e-mails and tweets for david pietrusza, sunday at noon eastern on tvs in depth on c-span2. >> up next on booktv, john hughes, chief oral historian in the office of washington's secretary of state's office recounts the political career of slade gorton, three-term republican senator from washington state. this is just under an hour. >> good evening, everyone. my name is diane, executive director of city club. we're so excited to welcome all of you here for a very special night. and to celebrate the 55 year plus career of one of washington and our nation's leaders.

we are also very grateful to c-span for covering it and making this program available not only to citizens throughout washington but throughout the nation. so tonight, the international center, international policy center, the gordon center was created about two years ago. i think it's so meaningful that it was created by colleagues of senator gorton and friends and former staff members to i think that says a lot about his leadership overtime that they've stayed together. they stayed together as friends and colleagues and maintained such a warm connection both to him and its work. we are proud of that partnership, and thank them for being here and making this program possible, especially to our partner in cordoning the program tonight. the gorton center is dedicated to still learning about public policy, and it contains papers of senator gorton from the 9/11 commission, as well as

presenting public programs and containing other memorabilia and information from his career in politics. i'd like to introduce the people who will be spearheading our conversation tonight. first john hughes, john hughes is the bog offer dash of biographer who wrote this terrific book about slade gorton. john has a long history of service to our state as will, both as a journalist and as an author. he has written several books about governors and leaders of washington state, "booth who?: a biography of booth gardner," this book, "slade gorton: a half century in politics," nancy evans first rate, first lady, and lillian walker, washington state civil rights leader. he has had over a 42 year career in journalism, winning many awards for investigative

reporting, historical features, editorials and columns. right now he's working on a biography of john stallman and use just writing writing about an incident with dixie rae lee, and told me he really was for happy about having a break from the intensity of that encounter tocome and talk to us tonight. next, i'd like to introduce senator slade gorton who probably needs no introduction, and thank him for his longtime service to washington state, and to all of us. senator gorton has really characterized his service by integrity, by bipartisanship, but intense focus on public policy, and by his great intellect. something we wish was pervasive in political leadership today. and i think he is missed, he is missed in terms of representing us and i think he is really missed in washington, d.c. and we are so grateful for his

legacy. and, finally, bill, -- joe connelly, under the distinguished journalist assert our community through his work at the "seattle post-intelligencer," both in print and now online. he has been a columnist for many years and you can still enjoy his column. so with that i will turn the program over to john, and we will get started. >> i first met slade gorton in 196-6122 rookie reporter covering the legislature. it so happened that the man who introduced us was my former high why advisor, an amazing democrat. when you introduce me to slade, he said in sort of a -- that he was scary smart and i thought for bob to say that, i always thought was very smart, spoke falling to i don't know where the time is gone, all these 46 years, but i keep interviewing men and women in their 80s and

'90s the real inspiration. jim ellis, the other day i was trailing dan at the steps of the capital and he was taking them to at a time. is artificial knees as well. but the really fascinating thing about the job i have now is to take the experience i gleaned from covering a lot of amazing people, scoop jackson, slade gorton, dan evans, you get to write the long form biographies. and there are some stereotypical notions about slade in particular, the notion is doctrinaire right wing republican, humorless, slippery slade, hates indians, hates in the middle is, thanks spotted owls taste like chicken. [laughter] all of the above. it really doesn't square with the person that i cover for all those years. joe connelly, my friend and colleague for all these years, better than anyone took the time

to portray the shades of gray, not enough sometimes for slade but nevertheless in my view, in a really outstanding way. i'll give you a thumbnail here. it's pretty amazing to me. i lived in a covered lot of it, but when i have the time to start doing the research, getting to work at the state library with amazing resources of microfilm from every newspaper in the state and access online to news and other search engines, slade gorton, longer than others, 56 years and all, has been active in public let history of the state, his adopted state. is elected to legislature in 1958 as a 30 year old. together with joe prichard, an amazing politician in his own right, the most fascinating thing to me early on was to see the battle of wills between slade gorton and the senate

majority leader, democrat, over redistricting. slade dan evans, joe, they only if they couldn't do something to prevent greed from winning once again, authority league of women voters, the republican party would be reduced to a minority party over the next decade. the redistricting wars. all of this comes full circle because two of my best sources were dean foster who, at the time was a young college stude student, to bob, to professor mccurdy who was slade's aid and later we'll talk about what it was like to do redistricting in 1963 versus 2012. it seems like it's almost become like he is there with all these amazing things happen. a coup d'état in 1963 that toppled the speaker of the house, john o'brien. he met john goldmark, and became

friends and his favorite debating partner with a very liberal democrat who stood accused of just amazing libelous things, in terms of communist politics. and that led to slade's friendship with built water, an absolute brilliant young attorney who defended goldmark and his wife against the charges that they were communists, dudes, tools of economies theory i think the phrase was. by the way, slade did that as a republican at large risk to his reputation. in his run for attorney general in 1968, famous cross-country bike trip with a famine in 1973, and then one of the first highest-ranking officials, elected officials in america to call for richard nixon's resignation and the whole, what slade referred to as the nixon

had burdened america with the moral climate of cynicism and suspicion. i had a front row seat for the landmark decision on indian fishing rights because when the legislature wasn't in session i covered the indian nation in the rights of a lot of young indian activist. billy frank, joe delacruz. it's just encyclopedic wiki is done. forget about landmark elections. some of the closest and most decisive in american history. in my view just a tour de force campaign to defeat warren magnuson, just by not as the kids say today, dissing maggie. it was the gold watch for maggie campaign, he had been a great senator and now how about washington's next great senator? but i think when you bring it full circle, if he had done none of that, none of that when you look at his achievement, singular achievement on the 9/11

commission appointed by trent lott and a service to america, that alone would have been worth a major book. he strides for consensus rather than this view we have that so often is painted as partisan, rather working with centrist democrats on the commission. he absolutely drove consensus and greased the skids, if you will, for fact-finding that i would assert makes america a safer because of it. enough of that, senator, the floor is yours. >> for almost 10 years after i left the senate in 2001, i would be asked by well-meaning acquaintances, when i was going to write my memoirs are and i always passed off that question with a murmur, because the

director was never, not under any circumstances am i going to put myself through that kind of discipline. and then along comes john hughes to do it for me. [laughter] and do it with a far greater degree of quality of thoroughness than ever to accomplish on my own. i can't count the number of hours he interviewed me directly, but that was only the tip of the iceberg. he knows more about my remote ancestors than i did. [laughter] and he talked to friends and colleagues and opponents, and enemies. i learned a great deal by reading first the draft, and then the book itself. i learned things that were

absolute truth that i didn't tell him because i had forgotten them your but beyond that i learned things that i never knew. that i'm sure, you know, obviously it was the case. so i have been blessed by a wonderful good fortune, in not having found john but having john find me. dan evans and i agree that in most respects the aberdeen daily world said, editorial board, was the one where both interested in visiting because everyone there was simply interested in learning what we were about, and not in debating hearts. but the state is extremely fortunate to have him for what he has done, for booth gardner. and is in the process, i can say because he sends me breeze,

that's a fascinating story. and books when it comes out. he did mention the 9/11 commission. you know, i reflected, i've reflected afterwards to that very close loss in the year 2000, i still feel today, you know, it was a loss for the state and a loss for the kanji, but it was an amazing day for me, of things i've been able to do, not only with family but in other opportunities as well. more than made up for another six years in the senate. and the 9/11 commission of course is unique lifetime experience of 10 people, five republicans and five democrats, all point in the most partisan possible fashion. designed i think by some of the drafters not to succeed.

nevertheless over a period of a year and a half, a gain not only knowledge but a degree of respect for one another, that made it absolutely imperative to all of them that we come out unanimously down to the last footnote. and we did. of course, it was that the cost the report not only to be so forceful but to be probably more successful than any other similar endeavor outside congress, persuading congress to take action. perhaps in the history of the country itself. but with that, the president to go on anymore, wonderful biography, i guess joe, it's your turn. >> thank you. recently reading robert's latest going on lyndon johnson, and many came to mind of a wonderful cartoon by the great paul conrad

of the "los angeles times" showing a wise figure beginning to write the history of the johnson administration with his right hand while lyndon johnson had his arm and a law, left arm in a locked, dictating what was going to be in the memoirs. so the question for both of you. to john, did you find your book subject to be a person preoccupied with his legacy? and center, are you preoccupied with her legacy? >> well, i really appreciate you saying that because you did one of the first reviews that pointed out that the legacy project for which i'm chief is doing is not interested in that thing anyway. the ground rules when it took the job as secretary of state's office work that we're going to do meaningful work, not subject to fear or favor, and the subjects themselves didn't get to be the editor, slade from the

get-go, he wouldn't have wanted that and he was, he was very, very understanding about some of the very harsh things that people had to say about him. i don't know if he bristled or not in private, but it was a very interesting experience for him, i know. sally, his wife, was an absolute amazing resource. and i think one of the things about the book is that it offers breath about what it is like to be a political wife an imam, the daughters. there's a wonderful scene in their with the gorton girls who took things sometimes with a lot more seriousness than their dad. happened to be in the same pew with you at easter at an episcopal church. and i love what you said, a signed piece was possibly hostile. [laughter] >> cool and informal. >> there you go.

so slade gorton neither asked for nor god in a special favors in the biography. it was a real treat to get to spend that much time. when we did journalism, which you are still so ably, you always wish that you at the time to kick back and do a lot longer for him, and this is it. >> i think if i'd been primarily interested in my legs and i would've written it myself. >> let's talk a little bit about the 9/11 commission, and also the commission on the texas city refinery explosion where you examined the culture of bp. was watching cbc news last night and there was a commission or a commission they're just been reported on the police conduct during the g8 summit riots in toronto last year. cbc devoted, i timed, 12 minutes of an hour-long program do what

this report said, films others to people talking about it. do you believe that when we have invested in the type of effort that you undertook on nine 9/11, and also on the commission, that these reports have gotten adequate attention, particularly, second in the case of bp report remapped things about the culture of the company that came home to roost in the gulf two years ago? >> well, i guess my bottom line, conclusion from is the bp is a rogue corporation. you know, we found that it had no corporate safety philosophy during the course of that investigation. and there were 11 of us. jim baker, former secretary of state, was the chairman. seven of the members of the commission were safety experts, that was their career.

for word lay people. but again, we reached unanimity about from it reaches degrees of negligence on the part of the corporation. perhaps best expressed by our last interview, when lord browne, the ceo of bp, would not come to the united states to be interviewed, we had to be slung luxury style to london, and launched in a very, very fine hotel and given about two or three hours within. he was so discipline, he was told he could speak for half an hour, and he spoke for 30 minutes without going 10 seconds over one way or another. and then the first question was from the union representative, a hick from the ozarks are really

scratched his accident he said i'd like you to tell me now what you felt when you heard about these deaths and injuries, what your emotional response was. to which lord browne proceeded to answer for 15 minutes what he did. what she had already covered. one of jim bakker's lawyers on the staff was sitting behind me, leaned over and said in my ear, a perfect michael dukakis answer. and it was. and we shredded bp in that. narrowly. now, this was another reason lord browne had to retire early. i think in some respects their refinery safety record improved. obviously there drilling safety

record did improve. and so they've had a second major accident with fatalities. i think that, you know, the reputation of course affects the entire industry, it is bp that has had these problems and i don't know whether there are any -- whether they are any better today really in the long run than when we started. but that's a long answer on that one. the 9/11 commission was an entry into the past. i believe on the day in which we started, we all implicitly and some explicitly reached the conclusion that if we couldn't write the history unanimously, we were wasting our time and the taxpayers money. so from the very beginning, the

idea was we've got to say what happened here, everything relevant that led up to 9/11 itself. we were constantly frustrated by the presence of legal counsel, gonzales who later became attorney general, who i thought represented the president very badly. because after he said no to it three times to our request, we go to the press, and it would give us what we wanted. from beginning to end. president bush asked every member, but that bush administration still got the repetition of having interfered with and frustrated the 9/11

commission when, in fact, we got all we wanted from them. having reached an agreement on the facts, we had to go through both the description of the enemy that we were fighting, and a set of recommendations. and we just found the incentive to agree on those, even when reasonable people could disagree with simply overwhelming. and the last agreement on the functions of the fbi which made it about 10:00 the night before anywhere else, we're going to go to bed the report itself. it was a phenomenal experience. it was a magnificent staff. it was a group of 10 very, very hard-working people who did lay aside, you know, their partisanship and the fact that we're in the midst of the presidential election campaign

which came out in august 2004, to do something that would help the country. it was followed to a very considerable extent that our recommendations were adopted by congress, far better than bp adopted our recommendations in the commission. >> a question for both of you. as i recall, when you came back to the senate in 1988, joe lieberman from connecticut was elected the same year. and as i recall, they lieberman's and accordance bonded. a trip to hungary as i recall, something of that nature. and so while you are on the opposite side of the aisle, you like each other, you cooperate on things, and in the 2000 election, you did not want al gore to be president of the united states. senator lieberman had to do with the fact had to deal with the

fact his friend was running for president on the other part of the what are we losing when the participants in that kind of relationship, namely where you are adversaries, where he sometimes go at each other but also cooperate on others, and also, you enjoy each other's company? are we losing that? and what is the country losing as a result of that? >> well, i think i can more precisely say what we gain from that particular relationship, and that was that joe lieberman and i, each with the assent of our leadership, set out the rules for the conduct of president clinton's impeachment trial in the senate. and saw to it that we felt that there was sufficient faith. beginning, a middle and an end.

i think you covered that in the biography. whether or not that would happen again under similar circumstances, i can't say. there are still some pretty good cross party relationships in the senate, but for the first time in history, the best analysis of voting records by "national journal" of the last congress showed that there was no philosophical crossover between the members of the two parties. in other words, the most liberal republicans and the most conservative democrats. why was there -- there were probably 25 overlaps, 25 senators of the two parties who crossed over philosophically.

that led to more positive answers than the present system does by a significant degree. >> john, looking from the outside in, how would you deal with that question speak with i was struck by, on the night that slade gorton defeated warren magnuson, one of the first calls he received was from henry in jackson who said congratulations. let's meet for lunch next monday, or whatever. peter jackson, by the way, affirmed the bond, and you'd written about it as well, about the environmental consensus that revolves around that friendship. and i was struck by the fact that in anything trent lott and bob kerrey, joe lieberman and the others, and analyzing the voting records in "national journal" that there we see today in 2012 dramatically more polarization than existed in

your time in the senate. in fact, and evidence, blockbuster "new york times" magazine piece about why he was leaving the united states senate, how frustrated he was. [inaudible] >> by the way, "vanity fair" has a new article in this months edition on just that topic, how much more polarized things are. >> it was certainly, certainly appear to be that way. but we do one other thing in a bipartisan way in the state. to redistrict our congressional boundaries. and so we do not have things making 200 miles through the state. we do not have, you know, republicans gerrymandered ohio. the democrats have gerrymandered illinois. the republicans have gerrymandered north carolina.

but we have a two to one system. two people from each party, and a fifth person to break the tie. what do we know -- no, we do not have a tiebreaker. and that's the genius of our system. i think now, having both done through the legislature in the 1960s and having done this last one, that we have the best single system in the united states. >> why? >> largely it is because there is no tiebreaker. were only one of two or three states that has an even number of members, you know, drawing the line. so what is a tiebreaker the two parties don't really talk to one another. the plan for the tiebreaker is decide which way to go. in our case, we've got to get along. we have a specific deadline, it's new year's day.

you spend new year's eve in olympia looking at your opponents, and after each of the three senses in which we've had a commission, agreement has been reached, always at the last minute, but it is reached. the one thing we did differently this time around was instead of doing it basically with four members, we did it with you. we divide the state into sections, and tim and i did of legislative districts from the canadian line down to teen pierced county line. tom did the legislative districts from vancouver and the climate river up to that line. tim and i did the congressional districts, and the other two did the eastern washington legislative districts. you're right, that districts are much more regular. neither party has cheated the

other. we will have, i think this year, however it comes out, a congressional delegation and a legislative election that reflects what the people want. >> looking at the country as a whole, bill bradley was in town this week on a book tour saying that as result of gerrymandering and the partisanship, we now have only about 60 seats in the tire border u.s. house of representatives which would describe as competitive. what is the advantage of having such seats in terms of quality of people we send back to the capital? >> there isn't a specific answer to that. it's great from the point of view of people's will, as the national board changes, to have congress, especially the house of representatives change. you get those who perhaps most

reflect voters will. you don't necessarily get the greatest leaders. in that fashion. both a problem and it vanished of single party district is easy to get, you get really bad people who can't, or can even become -- but it's also we get most of your leadership. because they're there because they're relatively safe. they can take riskier votes. they may be more likely to reach across party lines. so sometimes you get both the best and the worst out of single party district in the house. >> at question for john before i shut up. and that is, you were the editor of the world down at aberdeen. grace was one of two counties in the state of washington to vote

in 1972 for republican candidate for president, george mcgovern. in 1994 grays harbor county voter by rather substantial market for republican senator slade gorton but i'd like you to come to a microanalysis of how senator gorton courted the place where you live. >> well, those are roadkill democrats. those are blue-collar, old democrats their involved in -- slade much any other person came to grace harper county and offered empathy for what was happening to he says he thought it was ironic that someone from seattle who neither unser fishes, doesn't know much about blogging and the light turned out to be the champion of the world people who he said, you know this by heart, but represent the real working-class people in america.

and they got it. they got it. in the wake of the clinton summit which you and i both covered, we know that the allegedly predictable harvest were going to have on the peninsula amounted to about zero, and gorton who was wrongly accused often of being demagogy net, stepped in and really tried to mediate things. so they respond. they responded to gorton being in the trenches. more than any other politician we saw slade, month in month out, and his staff. >> raise your hand and i will come to you. >> i have a question. >> wait for the mic back. >> i have enjoyed a few pages i was able to read in the new book. i actually read the first three

chapters, and a jump to the end because i want to see how it all came out. [laughter] but i think the thing that impressed me the most was the 9/11 commission story. bipartisan, five democrats, five republicans, were able to come to some consensus but my question is how can we get to do that in congress? >> i've been asked that question very frequently, and i don't believe there's an answer because the 9/11 commission has vital task was, and as controversial as an issue that involved first judgments made by people who didn't have a direct responsibility to voters. they didn't have to run and get the job, and they have nothing to run for when the job was

over. and second, as broadband as important as it was, it was a single issue. i think that you can use the 9/11 commission made as the best possible example of how such commissions should work when they are bipartisan and they don't always by any stretch of the imagination. but i think it's hard to make it a precedent for help congress would work. let's see, three of us, three of us had experience in congress. almost all of the rest in some kind of governmental activity, two former governors. so some of the training about getting along with people on the other side came from that, but

other members would never run for office played an important role in it, too. it's a better example for other commissions i think than it is for congress. >> yes, from the time in the senate, would you comment on the role of the lobbyist? and you think there should be tighter parameters around to that role? >> -- around that rolled? >> i have to start by saying i am a lobbyist today. registered as such, and one of the parts of the first amendment, guarantee the rights of petition congress for redress of grievances. you know, we all, we have to register, we had to say who we are representing. we can't even take a member of congress to lunch or to a cup of

coffee anymore. i think personally it is greatly overrated at the time. and for that matter i think members of congress have overregulated themselves in connection with many personal relationships. >> we've been impressed very much by the ability of different thoughts and positions to come to agreement on redistricting the state of washington. my question is, do you think that same spirit can be achieved to overcome the position we're in now where we have $15 trillion deficit? deficit, carrying over to our children?

>> my answer, the worst thing that happened to barack obama was getting a 60 vote democratic majority in the united states senate when he became president. because it gave him the views and that his party could -- and he did not have to be bipartisan. i think if it only got 57 democrats, the country would probably be better off today because he would have reached out, and some of those controversial, his goals, would have been reached in a way that crossed party lines. as important as we are going to do with entitlement and what we're going to do to in one and a half trillion dollars deficit, i'm not going to be solved by one party alone.

it's possible we will have a congress and a president that looks very similar a year from now. it's possible that all will be republican. one thing is not possible there won't be 60 republicans in the senate, even if they're in a majority. that in many respects, to require both sides to be responsible in order to beat these challenges, i think it's one of the foundations in order to be successful. >> this question is for john. i know you interviewed lots and lots of people and preparation, research for this book. including many, many, many women who worked for slade over the years. many of his staffers, former staffers. i happen to know some of them,

and -- >> intimately. [laughter] >> i am married to one, just to clarify. my question for you is, when i got to know some of these women, universally worshiped slade gorton as one of the best bosses they have ever had, one of the best mentors they had ever had, one of the most decent human beings they had ever worked for. i wonder if you could enlighten us a little bit why? why do women worshiped slade gorton, although all of those you talk to? >> we probably are to ask the women. he was just, who is a, anna peres? >> press secretary. >> anna said something a big you being utterly colorblind and equal opportunity employer in all ways, that slade is, for someone, i in the course of

doing this book are people who alleged that he was chauvinistic, and i had to laugh out loud. nothing could be further from the truth. he is the father of daughters. he married a really bright, strong woman who is actually a former journalist. he's had around him, recruited and promoted, a remarkable cadre of successful women. jayme on the 9/11 commission, a centrist democrat, told me that she heard all the things, all the stereotypical things about slade gorton, and i'm sure he heard some about her, but she was just flabbergasted to see what a warm, nurturing kind of guy he was. slade will maintain that he said one day, i had to laugh out loud early on, we had known each other for some years, he said you may have noticed i'm not the worlds most warmest human being. and i said do tell, come on. his staff, male and female alike, young and old and in between, that had always

accessible, work and credible outcome al all of you expected s excellent. he was always slade, never center. from the youngest entrant to the most seasoned ph.d, or legal aid, he was just plain slade, and he is always there to be supportive. and when he lost, sally told me the story that one of the most agonizing things to him was to go through the rolodex and really try to ensure, to tell his staff it's going to be all right. and he worked incredibly hard to try to find them jobs. so i think that he is, or an alleged goldfish, that is really deep down a closet sake, in particular for females. >> let me follow-up on that though. i think there's a slightly broader question here, and that is, how, with all of the things

that someone has to do when you're in the united states senate, do you not become dependent on your staff? or how are you able to separate out what you have to do from what they do for you? >> you are dependent on your staff. there's a psychic overload, you know, from the day you start in either house of congress. the country is so complicated, the history is so complicated that while every member has a certain form of political philosophy and nose in general terms how he or she stands on the major issues facing the country, there are hundreds of others, hundreds of other issues. and there are bills that come from committees that you are not a member of, and they are going

to be brought up or there will be a request for unanimous consent, or someone has asked for an amendment, or the like. and you are dependent on staff to give you not philosophic or political advice, but to give you a factual background so that you can deal intelligently with any question. john ensign remission this, i found it very important to say to staff when i started that they would call me by my first name and not senator. which is not the habit with both members of the house, and it was rarely my personal office door closed. i also, i guess i am jealous of the two of you, perhaps particularly john, was quite an editor of speeches, you know, that they would write. at least one told me she finally

framed on my senate backer without it being edited and wrote good on it. but passionate and in the things i did that most senators didn't do. almost without exception my staff came from the state, or had gone to school here, had a connection with the state. i did not higher washington, d.c., lifers, professionals, lifers for my staff, as many senators do. and i wanted him to come home when they were done. that was something i couldn't force, and, obviously, some of them stay there, but most of them came back home. i want them to be a staffer our relatively short period of time, a few years, learned something about the government and come home and be better and be participating citizens. and it's my great legacy that a very significant number of them

have done just that. but it was the reciprocal relationship, you know. they were treated well and they worked their tails off to make sure that they were right, and got things right for me. >> i found a quote by anna. slade didn't think of me as black. he thought of me as anna. the only judgment was the quality of my work. i think slade's attitude towards gender and race is like the fitzgerald singing -- i thought, being on grays harbor where senator magnuson was the chapter, labor unions and the like, i got to know slade the so-called bumblebee, really well. senator magnuson had a deserved reputation for having an acrylic high quality staff. and i thought that slates of nurturing of his own set of bumblebee was equally

impressive. curtis, a young man who was a key in all things pacific rim, there's a wonderful story here that curtis was watching live on tv late one night in a senate office the tiananmen square unfold, and worked all night. by that morning he had a whole position paper for his senator, and what default from that is one of slade signature achievements, the chinese did not exclusion act that allowed an amazing cohort of bright, young asian people to stay in the united states. >> hello, senator. i have two questions, one is a little lighter than the other, but given your positions and work as attorney general from 1968-1980, and some of the positions that you advocate for as attorney general, as compared to the perception of your

positions as somewhat more conservative as a united states senator, do you feel that you became more conservative or that your positions default in such a way to be more conservative movie from attorney general to senator? and i would like john's perception as well. my second quick question is, would you consider being the commissioner of major league baseball at this point in your life? >> i'm sorry? >> would you consider being the commissioner of major league baseball? i know you love baseball, at this point in your life? >> oh, i would love that job. [laughter] by the answer to your earlier question is, there was very little relationship between the two. one of the difficulties of being attorney general is the overwhelming bulk of that job is in representing other people's philosophical or policy position. you represent the other elected

officials in olympia. you represent all of the governors, departments and the like. and to a massive degree you are simply reflecting, reflecting the views of other people. and in almost all come not quite all the cases i argued in the supreme court for the state of washington, i was representing the position of some officials here in the state. often elected from a party other than my own. that's not entirely true in the bureau of consumer protection, when i took position on nixon's impeachment and the like. those were my own ideas, that after a while you sort of get frustrated as attorney general just because you aren't really advancing what your own philosophy of government is.

>> did you become more conservative, do you think, slade? >> i think i've been totally consistent from my first day as state representative to my last day in the senate. >> i found a really, i had a eureka moment as the book was winding down. i was in borders, a new edition of ronald reagan's diaries was just being stalked, and i did, i know a lot of people maintain the best thing that any good book is the index. particularly if they're involved in politics from they go and see if they are mentioned, and if they are they buy a copy. so spending a lot of time on index is an important thing for any author. i found an entry where reagan had said that a group of senators have come to him seeking judicial appointment for slade, who had just lost, and reagan offhandedly said well, i'll give it some consideration

but he's been against everything i stood for. i don't know if you've seen the entry before, but i thought it was a real eye opener. joe covered it really welcome his columns in d.c. about the stereotypical notion that slade was a lockstep conservative, certainly wasn't born that. and trent lott in fact want to slade as his counsel because what he brought, he had a largely homogenous group of southern conservatives, and they figured with gorton as the majority leader's counsel he would stop and say wait a minute, how is this plane and the rest of the country. when i checked the "national journal," very good annual summary of voting analysis, slade really trended libertarian to quite an extent the do you agree with the? >> well, when they were roughly 55 republicans, i'd usually ranked about the 12th from the most moderate, something like

that. one of the great lines in the whole history of the 9/11 commission was the dramatic public hearing we had on the day after richard clarke wrote his exposé on an attack on the president. we had the deputy secretary of state, richard armitage, who ended up being responsible for a lot more than when you at the time, and he was asked whether or not he read dick clark's book. and his answer was, i gave it a washington, d.c. read. i look for my name in the index. >> we need to go through one episode which is part of the oral history of the state, and that is the discussion of the deficit and the budget that caused reagan to break his pencil. >> i was in a republican group, and this was fairly early in the reagan administration, and he

spirited debate on the budget broke out and i made some kind of comment that caused him to break a pencil biden have. i don't remember the content. [laughter] spink and here we thought the guy was disengaged. >> i had to put a plug in here for newspapers. i was a newspaper man for 42 years, and i worry about the resources available with the diminishing number of newspapers and clinical correspondence, who's going to be able to write as detailed a biography as christie greg moore, or whoever comes after the i would think with all ought to treasure p5.com, history link, crosscut and the like the electorate washington legislature in 1966, there were more than 30 credentials reporters there, small papers included,

wall-to-wall you know, the aberdeen world cup we covered it. it's a much thinner, a much thinner resource out there today than it was when joe and i started all those years ago. so support your local newspaper. we need them. >> thank you, john. please join me in thanking -- [applause] >> visit booktv.org to watch any of the programs you see here online. type the author or book titled in the search bar on the upper left side of the page and click search. you can also share anything you see on booktv.org easily by clicking share on the upper left side of the page and selecting the format. opb streams live online for 40 hours every weekend with top nonfiction books and authors. booktv.org. >> crown publishing is a division of random house publishing. and joining us now is the director of publicity, campbell

wharton. what books do you have come at? >> with some very exciting books this fall. we have got rod stewart's memoir which is highly anticipated, celebrity book this fall. we've got the first book from the george w. bush institute which is the policy think tank of the presidential library. and we've got greg's number, a series of folders and controversial rants. greg is a rising star at fox news channel so definitely look out for the. and with a really big one from jonathan, one of the nation's foremost authorities on education. look out for that book but it is coming out at the end of august. fire in the ashes, don't miss that went. >> you are publishing both? >> that's correct. we do both sides of the upper we do conservative we publish barack obama. we publish george w. bush. >> what is the policy book is coming out for the book institution -- bush institute?

>> is essentially a series of essays from well known economist, nobel prize winners, about how we can achieve 4% growth. it is a blueprint for our economy. president bush has written a forward to this book. is very, very excited and he gets a word in this book to get to look for this and. it's the first book from the bush institute so the be a lot of noise this summer. >> so it is coming out before the election? >> yes. so that 4% solution can be thrust into the dialogue of this fall. >> one other thing that mr. wharton is doing, it was just a politico that crown books is doing more politically oriented instant e-books. >> we've got defeated the instant appetite of political junkies. and instant e-books is a way for us to feed the appetite instantly. we've got a really great slate of political writers that can write a few chapters very, very quickly about current events.

we can get that out instantly 4909 cents or $2.19 i. we just had one that came out about how romney secured the nomination, what the obama campaign using the test to run against romney. they were able to write that within a couple of weeks in a small time frame. it feeds that insatiable appetite of political junkies. >> campbell wharton, crown publishing, thank you for the update. >> thank you. >> here are the best selling hardcover nonfiction books according to "the new york times."