personal to me. i have been a steadfast champion for public schools during the legislature. that is why i opposed the largest cut the funding in state history. that is it is one of the reasons why i have the support of over 180 current and former republican elected officials. three speakers of the house, three senate presidents, three the tenet governors, u.s. senator and two kansas republican party chairs. that has never happened in kansas before but it is happening because i have a track record of being able to unite democrats and republicans. it is happening because the governor's economic experiment is not working. not only are we trailing our surrounding states and the rest of the country, it has plunged our stay deep into debt and it is harming thousands of kansans. kansans like mary from winfield who is here with us today.

she is a single mom and also happens to be a republican. she provides for her son on a two string budget and is proud she has not had to turn to public assistance. because she falls within the bottom 20% of kansas wage earners, she is paying 50% more in kansas income taxes solely because of the governor's economic experiment. we have to do better for people like mary. the choice we have in this election is about whether we are going to clean up the mess of the governor has created or we are going to hit the accelerator the governor says on more cuts to schools, more debt and a failed experiment. chances cannot afford this. we have to go in a different direction, direction that prioritizes our schools and uses proven ways to grow our economy and that is exactly what i would do as governor. >> first question. representative davis, you will have the opportunity to answer first. education toomy to

ebola, there is an air of uncertainty about the future. what will your administration do kansans?he concerns of >> first of all, we will use the old adage, if you're in a hole, you need to stop digging. the one-size-fits-all experiment of the governor is not working. you have to look at the data. we are trailing the surrounding states and the rest of the country in economic growth. the governor's own council of economic advisers documented this seven months ago. we are 45th in the country in terms of new business creation. in 2013, there were more businesses and that closed shop that opened shop. we have had three credit down ratings in just over a year. this is not working and it is not going to work. the governor says he wants to hit the accelerator on what we have been doing. we know what that means. it means more cuts to schools,

more dollars at taken out of our proven job creating program and transportation plan. i think we need to end the experiment. let's freeze the tax cuts where they are at on generally 1, 2015.- on january 1, let's restore the cuts to the public schools because strong public schools are the very foundation of a stronger economy. business leaders like john moore have told me that the best thing we can do to move our economy forward is to have the very best public schools. that is why i will make restoring cuts my very top priority as governor. not voted forad the cuts in the first place then. the cuts he is talking about are the ones that happened in the parkinson administration. did administration cut support administration and put obama stimulus money that went

away the next year. those with a cuts he voted for. i've increased state funding for education every year i have been in office. listen to the rest of the plan he is putting forward. the plan is for him to raise income taxes on you, on the person at his table. his first plan is to raise taxes for people that make $50,000 a year. that is what he is proposing. we cut income taxes on everybody in the state of kansas and his first step is to say if you are making $15,000 a year, your income taxes are going up. that is not any way to grow. he can be critical of my plan all he wants to be. we still have record employment in the state of kansas and his plan is to raise her income taxes. is that the way you grow the economy by raising your income taxes? it is not. we started out with one of the highest income tax rates in this

region -- 6.45%. it is at 4.5% now. we created growth and it has. record number of new businesses filing into the state of kansas and small businesses expanding. record employment -- 4.8% unemployment, the lowest in america. that is what is happening in america and raising taxes not the way to go. governor, you are trying desperately to rewrite your record and you are trying to rewrite my as well. it is not the truth. i have been a champion for our public schools. the republican president of your daughter school board is here supporting me because she and so many other leaders in education know who the real pro education candidate is. it is ironic you talk about raising taxes on the poor. that is exactly what you have done. your first tax plan you introduced would raise taxes by 5000% on people who make $25,000

or less. i think that is morally wrong. >> let's stay on the issue of taxes. this question is for you governor brownback. every taxpayer likes to hear the term reduction in taxes. no taxpayer of ice to live with a reduction in services. how will your administration resolved this type of dissonance? >> growth. that is what we are doing. yourself.e data growth. 4.8%. we are having difficulty in general aviation in wichita at this point no thanks to president obama. paul davis is a two-time delegate. we are having difficulty with the president belittling general aviation and saying those fatcats -- that hurts us. we need to grow. you grow by getting your taxes

off of small business in particular which we did. we took taxes off the small business. you are seeing record numbers filing into the state of kansas. you go to people like teddy in topeka who edits have agency -- who had a temp agency. i had a lady stop me after church two days ago with that message that you said -- we started a small business and we are working. kansans work for themselves. when you recruit big business into the state, you can get them what you have to buy them. -- but you have to buy them. business is the right route to go and that is what we are doing. withded this fiscal year 430 $4 million attack -- cash on hand. we ended with that much money

and we are increasing investment in schools of the same time at record levels. >> all you have to do is take a look at the budget picture. $1.3 billion of debt over the next five years. that comes from our nonpartisan legislative research department. u.s. to the governor what his plan is -- he does not have a plan. what is going to happen is more cuts to schools and more dollars taken out of our transportation plan. taken $1job -- he has billion out of the transportation plan so far and all you will do it take more that's all he will do is take more -- all he will do is take more. more businesses closing in 2013 than opening. this year, the rest of the country is double the job growth that we have in kansas. this experiment is not working. it is not going to work.

it is time we understand that and move forward. think about how we are going to be able to restore the cuts to public education when we are in $1.3 billion in debt. it will not happen. we have to end of the experiment now and we have to restore those cuts to our public schools or we will not be able to grow as a state. >> rebuttal? >> paul davis is lying. we have invested record amounts of money in schools. go check with the department of education. we have fixed the pension system which was in bankruptcy. that he helped get into bankruptcy in the legislature now it is out. his method of getting us to grow is raising taxes. we have also done every project that has been announced and said

that we would do, including the one recently in wichita right now that is a nice big project to fix congestion that we have in this city. we are moving forward. what he is saying is data he did during the legislature, not what i had done. >> representative davis, you can answer this question first. what resources should we protect, promote, and what resources should we dispense with? >> i want to respond first to the comments the governor just made. so disappointing. the kansas city star recently wrote an editorial called the relentless lies of sam brownback. the things you have said in this campaign have been disproven over and over and over again, but you keep going. i was part of the bipartisan coalition that put that built together to fix capers. all you did was sign it.

the legislature did not want to go down the road you wanted to go down which is going to keep the liability even worse than it was before. what we need to do as a state is to get back to the basics. we need great public schools. i am the son of two teachers. this issue is personal to me. all across the state, all i hear from parents, from teachers, principals, school board members is the concern that they have never seen before to the state of our public schools because we have a governor who has never made public education a priority. when he was in the u.s. senate, he voted against education repeatedly. foot against afterschool programs, against teachers, head start. he tried to get rid of early head start. education. there is no way that we can grow and prosper as a state if we

have a governor who will never make education a priority and that is his record. >> governor brownback? >> that is completely false. why didn't you fix capers when governor parkinson was a governor when you did not need the governor to get this done? because they would not step up and deal with the problem. we have the second least funded pension when i came in. we had the worst funded system in the country next to illinois. that's what gets you into bankruptcy. and theyn hole would not fix it. look at where we were in jobs last decade. we lost private-sector jobs. during my administration, we have added 58,000 new private sector jobs. 58,000 new private sector jobs during the time i have been governor of the state of kansas. those are the things that have happened. the question was on resources.

i think we need to deal with the issue of water. the resources that we have in reservoirs. i think we need to have a good solid discussion about this. i have credibility in this area. i've worked on the issue of water for years. i was the agriculture secretary. i think we have a serious issue we need to confront and deal with if we have a future in the state. it is one of the major issues over the next 50 year outlook that we have. we have a discussion going on. we are going to address the issues of water moving on forward. we have done some of it already. and we tot or lose it do more of that moving forward of addressing the critical issues of water. >> the governor mentions bankruptcy. that is exactly where his economic plan is heading our state. $1.3 billion in debt over the next five years soley caused by

the governors economic experiment. economists deem this the worst economic plan in the country. the conservative republican senate tax tears stood up when this bill was being debated and said this was the worst tax fell he had ever seen. the governor proceeded recklessly down the road and we are deep in debt if we don't and this experiment now -- end this experiment now. >> this is a whole bunch of questions into one. the need for labor, plus needed changes in immigration policy times changes in voting rights equals emotional upheaval. what can we do to change this equation? >> you have a lot of questions rolled together in that particular one. i think there are issues we need to work on together. what i have tried to do in

working with the legislature's say what can we do to move something forward? what can we do to unite together. there are a lot of difficulties and emotions. we have had a lot of success in moving things forward as a state and dealing with issues like the caper system. like getting some growth. those are important things for us to do like issues like water. what you have to do is not say, ok, it has to be this way or that, but the governor has to set a course. you have a say things that are important to deal with. i said we had to get some growth happening here. our budget when i came in was huge. i was facing a $500 million deficit in the next 18 months. we had virtually no money in the bank account. we have lost private-sector jobs. we were making half payments to schools.

that was the fiscal situation we had at that point in time. it was what paul davis helped create. he wants to take us back to that because the taxes were raised before that. his answer is to raise taxes, you will get less growth and be in a bigger budget problem. it is bringing people together -- that is how you solve this. >> when governor brownback came into office, we were poised for success. you talked over and over again how there is no money in the bank. uses is $876 figure which has been disproven over and over again but yet the governor keeps talking about it. it is one of those relentless lies of the kansas city star mentioned. there are over $230 million in the bank when governor brownback took office. you know why? because people like me voted for a one cent sales tax so we could spare our public schools from

another round of cuts and we could pass a comprehensive transportation plan. governor brownback has been more than happy to show up at every ribbon-cutting he possibly can for the transportation plan. when it was being debated in the legislature, he was adamantly opposed to it. he was governor, we would've never had a comprehensive transportation plan and he is using every opportunity he can now to attack me for it. you cannot continue to have it both ways. immigration reform is critically important to our state. the federal government frankly needs to get their act together and pass immigration reform because it is a crucial part of our economy. we have many immigrant workers in the state that are vital to the economic success of kansas. i also stand behind the green act. i think it was the right thing to do. governor brownback was absent when he was in the senate when it came time to vote and it failed by one vote.

>> i will agree with paul on this. $876 -- that was what was in the bank account the year before i came into office. it was actually $23 million deficit. the prior administration deficit spent and move expenses to the next year so didn't show a deficit because you cannot legally deficit spend in kansas and yet they did that because the fiscal situation was a complete wreck. we were looking at no end in sight unless you started to really address the problems we had as a state. >> question is for you, representative davis. how will your administration respond to the diversity of thought, the diversity of culture, and the necessary sensitivity associated with this issue?

>> when i was in the legislature, we debated this issue. i do not support the constitutional amendment. i did that because i thought it would damage the welcoming image our state has had dating back to when we became a state. decidedle of kansas they wanted that in the constitution and they did so by significant majority and i respect that decision. the fact of the matter is this issue is out of the hands of politicians. there is nothing i can do, nothing governor brownback and do to change this issue. the courts will decided. i think a lot of people on both sides of this issue which the spring court addressed it -- the supreme court addressed it. the courts will have to deal with this and we have to go on from there. >> i stand with the people of kansas. the marriage is between a man and a woman. they voted this by nearly 70%

and put it into the constitution. judges seeking to rewrite that. it comes back to the issue of judges for governors. this is something each of us have impact on. do you want somebody appointing liberal judges like paul davis? do you want somebody to appoint judges that will stay with the law like the ones i appointed? i have had a lot of experience with working with judges. i was on the u.s. senate judiciary committee in selecting john roberts. i have appointed judges here in the state. i have worked with administrations who appointed those. the governorng does which is to defend the constitution of kansas. the governor or attorney general decided they would not defend the constitution even though that is the way the people have spoken. the attorney general stood up and said we would defend the

kansas constitution and i have stood behind them. paul davis has not announced a position. that is not leadership and you cannot duck the questions. you have to deal with the issues as they,. you cannot take them as governor. they arrive on your doorstep and you have to do the best you can, but you can do that. it is not true there is nothing you can do. >> rebuttal? choicernor, your first to the supreme court referred to funding for public schools as wasteful spending. i would not call that a good selection of somebody who we want to have decided critical issues. we don't need to be given the governor more power over the judicial branch. i want to go back to this welcoming image because we need to let people know we want people here. governor brownback was in early endorser of a bill that would

legalize discrimination and thankfully the senate president pulled that bill from the agenda because it would've been terrible for kansas. >> next question. the phrase kansas common sense is used in great deal. what does this phrase mean for you, governor? >> and means to me what looking the way my dad would at the world. he was a native farmer in eastern kansas, one of those areas where leadership of the rep -- democratic party have put down. that is my hometown. it is looking at the world he would. he would say basically i am a conservative, but it has to work. that is what i have done. i am a conservative but it has to work and that is what we have done in putting forward plans and proposals to create growth because we were not growing. bob dole is one of my cochairs.

he was originally elected the first time at the oldest six congressional seat in kansas. we now have four and we will be heading to three if we don't change the trajectory. that continues to drive people out of the state because we are losing people to the surrounding states but nebraska. we are getting people from all of our surrounding states but cologne -- colorado but it takes time. if you have high taxes, you will drive people out of the region. common sense to me is doing the things you know you'd should do to get people on the right track and get off the wrong track. that is what common sense means to me. >> common sense means to me working together. bringing people together to find solutions that work. that is what i have done for 12 years as a legislator.

i built a bipartisan coalition after bipartisan coalition. there is a reason those 180 current and former republican elected officials are supporting me because they know i am the kind of leader that will unite people. i have been able to work with democrats, moderate and conservative. the governor has not been able to work with democrats very well and has not been able to work with a lot of republicans. decided to basically declare war on an entire wing of the republican party during the last election. it means we bring together people who have good ideas, who have a lot of experience. we will have the most bipartisan administration in kansas history because i don't believe that all the good ideas are in one political party. to put ant about economic plan together i asked ton moore and gary scheer put together a business advisory group.

they went out and find seasoned business professionals, community leaders to advise us how it is we grow the economy. the governor did not do that. he hired a discredited, out-of-state economist that the state of kansas paid $75,000 to to design this economic experiment that is a total failure. >> rebuttal? >> representative davis and his complete left-wing move in his make no mistake about it, he talks about being a moderate but he has one of the top 10 most liberal voting records in the kansas legislature. representing the community of lawrence and puts for that policy consistently. that is fine, that is his proposal. that is not the way kansans want. she switched party being a republican because he driven his

party so hard to the left. a number of republicans that support him also support raising taxes and they support obama care neither of which i support but he does. >> last question before we moved to the closing statements. this is a good one. >> they are all good. >> what one thing, this will be for you mr. davis to begin with, what one thing can your do that say or might get you to vote for him in this election? [laughter] it is a little too late, i am afraid. i think governor brownback would say the same thing. i had hopes when we had a new governor coming in. and, i hoped that he would be able to achieve consensus in the legislature. i thought you would be a strong supporter of education. he came to the legislature to

deliver his first message and said public schools are to kansas what the national defense is to the federal government. i could not agree with that more. that is right. the public schools are that important. the very next day he submitted his first state budget and that budget contained the single largest cut to public school funding in state history. four months later, he got his wish. he signed that bill into law and he declared that it was a victory. historic cuts to public education, a victory. we've all seen the consequences of this. we've seen the larger class sizes. the parents paying more fees than ever, test scores go down. we need a governor that will make education the very top priority. i have that track record. it is a personal issue to me. our daughter will walk into a public school classroom for the want time next year and i

her to have the very opportunities i had growing up here in kansas. strong public schools are the very foundation of a strong economy and that is why we need a champion for public schools in the governor's office. >> it is pretty late for that. there are things i can hear that could move me. if he said he did not want to raise taxes -- actually, if he asked the ashley told me where he stood on a lot of issues. he is not saying this is what i will do. if he said he would require work if you are on welfare which he voted against. y isway out of povert not to give penance the people. the way out is work, education and family structure. he would not even say if you are able-bodied you had to work. i am noty on judges going to appoint liberal judges that want to rewrite the law or

have the lobby as they see it rather than as it is. i want a judge to be an umpire, not a baseball player in the game. if he would say and stop lying about education. we are at over $13,000 per student. we just had a ranking of our public education system. we were ranked as the fifth best public education system in america. kansas public schools. we have invested heavily. he voted against the last 1, 100 $30 million in property tax relief and education funding. paul davis voted against it but thought the other way. the cuts they made during the big height of the recession, i respect that but don't blame me about the cuts you made. governor, it doesn't change the fact that you signed into law the single largest cut to public school funding in state history. i'm glad you boughrought up

poverty. what he or first goals was to do something about that and you have certainly done something about that. you made it worse. we have more people living in poverty than ever before. one in four children a living in poverty. no wonder people like mary are wondering what happened to their governor. they need a governor who was going to stand up for them and do something about poverty and that is what i will do. >> two-minute closing statements. >> i want to quote this from the website. kansas poverty rate is coming down. and measurement released a last weekend that it dropped 2.3%. stands at 11.8% compared to the nationwide average of 15.9%. that is what the facts are. i would hope you look at the facts in this election and

decide whether or not you want to go hard left, obama left with paul davis or you want to continue the course of growth, improving the state of kansas. i want to return one more time to the issue of judges because it has not been discussed this much in this campaign. it is one of the key things a governor does -- appoint judges. it is a key function for as far as which way we will go as a state. of the supreme court judges in kansas hosted a fundraiser for paul davis. i cannot believe they did that but they did. --s is a liberal judge liberal court that is overturn cases like the car brothers -- carr brothers. they will be appealed to the united states a print court -- supreme court.

it matters what judges you point and whether they stick to the law or rewrite it. discussed this much in the campaign but it is critical how you move forward as a state. i will appoint judges that stay within the boundaries of the law and the constitution. we feel this constantly in the society today and i asked for your vote in november on that direction and not on obama direction for the state of kansas. >> representative davis. >> thank you for being here today. when i decided to get into the race, i knew governor brownback would run an ugly campaign with personal attacks. when i didn't think the ads could get worse, i turned on my television this morning and i saw an ad that he is running linking me to the carr brothers murder. i knew one of the victims. governor, you trying to exploit

that terrible tragedy to help get elected is disgraceful. you ought to be ashamed of it. i have taken a lot of hits in this campaign, but you know what? they are worth it because the future of kansas is on the line and i don't want to see four more years of what we have had. four more years of a stagnant economy, of rating our transportation front, of cuts to education, early childhood, k-12 higher education. i mention i see year our daughter will walk into a public school classroom for the very first time hopefully in topeka. my wife and i are like any other parents who want the very best for her. she and her friends will not be able to achieve those great opportunities if we continue to have a governor that is never made education a priority. a governor that is turn our state into a science lab, trying to gain national acclaim.

's experiment put our stay deep into debt, damaged our economy and it is jeopardized the quality of education for entire generation of kansas kids. we don't need a red state motto, we don't need a blue state model -- we need common sense solutions that work for kansas. we will restore the cuts to our public schools and we will get our economy moving again. we will use proven ways to grow or economy. no more experiments. the future of our state depends upon it. i ask for your vote on november 4 so we can restore kansas together because we must. thank you for being here today. >> everyone, let's give a great round of applause. [applause] our candidates for the office of governor in the great state of kansas. thank you all very much. campaignt of c-span's 2014 coverage.

follow us on twitter and facebook to get video clips of key moments. over 100 bringing you senate, house and governor debates and you can instantly share your reactions to what the candidates are saying. the battle for control of congress. stay in touch and engaged by following us on twitter and liking us on facebook. in kansas, incumbent republican senator pat roberts is running against independent greg orman in a race politics calling tossup. these are a few of the political ads that are airing. >> i am pat roberts and i approve this message.

>> these policies are on the ballot. orman is aor greg vote for the obama agenda. >> make no mistake, these policies are on the ballot. >> pat roberts is attacking me and that is exactly what is wrong with washington today. they would rather attack opponents than the problems we face. like many kansas, i have been disappointed with both parties. an independent, i will only answer the people of kansas. i will send it to the best idea regardless of who thought of it. i approve this message because while the attack and label me, our country's problems only get worse. >> in case you are forgotten, i am bob dole. a lot to talk about my good friend pat roberts. as the fourth-generation kansan, he shares our values and fights for kansas everyday. from protecting her national security to creating thousands

of new jobs, pat roberts is a workhorse in the senate. the stakes are high. the choice is clear. we need to keep pat roberts in the senate. >> i am pat roberts and i approve this message. >> when pat roberts first got to washington, they were one million illegal immigrants. years later, the problem is done worse. today there are 11 million illegal immigrants. roberts has come back to kansas to lie about greg orman. orman opposes amnesty and most of your debt and will secure the border. -- greg orman opposes amnesty and will secure the border. >> i approve this message. >> with a 2014 election less than two weeks away, our coverage continues. wednesday night, the new york 11th district debate between michael grimm and domenic

recchia. also, the florida governor's debate with rick scott and former governor charlie crist. is the illinois 10th the district debate with brad schenider and bob dold. then, sean patrick maloney and nan hayworth. then, the illinois 13th district debate with rodney davis and ann callie. on thursday, the iowa fourth district debate between representative steve king and jim mowrer. more than 100 debates for the control of congress on c-span. >> on the nest washington journal, a look ahead at the midterm elections. these active director for the examines the spending so far this campaign season.

the executive director for the initiative discusses issues towards latonya bachelet tina voters -- towards latino voters. journal is live every morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. longtime washington post editor ben bradlee died today. he helped lead the paper during its watergate coverage. in 2011, he spoke about the post coverage in the event held at library andnixon museum along with bob woodward. >> for visiting with our guests. mi

i want to welcome all of you tonight. [applause] thank you. please join me in welcoming ben bradlee and bob woodward. [applause] right over there. right there. thank you. we are going to have a conversation tonight.

i willwe begin, introduce people who don't need an introduction. i want to use something about them you might not know. he doeslee, although not look it, is a world war ii veteran. [applause] he served in the pacific theater. important. mr. bradlee covered the 1960 campaign. he worked for newsweek. he covered a young senator named john f. kennedy.

he wrote a book about k ennedy. he found himself in the position of authority and importance during key moments in the history of the washington post, both of which we will talk about tonight. one was the pentagon papers story and the other was watergate. we are truly fortunate to have such a pioneer, legendary figure of american journalism. [applause] the man next to him work for a small newspaper in maryland after having spent five years in the navy. during that time, he had a noncombat role. bob woodward had written 16 books and you have made 12 of

them new york times bestseller. [applause] bob -- both of these gentlemen -- bobble what was very keen to come to visit. i am so delighted to see how keen you all are with him and mr. bradlee. [applause] it is june, 1972. got these two young guys covering a crime story. put mr.t that the post bernstein and mr. woodward together to cover that?

>> it was a total accident. [laughter] not givenignment was by me because i was not working that day. i cannot take credit. [laughter] the deputy managing editor -- it wasn't even that -- it was like the third deputy. when it came time to assign the story, i was not working. dayss one of the greatest in june ever in washington, d.c. >> most of the people were working. [laughter] >> i am not apologizing for that. i hope he gets a lot of credit before the night is through but

i don't want any credit for that. around at the strange burglary and said it is so nice out, who would be dumb enough to come to work on a day like this? immediately, my name sprung to his mind. [laughter] i got called in. >> why were you dumb enough to come to work? no. .uriosity as we look back on the golden ben bradleeapers, was already a legend. you wanted to work for him. it was an atmosphere in which there were no stops. it was a sense of you can go and do anything. the day you started working for the washington post, the city

editor took me out to lunch and says you have an unlimited expense account. you can take anyone out. make sure you get good stories. >> he did say that. [laughter] that is not what we used for money. when we can take you back, did this crime story begin to matter to you? you were away during the day. >> it was a saturday. work, i day i came to was quite well known for working a lot. saw who had gotten the story. ein, two gazaberstie do not know very well.

we sent him out to prince george's county. montgomery county. we said to come back in a year and if he did not, to the day -- [laughter] which is not unlike woodward. we had a slot open at that time. berstein was a different cap altogether.- ca cap he worked for the evening paper in washington. we hired him because he had shown a special talent for writing. i was more interested in his writing. we were more interested in his reporting than writing. [laughter]

they were both good at the other. >> we got your attention with the story when we did the $25,000 check story. it was a check that had been given to the nixon campaign. it went to the chief fundraiser. somehow, it wound up in the bank account of -- that is hard. >> you are always interested in money in these stories. who got the money? uphave a $25,000 check show in a miami bank deposited by some guy who had no -- wh his nameat? >> bernard -- just -- everything

came together. we had to write guys waiting -- two righ guys waitingt. for hundred stories in the next two and a half years. what th know women no sacks, no nothing. they were out of there. >> do you think your experience of the pentagon paper publication shaped how you dealt with their stories? >> no question about it. the pentagon papers was a story on. was beinbeaten them new york times uncovered this grand a study that was going on in the pentagon.

it was a devastating time in the american government. we do not have it. when we had it, we went to work on it. that formed a confidence in in thees and especially owner of the post. actually theas owner. he was a manic depressive and in a state where he was not often around. that is how we got it. then, even though we were second on the story, we did very well. was that youicance were publishing with the government saying don't you dare publish.

actually, going to the supreme court and saying we the government say this should not be public. >> national security was involved. some of us did know a little bit about national security. we had experience in the war. we knew about top-secret clearances. >> vistaprint court rolled in favor of the press and what that set in stone, final rolling that there is no publication censorship. there is no ability the government has. didn't have the power to come in and stop it. >> they could put you in the slammer afterwards. [laughter] >> i would like you to take us to the courtroom. recount for us that moment which

was captured in the film. what did you hear in the courtroom? on this wonderful saturday, they sent me down to this arraignment hearing. these were not your average d.c. courtrooms. they all had suits. when hundred dollar bills in their pockets, very sophisticated. it was a mystery. the judge start asking what they did. asked --burglar when the ju said speak updge. he said speak up. [laughter] he finally said cia. those are electric words. [laughter]

and, -- >> i knew one of the burglars, believe it or not. >> you never told us that. [laughter] italian. frank. how the hell i knew him? i don't know. >> you cannot say that. >> that gave momentum to the story. who isit this burglar head of security at the cia and the nixon reelection committee was involved in this? i wrote subsequent stories on it. you look back on it. the trail was obvious. at the time, it was not clear.

the big break in the next couple entry inas the single the address books of two of the burglars. reporters got this information from the police sources. >> received it from the burglars. >> they took everything in their pockets. w. house. [laughter] of course -- bernstein had much more imagination than i did. w. house. the could only mean one of two things. [laughter]

he called the whore ho and i called the white houseuse. it was a time we can get through. come your name is in the address book? we didn't call it the watergate headquarters then. od.paused and said good, g slam down the phone. [laughter] a certain i am packing my bags quality to his voice. [laughter] it was like cia -- a got your attention. you can see they are talking that and he disappeared.

we set on disappear him. >> it is your fault. so, did you or senior colleagues at the post-show any jealousy as these stories were starting or did they say go ahead? >> they ignored the story for one day. startedew, they shouting as only a senior was being lapped up by a senior -- a junior reporter could. thatarted whispering to me it was a book -- about time they took over the story. me.redit to

these guys had the goods and they were delivering the goods. why the hell would i go through he was inust because vietnam or foreign affairs thing? we never gave it a thought. that was the beginning. we had a great friendship to boot. amazing youather let us stay on the story. [laughter] >> did you let them go with every story they wanted to go with? did you stop a few stories? or did you let them go? story -- theyrst

brought the two stories and nobody was suing you are what are you doing? let them go. they knew the stories. they found the check. the check for $25,000. >> there were times when you stories on-- we had typewriters. [laughter] remember what those are? paper where you would not have an original copy. he would get a carbon copy and would the other editors. iry frequently you would say

want to know more about this. holding this story. you held it. this is now your chance to apologize. [laughter] you were afraid to edit it because of not what you published that when you did not publish. you never said we are not going to run this story ever. you said i am not yet convinced. we need more information, more sources, more details. [laughter] sayould then curse you and he thinks he knows everything. and then we would go to work. the sources and information were available and you are always

willing to say ok, now the story is written. editormiting role of an is so relevant now where there are everything gets published. anyone can say anything about anyone, and i go back on this and i cherish those moments when you said "not yet." >> thank you. [applause] >> tell us a little bit about the source that most people know about. tell us about when deep throat comes important to your reporting, please. > he becomes very important in the first days when we had this howard hunt, who was a

consultant who worked in the white house for chuck colson who special nixon's counsel and his hatchet man to a certain extent, and so the connection between colson was really important, but i could have your name in my address book and if you're -- if i'm arrested for burglary or something doesn't mean you put me up toy it. and i called mark felt, who was not identified to anyone at the st at that point and said -- turns out he was doing -- the guy getting all the watergate information from the washington field office. i said, what's this hunt , because i was worried. is this a linkage without substance. and he said, don't worry, you

cannot say something unkind about chuck colson that doesn't have merit. and that was very important. because as we now go back and construct the f.b.i. investigation, they had established hunt's role. in fact, he was not one of the burglars but he was outside that night and so forth and was the operational director of this burglary team. so he becomes important. >> but you don't tell mr. bratt bradlee about mark felled you just tell him what? >> that there's a senior source that's verifying details we're getting elsewhere. >> that surprises me about me. i mean, i wouldn't -- i've -- i'd never -- i've never done it again.

but it was so hard to quibble with success. he was right. and there was a check. always money, and the money shows up and what you had heard it was going to be and it was where it should be. you know you've got a tiger by the tail. and why not leave well enough alone? >> that's what i said. >> i wouldn't do it again. >> i was going to say, was it unusual for you to have a reporter come to you with a major story and say "i can't tell you the source of the story, but i trust this source"? >> well, yes, it was unusual but not unheard of to say that "i've got a source," and in the beginning, you know, who gives a damn about who the source is, so lank long as he's sflithe got to be right. and this is -- i don't think -- how many corrections did we run?

we ran one and the whole time, we had some -- and that was -- we said something had happened in front of a grand jury and they hadn't taken to it the grand jury, it was in front of the united states attorney. it was substantively right. >> yeah, but in a story that's moving fast like that, if you'd taken me aside, as you know, called me into your office and said "i need to know who this source is," of course i would have told you, and it was in the factor this was in all this, we always had multiple sources. we always had something -- you know, as you say, to check or secret fund, who controls these dispersements or dwrirt tricks or sabotage. they're getting it from people mostly in the nixon committee or

investigators, and so there was never a moment where i guess you felt, gee, i need to know who -- >> well, i knew he worked in the department and i knew he was right and was right, right, right, right, and not wrong. you didn't ever take anything back. and then suddenly, i don't know what that -- it was -- it was after watergate, wasn't it? it was after -- >> after nixon resigned. >> yeah. somebody said to me, you know, somebody who i would not lie to or did not, and said do you actually know the name? and i said,' "no i don't." and it occurreded to me that rob, so rob and i walked into the neighboring park one day and we sat down and we

had a little chat. i got his name. and we never used this, but at least i had it. captain graham, god rest her soul, never -- used to come down four times a day and said "what does deep throat say today?" but never, you know, didn't ask for a name. >> and we kept a secret of -- for more than 30 years. >> yeah. >> and who was -- i didn't tell my wife. >> yeah. >> ha! > good decision. but it is another novelist who says, the only way to read people who can keep a secret

that two of them are dead. and we were all very much alive. it was in our interest to keep our word. and as a working reporter up to this day, it helps me immensely when i go talk to people and say, look, this is in confidence, i'm not going to say where it came from. they say, ah, ok, there's a history of keeping your word on this. this is a serious commitment. > and captain graham, with her life on the line, her business ife on the line, didn't ask. >> was there a point in the watergate investigation when you got scared? >> yes. >> tell us what it was. -- nothingere was no in particular. >> well, it was in the spring of

1973 when mark felt was laying out -- and i think this was somewhat my paranoia, but it was his liberal language and he said the stakes are so high that people's lives could be in danger and if there's electronic surveillance going on, the entire intelligence community is involved in shenanigans. this, we later learned about, which he had some glimpse of his position in the f.b.i. this was -- zphr when you came out? >> yes. and -- >> tell them what happened. you're asleep. >> i'm asleep at 10 oh clok in the damn morning. and they called and said "we've got to see you now." i said ok and they came out. i had a little house in -- what the hell's the name of that.

>> wesley heights. >> yeah. and we knock on the door. carl and i. he comes out in his jammies. and we stand in the -- >> which weren't very pretty, by the way. >> and we stand out in the cold and they tell me this story, and i couldn't believe it. far-fetched.s so i thought, now, woodward would which we later -- all of us tested every few months and they never worked, as far as we knew. >> and -- but we were also telling you what mark felt said that this story is unspooling, that everyone's involved and nixon's involved, it's god a

forward momentum to it, which you can't really comprehend. and i remember laying that out , you know, u said should i call -- because they're telling you this on your lawn, and it was cold. >> 3:00 in the morning. >> 3:00 in the morning. and in the movie version of this , jason row bards, who plays ben in the movie version, at the end says "now, ok, guys. got a lot of work to do, go home and take a bath and then get back on the beat, and not much is at stake. just the first e-mailed and the future of the country."

that's the -- hollywood version. that's how the people who make the movie wanted it to be. and here it's after all of this is -- he turned to us and this is precisely what he said. now. the hell do we do ?" >> you love that story, don't you? >> well, i love that story because you said exactly the right thing. we were going into totally uncharted territory. none of us, even you, had the experience dealing with something like this. instead of kind of, you know, taking your stake-out and kind of showing you the boss, you

honestly said "i don't know what to do." and we -- what we did is we kept -- one morning we met, we maintained our multiple approach multiple sources, let's make sure -- this is at a time when i was going over to the nixon white house and pleading with them, say "we know that this is going to reach many new levels, there are more tentacles of watergate and we want to talk to. nixon about this." and there now are tapes of nixon and zeigler and haldeman talking about my request to talk to nixon, which was not necessarily well received. > you've got to also remember, newspapers is a very competitive business, and there was no other

newspaper that had this story, that wrote this story. finally, you know, a couple of months, about fiction six weeks in, a person who was working for -- >> the new york times. >> the new york times. >> l.a. times. >> but there was just not a mad acceptance by the rest of the press. you helped walter con cite land the story. >> when he went on television he a two-night segment, said i can't get it all -- no, no, no. 15 minutes and one was seven or eight minutes. well, they were supposed to be 15, but after it hit the fan, the -- who the hell said it.

>> cbs. >> frank -- >> they got a lot of friends there. >> no, no. they cut the second down to six minutes or seven minutes. that was enough. concrete, he really was the great white father. if walter cronkite said it, it was true. >> there was no reason people would -- walter cronkite said, and this was right before the 1972 election. days before it looks like nixon is going to be re-elected. these questions about watergate. the stories were all about our reporting. >> yeah. >> the washington post said this, and the white house said this. and the washington post, you know, said -- sent their checks and there's money and there's a secret fund and there's sabotage and espionage and so forth. r cbs and walter cronkite to do that was quite gutsy.

>> bob, you got to tell people the story of your copy machine conversation with carl, which is about this time. >> that's right. >> this is something you can not -- did not write about in "all the president's men." >> this is the fall of 1972 when you had written a story -- >> yeah. >> i know, i know. >> hit it with your stick. >> this is the fall of 1972 when we'd written a lot of these stories, and one of them was that if mitchell, the former attorney general, was in charge of the secret fund that had financed watergate and lots of other undercover activities, and you had said in the meeting before publishing this story that, you know, we better be

real careful, we're accusing the former chief law enforcement officer of the united states of being a crook. and as we were going through this, carl and i named one of our morning sessions in the post kind of little corner room where they had the worst cup of coffee you could buy for 15 cents, and carl puts his money in and turns around and said to me, "you know, this guy, nixon is going to be impeached." and i thought for a moment and i said, i think you're right, but we can never say a word around this news room. and we can never think in those terms, because we have to stick to the story, which is what we attempted to do. -- that was carl having connecting the dos and realizing that you can't have somebody

like john mitchell as attorney general, campaign manager so close to nixon, so deeply nvolved in this and that it is not for the nixon. >> in 1972, the president is overwhelmingly re-elect ment. things start to dry up for you? what happened to the story? >> at one point i think he gave an interview saying he wanted to hold our heads in a bucket of water. it did dry out. >> they did dry out. and we didn't have stories for a long time. it was -- was that in -- buck.t's just a loose >> sorry. >> that was -- let me tell this story, because graeme who's the publisher and owner and vince

boss, during that period after he election; our stories dried up, sources dried up and -- but at that moment it then -- i can verify this. most people in the post newsroom depint believe what we'd written. don't you think? they did not think we were right. particularly on the national stage. >> yeah. and the -- we learned later -- is the -- you tried to get on the national -- >> yeah. >> boot camp. >> and we later learned one of the secret nixon strategies was o charge the fcc tv -- the stock was in the toilet. his journalistic reputation was

on the rim. catherine graeme asked me to lunch, and said this is january, 1973. i remember going up to lunch ith howard clymans, who is the managing editor and watt downed and she started asking me questions about watergate and it blew my mind how much she knew about the details. she knew henry kissinger well. she said "i read something about watergate in the chicago tribune." and i thought what's she damn reading the chicago tribune for? obody in chicago does. >> she was scooping up all the

information. later had described this management style she had of mind on-hands off. she didn't tell you how to edit, didn't tell me how to report or carl how to report, but she was intellectually engaged. her mind was totally active. and it was comforting, and it also meant the -- >> motivating. you found out somebody like that -- yeah. >> exactly, so the end of the lunch, she asked the killer c.e.o. question which is "when are we going to find out the whole truth about watergate?" and i said carl and ben and i all felt, because it's criminal conspiracy, everything's compartmentalized, because the payne people were silent. we go to visit people and they slam doors in our face, they're

frightened, that the answer "when are we going to find out the whole truth of watergate" is never -- and i looked across the lunch table and she had this pained, wounded look on her face and she said "never? don't tell me never." i left the lunch a motivated employee. but, what she said was -- and this is so important. it was not a threat. but it was a statement of purpose. what she said was "use all the resources of -- that you have, you and carl have, all the resources of this newspaper. we have an obligation to get to the bottom of this story, not just because we're out on a limb on it, but because of the implications go beyond journalism." as we believe this is true and it is proven, something is going

that is a 10 on the richter scale, and you know, you see it from your chair. from my chair, having the publisher say "go after it," use everything, we are going to get to the bottom of this" is incredibly invigorating. some day we're going to put a plant in the lobby of the washington post and we're going to bolt it to the wall so nobody can take it down. there's simply going to be "never-don't tell me never." catherine graeme, january, 1973. [applause]

>> you've had a few years to think about this. what -- in retrospect, what role do you think carl bernstein and bob woodward, the washington post played in the outcome of watergate? what role did you play? >> well -- >> he's not the person to answer that. >> ok. you. >> played a critical role, critical role, without -- i'm not saying it never have come out but it sure as hell wouldn't have come out at the time it came out. it sure as hell wouldn't have gone -- interesting. nobody would have touched that story. no one would have touched that story. too many unknowns and they control licenses and, you know, terror and fore bade,

stay the hell out. maybe it should. ou know, who's to say? what happened is -- and you know you -- because of what you've done in your watergate exhibit, you know as a professional his attorney, the importance of chronology. if -- you've got to understand this happened before this before that happened before that. and i think -- where there was real impact was with two subscribers of the washington post. the first was judge sericcha, who was trying the watergate burglars. they had the watergate burglaries and the commanders and they presented -- the , osecutors presented the case

saying they're the master minds, no one else higher is involved. just reading that in the washington post quite regularly, the higher-ups were involved. i talked to him many years later about this. he said when he saw that, he said, frank got this questioning , are the burglars and in fact, he threatened 25-year sentences to be served by cooperating, and they eventually before it broke and, you know, wrote his famous letter and said there was perjury and hire-ups were involved. the second important subscriber to the washington post was senator sam ervin, so -- >> remember him? [applause] >> and ervin called me and said come see me.

this is in 1973, also, i think after the catherine graeme lunch. he said we're going to think about investigating watergate. i've read your stories. the implications are incredible to e have an obligation launch an inquiry, who are your sources? and i said, you know, we're just -- we can't name our sources even to you. he said, i understand that. but we're going to go ahead and i hope we can get to the bottom of the involvement of the deputy campaign manager, gruden. drew the line there. of course, they launched that investigation. it f the anomalies it was was voted 77-0 by the senate. many republicans signing phenomenon for this investigation tanned it was the gold standard of investigations.

they got testimony from everyone. they discovered the tapes, which were crucial to unraveling what really happened in watergate, so the causal connection there, people say, make extravagant claims about the press or the post bringing down the president, that's just not true. what happened is the agencies of government, the senate eventually, the house of representatives and the impeachment inquiry, the justice department said they couldn't do this through normal channels, they had to have a special prosecutor -- >> and the general was about to go to jail. >> that's right. and there were problems. but it was the agencies of government that then launched an inquiry into this and took the kind of testimony and got the

things so forth that established what really happened. >> before we go to questions, tell us what you remember of august 9, 1974, the day the president resigned. the day president nixon resigned. august -- >> oh, god. i mean, this is one of the longest days of my life. mean, -- well, you -- if you know what it takes to assemble a paper, you probably don't know what it takes to disassemble a paper, which we had to do that night. i mean, we didn't want someone rinky dink feature story on page 1 with the -- all of this news and not absolutely sure what the news was. and we were treading a minefield there for a while. >> because it wasn't clear

whether he was going to resign or not. >> yeah. >> back and forth. and the night of august 9 he did go on television and announced he was going to resign. >> yeah. we had some good sources who were close. >> you could say them, like breaver goldwater. >> our secret source. nobody ever thought barry goldwater had a friend at the washington post, but he was my wife's mother's -- should i say it -- boyfriend. barry goldwater. and -- >> too much information. >> yeah. as nice a man that ever drew a breath, incidentally. and was tremendously useful source. >> and he would say -- i think

last week he said nixon's going to resign but don't say so in the washington post because that ill cause him to stay. >> you know, if -- that question, it was in the real east room where nixon called together his friends and senior staff and it was a speech without notes. it was nixon unscripted. and he talked about his mother and his father. it was a very emotional -- no. it was. >> yes. >> he'd say -- there was a moment in that speech, which i think is so important to the nixon presidency and the legacy of nixon. and that is near the end -- he

raised his hand kind of like, this is where -- this is why i called you all here. he said "always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. and then you destroy yourself." now, think about the brilliance -- no, seriously -- of that statement. he identified hate as the poison that grows too much of tergate, too much of the mentality in his white house. and to his credit, at that moment, he's giving up the presidency, which he had fought all his life for. he is detached intellectually enough to realize what had happened, that the hate had an

impact on those he hated and what occurred and investigations and so forth. but that -- that's the end of the story. >> at too this time, questions for the president, leonard came to 2 same conclusion. we'd like to take questions. and megan with the mike will come to you. let's go. >> ok. >> john, thank you. >> mr. woodward, where and when did you first meet mark felt? >> in the white house when i was in the navy. admiral moore, who i was working for gave me to be a courier to take documents over to the white house. his wasn't my last year in the navy, 1969, 1970, and i went

outside the situation room and i was supposed to deliver to somebody by name, and so i had to wait. there was a guy sitting next to me and it turned out he had to wait about an hour. as i said in one of the books, it's like we were two passengers seated next to each other on a long plane ride. and so i introduced myself and he reluctantly introduced himself. and he was number three in the f.b.i. at that point, i believe. and we had a lot of time to talk, and i was trying to figure out what to do with my life and i got his phone number and kept in touch with him. and then the accident was first in my reporting career when arthur bremer shot george wallace before watergate. mark felt was an assistant --

ssisted me on that -- and then when watergate came, he was right in the -- >> i'm going to take a question from the theater. how differently do you think watergate would have played out with today's instant blog media and 24/7 news coverage. >> interesting. >> well, i don't think a newspaper can hold the story as long as the post did without -- without surrendering it to television and to other stories. really held it from -- what -- the date we ran it was august -- >> yeah. i mean we were -- we would run stories and you would ask questions and it would be days or weeks before we would run stories sometimes. you, of course, could not do

that now. >> no. because we wanted -- it was line in see that we were dealing with something that modestly was earth shaking, and the compulsion to be right is born into a journalist, and even more then. -- if theld -- if the -- there was another paper or another -- another -- yeah. if the new york times or the l.a. times were on the story and writing it today, it would have moved a lot faster. >> but if you had the internet and blogs and so forth, a lot of people would have said, you can just go to the internet and find out. the point is, this information was not on the internet. even though it didn't exist. and an equivalent story now, in

2011, would not be on the internet, that you need human sources, people who are there who are going to say this is what occurred and this is what it means. so it is absolutely critical. people who were journalists now will sit all day at the computer and on those screens are missing something. >> well, and a related question. with newspapers becoming obsolete -- i didn't write this -- today, what advice would you give a high school student thinking of pursuing a career in journalism? >> i don't know. i've been asked that. i've had two children who became would go get nd i

a job on a small paper and learn how to write, learn how to write a declare active sentence so people could understand you and you could make it clear. [applause] that ought to be obvious. work hard is nd so essential. i mean, really hard. i think there was a period when i went to the office every day for a year and a half. sundays, the whole nine yards, just as hard as i could go. this is when i was made assistant managing editor of the post. i just have to -- had to be sure i knew not only what was

you hadg but who -- who to work with. >> first of all, it's the best job in the world. somebody came and spent a year on this planet and went back and was asked, who were the people who had the best jobs in america, they'd say the journalists. why? because you get to make moment air entrance into people's lives when they're interested and then you get out when it's not interesting. all the doctors and everybody, you have doctors see all these routine cases. the routine, bradlee hated the routine. find out something that we don't know, something that's interesting to you, always on -- you go to the news room in the morning and there's that

electricity still. what if -- what don't we know? why does -- why did somebody say this or do that? >> who's lying? >> who's lying. exactly. >> a lot of people do not tell the truth. right there. hello. you had a question? kind of a -- nureps, journals, do you think a story of the magnitude that you had would be possible in today's newsroom? >> sure. it would be possible in today's newsroom. and -- >> what was the question? >> would it be possible in today's newsroom to do a story like this? i think absolutely. and you -- we have -- ben doesn't care for this point, but

i'm going to make it, anyway. one of the -- one of the saying at the post was all good work is one in defiance of management. [applause] >> don't give me the finger. >> it doesn't mean you break the rules or you break the law. youan, see the movie of it, know, there's a living walking defiance of management, and it is an aggressiveness, it is a curiousity. i mean, carl taught me, taught them, taught so many of us about, you just don't sit by. i remember once there was somebody we wanted to talk to and this somebody was getting in

a cab going to new york with a bunch of other people. and carl just dove through the window into the cack. -- cab. he said, i'm at the airport, i don't have any money but i have to go to new york with these people. so it's not as if i -- it's not a defiance. it's a -- look, you're the master of this. you give people a lot of strength. go out, find out what's going on. you're not going to find out what's going on sitting in your office or going out to lunch occasionally. the real hard stuff, you're not getting to. so you need to be in that thision -- our judgment is is a story. we're going to do this. and then you need editors and owners who say, ok, go to it. we're going to -- no.

look, where was the risk in watergate? bradlee.ine graeme and carl -- if this had turn out to be not be provable, he could have -- i could have done something distasteful like go to law school. so we were young kids. were -- on our personal level, this was institutional. if you have to be willing to take institutional risk. if you're not, then you -- you know, you always said about it, it will come out. tights daily miracle. >> the daily miracle? >> yeah. >> yeah. >> that's wonderful. got a question? >> yes. i wonder, if watergate would

happen today, i mean, it's hard to believe that crime such as that has not happened ever since. ave they -- have people -- would a president resign for this? >> do you know something? [applause] >> you never know. lways want to ask. >> over there. >> if the pentagon fares case where it come before the supreme court today, how do you think the court would rule?

> well, all of the scalias and becauseinalists and the it's already been decided, i would say it's already been decided and let the pentagon papers stand. aat's a violette ruling to -- vital ruling to the democracy of this country. i think the biggest problem we have in this country is secret government, and the -- [applause] diever said it, democracies [inaudible] i think that's true. if you have a group of people who say we now have the ball and we can use the government to our political will, and no one's

watching, there's no accountability system, we're in trouble. >> one of the -- i mean, one of the outcomes of watergate that you all can benefit from in this library is access information about your government and that's one of the legacies. and it should strengthen and gladen the heart of citizens that they know they can get information about their government that perhaps their government would rather them not have. [applause] >> is investigative journalism today the same caliber and when you work? >> i still work. >> i mean -- >> sure. we keep hammering at it. i do spend most of my time doing

books. the last book about what -- there are 10's of thousands of words from top secret meetings and discussions in the oval office and private decision moments for the president in that book, and it's not something somebody handed out to me it's the process of going around. some years ago saw all the president's men movie again, and i hadn't seen it for about 25 years, and i realized, all the good work -- or most of the good work is done at night. you get the truth at night and lies during the day. working on the fourth book -- i want to tell quickly this is story. there was a general who would not talk to me. e-mails, phone calls, intermediaryies, i really needed

him. so i found out where he lived, and the ideal time to make an unannounced, unscheduled visit for an are interview with a general is 8:15, because they haven't gone to bed. they've eaten dinner. so i knocked on the door and he opens the door. i'll quote him directly. he said "you! ?" you still doing this shit and -- now, this -- i wanted to kind of say, well, i don't like your characterization of my work. but i just was silent. and he looked at me and literalry just kind of -- i left three hours later with the answers to the questions. from somebody who supposedly

would never talk. >> you have some -- there are some journalism students here. >> did you say something about investigative reporting? all reporting is investigative. the second question you asked, you're investigating. somebody gives you an answer and if that doesn't satisfy, you dig deeper, dig deeper. so i think you ought to -- we all ought to understand and government servants should learn all reporting is going to turn investigative along the line, and it's not the scariest board the english language. i mean, in your general conversation, if you're trying to get your child to tell you what the hell he or she has been doing, you're really investigating their version of it.

>> bob, you're one of the most celebrated interviewers, and you've interviewed most everyone who matters. what advise would you give aspiring journalists about conducting interviews? >> we talk about the internet cable news, the speed, i'm slow, i am patient. i think the key to interviewing people is do your homework, don't just google them. find out -- if there's somebody in the pentagon or the state department or the white house, when they wrote an article in foreign affairs or one of your obscure academic journalists -- >> thank you. i'll get to that. >> -- and read the damn thing. t's always hard.

and then -- to -- in ask them about it in the interview and they say, i thought only my mother read that it's not a ruse. you have to -- i think the key description is, you have to take people as seriously as they take themselves. and people in these jobs take themselves very seriously. in fact, i think most people take themselves seriously. and if you meet them on the terms of, i really want to know what you did and what you think and i'm not in a hurry. i'll stay for three hours or five hours or whatever is necessary, you can make in roads. and there is something about people in this country, most of them, even we found in watergate, we found people who have done -- committed illegal acts, who kind of believe in the first amendment, are willing to talk. sometimes extensively and

sometimes in more limited ways, but there is this community of interest that everyone has, let's know what's going on and who are the people who have the levers of power. >> tell them to do their own work, too, find out what the hell -- just don't sit there and ask questions that bounce in your head at the last minute, but pursue something and get them to explain themselves. and then try to get them to explain it again. see if their story changes a little. then wonder why. it's really fun. >> gentleman in the back over there? >> thank you for coming today, gentlemen. with nearly 40 years of perspective, how do you view the president nixon pardon of -- or

president ford's pardon of mr. nix one? political lot of figures is gray rather than black and white. when about the presidency of nixon still resonates today? >> oh, god, i hate to answer that question, because i don't really know. i think what was right in the thing probably was to -- you know, give him a second -- pardon him. >> can i tell a story about the pardon? the day that ford went on television about 30 days after he assumed the presidency, early on a sunday morning to announce the pardon, hoping no one would notice. it was noticed. and but not by me. i was asleep. and carl bernstein called me up and woke me up.

now, carl, who has the ability to say what occurred in the fewest words with the most drama said "the son of a pitch ardoned the son of a pitch." and quite honestly, i thought and carl thought and i think -- and i know ben thought for a long time that there's something the dirty about the pardon, evidence and aroma of a deal. there was a question of justice, why did nixon get off and why do 40 people go to jail and dozens more had their lives wrecked? and 25 years later, i decided to take the bradlee methodened neutral inquiry, what happened, and i did this book about the

legacy of watergate and the residency -- clinton at that time. and i called gerald ford up and asked to talk about the pardon figure. he said, sorry, i've got a golf tournament. no. he said come on. i interviewed him for hours there. and in colorado where he had a home for hours. in the california here where his primary residence was. at the time, again -- and this is the -- this is bradlee's gift. time to read all the memoirs, interview everyone who was alive, do a graph of what i thought, go back to everyone, go back to ford again, go look at the contemporaneous coverage and simply put -- convinced me, frankly. he said, look, i did not pardon

nixon for nixon or for myself. i pardoned nixon for the country. he had to move beyond watergate. if nixon was tried -- investigated further, tried, indicted, convicted, tonight jail, we'd have two or three more years of watergate. he said, look at the world i was living in. this is gerald ford talking. folklore, serious problems with the russians, serious problems with the economy. said i have to preempt the process to get nixon off the front page and out of people's lives into history. and i looked at all of this, examined it, and then shadow wrote i thought the decision was a gutsy one. the daughter of j.f.k., your long-time acquaintance and friend, the deceased president,

caroline kennedy called me up and said teddy kennedy and i read what you wrote in "shadow," and we think that's wrong. and we're going to the get geraldford the profiles in courage award. months later, teddy kennedy at the time of the pardon in september, 1974, called it almost a criminal act, saying something that politicians hate to say "i was wrong." this was an act of courage in the tradition of a leader going against the grain and realizing what is in the larger national interest and the high purpose of the office of the president to serve the people and not himself and not the former president nixon, and i remember seeing that and so sobering to me in my

business to think something is this way and then you subject it to neutral scrutiny and it's totally the opposite. >> yes. [applause] as someone ering, who's interested in a career in journalism, have you ever been feared for your life and if so, how would it direct -- and why you were doing the activity? >> have you ever feared for your life? >> crossing streets? >> no. -- i'll -- i was >> the first time i was on a

destroyer and attacked by a bunch of japanese planes, i was scared to death. and when i didn't embarrass and i -- i was never scared after that. i mean, i was -- i would say, holy, you know what, is this i was be hurt me, but -- >> with that saying that after the navy, everything's easy. >> yeah. >> it is quite true. it's quite true. but happily, i mean, we talk about how it felt kind of lives could be in danger, i think it was more my paranoia.

but no one did try to kill reporters. they do abroad all of the time. and we should thank -- >> what is it? 40 or 50 a year. >> yeah. >> mostly in south asia now. >> yeah. it is a giant problem. -- and thank god it's not here. and the first amendment operates. there was a white house sting when nixon was president to try to as nate jack richardson, the columnist. >> oh, yeah. that was in colson's crowd? >> that was hunt and libby and we wrote the story. >> i know, but nixon wouldn't >> they couldn't figure out how

to do it. >> how did watergate change each of you personally? >> it brought me to this room. were i would never have had the pleasure of being. it makes you kind of a celebrity . [laughter] >> somebody -- somebody says to take your work seriously but not yourself. there is some truth in that.