and you're exactly right, sir. and there's no doubt about it. doubt about it. with regard to putin, frankly he can only go so far. let's say an american president felt that@@@p@8v@@%a just back and you're right vladimir tuten is not going to take that on. but i will say that he did have

that show which i thought was subtitles, but i thought it was an excellent film. they had a show in russia, he's going apart way. let's encourage good behavior. >> host: we have gotten a slew of e-mails accusing you of being anti-semitic based on two things. number one, your 2008 book, "churchill, hitler and the unnecessary war." and then also what you have written about america, america's role in the middle east in israel's role in the middle east. >> guest: sure. i don't know if they had read my book, "churchill, hitler and the unnecessary war." what i say there is that the war itself was unnecessary, and it describes what happens in the holocaust. when i talk about what's called, there's a chapter in their, that talks about the losses, the

third to the last chapter. and i use a phrase i think chamberlain to describe it, and he goes into detail what happened to the jewish people. in eastern and central europe under the nazis. and a real permanent or for which the nazis are responsible. but my point about that is this, the holocaust is a crime against humanity. one of the greatest in human history. but it is also a war crime. no war, no holocaust. no war guarantee to poland, no war. that is my logic. it would not have happened, i am certain it would not have happened, or if you would not have happened had there been no war. hitler did not begin what's known as the holocaust until he invaded russia. that's when the camps were set up and pull them. but none of this happened before september 1, 1939.

before the war began. and none of it happened even when hitler invaded france. when it began was in 1941, june, when hitler invaded the ussr and he had a two front war, and the americans came into the war. that's when the trains began to roll in february, january, february final solution, 1942. he was at war with the world and when germany was trying to go down, he said we're taking everyone else down with us. on israel, i used to be, when it went to my first visit in israel was with richard nixon right after the six day war. and i met rabin who is a journal. i met david ben-gurion and i came back a very militant scientists. when i was in nixon's white house, the israeli ambassadors, deputy ambassador used to come visit me regularly because i was very supportive to the yom

kippur war. but there did become a period, i thought the best solution would be israel exiting the west bank because its economy was very modern, and you bring the palestinians and their and they're going to rise up, you know, and a much freer better economic life than they are going to separate over jordan. and during the first, i came to conclude that the only solution was a palestinian state. they had to be independent, go their own way. my new book talks about -- >> host: the one you're writing right now -- which is about how peoples come into existence. golda meier once said palestinian people did not exist. i think she may have been right when she said it, because that was way back when. i don't think was a self-awareness on the part of the palestinians that we are a separate people your they are arabs who got it right and you. but now they are a people and

now that they are the people they have to have a nationstate of their own war you will never know peace there. so i believe then that the palestinians need a nation. when i came out of that i was considered anti-semitic. but now the israelis are at war. and i still believe that. in front i think what the israelis did in gaza was excessive. they had 1400 dead. they had the right to go in and clean up those rockets there was to of the gaza strip. but what they did was excessive. and i do believe this. i'm an american. this is my country. and i look out for what is best for the united states of america, and uncritical support for israel and total support for israel, and everything she does is a terrible mistake because there's also 300 million arabs there. and the arabs are not always

wrong. and so i think the united states should have an independent policy which declares where -- you're not going to destroy is will there. we have a moral commitment to them, but our interest dictates is and where we agree we follow our interest, and we are no longer being -- the tale is not going to wag the dog. and we are the dog. >> host: an e-mail and read related. how do you think events might have spun out of england and france had decided not to declare war in order to protect poland in 1939 max and who would be the dominant power in europe today had we stayed out of world war ii? >> guest: had we stayed out? we didn't get in until they declared war on us. [laughter] >> guest: we were getting along, we have ambassadors in both rome and berlin all during the time they were fighting england and france. solo, the idea the americans

went in there to fight for democracy, you might sell that in second grade but not much after that. but here's what would happen in my judgment. britain and france had not declared war, not given a war guarantee, and then as i have said, they had built up their forces because and build up the hurricanes in spitfires and put the british troops in northern france, and the french army stay behind the rational line. hitler never would've come around. there was nothing he wanted in the west. he didn't want an empire in africa. he didn't take over the french colonies that he didn't even take over the french fleet. do you know he wanted? he wanted an alliance with great britain, if you can believe it. his whole life, dream, was an alliance with great britain because he said we made a terrible mistake in world war i. the kaiser should never have built up that fleet and challenge the british empire. you have the brits and their

friends, the americans, and that's why we lost the war. but the west and the democracies go to places. what he wanted was as long as -- if he was going to plan to attack france, why did he build the west wall, the siegfried line? the kaiser didn't build a sacred line. their strategy was the day the balloon goes up we're going right into france. hitler built a defensive wall for three years before he went into poland he was in panic building night and day building his west wall. what he wanted basically was, he wanted germany to be the dominant military economic, political power in europe and central europe and eastern europe. he wanted to be surrounded by a lies and by quite frankly, if you got back danzig and deal -- polish colonels were fascists. he had no quarrel with their form of government. he had no quarrel with them. he thought colonel beck who was a machiavellian figure was just the kind of guy he would deal with. i think if the polls had -- poll

and promote country, but that was a suicidal course of conduct. sitting there between hitler and stalin, and the poles had defeated linens and trotsky. and you have to choose. off a i were the poles i think the best that would've been take hitler's deal, let him have his nazi city, little city of danzig back, and hitler was prepared to give him a slice of other land in return for it. and you say, you're going to have to make that deal or go to war with him. it's your call. that's where the brits and the french, why would they declare war on hitler? why would hitler go west? what exactly did he wanted in france? he had written off that, you got it. and even the northern part, he didn't grab that from denmark and these were territories taken from germany. >> host: in august 2008, when pat buchanan published this book, "churchill, hitler and the unnecessary war," booktv went

out to mr. buchanan's house and into the gym for about an hour regarding this book. if you would like to watch the interview, you can go to booktv.org. up in the search column you can type and pat buchanan and it will be available for you to watch online. butch in jackson, wyoming. you have been very patient. you're on with pat buchanan. >> caller: thank you, pat. this is the third time i have spoken to you on tv. you are exact -- you are an amazing human being. you are a hitler apologist. your religious views are like the taliban. your anti-gay philosophies, but the thing i want to ask you is this. on 9/11 -- >> guest: cannot answer the preamble after i'm done? go ahead. >> caller: the only plane allowed to fly, the only plane allowed to fly out of america

was the bin laden family. why weren't they held, questioning about who bin laden's friends were, where his safe houses were? we went to afghanistan to go after taliban. >> host: to butch, you know what books we have a lot to work with there. guest mac let me say i think of a very good point on the point that apparently a plane load of the bin laden family was allowed to leave the country immediately and basically go out when all other planes were being grounded. and why that was done exactly is not something i've explored but i am aware of that. and it really is questionable. and your point that maybe some of them knew something about where osama bin laden exactly was, i think is a fair point. on afghanistan, i didn't get everything you said, but i am inclined to agree i think we had to go in income and assets of the time, one's mullah omar,

they wouldn't give them up, he asked for evidence that bin laden was behind it. i think we went ahead and did it come and going after the al qaeda in afghanistan was exactly right. was the right thing to do. on hitler stuff and all the rest of it, look, hitler is and even banned. but i think as i said, i think 100 million people died, or 50 to 109 people died in the war in some of the greatest horrors happened, and all of europe, all of hitler's so-called eastern europe ended up under stalin for 50 years. you read the book, i don't know how you call that a good war. is dedicated to four of my mother's brothers, all of whom fought in that war. when i was a little kid these were our heroes. my brothers here is that i mean, when you are three to seven years old and you're all going to a silver star, and i was a

very -- i thought it was a wonderful adventure. the more you read about it, the more you read the horror and the suffering of so many people. and then you look at the diplomats and you say look, these guys, these brits, they're not bad people, why in heaven's name in panic -- look, let me just say this. read the chapter on the war guarantee. it's not pat buchanan. i could not find a historian or a diplomat or a contemporary figure, except for churchill himself who initially thought the war guarantee was a good idea. and within a week churchill was saying wait a minute, this doesn't mean we have to go to war for danzig or something like that, does it? and even, take a look at his memoirs 10 years later. churchill is a good heavens, we gave this war guarantee when we couldn't honor it and get us into war for poland and the poles were involved and ripping apart czechoslovakia. everybody wanted to get away from responsibility for the war

guarantee. and of how a facts was the guy the individual, the foreign minister at the time, who basically go did chamberlain into the guarantee. >> host: from "where the right went wrong," it will be used again and again for care often drives. they were victorious, they freed the slaves and they are lionized at a russian and not a saudi convinced the emperor that unconditional surrender was preferable to the old turkey. how do you fight terror? or don't you? guest mac i think those things are right. one point there, clearly is terror works. what was a russian and knock a soggy state care on the part of

the united states, burning to death 120 million old men, women and children in order to break the will of the enemy in wartime. dresden it seems there was an active state of care. much of what stalin did was state care. terrorism is the weapon of the week. terrorism is the weapon that is used by indigenous peoples to overthrow empires. it has been used historically since world war ii, and i'm sure even before, but it's been used. menachem begin, king david, it's not grumpier, they assassinated, they assassinated the lord. the algerians come the fln, they blew up things in pairs, they blew up and they blew up cafés in algiers. what was the purpose of them? what was the purpose of mandela? what was the purpose of did, and

the others? the vietnam war driving of the french. and they were using care. the affiliate and used tear. mandela was blowing up passenger trains. is blowing up the king david hotel one. get out of our country. terrorism is the price of empire. they are over here on 9/11 because we are over there. if we had not been over there, in my judgment, they would not be over your. now we hear all this, i heard mayor bloomberg this morning, i don't know about this, what happened in times square, but they are attacking us for our freedom to they are not sitting out there in case of afghanistan stumbling on the constitution, the bill of rights is a holy smokes, do you realize these americans have freedom of religion, we have to go over and kill them. they want us out of the country and out of their region because they want to impose their will on their countries. and the united states is the

chief power preventing that. now, maybe that's good. but in my judgment empire is not worth the price, and the price of empire is terrorism. take iraq. not a single act of terrorism i know of, say from 1980 to 2002, or 2001, was a single iraqi involved. why are there is killing all of our people in iraq? because we are there. and so my -- this is the weapon they have, and as long as in buyers are sitting on top of people, they're going to be terrorized. >> host: next call for pat buchanan. richard in cleveland, ohio,. >> caller: thanks are taking my call. i was one, this is a two-part. i wonder if pat has taken the time to digest it may become and if he has was he thinking? and if not, i could recommend it may be. also -- transport i am the

mother with civil disobedience by thoreau. >> caller: the declaration of independence gives a right to overthrow the government once again it goes beyond the pale. transport you get the right to be hung, too. >> caller: this is getting bigger all the time, corrupted by money. when do we realize, when do we get to point what we can say we need a squeaky new number? >> guest: i have read civil disobedience, and john stuart mill, and other. and i do believe there are times when civil disobedience is morally justified against an unjust law, or an unjust regime. although there is an obligation in the bible that even you have to obey even governors who are tyrants. but when you disobey the law under the civil disobedience, you have to take, except the

fact the law contains punishment and you have to accept those punishment. this was the idea of dr. martin luther king. and when does the government become so tyrannical that you overthrow it? well, i got my great, great, two of my great grandfathers tried to leave the government of the united states and secede and one of them ended up in vicksburg, and the other one and it up in a yankee prison. and he was captured in atlanta by sherman. and did he have a right to secede? many people thought of the time the states did, the other half didn't. and now there's no longer a right to secede because the issue has been decided by this word. but do i believe that today we should engage in violence? no. i don't believe so at all. to overthrow the government, no. i do -- can people secede, state secede? no, because the divisions in this country are very great.

they are in communities. i do believe what's taken place there, peter, and this individual may be an example of it, a secession of the hard. people are seceding from one another in america. they have no longer have the things in common. this is what i like about the '60s, and they use an example of maybe people baby unhappy about it, but when i grew up in the '50s it was a completely segregated city. but we are all frankly by overwhelming were christian catholic, protestant, jewish. we all cheered for the same teams. we read the same newspapers. listen to the rate of stations, went to the same movies. we all have in our was amount in common. we understood each other completely. we might disagree on politics about harry truman, douglas macarthur, but we were people. and my since that is we are ceasing to be one people. people talk about multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial, you have a multiracial, multicultural, multiethnic,

multilingual society, you have many enclaves. you don't have a country anymore. and that's my believe what's happening to america. again it's not regional to the south wing or something like that. this fellow, william bischoff wrote his book, he called a comedy set in 197625% of all the counties in the message voted by a 20% either carter or ford. 50% voted for the president, or for kerry or the present or bush or kerry. so no words what you have here is people are moving together, living together one side watching fox, the other side in this in b.c., one size reading these blogs in the other these blogs. so you get both sides, and i think you're seeing a moral,

cultural, social racial also, an ethnic balkanization of america into a tiny enclave so are not really a country anymore. more like eight giant empire and that's one of the things that i'm writing about in my book. and i will tell you anticipating this, and they're both liberals, pat moynihan and his book and a modicum and arthur schlesinger's book, the disunited of america. and he said as no nationalism is the force. this is what tears countries apart. frankly, in america we broke from the british in 1754, americans were not a people. we were cavalier, virginia cavaliers, you've got the boston curtains, he's got the quakers in pennsylvania. you get these different groups, but after the french and indian war and the stamp act, the tea act, the boston massacre, the boston tea party, concorde, lexington, all of the sudden

these people, a new people is being created. the americans were being created. and i think something like that has taken place in this country with a tea party folks. >> host: are you a keep our your? >> guest: i'm a fellow traveler. of the tea party grew. the tea party group are very simple to the buchanan brigades and the folks are out there in 2007 fighting against the immigration act. they come up and they do battle. then they go home. >> host: café, e-mail. pat, thank you for your service and political insights. what is your definition of a statesman and who did you consider a statesman during the time you were in government? who do you consider a statesman now? >> guest: you agree or disagree, i think richard nixon was earning a statesman. >> host: what is your definition of a statesman? >> guest: i think definition of a statesman is a political leader who comes to power and

achieves great power on, even on the national or the global stage, really has a great effect for, you might disagree with the end you might be good or ill, but who is a larger figure than a political figure. and he represents a nation, and he makes a difference in history, like nixon did undoubtedly with china. as ronald reagan did, i think he was a statesman. and certainly fdr was a statesman, although i think what happened at the end of order to was a complete disaster, tehran and yalta. so i guess i would say that would be a statesman in our time. i think eisenhower. i think he was a great -- he was a good secretary of state. >> host: next call for pat buchanan, boulder, colorado,. >> caller: i would just like to play out your scenario, the containment of hitler.

in fact, the complete opposite would have happened. hitler would most definitely have kept all the nuclear physicists and would have developed the atomic bomb much before the west or the soviets. and the fact that he was benign in nature and didn't have was a powermad but made events, i think it's a little far-fetched. >> guest: first, einstein, einstein who called nationalism, infantile disorder or something like that, einstein left in 1933. he left germany. hitler was not a benign figure. and you will not find that anywhere in my writings or in my book. i'm not saying that hitler was a benign figure. i'm saying that if you look at hitler's basic ambition, what he wanted to do, certainly even a

gp taylor who was a historian who i find fairly influential and certainly influenced my thinking is if you take a look at hitler after the breakup of czechoslovakia, it's very much consistent with german state policy. if you take a look at the end of world war i, take a look at where the kaiser's armies were before they surrender after 1918. the lance hitler were seeking eventually even in the east were last where the german army had gone and world war i. so again i don't consider hitler a benign figure. i think you was a very malevolent character. and he turned genocidal. but i still think is for little ambitions or strategic ambitions as of 1938-39, i think he saw the world as germany, and europe, the british empire and the world, americans in the western hemisphere and japan in the far east as the four great

powers. >> host: and we have this e-mail for pat buchanan. this is from linda. as a former k-12 teacher who homeschooled our son i'm continually appalled at the scant knowledge of history in our country today. i experienced it teaching world history in a private catholic high school 10 years ago, about to graduate from community college. our son took his first hands and teaching expect in the public high school. history, economics and social economics department. the suit had no textbooks and 40% of students had no internet access at home. world civilizations has been eliminated from the curriculum. mr. buchanan, please speak to the state of education in the u.s.a. >> guest: it is utterly appalling. i agree with this woman 100%. i think we took -- they gave a test a few years ago that 550 individuals from 10 ivy league

schools, and they were coming with douglas macarthur was in the revolutionary war. they did know who grant was. they couldn't with the civil war in the right decade. the ignorance of history is appalling. and the woman is obviously younger than i am, but i can remember reading these history books. that we had when we were in parochial school, and even in high school. and, of course, reading about it my father was a great experienced he was document all the time. but people just know nothing. young people, i feel sorry for them because history is delightful, delightful thing to learn and to study all of your life in to read all these stories and anecdotes. and out to you one thing we do have. we have some wonderful historians and biographers in this country. you know, i'm not a fan of truman as i mentioned, what i read about three fourths of the

courts by audrey. it's terrific on harry truman. i want to read how was he managed to get on that ticket when he had that guy who was a very tough shape. and anybody, he talked about harry truman and i was very impressed with him, in northern france. he and his artillery brigade and they had real problems moving the artillery around. but we got some wonderful ones. you know, james k. polk, jimmy polk, bob arum who's a friend of mine can he and i talk about james k. polk all the time. he has written a terrific biography of that period, 1845-1848, about the mexican war. and i disagree with some of my friends. i think that was a just war. i don't think the philippines erection was. but some of these stories and biographers we got do a wonderful job. they really do. and, frankly, those are the books, when you came to my house you saw about 150 books wind up, and many of those are just outstanding, and whether you

agree or disagree with them, they have a tremendous, many of them have a point of view, but as long as you can trust the facts and the anecdotes in there, and pleasure on construction of on why you think the people did what they did. >> host: in 1990, right from the beginning was published -- >> guest: 1988, wasn't it? >> host: i think it was in 1990. maybe i'm getting a second edition here. i'm getting the paperback. oh, okay. i'm going to leave it at 99 because that's the only day i'm saying here. >> guest: i would they want i think it was 88. that's the year my father died. and one of the things that motivated that book was my brother. i was in the white house in 1985, and my mother called me up and she said billy has cancer, he is dying. when i left ronald reagan's

white house i decided to try and capture the times, 1950s, we -- the n2@ >> you are correct about the year your book was published! 1988! 1990, and, from right from the

beginning you proposed amendments to the constitution, do you wants to go over these, unborn chin should be considered a person with due process rights, two, capital punishment for heinous crimes and habitual criminal offenders, three, english as the official language. four, federal judges including supreme court justices subject to reconfirmation every 8 years. five, supreme court decisions may be set aside by 2/3 vote, of both houses of congress for the -- with approval of the president, six, repeal of the 22nd amendment, restricting presidents to two full terms, and, 7, balanced budget proposed and adopted every year, 8, no prohibition on the free and voluntary expression of faith and religious instruction. 9, no discrimination on the basis of race. either in favor of or against any citizen, no use of racial criteria in involuntary assignment of children to public schools. and, ten, with each presidential election, the american people may, through referendum, make or

invalidate laws for the u.s. >> i told you, i was -- i was for the referenda. the only one i would disagree with now, the two term limit on presidents is a good one. that would be the only one i would disagree with. i think they are all -- all ring pretty good to me. >> well, we have got an hour-and-a-half left, with pat buchanan. and as i mentioned earlier, we visited his house, in august, 2008. and, mr. buchanan showed us his library and also talked about his writing process. and we'll show you this, and, where pat buchanan talks about his writing process and we'll be back to take your calls. >> next... book tv visited the virginia home of patrick buchanan to learn about his writing process. >> this is a monster. yeah. ... >> old school. >> it is brand new to me!

>> you know, they make flat screens now, you know. >> yes, okay, well, this is -- yeah, this is a monster, and is what it need, i get my head up a couple inches from it and these are old computers and this is the newest, probably 6 years old and might be ten. and, you know, this is -- basically work any more and occasionally i put everything here to back it up and you haver printer and your fax and let me show you how you write this. i will be reading a book, at the bedstand, say, and let's take one of these books here, and, you will take -- take the big one, and you will be redding something, okay. and you put this, when you read it, you put a little tag right here, by the underline and come down here, and -- in the morning, and you take and take that little quotation and come over here and you write, write two or three paragraphs around it. and, then you take it and put it into the text. in the machine, and, you take

this over here, and, you xerox this, xerox this page and you xerox with it the cover page so they know where it is from. and you xerox this, and staple the two together and let me show you hear and once you get those stapled, you put it in here and take the chapter, august, 1914. okay? this is from the book "germany and two world wars" translated by william kirby and you but that the hear an staple these together and the ones you use, i have obviously 3-4 quotes here i use and marking them green and i put them in the files, and i take the -- send the files -- my buddy comes down, a ph.d. from maryland, frank mintz, comes down and picks up the files or i'll send them by mail, and, those things will be put in the files and he double checks to make sure all the punctuation is exact, the quote is exact.

and, then, he'll send me back and i'll send him also the zero rocks copy of things and he makes all the corrections and i'll put the correction in the machine and freeze them and send them back again and you keep doing that and doing that and he had been coming done a couple of years on saturdays, say, once a month and we'll sit there and he'll say i read a biography and, tend to agree with so-and-so and it is wonderful, sitting there a couple of hours talking about all of this and frankly i hated to give the book up. it was so much fun to write and work on. i compare it to, writing a book, a history book to a painting. at some point you have to say, we're done. it is over. turn the paper in. and then you find some other quote, and, bill bullet -- i didn't he walked out of versailles and he was a young guy, part of the delegation and i would have gotten that in and his quote in and he was angry, too, and strengthen the

argument. so -- >> you do all your own typing and filing. >> i do all the typing and file them all here but then i give him -- eventually i send the files up to him and send by mail these things when i come down at night and put them together i'll get a pile of them and i'll indicate what chapter the file goes in and send up the new printed copy of the chapter, and say, check all of these. and you have the chapter titles here, versailles and st. germane and the anglo-japanese treaty is the title there and there must be 200 footnotes, backup and some of these footnotes don't have one source, some have 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... bus these guys are all trading the same footnotes and i'll tell you, i'm much better there, because i -- after i do the footnotes, i read and say, wait a minute it. he misquoted that. it is inexact and we have been working on it so long, that a lot of things pop up, from these fellows. >> do you write in the morning

or when. >> in the book, mainly i write -- write at night. and i get up in the middle of the night and i read these books and i get -- put the tabs on, and i wake up at 3:00 and, i say, let me get downstairs and come down here and you'll spend 3 hours working on 4 or 5 paragraphs and rewrite it and rework it and put it into the copy and you move the copy around and you say, perfect. and you go back, and go to bed and sleep like a baby. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ >> we're back on in-depth with our guest, pat buchanan, the author of ten books, he's written since 1973. his most recent published in 2008 and is currently working on the 11th book. numbers are up on sdleecreen, iu want to participate in our conversation, 202-737-0001 in the eastern time zone and 0002, in the mountain and pacific time zones and twitter is @booktv,

and we have a big stack of more e-mails that came in during the show, not sure we'll be able to get to any more as we get a little later in the program, and pat buchanan, yesterday was the white house correspondents dinner. have you attended that? what do you think about the relationship of the politicians and the press, getting together once a year and making... >> you know, i went to i think my first back in -- i didn't go to it, i stood outside, 1962, came down from journalism school and had our field observation week and had the white house correspondent's dinner, i think in april or something like that, and, i went with my buddy, don oliver and we went over and hung around outside and clark molonoff who eventually came to work with me in the white house, pulitzer prize winner, "des moines register," had gotten an award and was talking there and i was awed and here was a great

journalist and we talked to him and i went to almost all of them i think when i was with richard nixon and with ronald reagan i was communications director. i was at those and i have been to some since then, but, recent years, though i am with msnbc, i sort of figured i have done my duty over there and now it has become a celebrity event. i don't really have a problem with the idea that the people get too chummy with the president of the u.s. look, theat is night conservatie answer your and the president mentioned last night, we passed health care and it could have been the democratic caucus and a huge roar went up, in nixon's days, 5 8 -- 85 to 90% of the journalist, voted for mcgovern and 8 % of white folks in d.c., and washington is obama's town and, in journalism, it is his community but i don't have a problem with them going there and i will say this:

the president of the u.s., is a natural comedian. he has a wonderful sense of timing, a wry sense of humor and enjoys needling people and his speech, last year, actually, i thought it was terrific last night but i'll tell you, last year, when he did his first one, they asked me to do msnbc and i haven't interested in going to the dinner but i'll go to mmsnbc and do commentary and i was up there in the little studio, laughing my head off. it was one of the funniest performances i have ever seen, his jobs about rohm and john boehner and himself, getting auto executive of the year and he's a natural at that and it helps him, very much and i think is a good thing, frankly i think jay didn't have as good a night as he has had at other times. >> what did president nixon think of those dinners and how much work went into crafting his

remarks. >> they were tough for nixon. he didn't have a natural sense of humor and i remember one of the dinners i was up there in 1968, and, he spoke at the al smith dinner and he was head-to-head with humphrey, and, nixon got up, and he had jokes and, i mean, it was okay. okay. but he was not natural, jack kennedy was terrific. when -- i remember jack kennedy in 1960, had said, you know, about the -- got up and said my father -- got a message from my father, and that you know, west virginia, he said he'll make all the contributions, don't buy one more damn vote than is necessary! you know... he was kidding about himself and about nixon and rockefeller. but, you know what happened at the al smith dinner, humphrey got up and he was a sensation and you are only supposed to speak for 7 minutes. and he went on and on and on... he had won the evening, and he blew it.

hubert humphrey did. he went on and on. agnew was good at this. and, agnew, people don't realize that agnew was an extremely good speaker and could deliver a complex speech, very well, and he would -- had a clear wit and everything, and ronald reagan was excellent, he was excellent, as you might imagine. >> he enjoyed that, didn't he. >> he enjoyed them, sure and he was relaxed about everything. we told folks, we'd do the press conference and briefed him for press conferences and he'd go there unlike nixon, i did nixon's briefing book and he'd sit in his office for two days, and would only -- i was the only contact. call kissinger and get material on that and i would rewrite it all, short an pithyly for him and, he went out there and it was like daniel and the lion's den and press was almost growling and ronald reagan you would take him to the theater and ask him question and he'd

start, hey, have you guys heard this joke? and he was like a student, it was not a serious student. and, we'd take him over to the room, where he'd start down the main center room to the east room, and he'd come downstairs and come across and into the room and, pat, how is it going and 90 seconds before he went out there he'd do a routine and would start telling you a joke and he'd say, look, 80 million people, are right outside that door, as it were and he'd tell a joke, did you hear this one, pat? and i don't know whether he did to it relax himself, but he was amazing in the sense that, most of us would be like going into a prize fighting match and he'd go out there and there was the gipper. he was extremely relaxed and an entirely different type of person. >> and our guest is pat buchanan and he's skipping one of traditions of the white house correspondents dinner weekend

which is the john mclaughlin brunch. >> "the mclaughlin group" and the brunch begins at 11:00 and i told john, i will not be able to make it, john, three hours on c-span. >> mary ellen, pittsburgh, pennsylvania. you are on with pat buchanan. >> caller: i don't like it that i don't like you, because, i think you are interesting, and you are funny but, every time you say that you love the way it was in the 1940s and 1950s, to me it is as if you are discounting what a whole group of people, particularly my family, i mean, how could you not know, you know all the details about europe and the -- down the street from you in washington, d.c., blacks couldn't, as i understand it, move beyond u street and the number of lynchings that were going on and the gonzaga, where you went, you had one or two toning blacks and i think it is a cute story about -- that you integrated the caddies, but

those little black boys, that is probably the only job they could get around anybody, of power, although i doubt if it would have done them any good to got know nixon, but i love... i love learning, but, how could you not know about what was going on with black people, when you say we were all americans, black... >> we got the point. >> you know, sure, we knew it was segregated, and, frankly, i mean, you didn't think a lot about it. that's right. but, let me say where i grew up, the bishop of washington, patrick o'boyle came to down in 1958 and built the high school, archbishop john carol specifically so working class white kids and black kids coming out of public grammar schools would have a school for catholic kids, coming out of the parishes, the first truly

integrated school in washington, d.c. and the high school i went to was desegregated with all the others, and had a black kid, famous now, and he was a junior on the football team. and, he had to drive, all of us, i was only a freshman on the buses, cheer the team, into pennsylvania because no public school would play us and -- >> because you were integrated. >> because we had one guy on the team, public schools wouldn't play us and 1954 became the brown decision, and they desegregated public schools and i hitch hiked, to d.c. schools, down 5th and 1st street and i was close to dunbar, the elite black high school and we were in the inner city, and i do remember this, when i started out, we'd hitchhike and you would go way en to the city before you got to the black community and i will say this, there were, the lady is right,

there were for-sale signs started marching out and you could see them move block-to-block-to-block as we went into the city still i was a senior in high school, the for-sale signs were heading towards silver spring and there is no doubt the white community by and large, might have been democratic. and obviously, a government city. but they fred. it was white flight from d.c. into maryland, and that is when the suburbs were tiny and when i was growing up in silver spring, there was nothing going on in virginia, except a couple high schools, and stay out of there. they weren't fond of catholics. >> a bunch of e-mails and tweets about this issue. frdana, why is the cakacatholic church this enemy of american sovereignty, regarding immigration. and we have a bunch of e-mails an tweets regarding immigration

law. >> i disagree with the hierarchy, archbishop mahoney compared the law in arizona to some nazi germany and stalinism and other nonsense, it is preposterous and legal immigrants in this country, those with guest workers and those who have green cards, are required under a 1940 law, passed under fdr to carry the green card with them at all times, arizona made that state law and from everything i can see -- and this is a huge, vast, overreaction to what is fundamentally a codification of federal law and converting it into state law in arizona. one reason the catholic church is this way, is, i believe it is -- and i have figures in my new book, it is 40% of the catholics in the u.s., are now hispanics. and you take southern california, i'm sure it is a clear, overwhelming majority, los angeles, i would guess so and officially the catholic

church is basically, it is a -- in some ways, a very pro immigration and, frankly, it is -- seems to me as too lacks on the issue of illegal immigration. now, these they're laws of the united states of america. and immigration laws are on the books. and, i do not believe any member of the catholic hierarchy should be condoning or approving the deliberate violation of american law. these are not unjust laws, that have been passed here. i think they ought to be enforced and i don't think the catholic hierarchy should be condoning -- i mean, 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in the country, holding down 8 million jobs, when african-americans have, what, a 15% unemployment rate and the whole country,y 10% unemployment rate and 25 million people are under employed or unemployed and the hispanic people are law abiding and hard working people but they are here illegally, and we'll be a nation of laws or not.

and i think the law of the country ought to be enforced and it is not simply president obama and the congress but previous presidents and congresses have not done their job. and peter, this is one of the issues, on which i ran in 1990-91 and wrote the book, "state of emergency" on this issue and, frankly, if they would have forced the laws in 1991 when i was in southern california on the border, and with dunn hunter, the united states of america wouldn't have the crisis it has today. it is a dereliction of duty, on the pa of the government o u.s. >> pat buchanan, four of your books came out in the "oos" and have the same look on the front. can you tell us about that? the art work? >> i know, well, i tell you, "death of the west" did well on "the new york times" best-seller list for 12 weeks. and, i think in -- and there is st. martins, i think they thought, you know, this is --

why change a winning formula here? but, i agree with you, i got the book and i say, doesn't this look like the other book we just had out a year or two ago? you are right. you are exactly right. >> you have no say-so on the... >> i just -- i see them when they come in and send me the final copy. yeah. but i did notice the same thing. >> which -- >> i have a good line i use in the debate with howard dean and i was saying i think the country is really heading down a bad path and howard says, i'm more of an optimist than pat is, i think, moving up... i said, what do you expect from a guy whose last three books are dead reckoning, state of emergency and death of the west? you want to invite a guy like that to your barbecue? rbecue. >> how many books have you sold. >> the biggest seller was "the death of the west" and i think it sold around 175,000. 12 weeks on the best-seller

list. we were fortunate, all of the last 6 made the best-seller list and i have to tell you, one which i love doing. when i did the book on trade, it was combined with a book on foreign policy, the great betrayal and "a republic, not an empire" and i sent it to my editor and she said this is a door stopper. it was gigantic and she said get this the stuff on foreign policy out and write the book on trade an economic nationalism and patriotism where i had the focus and the problem with that, it came out at the time. had the blue dress and nonsense. went all over the country and they said we'll get to the book in a minute and what do you think of the blue dress and all over the country, going, it drove me nuts, and it didn't make the best-seller list and the other book, i took those things and put them into a book

and gave it away, just about, to regneri and i was going into the reform party and alan dershowitz and chris matthews and other came out and william sapphire, and this is a pro hitler book. and i was driving, and coming over here to do a story and there's a guy from somalia. driving, the cab driver, driver of the limo and he said i know you, i know you. and i didn't say anything, and he said, you are the guy who wrote the hitler book. so that was... what are they talking about, and it does defend the america first movement but the fact they were calling it a pro hitler book, it was on "the new york times" best seller list and it was book, basically, i done the work, let's get it out. and from that came all >> host: you really picked up your writing in the last 10, 12

years. is that a correct assumption? >> guest: i write a book every year or two, yet. as a matter fact i think you take the 98 down, i think i've done seven books since 1998 and i'm working on a number one right now. >> host: any reason? >> guest: yeah, i'm and a unemployed politician. i've lost more republican. >> host: you're on with pat buchanan. >> caller: what a pleasure speaking to you, pat. i watch it every weekend on the mclaughlin group and we love you. anyway, i'm a westerner, retired, living in palm springs now but i'm from colorado and idaho. my wife and i comes when you are running for president, noticed you had a lot of momentum going and you are doing quite well, and then you came out here to arizona primaries. i want to know who on your staff

told you to wear a black cat. because the good guys always were the lighthouse. and i said that black cat is not going to do him any good. that and just one other question, watch you a lot on the show and i really feel sorry for you that you allow yourself to be such a punching bag on their show. >> guest: i have worked for msnbc, and that's not a conservative network here. but i think we hold up our own. let me say about arizona, you know, people talk about the black cat and holding up the gun. i don't think that was it. i think what happened was we had done everything right, but when we got to the arizona primary, forbes had run for the nile and fourth in new hampshire. but the trouble is he was able to stay in because he had all that mon.