what about the other 30%? i heard the chicago vote, there are a lot of people out there who opposed him and continue to oppose him. that is a lot of people. ..

publishers six month deadline did you at any time during the course of writing this book compromise your journalistic principles simply to bring a product to market? >> i tell you what i did have to do, the test for me was i don't want to let it go. i want to say there is more information so the challenge for me with every chapter is to say i have to stop. i have to turn this in.

more is going to happen like i mentioned lehman brothers, people must why don't you have more about the economy? lehman brothers was still functioning sat kimber 28. i turned that chapter in. i can't go back. it's that kind of situation. that was the challenge for me now a challenge of ethics but of leges discipline or approach were saying i have to acknowledge i can't say it all in this book. that is probably what took me six years into the previous book because i kept saying i've got to get more and i couldn't do that with this one and i got pretty good at saying okay, i have to stop. >> i would like to thank you -- one more. i won't think you yet then. [laughter] >> i have a couple questions. i really had my ear the fan of

keeping obama's naim intact because one of the things going on in the community is that we only go so far with african culture. there are some populations that do change their name so i was wondering how do you see that as playing a role developing an american ethnicity with african influence because bill cosby made a statement, too. a lot of things about men being responsible but he also said in the same breath you can't make it by changing the name to fun the african names and here comes obama saloom wondering if you have any kind of comment on that. >> i think obama dramatically put the lie to that particular argument. but, you know to a certain extent i understood where because -- cosby was coming

from. americans are not ready to vote for somebody named dukakis because it is too ethnic. that may or may not have been relevant tall and dukakis's campaign but i had the same reactions william dustin where he's coming from, but obviously we are evolving beyond that particular hang out. >> it's amazing so many rules were broken. well, now i will say thank you so much for coming and for sharing the stage with me. [applause] jabari asim is the editor-in-chief of the naacp magazine the crisis and contributor to the washington post. he's also the author of the book the n word. for more information on the author, go to "washington post"

about, and naacp .org. craig shirley author of riggins revelation recounts rall freakin' 1988 presidential campaign. he follows president reagan from his defeat for the presidency of 1976 to his election four years later over incumbent president jimmy carter. ronald reagan presidential library in simi valley california is the host of this hour-long event. >> craig and i are going to do something that hopefully you will find the fun. rather than him getting the and giving a long 30 minute speech in which you struggle in your seat, i thought i would interview craig, asking number of questions about his book and also threw it to the audience if you've got questions as well so we would like to keep this as lightly and living as possible so please as we move forward if you have something you want to throw up here please raise your

hand but let me ask the first five or six questions. [laughter] does that sound good for you, craig? >> works for me. >> in our archives, craig, we have hundreds and hundreds of president reagan's radio addresses from the 1976 to 1980 time frame, and when i saw him he had that many radio address is i thought to myself you know, from the outset after the 76 convention to be on the air that much and then having read in your book the fact he was also writing a biweekly newspaper column he was traveling around the country dozens and dozens of different speeches he was the thing from the convention on word. it would seem to me what must have happened at that time was campaign staff said we are not letting this go. from the moment to leave the convention do all these things to position yourself to run for

the presidency. was it that purposeful or was it more by happenstance? >> as a matter of fact it is the campaign after 1976 pretty much dissipated the staff went their own way with exception of peter hanford and mike deaver managing the political affairs and commentaries and syndicated columns of governor reagan's but there wasn't a grand plan that started after the convention of 76 for him to mount another challenge or third challenge for the republican nomination of 1983 the nomination was all separated and a lot of the stuff as a matter of fact was playing footsie with other candidates including howard baker and john connally and all those others who ended up taking on ronald reagan for the nomination and compounding that was the fact that a lot of the staff from 76 fought that 76 was reagan's's last shot and he would not run

again in 1980. he would in fact be too old to run again in 1980. >> i think around 1978 it seems to me that president reagan, not even candidate reagan at the time happened upon an issue i'm sure he had been watching for years, but it seemed to be the issue in that timeframe that really helped vault him back into the dialogue and i would be the panama canal. was that an extremely important issue >> it was for those old enough to remember enormously huge issue in this country. it was so huge in this country that president carter fighting for the panama canal treaties in 1977 he is lobbying the senate and trying to muster their grassroots support for the trees. he does something for president of the united states and a national television address advocating the passage of the

treaties he attacks private citizen ronald reagan. he said there is a man going around this country who says we built it, we paid for it, it's ours and we are going to keep it, and that is not quite true. now imagine that, the president of the united states is attacking one citizen out of a nation of 2,040,000,000 people. it's pretty astonishing. cbs news the next day calls governor reagan and says what you like 30 minutes of airtime to respond to the president of the united states? reagan thought about it about three seconds and they put him on national television and gave a 30 minute response to carter's attack and his position on the treaty's. the issue also brings up, too, the fisher's going in side of the republican party because at the time reagan was trying to mount this national grass-roots campaign to oppose the treaties and he is approached buy then rnc chairman bill brock. he wanted him to sign a direct

mail piece for the republican national committee to oppose -- raise money to oppose the treaties and governor reagan said would love to. he signs a letter and makes over $1 million for the national committee which was a lot of money, still a lot of money so now governor reagan is putting together a national squad to travel the country to not the grassroots campaign to the treaties and he goes to brock and says bill, would you mind if i had some of that money that i raised for the truth squad and he says no, wouldn't give him one of donner and and and the reason he wouldn't was because of course he was from tennessee, former senator from tennessee, he and howard baker were good friends. howard baker was the senate minority leader who hadn't taken a position on the treaty's plus he was close friends with gerald ford who was even as an ex-president supporting the panama canal treaties so reagan was furious as you can imagine with brock and the national

republican in committee and after that never raised another dime for the rnc until after he took control of the party and got the nomination in july of 1980. >> so if i have my history correct the panel canal treaty actually passed. is it fair to say that president reagan lost the battle but one the war and in the sense it positioned him from a philosophical standpoint to help coalesce the conservative coalition? >> absolutely. by the time the passage of the treaties in the senate and spring of 1978 the american people who two years before support of the panama canal treaties al all of the national polling has the american people opposed to the panama canal treaties. reagan had convinced them even though you're right, he lost the battle but he won the war because it will last a lot of the conservative movement for his eventual drive through the

nomination of 1980. >> can you talk for a minute about jack kemp? i wasn't working on the hill atlanta but by the time i got to capitol hill his name was already famous. he might have been a young republican and somewhat of a back bench, but it was remarkable some of his ideas especially supply side economics and those he got from when pinsky had found their way to ronald reagan and reagan started espousing and quite early on plus camp -- he was an influential figure on reagan. >> somebody someday is going to have to do a book how important jack kemp was to the conservative movement and the republican party. jack was in many ways our previous. he brought the fire to the republican kind. he gave a hopeful economic message which conservatism and republican as some had never had before. we have always been the republicans and conservatives have always been the kind of green ice shade balanced budget

folks and the democrats were the party of hope and opportunity. their economic message was to spread the wealth or whatever but we didn't have something that was hopeful. in september of 1976, kemp introduced what is called the jobs creation act in the house. it's a backbencher and anybody can introduce legislation that he introduces this bill and it's brought to riggins's attention and what it is is a massive, across-the-board personal income tax, 33% across the board for all americans. reagan seasonally the plug opportunity but what he also does economically for what he believes for the country, and he endorses it immediately and by 1978, less than two years later, it is the centerpiece of the economic philosophy to the american people, and tax cuts were important for reagan for two reasons. everybody thinks it was about stimulating the economy and that

is true but from riggins's standpoint, he was developing and owning a message about domestic conservatism. and part of that had to be a reliance on the self who also the state and the tax cuts were a way to reduce the individuals reliance upon the state and increase the reliance upon themselves. that was a really attractive begin to tax cuts is it and it did the person to give them more control of their own destiny. >> having read your book, it reminded me of just how many republican candidates saw the weakness of carter and said i'm going to get into this. it seems like almost a dozen. do you recall how many? >> the end up running? >> in the republican primaries. >> in the up with six but there were eight or ten who looked at it including former president

gerald ford. >> i know as the race, we went through the republican primaries heading into 1980 and it ended towards the end of being a ronald reagan versus george bush. do you have a few of any particular candidate that should have more momentum, should have kind of ended up there at the finish line the beyond bush or was it really bush had run the campaign next to reagan? >> bush ran the best campaign next to reagan and had from the most aggressive campaign and probably the best campaign staff after reagan in some ways. i always wondered why bob dole didn't catch fire more. certainly he had been on the ticket with gerald ford 1976. he was a national political figure and he was a war hero and very effective, but it looked as leader from kansas. he had a beautiful story to tell. jack armstrong all american story. but he never caught on with the

voters and i could never figure out why that never happened. >> while you have noted president reagan in this campaign he was victorious in the primaries, i was interested in seeing your book i think that you called it a blunder in start. pecos back to that time, because the reagan presidency almost wasn't the reagan presidency because of a very bad start. what happened? >> what happened was that after 1976 after kansas city, freakin' does what he wants to do which is to go out and to communicate to the american people his view of america, conservatism, the world, communism, opportunity, freedom, all those things he believed in and it is in june of 1977 alone he gives 15 major policy speeches. he's on the tonight show with johnny carson testifying on capitol hill against the panama

canal treaties. he is hither and beyond, and reagan was like a thoroughbred, the more that you ran him the better he reimputed if you pulled them off to the side and put them into the stable, then it starts to get -- >> start to get, you know, his muscles start, atrophy. so he's doing this all through 1977, 1978. the campaign aides, he's the front-runner for the nomination from 1980 but the campaign -- the only way ronald reagan is going to lose the nomination is if he defeats himself in the primaries. so, john and the people associated with john sears said him off the road for the entire [inaudible] -- and so this allows the candidates to climb into contention. by 1979, ralf reagan who should have been the front-runner for the republican nomination as a matter of fact is only getting 20% support of the republicans

nationwide and there was mainly because he had campaign aides telling him to go against his own instincts. his instincts were stay there and talk to the american people. he only had gone to new hampshire once in two years before the primary. he hadn't been to iowa and years before the for the caucasus so he almost lost the nomination. >> he had lost the iowa caucuses and then it was new hampshire do-or-die. sprick new hampshire was absolutely do-or-die for ronald reagan and the interesting thing is the primary process now is that new hampshire polls eight days after the iowa caucuses. you take in the current primary schedule and over lead over the 1980 schedule, reagan would have lost the nomination, george bush would have won the nomination, ronald reagan would have become the william jennings bryan of the republican party, the guide

that ran three times and lost three times. but worked in freakin''s favor were two things. one, himself because he decided to take control of his destiny and number two is that new hampshire felt five weeks after the iowa caucuses which allowed him the time to get back into the race. >> i think what you're saying is if he had not -- if we took the modern-day schedule over late on their reading campaign he wouldn't have been president reagan. and talk about new hampshire now because my impression is in modern-day politics as the big debates may be put up in terms of importance to a campaign they are often slugfests that indian drawls, but at the high school debate you write about it seems to be an extraordinary exception to the rule. can you talk about the importance of that? >> freakin' cleaves iowa. he's collapsed and all the

national polls. he collapsed in the new hampshire polls, his campaign is heavily in debt. still campaign aides are saying put in a couple of days and reagan tears up the script and says i'm going to the hampshire and i'm going to campaign the way i want to campaign and the age issue was a huge issue in 1979, 1980 but what ended up happening is that he's traveling and going so furious and going so fast that the political press traveling with him they hang a sign on the bus that serves free reagan 44 because they are so exhausted from the pace set by man twice their age. but going into the national debate and why it is so interesting and shows a lot about ronald reagan is that reagan is losing in new hampshire. he needs a one-on-one debate with george bush to make his case of why he would be a better

nominee than george bush. as the debate negotiation is going on, reagan slowly creep up in the poll and all of a sudden now the table is turned so that bush now once the other candidates involved. then the federal election commission steps in and says no, this newspaper cannot pay for the debate. it's an illegal corporate contributions of the reagan campaign steps forward and says we will pay the $3,000 for the debate. now you have again the tables have turned again to this is now the national telegraph is only three days before the primary and reagan is surging in the polls but he hasn't caught george bush yet but he wants the other candidates involved to delete the entire reagan vote. bush puts his feet in the granite and is absolutely not these other candidates are all going to be involved. reagan says on paying for this, i think they should be involved.

so what happens is you have this famous confrontation at the nashua high school, 2500 people, it is hotter in sight. somebody described people yelling, screaming. somebody described as star wars. [laughter] so you have reagan addressing the crowd, he calls the other four candidates, dole, connally, crane and baker on stage and they are labeled the nashua 44 and he wants to address the crowd and explain why the other four candidates should be involved and john, the editor of the telegraph is telling the sound man turn off his microphone, turn off his microphone and they won't turn off the microphone and reagan grabs the microphone, stands up and takes a step and you look at the video and think he's going to hit him. [laughter] he was so mad his agent said they'd never seen reagan as bad

as that might and his hands were shaking and that is where he thundered on paying for this microphone. >> a classic moment. islamic okay. so after all of that tunnel, and that was just the beginning, you know, from reading your book there's no question it harkens back to the time when there was a very tough campaign and as i went down to the wire between reagan and bush and as a former staff person in the bush administration i ask this question with all due respect. when you read your book it's surprising when you see the speed president reagan decided towards the end to ask george bush to come on the tickets there was a lot of backroom negotiations involving former president work but can you bring this back to the time because it's remarkable to me such a tough campaign to each other that the president reached out his hand to bring bush on the

ticket. >> there was a history between governor reagan and ambassador bush who the end up being the best of friends and mutual respect and all around. and it proves politics those make st -- they had a history going back to 78 the start about a little bit rocky. there was a congressional candidate in texas, a fellow by the name of george w. bush running for congress from there in 1978 and he had a conservative primary opponent, jimmie reese, the mayor of otas -- reagan contributed to the campaign and this didn't sit well with the bush family as you can imagine and as a matter of fact ambassador bush called then governor reagan to complain about him and forcing his son's opponent. so you already had that situation and then of course bush is running in the primaries against reagan, and the age

issue again is i can't underestimate how big the issue was in '79 and '80. we shot through every story that was written or report on the radio or tv about ronald reagan. was he too old, up to the task and all of this, and bush is trying to exploit this and the other campaign would comegys jogging for the media. he goes to the ymca and concord, new hampshire call and does pushups for the benefit of the national media and all these things. it's all to exacerbate the age issue. so you had that, and then on top of that you have bush attacking reagan's tax cut as voodoo economics. this sent reagan around the bend so by the time you get to detroit freely on paper if you look the guy that made the most sense to go on the ticket with ronald reagan was george bush because he was more moderate, he had a proven vote-getter in the primaries and lower north we see when the primary and michigan

primary and massachusetts and others. he had more foreign policy experience and he was the guy there was went to be the one to best unify the convention because as you know the unified convention stand to win in the fall and divider contingents lose in the fall. and there's great resistance on the part of governor and mrs. reagan taking bush because the issues left unaddressed. so there's this one day where there is madness in detroit where they try to put together the co presidency some of your member with gerald ford, the dream ticket where reagan was running for president and they tried to get gerald ford to serve, to run as vice president. i always thought of jim baker had the best line on the whole situation because if you had reagan and ford elected as president and vice president would you utter says

mr. president and mr. vice president or mr. vice president and mr. president? [laughter] you had this whole day where there were negotiations carried out on national television between bell walter cronkite and gerald ford and the co presidency and rumors being passed from delegate to delegate and all made on the network television and all recycled back so you had this madness about whether or not there was going to be a dream ticket and whether there would be aco presidency, would they address the convention in unison and at the end of the day ford and reagan, this is not 11 trinkle 30 am i -- this is the might reagan is nominated. he's tried three times for the nomination, he finally gets it and he can't say for it because he hasn't got -- he doesn't have a running mate. at 11:30 that night after all these negotiations, and i need to tell you, too, about henry kissinger's role in all of this -- to go into a room for five

minutes, the two of them there in the trade and come out and reagan tells the guice, tells peter and win and allen and the others i can't tell you what's going on but it's not going to work. so they sit there 11:30 at night and reagan is looking at the aids and says what do we do now? he has no running mate and final he says governor i think it is time to call george bush said he calls george bush and george bush is just blown away. he had no idea. he was convinced like everyone in america that gerald ford was going to go on the ticket with reagan. >> let me ask one more question before a throw to the audience for any questions that directly falls on that and goes back to jack kemp. i guess why did his store not rise at least high enough to be more seriously in conservation for the vice president? >> there's a lot of affection on the part of the delegates and

governor reagan for jack kemp and that comes through in all the people i talked to in all of the material that i went through. there were probably the biggest thing that kept kemp off the ticket with reagan is that the aides felt like it would be too much to ask the american people to swallow a ticket of a former movie actor and pro football player. it might have been too much to ask the american people in 1980 and that's probably as much as anything because really the delegates, the vast majority but a great number of the delegates really wanted jack kemp and of course and riggins's preference was paul laxalt. they wanted paul axel but it didn't make sense, very wonderful guy, dear friend, he was concerned nv, had three electoral votes and reagan was going to. anyway so it wasn't like it added anything to the ticket.

>> at this point any questions from the folks in the studio audience. [laughter] don't be shy. if you do. okay. we have many questions. >> normally we would hand to a microphone belli and thinking because of our technical difficulty we might just have you -- >> delude to the henry kissinger connection and i want to hear -- >> can you repeat the question? >> henry kissinger was negotiating the treaty hefty trade on the part on the behalf of gerald ford and kissinger was a tough negotiator because he had negotiated the peace with honor, the withdrawal from vietnam and after the tough negotiations in detroit that day one of the reagan aide says that after dealing with kissinger all day for the first time in my

life i felt sorry for the north vietnamese. [laughter] >> i know we had a few other hands that had some questions. yes, sir. i know this is a bit unusual but if when you ask your question you can come to the front and ask because the phone. >> in the early days was he well served by his advisers, and it seems to me when he made a serious error is when he did not go with his intuition. >> absolutely. absolutely. when reagan at his best when he relied on his own judgment and his own temperament i think what also comes through in the book and came through at the time is that reagan was best when he was

mad. wirthlin said he never knew with candidate who left confrontation as much as ronald reagan. he relished confrontation. mike deaver said he was the most competitive so be -- sob that ever lived. this idea that he floated from opportunity to opportunity, nonsense, everything in his life he thought for a and when he took matters and his own hands as he did in new hampshire and when the primary, and acceded in the fall when he decided that he was going to be paid jimmy carter that reagan was best off when he took matters in his own career and matters into his own hands. absolutely. any other questions? over here. >> it is an honor to give you this microphone. [laughter]

>> dr. shirley. laughter could you spent time studying the campaigns, the '76 campaign and the 80 campaign. and yet most academicians focus on 1981, january, 1981 to 1989. what is it that you have learned from those campaigns about ronald reagan that we don't learn from studying his presidency? >> good question. what i learned is how much the republican party establishment opposed ronald reagan is that there was almost a corrupt bargain in the late 70's between some elements of the republican party establishment and the media because this issue was corrosive and it really -- it finally got to reagan, a guide is 68-years-old, he tells jokes about his age, about know, he's not getting older, just keeps

writing older looking horses. he handled it all very well but the media kept pounding on it and the republican party kept pounding on it and it makes sense in a way because this is a guy that to get to the republican party establishment. starting jan three, 1977 gerald ford is lost to jimmy carter. the republican party has been decimated in the ticket races of 76 and compounded by the fact they've been decimated in '74. in 1977 only one state in america has republican control of the governorship and legislature and that's kansas. 49 other states have a year or total democratic control of the state governments. there are states in the south of the drug don't even have elected republicans in the constitutional office. that is how bad is. and only 18% of the american people claim allegiance to the republican party and only 11% of the voters under 30 claim allegiance to the republican party.

so, read in books of the landscape and says we can do better than this. so he goes out and starts giving speeches about the new republican party he envisioned. the republican party cannot be the party of the board room. it cannot be the part of the country club, it's got to be the party of the individual, not the state. it's got to be the party of the man on the street, the cop on the street, the homemaker, the shopkeeper, the entrepreneur but it cannot be the party it's been the last 30 years because this isn't working. well, the entrenched eletes of the party don't like this. who is this maverick populist coming out of california to tell us how to run our party? he was just a democrat 15, 18 years ago so the one thing i learned is how many, the long answer to a very good and short question is how tough of a road it was for ronald reagan in 1976 and 80. we all look now 29 years later

and say i was for ronald reagan, it's not true. it is there are many elements inside of the republican party opposed to ronald reagan and sometimes viciously opposed to ronald reagan. >> interested in sight. okay i get a question. we have a number of friends in common that have done polling for the republican party for many years. my sense of the results from the 1980 race with that reagan was one of those rare individuals who found a way at that time to stitch together these emerging coalitions within the party, the set of economic conservatives who were quite different than those who might be foreign policy conservatives who again were different than a whole circle of people that might be social conservatives and think that his success in a great part

was he found a way to drive the issue that would pull all those constituencies together to create a majority coalition. do you see that as being possible in today's modern day republican party? [laughter] >> john, not only is it possible, it has to happen for the republican party to survive the triet what reagan salles, his organizing philosophy was freedom. the democratic party from the time of the new deal up until today the organizing. justice you have to have a big government to enforce justice. but freedom needs only a constitution bill of rights, intelligent courts and restrained police force. freakin''s republican party was organized around the concept that the individuals more important than the state and the privacy and the dignity of the individual or more important than anything else in this

country. the republican party drifted away from that in the last eight years and became essentially the second big government party in america. and so voters when faced with a choice between the real big government party in america, the democrats or the fate big government in 2006 and 2008 shows the big government party. i think the republican party -- if you look at this practically this is a nation of over 300 million people. it is huge and diverse and i think it is very arrogant to think that we can govern this country from one corrupt city on the potomac river so that really the localism you can call it populist conservatives, localism but it makes far more sense to meet the needs of the american people to handle most things at the state and localities and individuals the way jefferson

envisioned it as opposed -- the way that he envisioned it as opposed what we have today. >> do what he party protester is doing, the town hall protesters are doing >> [inaudible] the republican to parties. >> that's right. i think the part of what we have to do is unfortunately we have our own way to communicate with each other now. we don't have to depend on abc, nbc and cbs. we have other ways but what is interesting is that if you look at a recent polling data it is that 40% of the american people call themselves conservative while only 20% call themselves republicans. i think that speaks volumes about the state of the republican party in america today that -- but it's the way

that it was in 1977. history repeated itself. the republican party because nixon and ford and corruption of watergate and the effectiveness of general ford and ties to correct corporate elites became a minority party and they are again in the minority. the way back is what reagan said. reagan said don't trust me trust yourself. he is rated the government of jimmy carter and i did what the republicans have to understand is that the have to get to the trust me government of barack obama. >> his position on [inaudible] >> on the federal reserve? >> the federal reserve and all the income tax.

>> he was once asked in 1980 about a particular tax cut and said i would favor a tax cut at any time. he reformed in 1986 when he was president and of course 1981 the tax system was the top marginal rate was 70% she brought that down to the high 20s so we knew what his attitude was about the tax system and also you had the seriousness of rising steps in the tax system when i was simplified down three symbol -- saxby to ronald reagan was always suspicious of any concentration of power whatsoever treaties of concentration of power whether it was by corporate america or by government as a threat to individual freedoms and too much

concentration of power inevitably lead to corruption. i hope that answers your question. >> we have another question over here. thank you. >> getting back to the book john sears. in 76 a friend and i cornered reagan in new hampshire and asked him for permission to run as delegates for reagan from new york. reagan gave a total blessing it couldn't have been more enthusiastic and he said go ahead and do it and that was reagan being reagan so he went around the corner and talk to john and he's absolutely not. he made a deal with republicans in new york they would run an uncommitted slate and maybe go for it and maybe they wouldn't and if we challenge to them they would never go first so he wants every delegate in new york as a result -- >> not everyone -- >> i'm talking about 76 --

>> fred was the delicate. >> the was the point. he wouldn't -- sears wouldn't let anybody else run. fred got there because he was a senator. sears said it all to do that. for years leader of course reagan has learned this lesson and fred and others ran and won and we carried all but six delegates in the state of new york, swapped the uncommitted slate so my question is why did he wait so long to dump this sears after the primary? >> it is that, you know, you've got to remember the national politics was vastly different in 1974 and 75 than it is today and

john sears had been nixon's chief delegate hundred and 68. he was freed republican consultant operative in the early 1970's and the reagan folks are out year after 1974 he leaves the governorship and they are intimidated by the national politics because it's dominated by the east coast party operatives and it's dominated by the media. they don't know the national operatives very well, they don't know the national media and here comes this guy, john sears who wanted to run ford's campaign that got passed over to spencer and roger martin and others were running at and he ends up running riggins's campaign that this is a great acquisition in the eyes of the national media because they didn't know much about this guy called reagan from california even after his career in hollywood and the

circuit is, 3,000 miles is a long way, you didn't have the internet, cable television, talk radio, didn't have salles phones so it's a big country and the size of 3,000 miles away so the guy they do know, john sears who's got this national political experience he's going to run freakin''s campaign. that impresses the national media. but reagan comes close as we all know in 1976. some say because john gough and close and others say it because john schip and new york and in ohio and in new jersey and other primaries but there was a good acceptable back up which is why it took so long to fire john in 1980 because there wasn't anybody of johns stature and the other thing weighing on reagan and mrs. reagan as well is the fact john had all these friends in the national media and

freakin''s campaign in all 79 nearly 80 is in very bad condition it's losing money and running a huge deficit that stories are coming up in the press, staff have been fighting and you've got the age issue is still there and he doesn't need another bad political story by firing his campaign manager because he fires john that means john's two top aides, charlie black and jim are going to go with him so they arrive at this strategy in the day of the new hampshire primary leading they're going to win the primary and minimize the story and because the fed found an acceptable alternative. it's a very long question to eight -- very long answer to a good question. >> a follow-up on this because when you read craig's book you get to about a 100 page section every page you are seeing why isn't he firing him? or when you finally get as he

says to the new hampshire peace when it happens -- a.gov if it is relevant to the campaigns, it was relevant to the president administration we had last week former attorney general ed meese, former national security advisor allen. the subject came up having and then nothing to do with john sears purchased the topic apparently it was very, very difficult ronald reagan to fire anyone and he didn't like to do it. he brought himself to do it because the importance of the acting in new hampshire but have you picked up any of that in your research? is that part of the reason? >> if he had any feelings or for all it is because he gave to many people to many second chances. but he knew that this year's was not the guy there was going to run the campaign. said he actually, he and mrs. reagan sat down with bill

clark and asked if he would run the campaign. of course judge clark was then the chief justice of the california supreme court and had important cases coming up and so he diverted the three of them went through the list and can up with this fellow, bill casey who worked in the nixon administration so they reached out to bill casey and he ended up replacing john. but it was because freakin' had been pushed hard enough that he had -- he had to get rid of john. and as a matter of fact and charlie black one of the wisest takes on john's role in the campaign he said of ronald reagan never would have been president if he hadn't hired john sears in 1975 and fired him in 1980. >> well put. i don't know of any of you that have either read craig's book or have seen any number of the book reviews but it is getting great reviews and what i noticed, craig, one of the news items that is popping out in these

reviews is the story about putting the finger on the individual you believe was involved in this famous incident of the theft and the turning over of the campaign debate materials of president carter. can you go into that a little bit for us? >> there is an old fellow i knew by the name of paul corbin who was pretty much of the road, got his fpi file and there were 2000 pages. he was in the forties and fifties was a leader communist organizer here in the united states with various labor unions out in the midwest and he ran various scams and was arrested a number of times. he became very close to the kennedy family ended up running wisconsin for jfk in 1960 and then wisconsin after that and became very close to bobby kennedy and was on the kennedy family payroll from the early 60's to the day he died in 1991

it was on the payroll of the joseph s. dee dee eckert joseph p. kennedy foundation in chicago. he of course was supporting ted kennedy in the primaries over jimmy carter in 1980 and of course as we all know this is as senator kennedy lost and lost badly to jimmy carter and the family was furious with carter in 1980 because what he thought was a very vicious campaign against senator kennedy and corydon took it upon himself to exact meat revenge, so he secretive to the campaign briefing documents carter briefing books out of the carter white house and gave them to bill casey who by that time was running in the reagan campaign and as a matter of fact casey put paul corydon on the retainer to the campaign. here is a guy just worked for ted kennedy, the backroom of

working in the communist party politics, the labor politics and had been arrested numerous times for running scams in the midwest and was all sorts of criminal law activities. and of course reagan doesn't know anything about this whatsoever. the irony is the briefing books which when i interviewed president carter he to this day believes that he lost because the reagan campaign got the briefing books. but the irony is the briefing books were nothing more than a compilation of riggins's speeches, radio commentaries, columns, various interviews over 30 years and this one man in america 1980 who knew where he stood and where he stood for the previous 30 years it was ronald reagan. the briefing books were useless but it was a huge issue in washington and 1983 but when it became -- it was found out three years later the briefing books had been taken out of the white house. >> any other questions? i know i've got a few more.

would be happy to -- yes, sir. yes please. >> what was it about sears that made him so heated and detested among the people they work for, john satan -- >> yeah, john seat and instead of john sears. conservatives, everybody had their own reason to be mad at john that in 1976 the conservatives, including my old friend, and lynn thought to try to moderate positions. what he's doing in 1980 speaking of one ally after another. marty anderson is forced out and then lynn is forced out, and it really came to almost blows. this is another thing in the

book, too. is now on the eve of the new hampshire primary, now john is trying to get it out of the reagan campaign and they have this meeting. missis reagan, john sears and his principal aides and they had this meeting in new hampshire that goes into 2:30 in the morning and nothing is resolved and they are trying to -- john is trying to get it out of the campaign. and reagan finally explodes in stands and says you are not going to get him by god and is moving toward this sears. they have to get between the two because it looked like reagan was going to push sears he was mad at him for trying to take out his friend, and, the end up in the middle and he's getting it out of the room as fast as possible and for a guinness still yelling at him and john finally just made one enemy too

many and he had to go. >> obviously towards the end of the '80 campaign, many people are on the edge of their seat because of the potential for the negotiations by president carter to obtain the release of hostages held in iran. i know this is speculative but knowing what you know about their race and the poll numbers at the time and all of the, you know, the concern and the date taking place over that issue, if iran had let the hostages' lives prior to the election do you think that that would have been enough to make a difference so carter could have been victorious? >> no, and i will tell you why. and i thought about that a lot. the american people have become so cynical about carter and the hostages and by november of 1980 a majority think that carter has

used manipulated for political purposes the hostages. it went back to the morning of the -- i did your pardon, the a hampshire primary. ted kennedy is off the mat on the primary, he has won new york and connecticut. the next primary is in wisconsin and he is surging and he looks like he might be the lead to beat carter on the primary. president carter goes on television that very morning to announce a quote on quote major breakthrough as a lot of your member and he wins the wisconsin primary at a time people thought kennedy might pull it off and there was no major breakthrough and there was never an explanation of why there wasn't a major breakthrough and i still remember david of the grand "washington post" wrote a piece, a column justice reading the president and basically accusing him no uncertain terms he was using the plight of hostages to advance his political fortunes

and that actually there was polling data that came out in october of 1980 that said the american people by a vast majority said if we had to make any concessions whatsoever to iranians to get hostages back it would be better for them to stay there. the and to make any concessions. the become more hawkish on the issue that even reagan was. >> as we know president reagan took 44 states and was victorious in that election but your book reminded me the weekend before the election, the poll numbers on both camps had the race still a point it to differences. was a remarkably close race so you can understand why both sides thought it was. then over the weekend it absolutely tumbled over for president carter's campaign. have you done much research to understand why it happened. it was a vast tsunami.

spinet was in the first time reagan broke late and one of election big trade the eight primary the polls and newspapers were saying to close to call it was too close to call, reagan wins 50-23 over george bush in some cases people were reluctant to tell the pollsters they really liked this guy. i think that was an element. i think people waited in some cases and then decided that he is an acceptable alternative as far as the collapse it was partially because the last break down of the hostages negotiations but it's also the debate, the cleveland debate, the week before that and started the process and freedom of course as we all know and carter dee dee to one week before the election still to this day the most watched presidential debate of american history over

105 million people watched at. there you go again. and that is the line everybody remembers is that when carper was attacking reagan over his opposition over medicare when reagan turned and said that but i really think that when reagan closed the sale of the american people, but i think he closed the sale with the american people with his three minute summation when he looked in the camera and looked into people's living rooms and said to the millions and millions of people are you better off than you were four years ago? that was the line that closed the sale of the american people. what's interesting is in the days afterward all of the eletes at "the new york times" and cbs and "washington post" said carter won the date. the american people, the polling data said reagan won the the date.

the distinction between the two was the difference between an amusingly little chardonnay and frosted bottle of cold beer. [laughter] >> bouck it's been absolutely terrific to have you here, craig. it's been great to be on one stage asking questions and taking from the audience. you've been so insightful and i personally found your book just absolutely terrific so for any of those who haven't read it is well worth your while so thank you again for coming. [applause] craig shirley is of the marketing relations firm. he's also the author of reagan revolution. in his riding has appeared in the weekly standard and the washington post. to find out more, this