>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> we continue our coverage of the situation in iraq. this week the government of al-maliki requested the u.s. air

strikes against insurgency led by the islamic state, isis. the president said the united states is ready to take action if and when the situation with requires it. >> the united states will continue to increase our support to iraqi security forces. we are prepared to create joint operations in baghdad and northern iraq to share intelligence and coordinate planning to confront the terrorist threat of isil. through our partnership fund, we're prepared to work with congress to provide additional equipment. we had advisers in iraq through our embassy and will send a number of additional military advisers up to 300 to assess how we can best train and advise and support iraqi security forces going forward. american forces would not be returning to combat in iraq. we will help the iraqis as they

fight 2 terrorist groups who threaten the region and american interests as well. >> joining me is general richard myers who was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff from 2001-2005 under president george w. bush. i am pleased to have him back. >> you bet. >> let me begin with this question. what is the threat to the national security of united states from what is happening in iraq? >> i think if you listen to president obama, both previously and currently and other leaders, the threat is where the current situation can lead. and i think in iraq that has iranian influence more than even today setting up potential confrontation with the gulf states which are sunni, would not -- mortal enemies of iran that would not be in favor of that and would lend some

instability for what is going on in syria if the situation continues to deteriorate. and perhaps ungoverned areas in iraq itself where folks that are like-minded in terms of terrorism could plot your next move. if you look at the region and boiling issue, this insurgency, the secretary violence, that could spill over borders to turkey, jordan, maybe impact israel. that is the real concern. and to the oil rich nations in which iraq is one, it could disturb oil flow to those countries that depend on it for their economic well-being. this is the sort of thing that if it continues and iraq becomes more unstable and have an impact on the whole region. >> what is necessary to stop it? >> one of the things as i read what went on today in president

obama's words, he said it is primarily a political solution is required to the situation inside of iraq. i would agree with that. of all of the instruments of power we have at our disposal, the military, diplomacy, economic, informational -- it seems to me the diplomacy part and political parts are right to as important, maybe even more important than the military part. as i read just a minute or go, secretary kerry to the region to discuss our friends and allies in that area, the fact that they are calling on maliki to be more inclusion, to have more inclusion in his government to include the sunnis, that is really the key here. there are military things that would have to be done here if isis, gets closer to baghdad and

threatens the capital. but, in the meantime, it is diplomacy and the political issues that need to be worked. that is the reason we're in this situation. >> when you say diplomacy, do you mean reconciliation between shia and sunni? or something else? >> i mean more of what secretary kerry has been charged to do and that this talk to our friends and allies in the region and try to get them to be part of the solution to help maliki think through what is going to take to keep iraq together and to rule and to govern in iraq in a way that includes the three major groups. the kurds, the sunnis, and the shiites. without that, there is -- no military force can do that. that has to be done by political will. and maliki needs to hear from his neighbors that this is really important not only to iraq but to the region and in

the economic impact i spoke of earlier. >> are we signaling to the iraqis and neighbors that they have to have a new leader? >> if they are reading our headlines, those that worry about that are confused. the president in a statement today stopped short of calling for maliki to leave office and to have a new coalition forced. a lot of other folks in government have made that and they are a little confused now. there are a lot facts that we do not have so i didn't know how the conversation with maliki have gone. my personal opinion is he is gotten a long time to get it right and he has not gotten it right. in fact, he has alienated the sunni population to the point where i do not think he is capable of putting that back together. it seems to me from where i sit

that he probably needs to go. and the president's decision would carry a lot of weight. >> there is also this. they want airstrikes. is that a good idea as a in military weapon against these kinds of insurgents? >> i think to know that, we need to get the folks the president has said he wants to send up to 300 advisors that would set up a command center, joint command centers with the iraqis. we need to get eyes on what is happening on the ground to know if it could be effective. it could be in some circumstances. one of the things you always worry about is having the right targets identified. that is how we went into afghanistan initially. we had a few special forces on the ground coordinating with air

power and brought the al qaeda to their heels. that can work but i think it's important to get eyes on and i would assume that is what the 300 advisors would do, what is our situation? are there targets out there that would lend themselves to airstrikes? >> you want to wait until you hear what those men and women get on the ground and determine what the situation is in coordination with the iraqis? >> yes and it goes to the issue after 9/11, that's not a fight with the nationstates that have armies, and navies. these are non-nationstate actors. and so, unless they group or they have equipment that can be struck by air and air would be effective in there and we would have the reconnaissance and don't get to do effective targeting, but until we know

that i did not know that we know that air power is the right solution. we need folks over there that have eyes on us and say we have targets that would put isis and maybe make that recommendation. and then it could be put together pretty quickly. >> what do you think about the possibility of coordinating with iraqi militias that are inspiring? >> i think it's a dangerous path frankly. and i think it is in u.s. interest and certainly others in the region that we do all that we can to keep iran out of this conflict. do not give them any encouragement to come in and help. they are not going to be inclined to leave. there are but exerting a lot of influence inside of iraq. it would give them another leg up and maybe solidify a bond with shia militias that i do not think is anybody's interest was interest.

it exacerbates the problem with our friends in the gulf state. they worry about that a lot. i do not think we need to encourage that. i do not think we need to do that. the shia, by the way, will fight pretty well. i think they will fight very well without help from their iranian friends. >> saddam hussein, i think robert ford said it, the former ambassador said this, he said that iraq and syria are one big con net now. >> it is certainly connected. that is one of the dangers. the fight going on right now could spread. and could make some linkages that would be very, very difficult to eradicate once they and get a foothold in both syria and iraq and make it much more difficult for even a political solution to the problem. obviously, syria is a whole different issue. one we have not been very

aggressive in any particular way. that would be, we would have to start with ground zero to figure how to solve that or help solve that problem. >> i wonder whether syria formed the decision that the president is making. there are many people criticize the president did not do more. >> it brings into sharp focus that what was happening in syria and really was opposite of our u.s. interest in the region are because first of all, it is a threat to israel. it is a threat to stability in jordan. to some degree, it is a threat to stability or certainly unrest in turkey as they take on a lot of refugees. now, we are seeing it expand again into iraq. and by the way, the president had a tough decision to figure and out what to do in syria because it was not clear. the longer you waited, the more

difficult decisions became. we are at the front end of this one. it looks like we are taking the sort of steps here on the sidelines with no responsibility but they look prudent. i would hope we would do this with a sense of urgency so we would be helpful to those iraqis armed forces who want to fight. as we heard the chairman say on capitol hill, there are iraq units that can and will fight. we saw some that turned and ran and took off their uniforms and wanted to blend in with the crowd but those were far to the north. there are a lot who will fight and there are good units. i believe that. we need to get over and provide the kind of assistance we can provide in that regard where that -- while they are working

the political issue with maliki and a new government. it has to be of reconciliation. >> were you surprised at how fast isis has moved? >> they had a plan or they cannot have done this. but given the tactics that they use, they seem to have taken it to the next level if you can do that. totally ruthless. people are going to be very afraid, there is not going to be any resistance. i do not think we can assume by that that the sunni population is cheering them along because they are so extreme that my guess is the majority of sunnis in the country do not want anything to do with them. they're also really, really afraid. that was a situation we've got -- we found along our province after i left office, sectarian violence erupted even worse. a lot was the fear factor. that was part of our strategy. we could do away with the insurgents and hold territory in

make it safe and secure for those left behind. right now, there are a lot of folks in mosul who do not have that feeling and there's nobody there to protect them. isis can have their way for a while. that will be different the closer they get to baghdad. they are finding out. >> thank you for joining us. we'll be right back. ♪

areed olson and david boies here. they are friends and superlawyers. in bushe adversaries versus gore which decided the presidential election. nine years later, they teamed up with to overturn proposition eight, the ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage. vanity fair magazine arrives and our partnership is living proof that bipartisanship is not yet dead and buried in washington. they tell their story in a new book called, "redeeming the dream." it is also the subject of a new hbo documentary and is called the "case against hate." here is a scene.

>> this lawsuit is about the course saying no matter how blind people may be, the constitution guarantees that everyone deserves the equal being ist every human entitled to. >> will we announce the case, some of the people after the press conference stood up and said how can you trust what you are doing if you are doing it with ted olson? there was reaction among conservatives that i was a traitor. what isnot know happening to ted olson. i have no clue. he used to be one of us. >> why do you feel so many conservatives are on the other side? >> i am pleased to have david boies and ted olson. let's begin with a small question. in everything you have done in the legal arena and everything you have done in the legal arena

i'm a word you put this? this as thee put most satisfying case we have ever done. the impact it has had on many,duals' lives and many thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of peoples' lives. and the pain it has begun to erase has made this for me and i know for ted, too, the most satisfying case we have ever done. >> absolutely. ander one because of the -- what we have done in the case and what was done by talking about discrimination against persons because of their sexual orientation, it is helped change the attitudes in this country and the law. we have not been doing it by ourselves. the people whose lives were affected makes us feel every moment of this case, we felt we had to do our very best because

we had to succeed for these people. oh, my gosh, it is overwhelmingly gratifying. the tears in people's eyes i david.en come up to i had one gentleman, i was sitting on the shuttle and he walked past me and said on thank you. and we are feeling that all over the country. say we did not do this all by ourselves. a lot of other people were involved. people saw us a lot talking about this case and these issues was the -- and these issues. -- it made us see how much damage we do to our citizens up by putting them in a box and not -- and to deny them and their families equal treatment under the law. singleo painful every day. and the documentary you started with, the case against hbo is a

spectacular rendition of the case. andy the emotions involved. >> how did this begin? with a callfor me from attack. he was asked by a small group of people in california who were upset by proposition eight and wanted to challenge it. there had been a number of attempts. under had brought a case the federal constitution to federal court to try to challenge these laws and contacted ted and asked him whether he would be willing to do that and he said he would. andy called me and asked if i will be interested and i immediately said yes. >> why did you do that? >> i've been known as a conservative. thought it was very, very important to have someone well known on the other side of the

political spectrum so people would see this through our eyes, not as a liberal/conservative issue but an issue involving american values, institutional principles, and i felt we would be a perfect team. david is the best lawyer on the planet that i know and i knew we would have fun working together. our law firms together not only in court but in the court of public opinion, we would have an ability to change. >> do you complement each other? or different skills with the teams?nt >> i think we have a lot of the same skills. i am more free trial lawyer. ted is more of an appellate lawyer. he does trials and i do some appeals. and so i think in that sense, we are complementry. in a lot of respects, our skill set is overlapping.

>> what is that? combination of things. preparation. you cannot do what we do without being prepared. >> you cannot do anything good without being prepared. >> i think that is right. you also need to have patience. especially when you are doing a case like this. it is critical to have patience. and i think we both, although we can be anxious to get on with things, we also both have the ability to be patient. i think it also requires people who are pretty smart. and i think both ted and i are pretty smart. requiresnk it also people who are prepared to be objective. really look at issues, not just from your side, but from every side in a way the judge is going

to look at it, the jury, your opponents are going to look at it. it informs how you approach communication. it is all about communication. share thoseed and i kind of attributes. wasso think and this important for this case that we were both committed to this case as a matter of principle. because of this required an enormous amount of resources. both of our firms are enormously supportive. taking people off of our paying clients and putting them on this case. our very best people and putting them on this case and on for tens of thousands of hours. i think it was an enormous commitment we ask our partners to make. is of the things we did built up enough credibility with

our partners so they were willing to back us in this kind of venture. idea of what rush limbaugh said in your other friends said to you, didn't get serious? did they try to encourage you to do this and say you cannot do this? >> this is the kind of thing ted has had much more of the brunt of it than i have. anytime i involved in one of these high-profile cases, i get a lot of hate mail. it is all from people who hate what i do and -- but expect me to do it. that has been true when i defended cbs against westmoreland in true when i did bush and gore. it was true when i sued the onublican national committee behalf of the democratic national committee. hate mail that i get is hate mail that comes after being for what they think i am.

people what ted got was who thought he had somehow betrayed them that god is always --ore bitter type of tack somehow betrayed him and that is always a more bitter type of attack. >> many of them said so in many did not and many i did not hear from. it comes through e-mail of days and people say things. what i focus on is the of supportg sense from people, people i knew or did not know. irrespective of that, i tell a story in the book of someone who came up to me as we filed the case in my own law firm, a woman who came up to me who was in a different part of the law firm and came up to me and said, you do not know this but i am a lesbian.

my partner and i have two children and i cannot begin to describe what you are doing for us. we both burst into tears. to thehat important individuals that are being affected. and istuff like this think, it does not matter if you can really do some good for some people. and i thought there was an opportunity for me to try to persuade people of a wait a minute, why is marriage not a conservative value? love onepeople who another common together in a stable relationship to part -- to form a part of a community. that is a conservative value so listen to us. discrimination is not a conservative value. let's move on. let's do that are. we found an opportunity because of the odd couple.

-- leslie do better. people would ask why are you collaborating gave us a chance to talk and be advocates. inputted andage is public debate. the fact you were doing this made people think debate. it in advantage is it put public debate. >> i do not think if you debate and really look at the issues, you are going to come out 2 ways. >> was it an easy case? once wes an easy case have brought in all of the evidence. once we brought in all of the experts and demonstrated that marriage is a fundamental right at second, depriving the right to marry seriously harms them and their children. and third, depriving gay and lesbian the right to marry did not help anybody else.

it is not strengthen anybody else' as marriage. allowing loving couples, committed couples to marry, the strength this institutional marriage. that, the case was an easy case. >> the supreme court argument, how did you approach that? by talkingarted off about preparation. we acknowledge how important that was. we prepared. we prepared and we prepared. because -- best lawyers in america. none better. and they key word to all of you young people "we prepared and we've repaired -- and we prepared." >> in the supreme court, you get half an hour to present your case and most of the justices are involved in asking questions, interrupting you and

they interrupt one another in interrupting you. it is very important to keep your poise and your goal in front of you and be able to segue back to the points you want to make and answer their questions. you have to answer the questions and keep a clear head about to you. it happens extremely fast. aboutly way david talked preparation and i talk about preparation is experience. between the two of us, we have almost 100 years of practicing law. we learn something i hope. we have not stopped learning. in the united states supreme court, there is no higher court. everybody is watching and listening. you are not only speaking to the justices because the audio of to theument is broadcast whole world. the things you are saying about discrimination are going out there to other people. you are not only hopefully

influence the outcome of the case but hopefully teaching people out there and what to the issues are and what discrimination is all about and what the constitution is all about. all of the has to take lays in a short pedal -- period of time. >> was there any port you felt it was going our way? a couple of times when it seemed like things were going pretty well and a couple at times that things happening gave us pause. one of the most critical portions was when justice kennedy was going to be critical judges of -- justice of this asked he interrupted and our opponent, what about the children? don't they deserve a voice? referring to the children raised by gay and lesbian couples because the record was clear that those children were severely disadvantage when

economically and socially by their parents not being able to get married. and i ain't when justice kennedy -- and i think when justice kennedy focus on that aspect, it was something that was positive. important because our opponents said marriage is all about procreation. and justice kennedy at one of the other justices said, wait a minute, gays and lesbians have children and they procreate and raise children. a reset what about those children that exist in gay families in california, don't they count? that is one of the opinions he wrote in respect to the cases. it is very important. david helped with the cross-examination during the trial to get to the opposing effort -- expert to say children in a family being raised by gays and lesbians would be better off if their parents could get married.

that was a critical moment in the trial. from there the scenes movie. the practice for trial. here it is. >> how long does it take? >> as long as i can remember. >> or did you choose to be gay? >> no. >> do you think you have the ability to choose not to beget? >> i do not. >> who do you want to get married to? >> the one i love. yet --ome you and him not had aul have child? >> we want to get married. we want the children to have protection than opposite sex family would have. >> a lack it is trial practice.

-- >> a lot of it is trial practice. ,> as you prepare the witnesses it is important you do not destroy their authenticity. you do not let it, cross as practice. as a result, when i was tedaring jeff and paul and was preparing chris and sammy. with risk that two very sensitive -- with respect to very cystic questions, we did not go into detail in preparation because we want a testimony to be fresh and i sent it and be natural. when i asked jeff and paul why do want to get married and why do want to marry this person and today talked about how they loved this person and a loved him more than life itself in more than they love to

themselves and how important it was. chris and sandy the same question, they talked about how their life had a higher art stop -- acr if they able-- arc if they were to get married and the hope for other children they would not suffer that type of pain. that was not a dry eye. that included the other side. the united states supreme court struck down as opposite to channel the defense of marriage act that says the federal government would not recognize even lawful marriages in the state that permitted it and would preclude gay and lesbian from marrying gay and lesbians in particular states are getting federal benefits. there were 1100 statues that discriminated against people

that do not have opposite sex marriage. that was struck down as unconstitutional. our case, proposition eight, the judge struck it down. proposition eight was unconstitutional. he wrote a 134 page conclusion. as a result of the supreme court decision on the that is a lot in california. since the two decisions that ago, 12 exactly a year or 13 federal judges in all parts of the united states appointed by republican and democratic presidents have struck down laws prohibiting marriage between persons of the same sex. will we start of a case, three states permitted hearses of the opposite sex to marry -- of the same sex to marry one another. now, it is 19 plus the district of columbia. if you added the other states, 13 or so, those cases are in

progress. those cases are going to wind up , one of them, we are handling the case in virginia. we won that and is now on appeal and will probably go to the supreme court. one of that will wind up in the supreme court and we hope that outcome will resolve this once and for all for the whole country. critics are you taking on anything other than marriage equality? onmy firm is working challenging the tenure system in public schools in california whereby teachers who are incompetent, unqualified teachers are kept in the public school system and the students are subject to -- you are granted 10 years and you cannot fire them. the oldest guest to stay and the youngest teacher gets to get fired if there is contraction on the budget. found thetrial court

system unconstitutional under california law. what did that system did was rotate the parade of lemons. in the poorest teachers would be rotated in the poorest neighborhoods sold the student see one desperately to rise out of poverty and overcome adversenation and circumstances and because of their race or ethnicity and the inner cities, those were the kids are getting the worst teachers. the evidence showed if you have a bad teacher for one year when you are a younger kid, you can almost never overcome that if you have a bad teacher for two years in a row, it is almost over for you. those are the kids that drop out and get involved in drugs and get pregnant. and that is one of the things we are interested in doing. doing something about the education system. we all value teachers. the point of this case is

because teachers are so important and so valuable, we want to see the system put in those good teachers with those students. >> are you working on a pro bono case? >> we are working on very similar issues in new york. board of students first. that is trying to reform the educational system, trying to get more hope ability in the schools toward better teachers and replace the worst teachers. trying to and able charter schools -- enable charter schools to survive in a difficult current environment. i totally agree with ted. education is sort of the next civil rights we have to talk about because if you are not educated, it is not made difference if you are black or white, whether you are gay or straight, regardless of your

other attributes, if you cannot a decentch -- education, you cannot survive today's world. access to education is a function to how rich your parents are and where you live. we do not have rules that say we're only going to send the police and fire department into rich neighborhoods. we are not going to have military protect poor neighborhoods. there are certain basic rights including access to courts. we do not say we can only how rich and poor courts. everybody has to go to the same court. education ought to be the same. up to get aould be decent education. to do that, we have to reform our education system. it is not like we do not spend a lot of money and the united states. we do not get very much more. terms of that.n

bush versus gore. -- would that decision come because -- it down because you get the facts on your side or you were a better lawyer or politics were baked into the court? >> i certainly do not think it had anything to do with the quality of lawyering. extremely had qualified lawyering and the doug to supreme -- the 2 supreme court cases. the skill that went into it and i watch david and al gore's team and they were fabulous lawyers. we had differences of opinion on whether the court decided correctly or not. i respected the views of the david articulated. turndential election can

on the outcome of votes in one state. it has to be determined within a certain timeframe because what the constitutional limits on when the new president must take office. the concern david was expressing is that they wanted every vote counted and i would say, they want every vote is counted again and again and again by different standards and do the rules cap to changing after the election with respect to what was a valid vote and what was not. when you put to the punch cards through the machines, they change every time. you are never measuring the same thing. requirethat the process counting votes in a determinate way according to the rules that were in place before the election took place, not rules changing from hour to hour and county to county. there are other sides to the argument and i am sure david,

and i have heard it. he is good at expressing. the fact is -- i believe this about cases i lost. every single one of the justices is conscientious, they are smart , they are well-prepared, and they are doing the best job they can. it, they are doing justice. i really mean that. i have lost cases involving big principles. i do not want to start naming cases i have lost because we would be here too long. fromustices -- i want to the state that it is my judgment that politics had nothing to do with it. it had to do with our perception of what was the right way to interpret the constitution and people can have legitimate differences. to impugn the integrity of the justices does grave damage to the institution and our judiciary which is the envy of the world.

think -- there were two main problems when the court came out. was exactlys ted right. you want to have all of the votes counted in a consistent way. the florida supreme court has said that up. were in the middle of a state wide recount being supervised by a single judge. it was going to get all of the protests from either side and decided them or switch to a uniform standard that was going floridapealed to the supreme court. you would have one standard applied statewide their recount was underway. and it was going to be completed probably within about less than 48 hours. it'd already been half completed at the time it stopped. the supreme court stopped it before we had the argument.

the petition was filed. on a saturday and a saturday afternoon, the supreme court stopped the votes. and i think stopping that vote count before the argument even took place was undesirable. i think that, the second thing that happened was that you had three justices on that court who verytionally had been reluctant to decide cases decide on equal protection. they all joined in opinions and any stateannot attack action on equal protection grounds unless you find either it is systematic. here the argument was not that there was anything insidious,

nobody was claiming the boards were doing something evil or intentionally bad and not that it was systematic. the argument was it was not systematic. you could not justify equal pursuant to the opinions that these three justices rendered in the past. and so i think when they came out with this case based on an equal protection argument and i think there are legitimate equal protection argument that could be made in respect to what happened. those arguments go more to the differentthere were 4 kinds of machines used in florida and the different treatment of votes was because of 4 different kinds of machines. the problem was the three justices in the majority had

rejected those arguments in the past and yet praise of those arguments to decide in this case. >> why didn't they do that -- did they do that? >> i agree with ted on one thing is that the supreme court is absolutely critical to our democracy and the pursuit of human rights. throughout our lifetime, the supreme court has been probably the most important engine in advancing civil rights in this country. and i think it is undesirable to engage and extend criticisms of the court that icing undercut the court. -- and that icing undercut the court. -- i think undercut the court. andcourt is made of people people sometimes make mistakes. the supreme court has made mistakes. they made mistake in plessy

versus ferguson. they made a mistake and the japanese internment cases. and i think they made a mistake here. that does not mean that i think is not a greatrt institution. i think it is. i also think every justice on the court is doing what he or she thinks is in the national interest. but i think there were judges on the court in bush v gore who thought it was in the national interest that george bush be president. and i think that was not the way those decisions should be made. >> seven of the justices felt there were problems under the equal protection clause including two of the dissenting justice who would not stop the recount after that point. they were assistive and they expressed it, concerns about the

equal protection clause. there were two decisions from the supreme court. the first one, the united states supreme court rejected what the florida supreme court did, 9-0. the second was 5-4 on whether it was time to stop the recount buth was not going as fast i respect his recollection of the facts. justices fellhe to the concern about the manner of accounting. when people talk about it as a 5-4 decision, i say let's count the two decisions. it is 16-2. the first decision was 9-08 did not stop. it did not 9-0 and stop. >> if the county had been completed, you know where i am

going. and the question is -- >> and the question is, if you have completed the county, who would have won? i think the answer is, nobody could have known for sure. it was a statistical tie. and the number of ovals with such a tiny fraction of the total votes, even slight changes would affect the result. what we do know is that there were a number of attempts after the fact to do a recount. and what the results of that on two different thing. did you count both under votes and over votes? encountered pursuant to the standard we were advocating or that the bush camp was advocating? one of the ironies was that one of the counts and there were byeral attempts organizations and multiple by

journalistic organizations and academic institutions, one of those counts said that if you counted pursuant to the standard that the bush camp was advocating, gore would have won. if you count pursuant of what the gore camp was advocating, bush would have won. >> what began as two lawyers working on a case and it up with two people but coming best friends. >> absolutely. i cannot imagine someone who i respect and admire and have a more affection for the new david. and i will say it is david and mary and my wife, lady, and i. we enjoyed one another. we enjoyed jousting about these things. political things and other things.

there are some things we absolutely agree on. we like to pull together in various parts of the world and so forth. the experience of practicing law with david as my partner was so professionally gratifying especially because we cared so much about the case and what we did it together. and i hope will have opportunities together in the future. probably nothing more important than this case. that is why we wrote this book. we wanted to explain to people how we felt about it and why we came together and how we develop our strategy and we wanted to share the things we had learned, the education home in the educational process we had experience and wanted to share it with people so people can sort of understand how people from opposite side of the political spectrum can come push things that maybe you cannot do working by yourself. and we felt it was such an important to put in writing.

-- you cannot accomplish that maybe you cannot do working by yourself. is nobody i enjoy working with more than a cat. ted is a great lawyer. -- there is nobody i enjoy working more with it than ted. his tremendous integrity. he was somebody who had made great arguments. passionate advocate for his side. do not overstate. always respected the process. and always acted with enormous integrity. after he election and was nominated to be solicitor general. approval.ion to his >> a few of the senators did not like the outcome. [laughter] >> and i went, i was chief

counsel and i went to ted i am notnd i said, going to tell you how to vote. but this is a person of great integrity and he deserves your vote. you should not keep it in committee. this is not a situation in which you ought to try to prevent him from becoming solicitor general. there was a vote. he was obviously confirmed. but i, i intermarry both enjoy lady and ted enormously. and i both enjoy lady and ted enormously. >> this the dedication.

and to my mother who is still do me a passion for learning and reading and writing. well said. >> thank you. >> thank you. ♪

>> this week on "political capital," brawl free talks about evangelicals in 2016. y.ama v chene debatet colson and -- common core and renaming the redskins. we began the program with the chairman of the faith and freedom coalition, ralph reed.