that was my naivete at the moment, i think i was a little overwhelmed myself. that's still my on-going project as far as that goes, how can we raise some funds and i actually have a bunch of paramedics that would go over there in a heartbeat on their time if we could find a way to fund it to teach them the medicine. the reality is they don't have a health care system now. it's slowly coming back but it was wiped out. they had the tertiary care facility in the region. they were the closest thing to a trauma center. they were the closest thing to intensive care. when we were there, the nearest surgery was 400 kilometers away and they don't have helicopters, not so much. there's a few owned by the military. so it was a long ride. as a matter of fact, we thought about that as we were stopped on a highway and people were barreling at us, i thought, wow, 400 kilometers is a long way if something goes wrong here. but it puts it all in perspective. their health care was wiped out and they don't have the resources. that's something we would still like to do. the real le

in today's world, sometimes we pay for the quinch essentially american naivete, that the benefits of win living in an open society always outweigh the costs. >> lawrence is right, boston will recover, but look at new york city after september 11th. it's vibrant and as wonderful a city as it always was. these are terrible traumas, but the terrorists have never succeeded in making us give up our freedom, and turning us away from the concept of a free society. the ones who really suffer are the ones who are wounded, the families of those who are killed, because their lives in some sense will never be the same. the trauma stays with them, you know, it recedes somewhat, but cities, communities and society, we are resilient, and we do recover. >> the other thing about this tragedy in particular, michael, is how much law enforcement officials are calling on the public to help them solve this. whether that's through tips, whether that's through conversations they may have had with a friend or neighbor, perhaps will end up being a suspect, whether that's soliciting footage and still photograp

strange because you hear some people will say, oh they should have passed it right away, but that is naivete. it wasn't going to be able to be passed right away. >> woodruff: sarah brady also said she's seen a difference in the pro-gun lobby itself. >> they have entrenched themselves more deeply, i will say that. and are mucholr todathan they were 20, 25 years ago. >> woodruff: reporter john gramlich points to the center of the gun lobby's political force- - the n.r.a. and its more than four million members. >> i mean they got pretty much everything that they wanted and successfully opposed everything they didn't want in this current debate. and if they were able to do that after something as horrific as newtown, then it really raises questions of if anyone is able to defeat to them. >> woodruff: but at the state level, the gun lobby has experienced some defeats. democratic governors in new york, connecticut and colorado have all signed tough new gun laws since newtown. legislation n.r.a. president david keene says hasn't gone unnoticed. >> the biggest threats that we perceive coming against

strange because you hear some people will say, oh they should have passed it right away, but that is naivete. it wasn't going to be able to be passed right away. >> woodruff: sarah brady also said she's seen a difference in the pro-gun lobby itself. >> they have entrenched themselves more deeply, i will say that. and are much bolder today than they we 20, 25 years ago. >> woodruff: reporter john gramlich points to the center of the gun lobby's political force- - the n.r.a. and its more than four million members. >> i mean they got pretty much everything that they wanted and successfully opposed everything they didn't want in this current debate. and if they were able to do that after something as horrific as newtown, then it really raises questions of if anyone is able to defeat to them. >> woodruff: but at the state level, the gun lobby has experienced some defeats. democratic governors in new york, connecticut and colorado have all signed tough new gun laws since newtown. legislation n.r.a. president david keene says hasn't gone unnoticed. >> the biggest threats that we perceive coming aga

strange because you hear some people will say, oh they should have passed it right away, but that is naivete. it wasn't going to be able to be passed right away. >> woodruff: sarah brady also said she's seen a difference in the pro-gun lobby itself. >> they have entrenched themselves more deeply, i will say that. and are much bolder today than they were 20, 25 years ago. >> woodruff: reporter john gramlich points to the center of the gun lobby's political force- - the n.r.a. and its more than four million members. >> i mean they got pretty much everything that they wanted and successfully opposed everything they didn't want in this current debate. and if they were able to do that after something as horrific as newtown, then it really raises questions of if anyone is able to defeat to them. >> woodruff: but at the state level, the gun lobby has experienced some defeats. democratic governors in new york, connecticut and colorado have all signed tough new gun laws since newtown. legislation n.r.a. president david keene says hasn't gone unnoticed. >> the biggest threats that we perceive coming a

that they are using you, that people who are communists, that want to overtake america are using your naivete to do this, because they're saying we're for a what you believe in, when they realli want something violent. these people are no differentom than the manson family. in fact, the bodines used a symbol called the fork. you know what that meant? that was the fork meant to kill sharon tate. these are sick people! >> i have a friend of mine who was railroaded by the f.b.i., went to jail for 12 years on a phony charges because they wanted him off the streets. >> so protest, bob! protest! peaceful t protest. >> he should have been in jail. >> you shouldn't blow people up. >> and you shouldn't railroad people, right? >> neither you nor jada pinkett were old enough to live through, as bob pointed out. but you read the history and came out with a very different view than jada did. at universe, you don't get the point of view that you just put forward, which would allow students to think it through and come to their own conclusions. >> that's a great t point. our kids are learning from these rad

i am optimistic not out optimistic -- not out of naivete. i know the history of the journey of this country. we have unleashed american people who have never failed to meet the challenges. we have challenges that we are tending to. as long as we are in the white house, we will continue to tend to them. the reason america has been a global leader for so long is not luck. it is not a matter of chance. it is a matter of luck. it is a matter of thinking about the next step. it is a matter of understanding how much it matters. we have always listened to the challenge. that is what we have been. it extends into our dna. it is why so many people, as corny as it sounds, why so many people still want to come to the united states. we will rise to this challenge. hopefully, we will be led by all of you in this room. as i have told many foreign leaders, it has never been a good bets to bet against the united states. it is -- good bet to bet against america. fred, you are doing a good job. all of you are in this for yourselves and for your country. i jus

even call it the article of faith that unites us with a common mission that is call it jeffersonian naivete that democracy does not work well unless and and tell the people themselves understand the real choices they confront us citizens and we confront as a country. i believe what you heard constitutes a superb introduction to one of the most important policy problems. i will struggle to be a moderate moderator. i have all sorts of questions and i would like to put to the panel this but i know they have questions they would like to put to each other. so i will suppress my question to issue the invitation and please me brief and pointed. if you have heard an important proposition put on the table over the past hour would you state that proposition? who put it on the table and why do you disagree? >>. [laughter] everybody agrees? i have a list. who wants to start? >> rampant consensus. [laughter] >> i am not so sure. i am in mumbai partisan mood so i have to be somewhat constructive. one area i am not sure i disagree but i do think one of the challenges with the m&a policies notwithstanding

you can call it jeffersonian naÏvetÉ that democracy does not work well unless and until the people themselves understand real choices that confront a citizen and we confront as a country. they believe what you just heard in the past 50 minutes constitutes a superb introduction to one of the most important policy programs we face. i am grateful to the panel for getting us up to a strong start. i am going to struggle to be a moderate moderator here because i have all sorts of questions that i would like to put to the panelists. i know they have questions that they could put to each other and you have questions or that depicted them. i'm going to surprise my questions and they can buy a issuing an invitation to each member of the panel. please be brief and pointed in taking up my invitation. if you've heard an important proposition put on the table in the past hour with which you disagree, which you state that proposition and who put it on the table and why you disagree with it and go from there. everybody agrees. i have a list, but who wants to start? >> there is rampant consensus here. >> i'm

that i started with about the value of e that i-- the naivet started with talking about the value of service. i went back and forth. i worked with my republican colleagues. they wanted to make america a better place, too. so did die. maybe that is why i joined a bipartisan policy center. thatmay have thought different things would have made america better. they may have thought that when i was proposing did not achieve our shared objectives. that is a totally fair and find a place. place.e but we both believed in different things. the years in my public space, that is what has concerned me the most, the deterioration of belief in the other side. public iserican frustrated. no. so, from what they are seen. but the majority of -- rightfully so, from what they are seeing. but the majority of republicans want to make america a better place. we just disagree on what rules the government should set to achieve those shared objectives. if we could all get back to that place where we agree that we all want the same right outcome, then it set a much better stage to find out what the rules shou

i am optimistic not out not out of-- naivete. i know the history of the journey of this country. unleashed american people who have never failed to meet the challenges. we have challenges that we are tending to. as long as we are in the white house, we will continue to tend to thaem. -- to them. the reason america has been a global leader for so long is not luck. it is not a matter of chance. it is a matter of luck. it is a matter of thinking about the next step. it is a matter of understanding how much it matters. we have always listened to the challenge. that is what we have been. it extends into our dna. it is why so many people, as corny as it sounds, why so many people still want to come to the united states. we will rise to this challenge. hopefully, we will be led by all of you in this room. as i have told many foreign leaders. good betsever been a to bet against the united states. against good bet to bet america. fred, you are doing a good job. all of you are in this for yourselves and for your country. i just think the next 20 years, we have a chance to leave our kids an

what i read in -- about kazan in your book was you felt there was naivete and fault on the part of the people who were in the communist party, they refused to am -- acknowledge there was a problem. >> let me address that. >> maybe talk about present day. you write about this -- president-day celebrities celebd their hesitance to get involved in politics. nothing do with this? >> no, has to do with -- michael jordan was once asked, how much money does anyone need? and michael jordan was opposite asked, why don't you ever come out for any kind of causes? people listen, and his answer was well, republicans buy nikes. >> fair enough. >> this started in 1918. the first quote was sid gramman. from the chinese theater. said never talk about politics. it's bad for the old box office arue because the moment you open your mouth you ailentate half your odd wednesday. but there's a context to go back to kazan. some who don't know the cold war history, they're commies are right? we have a real myth about the good war, and that myth became solidified probably during the vietnam war, which was not su

. >> i want to get steve back in here but what i read in your book too you felt there was some naivete and called on the people who were in the communist party that they refused to acknowledge there was a problem on that end. >> what me address that. >> may be -- you write present-day celebrities and their hesitance to get involved in politics does it have anything to do with this? >> it has to do with michael jordan -- how much money does anyone need and he was once asked why don't you ever come out for any kind of causes and his answer was republicans by nike's. >> and this started in 19,181st quota that i could find was from chinese theater and told the actors because he was the major exhibitor in town. he said never talk about politics, it's bad for the box office because the moment you open your mouth you alienate half of your audience but there's a context to go back because some of you that don't know the cold war history might wonder. we have a myth about the good war and really became solidified probably during the vietnam war which wasn't such a good war and was ambivalent th