so other than seafoam in thank you, we should end the night with the pledge of allegiance. would you join me? i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. into the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations] !

>> those of you who wanted me to run so badly and those of you who are so terribly

disappointed, but i am doing the right thing. >> i believe 1984 finds the united states and the strongest position in years to establish a construct to and realistic working relationship with the union. >> new hampshire will hold its first in the nation presidential primary on january 10. hampshire terry secretary of state, bill gardner talked about the history of the state's presidential primary on the "new hampshire today" radio program. this is 54 minutes.

>> welcome back to a special edition of new hampshire today. 3:00 to 6:00 folks and the new hampshire presidential primary. it is first the nation and here in new hampshire you know that maybe the c-span viewers know that. i am not sure everyone in every state enjoys the fact, that we continue coverage live on c-span, c-span 3 channel 249 and digital cable. the single replay parts of the show. newt gingrich joining us, governor huntsman and ron paul. governor christie joined us in the first hour. he is here in new hampshire on behalf of mitt romney, carl cameron of fox news expert analysis in the first hour in senator kelley ayotte obviously coveted endorsement freshman senator issuer to make an endorsement, she probably will. we are going to continue our discussion and talk about the

roots of the new hampshire presidential primary. i also want to open up our fine land at 868-23-1037. many listeners in c-span viewers have called and i want to try to get on because we've had so many guests and we've kind of been packed. at this hour we promise to take more calls that (866)823-1077. tim are back in our format in the studio and of course veterans day friday will have special veterans day coverage. let's get right back to it on a delightful afternoon in new hampshire. mid-sixties, rain coming in. but we're talking presidential politics. in the studio delighted to have the secretary of state for hampshire, bill gardner. i daresay we might not have this thing called the presidential primary if it were not for your great work and stewardship of the primary. mr. secretary, cheating rack for cheating rack for joining us in being on c-span. >> i'm happy to be here. >> you might be happy because

you have a day. she nearly 20. we are that either of two months of the primary basically and it was a little bit precarious in terms of setting the date this time. >> a lot have been this week. we're oppressed in florida made its decision to go and less go and elasticity of january. they did it on friday. south carolina made its decision. wednesday, nevada made its decision within a week or so, iowa decided that it would be -- they would have their caucus on a third of january. so when a matter of less than two weeks, the reaction to florida was tremendous. and we were faced with some possibilities that we are not the best. >> we might be voting for force it to put the stockings of the

fireplace. no stranger to new hampshire national politics, but we have one of my favorite people in new hampshire, calling in. he is considered probably the top business in return for doing so much good in new hampshire. tom rafe on the listener line. tom, good afternoon. how are you quite >> could come and chat, how are you doing? >> i'm fine, thanks. >> creek hear from you. by the way, the show has been the so riveting that you've been taking me out. i had a strategic business meeting and basically pulled myself from it to listen to senator ayotte and the other gaseous had. what a terrific opportunity for those of us in new hampshire to get ready. that's why we love new hampshire. >> tom, let me a base. tom, you have gone to so many

events in and around the primary. but in context for local listeners how important, not from $8 because the late governor hugh craig tried to put a dollar amount, but the olympics and politics in new hampshire. but in contacts how important primary is to the fabric of our calendar every four years in new hampshire as a business leader. >> it's right in our culture. for example, we are considered a fairly large company in new hampshire. all of the presidential candidates come through, visit with employees depending on how they want to do it, and either walk through or we give them an audience of 200 people and employees can ask questions. we look forward to it every four years and in between years to come out with some of the more local elections as well. so it's really given us sort of a cultural -- i don't know, it's exciting. i think there is the next big tatian that the candidates are here and they will answer

questions really directly. i know the better that have been most successful in our primaries are the ones that are here a lot actually answer the questions, really clearly and do a nice interchange was sorted the average person on the street. and again, i think it's great not only for the culture of new hampshire, but we do a good job in terms of grilling the candidates and yet we are always polite and that's good for the economy as well. another economic driver for the state. >> tom is a trivia expert on sports, but many of our listeners and viewers may not. when was the first new hampshire presidential primary? how did it come about and why did we get to go first? tell us the history. >> in a year and half will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the legislation back in 19 team that created the presidential primary. the first primary was in 1916.

it was not the first in the nation. it was never planned to be first in the nation. in 1916, the state this week ahead of us in this table is the same day. but after 1916 to state that was a week ahead of less decided to notice. right tonight and minnesota eliminated the primary. so by 1920, we became the first in the nation not because we asked for it, because it just happened that way. we continue for the next half-century have been on town meeting day, the second tuesday of march. it was first in the nation of five week all in that period. and a significant event happened in new hampshire that led to the incumbent president -- >> was at eisenhower? >> now covered with london johnson in 1968. he actually got more votes than his opponents here, that is

opponents it far better than anyone expected, came within 3% of actually defeating and, but won more delegates than he did so the perception was he won the primary. >> even though the perception was the reality? >> before the end of that month, the person who one changed his mind and announced he was not going to run for reelection. that all happened before any of the states had another event. >> eisenhower won without being here, right? >> i know the importance of the primary. i'm sure you would like to congratulate though gardner to secure the first physician and he beat that ignorantly stated or not a. >> we all know every citizen in new hampshire no coa debt of gratitude to go with the institute of politics as we know what the great work he has done

to make sure we remain in a prominent position. so the bill does not think i speak for just about everybody new hampshire. so thank you, bill. >> i know you don't like it, but you've got to take it once in a while. thank you for all you do and supported the primary and i'm not going after a few chosen a candidate yet, but thank you for entertainment candidates. >> would love to do that and we're looking forward. we've heard he had governor romney and there will be others. thanks again, guys. >> is your prediction for the next manager of the boston red sox? >> well, i wouldn't be surprised if it still schwing, a younger guy. >> i told you, he knows his stuff. >> tom, we have our fort myers hotels spring arrangement. you're always welcome to china said fort myers. before you want it, you want to get away. >> (866)823-1037.

joe viola holcomb was bill gardner. also, manager and has run a presidential campaign or to invent involved in in these campaigns. as you travel nationally and in new hampshire where your friend originally, how do you view the new hampshire primary? are you surprised he been able to keep it? i do you think the world of him, but are you surprised that we still go first after all these years with so many powers and other parties or candidates that i become president? >> we have one power and he is sitting right next to me and it is bill gardner. and i am not kidding. i have been a huge can of bills for a couple decades now. >> during 50 states and brian know -- >> just if you look back over the last couple decades as nevada and the health care alliance, they have all tried

and some of the folks in new hampshire, whether republicans or democrats to try to nickel and dime to get the secretary to compromise a couple days here, a couple days they are removing month. hill has been consistent, strong, principled man. didn't matter whether he was republican or democrat. he did best but was for new hampshire. if he moved over the last few times, we would've been out of this process by now. bill doesn't like the compliments, but i've got to tell you without him we wouldn't be sitting here talking about the primary. >> lakota national colors. (866)823-1077. if you're watching on c-span and you don't understand or you may not like -- an outcome you you've heard the criticism folks. you have heard the small state, one of the wealthiest states,

maybe not representative of bigger states in other parts of the country. some people frankly are resentful. some are jealous that new hampshire goes first. it's a lot of power for a state of over a million people. the state has made and broken candidates. feel free candidates and maybe no one new hampshire but i've gone on to become president saying it was that primary that made me better, including our current president. so, what you see someone who doesn't understand a comment doesn't get it, doesn't like it? >> why does it matter to the next president of the united states? >> first of outcome is unpredictable and unscripted cold. that's first and foremost. second they come it provides an opportunity for any person who wants to have a chance to buy for president. we don't like to get on the ballot. we don't screen. >> does jimmy carter come to mind? >> i remember when jimmy carter came to this day, no one had any

idea who he was. there were a few u.s. senators running in that primary. sargent shriver at the kennedy family. he ended up winning and going on to be president. this happens in both parties more than once. someone has come here. it started in 68 when eugene mccarthy, people didn't know much about him. he came to the state. knowing that he would give more than single digits, surprised everyone in ended up changing what came out of new hampshire changed the course of the country's history. >> joe and bill clinton. i remember john broderick, supreme court chief justice coming idea of a hampshire law school. steve mccall and cherry shoemaker ticket on this governor from arkansas. and he was trailing in the early polls behind the late paul tsongas, kerry brown, tom

harkin, bob kerrey and there is bill clinton. it was almost laughable. he worked anywhere and he just talked to the new hampshire people and even though he didn't win the primary, the perception was he was the comeback kid because he came at a strong second period but comes to mind when you look back on primaries? >> you have to remember george herbert walker bush came in here and was the ambassador to the united nations, republican national committee man, but he was not nationally recognized when he started in new hampshire. and hugh craig is to put them in the station wagon and they would just run the state committed at the new hampshire person-to-person town to town and grabbed as many hanssen had as many conversations as possible. >> or you there when he got up on the tractor? >> i despair. i used to guide the station wagon as a senior at king state college. >> the campaign pop. >> avaricious following -- never

knew what i've involved in handing out literature. >> bill, does a picture of former president senior getting on the track. to dehumanize them? to to show he was a guy's guy? by was that such a memorable moment? >> well, he had the ski cap on. he didn't try to make him so fancy. he looked like someone from here doing what he was doing. and that happens all the time. some of the most significant moments of presidential primary history happens in this state and they pretty much happens regularly. >> share a few more with us. i know you're not ready to sit on the porch in the rocking chair because a nature at protecting the primary and of course your secretary of state, to share a few moments that you know someday you'll look back and scratch your head and say wow. >> well, when neighboring senator ed muskie campaigned in the state, everyone thought that

he would be a shoo-in to win this primary and he had an event in front of the union leader when it was light snow assorted change the course of everyone's perception of him because that is what happens at that event, everyone in the country knew about it within a day or two. >> that was before the incident of course. >> that was when there were only three network. >> no cable, nothing. >> the alleged here that got around the road when he was screaming and yelling over treatment of his wife. >> was at a snowflake or a tear? >> the perception was a tear. >> his campaign manager said if he didn't get 50% of the vote, it would not be of the very. so when he did not get 50% of the vote, even though he won, it was said that boost for his

opponent. >> some of the more interesting times are when they first filed. their history they all come there first and you get the first really -- your story about joe biden is just a classic new hampshire story. >> four years ago when senator barden came into file, he didn't bring a big entourage in their group of students, a fourth-grade class coming coming down the hall and they all came in. he had a big smile on his face and looked at all those students. >> phil gardner, before we go to a break, people know about federated these and they think that he thought running here in new hampshire as well as send comment president advice resonate. so maybe 10 names filed here in new hampshire. how many people in fact are running in this primary two

months from now? >> pair 44 candidates listed on the ballot. 30 republicans and 14 democrats. 30 republicans is the most we've ever had for republicans. the highest before this was in 1992. with 25 republicans. the 14 democrats with an incumbent president running. >> there's a national news story. obama has a challenge. >> when george w. bush filed, there were 14 republicans running in that primary. >> of course i remember -- i think he passed away, and if he didn't offense to these listening, the actor who played jimmy jack, tom laughlin. >> keyfile twice in new hampshire. >> nine times. any south. >> a fascinating discussion about the origin of the primary. we love the memories of the

story and i think the c-span viewers don't know some of this. maybe when they come back we can talk about how serious the voters of new hampshire take their role and how serious politics is here as kind of a past time for almost a sport. we will take a break on "new hampshire today." bill gardner secretary of state, largely considered the one who navigates this calendar for the benefit of new hampshire's primary. i know you don't like it. we covet it, we enjoy it. to her c-span listeners of local callers, 86683177. be right back. [inaudible conversations] >> 2000 that brought up your name in one way or another.

>> who is this guy? >> at his son's death. thank you for doing this. >> i'm happy to do it. >> is travel. >> this is the real color. i always say on the radio show if we had a youtube camera during the breaks, if people could see what we do, the rest are laughing and having fun or during the break that was when the most fun was had here steve terrell arguing with arnesen in a commercial. just trying to get between the two of them. but the show is doing great. we are having fun. >> this is my beard rare interviews. >> this is not a natural

occurrence. >> last night was the awards dinner in manchester. that was nice. >> witness the lesser-known candidates debate? >> that is one of the beauties of new hampshire. >> you should mention that. >> four years ago got invited to go to the oxford union to debate at oxford university because they started on c-span and they wanted one from each party who actually ran for president, said they invited them to come over. one of them is coming back. he called and told me, this is unbelievable. i thought to put him on the

debate because cnn was telling me that marty having five or six -- is that we are doing it. remember: phil thing i know this is a national zone, but how do you define a national candidate? the organized campaign office fundraising, why isn't kerry johnson former governor >> buddy roemer's >> so from a credential qualification. [inaudible conversations] >> bill leonard received two. he said he would never have the

opportunity if it wasn't for new hampshire. what was that? somebody wrote you a letter after you filed a never had the opportunity to be able to run and be on the ballot. >> don richardson from florida. >> gene mccarthy, sometimes the candidate you'll find a groundswell. previously it is just the fossae. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> all right. welcome back. on "new hampshire today," hi to her c-span viewers. please feel free to call an (866)823-1077. the number should be on your screen. secretary of state, bill gardner. the guardian of the new hampshire presidential primary in terms of being first week after the iowa caucus. joe viola, political analyst in regular on the show as well. typecast, where just manager republican. it was yesterday. of course manchester is a city.

but mayor katz is reelected. this afternoon he may not rule out a run for governor. we'll talk about that tomorrow. >> i think when you win with 70%, it's unnatural to think that the governor might be nice. >> that is wide open in 2012. >> let's go back to focusing on this afternoon. though gardner and some of the marvelous stories you shared already. what is your take on how the media or others -- we have just said how many people are running for president in new hampshire? >> 44. >> the perception is there about 10 including the president and vice incumbent. where do people draw the line? we had a caller earlier, michelle -- julio from chicago talking about why run paul is never considered by the national pun and unselect bull.

where is the subject to arbitrary line in the sand? we have commented that former new mexico governor johnson, gary johnson, two-term governor successful builder not really included in these debates. like someone decided he is not a major candidate. there's countless others. where do you draw on who is a major candidate or a fringe candidate? >> well, that it's always been the sticking point because whenever you create an arbitrary line, there might be someone that calls below it that should not fall below it. so it is always an issue here. but one thing that is not ever an issue here is that anyone has the opportunity to come here and spend time here and there is than candidates over the years that i've done that, who have calmed.

very few people knew them, thought they would get only single digits and it ended that become in the nominee. >> we have to go to a collar, but who comes to mind as a national candidate without the bells, whistles that the guns and the money and miscalculated new hampshire and the costs and nearly? that will go out to the listener line. >> for instance on the democratic side, senator john glenn underwent out when he came into the state that he would be a shoe when because he was nationally known. he was better known than any other candidate. >> so who comes to your mind? >> texas senator -- i've forgotten his name. john calmly came and had ready money. he had ready money and he was going to do well. >> also pete wilson, california governor took over the senate at

new hampshire. new hampshire is run differently. in texas, we would campaign d'amico from airport to airport to press conference to press conferences that was considered campaigning. in new hampshire company go and meet people. it is how you react in the spontaneous energy and stories that spread. we will talk about the voters. quick from killington, are you on? >> sim, how are you. >> thanks for your patience. you were on "new hampshire today" in c-span. >> reason i am calling to spend a little frustrated with the way the candidates are vetted. it is, flight and media. the candidates they choose to run for office and they don't give us enough information about all the other candidate out there. every voter in new hampshire, i find that really frustrating to cnn, cnbc, abc, cbs tends to do

that. they pick who they think would be good to run and focus on that candidate right or wrong. >> they are brought alive by the way. you were talking a second ago -- i think of rudy giuliani to all of this thought had a good shot. is that i'm going to concentrate on florida, not new hampshire. it was a bad wake-up call. but that is my biggest frustration is media takes their candidates and they don't let the people of new hampshire do the work to find these candidate and take the ones they feel are best. >> brick come and stay on line. joe maiola. one of the callers asked where our candidates not spent more earlier here? he said social media, facebook, other tools allow the candidates to stay at duke on the it can

survive longer without the warchest. do you think the national media still doesn't get it? to think there's going to be a surprise to some and they haven't told us about, someone may have it showcased as the likely nominee is, someone may want? to think we are breaking through the national media will let voters decide or do you think the national media does play a huge role in seeing if this guy and that guy? >> the national media is to make you that. i like to pick on them on the show because i'm not looking for a job. i like to say how often they are wrong. as i said earlier, new hampshire is unpredictable. and who thought in the last primary that the winner of the democratic primary was going to be hillary clinton? the polls, everything we do it to new hampshire seen otherwise. and that this happened over and over. and because you don't have to have the most fame or money to win here.

and if he didn't have the same before, that's why the seven days afterwards is so. >> i don't want to pilot your profession, chat, but they've got to fill the news and it's usually about the horserace. new hampshire is not about the horserace. and that's the beauty. >> can i interject something here? one of the things that really disgusted me last night was the weight nbc news handled this whole situation with herman cain. if a republican or conservative had come out and set the thing that brian williams said last night, it would be all over the news. but these guys get away with it. >> a look at their ratings. i'm serious. look at nbc. bruce keith olbermann right now? >> there is built-in suspicion because herman cain's numbers are not going down yet.

the meatiest frustrated they will do everything they can. >> are still waiting to go on their own. >> does that give them the right to use some of the racial comments they were using last night? it was the most unprofessional -- >> brick, i didn't see it. thanks for calling. we've decoded new york city. i didn't see it. i get your point. my life has been in and around this media event then select enable to do it in her kitchen where i like to live. but the national media doesn't always get it right. there is an inherent bias uncertain outlets. it shows the way it is. they usually don't get it right in the end. suzanne from new york city, you're in c-span. how are you? >> i saw what brian williams said about herman cain, and a disgusting democrat strategists. the democrat strategists maria

cardona on cnn last night who worked for clinton, she is the one that hired cairncross tower. and she has two other harassment lawsuits they are after herman cain, to. also, we said stan herman cain so much under the bus. we are sick of karl rove, though kristol, charles pratt hammered, attacking sarah palin, michele bachmann, herman cain, rick. every single day and night. steve hayes last night on fox. i think herman cain was great at his press conference yesterday. and also, why are republicans throwing under the bus? have elected these limits?

chairman bialik, do you have that take that knows her as? >> know, the number one you should have your own talk show. but i want to go back to a couple things you just said. i don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying. we care even a night at town hall. >> of his good. >> he was calling forces behind, every media. but here's the deal. i don't think herman cain has helped himself at all in how he has handled it. but it doesn't take away the points he made about the national media and the coverage. i think it is driving the national media not. >> we sent him another check this morning. >> herman cain hasn't dropped down yet. >> i'm sorry, msnbc or a racist in my book.

we've got to start calling them racists. >> i'm not going to go that far, but i could not watch keith olbermann. i was an intern in boston when he was a sportscaster and i don't want to get into how little i think of him professionally, but my point is they have an inherent ice. the people on the left say fox. >> a heavy for the liberal and conservative. >> i would disagree with the caller on one thing. i think the candidates running with herman cain have showed a lot of restraint and what is that. i think they are that he may they have basically said that there is something more to be said, let's say it now and get it out. but i don't think they've attacked him. i think they're waiting to see if there's another shoe drops on my term and can deal with it, which i don't think -- this is not a tent. >> suzanne, i enjoyed your call.

>> when the game. they covered up john edwards, but there was 120 stories, cnn on irvine came. and we left it. you've got to get the tape from bill kurtis. she attacked herman cain. >> i think herman cain needs more people to like his campaign in new hampshire. the suzanne, i want you to call not just weren't c-span. but do you this format? i think you should call c-span and say simulcasts jack show everyday and get it in new york city. thank you of the suzanne. john, go ahead. >> i think herman cain is a joke -- >> how do you really feel, john? >> when you make accusations of harassment obviously is a serious accusation. i wanted to respond to jon huntsman talking about class

warfare. it seems to me that class warfare was initiated by republicans governors like john k-6 who got his head handed to him last night trying to take kuwait collective bargaining rights for public employees was resounding overturned in ohio, 63% to 37%. class warfare has been initiated by the tea bagging, like mr. k-6 and the governors scott walker in wisconsin. >> is that a fair characterization of the tea party? >> absolutely. >> why? >> they are mercenary movement funded by the coke brothers. i mean, that is not -- >> there's no one in the tea party like there's no one in occupy wall street. viciously popped up and supported for three years?

>> i think the tea party is a felony populist movement that is funded by corporate america. >> knowing the tea party isoprene for themselves and has convictions for government is to beg ambitious all a conspiracy? >> i think the people that started to unfurled a yellow frats when a black man got into office. i didn't notice these flags unfurled >> of a $13 trillion debt had nothing to do with? >> i didn't notice when mr. bush started getting trillion dollars debt with iraq and with afghanistan and went six chili and revenue was lost with the tax cut. >> with all due respect, i don't think the tea party could make

the progress in 2010 by some corporate backed financing. i think there's a lot of people. i think there's a lot of people in the tea party who has convictions and have got involved in the first time. the list and john, appreciate the call. i want you to have the final word. >> well, if you want to look at state-by-state, the billions spent in the billions more that will be spent, the unfettered use of campaign money to buy elections i think both prove my point. >> we are going to come back and try and get some final history of the national primaries as we wrap things up to one more segments from wtpl fm radio. thank goodness radio is healthy and life. we'll be right back in a moment and our c-span viewers. who knows, maybe make is to make his escape we'll be right back.

>> john is a regular local collar and he definitely has his point of view from the left. and i take it very well that he likes to call so often because he will call sunday sunset in a site two days ago. he's just been kind of waiting to want to call and set me straight in his mind. >> that's good. he seems to have some anger management issues. >> well, the primary last time is on a day like today. >> what is the percentage? we had over half a million. how many people show up that day? the total turnout was 529,000. that's over half the voting age population. but last year was 1.3?

>> then i was 1.2 some thing. well, 529,000 out of 750. it's in the 70th percentile of the registered voters in a primary. that is all registered voters. there's no other state. the closest states to less is over 10 percentage points in new hampshire. every party of contest right up until super tuesday. >> in your next. now that he's up to date, your next will be when you predict the amount of folks that are going to show the vote. don't you normally do that? you've been almost right on the money. >> when he was on tv, he was wondering if i had socks that i could offer him.

one time that was within -- like less than 100 voters. you were saying they should have listened to you. so when you put that number out? >> a week or so. >> doing great, you guys. >> less than 5%. >> less than 5% of those were from absentee voters. think about that. january 8. everybody stayed and then they went. independent voters outnumber either party really. 21%. i had friends that didn't even know bush was running for election. they were just so that they would vote for anyone but the republican. he's kind of the bob dylan

choice. the independents really were on the democratic side. 2010, then it turned obviously here in new hampshire has a huge debt to the right in a lot of states nationally. do you have any sense now where you think they were still go a little more right or they just going to stay as they are now economically and otherwise? driven a field where people people are out? >> i don't think it's any different than it was a year or two ago. >> just for my listeners, there is some -- i think there's some kind that essay, but i don't explain to go across the 50-yard line. >> that throw the action is. the independents are still going to be coming out and i think they're still in great and they're going to be voting. >> is the president's reelection

reelection -- were detained both beat? >> the president's economy will be a patient of fpr 36. they say no, they voted. republicans won't pass any name. we did tarpon not save the banks. they are against everything i've put a period the wealthy -- we need revenue. were going to cut the deficit to 82 reason money. corporations need to pay more. he's going to run against everything and not put the line of himself. republicans will run against. >> he's the president and the still looked at as the leader. >> the republicans will basely run against congress in washington tend. where do the independents: that argument? >> it is sort of like when you have a state issue your plan the governor. when you have national issues when the president.

>> welcome back. this is new hampshire today. delighted to be on c-span for three hours. i know don't know when the last time that have been. so this has been a lot of fun. i want to thank steve scully and the whole c-span team. viewers out there should know the crews to come out and do this stuff and all the states are super nice people, classy folks been a real service as c-span has since i worked with them years ago. we did our first debate from new hampshire was c-span. see if you are a dirt, the face of c-span is also really, really nice guy. maybe the next white house press secretary. though gartner can the secretary of state in new hampshire. new hampshire's going first again. during the break, mr. secretary, you were saying something since 2008 in primary. john mccain, hillary clinton ended up doing okay. we are a state of 2008,

1.2 million people, correct? >> 2008, 529,000 people voted in new hampshire. out of 750,000 registered voters, that is like 71st of voter turnout. that is participation. that is political participation. what other state could touch that in terms of batman engaged voters taken the time. people say i'm too busy to go. in the primary cycle four years ago there was no state that came within 10 percentage points in new hampshire. and with even more remarkable, the absentee ballot count was less than 5%. so what the 400 people that actually voted -- over half a million voted on that date going into the polling place and taken part. a little over 4% cast absentee ballots. that is typical from the primary. now that cycle had a big contest in both parties.

for some cycles like this one, the big contest is really just in one party. and that makes a difference. so the turnout in one party will be substantially larger than the other party. >> they set the table and making sure the primary states here. but we don't have a sports team. we have good hockey team. >> winters are particularly warm, but we do take our politics really serious. people do delay their vocations. >> you know it amazes me is of course having an afternoon talk show. the knowledge, the everyday knowledge is out for the people, political knowledge per capita, no disrespect to california. it is so high. new york city, more people in new hampshire just now, you've seen these random polls. they know who the governor is.

they know who a representative is. we have one of the largest citizen representative legislator bodies in the statehouse volunteer. hope it stays that way. they don't meet that often. i like that. they take it seriously is what i'm saying. >> there is a unique local cultures that exist that is not duplicated anywhere else. it is not that the people here are any harder than pete on any other part of the country. it is just that we have the representation you mentioned. california would have to have a legislature of over 11,000 members to equal the representation we have. there are more people in the state of run for office. come on in their family is held in office because their summit office in elections. we elect a governor years. new for i'm sure. before i let you go, joe maiola, thank you for joining us. newt gingrich, ron paul, governor hunt and comer carl,

senator ayotte, thank you for making a word. i love putting on the spot because you're such a gentleman. what one political figure whether president comes to mind is the fondest one person you got to know and say what a peach of a person. who comes to your mind? >> are in the family. upon the candidate that have come through, george h.w. bush, when he came into fio, he did some event i went before or after -- he wanted to make sure that every person, that he had to say hello to. every person -- particularly those who work in the office, who don't get it someone and not -- >> he thought about that. >> thank you for making new hampshire person being part of the program. thanks for being a great part of new hampshire. i want to thank our friends. we will have sports tomorrow.

i want to take a final thank you to c-span again. thank you for the kennett new hampshire, participating with wtpl fm and you'll have you back again and maybe make a regular thing of it. jackie, so long. we'll see you later. have a great night. [inaudible conversations]

>> discussion about the life and presidency of ronald reagan. we are from reagan at officials, including attorney general, transportation secretary, james burnham and white house budget director james miller. the university of notre dame and the ronald reagan presidential foundation cohosted the discussion as part of a series of event commemorating the 100th anniversary of reagan's birth. it is an hour and 15 minutes. >> i should also note that

mr. meese served his country in the army after having been you have to serve in the army since 1984. we will also hear who served as board of governors of the federal reserve system for nearly five years trying to make it an illustration and he too served in the united states army from 1968 to 1971. we also hear from jim miller who served as director of the opposite and it's been a chip from 1985 to 1988. and from jim burnley who served as secretary of transportation from 1987 to 1989. we are deeply grateful for these java men and for their participation today that they will provide on their years serving with the president to all of which brings me to our moderator, judy woodruff who has become a familiar face to

america's having worked in the news media for more than three decades. currently a news anchor on the news hour happily given to today's presentation was the principal reporter for the pbs documentary the role of a lifetime. please join me in welcoming our panelists. [applause] >> thank you, david campbell. i'm so delighted delighted to be here. i'm honored to be asked to participate in this wonderful foundation. thank you father jenkins for being here representing notre dame. i think it is a wonderful idea what the foundation is doing, forming these programs with a series of universities and i think the subject we are here to talk about today could not be more timely. i have to tell you on a personal note it has been 30 years this year since i started to cover

the administration of ronald reagan. i can't believe how time has flown. like every other journalist, we all have these gory gory memory of president reagan. minus particularly personal. they had then and i were welcoming our first child. jeffrey was born in 1981 so i took maternity leave and then away for about two months and is planning to come back in december. when i got a call from the white house press up his inviting me to come over and showed the baby to this staff, the white house asked. and so i got jeffrey organized. he was two months old and came over that day and unbeknownst to me they had called my husband, al hunt, who's been covering congress for "the wall street journal." they said you should be here. it will be kind of nice, fun. so we show up and jeffrey at

that point is having a bottle every two or three hours. i had got there and we said hello and they said there's somebody we really want jeffrey to me. then of course they meant the president. as soon as they realized that, i realize jeffrey had just finished a bottle. this had got to go right into the oval office right now because the president has an important meeting in 20 minutes but the president of sudan. so there i am with the two-month old, had not had a chance to him. we walk into the oval office and there is safe mightily president reagan. i'll never forget that he was yesterday wearing one of brown suit. and he reaches for the baby and put them on the shoulder and starts holding him up and moving him up and down. and he starts telling a story about his own children and how he and nancy did this and not when their children were young.

he put him on the shoulder and said this is the way the gentleman right and this is where the cowboys ride. by the time he finished, jeffrey was up and down with the president and my eyes are getting bigger and bigger. needless to say, i'm happy to tell you that after 15 minutes of a wonderful conversation, we laughed. the president's jacket was perfect. nothing happened. and so, my son has been perfectly well behaved ever since. anyway, you can imagine it's a favorite memory for alan and for jeffrey because we have a picture of that occasion. but it is one more reminder of not only the leadership of ronald reagan, but also the personal charm that this president had. it's one more reason i am delighted to be here today.

the subject can be more important than i am going to call in our distinguished panelists to say a few words about putting the president's legacy with corey to the economy and domestic issues in their own words. i just want to say if they turn to you, it is, that if you start listening three things that can't get to third on, we are all going to pitch in and help. >> thank you, judy. really to understand the legacy of ronald reagan, you have to go back to rid the country was in january 1981. then we are in dire straits both at home and abroad. at home we had the worst economic crisis we've had since the great depression of the 1930s at that time. we had inflation at 12.5% interest rate for 21%. unemployment ultimately rose to 10%. energy shortages almost anything you can imagine that had gone wrong has gone wrong.

we also had other things beyond the scope of today's discussion. but in order to understand the situation, our national security situation was also careless with the soviet union flexing muscles around the world, where we were at a situation where military forces had been depleted in the wake of vietnam. we had come as i said, planes that couldn't fly for lack of spare parts. we were neither a credible deterrent to our opponents or a reliable ally to our friends. do not had an impact also with the relationship between national security and economics obviously was fair. so this was the situation. i think the import thing was ronald reagan came to office with a vision of what the country are to be going both in our relationship of the soviet union and more particularly on how to deal with economic problems. i have talked too much about it

sitting between two eminent economists fear the koran, but let me just say that i'm sure they will elaborate. he came into office with a four-point program. the first was to lower tax rates across the board. he didn't believe in this class warfare. he believes everyone should be treated fairly. ..

screen actors guild and movie industry and all of that and lead him to understand and one of the things he does develop mechanisms for people to work together. things such as the cabinet council system in which members of the cabinet got together on a regular basis in order to develop the plans they brought to him in the cabinet meeting bringing the entire appointed people working for him in the various departments together at regular intervals. having special courses taught by people from the kennedy school harvard on the management of the department's these kind of things, so it was a combination of a vision of where the country should be going and then developing the leadership plans to bring together a cohesive administration of people throughout the government who could get us in the direction and a long way towards the goal

that he sought in the country. >> it meese, thank you very much. let's hear now from james, the secretary of transportation. >> if i might, judy. i would like to offer a different perspective by way of personal anecdote as well about how ronald reagan used his role as president. in the spring of 1988, i had the opportunity to travel with him to the coast guard academy. i had asked him to address their commencement and he had done the other three academies during the presidency. this was the one that was outstanding so he readily agreed and as you know the coast guard academy, the new london academy if it has an airport certainly couldn't handle air force one so airforce one had to land at hartford about 30 miles away and did so. when we got into the

presidential limousine as we pulled through the gates of the airport, we were engaged with the chief of staff and the three of us in polite conversation and he said to me i don't want you to think i'm rude, but we are going to keep talking, but i have to acknowledge these people along the roadside. so that's what happened for 30 miles. for 30 miles, we had casual conversations about this and that. as he looked out one side and then the other continuously. what is significant about that? well, she was in the eighth year of his presidency. yet, he still felt an obligation and that is the way that he put it, there was an obligation to acknowledge the american people and those in particular who as he said sometimes set a couple of hours waiting with a brief

glimpse of the presidency. he was never going to run for office again, there was nothing political about this. it was just how he viewed his role. it was his responsibility even in the waning months of his presidency he felt to connect with people come to acknowledge them. and i was obviously struck by that time. today i'm still struck by eight. each president has his own unique approach to the role. but it said so much to me and still does about his view of his role and he had a multiplicity of rules obviously. but nonetheless, for eight years with ronald reagan we had a president who clearly felt it was an important fundamental part of his role to simply

connect with people in this country. >> do you want to say anything else about his legacy with regard to your nurse in particular? >> when it comes to transportation he does have a legacy. the department of transportation first and foremost looks after safety issues in the transportation whether it is the faa for aviation or the national highway traffic and safety administration for the safety aspects of automobiles and how they are built and that kind of thing, let it also has whatever role in just simply encouraging transportation investment, administering programs like the highway program and all that, and the fact was on a bipartisan basis in the late 70's congress passed legislation to deregulate every mode of transportation until the late 70's railroads

were strictly regulated in terms of pricing the airlines were on the pricing where they could fly down the line. trucking was similarly regulated. so the ronald reagan administration was not a part of that legislative exercise, but we came into office at a time when i was just beginning to take hold and play out and i actually got to the department of transportation and early 1983 to be the general counsel and then the deputy secretary for the balance of my time until i got to move to the front office. so it was very clear and signals from the white house were very clear we were supposed to on the economic side stay out of the way, let the statutes take hold, let these industries sort out their own economic futures. figure out how to actually compete in the marketplace which they haven't done until just before president ronald reagan

took office and there were more than a few voices who would from time to time suggest this wasn't going well and that may be congress should reregulate and you can still occasionally hear that today for the airline industry. so i would say the duty in my sphere and the basic theme of the administration and turned to the cut transportation, but then on the economic side, leave them alone. let them figure out how to provide the services we all depend on and compete with each other. >> okay. jim, thank you very much. now let's hear from jim miller, director of of the office of president. >> thank you for inviting me. it's good to see the former members of the demonstration in the audience. you know, we talk a lot about

what president ronald reagan accomplished, and he accomplished so much in the restored faith in america and he restored faith in the presidency i've often thought aside from that what were the qualities of the man that made the difference what made him so special and so effective in what he did and i want to pick up on something that jim started off with and that is his humility. that can across to people. he was someone who talked about -- ed will remember -- he used to talk about the constitutions of so many countries started off with the government gives the people certain rights. of what he delight in pointing out that our constitution says we the people give the

government limited rights. he was one who spoke not about i do this, but we do this. he was always putting himself in the background. he told me several times i'm going back to california, i'm going back to the ranch. he saw the presidency as a finite term that american people gave him a responsibility for a finite term and when it ended he got on the plane and went back to california. there was a plaque on his desk that said, i wrote this down from there is no limit to what a man can accomplish our far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit, just as an

anecdote. the first budget i prepared for president ronald reagan i was sitting down with him in the cabinet room going over details that i had put together and i wanted to check and make sure that i had everything right, and i said in the case of the postal service it would make sense to privatize the service and de monopolize the service and his response was jim, that sounds like a good idea i felt so proud of myself sitting there for. only years later did we discover ann rice they said those are his handwritten script for his radio program. one of them said virtually the

same -- >> i think your microphone slipped down. put a little bit higher. >> i do too much stipulating. [laughter] one of the script said virtually the same thing. now, rather than sitting there and saying i wrote about this or i said this eight years ago or something like that he made me think it was my idea. i think that was one of the keys to his success, his. >> all right, that is an important thought to account. finally let's welcome manley johnson who is former vice chairman of the reserve board of governors. >> thank you, judy. i have three brief stories i think can help illustrate the

way ronald reagan was and how long related to him, but i know before i was the vice-chairman of the federal reserve i was also assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy in his first term under both donelson and jim baker, but ed has pointed out that when ronald reagan became president during his campaign he formulated a platform of domestic policy platform based on four major principles and ed went over those and this explains a lot about ronald reagan he was a man of deep convictions which had been developed over a long period of his experience and i don't think he could operate with that principle based administration and i think that's really important and when

we can to this other ministration we all knew these principles and you could recite them by heart. they weren't complicated. the issues underneath them were complicated, but the principals were easy to understand that they set the stage for his domestic policy and i think in many ways kind of con candidates that went on within his own administration about how to conduct the policy and i think that was important. when i was first at the treasury my office was always being sent over comments from the president to respond to some would come and meet with the president in the oval office and hit him a paper they had of their ideas and most presidents would just kind of hand but off to a staff member and they would -- it would be forgotten in a nice letter would be sent later.

all over again in many instances would take those papers and read them and write marginal notes about them, because i would get them. i would be the treasury and i would get the white house staff would send me these papers that someone had come in with an economics idea and ronald reagan had read it and had written marginal notes on the side and i was asked to go over these and check for facts and make sure and prepare a written response which would be edited back in the white house and i was just amazed at how many of those came over from the white house to the treasury for my analysis and that first told me the people who are trying to characterize him as a symbol in the newspaper just don't understand. another story that follows that is when we were in the early stages of -- we had already

passed the '81 tax act in august of '81, but after that, jim miller would know his predecessor and kind of felt the reservation and wanted to change the budgetary policy and kind of against these principles that ronald reagan set, but we used to have a tremendous number of late evening task force meetings over in the oval office or the cabinet room to deal with these issues and the director the time would be servicing a plan to reverse the tax program and donald would always come down to my office and say i want you to come over with me because i was always doing the background work on this to have this debate and i will never forget one evening in the cabinet room we had a task force i was sitting against

the wall behind paul brigham who was the secretary of the time and the whole purpose of this meeting was to crown him into a decision to reverse part of his tax program. and so, they will do that and make a presentation which is an attempt to back him into a corner and rehearse quite a bit before that. ronald reagan comes in and as was pointed out by jim and others always extremely respectful to people, came in, sat down, welcome to redeem the meeting and there were probably about ten people in this room and he listened to the presentation everybody was expecting him to have to make a decision. at the end, he smiled after the presentation i will never forget, took his jar of jelly beans and passed them around so

everybody could have a jellybean and he smiled and then he said take this under consideration. then he got up and walked out of the room. and i remember the stumbled on some people's face and saying he didn't make this decision. we set this up to make the decision and he tells ready made his decision with his principles so nothing changed but in many ways that was our internally things were covered because the principle established the fundamentals and a lot of people try to debate changes but he withstood those. when i was the vice-chairman of the fed, and i had many meetings with paul volcker because of the time he was the chairman i was the vice chairmen he used to tell me on his if you remember the first part of the ronald reagan administration before the policies were enacted into law

the economy was in a deep recession. 1982 was probably the debt of the largest postwar recession since the one that we are in now. the unemployment was around 10% ha. adel on the true policy to break the back of inflation, which has ed meese pointed out was near 10% of the annual rate. you can't imagine what that was like now. you probably do if you were around then to read some of the younger people can probably imagine with the was like economically at the time with interest rates hovering at 20%. the economy was in terrible shape and paul volcker would say to me it's lonely over here at the fed because i used to the central banking as an independent institution politicians are always trying to

manipulate the federal reserve board to savor their policies since usually the pressure is to stimulate monterey policy to lower interest rates to try to get things going so they can take credit during their term in office. he told me to my surprise not only was i not getting that kind of pressure by was actually being criticized for not having policy tight enough. he said it was raising -- amazing to break the back of inflation. how many leaders do you know who would be willing -- i mean that is leadership, someone who is willing to tolerate those short-term conditions knowing what the long run result would be even if it had occurred after the term in office he had eight years in office said he saw the

fruit of that labour before his term was up but he made those decisions and supported the tough policy not being sure that that would come to fruition in his term. that's the kind of leadership he had. >> thank you. i've been listening to all four of you and i think one of the things that strikes me is president ronald reagan had a very clear ideas about what he thought the government should do. here today to talk about the legacy coming and i think of the view that is held more and more widely today that he essentially holds the federal the women in particular in particular is something to be looked down on that they should be not just

minimize but test in a negative light and you hear that in a lot of conversations around the country. you are hearing it to some extent in the presidential campaign. ed meese was president ronald reagan's view of the role, the proper role of the federal government and people who work in the federal government? >> ronald reagan always thought highly of the people that work in the government and he had a great respect for them but he did feel the federal government had expanded them and i am sure you feel that today far beyond what the founders had in mind. he studied the founders. he had done a lot to read that was the traffic for childhood and he read about the founding of the constitution and that sort of thing and recognize the new structure and principal for operating and a limitation on the government and he felt that's what he said that there was government policy that got us into the recession we had in

81 and a lot of people missed state what he actually said. you quote him as saying the government is the problem. he didn't feel it was a problem in everything they felt it was the problem for that particular situation so at the same time he understood the role of the federal government which was essentially to protect the people, provide for defense and for those things the were truly national in subject matter but at the same time there were limits on the federal from it and one of the problems today is sometimes people have forgotten those limits. if we go back to what he had in mind we would have a stronger more effective government doing the things the government should have and at the same time we wouldn't have them in trading on the state's. so that was his deal. it combines both of his views. on the one hand the government was an important part of the country it had a role that was

important and people that work for the government should do a good job at the same time we should not forget it is a government of limited power to respect you think he believed there were parts of the government that were just not necessary? >> we would start with the department of education. he always felt there were 5,000 people in the building and not one person taught a single student anyplace. and that was one of the things he was very sorry. sure, he felt there were some things in which the government could perhaps provide money to the schools and to the states to operate education has always had been. but you go back to the founders and one of the things the founders said was particularly not the promise of the federal government for things like education and so that is one that he would have immediately -- actually did try to abolish but interestingly enough the same members of congress to vote against this publishing the department of education in 1978 were unwilling because of the pressure groups and the unions

that had come in and willing to vote to abolish it or to change its structure to some sort of a foundation in 1982. >> at the department of transportation when you were there under president ronald reagan, did the department feel appreciated by the american people the employees of the department or did you feel like the gas on federal employees today feel that they are again not appreciate it? >> i think there was an appreciation that emanated from the oval office first and foremost. if we felt underappreciated was when the media would go after us about aviation issues first and foremost, which is a perpetual opportunity for selling newspapers and running up ratings. so it wasn't a disconnect at all with the white house. it was a very different dynamic if we felt that we were being

unfairly criticized. but pick up for a moment on general meese's point about his sense of where the line should be drawn of course he had been a governor for eight years of the stage, seventh or eighth in the world of gdp if it were a country and he had an appreciation for federalism and the proper role of the state in the federal government and solve the will for the federal taxation for example on fuel through have the hiring program to help transit and he signed january, 1983 the bill but increased fuel taxes because he agreed we were under investing at that time. but fast-forward 40 years to january, 1987. when he vetoed the highway transit bill and the primaries

that reason for that was that congress had intruded in his judgment and to the decision making that should be made at the stated end of local level by using your marks. now, this was abolished your marks. but in the last highway transit bill which was enacted in this country was in 2003 there were over 7,000 earmarks for the highway and transit programs. president ronald reagan fought earmarks were out of control in january 1987 because there were 154 year marks. and the most legendary and mysterious was for something called the central order in boston. the central order was earmarked at an expected overall cost most of the federal aid of $4.8 billion. if you go look it up he will

find that it did that cost and when you include the interest cost over $22 billion was finally finished and the citizens of massachusetts would finish paying for the bond in the state share and 2038. so president ronald reagan fought 150 earmarks is way too many and that particular year marked sort of symbolizes everything the was wrong with congress trying to micromanage how the federal aid was going to be used and so the bill was vetoed and the democrats controlled the house why substantial margin. he knew he would be overridden the house. it takes to as you all know of the vote. in the senate there was a fighting chance and in fact the veto was sustained, one vote short. within senate majority leader robert byrd told a brilliant tactical maneuver and said that it stayed open so he could try to shift the vote and have a

second and that is exactly what happened. the senator from my home state of south carolina, and two or three days' time with one or another was persuaded having voted to sustain a veto, changed the vote to override and went straight back to the senate floor and the rest is truly history that we went from 2.8 billion to 22 billion for the one project. but that story again from my perspective captures the dynamics evenly it in the administration of trying to manage the federal role in a way that recognized with the proper role in the states were first and foremost and act on that. it wasn't just rhetoric that he acted on. >> host: how do you see when you think back about president ronald reagan his view of the rules the federal government >> as it articulated the role of

the total credit is limited and in fact a firm believer in the tenth amendment that those authorities and responsibilities are not enumerated in the constitution reserved for the people in the states and he followed that out and that is double work of his policy making. he articulate principles of free simply i want to give back to i think something said. he was asked one time by sam donnellson what do you think of the cold war? he said well, we win and they lose. [laughter] and in the situation room and the national security council meetings you would have people say we've got to do this, we've got to go easy on this and be careful about this and give here and there and he would say if the soviets want to wage a cold war it is a war they will not

win. it's that simple. we had to follow those simple principles, guiding principles, that were easily understood. there was easy to understand where he was coming from. it was easy to prepare a budget for president reagan because you knew where he would come out. was easy to go into these various budget appeals, because i felt quite confident when an agency appeals their budget and there were very few appeals that he would come out on my side, not that there was lie side but there was his side, you knew well ahead of time where he wanted to come back. the application of the principles sometimes was difficult. there was a lot of discussion about issues. where to go, what to do? the resume of discussion. i saw this and the with the very beginning of the reagan

administration. i was sitting in one of the very first cabinet meetings and i was one of those people sitting at the top of the against the wall and the issue before the cabinet is whether the president would sign an executive order allowing economic development in wilderness areas and there was discussion around the table, and nearly everyone said that's a good idea, mr. president. we want to increase economic to activity, let's allow economic activity to take place in these areas. but from some of the comments of was pretty apparent that he was going to say no. and in the in the house finally, secretary of energy jim edwards made a last stab at trying to persuade the president to change his mind. he said mr. president, i still

don't understand why there's need clean air to believe that humans and without a beach he shot back and said jim, have you ever smelled a bear? [laughter] >> i don't know how to top that. manly johnson, would you say continuing in this vein was the economic decision, the decision that affected the economy and has had the longest and the greatest impact over time during his administration for? >> i'm not sure that there is one simple thing but i will try to characterize. first you heard my story about monetary policy. his supporting of the strong federal reserve policy, restrained money to break the back of inflation has have long been pac during the low

inflation rates as a result. but one story that alan greenspan effectively said this to me one time as i was asking him i said what do you think reagan's greatest impact was, and he said to me, it was when he confronted the the air-traffic controllers at the beginning of the administration, and he supported the public-sector union and the controllers were striking and everyone thought this is sacred, the can't be touched because this is a sensitive issue. replace them all with no damage to the safety record and greenspan always said there was a defining moment because it sent the message to the ceos

that there would not be political interference with the downsizing that needed to be done by brolan a to be globally competitive. the was greenspan's view. there was defining also. it was very important because that was carried through even to the clinton administration where businesses continue to restructure their corporation to allow intervention, and i think it could be a state and globally competitive. right now is becoming. that is the case. i certainly personally because i help so much, think that his tax policies were a defining moment

as watching him sign the '81 tax act and then following through with the '86 tax reform act. people don't remember the late 70's the top marginal income-tax rate on income was 70%. you were only allowed to keep 40% of every extra dollar you weren't, the top tax bracket. people were spending all of their time sheltering their income. the tax rates were reduced to its 50% with 81 tax act and the other moved down. there were tremendous exemptions for the lowest levels and then in '86, the tax rate -- the brackets were shrunk down to just three simple tax brackets with the top rate at 28%.

and in fact there were huge exclusions of the lower levels. all of the evidence over the years of people who study this very carefully, because it's taken a long time to carefully go through the data have shown very clearly that by this result which was a very fair across-the-board approached that the highest income earners that have paid by for a much larger share of total taxes and the lowest income brackets have paid a lower share, and this is because the economy has improved in come has increased and there's been upward mobility in the system as well. so i think to me this is my most personal context. that is the biggest legacy but i want to mention the others and i think alan greenspan's point is important. >> that brings to questions to mind. one is the impact some of this had on deficits. what was the president's view

from president ronald reagan's view about deficits and the importance? >> we felt the deficits were a bad thing. we should be paying as you go. at the same point we were trying to build up the military to choose between having deficits on the one hand or no deficits but being able to strengthen the military. so we did have deficits during the same period of time are minuscule to today. they were 3% of the gdp, something in the neighborhood. >> 221 billion. >> at that time we thought that was very bad. so as a result of that he continued to work on the deficit and we had a declining deficit pattern the last three years he had the responsibility for to which a great deal of credit goes to jim. estimate does anybody else want to comment? >> i agree i think that he was quite concerned about the

deficits and he saw them very seriously. i think this issue trumped his concern about that. he wasn't willing to back off the tax program in the defense buildup to deal with the deficit and i think people forget i think the deficit probably got a little over 4% of gdp at the peak, but i -- when he left office was around 3% of gdp. just to put it in perspective today we're hovering between eight to 10% of the deficit to gdp ratio and, you know, i know ronald reagan would have been totally horrified by the prospect. what he would have been horrified by is the spending to gdp and how any resources the government was taking that produced the deficit.

>> if there were not sufficient reduction of the deficit what mandates across-the-board cuts and spending including in defense and the congress established targets for reducing the deficit and then panicked and changed the target a little bit so rather than eliminating the deficit by the time president reagan left office it was still hovering at about 150, excuse me, $108 billion or something like that but i remember one of my finest memories is when the president was signing the act he signed it on the oval office overlooking the rose garden and the speech came to me for comment. it was usually i would get

copies of the speeches and he quoted this general mcauliffe i guess his name is in the battle of the bulge when he was demanded the surrender responded with nuts. well, the draft said, you know, like senator mccaul of, you know, the battle of the bulge, i will not entertain an increase in tax rates. there's some in congress that think they are going to increase taxes. no, i'm not going to increase taxes, nor will i agree to a cut in defense. so i wrote in there, just like general mccullough, there are some in congress who think i will advocate and agreed to an increasing taxes. well, they are nuts. insertion congressman thinks that i will agree to the cut in defense spending. well, they are nuts, too.

i thought that must be kind of funny. i'm standing there behind the president as he is reading his speech or he had a special way and his cards, and i looked down and i cannot believe it. he kept those words in their. and howard baker said to me what did you think about that? i said i thought there was a great speech. [applause] [laughter] spinet he said i felt there were members of congress who were going to vote when you said that. >> that brings up one final thing to asking of questions from the audience so please be thinking about what you want to ask. you talked about tax increase did come during his presidency when he did agree to some tax increase is this part of a larger package? ed meese, talk about that and how that came about today.

they are so much more in the year and a lot of people look back to president ronald reagan -- >> what happened as he was persuaded by some people love the administration at that time to go along and compromise with tip o'neill and the democrats and the compromise was supposed to be that there would be $3 of deficit reduction for every dollar of tax increases. as a result, what happened is the conference quickly passed the tax increase and we never got the deficit spending reductions. as a matter of fact some of the estimated the most they might have squeezed out as 58 cents rather than $3. ronald reagan always said there was the worst mistake he made in his administration is agreeing to a deficit, that allowed them to raise taxes first and then supposedly it comes with the spending cuts and i think that is a pretty good lesson for us today obviously as we look at the situation we are facing.

>> we are going to believe that this could work together, is the right? clearly our rates were cut across the board and they were very accelerated because we were in such a deep recession to try to get business going. as you know when you watch things go through legislation from clean proposals they turn it into sausage so there are a lot of a very messy things in legislation that were not part of the intended result. i don't think reagan had any problem with cleaning things up, and unintended consequences of tax legislation. when he accepted and pushed for the tax reform and 86, he clearly was able to.

eliminating a lot of tax loopholes to get the luke structure down considerably. his principle behind the was revenue neutral. sycophant look i don't mind for some of these. those were the kind of principles he operated on. so he was certainly willing to take into consideration all kinds of complicated changes in the revenue structure, and i think that he believed in evidence has borne him out that with the right kind of incentive structure of and get more

instantaneous revenue i don't think that he believed that or articulate it. his view was ever if you can provide upon trends and this. would generate a larger tax base and evidence has definitely pointed that out. >> even in the phony compromise of 1982, she refused to allow or redacted any changes to increased the tax rates which of course as manly said was a pivotal thing as far as the economy for the future. >> one last thing i would ask of you and then i do want to turn to the audience. there's a lot of discussion today about frankly a lack of civility in american politics. now i don't see the political party is working together there are famous stories about how the

president would have speaker o'neill to the white house for a cocktail let 6:00 to talk about the problems. they didn't agree on things that they were able to work to gather the german from the ways and means and the there's a lot of stories like that we don't see a lot of cooperation between the two political parties. i just want to ask all of you, whoever wants to comment on this he didn't feel he was selling out to sit down and work out problems. you didn't see a my way or the highway kind of thing. >> he learned very quickly to you got out of dealing with a legislature where working with them. having animosity he will want to return money.

people he. he always had a respect for the people even though he didn't agree and that almost naturally than people more or less reciprocated. he always had respect for union workers. he was head of the screen actors guild. he saw these people in the back tone of the country. yet at the same time, you know, with the air traffic control he didn't like the idea had endorsed ronald reagan because they were upset with the carter administration so not only did he respect unions but this was a union that supported but nonetheless, it was against the

law on the street and that's where he drew the line. just as with tip o'neill caminhas you remind us they had a wonderful relationship by spoken little earlier about the central artery earmark. the was a going away gift. he was retiring from the speakership. so this, to veto this required taking into account that relationship you have reminded us of, but again, this was a step too far. just because they got along together didn't mean that you did something you thought was fundamentally wrong as governors and to veto it. >> would open up for questions from the audience. there is a microphone right here in the center of the room. please come a step over and give your name if you don't mind and ask your question.

>> could you step a little bit closer? we can't hear you. is the microphone turned on? just raise your voice and we will hear you. [inaudible conversations] >> we just elected a governor in mississippi, you were saying -- to mccuish as the elected a governor in mississippi that is a president ronald reagan disciple and i just wanted to ask you all what advice do you think the president and governor ronald reagan would give since he is here today?

[laughter] >> what advice would you give to the new governor of mississippi? who wants to start? >> can i mentioned the of coping governor of mississippi is a disciple in fact he worked in the white house, he was a great man. in terms of advice i think he would say you to place the responsibility and authority you have under the constitution of the united states, and he would edge, chris to give the governors more flexibility and authority to carry out the programs that are so costly because they can carry out more effectively in the flask cost. i think one thing, i make it clear what your objectives are for mississippi and then communicated that to the people so they understand. that is one of the keys to ronald reagan. he would have the chance with

the public many times going over the heads of congress and the news media going directly for the people and he was very effective in mobilizing the people behind these ideas and that is why he was able to assume many of them are not in agreement with his ideas, but they understood the people who were behind the president and what he wanted to do 1987. >> thank you for being here today. one component -- spank what is your name. i'm from notre dame. given that the time the unprecedented budget deficits, you know, and decrease in taxes and increasing the defense spending to you think that ronald reagan should be labeled a fiscal conservative? >> should he be labeled a fiscal conservative given the deficit

-- >> i mean the deficit for themselves. 3% was unprecedented at the time i think postwar time. >> 3% was not unprecedented by any means to lead i certainly think he was a fiscal conservative. again, you know, it is all in perspective. the budget deficit was never large. now coming to know, i will say this. in the reagan administration, we had huge debates about $50 billion. i mean, there was a lot of money back then. you know what the size of the deficit is today? is $1.4 trillion. >> we didn't know what the trillium was. >> was the total federal spending was less than a trillion dollars. >> we had huge debates about 50 billion-dollar deficits. the administration was very

fiscally principled and he established the principle. but again, he definitely had priorities and was not willing to compromise. did he know the consequences and the deficit? if he did, but i find that his deal was very long run. that is the one thing you have to remember about the president is that he took a long run view he didn't think about how things work out during his term in office. he thought about the long term or the presidency and i think his feeling was to get the structure right you address these policies correctly this is a fiscally prudent thing to do and i think there was born out over time because the deficit of the gdp ratio did decline over time. he never closed out the deficit. he really would have preferred a balanced budget amendment and i think that he was disappointed in that. i think that he was always disappointed we haven't done enough on the restraining spending. >> and the support of a balanced

budget amendment. >> i was out on the cabinet department and to the extent those of us outside of the white house complex felt underappreciated from the earlier question it would be the day that the omb director send us something called the pass back and was the first answer to you about where your budget should be there would be submitted to congress in the following january, and the pass back was unfailingly driven by the notion that we had to keep a tight lid on domestic spending usually buy the notion we needed to cut by several percent. a brief but to remember when you're looking of the 1980's ronald reagan never had a republican majority in the house of representatives, not once. the last two years the congress was entirely space and he was rebuilding our military.

so, our domestic budget would propose cuts, but the congress invariably would give the appropriations high year than the president asked for and that was the dynamic. >> when i asked whether the employees felt appreciable meant by the american people, not the white house. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. i am a professor political science at the university of notre dame. when i think of the legacy of ronald reagan i think of the revolution and the thing the strikes me is how bloodless the revolution was literally with the end of the cold war ending with a peaceful collapse of the soviet union, but i think that the revolution or the agenda domestically was also quite revolutionary and it triumphed figuratively speaking without a lot of blood ivor.

a lot of the agenda is now become sort of the political center of gravity in american politics. so i would like to ask the panelists thinking ahead to 2012 what are the lessons of the revolution for the next american president who presumably wants to be able to make major changes in the direction of the country but do so in a way that doesn't leave a lot of blood on the ground? thank you. >> one thing is to look at what has happened over the last two or three years which covers both administrations and that is this tremendous growth of the federal government particularly in terms of spending. and if i were to give the advice to the president i would say let's go back to the base here. maybe it's 2008, maybe it's 2009. take the base year, see where we've gone during that period of time and then gradually be able to decelerate the federal

spending back to some semblance of that increased only by inflation and population increase or objective factors like that but get control of the budget would think that is the first step in the new president is going to do. >> tuna president reagan. if he had then-president, and under question that he had been president in late 2008, do you think that he would have gone along with the program to rescue the banks? >> i think so. i think he would have taken a long view and work with the fed to find out a way to handle. he wouldn't have gone along with this so-called stimulus package. he faced this and 87 if you remember the bottom dropped out of the market at that time and there was panic and people came and said they stopped trading in the stock market eighth period of time people said you have to have massive expenditures, correct this. he said listen the market is go

in to settle assault you just have to be patient and make sure we don't few teeth could do things slowly or rash and he was then willing to leave the country holding forth in the period of time at what he had predicted the state level. >> following up on that because in the stock market crash people don't realize in 1987 the drop in the stock market one d'huez 23% which isn't seen anything remotely comparable to that and there was general panic probably more intense than you saw and 08. he held firm on that and i will never forget because everyone was panicking. wall street was demanding we close the new york stock exchange because all of the traders managing the four were losing money being responsible for making the markets.

the stock exchange was asking to close the exchange. will all the phone and that period of howard baker and others. we had to threaten reagan and he would agree to this that a president of the planets executive order you have to keep the stock exchange opened and he insisted that the stock exchange remained open and we hadn't kept the exchange is open in 1987, we would have had a total meltdown because things did turnaround in the people in the up buying the stock index future leader in the weekend if we hadn't had the exchange opened we would have never claimed that up. ..

it's because they are fighting over slices of the pie. the very nature of the negotiation over pieces of pie is going to be more nasty than sitting down and figuring out how to make piker lurcher. >> more questions.

>> a name is dennis kendall come independent advisor in a one-time employee of the reagan foundation. my question is for mr. johnson your paul volcker is given credit for breaking the back of an affliction and an 1880s with the acquiescence of the reagan administration. you previously indicated something stronger. strong support from the white house. i wonder if you would elaborate more on the rake and administration and the independence of the fed in the degree to which their opinion weight gain or influenced her decision at the fed with regard to monetary policy. >> well, the white house -- i mean, the reagan administration out very strongly about independence of the fed. you know, nothing is a model a year there were always people debating -- a good example is there were a number of people in the administration who wanted to replace paul volcker, who felt

like -- i'll be honest, some of the members of the administration didn't think he was hated math because they wanted strict money surprised targets. and from time to time, the money supply numbers would drift above target yet we are in the deaths of reception and 82. the reagan held very fairness supportive of infanticide said plenty of times. and so, there was no pressure from the white house. i know when i was there, we never had any pressure from the white house. as they keep me this example in the 87 stock market crash, you know, there is never a call from the white house demanding that we cut interest rates during that period. they did understand what was in

port cents, which i think was the case in 08 and 09, the need for the quiddity is to avoid runs on banks and people pulling deposits out of me. i fear. that was always supported and i think that was important both in 1887 and in 2008 and 2009. but i know reagan would've never supported and i know i would've never given him if i is for a extent the bailouts. i don't know that those people protesting in new york know what they're protesting about about it all, but they simply appear to be anti-wall street. i do sympathize with the piece of that because i do think that way about the banking system get to the point where institutions are too big to fail there's too much crony capitalism going on in the system. i don't think reagan would've ever supported that.

we in the 80s with the savings and loan crisis and we have the third world debt crisis in the banking system. in all of those cases, banks are restructured. we didn't pull the rug out from under banks that may produce a panic, but institutions were allowed to fail. if they appear to be too big and may create systemic risk that they were gradually filled. i think we are making a huge mistake today not letting these monolithic institutions fail that are already failed and i think that is seriously harming her credentials to. >> it sounds you agree with ed meese that president reagan had been president in 2008 would've been acquired to not go along. >> you would've never been as supportive krona capital spirit >> we're out of time. i apologize to those of you standing in line to ask a

question. i want to thank our panelists. jim burnley, and emily johnson, thank you so much. we are all part to be here and we think the reagan foundation notre dame university. the rooney center for the study of american democracy for hosting a symposium. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> next on c-span two come the judges discuss decision-making process into four of the appellate judges education institute. the supreme court hears oral argument in the case of u.s. versus jones. vice president joe biden spinks and concorde, new hampshire. >> i want to make sure that we have taken every step possible to bring peace of mind to their family members of our fallen heroes. and for that reason, this review commission will look at the processes and procedures they are and make sure we are implementing the highest standard in dealing with the remains of our fallen heroes. in addition to that, i want to make certain that we have taken all appropriate disciplinary action here.

>> back to the most recent accusation, i have never had inappropriately with anyone. >> in washington today, a panel of judges gave insight into judicial decision-making process that appellate courts. the formless one of several held at this year's appellate judges education institute senate. it is about an hour. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning and welcome everyone to our panel discussion inside the judicial thing to come in the and science of judicial decision-making. i am brad folly, program chair for the council of appellate lawyers. in their book, making your case, art of persuading judges, justice scalia and brent werner insert astute and logistically. they write, they benefit emotional or seals, it is possible only because all human beings are born with the capacity for logical thought. the most rigorous form of logic and the most persuasive and yet justice holmes famously wrote the life of the lives not in logic. it is an experience. the necessities of the time, prevalent moral and political theories, institutions of public policy about her unconscious.

even prejudices judges share with fellow man have had a good deal more to do in determining the rules by which men should be covering. so which factors dictate judicial decisions? is that logic? is a experience or as a combination of both? to help us answer these and related questions, our panel today includes judge eugene pickett junior the new york court of appeals. justice mark martin of north carolina supreme court. judge cavanagh for the d.c. circuit chief judge of the u.s. court of appeals for the fifth circuit. our moderator today is kirsten castaneda, senior counsel in the park to screw up a lot and received her ba from baylor university and jd from smu richey with a debut summer scholar and she is a member of

the executive border of the council of appellate lawyers. please join me in welcoming this distinguished panel. [applause] >> thank you for being here today with us for our talk about judicial decision-making. before we begin on this veterans day, i would like to take a moment to remember all those who have served our country in the u.s. terms were says in men and women in uniform today. thank you for your service. [applause] i want to start with a question to kind of bridge between lawyering and judging. before you became a judge, when you're a lawyer, as a lawyer before you went on the bench, why didn't you understand about how judges make decisions?

we will start with you. >> that was so long ago i heard they even remember. what did i not understand? i did not understand the impact of personalities on the collegial decision-making process because on the multimember -- please forgive me, i'm better today than i have been with this laryngitis, on a multimember court deals people with decidedly different life experiences and professional experiences and legal experience is coming each of which has some keen to contribute on just about every case that comes before us. and therefore when you sit on a panel, particularly when you're sitting with people repeatedly year after year, you become a cohesive group that understands where each person has some serious issues. and that contributes to a much

more unified product debut with think would be the case with a single person signing an opinion. that is not all that persons opinion. that is a product of the majority of the person who's working life. >> mr. kavanaugh. >> i think two things. one is the importance of judges for moving the docket along, deciding cases and keeping everything moving means that judges are very interested in efficient heat and it also means from the lawyer's death that issues like waiver and concessions in oral argument or thinks judges will be very interested in because of the case that the issue is way up to rebuke to get the case, that is one less thing that judges have to decide in a finite period of time where there is a lot to

decide. so that is very important. second, picking up on what chief judge jones said, the collegial process that the group coming to a decision leads to a group input into the opinion. and and so when i used to lawyer said that foot that makes no sense for the first point and click importing our attention, i understand much more about how that might have been put in because another judge wanted that put him and it was a condition of joining and working together to try to get a group product sometimes leads to not just a collegial process, a consensus product, but a consensus product sometimes come like clarity you would have us who are just one judge. >> judge martin. >> i am actually going to use the term synergy. it has been very interesting to me that when you have an

appellate panel or court working properly, it is amazing to me if you have the interaction among the judges come you truly have the opinion that is far -- the product of the collegiality produces an alternate opinion far better than if they are individually the court could produce. that is important for attorneys to understand is the more they can engage members of the court an argument, the more they can be cognizant of the individual judges or justices prior opinions. it can really give you insight as to where the process kinley. the other end that has been very impressive during my 19 years on the bench is how important the judges consider their role when they decide cases. they know that they are not executive ranch officials. they are very aware of the fact

that they are not legislators. in the backdrop in every session i've ever been a part of, you can just doubt that judges are very influenced by the unique row they have in the apartheid system. >> i was a trial for 25 years before it went on the bench and i've been on the appellate courts of new york for the last 13. the last thing when i got a decision from an appellate court when i appellate court when i was a lawyer as i turned to last page of my one it was great and if i lost i wasn't going to read it. and if i wanted i take my time and read the wisdom that these judges. the one thing i do a little bit of transference. i was always reminded by my mentors and others that when you are a voyeur, you may have 100 cases. your client has one. and your client will take their kids out of school, change vacations, modified -- they will

think about you and what you are doing for them at times when you are not thinking them. it is important. i know you know his lawyers to keep and how important it is to your individual client even though you have any more. it's the same thing that judges and particularly on the appellate courts, you're one case important to you and you bring it up about these attention. it is important to remember that we may have 200 cases. you have one in your case is as important as any other case will see in any given session. i think when you have a bench that keeps an eye on this and focuses on each case individually, it's a good thing. when it's not it can be traveled. i was on the intermediate appellate court for a number of years before he came to the state court of appeals. as quickly as the appellate divisions try and get their cases down and out, sometimes those things -- at a one essay

goodness, but there's some much more work than a court like mine does that we had the duty of when they assert applications, not to assert that those every member in the appellate courts save two dozen cases. you have one and that one case may be important for the entire state. a little bit of transference to remember we are not dealing in volume regardless of what the volume is. >> i'm interested to talk a little bit about how discussions -- talked about collegiality and the synergy and interaction of judges, how discussions impact your own decision-making. judge kavanaugh, i wanted to start with you. you ever speak with other churches before the submission? what is your posted mission conference process like? >> we typically do not speak with one another before the oral arguments. the oral arguments the first time i am learning what my fellow judges might take about the case and that is important

for the lawyers to understand because you're getting in the middle of a conversation that is starting among the three judges on our appellate bench. so that conversation will start and i am learning at oral argument, my colleague has an interest in it. i need to think about this. that conversation will continue at our conference, which follows the oral argument where we discuss how we tentatively want to decide the case. oral argument, with the lawyers say, but also what my colleagues say in the conference afterwards really does sometimes change your minds, certainly refine your thinking, change how the opinion might have been written. so it is to underscore what has been fitted collegial process for the final product really does reflect the outcome of what you are learning from your colleagues. the important thing to remember is that conversation is starting among the judges and you want to be part of that conversation if

you could. >> judge martin, could you add to that? >> is really interesting. i surfed onto appellate courts. on the intermediate state level appellate court. three judge panels that changed each month. and currently on a seven member in doc state supreme court. today would've been interesting is how dynamics can be so different taste upon the number of members on the panel around the corner. so when you think about the continuing within the united states, the three judge panel at two the nine-member state supreme court situation or of course the nine-member situation in the u.s. supreme court, that the relationships among the judges when it's the same group every month, it is like the moving time together in tandem. and as judge kavanagh indicated can we take great care to not talk about cases before we hear from the lawyers.

but after that takes place and we have a preliminary can sense his or her on how the defendant should be decided, at that point you begin to see opportunities for the entire court to talk on communications about a case. but also you will see where you cannot individual conversations baby with two justices or a greater number. many times that process can be impacted by whether you have a division among the court, whether you have addition to the concurring or dissenting opinion. and i would say the larger the court you have a larger number of people trying to come together and form a consensus. from the adversarial standpoint, keep that aspect in mind. the larger number of judges to deal with, the more you need to take care that each member of the court feel like you've engage them in the argument you

engage them in decisional process. >> and when there is a concurrence or dissent involved, how does the process differ or what is the process like in terms of discussions among judges? to have oral discussion or does a lot of the interchange happened when opinions circulate? >> i will step back a second in the last question because in the court, most people do not discuss the cases before we go to oral argument. but i don't see any problem in doing that. occasionally you can highlight a fact or an issue that is of particular concern to one or both of the other colleagues. and this comes out sometimes when the court since a question out to counsel before oral argument means that someone has located an issue we are really concerned about for a recent case that the council really need to comment on.

that should be taken very seriously. as for the concurrence and dissent prods s., after you discuss the case after oral argument, the different shades of opinion will begin to show up in how to purge the case, what issue is important whether an issue is properly raised in the district court and so on. and so, the writing judge has a responsibility to try to fashion an opinion that will appeal to the panel depending on the death that the disagreement, however the writing judge may know that another panel member is going to write a dissent in there for quite asking you rate with anticipating dissent issues. i recently had a case appended quite a long time and i wrote a majority in, but i had to factor it two or three opinions in

order to get another colleague on board and to respond to issues that another colleague had raised and dissent. so i can be pretty involved. >> justice pigott, how does that process work? >> about the same period in the appellate divisions in the four in new york, the judges seem to me always pull more in harness and they are much more prepared at the time of oral argument -- i shouldn't say prepared, but they tend to know where they are going as an appellate court. we like the rest of talk about cases before him. we go back next monday i'm very excited i can almost guess where some of my colleagues will be in these cases and i of course i worked with my law clerks. we have a rather staid traditional process of who reports a case and conference venue in such of there be a dissent to tax in what order and

then depending on where everyone is lining up, who writes the majority, who writes the dissent and if there is a concurrence or not. so the rather arcane process. i think john jay was their first chief judge. i think he started all of that. >> one thing that i'm interested to know is whether you consider the broader implications of the case, the broader implications of the whole thing may be unintended consequences. no one is talking about them in briefing and argument, as a normal part of judicial review, judicial decision-making company do you receive that quick >> some cases are clearly tickets for this day only, where the issues -- when the issue is not well presented, i don't want to tell you about one we just had, but clearly sort of a

grudge case and i have a strong resistance as to nearly all of my colleagues to try to make mountains out of all hills equally. we do not pride ourselves taken a small case in turning it into a matter of great importance unless it really come it really is a matter of great importance. but i would say at least as often we haven't tied to the narrowness of the dispute before us. and we do have the case of broader implications, we like to see the lawyers ride in their focus beyond the fifth circuit and tell us what the other circuit are thinking about our winner is split among the circuits, because that helps us in our decision-making process. >> when i'm deciding a case, i'm always think about the relevant

text of the statute or regulation or constitutional provision, i'm always thinking about the precedent. we live in a system with each particular issue. at the same time, i'm very cognizant we issue will set forth the rule of law that people will rely on and tries to apply. in our case, our court has at the straight about cases so a lot of agency action will depend on that. i am very concerned with trying to set forth an opinion that is marked by clarity and workability in terms of what is going to happen. so will people know what the rulers? and will this really work in the real world and therefore in turn, i am looking for a lawyer's argument and in the briefs, what is the big picture

here? how does this case fit in the big picture? and then telling me the overall con text if your rule prevails, how will this software? that is very important to my decision-making and especially important to my approach to opinion writing, recognizing that people for years potentially could be trying to figure out what that means and how do we live under that opinion? the more i can anticipate and provide a clear will come out and doing my job, save really try to work on that. >> i want to address this from the perspective of the appellate lawyer. i think it is critical to understand to the court that you are handling your appeal. how does that fall in the tears? is that a first-year appellate court or a second tier? having served in the two tears

in my state, our first tier is much more concerned with error correction and has much larger mandatory jurisdiction docket, or that he can say they are via a statutory notice of appeal process in the right to bring their appeal they are. when you get to the second-tier nec greater portion of the docket discretionary, the ultimate example of that is the u.s. supreme court. on state supreme court scummy you have here you decrease the mandatory jurisdiction discretionary jurisdiction. furthermore the docket are cases where the justices actually made a decision as to whether to hear the case, you will see public policy be a larger part of the decision of process. obviously that case was elected for review because the court was concerned about significance of the jurisprudence for that issue , potential conflict between the lower court decision

and one or more decisions of that quarter. and finally u.s. public interest aspects that can enter into it. and i think if you have a case, where the court did not have to hear your appeal and you've made it through that round with the order for briefing and argument, always be concerned about broader implications of your appeal. that does not mean mean if you have a case on point, of course how often will the case be selected for review under that situation? and how often is more typical of that carries a degree degree of gray area here. so the court is going to be highly interested in the impact of the resolution of this case on the aspect of the legal landscape. >> my answer is almost the same. we get a lot of situation on the leave application that there is

no implications beyond these parties. if that is true, generally we not take it. so is judge baird is saying, if we take it, it's usually because we are more interested in broader implications of the case. we do give something up from divisions themselves, which is always interesting because it is important to them. the best advice i can status when they come to court is if there is a division between the appellate divisions, that's great news because we are always trying to straight them out. the first, third, fourth departments to see if we can get them to agree. but not from broader to the more obscure, when the case involves scientific or technical concept with which you're unfamiliar and have it run into them before, how do you become informed? to rely solely on the brief? tb cases in more detail or record? to perform independent research

to figure out the basic scientific concept? how do you approach that when it comes before you? let's start with justice pigott. >> i rely on the litigants. that may make a suggestion or thought because i make this state all the time when i was a lawyer. that's relying for what medical records say. i put in there that the doctor today budzinski castanets and i had no idea what applies, which is tickling the bottom of your foot by the way. but that aside, when we get banned and you are trying to decide these things, we don't know that status. i think lawyers to take the time to realize judges don't go anywhere medicine than i do or don't go any more about coefficients of friction than i do, to explain those ntt them that there is a great idea. we don't have a lot of time nor do we have a lot of things clinician to go educate ourselves because we are trying to focus on the law.

what you can do is defeat herself without even knowing it, by allowing a judge to say senator, i don't always talking about, but that doesn't fit in the dover bookcase and you find yourself losing because somebody is too lazy to read the science, which is probably me or someone else. so i think it's a good idea to not contest to do it in good do-it-yourself. >> judge martin. >> this issue creates quite a challenge for the legal system. i'm the one hand, we want our judges well informed about science in other areas before making decisions that will have such a great impact. on the other hand to the extent we have judges independently on the internet or anywhere trying to learn science themselves to create situations or advocates don't have a meaningful opportunity to be a part of that process.

so i am saying all of that to emphasize to counsel that it is very important for appellate lawyers not to make too many assumptions. you have been working with that case for some period of time. he just handled it on an appeal, and maybe got multiple years. if you handle it the whole time. sometimes they make assumptions that everybody knows some of the pre-positions are basic setup myself. but that's not necessarily going to be true. make sure you don't assume that judges know everything about the field of science that is going to be relevant to the resolution of your appeal and try to up to the basics in your brief. maybe on that footnoting information or referring the judge to a safe source for more examination. to be cognizant of the fact that the judges are not necessarily always going to have the same degree of expertise since you have in the scientific field.

>> i think your question raises more proud point with a huge range of issues on a daily or weekly basis and the lawyers are the expert then it's the job of the best appellate lawyers to bridge the gap and bring their expertise to level the generalist deals with other issues that we can understand it. that is a skill to be able to communicate this complex issue and maybe a body of luck, maybe a scientific concept, but to communicate data breakpoint down into a generalist can pick up on very quick way. we would like to become experts in everything, but that is the goal. you are going to have spent months or years on something that we are going to have a 45 minute one-hour oral argument on and it's a challenge, but also a

necessity for you to bring the case into the level that a generalist can appreciate. >> i don't have much to add. except to equip and a caution about four in the because as he known the federal courts, for now has approved the fact tribute benefit the use of expert testimony that we've had a couple of pieces for the parties have been really pretty deficient in tnf before him off for us in no way that we thought was sufficient. and the court of appeals reviews to go out on their own which i'm sure many of you counsel would not like a steering. [laughter] in a general quip on this area is one of our judges often says

put it down with a little goats could need it. [laughter] >> when lawyers are trying to get these specialized concepts across and to educate health, one thing that is tempting these days but the ad didn't detect knowledge he -- not at the end, but to cut and paste things from the record, photographs of the scene or a diagram of the machine involved. when those things are put into a brief as opposed to being attached to an appendix, do you find that helpful or does it come across as sort of gimmicky unlike you're just trying to use the new pdf program that she's got to drop it. anyone can take that. >> i love it. all of you look like you are athletic or at least understand sports.

one of the things that i want to mention to you is everybody looks at the rules of the court, which you ought to do. but she don't play tennis, you don't play golf or baseball scene i've got the rulebook here in the rulebook size and then you make sure you don't do that. if you look at the stars and any support, they know the rules then play the game. and i don't mean to suggest that this is the game, that you want to win. and when you want to end, you do anything within the rules that would get the attention of the judges and promote your case. and i think the first time i saw an ad in photographing a brief, i thought it was great. there were judges to take their briefs, believe it or not, when they are working out. they don't take a record, but they've got the brief. so if you've got the case, the picture, the piece of evidence

on record on appeal and is part of your brief, i think you've done yourself a great service. i think if you focus on media is getting your point to the judges, you'll do a lot and it's very helpful to do. >> how has a lot tronic briefing effect did the way that you read the brief, analyzed the case, take a look at things. one person mentioned footnotes earlier and there have been comments from other judges that footnotes a lot of times that very helpful because you have to scroll down the screen and scroll back up to see them. to see them. briefing impacted your review in briefing impacted your review in any way quite >> well, our court just purchased typepad within the last five months minimum the uses we have for the ipaq is you can download all of the reefs on the record excerpts and that has

enabled me to prepare further in advance of oral argument a reading those things online. i am still getting used to it, but i have found that i spent to other electronic devices very helpful. i have not had a problem with footnotes anymore than i would ordinarily have a problem with people who stuff their argument into this it is or try to distinguish the opponent's argument only the foot goes. so i am going to beat them in any event, but in fact, we have been talking about -- i'm sure some courts have done this, allowing lawyers hyperlink cases and treat sunday, which would be a real step forward in a way. but i do not see a systemic change in the roach and electronic devices.

>> i think we use it a lot more as chief judge john says, but i like her don't think i can see how it is changing how we go about things, other than it is easier to read instead of locking the briefs on a train or plane, it's easier now to have access to the middle times. in terms of how that will change decision-making, it won't other than make us more efficient commotion he said at the outset is an important value that we all have come which is getting his fishing is possible in getting our work done. >> well, like chief judge jones, i brought mine with me on this trip since i have an argument on monday. so i think it has facilitated the judges be able to better prepare for arguments. let me be very practical. everyone in the room has used computers.

i think the real challenge for judges that are part. in that way is then a comparison of two documents beside each other with the helpful. under those circumstances, think of a way where you help to judge the collateral matter and still be a part of the briefs and maybe there is an expert or send a great document that is imported. to keep that in mind and sometimes there are limitations in how the electronic media can be utilized when you compare different documents. that is an area of challenge that we have not fully solved. hyperlinks and some of the suggestions that she jones has will be beneficial once that's perfected. >> i think most of my colleagues are aren't promoted electronic mandatory filing recent records. the one thing i like because i used to complain about the fact that records an appeal would come in and sometimes the way they would've found it was hard to read some of the documents

and the documents and that has been cured because they are out there electronically. in terms of producing records, we are still struggling. we need ipads i guess. i have a flash drive in my pocket. that is as far as i've gotten. but you folks are well in advance of us, but it would keep in mind you are dealing with judges who grew up with pencils. mossback >> talk about the materials you are reading when you do your review and prepare for argument. when you pick up materials and start fresh on the cheese or at any point in the process, do you look to see who the trial judge was ordered to judges were on the panel below? the author may be more obvious, but do you look and does that impact your decision not all clad >> yes and yes.

>> i always look -- [laughter] i'm not sure on the fact. i look at the substance of the issue and try to get into the tax. certain judges develop reputations for certain things, so you are aware of that. but ultimately you are deciding the issue based on your own evaluation. if it's in use of discretion review or something like that, i guess one could say that you're looking at how this judge handled it and you may be aware this judge has made a similar mistake in the past. you are aware of that. i'm not sure it's had an impact on the decision. >> wow, i guess i would like to thank for the world of law to

work appropriate as between various cords and structures for appeal, that you really don't want to focus on who the author the lower court opinion or who may have been on that panel. it's a general rule of judges try to not consider that. i do think that sometimes is judge kavanaugh said he may have a discretionary ruling are particularly close question or at the end of the day you wonder, is this really a deferment or is this a reversal? i think it only helps in a positive way at times when you have this aqua boy situations and you know you have a very talented and experienced judge at the lower level that she might tend to give it a little more of the doubt before reversing that decision. >> intermediate appellate courts look at it all the time. when i was on a course to part and in rochester as much of

upstate new york, you know the judges sleeps the cases come out. the intermediate appellate courts have much more power than the court of appeals. they've interested just ask, jurisdiction. and so, it is important i think when we were doing that to know who the judge was city of respect for some. you have respect for them all. last night it can have an impact when you're in the discretionary field. we try to avoid it. there's 1300 trial judges sidney george. i don't know the ones in manhattan. i am from buffalo, but my colleagues from new york city don't necessarily do it. so it is nowhere near as important when you get to the highest court. in a new media, i think it's important to know if you know that and i think you probably spend as much time as you need bringing forth the judges when haymaker appeal.

>> when you have an appeal that has a lower court opinion, whether it is from a district court for an intermediate court, do you start with the lower court's opinion or do you start with the appellate brief for petitioner's brief? ordeal kind of go back and forth. >> started with me? i start with the previous court decision and i outline it. and then i do the same thing with the appellate one. and then i go to the appellant's brief. one of my colleagues that i deal with that i just know how he does it. he goes back to the original papers and he tries to sit as if he was the judge in the previous court and how he would decide it looks. but i generally do that because it's a very issue near and exercise. hopefully they correspond on the issues he thought were important and you go from there.

>> well, i always try to start by reading the appellant's brief. the party took the actions to bring the issue to my court. and once i have read the appellant's brief, try to get a sense that the theme of the appellant's comment. the appellant's appeal. then i go and read the brief of the party who is trying to uphold the lower court decision. how they responded to assertions made by the appellant. sideway, it usually before a look at the record at that point i will look at the lower court decision to see what's on my court. for through that process and once i looked up that decision, then i'll go look at the pleadings, the record to get a better sense of the background of the case. i think everybody on this panel is always aware of the fact that behind every case are real

people and that story cannot be fully told until you've examined all relative documents. >> i usually look quickly at the appellant's brief to see what the issues are and then go back to the district court opinion that could either case to address six issues, but only two or an appeal. if you start with the district court opinion, you might miss that. so i usually see what the issues are and use that to focus and. but that is the theory importance starting point in my thinking about the case is of course someone else, a judge who took the time to go through the whole case and spend a lot of time on it and wrote an opinion is a critically important part of my decision making process. >> i agree. i go about it the same way. i look at the issues on appeal that i look at the lower court opinion. let me just add that while it is always interesting to see which

judge wrote a lower court opinion, they are all entitled -- the judge's opinions are entitled to equal weight in our courts and a lot of them are quite well reasoned. so we look at those very carefully. one more point about the fact that appellate judges may occasionally be concerned about the identity and predilection for lower court judge, that concerns counsel and should never argue a case in terms of love this came up from the famous judge so it though, wing we, not not. very bad form. >> what triggers you to go look at a record before argument, if anything?

>> if our court had more time, we would look at a lot of the records before oral argument now that the records are all available online, a lot of law clerks to infect examined the record before oral arguments, although it never willing to fully vouch for the way a law clerk has a better record. but that has been a powerful tool to assist us. i didn't think it would be, that it has been. when the parties can't agree on what the facts are coming you have to look at the record and that is very distressing situation because the priests agree on a certain universe of what had been at the trial court and sometimes they don't. >> oftentimes the issue will be raised on appeal that was raised in a different way in the lower court. so for me i find it useful to go back and see how this issue was retraced to the district judge

and the appellate counsel nationally may have a different approach on appeal to presenting the issue, but it is helpful to go back for me to look at that sls to look at other aspects of the records put together in the appendix of the standard part of the decision-making process should reveal what parties have looked together is important from a record for decision. >> all just quickly elaborate on key points that have been made. it is so important for counsel to make sure that they convey the facts accurately in their briefs. and when that doesn't happen, it is always uncovered because on an appellate court after argument there is a very painstaking and meticulous process to make sure their aspect of the record is examined. some of that going into it. i think it is an area a significant challenge for appellate courts because there is no way pre-argument that you can examine every record.

but i think the lesson for appellate counsel as please note will be examined. so then there is a difference between how it was represented in argument and what is ultimately found can have a very profound impact on the resolution of an appeal. the mac i really like evidence. epg sin definitions i don't read unless you tell on the two and beatings et cetera are there, but in terms of the hard evidence, i like looking at the pictures in the medical records. i like looking at affidavits of experts and things like that. one of the things i would suggest and this probably occurred all of you, but when you look at photographs and feminists photocopied black-and-white photographs or even a color one that looks like a rorschach and you can't tell what the point of the west. but i think it kind of gets this early for me, give me to the

courtroom because they said the real records upon which the oral arguments in the briefs are made. so i get a kick out of it. i think that's true with many judges anything they are right in doing it, will simply look up what you are saying and talking about in your brief because they are all courts and they now have to make decisions based on the law. >> with regard to the decision-making process, we've had an oral argument. you're trying to decide the case. if the case involves an issue of first impression or an area of unsettled bok, how much ethanol does plain old common sense or pragmatism factor into how you resolve that issue? >> in our court, that element tends to depend on the judge. and to some extent it is a matter of philosophy.

on a number of levels, you can have a case that presents a novel issue, but it's a very small case and it can be very -- that distinguish this view of pragmatism fundamentally from judge prisoners view of pragmatism, to which i do not describe. the pragmatism can be taken on the level of, is this something where the lie is profited by writing some bold new role that might or might not advantage this particular person if it has not been well presented, has not been presented in a lower court. and thinking to behave bs type litigation. pragmatism can take the form of well, of course i put this in perspective.

with the second busiest in the united states per judge. i think the 11 is by far the busiest on a per judge basis of the ninth circuit judges that may be in attendance. so we have to move cases along. and when some team is fact specific, maybe a commercial dispute and are reasonably well handled in the trial court, the issues are unique to that case such as interpretation of a contract. pragmatism suggests that you dispose of that case in a very efficient way and as quickly as possible. other pragmatism can take other forms, which insure the other judges will talk about and how does the case cannot? , should you write? what aspect of the case should you focus on? so it is a very difficult day to

try to quantify it seems to me. >> i agree with all that. i do think common sense, to use the term you used, does and should play a role in how we think about how this is going to work that i've set, the interpretation of the precedented issue, but it's how it's going to work and therefore it's going to be completely nonsensical results in the real world. that probably means we need to rethink our premise of how we go about it since it therefore as an advocate to -underscore send and i said before, to tell us how this all works and would work in different approaches and problems with the other position. i think those things are important to highlight. in the end we have to make the decision to let case, but we wanted to be informed by common sense i think everyone likes

their decision to be this is right on the wall and it's going to work. >> it's going to be critical for appellate counsel was to determine who are the arbiters? who are decision makers? what are their life experiences? how will they be brought to bear on this first impression decision? i have heard many, many times from colleagues this does or does not make sense and i believe we are talking about common sense and people make this kind of assessments. the only thing i would add is one ticket to a socket tear at the appellate court, you know, the judges or justices there. interested in how is this particular case, how do we place this in the legal landscape? has the internal log check going to be affected by this decision? i think there's a lot of other fact are some common sense but

clearly that is a variable considered in these first impression cases. >> somebody once said the lat is common sense as amended by the legislation. [laughter] and i don't think you're asking us to say we are not a common sense court, but we do use common sense. on cases of first impression, we've decided gps about two years ago what we did is under new york state constitution so he wouldn't have to be to use by what might happen later on in washington. we said you do need a warrant. but it was a question of first impression for us. but obviously we all have in our constitution, et cetera that we work on. it is kind of fun at that time because it is with all seven on our court or digging in on these issues. we did manage not to long ago and they are very spirited a