breathing. so that was the kind of issue that came up when they get to depth beyond 1500 feet. some experiments went over 2,000 feet of depth and in the commercial oil spills i think 1,000 foot dive for still happen and they have happened and i detail one of them in the book. there's a whole chapter devoted to the commercial diving experience to give you a sense of who these unsung heroes are who do this difficult work. the sensation was a little hyperbole for what does happen when you're breathing these gases. doesn't sound too fun. last question. i hope it is a really good one. how about another question about

movie rights? shall we? i am just saying. >> a lot about what they learned how to do. did that cross over into bond, working at that depth? >> the work on the brooklyn bridge using essentially diving techniques that had been developed over the ages. you had people--not significant depth but working under pressure to keep the mud and the water away from them as a working environments like money to miss or something. they go down to the chamber and creative drive space to working and a pressurized space to keep the mud and water at bay.

they were employing the sort of diving the compression techniques of the day at that time. sometimes with some injuries because it wasn't always the most exact science. in a lot of ways it is not an exact science because of what is it different and respond differently and you find that out in the book as well. sometimes there is no hard and fast rule about what works or what doesn't work but that is a real experience and a touchdown that a little but because it brings the history a little bit current. >> thank you all very much. [applause] >> you are watching booktv on c-span2. forty-eight hours of nonfiction authors and books every weekend. the 2,000 of pulitzer prizes were announced at columbia

university in new york city the past monday april 16th. the late manning memorable was awarded the pulitzer in history for his book malcolm x the personal life of reinvention. his biography of malcolm x has that author panels on booktv and you can watch these online at booktv.org. the pulitzer for general nonfiction was awarded to the swerve, how the modern -- the world became modern. he analyzes the ancient romans manuscript on the nature of things. it was the 2007 national book award for nonfiction. the pulitzer for biography was given to john m. lewis gannett for his biography of george f. keenan. this was awarded a national book critics circle award for biography this year. he appeared on afterwards to discuss his biography of mr. keenan. you can watch that on line at booktv.org. for the first time in thirty-five years and the eleventh time in history no

pulitzer prize was awarded in the fiction category. for complete list of pulitzer winners go to pulitzer.org. stay up-to-date on publishing news by visiting booktv.org. you're watching booktv. 48 hours scott ferris present history of the men ran for u.s. presidency and lost. scott farris examines why each candidate failed. this is about an hour. >> thank you thank you to boise state university political

science alumni network. thank you to the owner of this for, rediscovered books. and the independent bookstore in boise. thanks to c-span and the folks who hopefully are going to watch this on booktv. great pleasure to be here. what i'm going to do tonight is give a little talk at losing presidential campaigns shaping the election. and how the 2012 election, future history of the united states. i want to open up for questions. i will begin with a pretty bold prediction which is on november 6, 2012, we will definitely have a winner and loser. the bold prediction is this. we may not know for several decades who was which because

sometimes it is not clear. sometimes a winner has no impact on history and sometimes inconsequential in history. oftentimes the loser will have tremendous impact on american political history and really change the political dynamics in a bunch of different ways. before i go to why that works, i was an unsuccessful political candidate myself. i ran for congress in 1998 for the democratic nominee in a republican state which shows you i'm not why this guy anyway. i lost. you sit there and go that was tough. my family and friends and strangers, time and money to give me talents and i let the down or maybe the voters let me down. i remember the famous quote, the voters have spoken, the bastards. you sort of think that way.

for barry goldwater. if anybody can grow up to the president. and so you worry about what happened. you think about did i make a difference? did have an impact. the congressional race was minimal. one incumbent republican. i feel like that move a little bit. at the presidential level, far greater impact. users are very important for a couple reasons. losers particularly when they be given a certain way make democracy work. losing campaigns are far more dynamic and more prophetic than a winning campaign. how do they make democracy work? on election night losers get to speak first. they declare who they think the winner is and we sit around and hour or two waiting for the loser to speak.

the one who won can talk when the loser is giving his concession speech. that is because even though we know the votes and election isn't over when the winner declares victory. it is over when the loser concedes defeat. if the loser says i was defrauded, this guy can't be the president, imagine what might happen. we see that happen around world of the time. and a lot of countries people don't abide by the results of the election. there are riots. same in 2008 when we have tens presidential campaigns. very emotional campaigns. the first african-american president and john mccain. . is it like the results. there were 1500 people homeless. there were riots in india. deaths in mongolia.

donna and liberia. those are all third-world countries. doesn't happen everywhere. in 2007 the president of france, they had so many riots. 600 cases of arson and 6 and did people arrested. so we are fortunate in the united states that we don't have violence around our presidential elections. lot of that is due to the behavior of the losers. they come out and say i'm disappointed but i accept the result. time for the country to unify around winner and move forward. winners can only government with the losers's consent. if you are on the losing end and say i refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the winner how can anything get done? you have gridlock, chaos and one of the reasons i wrote the book is one of the messages of the book is i do worry we getting to the point where there's so much polarization that we will lose this wonderful tradition. especially the last several presidents, george w. bush and

obama. people are no longer trusted the legitimacy of the winner and that is a dangerous thing. we think we are strong democracy but we are relatively young. there is no country quite as diverse as the united states. so many different ethnic groups with regional differences. democracy in america is fairly fragile so is important to maintain these traditions and keep as unified and understand government might not be the government we want this year but legitimate government, what the the basic -- we will come backs -- if we ever lose that we're going to see some terrible problems in our elections. i mentioned the other way sometimes losers have more impact than winners is losers are more prophetic and winners. often. as of wants to come up with new ideas and the winners are stuck in the policies of the past. i argue every major program in

our political system was first talked about by the losing campaign. it has to gain public acceptance. it is radical and difficult to absorber. another way they bring in more participants. they bring different folks to participate in the political process. the young or minorities. they bring in folks and change the coalition and how parties are organized and a lot of losing campaigns change the party or liberal party or conservative party. the reason they do that is most of the losers know they're going to lose. political polling is significant. you wanted to the 1948 like harry truman was way behind but most elections depend on whether there is peace or prosperity or demographics of a losing campaign has to be very bold.

has to talk about issues nobody talks about where they bring in a running mate. walter mondale or geraldine ferraro or john mccain and sarah palin. you saw the movie game change. that is what it was about. the campaign manager went to senator mccain and said we need a game change or we are going to lose. so he picked sarah palin and that generated a lot of height. the other is saying is if you won you think i got a winning message. don't have to change anything. and what did we do wrong? what can we do better next time? it is like remodeling your house. you have to knock down some walls. think about what you're going to do and that is what happened. let me give you a few ideas how

losing campaigns shape the basic political system and this campaign talked about more recent losing presidential candidate. want to talk about three candidate in the nineteenth century who are not well remembered very well or sometimes misunderstood. but helped shape basic fundamental nature of our policy. they determine why we have two party political system in the united states. what those parties are republican and democrat. won one party is conservative and one party is liberal. i want to talk to you about henry clay. henry clay is perhaps the greatest american ever to become president lose some say benjamin franklin or alexander hamilton or george marshall. i will vote for henry clay. henry clay was the greatest legislator in american history. phenomenally important vote in the house of representatives and the u.s. senate.

he was elected speaker of the house as freshmen on the first ballot to take the oath of office. and how much leadership qualities were recognized by his peers in the house. then it was previously ceremonial and transformed -- the second most powerful person. and open and close the legislature and committee. when we debate the whole bill. he was very effective and passionate. he started out in life as a jeffersonian republican. that which governs best govern least. you may recall the founding

fathers something about political parties and something p1 o from a rivalry. hamilton we were lucky about napoleon in europe. so play realized the reason he

lost was america--the industrial capacity. the british were blockaded our borders. we didn't have a common currency or national bank. no way to buy weapons from european nations. you would think we had the advantage in our home court but we had terrible infrastructure and couldn't move troops around the country and the british regular army so we came out of the war of 1812 with the idea of a stronger national government and develop the american system. it was a fairly brilliant idea where he was trying to get support in every part of the country to strengthen north and manufactures and had the idea, and away is from the west and south. and the united states credit.

the american system and the hamiltonian tradition moving forward. and a brief time -- jeffersonian republicans. and someone like andrew jackson jackson from tennessee. on his deathbed president jackson, any regrets in life? yes. never shot anybody. for is part, henry clay never understood, andrew jackson won great battles of the bridge will never understand how killing 2500 englishmen qualifies anyone for the complicated duties, and

jackson blamed clay because you think campaign there nasty now? go back to the campaign of 1824. they accused clay of being a regular visitor to a local brothel. john quincy adams was accused of being the czar of russia. they claim jackson's mother was a prostitute and was living in sin because they were on the frontier and the process, married his wife and so they called mrs. jackson horrible names and she died and jackson blames clay. the first time they tangled was in 1824 and both -- not two parties, only one. jackson, clay and john quincy adams. the results were split. jackson won the popular votes.

had to go to the house of representatives were clay was speaking. play finished fourth. he wasn't one of the three names that got forwarded to the house of representatives. sir whoever he backed, jackson or a fellow westerner picked up the legislature passing the bill is going to back atoms or crawford? crawford had a stroke. can't vote for crawford. i hate andrew jackson. adams made play secretary of state. jackson sold out his vote to secretary of state. the reason i am telling you this, what happened out of this was jackson starts running against adams. clay realized jackson was a real opponents so he starts thinking the only way to beat jackson --

he said we need a county committee -- committee in every county. we need people in every state and a national committee. and a platform with other candidates running in newspapers raising a lot of money advertising in newspapers. what you have is the political party as you know today based on antipathy towards andrew jackson and after he lost and jackson defeated clay and clay ran in 1832 and lost to jackson. at that point clay decided to call an organization the whig party so we have first separate party from jeffersonian republicans who are known as democrats so the democratic party and the whig party all based on this rivalry so clay never got to be president.

he forged tremendous compromises that helped avoid civil war but his greatest legacy created the two party system. it could have gone a whole different way. something -- might have had a bunch of little parties like we had in europe and always forming coalitions. clay's genius was he created a broadbased party and took the ball in the republican party. that is why we have a few party system. why is they the democratic and republican parties? most of you know steven douglas as the guy who beat abraham lincoln and lincoln beat him as president. douglas was a complicated fellow. he was a lifelong rival of lincoln. they both dated mary todd. she was intent on marion the president. a lot of people thought she made

the wrong choice. douglas -- in the great debate douglas's issue was he wanted to build the transcontinental railroad. he wanted to generate prosperity in the united states. slavery became the great issue of the day. he wanted to settle the west and figure out oregon state's behind it. got this idea of the best way was popular sovereignty. this upset the whole apple cart. these compromises by henry clay which banned slavery including the western territories. douglas thought he came up with a great idea that there's nothing wrong with slavery. it is in the constitution. what the people decide if they

want slavery or not. in their particular state. it was such a firestorm. he didn't think he would run again. he was a 1-term congressman. building up his law practice, this kansas/nebraska politics against abraham lincoln and a great debate in 1858 for the senate. lincoln won the debate and douglas won the election. they became the leading candidate for president. douglas was the favorite of the democrats but really douglas -- they decided they wanted to -- needed to destroy the democratic party because the democratic party is one of the financial

institutions holding the country together. even the methodists and the baptists -- the national institutions people belong to, they were anxious to destroy the democratic party. they decided whether douglas won for lincoln won. douglas knew he wasn't going to win the election. he decided not to campaign for himself and spend his campaign campaigning against secession. he went to virginia and north carolina and said mr. lincoln is going to win but that is no reason for the south to secede. we are one nation indivisible. southerners said you can say that to virginia and north carolina. we are the moderates. douglas went into georgia and alabama and mississippi. he was pelted with fruit and rocks and traveled to 23 states. he campaigned over two short

months. he drove himself relentlessly. of course he lost. the south for and to secede. douglas tried a compromise. they said we are leaving because mr. lincoln is president. douglas became one of lincoln's closest allies. there is a legend that during lincoln's inaugural address not only was douglas -- everytime lincoln would save something douglas would turn to the newspaperman and say that is right. he is telling the truth. lincoln wanted to call -- you don't know these people like i do. hang them in 48 hours. take a very aggressive stand. at that point in time the democratic party did not know how to react to secession. they didn't know if this was a republican problem. i would love the country to stay

together. douglas said keep the country together. he began to campaign to encourage democrats to support lincoln and the republicans. disagree with them on other things but we need to support the union. is an important aspect of the civil war. had there been a fifth parliament and democrats not supporting the war the war would have gone completely different. he made sure northern democrats were involved so the republicans have a saying. not every democrat is a trader but every trader's a democrat. waving the bloody shirt. have to remind people jefferson davis -- because of stephen douglas the democratic party fought the war. the list of the union cause and republican.

the union is in large part because of what stephen douglas did. very seldom in terms of saying i can't get elected and my job is still being in together. he is not appreciated for that. so you still have a democratic party. why have a liberal and conservative party? to get to the question and answers. democratic party as i mentioned is the party that did not like the government. has been that way the entire nineteenth century and in one election they change because of william jennings bryan. this shows you how politics can be extremely unpredictable. he served two terms in congress and was out of office for two years. only 36 years old. he was known as a brilliant orator traveling the united states giving speeches. at this point we're talking where people were suffering and wanted government to start

regulating railroads and financial interests and providing relief to the terrible depression that was hitting the country. he knew this. he said i will go to the democratic convention and be the nominee. they said nobody knows who you are. amazing thing. he was a brilliant speaker. he went to the national convention that is still considered the most thrilling moments. they were having a debate whether there should be a more open money supply because of tremendous inflation. there was no money in circulation. in the state of arkansas all the money in circulation in the 1890s, paper and coins, $5 per person. so brian was a big advocate of increasing the money supply and generate better credit and help people do that.

he manage to -- the democratic convention. and so somebody said this is a great opportunity. you won't be disappointed. so his voice projected and he got up and gave a speech in the chicago auditorium. 10,000 people. most speakers couldn't be heard in the back row. he bounds up the stairs and gives this speech. most of you are familiar with the climax. the last sentence was we shall not set down his crown of thorns. like he was christ on the cross. you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold. the place was completely quiet. everybody started screaming and crying. here is our man.

we were going to lose because of grover cleveland to got us in the depression. william jennings bryan had a lot of forms and wanted to regulate wall street. he wanted a federal reserve and women to have a right to vote. he wants to regulate the railroad. it is an extremely radical program. so radical that the 1890's sixers campaign is the most expensive presidential campaign in history. big business was terrified. they hired 10,000 people -- they said you vote for william jennings bryan you are fired. william jennings bryan has to win don't come to work. it caused quite a firestorm but he ran a hell of a campaign. in that one election, to a

liberal progressive party. two other folks who generated a political change are barry goldwater a you might remember, i had a goldwater button in second grade. transformed the republican party into a conservative party. eisenhower, tom dewey was the standard bearer before that. they came into an accommodation with the welfare state and agreed they could not repeal social security and was slow down the growth. extremism and pursuits of liberty. very famous quote. he transformed the republican party. let me talk about this. george mcgovern like barry goldwater in both instances they got 60% of the vote.

if you pick up a newspaper in november of 1964 the headline would be bold water credits conservatives. conservatism is dead because of barry goldwater. the company's paper in november of 1972 the same thing on the other side about george mcgovern liberalism is dead and things are discredited. 15 years after barry goldwater and ronald reagan's most conservative campaign in decades and also in 1972 george mcgovern created a new coalition democrat majority, highly educator activists voter and barack obama won. young minority activists voters. mcgovernment took longer but you don't know the results. let's talk quickly about the echoes of the campaign. in my book i don't write about

anybody who was president and lost or who lost and became -- only the guys who never did. barack obama loses, my book doesn't change. i am not going to worry about barack obama. the republican loser, let's talk about that. how that happens. we have a fascination -- going to nominate donald trump and her and gain but goherman cain but ross perot. did very well so people started thinking. we need a ceo. you probably heard rick perry's campaign. and i was a terrible student. i got terrible grades.

why would anybody brag about having a bad academic career? that goes back at my stevens and. serious issue. too smart to be president. he talked over the head of nice people so the republicans of consciously decided to run a lowbrow campaign. eisenhower would save the status quo is i am not the educated candidates. i shouldn't talk about it. the crazy thing that somehow the democrats are the intellectual party and republicans have a middle-class sensibility. certainly in mitt romney's case, the ultimate campaign in 1940. first roman catholic denominated president. the first latter-day saints, mitt romney. they have the same problem. mitt romney doesn't like to talk about his religion. they wanted to go away. it is and comfortable to talk

about religion. let's move on. the smooth pass the idea that religion qualifies anyone from president. people kept saying i'm not opposed to a catholic but don't like the fact that he is against prohibition. and you look at the numbers and the polling. mitt romney got some votes. and comfortable voting for a mormon for president and eventually if he is the nominee you have to address this issue. last thing i will talk about sins we are running out of time, it is interesting that no one seems to be getting an edge. one week mitt romney is up and then santorum. mcgoverned, most liberal person nominated for president in the last hundred years influencing the most conservative.

george mcgoverned reform commission change the way they elect in an open process. more primary. they wanted fewer -- they had to be open. they did all these reforms and much more open so they decided to the same move. one thing they insist on is no more winner-take-all project. proportional delegates. you win a long process. you want people to be treated fairly. that is one of the reasons mitt romney gets the leg of. when he wins you share delegates. if you want evidence of losing campaigns and their impact george mcgoverned, serving one

of them. tom dooley loss to truman in 48 and said what is it like? reminds me of the man who went to the irish wake and passed out and woke up and said i am a law. what are doing here? do i have to go to the bathroom? i don't know what that means but it says a lot about losing candidates. i will open up the questions and comments but i appreciate your time now. >> one question here, personal. who is your almost champion among the almost presidents? >> i get that question a lot. i talk a lot about henry clay. i didn't know much about it when i started writing. tom do we started out as district attorney and was a model for a bunch of hollywood

film stars like humphrey bogart, putting bad guys away. about the of $50,000 and he was fearless putting organized-crime away. he was leading presidential candidate. he was the leading republican candidate and 30-year-old district attorney, congressman and governor. he became governor of new york. an extremely active and successful governor. new york had fewer problems reconfiguring their economy. brilliant, decent man. truman. most of the great things -- very popular in 48. he was a shoe in. dubee didn't do much to win in

48. that is not true. you had a very aggressive campaign. he landed some unfair blows. didn't sit well with anybody in 1948. people were sort of excited and it set a tone for the country that is very bad and do we's managerial skills. great man of integrity. truman could have been president in the first term. >> how will the republican convention go if mitt romney does not coming as delegate?

>> a completely wide-open -- such a welcoming address. republicans picked dwight eisenhower over robert cat. they were in doubt with 1976 and ronald reagan challenge gerald ford. there's a chance ted kennedy might have -- we have something like this again because of the proportion of delegates. hard to say. we don't have the power brokers. there is no source of -- back in 1952 you had party leaders controlling their delegation. and idaho wyoming. coming back to the next convention or lose your job as postmaster. you don't have a system like that anymore. this will be other chaos.

very similar to the 1924 democratic convention. finally nominated john w. davis on the 100 third ballot which led will rogers -- the future kids will sit on grandpa's me and say what did you do with the big board? i didn't do that but i survived the 1924 convention. it will be very chaotic. nobody who runs the show. it will be a lot of -- will be ugly. >> modern day losers get treated by media as real losers rather than respectable candidates. what are your thoughts on that? >> i have a chapter that talks about that. a couple of things. it hasn't always been that way. there was a time when henry clay was nominated three times. people were not identified as failures because they lost an election. there is a really good book

called board losers which is really good. it is about the notion of failure in business. failure used to be considered one of those things that happens. i had a business that failed. overtime carrier has become an identity. he is a failure. no one would talk like that 200 years ago. but they do now. part of that is the changing culture, the industrial revolution and commercial revolution changing how we do things and my theory is television has changed because television gives you an image of failure to go with your actual failure. like michael dukakis and that tank. very of place. john kerry, i've voted for it before i voted against it. there's an image that makes it difficult for people to look at you and not think of it.

when people lose today they don't get to the nominees again. a presidential nominee hasn't gotten a nomination sins 1968. they are not given a chance to speak at the next convention. people are afraid failure will affect the campaign so they're not allowed to speak and are kept away. i prepared a little bit -- of borderline hall of fame baseball player let the ball goes through his legs and that is all people remember. when people fail at the highest level it is too bad because -- outstanding public career remembered only as a loser. >> how much credence do you give to the theory and fought that hedgehogs are better at winning

the election and the big thinkers on the other hand are much better at becoming -- leadership ability when their president. >> could you rephrase that? >> there was a story that came out recently comparing hedgehogs to the big thinkers that are more flexible and not the ideologues. so the hedgehogs are more focused and much better at winning the election and the others do much better when they're actually president when more flexible. >> a couple of things. sometimes hedgehogs are more aggressive with their ideas like

you said. it goes back to my theory that we have a fragile democracy. we don't want -- elections are about trivial things. .. >> people who talk to, about issues that are very divisive, and especially if they speak in very passionate terms scare people often, people worry that the country's going to fall apart, we're going to divide. if i was going to compare this year, i would say rick santorum

is a lot like george mcgovern, and let me tell you why. when mcgovern ran, he talked about the war. he gave a speech in the senate that said this chamber reeks of blood, and every man in here is responsible for the death of 45,000 american boys. even people who might have agreed with him on the war was a mistake and we needed to get out sooner rather than later, i don't trust this guy, he's way too radical. i think the same way with senator santorum. people agree with him on some of issues like contraception and abortion, but the way senator santorum talks about it in such strong terms scares people like when he said i read john kennedy's speech on separation of church and state, and it made me want to throw up. it doesn't sound presidential.

if you're too moralistic, you frighten people. going back to stephen douglas, too, lincoln said the problem with senator douglas is he doesn't see slavery as a moral issue. we need to keep morality out, it's all about pragmatism and what's possible in politics. so i think there's some sentiment to that that the american people say moral issues are just too scary, we'll never resolve those, let's stay off those kinds of issues. >> how do you think that senator mccain's running mate choice for -- let me start over. how will mccain's running mate choice for vice president change how future vice presidents are selected? >> um, i think, first of all, probably more vetting. i think there was, again, if you go back to how governor palin was selected, she was very exciting, you know, and i actually have met governor palin

a few times, and she's very charming, but she just was picked too soon. they weren't quite sure how they would react x i thought the hbo movie was fair, this poor woman is happy being the governor of alaska, and suddennenly she's in the national -- suddenly she's in the national media, taken away from her newborn child, and she makes a few mistakes and subject to that ridicule, so she withdrew, became very angry at the campaign, the media and the general public. so i think in the future it was just a warning that it's nice to be exciting and try to generate some momentum, but you really need to know more about the people. and that's why you hear a lot of talk about marco rubio, front runner for the or vp nomination. but i don't think a lot of us know much about him, and i think it's going to be important if he's the nominee, he be fully vetted. and this is another problem with the nomination battle for the republicans going on so long is

that if you can wrap up the nomination pretty early, you can start thinking about these things. the biggest disaster in vice presidential history was, again, poor george mcgovern. and he had not locked up the nomination before the 1972 convention because hubert humphrey had challenged the results in california. so the mcgovern campaign was completely preoccupied with fighting this challenge to the delegate selection, and they didn't resolve it until the wednesday of the convention itself, and the vice president presidential come nation was due the next morning, and they were exhausted. they started up, so they had a meeting on the morning of thursday, and be they have the to put the name before the convention, like, at 4 p.m. so they have 40 names they're starting with on the list, 40 names. part of the problem was mcgovern was sure he was going to get teddy kennedy for his running mate. kennedy kept putting him iewf, so that wasted hours. then finally he tried mondale, and he tried gaylord nelson, a

whole bunch of people, and everybody said, well, no, i just can't do it. so less than an hour to go, and they finally pick up the name of tom eagleton, and everybody goes, well, yeah, smart guy, senator from missouri, catholic, urban, good with labor. so they call up eagleton, literally, about 15 minutes before they have to submit the name, and they say eagleton, do you want to be vice president? and he says, yeah, i'd love it. is this anything we need to know about you? he goes, no, i'm fine. so they put the name forward and the problem, of course, was there were some things wrong with eagleton. he'd had mental health issues, shock therapy, and when that came out, of course, it was a big problem. mcgovern had exacerbated it. he came out and for some reason said i'm behind thomas eagleton 1,000%, and, of course, when he did drop eagleton a few days later, he looked like a liar and all sorts of things. so vetting is very important, and i'm sure romney or gingrich

or santorum would love to have as much time to think about it. >> we've seen the rise of the superpacs and their influence. how do you see that influencing romney -- >> well, now we're getting out of my book, but that's okay. >> sorry. >> i think maybe some other people saw this on the news, but i think somebody said so far the superpacs have outspent the actual campaign, how many, is it five to one, six to one? so the campaigns respect being run -- aren't being run by the campaigns. it's what the superpacs are say, and in theory, there's no coordination between them. i think we all sort of wink and nod at that. but it's fundamentally changing american politics, and it'll be interesting to see if supreme court decides to revisit the citizens united case that allows that. if i'm the campaign manager, on one hand i'm sure i'm happy for a $10,000 check, but if i'm not controlling the message, i just don't know how that would feel

to managers to know that what most people know about me i have no control about must be a frightening proposition. it'll be interesting to see how that changes american politics. couple more questions before we wrap up? yes, sir. >> [inaudible] >> uh-huh. >> [inaudible] after his defeat in 1924, and he ended up brown v. board of education in 1954. >> you have a great historicalnology. actually, there is a thing about davis in the back. what i did was i picked for chapter-length treatment, i picked the ones who i thought had done the most to influence contemporary american politics. and before i get to davis, people always say why didn't you have wendell willkie in there? some people credit him with making sure the united states was prepared for world war ii because the republicans did not want the lend lease act, for example, to go through, and

roosevelt asked wily, could you go to -- willkie, would you go to britain as a staff envoy and come back and tell the american people why it's so important we give aid and comfort to britain. and the congress was about ready to end the draft about six months before pearl harbor. and the draft extension passed by two votes, again, also due to willkie. willkie changed history, but he didn't change our politic. nothing about willkie changed how our political parties operate. but i did do essays in the appendix at the end, about a thousand words apiece. he may be one of -- probably is america's greatest lawyer, that's certainly what his mo is. he's argued more cases before the u.s. supreme court than any other attorney, and you're right, he was the losing attorney in the brown v. board of education case which was one of his very last ones. but the interesting thing is the other attorney in the case was thurgood marshall, and they said, mr. marshall, who's your

idol as an attorney? he said, john w. deafs. when i practice law, i think how would davis try this case, and that's what i try to do. it's very ironic that thurgood marshall becomes a supreme court justice and wins that case. but thank you. there's just so many interesting men. who's ever heard of louis cass, for goodness sake? he was the one who went in, createed the university of michigan, created michigan's outstanding public school system, he was a great expert on native americans, in fact, brought into the british science what their group was, but he was honored -- yes, philosophic -- that's right. but they're all interesting characters, and it's a shame they're forgotten, and i hope if my book doesn't do anything else, it encourages people to look a little more at these people because they provide wonderful examples for how i think politics should be.

sometimes, again, were the than the win or -- better than the winners. also i would encourage you if you look at the book to look at the bib lo graphic essay because there's other books i recommend. i so enjoyed spending four years with these guys. they were, became sort of friendly. i'm very december fencive aren't -- defensive about them now. they're great people, and they're all deserving of a better place in history than they got. yes, sir. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> well, it's hard to say. that's the thing, you know, you don't know. again, if you looked again at those '64 and '72 campaigns and you would say, well, barry goldwater was sure a disaster, george mcgovern was a disaster, but, lo and behold, they were two of the most influential losers in american history. will romney or gingrich or santorum be a part of that this year? obama doesn't make my book because he already was president. clearly, whoever runs this year

is going to break a significant religious barrier. either a more more on the republicans are going to nominate their first catholic. is that going to make a power shift where catholics just out of religious identity want to become more republicans? the fastest-growing church in the country is the lds church s is that going to make it more legitimate in the eyes of the american public and what does that mean? it's very interesting. but do i believe this is going to be a critical election. i think the republican party, well, both parties are at an important turning point. if obama loses, obama was way too far to the left, we've got to move back to the center, whatever the lesson will be. same with the republican party which i think has more fissures and divisions within it. should we go back to the center? that's what jon huntsman kept saying. now you hear people say we're going to nominate a moderate, we should go back to the right. so i think the republican party is going to have an important debate about which way the

party's going the go and whoever their standard bearer was this year and how they lost and what they said is going to have a tremendous impact about what the party's going to be. i'm not saying every loser has impacted american history in a good way. poor parker who lost to theodore roosevelt, nobody's even written a biography about the guy. some people have an enormous influence. as i said at the beginning, the problem is we won't know for decades who that is. i think that's probably about it, and i'd certainly invite -- if you have further questions you want to discuss, as andrea said, we're going to go afterwards and have a little refreshment, and hope you all come. thank you for your attention. it's been a delight to be here. it's a wonderful bookstore. thank you to c-span again and thank you very much for coming. [applause] >> for more information on almost president, visit the author's web site, scott farris

books.com. c-span covered this topic in great detail on the contenders, a 14-part series that helps to put america's present electoral politics in perspective. visit contenders.c-span.org. here's a look at some of the upcoming book fairs and festivals happening this month. this weekend booktv is live from the los angeles times festival of the books at the university of southern california. we speak to several authors including karim abdul-jabbar. booktv is also covering various author panels on topics raging from internet security to natural disasters. visit booktv.org for complete details. also this weekend annapolis, maryland, hosts the tenth annual annapolis book festival. it features daniel pink, linda robinson as well as book sales

and live music. the 15th annual alabama writers' symposium will be in monroeville, alabama, on the campus of alabama's southern community college from the 26th through the 28th. historic walking tours, book signings and author readings are highlights of the festival. and then on the 27th and 28th, the harlem book fair newark will take place in new jersey. for a complete list of upcoming book fairs and can festivals, visit booktv.org. also, please, let us know about book fairs and festals in your area, and we'll be happy to add them to our list. e-mail us at booktv@cspan.org. >> in his new book, rodney king recounts his life following the video recording of his beating by los angeles police on march 3, 1991. mr. king talks about his own legal problems and alcohol addiction since then as well as the acquittal of four of the police officers in the case which led to rioting in los