military is not aware or doesn't? [laughter] >> write them a letter. >> yeah, cipro. this is faster than cipro. cipro is a pretty hardcore. they are aware of cipro. i think what a lot of people carry cipro. this would be even better and faster, better, faster, stronger. [laughter]. the six million dollar drug. all right. >> no more questions, i think we'll get on to the signing part of the evening. thank you all for coming. ladies and gentlemen, mary roach. >> jeff greenwald. [applause] >> thank thank you, mary. thankthank you, jeff. give us a second to redo the stage. if you want to purchase books, register is behind you. thank you, everybody.

[inaudible] [inaudible conversations]. [inaudible conversations]. >> everyone can hear us? >> came back -- >> everyone can hear us? we'll keep at it until you can, i promise. >> i saw it coming. >> everyone here? everyone ready?

>> just got so hard to get things -- >> everyone have a chair, mostly? >> i never felt like i needed to -- >> i don't think it is on. do we have microphones. sound? >> all right. do we have seats? sound good? all right. welcome, everyone. i'm chris good win with the mississippi department of archives and history. we'll begin with the final panel in the old supreme court chamber. thank the state legislature for letting us use once again this beautiful state capitol for this book festival. and we thank tag art, rimes and graham the panel for this presidential year. here to say a few things about that panel, andy taggart, jerry

nash, festival organizer, mississippi politics. >> considerably dated. it is privilege for my partners and i have the opportunity to participate in this way. i thank you you all for participating this is extraordinary gift and board of the paid staff of the book festival contributed to the state. the sponsors are thrilled to be a part of it. [applause] also, welcome to the great treasure that is our state capitol represents for all of us. you all, among the three, if we were playing what's my line, among the three gentlemen to my left, one of them would be legitimately say i'm pulitzer prize-winning presidential biographer. one would be able to say i'm the former majority leader of the united states senate, but only one of these three gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, can say in good conscience he was udora wealthy's paper boy. [laughter]

>> that's right. [applause] >> stuart stevens has been a friend of mine for a long time. he will be the moderator for our panel. his father was one of my very first law partners and professional mentors. i hold this man in extremely high esteem but for the fact he has not yet learned to play a musical instrument, stuart is dictionary definition after renaissance man. truly he is. he was the first person to complete all 10 of the cross-country skiing equivalents of a marathon in the same year, something that sane people don't do, right? coordinated winning campaigns of variety allly every level of the american political process up to and including races for the white house, currently working in variety of tough, competitive united states senate and governors races around the country. multiple author himself. seven books. the two most recent would be

ones familiar to this crowd, his penultimate book published last fall, is the very cool last season. sorry of making all by one ole miss football game in entire season with his 95-year-old father, traveling around the country watching ole miss football. his recent book is, extraordinary and prescient, story of a strong man who muscles his way into the republican nomination at a brokered convention, go figure. i give to you, my friend stuart stevens. [applause] >> thank you, andy. what we're going to do we'll have questions for 20 minutes. we'll have plenty of time for that. and before that we'll dive into this. let me just introduce these two gentlemen quickly. i've known trent lott, he doesn't know this, i'm sure he

won't remember, i was a page for thad cochran. he was a chief of staff for then democratic congressman. most of us coming up in mississippi politics of that era, we all worked for democrats. i worked for women winter. i worked in all the losing campaigns when i finally quit working for him he was able to win. i was asking trent about this. he confirmed, he never lost a election in his life. so he maintains that he lost, student body president of university of mississippi that should count against him. i will give him a pass for that. that is no small thing for anybody. but elected to the house eight times. elected to the u.s. senate four times. he was minority whip, then majority whip. the majority leader in the house. and then went over to the senate and did the same thing. which in politics is pretty much as good as you can get hitting

for the cycle in leadership. he has written two books which, you got to read. one is really a memoir of politics called, "herding cats." i reread it. absolutely delightful. came across some country thinking about a democracy i would recommend this. they would see it is not easy. and this book. "crisis." which he wrote with senator daschle, i assume only book written by two former majority leaders. now, this came out last summer and talked about the crisis in our politics and where we're headed and clearly this presidential year has proved them all wrong. [laughter]. we'll get into that. and john meacham, if you're a

writer and like most of us feel you haven't accomplished enough, probably good to leave the room now because jon has had extraordinary career as a writer and as a public figure. he has written seven books. won a pulitzer for his biography of andrew jackson, which is amazing book. i recently saw some discussion where it is comparing donald trump to andrew jackson. i thought clearly this guy has not read jon's book. [laughter] would never, never be making that connection. he just finished biography of president bush, a man that i, like so many just admire and love. it is really extraordinary book. it captures not only a man but an era.

and that wasn't intimidating enough, jon sort of writes on the side. he has done things like editor of "newsweek." he teaches at vanderbilt. he teaches at suwanee. for many of us his most significant achievement he is married to this wonderful, brilliant woman from the mississippi delta. so we can claim him. and if you ever have a chance to hang around with both of them you realize jon is actually the dummy of the family. the subject here is presidential year and i wanted to start out with you you, senator. i just have to ask, how many types this year have you said it yourself, after you wrote this book everything you talked about only has gotten worse? >> well thank you very much, stuart for the introduction and i want to thank everybody that's involved with putting together this mississippi book festival. this is really fantastic.

i had no idea would be such a tremendous crowd here today. even the rain didn't dampen anybody's spirits. thanks to all of you involved in making this success. thank you andy taggart and your law firm for sponsoring this panel. what an honor it is to be here with stuart and with jon. you know he is really mississippi guy now since he married a mississippi girl. >> absolutely. >> there is clear proof of it because he is sitting up here with no socks on. [laughter] >> fits right in. >> haley barbour would say he is mississippi boy, with khakis and no socks. sitting next to jon. >> i reserve the balance of my time. >> thanks for the introduction, stuart. you know me, stuart. you know i have said many times this year, this beats all i have ever seen. everything i thought i knew about party politics and american politics has been blown out of the water this year. i just, not just on the

republican side and democratic side. bernie? i served in the senate with bernie? i used to know how we could clear the senate chamber. let bernie get up to speak. everybody would leave. [laughter] it's been on both sides. i'm trying to analyze where are we here but really, what we're seeing now is what tom daschle and i foresaw year-and-a-half ago when we were, tom daschle and i did serve both as majority leader, minority leader. we went through a lot of tough times. 9/11. the anthrax attack was in his office. we had the 50/50 senate. 100 senators, 99 or 98 think they should have been president. i don't know who the other one would have been when i was there. trying to manage a 50/50 senate and impeachment trial of william jefferson clinton. we went through a lot of tough things together, but in the process we develop ad

friendship, we developed a chemistry. i liked him. i could talk honestly to him. i knew he wouldn't betray my confidence. only thing i promised i would never surprise to him. every now and then i would mess up and i apologized. so we became friends. we sat in his place in palmetto bluff. we taught him how to be southerners. he said, hey, south dakota. i said that wouldn't work. we gave him mosquito spray, tick remover. took him a hammock. we were sitting on his back porch, tom and i and trish was sitting inside and we were lamenting happened in the senate. started deteriorating and going downhill in 2006. of course now the gridlock beats all i have ever seen, honestly. and tom finally said, you know, we ought to do something unusual. get a republican an democrat,

prairie liberal, another one sown conservative, republican, democrat, see if we put a book together. so we did. we called it, crisis point. how prophetic it was. at time we were thinking about the gridlock really in the congress but between presidents both bush and obama, and the congress and what we think could be done about it. well, we needed even more. so to answer your question and not make this a filibuster, many times i have said, yes, this is a crisis point. the question is, now, what are we going to do about it? we think we have some ideas in here and one of the things i'm pledged to do, even though i have a real job these days. i retired because my wife said, don't you think it is time to get a real job before it is too late? but my goal in washington is to find anybody that will listen to me on both sides of the aisle, both sides of the capitol and even if i could possibly talk to

the next president, whomever that may be, and say, we've got to do better. we have got to find a way to make this place work. [applause] >> jon, let me ask you. one of the wonderful themes in this book is how you have a man who really sort of, president bush, sort of embody as certain era of the greatest generation. war hero at 20. had been congressman, head of the cia, ambassador to china, vice president, president and i was really struck reading this, the capturing what it was for him to then lose to bill clinton. this theme that you have of passing from greatest generation to the baby boom generation. now we have the republican nominee who is reality tv star. >> right.

>> do you think this -- what do you think that means? do you think this is an aberration or sort of continue ages where, what you have done in the past, service to the country will mean less to voters? >> i hope not but the, central thing, donald trump makes, i will go ahead say vol der mortgage's name. no one else has. developed der h had. there are no steaks or vodka. trump appears in the '88 race. he told lee at war, and told president bush that trump was willing to serve as vice president. the old man in the audio diary said, strange, unbelievable. this which is kind of the headline of the past 14, 15 months. i think in many ways bush is

the, george herbert walker bush is antithesis what we're seeing right now without any argument. he was someone who spent his life in public service as you say. at age, 18th, birthday, june 12th, 1942 three things happened. he graduated from and dover, he turned 18 and brief to boston and took an oath as knave enlistee, becoming youngest flying officer in in navy. he plungeses into the ocean, blessedly the life raft near him. almost decapitated on way out. if you bail out of a plane, the plane doesn't top and it keeps moving. he gashed his head on tail of the plane. another six inches that would be end of the story. the island which he was shot down was the scene of horrific japanese war crimes including cannibalism. so at various point when mrs. bush would be upset with

george h.w. bush, he would say, at least, bar, i wasn't an hordeuver. [laughter]. which is a pretty strong domestic card to play. i'm married to mississippian as you heard. i never had courage to do that. then he gave his life to business. gave his life to public service. in many ways emulating his father who was a senator from connecticut for 10 years. but a couple of things happened while he was president. and i think that we are seeing their, those forces manifesting themselves ever more here. senator lott the was there and you were in the game too. so i offer this for your editorial comment. one is the rise of reflexive partisanship. while this man was walking out in october of 1990 to the rose garden with george h.w. bush to announce a compromise with a democratic congress on taxes while we were in the midst of

building up 500,000 troops in the gulf, newt gingrich went out the front door and bob walker, remember from pennsylvania, seized newt left the white house. rebelled against the president of his own party. he goes up to capitol hill. they meet him with a house republican rally. so the president of the united states in preparing for war, trying to, trying to impose some fiscal discipline on the country has a, his own house leadership bolt on him. so this rise of reflexive free agent partisanship was taking form there. the other, which i don't think we can minimize and you mentioned reality tv, before reality tv there was cable tv and mark twain once said, history may not repeat itself but it does rhyme. trump and perot don't rhyme but they should. bush family has been to this movie before. there has been a populist billionaire to took advantage of

new media techniques of the era in order to go around the party establishment and press establishment to whip up popular sentiment that was ross perot on "larry king." cable television in its way was the twitter and internet of the early 1990s. so i think that was going on. president bush didn't really fully understand it. there is also, i think president clinton gets a lot of the blame and or credit for this depending where you stand. his ability, clinton's ability to use popular culture to be a figure in the life of the country was significant. bill clinton went on arsenio hall. i'm here to tell you, that george herbert walker-- thought arsenio hall was a building at andover. [laughter]. had no idea. i took spanish there. he had no clue. maybe it was a building at yale but certainly was a building

somewhere. and so these teutonic plates are shifting under this man's, this man's feet and one of the things that i think is wonderful, and what is great about the culture of books and hats off to all of you all for being here and testimony to the power of that is that history tends to get right what journalism may not always fully appreciate. and i think what has been great for george h.w. bush he has lived to see this sift. many of the things that led 37% of the country to support him, only 37% in 1992 the country has come to see as statesman like. i asked him about this a couple years ago. can you believe all the incoms coming in. he said no, it is kinder and gentler all over the place. >> the important thing about that arsenio hall appearance was what? my wife said when she saw bill clinton playing the

saxophone, it's over. because you know, that was, that was something, that appealed -- showmanship thing we're seeing now. >> he just, bush just didn't, and i think you can say this as well about governor bush to some extent too, this year, it was not his reality. this is a man, they lost a daughter to lukemia in 1953. this is a man who in 1987 as vice president goes into a childrens lukemia ward in krakow, poland, and press spray is behind him. he realizes where he was. he didn't know what he was walking into. he immediately begins to cry because these children remind him of his own daughter who died 46 years before or so. but he won't turn around because if he turns around, the story becomes about him and not about them. i submit to you there are not many american politicians who would not the have turned around

and taken that moment an attracted that attention. george h.w. bush, that was beyond his reality. to some extent one of the reasons governor bush didn't do well either. >> senator, let me ask you, there is a lot of debate about congress and the role of the president and the lack of cooperation or what. good reason to believe that either hillary clinton or donald trump will be the next president. do you think this is a, a trend that is just irreversible, or do you think it will be able to somehow get more of a balance of power back as it once was? >> maybe just the way i am, but i don't believe anything is irreversible. i think that the trend has been clearly in the wrong direction on both sides. the congress has not been assuming its responsibilities,

which, has forced at least this president to do more things by executive order. there is no question that they should have come together and passed immigration reform legislation. [applause] and they weren't that far apart. and yet this president and this congress, the congress would not sit down and talk it through. so in the book, i emphasize there, it doesn't take but to change this, this doesn't take but one thing. one person, that is willing to be a leader, and step up, whether it's congressman or senator. paul ryan has the potential to do that kind of thing as a speaker. i have a lot of faith in him. or a president, say, you know, i worked all the time with bill clinton. you know, we didn't agree fill solve i can hely. he was a character but we talked

a lot of time when i didn't want to talk. we talk at 2:00 in the morning. phone on tricia ace side of the bed. says it is the president. hands it over to me. yes, sir, mr. president, we'll look into that. yes, sir. all right, sir. i hung up and good-bye. i handed the phone back. what did he want? i said, i don't know. [laughter]. something about central america. but here's the point, we talked all the time. we worked through all kinds of things. budget issues, tax issues, defense issues, safe drinking water, portability of insurance, did we agree? no. and a lot of times he pressed, we pressed each other to the point we would get mad but we communicated. that was true with reagan. when i was whip of the house for eight years we met with president reagan every tuesday morning congress was in session. 9:00. sometimes bipartisan, sometimes

just republicans. this trend of not communicate something recent phenomenon. it started developing with george w., even though he tried very hard to get immigration reform. by the way, i say to mississippians, look, immigration is one of the big issues in this campaign, let's admit it. if we had done what we should have done in 2007 we wouldn't be here now. immigration reform is not just about illegal immigrants, it is about legal immigrants. we want people that want to come into america that have something to offer can't get here. one time i had two doctors from canada wanted to come to picayune, mississippi. you know where that is? underserved, medical area, two doctors, highly qualified you would have thought i was trying to sneak in saddam hussein. it was hard. it started with bush. saw it coming in 2006. and now this president and this congress, they just don't talk. that is why they haven't -- deficit worries me more than ever. now we're about my

grandchildren. not about me or anymore about us. it is about the next generation. this a booger here and congress and president aren't dealing with it. next president, all hillary would have to do with president, follow the rolls up to a degree of president bill clinton because he did meet with us and he did talk with us. or, if it is trump, somebody, some of us, have got to reach out and say, say mr. president, you say you're going to change washington. the first thing you need to do to change it begin to communicate. four things you need to make washington work. number one is communication. if you don't talk, you ain't going to get nothing done. real simple. number two, you have to develop a chemistry. i mean clinton made me nervous but we had a relationship. it was a chemistry that made it possible for us to turn that into action. the other thing we've lost is a vision.

what in the hell are we really for anymore? republicans or democrats? do we really know? do we really know what either side would actually do if they're in the majority in the congress and have the white house? and last but not least, i've seen it. leadership. one man or one woman that will face the, you know, the sleepings and arrows vicissitudes of the media saying we'll develop a energy policy in america. we're going to have all of the above. we're going to do it. so, it could change, stuart, on a dime. but it is going to take a person of strength because i have seen it. washington is a tough place, you know. i rode the high road and got knocked down into the valley but best thing about being in the valley you learn when you get back up to, how you can do things better. so it can change.

i don't see it right now. i don't see it with mitch mcconnell. i don't see it with nancy pelosi. i do see hope in paul ryan. i don't know what to expect from chuck schumer who will be probably be the senate democratic leader. he is smarter than reid. he is every bit as partisan as harry reid but there is one difference. he is transactional. you can do business. they don't say it that way in new york city but they understand it. so i, there is some hope out there. but it all begins in the white house. leadership begins in the white house. so we've got to get a different, you know, tempo coming out of that place. >> one example of that about leadership and the white house is despite what happened with gingrich back in '89-90, when, the wing of a butterfly, when

john towers nomination was he defeated for secretary of defense in march of 1989, bush need ad secretary of defense, so he reaches out to the house leadership and takes dick chin ney which leads opening for minority whip. young guy from georgia decides to run for that office named newt gingrich. vin weber, congressman from minnesota runs newt's campaign. newt wins. george bush, who never really got over being on the ways and means committee. he loved the ways and means committee. kept a locker in the house gym actually. played paddle ball. george. h.w. bush's two best friends, a ashley of ohio a democrat and son any montgomery of mississippi, a democrat. so bush, a man of the house, reaches out, he invites not only gingrich over for a beer in the residence, but he invites weber, because weber had run the campaign and vin told me the story. vin said nobody but george h.w. bush would think to

invite the guy who ran the whip's campaign. there they are having a beer with john sununu and bush in the residence and they can tell, gingrich and weber can tell there is something the old man wants to say but he can't quite say it which was true of many things. and finally as they're getting up, weber says, mr. president, tell us what worries you most about us? and the president's relieved to have the opportunity. he immediately says, i worry that sometimes your idealism may get in the way of what i think of as sound governance. now at risk of pulling a rubio i want to repeat that quickly. i worry that sometimes your idealism will get in the way of what i think of as sound governance. and weber said what he always remembered was that bush said, idealism. he gave them credit for believing what they believed. he didn't say ideology. he didn't say inflexibility.

he didn't say nuttiness. he said your ideal list i can about some things, measely tax policy, mostly supply side stuff. but i believe i'm now the president of all the people and i may have to do things that you're not going to agree with. he wanted reciprocal credit. no president ever used the residence, the horeshoe pit, camp david as much as george h.w. bush did. the old man thought life was one long reunion mixer. and it helped in many ways. >> you served with him. >> i agree totally. >> senator, i have to ask you, you're now a senior figure in the party and as you look -- what does that mean? i'm getting older or what? >> well, having, had this many roles. when you look at the way we choose our nominees, do you see

it as something that can be changed? if so do you have any thoughts on -- >> tom daschle and i talked a lot about that. basically we think our process now that we select our nominees is a mess and we need to change it. now, it won't be easy because there are a lot of cases dealing with with state laws but one of the things, we ad advocate a number of things. we spend a lot of time in the book talking about civic responsibility. too many americans lost sight of what is our civic responsibility. we stick our neck out. we advocate public service for anybody, when ever they finish high school, one year. national guard, fighting fires in the west, peace corps, you name it. but some opportunity. we advocate we make it as easy as possible to vote. now where he and i disagree, i do think you have to show some identification. but we work through that. i like early voting.

we're going to have to deal with the modern technology and how we vote. i want more people to vote. i just believe, we can, my point of view, we can win if more people vote. but we specifically spent a good about it of time in here talking about the current primary situation. look, i love iowa. i love iowans. chuck grassley is one of my favorites. i love new hampshire. i go to new hampshire with judd gregg, former senator. and i love south carolina even more but, the idea that he iowa and new hampshire and south carolina basically decide who our nominees are is not a good idea. and the process is ridiculous. how long have we been in this election? you know, i also advocate some of the things would take constitutional changes but i actually advocate we actually limit, we can't limit the money in politics because of supreme court has said i think correctly, money is speech. tom daschle doesn't agree with that.

i think we can limit the time. i don't want to go with parliamentary system like the brits but i would like to have a system where we don't have the general election but from like the first of september to november. you can't spend money or you can't begin your -- i believe campaigns were shorter, people would pay more attention. it would cost less and maybe even be as -- wouldn't be as dirty. we do advocate also, i'm an advocate of a single primary day for both parties. one day. we all vote, all us republicans vote for our nominee. [applause] democrats vote their nominee. we go forward to the general election which i would like to limit. or as proposed by former senator slate gordon of washington state, do it regionally. have five or six regions, we alternate which region goes first, southeast, southwest, new england. and so we have five or six primary days. again it would not cost as much.

you could have a better cross-section. also our candidates wouldn't have to run from iowa to new hampshire to south carolina. they could camp, maybe even a little more time in mississippi. so, yeah, i think, we need to take a look at some of our, you know, our conventions. i have to confess i even got to where i voted against funds for the conventions because i just don't they're really relevant. they're a lot of fun. i enjoy it. i went i guess, to seven or eight of them. time we take a look at this. you're sitting there thinking, is that possible? yeah. if somebody, of substance would take this on and say, it is time we take a look at this. involve the states and mayors and everybody, but see if we can't find a way to improve the american system. it has been evolutionary anyway. it didn't used to be this way. so i would really like to change the primary system. i'm very unhappy with what we

get and how we get it. >> on that, let's open up to questions. we have mic at the, as senator says it is important to go there so we can capture it on audio as well. must be questions, please. >> you don't mean my friend in new hampshire are seeing this, do you? >> i promise you 100% off the record. >> good, okay, good. [laughter] >> we're waiting for questions, john, as a student of history is there any race you would look at would be comparable to this race that the country managed to survive so we might have some hope we'll survive this one? >> i was going to suggest the land cruisers that led into the

"star wars" bar scene. so that's one. you mean actually on planet earth? >> yeah. >> yes. i mean the good news is, as the senator says, you know, we've endured much worse ultimately and if, i would argue that if an unconventional nominee, of the sort we're seeing now on republican side were in a substantially stronger position in the polls, i might give you a different answer but, you know, the genius of the system it s. that it manages to take take account of momentary passions people, james madison saw bigger country, bigger chance we not have any one group, any one interest, any one region take

over everything. it's a big, big diverse country and that's not to minimize, by the way, the political achievement of donald trump. let's be clear. this man is the nominee of the party of lincoln, eisenhower, reagan, george h.w. bush. so -- >> that is depressing. >> it may be depressing, but i think we have to look, he won it, you know. it wasn't even particularly close. so i would argue those of you who are republicans, i can't think of any, might want to ask yourselves, what it is about your party that allowed this hijacking to take place. [applause] so, and so i would love to hear y'all on that. this is, you wanted a question. so, no, i think it is one of the few recorded cases where the

hijacker got on the plane and the passengers sided with him. and -- [laughter] so what is it? so what happened? what happened? >> i'm going to attempt to answer that. [laughter] first of all we spend first third of this book talking about hey, don't despair. we've been through tough times before. the early part of this country, it was rough. you know, the story of jefferson and aaron burr and all of that, and of course pre-civil war, civil war, turn of the century, teddy roosevelt and bull moose. we have had some really tough times. we talk about that but we also talk about how one of my favorite quotes in here, we have quotes of past history, this again relates to the idea about the chemistry and how people could relate even though they might, you know, not agree. john calhoun said about henry clay, i don't like clay.

he is a bad man, an imposter, a creator of wicked schemes. i wouldn't speak to him, but, by god i love him. [laughter]. that's the way it really ought to be. but you know, you were asking about what happened here. i think both parties have missed where the american people are. i missed it. this is, it is amazed me. are we really this socialistic now? i'm not directing that critically. it's a democratic party. it is a lot of us. and you know, what has happened to the republican party? i think both parties have not been listening. i think democratic party had not been listening to movement to the left. bernie sanders talked, tapped into it. he did it. give him credit. he did a heck of a job. i never heard him give a speech in the senate like i heard ones that he gave. i asked a lot of rank-and-file blue-collar working people, by the way, my dad was pipe fitter

union member in the shipyard. my mother was a school teacher. i talk to people now, what is going on, both parties missed on what is going on with the immigration issue i believe. there are a lot of people, even in mississippi, we're not really threatened by illegal immigrants here but there is a feeling of insecurity. my job threatened? are we secure? i think a lot of people in america are feeling insecure about where they are and what the future is with their children and are they going to be threatened by this, by millions of people pouring into this country? it has gone from talking about 10 or six at this thousand, now you're talking about big numbers -- 60,000. also, this really floored me. i am a free trader. i voted for every free-trade agreement. i voted for nafta, north american free-trade agreement. i voted for cafta. i would vote for the tpp, with some side agreements. you have to, sometimes you have

to adjust them but we, including me, have lost, we lost track of the way people are feeling in america about trade. they think we've been having our lunch eaten. i have always used language. i want free but fair trade. we shouldn't put up of manipulation by chinese in their currency. make sure europeans, asians or anybody is not going to be able to cheat. i also think it is insane what we're doing in america that basically forces companies like carrier to leave america, leave indiana, a good, wholesome, midwestern state, and go to mexico. what the hell is going on? and yet the congress, including, i didn't get it done, we're too stupid to be able to pass corporate tax reform that would keep these jobs and growth that it contributes to our country from leaving. those two issues, i think both parties have been asleep at the throttle.

we just didn't know what was happening. but the other thing really worries me, i don't fine a lot of people say, hey, wait, this deficit thing is really bugging me. what are we doing to grow the economy and get kind of growth we really knee and create new and better high-tech modern jobs? anybody talking about that? anybody thinking about that? not really. so, i just think both parties, maybe all of us have been coasting. and i think we've been coasting for about 10 years. this is serious. this is crisis point. >> the, one of the striking things about this year historically we have the least conventional major party nominee running against the most conventional major party nominee. it is hard to imagine a more conventional person than secretary clinton and it's impossible to imagine a less conventional person than republican nominee. you know, you mentioned the jackson example.

i get asked all the time, is this like 1828? you can tell i hang out with really exciting people because that's what they ask me. [laughter]. i'm really a lot of fun to be around. 1828. but it is actually not fair because jackson was a judge, a senator, a general. he won the popular vote four years before. he had very coherent vision of what he wanted to use the federal government to do. in many ways that was to get out of the way of the states. by the way his quote about calhoun, since we're dorking out about that his only two regrets in public light that he had not hung calhoun and shot henry clay. calhoun was his vice president. [laughter] no other major party nominee felt that way about their running mate until john mccain. [laughter]

never, never gets old. the only room in america that would laugh at that thank you. so, it really, and historians, buying graphers should be careful to use word unprecedented but this as damn near as it can get. to me in mississippi, with clarke-reed and senator lott and cochran and there were others, you all built a republican party here because you needed a two-party system. i come from tennessee. same thing. when i was growing up, nine members of the house were democrats and two were republicans. today it is flipped. being a democrat in tennessee is like not as ticket to the higher office in anyway. so the question, i think that is really important here is

depending on the long, what is the long-term effect of this the trump nomination on the republican party? because we need a healthy two-party system. we need people to feel confident enough in their bases that they're actually able to reach out and compromise. because it is the fear -- i would submit and senator check me on this, i would submit it is fear of the base that is limiting and disincentivizing compromise. i remember six years ago a senator from swing state a border state, called me, actually talk about andrew jackson, there is sort of a theme here. and it was, it was middle of obamacare, the debate, he was in the house then. i asked him, after we talked about history, tell me, how is the caucus? what is it feeling? he said it has never been more conservative ever. and i said why? and he said, i never heard this used as verb.

he said everyone lives in mortal terror of being primaried. that's a great fear you lose your base, local talk radio folks, local activists, rise up against you. you're seen as a rino and seen as a sellout. if we don't have a healthy, competitive system where incumbents are basically have the confidence of their bases and base has confidence in them, then you're not going to get two out of 10, three out of 10 reaching across the aisle. and i think, what we're seeing with establishment republicans right now with their very delicate dance, not so delicate in some cases dance around the nominee, again who has become the nominee as opposed to who he is -- >> not a good sign. >> not a good sign. what you're seeing there, people trying to prevent the day where the 20%, the 30% of their

district or their state that is devoted to trump, rises up against them in the next primary. >> let me jump into that because there is no question that fear permeates the congress now and another verb is to be lugared because we had senator lugar, outstanding senator, great expert on foreign policy and by the way pretty conservative. i was shocked one time we would show all of our voting percentages and my voting record was about the same as senator lugar. he is pretty conservative, yet but he made some dummies takes. trish and i never sold our house in pass cagoule la, katrina did that. if we sold that, they knew he would go to washington. lugar didn't have a house in indiana. accused of being establishment moderate republican. lugar on republicans, no question members are concerned about losing a primary, a lot of them, than the general.

that is on the democratic side. blanch lincoln a good senator from arkansas, a good, fine lady, i really, really had a great relationship with her, married to a doctor. i think he actually may have gone to some is school in mississippi, plus one time she came, she had twins. she came to me when i was majority leader around said, i was going to keep senate in late. my sons have got a baseball game. got a baseball game tonight. i really need to go to the game. you go to the game, blanch. there won't be anymore votes tonight. i got a lot of good votes out of blanch just because of that. [laughter]. so, i want to make the point that fear is there on both sides. and by the way, thanks to those of you who voted for me over the years. thankthank you for your votes. i'm consistently conservative. i used to think i was a right-winger. now i would be identified as

raving moderate establishment guy. i don't know when that happened. i haven't moved my philosophy at all. i'm still very conservative. i like about jack kemp conservatism. i'm not mad about being conservative. i'm willing to give a little to give a little, damn it. ronald reagan said give me 6% of the something i come back later. now it is all or nothing. the result is, i want to make sure that reagan, i mean what is going to be the impact of trump on republican party? you know, it depends on how this election turns out. and i'm not sure, i'm not sure how it is going to turn out. a lot of people think it is over. i'm telling you now. this will scare the bejesus out of everybody before this is over because there are warts on the other side too. and i could tell you a lot of stories about things i had to do as majority leader to work with

bill clinton when the first lady didn't like what i was doing, on welfare reform and on the balanced budget. i've been there. and i've known hillary since 1973, when i was on the house judiciary committee during the impeachment trial of nixon and she was a democratic staff member. there is a history there. if you're interested, look it up. i won't use it on this occasion. i think both parties have got to take a, you know a look where are we? we can't let the impact of trump be the lasting, total, you know, ramification of what republican will be. my problem with the republican party, i asked this question in 2006. i stood up in the republican conference of senators and at that point we were, i believe we were still in the majority but we were going, no, it was in 2004, because we lost the majority. i asked the question, what do we stand for? what are the three things that

we're going to do if we are in the majority? and you know nobody stood up? and i'm not sure where the other party is. but it is not really about the parties in final analysis. it is about, it is about the country. what are we going to do to preserve this great, young republic that we have been so blessed to have? so, i refuse, even in my advanced age, stuart, to give up on my country or my party. and i, i believe the old adage, this too shall pass. but how will it pass? i don't have all those answers but we better be asking them and no matter which one wins, we got to find a way to help make sure that they address some of the serious problems we have pending in america.

right now internationally i'm scared. the world is dangerous as hell. putin is pushing the envelope. the middle east is a mess. iran you know, has done all kind of things, strange things. and it is a threat to israel and all of the middle east and, china is pushing the envelope. how are we dealing with all of these things? these are serious times but when you got people like you that will take the time on a saturday come out to a book festival like this, i don't want to filibuster with meacham but there absolutely is hope. but it will take some strong leaders. i can't tell you right now who they are going to be. i have got some good friends in the senate that have the potential to be strong leaders. but, they have been risk-averse. they won't step up. what you said being primaried. a guy right now, potential threatened race in the

leadership, roy blount from missouri number two man in the house of representatives, now in the senate, really good senator. he's not, he's not absolutely sure to get reelected. he has a serious contest. same thing in north carolina with richard burr. so these, you know, that could be one of the fallouts from this election. if trump goes down ignominiously he could take down not only those at that are obviously threatened in states like wisconsin and illinois, but it could extend to other states. even my good friend who i did battle with over the years, mccain, has a hairy race in arizona. this is a year that tests men's and women's souls to say the least. thanks. >> no. think that i really speaks to the moment. oh, we -- roy blunt is client of ours. he is going to win.

the rest i'm not so sure. >> he is, i'm sure he will. >> just worth noting that only in 2012 only one republican in a real race ran ahead of mitt romney. he ran ahead of all the rest. and right now, when you have trump losing georgia, that is ominous sign but please. questions. >> from historical perspective, maybe, we're in totally new ground with 24/7 news cycles and social media, and i'm wondering if you gentlemen think that this has in anyway impacted the polarization of the parties, and the just almost seems to sustain itself? and i feel like we're almost in a new era of yellow journalism. remember that word, from history 101?

where journalism is changing rapidly as well as the technology. and i'm just wondering what sort of impact you think that is having or that you see on polarization. thank you. >> i can just tell you historically you're exactly right. you know the 20th century was in many ways an aberration in media terms because the 18th, 19th centuries, all media was self-avowed he hadly partisan. if you were a mug wamp who was pro-life you had your own people. one of the reasons we had "new york times" style without fear or favor, when adolph ox moved up from chattanooga to new york to buy "the new york times." there were something like 40 newspapers in business in new york. so the only place he could find a market niche was to pretend that he was neutral. and so, in that eventually worked its way to the top of the chain.

so, then when we had broadcast, there was at least a sense that because the airwaves were public you were required a certain amount of even handedness. really a 20th century, post-progressive era phenomena, that you would have what we think of as a neutral media. what we have now, a, everyone in the room is media. everyone has access to the same platforms. if you have something to say that attracts enough eyeballs it will, can go around the world as much as anything dan rather or walter cronkite ever did. and, we do have a problem of self-selection. extraordinary number of people now only get their news only encounter their news from a facebook or twitter feed, which you choose what comes in. or you choose the sources of what comes in. so the serendipity of news, the serendipity of looking into the

encyclopedia and looking for something under ra, finding something under re that is interesting, or reading a newspaper or having a story catch your eye you might not have been interested in, that serendipity is almost extinct. i think it has increased polarization. i think it is increasing a kind of cultural silos, siloing, that is inherently bad for democracy. the senator mentioned an idea for a year of public service. it is exactly right. which, we know each other too little. we stare at screens, we filter our news. we don't tend to talk to people who don't agree with us. if you don't do that, then you're in trouble. the great era, i would argue of both domestic and successful cold war legislation and activity was in the 40 ace and '50s where you had people and

'60s, to some extent where you had people who had gone to public school. there was a military draft. people knew each other from different classes. there is the famous story about the pt 109 boat that john kennedy of boston commanded. had a plumber from brooklyn and pipe fitter from pascagoula, extraordinary number of different types of people. almost impossible to have that happen in any common way now. i would also submit, because i think this is important point, does anyone think if we had selective service draft in serious way we would have conducted our foreign policy the way we have over last 14 years? . .

our candidates still don't understand it and it is a relatively new phenomenon though some people have said i was one of first people that they were able to take down on internet when i made the mistake of over speaking myself one time and i was shocked. i mean it became around-the-clock, 24/7 and now you have a spoken twitter and you have all this stuff and it can really just destroy you and you don't even know where it's all coming from. so i don't think we really quite comprehend that yet. with regard to the silos my partner now and since i retired eight years before a democrat from weighs in a the last free