>> rose: welcome to the program. tonight, dan balz joins us. he is chief correspondent of the "washington post." we'll talk about his book, "collission 2012: obama vs. romney and the future of elections in america." and also, about the sale of the "washington post." >> 2008 campaign was a campaign about hope and change, and an aspiration that barack obama gave to people that then he tried to fulfill. one of the reasons i called this book "collission 2012" was there was the america that voted in 2008 for barack obama, and there was the america that voted voten 2010 to bring republicans into power in the house, and the question was this was a clash between those two americas. >> rose: we conclude this evening with hugh laurie, the star of house, who has a new album, a blues albull called "didn't it rain." >> it's an extraordinary physical pleasure to me-- well, to everyone. this is a thing i keep thinking

about with acting. acting is an intriguing and absorbing problem, but at the end of the day, after a hard day at work, nobody goes home and relaxes by doing a bit of acting. >> rose: same thing, yes. >> whereas with music, everybody-- no matter what their job is, it is probably one of the most common experiences. it's as common as sitting around the fire. >> rose: dan balz and hugh laurie next.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: dan balz is here. he's the chief correspondent for the "washington post." his new book is called "collission 2012: obama vs. romney and the future of elections in america." politico's roger simon calls it a searing indictment on america's presidential election system and the way candidates run for office. i am pleased to have my friend dan balz at this table. welcome. >> thank you. it's good to be here.

>> rose: we bumped into ooch other on the campaign trail. >> we did. >> rose: when did we learn from the election of 2012 about america and about the future of politics? >> it's a great question because it's the over-arching issue about this campaign. the 2008 campaign was a campaign about hope and change, and an aspiration that barack obama gave to people that he tried to fulfill. one of the reasons i called this book "collission 2012" was there was the america that voted in 2008 for barack obama. and there was the america that voted in 2010 to bring republicans into power in the house. and the question was this was a clash between those two americas. i think we learned a couple of things. one is that, in many ways, the big forces that we don't thinka that much about day to day in campaigns are terribly important. one was, obviously, the economy. that we knew was going to be important, and it turned out that the economy was just good

enough for people to elect president obama to saikd term. the second thing we learned that we knew but became i think starker is that this is a changing america. this is a new america that is emerging-- has been emerging and we've known that -- >> in terms of who are the constituent groups. >> who are the constituent groups? what is that electorate right, and how is it different when ronald reagan got elected or bill clinton got elected. this is a much more diverse country and it has had a significant effect on politics, particularly presidential politics, as the republicans learned, somewhat to their surprise, after this election. and the third, charlie, is in some ways the most troubling and that is-- it's almost a cliche but it's so significant-- they say very divided country, red and blue. what we saw in this election is red america became redder and blue america became bluer. there were very few states in this election that were competitive. there were only, i believe, four

states out of the entire country where the margin was five points or fewer. >> rose: i want to pick up on that. how did we get to that point? is it redistricting? what is it that has made america red and blue and redder and bluer? >> a couple things. one is that there has been a great sorting out of the parties, as others have described brilliantly over the years. each party used to be a coalition of liberals, moderates, and conservatives. the old democratic party was southern conservatives and northern liberals, and the republican party had northeast liberals and conservatives from the midwest and elsewhere. over the last 25 years, people have gone to the sidelines of one party or the other so that the republican party is now much more conservative than it was and the democratic party is more liberal than it was. and so party identification becomes the great predictor of how people are going to vote. redistricting has helped to capackeridate bate that, but so

have living patterns. people tend to live in place where's they feel comfortable with the people around them, so in a sense people who are red move into redder areas and people who are blue-- so you now have this situation where it is much easier than it was, even 10 years ago, for a person who is conservative to find information-- to live in a world in which all of those views are reinforced, and similarly, if you're a democrat or liberal, to operate in circles, to get your information from places that reinforce those points of view. so it becomes much harder to have a conversation across those lines. >> rose: you have said that the campaign was about big things but fought in small ways. >> yes. and i think it's one of the reasons that perhaps not much seems to have changed since the election. this was-- i mean, another reason this was called "collision" was this was potentially a collision between two very different floss fees

about what to do about the economy, about the role of government, about some of the social issues that people care about. and in a sense, i didn't think that either campaign or either candidate ever quite stepped up to that moment. i thought in the area of new ideas, i didn't think either campaign-- and i'm not alone in this-- either campaign came forward with an agenda that people said this is a really fresh way to think about things. >> rose: do you at the same time believe that the american people are hungry for that kind of thing-- bold, new ideas that resonate with them? >> yes, i do. i think that people are hungry for a way to break out of this moment that we are in. and i don't think -- >> why don't they demand it? >> because other things sometimes get in the way of it. and there are other reasons that people vote, and so in the end, republicans and democrats sitting around a table would

often say the same thing about what they want. they want washington to work. but in some ways, they want washington to work the way their party thinks it ought to work, and given the choice between barack obama and mitt romney, a republican is going to say i'm going to go with mitt romney-- people don't take that chance of kind of crossing those lines. >> rose: if that was the theme, you know, you've done this-- this book has been excerpted in many places but also the "washington post," especially in the "washington post." and i remember talking about this team that obama put together. they knew where they stood in terms of what they thought the election was going to turn out. the republicans didn't. >> no, they didn't. they made some-- they made some very important miscalculations. >> rose: they were surprised. >> they were. i interviewed governor romney for the book in january of this year, and i said to him, "how confident were you on election day?" and he said he was very confident. he said -- >> very confident. >> not 90% confident buttught t.

here's where they made two miscalculations. the first was on the composition of the electorate. i remember having a conversation with jim mussina, the campaign manager, in i would say -- >> for president obama. >> right, for president obama, in april or may in chicago, april or may of 2012. and i said, "tell me what you think this electorate is going to look like. what share will the white vote be, what share will the nonwhite vote be." he said i believe it will be 72% white and the rest nonwhite. they were exactly right about that. the romney campaign thought-- in part because of what had happened in 2010-- the steady decline in the share of the white vote that we've seen cycle after cycle after cycle as the country has changed, that it nieb arrested, might slow down, might even tip back up, so

instead of 74% white, as it was in 2008, it might be 75% white or no worse than 74. they were wrong on that point. the second thing they were wrong about was the share of republicans versus the share of democrats in the electorate. they thought that at best democrats would have maybe three point better in the electorate, and the obama campaign thought differently. they thought it would be five, six, seven, or eight. and in fact, they were closer. so this question of why were the romney people's polls off? the assumptions they were making about who was going to vote turned out not to be correct. we had a big debate about polls and which polls were accurate and all of that, and it turned out that a lot of the polls that showed governor romney behind were, in fact, accurate. >> rose: you also give us a picture-- i think you've had more access to governor romney since he lost the election than anyone i know-- you give us a picture of a man who was not like most people who run for the

presidency, like bill clinton, you know, like obama-- president obama. they thought about it. they planned it. they thought that this would be their destiny. >> right. >> rose: governor romney had been a very successful businessman. his father had been a very successful politician until he ran for president. there is some sense that-- and his wife said this to me, too. he wasn't-- he wasn't the person who had to be president. >> i think that's right. and, you know, anybody who steps up to this challenge has to give it a lot of thought, and there's an interesting aspect in the interview i did with him-- and also i tajed to tag romney, the son, about this -- >> actually, i was thinking about what tag had said. >> the doubts that governor romney had. and i asked him about that, because tag had said,un, even to the moment he formally announced, "i thought my father was always kind of looking for an exit, that he wasn't sure he really wanted to run."

i asked governor romney about that. he said a couple of things. one was at the very beginning as they were looking at 2012, he wasn't sure he was the best person to defeat president obama. he said, "if somebody else--" and he mentioned in specific jeb bush, the former governor of florida-- "he said some somebody like jeb bush had run i might not have run." he thought jeb bush might have been more capable of winning the election. and the other aspect of this was he always you knew he was not quite a perfect fit for the party and winning the nomination might be difficult. he said, "my chief strategist stewart stephens would say to me' this is a southern party. you're a northerner. thans evangelical party, you're a mormon. this is a very conservative party. you're a moderate from massachusetts. this is not going to be easi'." there was a moment in spring of 2011 and he was getting ready to tackle the issue of health care. he knew there were lots of

complaints about what he had done in massachusetts on health care among republicans. the "wall street journal" cloblerred him with an editorial and called his sontag very early in the morning and said, "i'm not going to do this. he was talked out of that. he went through that moment and went ahead and announced. he said he always had this question about everything. he said it wasn't until he looked at the field of candidates that decided to run that he concluded he was the best candidate to do it. >> rose: so what is your take today on president obama this, man who came into office in 2008 way narrative that he made the country's narrative, so that the country felt younger. they felt that they were good people. they thought, he's young. he's attractive. and his series of skills, he's a "harvard law review--" editor of the "harvard law review.

he's articulate, inspirational. he has a narrative that make me think ths america, young, full of promise. that is what he came with in 2008. the narrative in 2012 was different because we had gone through an economic crisis that still had some dimension. what's the staevment two years-- three years remaining of barack obama? >> i go back to an interview i did for-- for the 2008 book i wrote with haynes johnson -- >> the late, great haynes johnson. >> the late, great haynes johnson. and he talked then about his view of leadership in the context-- i asked him about lincoln. "what does lincoln mean to you?" and he talked about lincoln style of leadership as being bon one, as he said-- "you don't have the truth. i don't have the truth. the truth is somewhere in between." and the key is to guide people to finding that truth. and he aid at the time, "it's a stifle leadership i haven't

mastered but it's one i admire." and i think he brought it that into the white house when he was first elected, and he ended up arriving at a time when that became exceedingly difficult when huet republican party that was so against everything he was trying to do, that there was no way to kind of gently guide, and so it became much more of a clash. and he, i think, has struggled with that. he's been criticize bide even some supporters who recognize the resistance that the republicans have put up, but still say, "well, why doesn't he have greater skill at being able to get an agenda through or find compromise or work his will on capitol hill?" i think he realized after the debt ceiling collapse in the summer of 2011 that this was going to be a struggle, and his first goal was to win reelection and to win as convincingly as he possibly could against pretty significant odds. >> rose: and to hope to prove that elections have

consequences. >> that is exactly right. and what we saw in the immediate aftermath of this election was a president obama who was more assertive. he was more robust. the inaugural address that he gave in january was, you know, this was an address to the new america. >> rose: right. >> and basically saying to the republicans, "i'm prepared to work with those of you who will work with me, but this is where we're going." >> rose: essentially saying, "i won, you lost." >> yes. but immediately we've been plunged back into this period of paralysis. and he's found some republicans in the senate that he talks to that talk to him. they've managed to get the immigration bill through -- >> dut is there at the heart of all this, this conflict-- and i don't know the answer to this-- is it because they genuinely, the republican party-- and whether it's mitch mcconnell or whether it was any of the people who ran for president or

john boehner, those two leaders in congress who didn't run for president-- is there some visceral reaction to this president? he's too young. he's too inexperienced. he's too, well, transparent-- whatever the word is-- redistributionist. he's all that, and somehow they have some visceral reaction to him, you know. or is it they simply have-- believe his view of america is different from their view? >> well, i think that's-- that's fundamentally true. i think that there is -- >> but does that make it different than other politicians that have opposed them on ideas? >> you know, the views that beam have today, politicians or political activists, are more passionately felt. >> rose: right. >> and the base of both parties demands that they been more passionately expressed. i suspect if john boehner and president obama were able to kind of work without anybody

watching over their shoulder -- >> just the two of them in the room, the grand bargain. >> they'd figurt out a way to do it. but both have constituencies, and i think john boehner particularly has a constituency. the key party faction that came into the house has affected all republican leaders and they're grappling with what to do. >> rose: he know by name all the people responsible for him becoming speaker. >> yes, he does. >> rose: and namakes a difference, yes. 2016, hillary clinton ( laughs ) doesn't look like anybody can challenge her on the surface, but you've been around long enough and i've been around long enough to know anything can happen in politics and what you thought was inevitable is not inevitable. hillary clinton experienced that in 2008. >> she sure did. as somebody years ago said to me-- and i'm not sure it was original to this person but "the only certainty of politics is surprise." >> rose: yes. >> and hillary clinton learned that. i mean, the one it's one

difference when you think about her potential quest for the democratic nomination in 2016 versus 2008 is there does not seem to be at this point a barack obama in the democratic party lurking there somewhere to take her on. >> rose: it's fair to say in both republican and democratic politics, a barack obama is a rare occurrence. >> yes. >> rose: you know, in terms of what he achieved and having the right convergence of things happen when he was running. >> you know, in the 2008 book, this was haynes' line, which i agreed with, but haynes said-- and we wrote it-- "the most unlike person ever to become president in the history of america." it was just the whole thing, to defeat the clinton machine and defeat hillary clinton was an enormously difficult thing and he did that and then to become president as an african american. so he is a rarity. >> rose: right. >> but the democrats do not have a strong bench at this point.

you know, if hillary clinton decides not to run, maybe vice president biden will run. but, you know, he's not a spring chicken at this point. very attractive in many ways to the democratic base but still peopleue know, i don't know-- i don't know if he'll run one way or the other. there are not a lot of other people to challenge her. at this point you would say, yes, she's the heavy favorite. but as you suggest, you never know about these things. >> rose: and on the republican side? >> the republicans -- >> they seem to be fighting if you look-- >> they are fighting -- >> chris christie and rand paul. >> they are fighting but that's healthy, in a sense. they need to have that debate and argument. >> rose: they need to clear the air, so to speak. >> rick perry had the great line about 2012 in his woeful candidacy, which he's the first to acknowledge. he said, "i ran against the weakest field the republicans ever had and they kicked my behind." this was a weak field -- >> he was remarkable

self-deprecating and funny. >> he was. >> rose: and showing there was a talent there that never got exposed. >> that's right. nobody ever saw that on the campaign trail. but in 2008-- 2012, excuse me-- the republicans were one generation away from having a potentially good field. they've got any number of people who on paper at least could be strong candidates in 2016 for the nomination. >> rose: chris christie. >> chris christie, paul ryan. >> rose: jeb bush. >> jeb bush, marco rubio, rand paul, ted cruz is talk. he excites the base. boab jindal-- there are a lot of people-- scott walker. >> rose: that's a very interesting idea. here you have the republican party who went through and i guess is still inhabited by the tea party in part-- inhabited, the party has them within its house. and at the same time, there are lots of conversations about the republican party killing itself and all that, and yet they have a remarkable group of people. >> yes, they do. >> rose: who want to be president and who you can see as

having the possibility of become president. >> you know, one of the unfortunate realities is we get so fixed on washington and think that all politics is in washington and all important political factors are in washington. one of my mentors, david broder, always taught me, spend time with governors because they are more likely to become president than senators. there's a lot of republican governance out in the states and one of the things we're going to see in 2016 is people who have had that experience come to the national fore and try to sell that to a national audience. it won't be as easy as selling it in some of these states but that's what we're going to see in 2016. >> rose: i just want to close on this, the "washington post," just listen to you talking about haynes johnson and david broder and bob woodward and ben bradley and so many people who have been giants in journalism, and you included, a great paper has been sold.

does it mean the end of the paper? it's been sold to a remarkable young man. your thoughts on that? >> charlie, if you were measuring this on the richter scale of earthquakes, this would have been off the charts yesterday. i was-- i had just arrived up in new york and got the world word that there was a big announcement and called a friend and said, what, is it?" and he said, "the word is the grahams have soaltd newspaper, sold the 'washington post'." i said, i don't believe it. that can't be true. i thought i would never see the day the grahams would silent paper. ben bradley said the first key to being a great editor is having a great owner and the grahams were that. they supported great journalism. they were fearless. as len downey, one of our former editor said, we made the journalistic decisions and always knew the grahams would support us. >> rose: and did during

watergate. >> and did during watergate other and times. in a sense, it was a moment of great sadness to see them announce the sale of this. on the other hand, i have enough confidence in don to believe that he would sell to a worthy successor, a worthy new owner. >> rose: it was a thoughtful consideration by him. >> yes, absolutely. and as don has said, owning the "washington post" was not about the grahams. it was about the "washington post." and they, as a family-- and the board came to a decision and a conclusion what was best for the "washington post" would be seek a new owner who might be better at charting the new world. jeff bezos has, obviously, been very, very successful. he will bring i had brainpower and sense of inspiration to a challenging operation. every newspaper that was print based has been through this. the grahams have been great at

journalism. they've been great as employers. they've treated their people who worked for them very, very well. jeff bezos now comes in with that legacy to preserve and find , if he ca new way of doing that we do that preserves all of that but makes it economically successful. >> rose: thanks for coming. >> thank you. >> rose: the book is called "collission 2012". dan balz knows politics. he knows a lot about politics. we'll be right back. stay with us. hugh laurie is here. he became famous for his comedy role in jeebswrz and woster. he had his own sketch show. he rose to fame playing dr. gregory house in the hit television program "house." the series ran for eight seasons, but music was always a passion. he released his first blues album in 2011. it was called "let them talk."

his second came out this year. it is calls "didn't it rain." here is a look. ♪ wild honey makes me feel like twice the man i used to be ♪ wild honey. ♪ wild honey makes me feel like twice the man i used to be ♪ wild honey wild honey. >> rose: hugh laurie will be touring the united states with the copper bottom ban in october and early november. i am pleased to have him at this table. welcome. >> i am more pleased than you are. >> rose: no, i doubt that. >> it's a great honor. >> rose: "didn't it rain." >> yes. >> rose: second album. >> which already that's an

incredible sense of -- >> when you came out with the first did you think there would be a second time. >> i didn't think there would be a first all the way to seeing it in a record shop. i didn't believe it was real. and the second time-- the second time i was actually more apprehensive in a way, because-- the first time i didn't know enough to be nervous. you know what i mean? i was sort of-- well, i was an idyoat. >> rose: self-deprecation will take you a long way. >> do you think? it's what we study in england. the second time around i knew a little bit more. i was armed against certain things but you know more about the mistakes you can make. >> rose: on the other hand, you got good reviews which must have given you some confidence. >> it did, actually. i was immensely proud of the first record. prouder still of the second. and to have people pay any

attention to it is a great compliment, but to have it well received is a wonderful thing. i still can't quite believe it. i can't believe i'm sitting here with you now. >> rose: one achievement-- >> no, no. >> rose: there's self-deprecation here, too. this thing with music, where does it come from? you have said, the great thing about music is even if you hit the note wrong, the pleasure of playing is huge. >> yes. fortunately, because i hit wrong notes-- yes, it's true. it's an extraordinary physical pleasure to me. well, to everyone. i mean, this is a thing i keep thinking about with acting. acting is an intriguing and absorbing problem, but at the end of the day, after a hard day at work, nobody goes home and relaxes by doing a bit of acting. >> rose: same thing, yes.

>> whereas with music, everybody-- no matter what their job is, it is probably one of the most common experience. it's as common as sitting around the fire -- >> and it touches your nerve endings in so many different ways. >> absolutely junk gl it can make you feel a food mood. it can make you feel. >> everything. it sort of compresses all of human life and transmit such joy. >> rose: how come you got so good at it, if you assume the premise is right? >> because, if i got good at all, it's because i love it. and because-- because i had no one-- no one ever assort of suggested you know, "you might want to do this professionally." that happened-- came very, very late in life. but i just loved it for decades. school committee would listen to records and say, "what is it otis span doing there? why-- what's that lick he's doing that's having this effect on me, that gets my hairs it's hairs on the back of my neck standing up" time after time

after time. i would sort of obsess over these things and hunt down records and-- there are actually more piano players than guitarists -- although i started out like every teenaged boy loving guitarists. >> rose: why american blues? you started this journey in new orleans. you're making your way up the mississippi. >> sort of. >> rose: to memphis, or somewhere. >> well, i can't explain it. this is just music that touched me from the very first moment i heard it. i was very, very young, and i believe it was a willy dixon record, but i'm not sure. but i heard this sound, this sort of wonderful sliver of light broke through between a minor third and a major third-- and i later investigated what that actually means. i didn't even know it at the time. and i just-- it made me shiver. it was almost like an electric shock. and i realized this is where i wanted to live. i wanted to be in that space and

hear these sounds and these stories knowing, of course, that i'm monumentally unsuited for the task. you know, i'm not from here. this is not my music. >> rose: before we talk about "house," where did you grow up? >> i grew up in ox horde, england, home of the blues-- it's not the home of the blues. ( laughs (. >> rose: maybe oxford, mississippi. >> yes, i grew up in oxford. >> rose: your dad was-- >> he was a doctor. >> rose: your moment? >> she was-- she raised four children. >> rose: of which you were the youngest. >> i was the youngest. the baby. >> rose: and there was some battle with depression. >> yeah... yes. it's been a sort of figure in-- it's figured in my life a little bit, and -- >> and hers? >> possibly as hers. of course it was not a thing that was talked about, didn't have the same name. it wasn'tue know, people just got-- well, actually, ironically

enough, they got blue. that was how people described it but, yes, it's-- it's a sort of specter at least, isn't it? but in many people's lives-- in all our lives. and maybe-- maybe we're just built that we. we need to have that-- that feeling of after all-- if-- what is it up if you know nothing of down. >> rose: did you go to eden? >> i did. >> rose: oh, no, not one of those. >> again, i have all the credentials, i realize. i did. i had a very, very privileged, blessed -- >> how did that shape you? >> um... i'm not sure. i think-- i got to understand-- i got to understand large institutions. had haven't had to work in any or survive in any, but, you know, when i go to the few brief dealings that i've had with the armed forces, for example, or

the few times i've been to a prison, i sort of look around a prison and go, "i'd probably be okay here. i could survive this." >> rose: because you'd been to eat eden? >> because you understand how large prison populations can survive. >> rose: why did you go to cambridge rather than oxford? >> because my father had been there. so a creature of tradition. my father was a very eminent oars men-- crew. and he won an olympic gold medal in 1948 and he rowedly in the berlin olympics in '36 and he was a star. >> rose: imposing figure. >> he was. and obviously, someone as-- as so many boys do-- someone i wanted to emulate. and i followed in his footsteps. >> rose: and then you were-- were you president of "footnotes?" >> i was, i was. >> rose: so you're some kind

of-- what? good at everything? >> no, no, no. there's a song-- the clip of that song you played has got the most wonderful line. the song is called "wild honey" by dr. john. >> rose: one of where you are faifs. >> i revered dr. john like no other. he has a wonderful line, i'm a jack-of-all-trade, master of none." which he changes to "master of funk," which i love. to that-- every time of find myself singing that line, i think, well, this is an honest moment. i have-- i appear-- i understand that i appear to have dabbled in things, that i've done a bit of this and i've done a bit of that, but actually, the truth is music is what means more to me than anything else. it's a truer reflection -- >> why didn't you engage in a profession of music? >> um, i suppose lack of

confidence. it took the many, many years of developing confidence to the point where i could actually say, ," i'm going to try this. i'm going to step out" -- >> what's amazing to me is there is throughout-- i mean, you basically have said success at "house" gave you enormous confidence. >> yes. >> rose: right. >> it did. without a doubt. >> rose: but you have had one success after another. what does it take to convince you-- >> i just want you to loch me. i just want you to love me. ( laughter ) it's partly -- >> it's not an act, is it? >> no. >> rose: okay. >> no, wow. if i were that good. no, absolutely. i do think a large part of it is simply the process of aging that you develop-- you know, your skin thickens a little bit to the disappointments and

criticisms that you encounter in life. it just has to because they accumulate to the point where you go, yeah, all right, i mind less what people think of me. i probably used to mind too much. i was probably inhibited by how much i minded. and then i got to a point where this opportunity came up and a record company said this is plainly something you love. do you want to do-- do you want to actually commit this to-- well, not vinyl but-- actually, we are vinyl. >> rose: descru a group you played whenever you could? >> yes. i played in various sort of amateurish bands. i-- amateurish sounds as if i'm being dismissive. they were fantastic experiences, but this was a whole different level. and it was suggested to me, and my first reaction, my sort of conditioned reaction was, "no, i couldn't possibly. i'm not worthy. i'm not worthy." and then i thought, well, this

may not come by again, this chance. and i don't want to be 10 years from now thinking i could have done that and didn't. >> rose: a worse problem would be if you say fear of failure. i wouldn't do something because of fear of failure. >> right. >> rose: if you live a life like that-- >> yes the perfect is the enemy of the good. >> rose: exactly right. >> it ties us all up. >> rose: or just, failure should be something you want to challenge all the time because it makes your life richer, and most of the time you probably will succeed. >> it does. well, i don't know about succeed ago. >> rose: i do. i think people are much more capable of things than they imagine they are. that's what happens when people rise to the occasion because the leadership, motivation, whatever it might be. >> yeah. and of course you do, you do-- you learn a lot from failing. >> rose: indeed. >> my dad used to coach me when i was rowing. >> rose: when you were rowing? i bet that was easy. here's an olympian-- go, huey,

go. >> it was a strange relationship. >> rose: it was. we'll come back to that. >> we had a race we lost, and it was a race we knew we shouldn't have lost, and his sort of consoling summary of the whole experience was, "any idiot can win." and i thought, what? you've got that wrong. surely that's not what-- and i thought, that is sort of brilliant. that winning doesn't teach you anything. and you-- there's nothing-- that's something you simply experience. whereas losing and what you do with that and how you develop from it and learn from it is everything. that's where it gets interesting. >> rose: yeah. >> as it happens, he actually eye don't think he ever really lost a race, so he's probably not the one to be saying that. but it was -- >> is he still alive? >> he's not, no. >> rose: how long ago did he die? >> 15 years ago. >> rose: but he had a chance to see you--

>> yes, he did. >> rose: and be proud of you. >> i hope so. i hope so. >> rose: i mean, you're at cambridge, and you are big on campus there. and-- well, take my word for it. you were big on campus. we have evidence. >> okay. >> rose: academically did splendidly. >> um... >> rose: compared to what a guy shows up and he wants you to go into acting. >> yeah. >> rose: like that. and such is it that makes life's turns. >> certainly. yeah, absolutely, the most rapidom-- that puncture you get that means you pull over to the side of the road at a particular point and you meet this person. it was an extraordinary thing. and, yes, i sort of tumbled do into this-- it was actually-- although i didn't know it at the time, but it was a club with a mighty tradition and reputation

that had produced a big chunk of monti python, had peter cook and dudley moore and lots of those sorts of performers. they had a very, very strong tradition and very high expectation and i sort of tumbled into this thing, and just loved it. i absolutely loved it. the pleasure of making people laugh is-- is a very, very great one. >> rose: indeed. >> an addictive one. >> rose: so when they came to you for "house," did you instantly say, "you bet. you came to the right place. i'm your man." >> no, i didn't. >> rose: that's not your style, is it? >> not quite my style. although i did feel-- i was confident that i had at the very least understood what was expected, what was requireed of the role. i wasn't sure i was the one to deliver it but i at least knew what it had to be. there was motif that went through all eight seasons the

rolling stones song "you can't always get what you want." and there was a line in the, the philosopher jagger said, "you can't always get what you want." and apparently, they had more people they had many, many actors who would come in and and read that line and go jag-ger, because they hadn't understood this was a line from a song. and it was little tiny things like that-- i felt like i didn't know what was expected. and -- >> let me just try this on you, okay? >> another go ahead. >> rose: you wanted this so bad, that you perfected an american accent. i mean, you really prepared to make an impression. >> i did prepare. i worked very hard at the audition. but i see what you mean. i see what you smeen, but in

actual fact, i'm not sure it's because i wanted this opportunity so badly. what i wanted for the first time ever, i was determined that i was not going to walk out of the room and say, "if only. i could have done that better." >> rose: yeah, yeah. >> and i do work very, very hard because i did think i just want to leave the room and know whatever i did was the way i thought it should be done, and that i can dit as well as i could. i would have been content with that. if they had then give 10 to someone else i would have been not happy but i would have been okay as long as i knew that i had done it right. because i've had so many years of walking on out of the door going, "oh! i had it. i had it and let it slip through my fingers." >> rose: if in fact you had known what it would mean to you you would have killed yourself for not getting it. >> yes. >> rose: of i very-- i very probably would, actually. >> rose: if you had known,

possibly could have understood what it would mean to you, the joy of it, an opportunity to direct, all the stuff. >> that's true. >> rose: international fame. >> yes. well, when you put it like that-- ( laughs ) true. yes, i probably-- but of course at that point, that was such a distant prospect. no one, no one-- even the people working on the show-- because the rate of attrition is so high, and one out of 10 goes to a series. one out of 10 of those goes to a second year and so on and so on. >> rose: beyond brilliant acting what do you think has made you it so successful, eight years. at one point, the most watched television program on the face of the planet. >> that can't be-- that can't be right. it sounds terrific, and i'll happily-- i think it was-- it was very well done. i think the writers on that show

were some of the cleverest people i've ever come across. and i think television-- you know, it is a writer's medium, and the writer is king. i mean, they're actually sort of elevated to that position in television the way they're not in movies. >> rose: right. >> they're treated like the help in movies in a lot of case. "thanks, thanks, just leave it there." >> rose: not only that, then they go and ask somebody else, "look, we didn't like the way they did this. will you take those five scenes...." >> so you have 22 writers. whereas in television, there's a lot of understanding, really they are-- they are steering the ship. >> rose: they begin from the beginning, too, they shape the character. you also got to direct. >> i did. >> rose: how was that? >> one of the best jobs going. >> rose: really? >> i absolutely love it. i love it. >> rose: do you love it more than acting? >> well, i'm-- i'm a sort of-- i

have this-- i am so constituted that i actually tend to like the thing i'm not doing. >> rose: not doing? >> yeah. >> rose: greener pastures. >> something like that. a sort of restlessness, i suppose. so when i'm -- >> when you're acting you think about music, when you're doing music you think about directing, when you're directing you think about something else. >> we're all like that to a degree. otherwise we wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. we're looking for some other angle -- >> or looking to make things better. >> exactly, exactly. >> rose: mao do i make in th-- you look at a scene-- when you look at yourself, what are you looking for? >> when i look at myself? >> rose: yes, in an acting scene. >> oh, i see. >> i don't. i try and avoid it as much as possible. i was actually-- normally, the television drama production is moving at such a pace that there's no time for anyone to

look back. you're always moving forward. if you look back, like a shark in the water, you asphyxiate. you have to keep moving forward. however, they made a special arrangement because i was directing myself to have one of those video playback things. >> rose: so you could seen right after the scene. >> didn't use it once. >> rose: really? >> didn't use it once. i thought-- frawl, we didn't have the time. >> rose: when you got chance to direct did you go and say i'm going to watch a bunch of movies. i'm going to read a bunch of books, talk to a bunch of directors . >> this will sound cocky but i had already done that-- whoa! whoa! >> rose: i thought there was another aspect of your life. >> i had been fascinate bide the mechanics of film and the technology of filmand photography, and i-- i do have some groaning bookshelves, starting with how to direct --

>> that series of books, dummies. >> i had done that and sat in front of particular favorite sequences, or movies and sort of rewind and actually broken down the way a sequence is cast. i had studied that. i felt as if i-- i sort of paid attention. you know, i am fascinated by the process. and i do pay attention to as it's going by. >> rose: and loved it. >> yeah. >> rose: is it control? >> i suppose it is. it's more-- it's more a question i think of just the variety of problems you have to solve. it'st sort of calls upon every single part of your brain to deal with some purely mechanical, some purely emotional, some to do with management of time and people

and it just seems-- and it's throwing all these things at you simultaneously. >> rose: most people think film is a director's medium. >> yes, i think that is-- that is true. i think they are-- they're given license to -- >> and given license to choose. >> yes. >> rose: and stage is an actor's medium. >> yes, i think so. although, stage directors may have something to say about that. >> rose: i'm sure they would. >> but, right, the actor is pretty much sovereign once the curtain has gone up, yeah, yeah. >> rose: is "house" just a contemporary version of sherlock holmes? >> yes, but that was the starting point, i think. but there was and is in my mind-- because in my head he still exists -- there is a-- an added element of a sort of child

tisch narcissism, which ought not to be appealing, and yet i found it appealing every single day. i found the fact that there was this genius risk taker, innovator, scientist, cohabiting the same brain with an eight-year-old hyperactive boy. i found that completely beguiling. and i still do. it still makes me laugh. the childishness of this great intellect, i just found that an endlessly charming combination. >> rose: i have one half of those. ( laughter ) >> right. let me see now... yes. yeah. well, we have two halfs . >> rose: you have the brain side and i'm the child side. within is a raging seven-year-old. take a look at this from the last final season where his best

friend dr. wilson has been diagnosed with cancer. >> and, lo, he has risen. >> so now my hair is going to fall out next week? >> all diwas temporarily kill you. >> how was it? >> i don't-- i wasn't dead. i was unconscious. >> no dreams, no thoughts? you experienced nothing. now engine that without the waking up on the couch part, just nothing times infinity. >> you didn't just prove death is nothing. you proved propofol is. >> you're saying the end is not the end? i was expecting nothing is better than something lousy, but not angels are waiting for me. >> i'm not having this conversation. >> why? because it makes sense. >> because i'm not going to change your mind, and i don't care. more importantly, you're not going to change mine. >> there is no heaven. there is no hell. your soul is not going to float out of your body and join some

great uniifying energy force. the fact that you're dying is not going to change that. >> please, just go. >> rose: that was great. >> thank you. >> rose: it was. >> it was, well, it was a great -- >> the dialogue-- >> it was a great-- it was a great honor to be a part of it. it really was. i do eye would-- i would put that character up against all-comers in a-- i am very, very proud to vaib part of it, yeah. >> rose: i forgot to mention, you're also a novelist. >> i'm-- well, i've written a novel, does that count? >> rose: yeah. >> i suppose it does. >> rose: you tell me, was it a novel? >> it was a novel. it was all made up by me. so, yes, i wrote a novel, and planned to write five more. i had this plan-- it was of a particular genre that i thought

there should be six of these. there should either be none or six. i have only done one. >> rose: exactly. >> that's any way now. >> rose: you're in a movie soon with george clooney. >> i am. >> rose: called. >> "tomorrowland." >> rose: and do you ever other movies you're in that haven't yet come out? >> no, i think that's pretty much a clean slate for me because the music has now-- it's been two years i've been doing this and we toured-- i've been on two tours, and we just got back from a tour of europe which was absolutely fantastic, and i am besotted with the experience of making music in front of a live audience. >> rose: besotd. >> that's good, isn't it. title for the next album. >> rose: besotted. >> i wouldn't change it for anything. >> rose: i also hear you saying in that statement that if in fact i'm sitting here and somebody comes to me and says,

"mr. laurie, we have the best acting role you could ever imagine but you have to be there on july 4," and coming next is somebody who says, "you've always wanted to perform with your brand at this venue. we have it. it has to be july 4." >> right yeah. boy, that's a tough one, isn't it? >> rose: i don't know. >> that's very, very difficult. the thing is, right now, i've experienced that one. >> rose: yeah >> and loved it. and i don't know-- this is an unknown quantity. you say it may be the best acting role but i'm not sure. i'm not sure. this is a guaranteed blast. >> rose: a bird in hand for you? >> a bird in the hand as opposed to-- two pieces of gravel. but it's a good question. i mean, i just pray that those two things will inform collide.

but right nowcialg the music eye mean, because i feel like the show we're doing is growing. and. >> mean, i feel in my little way i'm getting better at what i'm doing, but also the band is coalescing in a way-- we have really taken such a step on, and i feel so-- you know, we have done shows in the last couple of months they actually know-- i know that if i was sitting in the audience, that would have been a hell of a night. that would have been a hfl a night. and i am so proud of that, proud to be part of that. so right now i'm tending towards that. >> rose: it's a hell of an experience to have you here. >> thank you. it's amazing eye have watched this table. i have watched you around this table so many-- i can't believe it. i suppose people say it's smaller or bigger than they expected. it's also square, by the way, which it doesn't look on television. >> rose: it's an optical

illusion we work very hard to create. thank you. >> thank you very much gll thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib brought to you by. >> sailing through the heart of historic cities and landscapes on a river, you get close to iconic landmarks, to local life, to cultural treasures. viking river cruises, exploring the world in comfort. home economics, the president wants to phase out the two government companies at the heart of the financial crisis, fannie mae and freddy mac. will it make mortgages costlier and harder to get? is that the price to get uncle sam out? how vulnerable are the nation's utilities to a cyber attack. experts say it's not if but when. the cost could be high. compete and beat. hom