this is going to be about marriage, about same-sex marriage, and to that extent, justice scalia's prediction has turned out to be largely correct in the years since then. >> guest: it's quite possible he was. and certainly we will see what the court does with the marriage case, if one comes before it. if it takes a marriage case, which it has discretion to decide about. ..

couples to get married. he said there's no rational reason left to prefer one, and i would guess that when the case comes up, as it's now moving up through the lower courts, the gay-rights litigantses are going to be fighting justice scalia's dissent as effectively correctly reading the decision as having undermined the exclusion of gay couples from marriage. >> host: isn't the flipside that whoever writes the majority opinion in favor of same-sex marriage is going to be citing the lawrence case, justice kennedy's phrases about the important for dignity and respect for gay and lesbian couples. >> guest: i think both sides will draw on justice kennedy's

opinion. you can find support for both positions but i'm quite certain many of the phrases in his opinion in lawrence vs. texas about the dignity of gay americans and the importance of relationships to them, will find their way into any opinion. >> host: we only have a couple minutes left. before we finish, i'd like to ask you -- you went down and did a lot of reporting on this and talked to john lawrence. and both men have passed away in the last couple years after the case was decided. tell us a little bit about lawrence and garner. >> guest: they were both people who grew up with a humble background. not much education. garner was one of the -- the tenth of ten chirp in -- children in a black baptist family. never had a permanent home or job, never owned a car, shifted from house to house.

john lawrence did have a steady job as a medical technologist, but neither he nor tyrone were ever involved in any kind of civil rights movement or civil rights causes until the case came along. tyrone garner died in 2006, bat year after i interviewed him, and john lawrence died last november in 2011, about six months after my second interview with him in which he told me the full story of what happened from his perspective. >> host: he wanted to set the record straight about what actually happened in the incident. one sense, never got to tell his story at the time this case was coming along. i take it, though, he also was proud of the case and what it had accomplished. >> guest: both men were proud of the case. they felt they had done some good for other people. it would be part of their own legacy and they thought it was

important that the state never be able to come in and arrest two people, either for actually having sex with each other or just claiming they had sex and making that enough as the basis for an arrest. that was important for them. >> host: thank you, dale carpenter. good book and it was great talking with you. >> guest: thank you. nice to talk with you. >> that was after wordness which authors of the latest knopp fiction books are interviewed by journalist, public policymakers, legislators and others familiar with their work. "after words" airs. you can also watch online. go to booktv.org and click on afterwords on the upper right side of the pain.

>> you're watching book tv. 48 hers of nonfiction books every weekend on c-span2. up next, a history of the men who ran for the u.s. presidency and lost. the author examines why each candidate failed and takes a look at their impact on each respective political party. this is about an hour. [applause] >> thank you. angie are, for all the work you put in this and thank you for the introduction, and pat sullivan who helped organize this, and rick young with the boise state college of sciences and thank you to the political science network. not an association. y thank you to the owner of this book store. rediscovered books. this is a gem state in history,

and this is a gem of a book store. and thanks to c-span. a great pleasure to be here. so, what i want to do is give a little talk about how losing -- past losing presidential campaigns help shaped the 2012 election and then do a speculation how the 2012 election might influence future political history in the united states, and i'm going to begin -- we talked about 20 minutes ago but i'm going to begin with what i think is a bold prediction, which is that on november 6, 2012. we're absolutely and definitely be a winner and a loser. but the bold prediction is this. the thing is we may not know for several decades who was which bossisms it's not clear. sometimes the winner has almost no impact on american history. kind of inconsequential. ontype ofs the losing candidate will have tremendous impact on american political history and really change the political dynamics and a whole bunch of

different ways. before i go into how that works. let me tell you why i wrote the book. i was an unsuccessful political candidate. i ran for congress in wyoming in 1998. a democratic nominee in a republican state. i'm not the brightest guy in the world. i lost. and you sit there and say, that was tough. i asked my family and friend and complete strangers to give me time, money, talents and then i let them down, or at least maybe the voters let me down, because i remember mo udall say though, voters have spoken, those bastards. and like barry goldwater and he lost, he said i still believe america is a great country, when anybody can grow up to be president except me. so you worry about that. but you think about, did i make a difference? have an impact? and maybe a little congressional race in wyoming was -- the

republican stole a few of my ideas so i feel like i moved the ball forward. at the presidential level, a chance for far greater impact and losers are very important the system. for a couple of reasons. first of all, losers, particularly when they behave in a certain way, are what make democracy work,, and then often losing campaigns are far more dynamic and more prophetic than a winning campaign. how do they can may democracy work in on election night, the loser always gets to speak first. that's how they always -- the networks declare who they think the winner is and then we sit around for the guy who is losing to come out and speak and those who won can't talk not the loser gives a concession because the fact is an election isn't over when the winner declares victory. the election is only over when the loser concedes defeat. if the loser says i didn't lose.

i was defrauded. i can't allow this -- this guy is a wacko. you can imagine what would happen in a lot of countries people don't abide by the results of an election and you see riots and civil war. in 2008 we had an intense presidential campaign, very emotional between the first african-american president and the republican john mccain. that same year kenya had an election but the losers didn't like the result and that's when all the vice len was dawn, 1500 people dead and a quarter million homeless. riots in india, which is the world residents largest democracy. deaths in mongolia and liberia. those are all third world countries. doesn't happen everyone. in 2002 when nicolas sarkozy was elected president of france, they had so many riots, 80 policemen were injured. so we're fortunate in the united

states we don't have violence around owl presidential elections and a lot of that is due to the behavior of the losers. they couple out and say, i'm disappointed but i accept the result. time for our country to unify and move forward, and they have to do that because winners can only govern with the loser's consent. if you're on the losing spend refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the winner how can anything get done? you have grid lock and choose and violence. one reason i wrote the book, too one of the messages of the book, i worry we're gifting to pint, there's some much for alreadyization we're going to lose this wonderful tradition. especially over the last several president ya, clinton, and george w. bush, and obama, people are questioning the legitimacy of the winner and that's a dangerous thing for this country. we think we're a strong democracy but we're a young democracy and no country quite as diverse as the united states in terms of having so many different ethnic groups, different regional differences.

so i actually believe our democracy in america is fairly fragile, and so it's very important we maintain these traditions to try to keep us unified. keep us understanding that the government may not be the government we wanted this year but it's a legitimate government and we'll let them govern and let them do the basic elements of governing and come back the next election and try to beat them. if we ever lose that i do believe we're going to see some terrible, terrible problems in our elections. i mentioned the other way that sometimes losers have more impact than winners is often losers are more prophetic then the winners. the losers come up with the new ideas and the winners stuck in the policy of the past. i argue every major program in our political system would be first talked about in a loser's campaign. it takes a while something new to gain following. the other thing is they fling more participants, different times of folks which haven't par

participated before. the young, minorities, women. but they change the coalition how the parties are organizationed. a lot of losing campaigns changed the party from bag liberal party to a conservative party or the other way around, and the reason they do that, a couple reasons, one, first of all, most of the losers sort of know they're probably going to lose. they wouldn't admit that but in a political polling is becoming very sophies tim indicated and you want it to be like 1948 and hari truman comes from behind and win. most elections are preordained. so a losing campaign sometimes has to be very bold. get people's attention. talk about issues that nobody talks about, or they bring on a running mate, for example, walder mondale bringing on geraldine ferraro, or john mccain putting sarah palin on the ticket. and you saw the hbo movie "game

changer." and so they went for the long path and picked governor palin and generated a lot of excitement for the campaign. the other thing is that if you won, you're kind of fat and happen. you think, gee, i got a winning message. i don't need to change anything. but a loser, if he lost, you have to have some intro specifics and si what did we do wrong? and you retool, and i think of the -- remodeling your house. sometimes you're going to make an addition, knock down walls sometimes to the studs, rethink what you want to do and rebuild and that's what happened. so let me just give you a few ideas how losing campaigns have actually shaped very basically our political system, and then move on to sort of what this campaign is and talk about the more recent losing presidential candidates. i want to talk about three candidates from then 19th 19th century who aren't very remembered very well or

sometimes misunderstood but who in fact helped shape the fundmental nature of our politics. they determine why we have a two party political system, the republicans and democrats and one party is conservative and one party is liberal. so here's what i want to talk to you about is henry clay. he is perhaps the greatest american never to have become president. some people may say, well, ben franklin, alexander hamilton, george marshal. henry clay was probably the greatest legislator in american history and he was phenomenally important in both the house of representatives and the u.s. senate. he was elected speaker of the house as a freshman on the first ballot before he even actually took the oath of office. that's how magnetic his personality is. how much his leadership qualities were immediately recognized by the peers in the house. and then he took the speaker's

job and transformed it into the speakership we know today. the speaker of of the house is e most powerful person in the american government behind the pratt. wasn't that way until henry clay took ahold of it. said, the speaker should decide what legislators get on what committee, who gets to be heard. and the transformed the party. -- excuse me -- transtransform the office of speaker, and he had a lot of leadership abilities. when he started out in life he was a republican. and that means he believed that big government which governs best governs least and the federalist you may recall the founding fathers didn't want political parties in our system. there's nothing in the constitution about political parties, let alone two of them. something that developed organically, and developed out of rivalry between alexander hamilton and jefferson. hamilton believed in a strong and active federal government and jefferson believed in a very

minimalist republic. henry clay was a jeffersonian and was a fairly belligerent guy and got us involved in the war of 1812. thought it was -- henry clay push for the war and pushed for the war and we don't study this a lot. the war of 1812 is considered kind of minor and it was an absolute disaster. we lost the war. we were just really lucky great britain was dealing with napoleon and wanted the american war over with. so clay realized the reason we had lost the war essentially was that americans didn't have the right -- any industrial capacity. we had to get our weapons from overseas and the british were blockading our ports and we didn't have a common currency, national bank to way to get credit to buy weapons to fight the british, and then, you would think we had the advantage of

fighting on our home court but we had some terrible instruction you couldn't move troops. every battle was when the militia and the british army and he developed the thing called the american system. and the american system was a brilliant idea where he was trying to get support of every part of the country, so he proposed high tariff to help strengthen manufacturing and then had the idea that take the money from the tariff and build canals and roads and other ways to get products prom the west and the south and manufacturers in the north and then you would have a national bank where we had a common currency and the united states credit. so the american system was first venture of capturing the ham tonan tradition and moving it forward. the federallallists had fallen out of fair and so -- out of favor and there was a brief time

where america was under a one-party rule and might have stayed that way except that henry clay started butting heads with another man named andrew jack. so i jackson was froms at the and clay was from kentucky and they hated each other. on his death bed, president jackson do you have any regret? yes, i never shot henry clay. and for his part, henry clay never understood andruw jackson's popularity. andrew job son won the great ball bat until new orleans. he said i could never understand how killing 2500 englishman qualifies qualifies qualifies for the duties of a chief magistrate. and jackson blamed clay for his wife's death because you think campaigns are nasty now, go back and read about the campaign of 1824 and 1828. at that point they accused clay of being a regular visitor to local brothels. john quincy adams' accused of

being a pimp for the czar of russia, and they claimed that jackson's mother was a prostitute and he was living in sin abuse he married his wife, lived on the frontier, and took awhile for the paperwork to process and his wife was still married before they married. so it was very vicious. the first time they tangled was in 1824. there were two parties, only one, and several significant candidate. jefferson -- jackson, and clay, and william crawford, and john quincy adams. the results were split. jackson won the electoral vote but didn't have the he majority. so he had to go to the u.s. house of representatives where clay was the speaker. clay with the bad judgment finished fourth so he one one of the three names forwarded to the house of representatives. so people said clay is speaker

so whoever hi backs will be president. the kentucky legislator passed a bill. is he going to back adam or crawford. crawford had a stroke, so said can't vote for crawford hate andrew jackson. i'm going to support john quincy adams. so he made adams president. adams then made clay secretary of state, and jackson's people said there was a club -- he sold out his vote to be secretary of state. now, the reason i'm telling you, sounds kind of arcane, is that what happened out of this, jackson started running again against adams and clay, and clay realized that jackson was going to be a for mid able opponent so the thought about the only way to beat jackson was to organize so the did things never been done in america before. he said we need a county committee, a committee in every county to organize again andrew jackson and we need people there to help form a committee at every state level, and a national committee. we need have a platform, so we

can have candidates run under. we need newspapers and raise a lot of money to put advertising in the newspapers. and so what you have this beginning of the political party, as we know it today, and it was all based on his antipathy towards andrew jackson. then after he lost, jackson defeated clay in 1928, then clay ran in 1832 and lost to jackson. clay decided to call his organization the whig party and we have the first separate party from them jeffersonian republicans now known as the democrats. so you have the democratic party and the whig party, based on the rivalry between clay and jackson. i clay avoided civil war but his gratest legacy, created the two-party system. somebody was less skilled in politics than henry clay, might have had a bunch of little parties like europe, having weak

governments. the clay genius was he created a big ten broad base part that evolved into the republican party and that's why we have a two-party system because of a losing campaign. where is there a republican and democrat party? there's another maune steven douglas. most of us know the guy who debated abraham lincoln and he was opposing lincoln so must be a bad guy. doug lace is known as a little giant. was actually a life long rival of lincoln. they even -- both dated mary todd, and mary todd was intend on marrying the president, and decided to marilyn lip. a -- marry lincoln. a lot of people thought she made the wrong choice. douglas is' great issue was he wanted to build the transcontinental railroad. he didn't care about slavery.

he wanted to generate prosperity and growth in the united states but slavery became the great issue of the day and douglas stepped in it. how to you settle the states. he comes up with the where would the best way to contain slavery is called popular sovereignty. everyone vote on whether they want to be slave or free, and this upset the whole apple cart because all of these carefully forged compromised by henry clay which banned slavery in the north, including in the western territories, and allowed it in the south. douglas thought he had this great knew idea that would apiece the south because there's nothing wrong with slavery. it's in the constitution, but let the people decide whether they want slavery or not, in think particular state. and caused such a fire storm that lincoln actually retired from politics and didn't think he would run again. he was a one, term congressman so he had been in springfield, building up his law practice,

but this act was so insensitive, he got back no politics and decided to run against abraham lincoln and had the great debate which douglas -- people think lincoln won the debate and douglas won the election, and in 1860 they were both the leading candidate for president in their respective party. and douglas was the favorite of the democrats but by this team the south already decided to -- really douglas was not what they anted. the decided to secede, theyed toed the kneed to destroy the democratic party. the democratic party was one of the final national institutions holding the country together. evenly the midwestists and baptists split north to south. and so they were very anxious to destroy the democratic party, and sort of move forward on to secession so they decided to

secede whether dug loss or -- douglas or lincoln won. douglas campaigned against the used of secession. he went into virginia and north carolina and said mr. lincoln is going to win but that's know reason for the south to secede, one nation, indivisible. and doug lace went into georgia and alabama and new orleans and they threatened to hang him. he was pelted with fruit and rocks and he traveled to 23 states. imagine what it was like in 1860 to actually travel to 23 states to campaign in two short months. he drove himself relentlessly, and of course he lost. the south threatened to secede. he tried to forge a comprimise. the south said, no, we're leaving. we can't live under republican

rule. so douglas became wound of lincoln's most trusted allies and at lincoln's inaugural address, doug was holing his hat, and everytime lincoln said something, he would say, exactly right. and he urged lincoln to take a harder line. lincoln wanted to call up 75,000 men and douglas said no, 200,000. you don't know these people like i do. they're traitors, convert them or hang them in 48 hours, and took a very aggressive stand. what this did for the democrats was at that point in time, the democratic party didn't know how to react to secession, and president buchanan said i'd love for the country to stay together, let the south go in piece. douglas said, keep the country together. so he began to campaign in the north to encourage democrats to stay loyal and support lincoln and the republicans on the war policy. he said we need to support them,

support the union. so, i think it's very important aspect of the civil war that it underappreciated. had there been a fifth column, the war would have bop completely differently but he made sure the northern democrats were thrill union and the republican outside said not every democrat is a traitor but every traitor is a democrat. and they did what they call waving the bloody shirt to demind people that jefferson davis and everybody was democrat. but because of steven douglas the democratic party survived the wall and all the evidence is the democrats instance lested in the union cause in the north the same level as the rackons so the union carried the day in large a part because of what steven douglas did in terms of, i can't get elected and my job is to help lane lincoln and he is not appreciated for that. so that's why we still have a democratic party. why we have a liberal and a conservative party. let me tell you a couple other

other folks and then we will get to the question and. a democratic party under jefferson was a party that did not like big government. they've been that way the entire 19th century. then in one election, almost overnight, they changed because of a man named william jennings bryan. this is how politics can be extremely unpredictable. brian served two terms in congress from nebraska. only 36 years old. but he was already known as a brilliant orator so he was traveling the united states all the time, giving speeches and at this point we are talking about the pop you list movement. and they wanted government to provide relief to the terrible depression hitting the country, and bryan knew this and he said i'm going to at the democratic convention and going to be the nominee. they said, you're crazy. nobody knows who you are. just amazing thinking. out brilliant speaker and he

went to the national convention and still considered the most thrilling moment in the political convention history. having a debate over whether there should be a more open money supply because there was a tremendous inflation in the country. no money in circulation. for example, in the state of arkansas, took all of the money in circulation in 1896, paper and coin, and amed to $5 per american. just no money. so people are chicken bartering to make the economy work0. bryan was a big at slow vat of increasing the money supply, generate better money and better credit. so managed to fin nagle his way to one of the four men who were going to debate this platform in the democratic convention. and so somebody said, you know, bill, this is really a great opportunity for you. and he says, don't worry. won't won't be disappointed so he had this marvelous voice.

project six city blocks, and he got up and was giving the speech. chicago auditorium, 10,000 people there. most peekers couldn't be heard the back row and here comps this back row, very handsome, bounds occupy the stairs and gives the speech in favor of the three coins, and and the last sentence was, you shall not press down bon the brow of labor this crown of thornes and then he said, and you shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold. and he held this pose for like five seconds and the place was completely quiet, and then people just went nuts, and everybody started creaming and hollering and people were crying and here's our man. we were going to lose because of this stupid grover cleveland but now we're going to nominate william jennings bryan, and bryan had a long list of reforms. he wanted to regulate wall street. wanted an income tax. a federal reserve board. the women to have the right to vote. prohibition, regulate the

railroads. he was an extremely radical program and so radical that the 1896 campaign is still probably the most expensive presidential campaign in history because big business was terrified of a bryan presidency and they spent a small fortunate. hired 10,000 people to go out and professionally speak against william jennings bryan. they put notes in people's paychecks and said, you vote for -- we fine out you voted for bryanor, are fired, and if bryan happens to win, don't come to work on wednesday because we'll be closed, and it caused a fire storm but brian ran a hell of a campaign, came very close to beating mckinley, but in the one election, democrats went to the liberal progressives they are today. two other folks who have more recently generated political change, barry goldwater. some people here probably remember barry goldwater. i had a goldwater button.

my parents gave it to me. he transformed the republican party into a conservative party. under eisenhower and under dewey, republicans were a fairly moderate party, came into an accommodation with the welfare state. maybe slow down the growth of government and goldwater said, heck no, extreme jim in the pursuit of liberty is no vice. very famous quote. so he transformed the republican party as well and i'm going to talk too long so i'm going wrap it up here. let me talk about george mcgovern. george mcgotch, like bearry goldwater, lost in a landslide. opponents got more than 60% of the vote. if you picked up a newspaper in november 1964 the head line whoa have been conservative is dead because of barry goldwater and if you picked up a paper in 1972 you would hear the same thing

about mcgovern, liberalism was dead and these things were discredit. so, 16 years after barry goldwater, ronald reagan, running the most conservative campaigns in decades was elected president, and george mcgovern created a new coalition around young and women and minorities, activists, and that shows how these campaigns can change but you may not know the results for decades. so let's talk about the echo thoifsz year0s campaign. i don't write about anything who ethe was president and lost or -- it's only about guys who were never president. so if president obama loses my book doesn't change. so i'm not going worry about barack obama. but the republican loses i'm going to do an epilogue, and a

couple ways how the past campaigns. we have this fashion nation with business men. they were gem to nominate donald trump, herman cache? that goes back to ross perot. before ross perot people didn't think businessmen would make great politicians. ross perot said, i should by president. it's that simple. and so he did very well. captured a lot of imagination so people started thinking now for the last 20 years, we need a ceo to turn this country around. probably heard rick perry had a few oops moments. but he also talk about, i was a terrible student at texas a&m terrible grades. why would anybody brag about having a bad academic record. that goes back to theded a lie stevenson record, and there was a request whether adlai steven son was too support and talked

of the citizens. when eisenhower would run we a status quo, and say, excuse me, i'm knock the educated candidate. this crazy thing that the democrats are this elite intellectual party and the republicans have this middle class sensibility started in 1952. certainly in mitt romney's came, you have the echo of a different campaign. the campaign of 1928. first roman catholic to be nominated for president. mitt romney may be the first mormon to be nominated for president. they have the same problem. romney doesn't like to talk about hit religion, neither dill al smith. so uncomfortable to talk about religion. let's just move on, and how do we move past the idea that religion is a qualifying factor for president? eventually al smith had to talk about religion because people kept saying i don't like the fact he is from new york, the fact he is against --

prohibition but when you look at the numbers and do the polls, it's unclear people were uncomfortable with if become catholic and 'mitt romney is losing votes because he is motorhomeon, and eventually if he is he nominee he has to give a speech to address this issue and acquaint people with mormonism. we're running out of time. interesting, too, that nobody seems to be getting an edge in this republican rate. one week romney is up, then gingrich and then santorum. mcgovern, george mcgovern, most liberal person nominated for president is influencing one of the most conservative republican races because george mcgovern in the wake of 1968 who led this reform con venges and changed the way delegates were elected. more primaries and fewer caucuses. and caucus had to be open for all sorts of people and it

worked pretty well for the democrats and did all these reforms and made the system much more open, and so the republican decided to do the same and one of the things mcgoverning insisted on and no more winner take all primaries. we need proportional delegates. so it's a long process. wanted people be treated fairly. that's one of the reasons why romney cannot quite get the leg up. when he wins, he has to share delegates with santorum and gingrich. so if you want any evidence how losing campaigns have an impact, george mcgovern impacted how the republicans selecting their deflagrates. tom dewey lost to eisenhower. he talked about the man who went the irish wake and was drinking

and woke up in a coffin and said, if i'm alive, why am i in a coffin. if i'm dead, whoa die have to go to the bathroom? >> i really appreciate your time. thank you. [applause] >> scott, one question here, it's personal. who is your almost champion among the almost presidents? >> you know, i get that question a lot and i've already sort of talked a lot about henry clay. let me talk about the other guy that surprised me. i decided to learn about this. tom dewey. he was a really interesting character. the -- started out in life as a district attorney and he was the model for a whole bunch of hollywood films because he was putting putting the guys guy. lucky luciano. whoever killed tom due wi would get 50,000 from the mob. he was fearless putting organized crime away. so in 1940 he was the leading

republican candidate as a 36-year-old district attorney. hadn't even been congressman or governor. became governor of new york and was extremely active and successful in contractedded the university, the expressway. new york had fewer problems with the economy. a very brilliant, decent man, and odds on favorite to beat harry truman in 1948. most of the great things truman accomplished were in his first term, and was very unpopular, at least he thought to be, and dewey ran a very aggressive campaign. he wasn't as outrageous as truman. truman -- a true story. i like hari truman, too. but he handled some unfair

blows. and created a lot of bitterness, and he did win because people were sort of excited about the underdogs but it set a tone for the country what that bad and dewey is a great man of integrity and i was extremely impressed with him and truman could have been president his first term but his second term was the disaster and would have been better off with dewey. >> another question. how will the republicans convention go if romney does not come in with enough delegates. >> very interesting question. we haven't had a completely wide open convention since 1952 when the democrats suddenly picked adlai stevenson who wasn't running for president but gave such an inspiring welcoming address he insisted and republicans picked dwightiteen hour over robert taft who was the favorite of the republican regulars. the only time where we had anything in doubt was 1976.

reagan challenged gerald ford and was so close it wasn't decided in until the week of the convention and in 1980 there was a chance ted kept would overcome jimmy carter. so if we agency something like this again, it's hard to say. we don't have the power broker wes used to. all the openness meant there's no sort of -- anybody is in control in 1952 you had party leader and bosses that controlled their delegation. everybody from missouri, this is how you're going to vote, and you're going to loser job as postmaster. don't have a system like that anymore. so this will bolter chaos, may end up being very similar to the 1924 democratic convention, which finally nominated a man named john w. davis on the 103rd ballot which led will roger to equip, in the future kids will silt only grandpa's knee and say, what did you do in the big war? grandpa would say i didn't do

that but i survived the 1924 convention. so, i think it will be very chaotic. nobody running the show and dealing and wheeling wheeling ay ugly but falls nateing if you like politics. >> modern day losers get contractedded by media as real loser rather than respectable candidates. what are your thoughts. >> that's a very good question. i think a couple of things. hasn't always been that way there was a time when henry clay nominated three times, williams jennings bryan knock nailedded three times. people weren't identifieds a failures because they lost an election. there's a book called borne loser, beings the notion of failure in business, and he points out that failure used to be one of those things that happened. but then over time failure has become an identity. becomes sort of how you're

known. he is a loser, a failure. nobody would talk like that -- not have labeled somebody a failure or loser but they do now. part of that is the culture, the -- talks about the commercial revolution changing how we view fogs as opposed to farm-beared economy, and my theory is television as changed because television gives you an image of failure to go with actual failure. like michael dukakis in the tank looking very out of place in the tank. or john kerryy talking about i voted for it before i voted against it. it's a sense of failure to that makes it difficult for people 'olook at you and not think of those things. so when people lose today they don't get to be nominees again. a presidential nominee hasn't got a nomination again since 1978. they're not even given a chance to speak at the next convention.

it's like people are afraid the perceptions are they should be kept away. i compared a little bit to how famous athletes like bill buckner, how i his remembered? let the ball go through this legs in game six of the '86 world series and that's all people remember him by. when people fail at the highest level, unfortunately threat how their nome. outstarsen public careers but being remembered for being the loser. >> how much credence or theory do you give to the thought that the hedge hogs are better at winning the elections and that the big thinkers on the other hand are much better at actually becoming leadership abilities when they're actually president?

>> cue row phrases that? >> well there was a story comparing he hedge hogs to what you might call the big thicker -- thinkerred thatter more flexibility and not the idealogues that hedge hogs are associatinged with. >> okay. >> so the hedge hogs are more focused and much better at winning the elections and then the others do much better when they're actually president of the big thinker is more flexible. >> a couple sonses. sometimes i think the hedge hogs -- being more aggressive with their ideas, more partisan, like you said. scare people. i think that's this going back 0 my theory we have a fragile democracy and sometimes elections are about trivial things and sometimes that deliberate. you think about civil war, very important issue called slavery

and towards the country apart, and sometimes we try to avoid issues that are too sensitive. take abortion, people are pretty much -- folk on both side and few people ambivalent itch if you focus on divisive issues it unsettled that broader public to say if we talk about stuff like this we'll never get anything done. let's talk about stuff we can agree on. so i think that people two talk about issues that are very divisive and especially if the speak in passionate terms, scare people off and people worry the country is going to fall apart. i would say santorum is like mcgovern. when mcgovern ran his big issue was the vietnam war and people in 1927 agreed at the war was a mistake but mcgovern

gave a speak in the senate where he says this chamber reeks of blood and every man in here is responsibler in the death of 40,000 boys. so even people who might have agreed with him that the war was a mistake, don't trust this guy. too radical. the same thing with senator santorum. people aggrieve with him on some issues, maybe abortion and contraception, porn naggraph but the way senator storm storm talks about it in such strong terms, scares people when said i read john kennedy res speech about separation of church and state and made me want to throw up. doesn't sound presidential. to moralistic, you frighten people because they think these are issues that account be solved. douglas said, lincoln said, problem with senator douglas is he doesn't see slavery as moral issue, and douglas said,or darn

right boughtous can't solve moral problems in a political theater. and i think there's some sentiment to that. the american people say, big issues are too scary of we'll feather resolve those. >> how do you think that senator mccain's running mate chose -- let me start over. howl we mccain reside running meat choice for vice president change how future vice presidents are selected? >> i think first of all probably more vetting. i think if you go back to how governor palin was selected, she was very exciting, and i have met her a couple times. she is very charming and was a real political copper -- copper but was picked too soon and they weren't sure how she would react and the hbo movie was fairly

fair, saying this poor woman, happily being the governor of alaska and suddenly in the national media, taken away from the family, her newborn child, and then she makes a few mistakes and subject to that ridicule you get so she withdrew, became bitter, angry, both at the campaign and the media and the general public. so, i think that in the future it is a warning that it's nice to be exciting, generate momentum but you need to know more about the people and that's why you hear a lot of talk about marco rubeover being the front runner for their'mon nomination. young, attractive, but a lot of us don't know much about him and it's important he be fully vetted. that's out problem with the nomination battle for the republicans going on so long, if you can wrap up the nomination early you can think about these things. the biggest disaster in vice presidential history was george mcgovern and he had not locked up the nomination before the

1976 convention because humphrey challenged the results in kissoff the mcgovern campaign was preoccupied with fighting the challenge for the california delegate selection and didn't resolve it until wednesday of the convention itself and the vice presidential nomination was due the next morning, thursday. so he had less than 24 hours to think about his running smile they were exhausted and start it 0 -- they've had a meeting on thursday morning and had to put the name before the convention at 4:00 p.m. and so they have 40 names on the list. 40 names. and part of the problem was mcgoverning was sure he was going to get teddy kennedy to agree. kennedy wouldn't give him an answer. and then finally he tried mondale, and he tried gaylord nelson and a whole bunch of people. and they said i just can't do it. so they're like, an hour to go and finally picked up the name of tommy gore, and everybody goes, eagleton.

smart guy, good with labor so they call up eagle ton, and said do you want to be about? she said, yeah, i'd love it. they said, anything we need to now about you? he said, no, i'm fine, and of course put the name forward and the problem was there were some things wrong with eagle ton headquarters electroshock therapy and that was a big problem, and mcgovern -- he had already thought about dropping eagleton but he came out and side i'm behind eagleton thousand perps and then after he dropped eagle ton he looked like a liar. so vetting is very important and i think i'm sure romney or santorum or gingrich would like to have as much time as possible to think about it. >> the last couple of elections we have seen the rise of the superpac and their influence.

>> now wore getting out of my book. maybe some other people saw this opposite then news. somebody said that so far the superpacs have outspent the actual campaigns like five to one, six to one? so the campaigns aren't being run by the campaign. what people think about rick santorum and mitt romney and newt gingrich head nothing to do with what the superpacs are saying ask there's no coordination between them. i think it's funnelam hill changing american politics, and it will be interesting to seive if the supreme court dvds to revisit the citizen united case. if i'm a campaign manager i'm happy for a $10 million check but i'm not controlling the message. toy meant to how i would fall pass a campaign manager. to know that what most people know about me i have no control about. might be a frightening proposition. so be interesting to see how that changes american politics. >> a couple more questions before we wrap up?

yes, sir. [inaudible question] >> after defeat in 1924, and he ended up brown vs. board of education in 1954. >> you have a great history yack knowledge. there's a thing about that in the book. i picked the ones thought had been the most influential in politics. >> public rains did not want the lend lease act to go through. and roosevelt asked wilky to go to print and come back good tell the american people why it's important to give aid and comfort to britain and then then congress was ready to end the draft, the six months before

pearl harbor, and the draft extension pasted by two votes and that was do to wilky. so the point is that wilkie changed its history cut boston change politics. so, i did do essays on everybody at the end. you look at the appendix, escort sketches on everybody nominated and lost. i go into john davis' career. he has argued more case nevada u.s. supreme supreme court thany other attorney, and he was the losing attorney in the brown vs. board of education. the other attorney in brown vs. board of education was an african-american named thurgood marshall and they said, mr. marshall, who is youred a idol? she said, john w. davis. so very ironic that thurgood marshal becomes a supreme court

justice and wins that case. so, the. so many interesting men who -- who ever heard of lewis cast. the father of michigan. michigan would not be much of a state without him. he went in and created the university of michigan, michigan's outstanding public school system. a naturalist, brought into the british science -- what's the group -- honored -- so he was -- all interesting characters and a shame they're forgotten and i hope if my book doesn't do anything else it encourages people to look more at these people because they provide wonderful examples. i think how politics should be. sometimes better than the winners. a lot of them are very honorable men, have interesting thoughts s and also i would encourage to look at the bibliography to read more about these people.

i so enjoyed spending four years with these guys. i'm very 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 question] >> well, hard to say. you don't know. again if you look at the '64 and 2 '72 campaign. i'm it's hard to say. whoever runs this year is going to break a significance religious barrier, mormon or the first catholic. those are important barriers. they're not going to make a certain power shift when

catholics want to become more republican, fastest growing church in the country, the lds church. its that's going to make the lds church more legitimate in the eyes of the general pock? what does that mean? very interesting. i believe it's going to be a critical election. the republican party particularly -- well, bother parties, a very important turning point. obama loses, why did we lose? obama was too far to the left. we have to move more to center. and the republican party, which has even more fissures and divisions, should we go back to the senate -- that's what jon huntsman kent saying week gee to moderate a moderate so go back to right. so republican party is going to have an important deaf pate about which way the party will go, and whoever they're standard bearer was this year and how they lost and what they said is going to have a tremendous impact what the party is going to be like in the future. could be this year or could be -- i'm not saying every loser has impacted american history.

parker lost to roosevelt. nobody even wrote a biography about the poor guy. won't know for decades who that is. >> i think that's probably about it. certainly invite if you have other questions we're going to go afterwards and have a little refreshment and hope you all come and thank you for your attention. it's been a delight to be here. it's a wonderful book store. thank you to c-span and the for coming. [applause] >> for more information, visit the author's web site. c-span covered the topic in great detail in a 14 part series that puts politic inside a historical perspective.

...