [applause] i will be in new york saturday for a while. i host a television show that is on the fox news channel. we tape it in new york. and people ask me -- are you going to move to new york? i always tell them -- even before the governor of new york decided he does not like my kind up there [laughter] even before, i said i'm not moving to new york unless they let me duck hunt in central park. i don't think i will be going. [applause] the governor of new york says that people who are extreme, if we believe that every life has value and worth, that we are extreme if we think we should be able to protect ourselves and not have to hopelessly standby and hope the police can arrive before whatever predator breaks down our door and has decided to have his way in our lives and our homes. he made it very clear -- he said these kind of people are not welcome in new york. i'm delighted to hear that. i hope people exempt me from all the taxes i have to pay to his fine state because every time i do a show in new york, they decide it's worthy of them taking a significant piece of it. governor, if you don't mind, since you really don't want me there, i'm sure none of my money would be welcome in new york either. [laughter] [applause] i don't know if you know this but we are coming up soon, in a couple of weeks, to the 50th anniversary of an extraordinary american moment and it has nothing to do with politics. it has to do with the eagles arriving in the u.s. and being on the ed sullivan show. -- with the beatles arriving in the u.s. and being on the ed sullivan show. there was an untold story of the beatles that you might be hearing about. it was the story of the unknown fifth beatle. some of you say there are were only four. it was not intended to be that way, it was supposed to be a fifth one. the fifth beatle never really got the attention that was deserved. for those of you who are as old as i am, which means old as dirt , you can understand that the beatles coming to america and being on the ed sullivan show launched nothing short of a cultural revolution. a lot of people don't understand why it was a seminal moment in the history of america and for that matter the history of the world. the country had just gone through a very painful time of mourning, the death of a president who had been assassinated. it was an extra ordinary amount of despair, heartbreak disappointment and many people forget we were still grieving as a nation because we could not believe that it was possible for our own president to be assassinated in the streets of one of our cities. the anxiety of that coupled with the beginnings of war and conflict in southeast asia left americans with a real sense of despair and pessimism. when the beatles came, it was as one person said, so many more people would rather follow the beatles than the baptists because the beatles look like they were going somewhere and the baptists look like they were sorry they had them. [laughter] there was a young man who saw the beatles on ed sullivan completely taken by what he saw and so very much said i would like to be the fifth beatle. there was one problem -- he did not know how to play the guitar. he began to work toward having a guitar. for three years, he did everything possible to get a guitar. he could not get one because he could not afford it. after three years, this young man's parents were tired of hearing him complain how he wanted an electric guitar and so they ordered him electric a tarp from the jcpenney mail order catalog and presented it to him for christmas. he did not know at the time but they could not afford it. they spent $99 on the guitar and the little amplifier that came with it. he had no idea how much money that represented to them but it took them a year to pay for it. they paid a little bit each month for a year until they got it all paid off. but that did not matter to the young man because he knew he was going to be the fifth beatle. he learned to fly. he practiced. so much that he would play until his thinkers actually bled. -- his fingers actually bled and he became good enough to actually be in a band, not a good band, but a band and continued to play, thinking the day will come when the beatles will say you are the fifth beatle. let me fast forward and tell you that never happened. the fifth eagle moment never did come to be. the young man was never discovered to be that great a guitar player. he was never discovered to be that great of an anything. he stands before you today because i was that 11-year-old kid who got the guitar and wanted so badly to be the fifth beatle. i'd like to tell you what i believe happened in 1963. i was eight at the time when he first saw them. the beatles brought something to america more than music. they brought hope. it may sound sacrilegious to say that the eagles brought hope but remember we were trying to get over the assassination of a president and a national psyche that have been deeply bruised and the energy, the excitement, the youthfulness, the difference they brought brought hope which our country desperately needed. their music was pretty good. today, we are in a time when we really need more than we have ever needed in america before, a sense of hope and optimism. a lot of people are discouraged in america today and you can understand why. 92 million americans do not even have jobs. they are not in the job market anymore. they have given up. if anyone said the unemployment rate has dropped to 6.7%, only because another 100,000 people have decided there is no point in even applying for a job because there are not any. the highest record of americans that have taken themselves out of the job market in the history of our country, the president wants to talk about income and equality and i think we should have the debate. i have heard republicans say let's not go there. let's go there. let's talk about the fact that the party that has preached poverty and how to fix it has led this country to spend $20.7 trillion in current dollars since the year 1964 when we launched the war on poverty. today, more people are in progress -- our impoverished than when we started the war on property. that war is not going well. the reason is because with all due respect to the sincere notion of getting rid of poverty, you cannot get rid of poverty until you bring to people a sense of hope and optimism and that optimism cannot be artificial. it has to be real and real hope and real optimism comes when people have the prospect of getting an education and getting a job in going beyond a life that the government wants them to live. our party is not afraid to talk about improving the income the quality of people. we just want to make sure we empower people to dream their dreams and live them. and not be subjected to saying you will have to live in this neighborhood because this is the house the government wants you to have. and this is the school, the failing school, that your child has to go to. and you have no choice. we should be the party that on apologetically says that there are way too many people who are struggling and poor and one of the ways that we need to address it is to build a country whose economy is based on the notion that if you are willing to work and work hard, you can get ahead and it's not the government's boot that will be in your face every time you try to get your head out of the whole. there are many of you in this room who understand what i'm talking about today. [applause] many of you grew up like i did. there was no silver spoon in my mouth. i grew up in a home like so many of you with parents and grandparents who had never had a formal education. i'm the first male in my entire family lineage that graduated from high school much less went to college. i did have hope. it was not all based on the beatles. it was based on the notion that i believed america was the kind of place that where i started did not mean that's where i had to stop. there was something else going for me -- something that kept me just barely above the poverty line and sometimes not quite -- a stable home. ari fleischer wrote a wonderful article and he points out something that has been validated by many studies that if we want to do with poverty, the most important solution is stable families. marriage, if two parents are married -- [applause] if two parents are married and remained married, there's only a seven .5% likelihood that the child about family will be in poverty. if the child is in the family of a single mom, there's a 34% likelihood that a child will be in poverty. out of wedlock births among whites are 29%, among hispanics 52%, among african-americans, 72%. no less than the liberal daniel patrick moynihan in 1964 when he was a young lawyer at the department of labor, when the unwed birth rate was in the single digits said god help us if this goes to double digits. it will create a level of armor to that we cannot possibly sustain. however unpopular it may be, let us not create policies whether they are tax policies or housing policies or education policies that discourages marriage and the family, we should be creating policies that encourage the family and uphold that basic institution of marriage and it makes it easier for people to remain involved in the lives of their families and their children. we need to empower parents. maybe some people in america don't agree but most republicans understand that we would much rather a children be raised by them other than a father than being raised by uncle sam. we cannot afford to have generations of children who are under the tutelage and care of government, when what they need are parents who are empowered to make the strong decisions for them as to where they will get their education, holding those educational institutions accountable, and having the option put them somewhere else if the school fails those children. [applause] when we do not have those options, we leave those children in a world of hurt. that is why we have to begin to come up with fiscal sanity which we do not have. think about this. in 1913, the entire tax code of the united states was 100 pages. -- was 400 pages. today, it is 74,000 pages. that is before obamacare. with obamacare it is probably another hundred thousand pages. do not worry. nancy pelosi said we will know what is in it after we passed it. we passed it. we still do not know what is in it. obviously the people who voted on it, not one republican, the people who voted on it and pushed it on us, they do not know what is in a there. -- either. we need to remind them at election time that it was not the republicans who wasted this massive monstrosity on the people of america. it was harry reid, nancy pelosi, barack obama. since there were any for public -- any republican and fingerprints putting in place, give the republicans opportunity to put something implants -- fingerprints on something that will empower families and doctors, empower nurses, and no longer shackle us to a health care system that is unaffordable because the affordable care act has proven to be anything but. that is why it is important. [applause] that we do not take no for an answer. i think about the $431 billion in last year complying with the tax code. it did produce a thing except paper. and some accounting bills. $431 billion last her was the cost that it took for americans to comply with the tax code. i know not everyone here is a strong proponent as i am of the fair tax. it would limit -- it would tax or consumption. i realize it is a hard sell. it is a long slog. i believe that we need a fundamental change. we do not need to tweak the tax code. we need to fundamentally undo the mess that has been created and start over with something that will help build an economy. you cannot build an economy as long as you're punishing productivity and rewarding reckless irresponsibility. it makes no sense at all. [applause] i have often said i have learned a lot by raising my children. when the kids all left, they got college educations and went off on their own, got jobs. it was a wonderful thing. the two greatest days in the parents live. the day the guy is born, the day they get out of college and off your payroll. it is a wonderful day. [laughter] something happened in our household as our kids moved away and got off on their own. we had always had dogs. we ended up not with one dog, a second dog that we ended up with, a third dog. three kids, three dogs. the kids to this day swear that we replaced them with the dogs. they are pretty upset about it. complained a lot. they even said, we think you're placed us with the dogs. we think you love those dogs more than you loved us. to which we told them, the dogs behaved better than you guys ever did. [laughter] i did learn something from raising dogs. if there is a behavior that you want more of, reward the behavior. if there is a behavior that you want less of, consequence the behavior. you get less of it. yet the consequence it a lot as a child. that is how you change behavior. what we do in our culture? we create an entire might cover a policy that says if you are productive we will punish you. if you work and earn something we will tax it. if you save it we will tax it. if you invest it, we will tax it. if you invest it, then later sell it, and you make a profit we will tax that. if you have done well and you have saved through your life and give something left because you didn't go blow it all while you were here, even when you die we will tax that. every aspect of productivity in this country, we decide we're going to tax. that is when the government decides that what they do with our money is more valuable than what we do with our money. the message we need to send them out -- ascend to working people across america, those full by the democrats that higher taxes is a wonderful thing to see, is to tell them that when the government taxes you, that is the way of saying that they do not value the work that you do. they value what they are doing with your money. not what you did to get it. i know people that come home every day from work bone tired exhausted. they lift heavy things. they carry loads. their muscles hurt. the government, but wanted to tax them more, is saying what you do isn't very important. what we do as a government is so important that we are willing to take more of what you do and do with it what we think is more valuable. when is america going to say government, you do not have much to show for what you have done. you have spent money you didn't have. you bothered money that you couldn't afford to pay back. we can never pay back what they borrowed. never pay back what they have spent. a be the people who worked hard and earned the money ought to keep more of it. that is the republican message. it is on a message i am ashamed of. i do not think is a message to any republican ought to be ashamed of. it is a message we should take to every working person in this country. i am tired of the democrats are out there for the little guy. the democrats of cap their feet on top of the little guy keeping him the little guy. i want and to have the opportunity to be a big guy. [applause] he can't the government on his throat. [applause] obamacare is going to be the issue of the selection a matter if the president wanted to be or not. it should be. i cannot think of a better opportunity than today governorships to increase their numbers in the house, and to take the senate and finally make harry reid go sit in the back of the room and went to mitch mcconnell tells him what bills he can talk about and which ones he can't. that would be a wonderful turn in this country. [applause] the only thing that would keep us from seeing that happen is that we would decide we would rather fight each other, them he had to fight for the people of this country deserve a different and better kind of government and barack obama, harry reid nancy pelosi. understand, i have differences with other republicans. i do not see everything i to i would probably everyone in this room. some of you do not see everything i to eye with me. i get that. we are part of the same family. when i think about everyone in this room and he goes and votes in republican primary, if there is some differences, they are minute compared to the differences that i have with those on the other side of the aisle. after all, there are no republicans who voted to implement obamacare. i don't have any republicans who are advocating we jack up the federal income tax. i don't know of any. i don't know any republicans who think that we ought to be a weaker nation and systematically destroy the strength of our military. i do not know of any republicans who think that we ought to unilaterally disarm not only ourselves but our friends and that we ought to go and ask friendly nations like israel to stop building that rims and don't have the guts to tell iran to stop building bombs. i know of no republicans do take that position. not one. [applause] whatever differences we have compared to the differences that we have with the other party they are small. that is why i have asked republicans to stop using the term rino. let's stop calling each other somehow less republican than someone else. be for the person you are for. when i'm thinking sometimes in our attempt to fight for some level of artificial purity, i want as, did they vote on a particular standard what it means to be a republican? have you done that this week question mark i haven't seen in the papers. i am waiting. let us know if that happens this week. you are elected representatives. each of our states reelect you. you come and represent us as a party. i don't member the rnc has said here is what one must believe to the nth to be a real republican. anyone not here is a rino. if there is going to be an organization can set that standard, it is you. you are the body of policymaking for the party on the national level. maybe you should do that. maybe you shouldn't. i would certainly ask this. that we would accept the reality that if you are with me, 90%-70% of the time, you are still 70% closer to me than i am to nancy pelosi and harry reid and barack obama. i will take you any day, any time. [applause] this coming monday, i'm going to be in a remarkable ceremony at auschwitz in poland. it will be the 60th anniversary of the liberation. the majority of israeli -- is going to fly to auschwitz accompanied by a holocaust survivor. many will be called -- many will be going back for the first time since they were children. it is going to be a powerful day, i am sure. as i think about it and anticipate what the day is going to be like, i realize the horror of what happened in that place where 1.1 million people were brutally and savagely murdered it all started when people were devalued. when people were deemed less than someone else. when people were deemed that they were not worth as much. maybe because they were old, sick, couldn't work. sometimes, just because they were jewish. we look back on that time in history and we think, how could educated among thoughtful people, university trained, how could a nation with all of its resources, a vast level of its population, with higher education and replaced with you do something so heinous? you realize, the only way you could end up there is that when you start that some people just aren't as valuable as you are it is why as a believer, the one thing that i have to consular -- constantly remind myself is that none of us are better than another. no one is less than any of us. if i except that after the great human family. surely i will be able to value the life of those who voluntarily join me in a party that i joined when i was a teenager. i am not an independent. i'm not a libertarian. i liked some things libertarians believe. i like the spunk of the independence. i don't think the democrats are even wrong all of the time. most the time, i think they are wrong. [laughter] not all of the time. by choice, i'm a republican. proudly. gladly. and hopefully, responsibly. if i can find value in every human being on this earth, i sure as heck not going to somehow devalue the people in the political organization that i have voluntarily decided to affix myself to, be an active part of, and be a part of this i was a teenager. that is why i asked us to fight the real battle. the real battle in this country is joblessness. it is despair. the lack of hope. it is the weakness our nation will have if we don't have strong leaders who recognize that we are exceptional, and that what god breathed into us the life of liberty, he gave us a gift for which we must be good stewards. if we can join in that, we don't have time to fight each other. we have a bigger battle to fight and to win. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> republican mike huckabee called on his party to push back on democratic efforts to label gop policies as a war on women. he went on to say -- we would like to get your thoughts. you can weigh in on facebook. "washington journal" begins in a moment with today's news and reaction to yesterday's remarks but mike huckabee. this morning, more coverage the u.s. conference of mayors meeting and we will hear from homeland security department secretary tate johnson. live coverage at 9:45 a.m. in this afternoon, the south carolina senator will give remarks to the rnc winter meeting live at 12:30 p.m. eastern. another event to tell you about -- fbi director james comey will talk with the national sheriffs department this morning at 9 a.m. eastern. the movie "american hustle" is loosely based on the ad scam -- abscam investigation. we will talk with the former u.s. attorney who was part of the prosecution team. then a look at veterans pension benefits. you can join us on facebook and twitter. ♪ host: congress returns to the capital next week. the state of the union is tuesday night. this week, the republican national committee annual winter meeting took place. former arkansas governor mike huckabee gave a keynote address. here is a little bit of his speech. [video clip] >> i think it is time that republicans no longer accept listening to democrats talking about a war on women. because the