>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with doris kearns goodwin on lyndon johnson. >> he's the only president i've ever known. i spent so many hours with him. now, as a presidential historian, almost 50 years later, i'd give anything to have him back again. i would ask him, "where did your ambition come from? why did you want to do these thiks domestically? what was your sense of power? how did you know when you walked into an institution who the purposes of power were?" >> rose: we continue with a new documentary about william f. buckley and gore vidal called "best of enemies." >> they're not just fighting about 1968. they're fighting about the republic, and both of them had such an understanding not only of the american republic but republics going back to ancient times. i mean there were such scholars in that way that the stakes for them couldn't have been higher. >> rose: and we conclude this evening with al hunt on the story with colorado senator cory gardner. >> we still have more work to do, but we've come a long

wayses, and the exciting thing that i've been a part of is to watch in one single day as we voted on american amendments in one day of this year than we did in all of 2014. right now if you look at i think the numbers we've passed over 60 bills, most of which were bipartisan. 25 of which have been signed into law. >> rose: doris kearns goodwin on lyndon johnson a new documentary about william f. buckley jr. and gore vidal and al hunt on the story with colorado senator cory gardner. all of that when we continue. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications

from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: doris kearns goodwin is here. she is a presidential historian. she is a pulitzer prize-winning author. his first book "lyndon johnson and the american dream" was publicked way back in 1977. the biography is now being re-issued as an e-book. it draws to a series of intimate conversations she had with l.b.j. as a young woman. he signed the voting rights act into law calling it one of the most monumental laws in the history of american freedom. here is his testimony to congress in 1965 asking lawmakers to help him pass this legislation. >> but even if we pass this bill the battle will not be over. what happened in selma is part of a far larger movement which

reaches into every section and state of america. it is the effort of american negroes to secure for themselves the full blessing of american life. their cause must be our cause, too because it's not just negroes, but really, it's all of us who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. and we shall overcome. ( applause ) >> rose: you must look at that with mixed emotions. on the one hand, a proud moment for him and for the country, not easy. on the other hand then came vietnam, and all that suggestd and perhaps limited what he might have achieved otherwise in

building a great society. >> no question. i mean, i think about those years when i knew him, which was the last year of his presidency and then helping him on his memoirs at his ranch, and he was so sad during that time. he knew better than anyone that his legacy had been cut in two by the war in vietnam. how i wish he'd been alive now though, because i think what america is finally realize realizing, you listen to that speech you know it produced the voting rights act public broadcasting immigration reform, appalacha-- he created the foundation of our social and economic life today and now people are finally realizing it and he's not alive to hear it. but you're right four months after this speech at selma comes the escalation of the war in vietnam. if only that had happened. if you could only go back and say, "johnson, don't do it." >> rose: what kind of america did he want to make? >> i think from the time he was youngue know, he taught at this mexican school in texas and he speaks about it in the voting

rights statement, and he saw kid, he said who could feel in their faces the prejudice that they were being discriminated against, and he wanted to give them a chance to rise. he taught in a debating coach in houston high school, and he wanted those kids to become something. he wanted to rise from his circumstances. he wanted other people to do that. he was a very basic equalitarian sense. i mean he really, i think, had the deepest sense-- if you listen to the tapes when he talks about poverty, there's real passion in his voice much more than when he talks about the war in vietnam. that's what's crazy and sad. >> rose: he didn't know a way out of the war in vietnam. he told richard russell that this is terrible. >> you hear him on those tapes. he says, "what are we doing there?" and you just wish, "yeah what woo rwe doing there? don't go there." >> rose: he was a sad man in the end? >> oh, i think so. the person i saw-- every now and then he'd tell a story-- and he was a great storyteller, and then he'd get all excited and he'd get all buffed up. and the story might not have

been true but it was funny nonetheless. and then you'd see that side of-- i remember he told me about his great-great grandfather dying at the battle of the alamo. and i said that's amazing and i next day i found out he didn't die there. he just wished he had died there. so you never knew what was true or not. except for those moments when he would get excited or when he was talking about the past and we'd walk from his ranch to the little birth house where he was born, and he would be waiting there for people to come. he wanted more people to come to his birth house and the l.b.j. library than were going to the kennedy library, except for those competitive moments much of the time i think there was an overlay of sadness. >> rose: what did he think of jack kennedy? >> i think he actually liked jack kennedy. i mean -- >> you emphasize the jack. >> yes i emphasized the jack. he'd say he was a little whippersnapper when and i gave him a committee assignment to help old joe. he felt like he was on top of jack kennedy so that's why being

vice president was so hard. it was such a reversal of power. but bobby's the one. he blamed everything on bobby. they hate each other. >> rose: why did they hate each other? >> i don't know, i think apart of it-- i talked to my husband who was very close to bobby and i think bobby's anger towards lyndon came in part because once lyndon became very successful he thought he was eclipsing jack's legacy. he was saying, "it's not fair. jack kennedy only had three years. they're not going to remember him." so my husband, dick goodwin trying to make him feel better said don't worry about that juliusjulius caesar only had three years. and bobby said, "yeah but it helps to have shakespeare right about you." i think that's what happened on bobby's side. and on jack's -- >> so lyndon's success made it hard for him. >> i think so. i don't think he liked him all along and didn't want him to be vice president. >> rose: had different styles. >> and for "lyndon johnson, all the anger he might have felt

being upstaged by jack kennedy he could put on the brother. sometimes i think it's chemical they just didn't like each glrg the interesting thing is he probably could have done a whole lot to help the president, jack kennedy, because of all his experience in the senate. >> something happened-- in the very beginning he went into the democratic caucus and he wanted to become a member of it the vice president, and they just didn't want that. there's a separation of powers. and i think he was just so hurt about that because he thought he could have led the congress. can you imagine what he would have been as majority leader and now he's vice president-- it might have made thingz happen during kennedy's presidency. maybe civil rights would have been gotten through earlier. who knows. >> rose: would you write a different book today? have you learned things about presidents, about power about competition that would make it a different book? >> oh, i'd like to think so. i think about it. i'm in my 20 when i'm writing the book. he's the only president i've ever known. i spent so many hours with him.

now as a presidential historian almost 50 years later i would give anything to have him back again. i would ask "where did your ambition come from? why did you want to do these things domestically. how did you know when you walked into an institution who the persons of power were?" >> rose: did that come instinctively for you? >> i think i learned that. >> rose: no for him. >> for him. without question. he walked into the senate, he knew that there's-- there was something about him, he could just sense an institution. >> rose: he had an amazing ability to make older men invest in him like him. >> right. >> rose: consider him a protege. and these were powerful men in the senate who could make it easy for him. >> like richard russell was a bachelor, when he knew russell was lonely on sunday morning's so instead of having breakfast with his family, he would go over and read the newspapers with richard russell. and he wanted to be with him. it is not just that he was calculating. these older men took a caring to

him. even as a young kid he liked older women. >> rose: what was the hardest thing to write about? >> i think the hardest thing was just to write about what it was like to be at the ranch with him and to know that i thought some some ways he was bringing about his own death. he had had a heart attack earlier. he had one when he got thrown downthere. he wasn't supposed to smoke. he was smoking and he was drinking and you wanted to keep him alive -- >> did he talk about mortality? >> oh, yeah, he did. he would say "i want to be remembered and i don't know that they're going to remember me the right way." un, it's interesting, when he went to sient actual medicare act, which is now going to be on july 30, the 50thap anniversary, he went down to truman's place because he wanted truman to get the credit for originally deciding to want medicine and he said, "nobody's remembering truman now. i want to let him know that i remember him. i hope someone will remember me." and i know shortly before he died he talked to me and he said, if anyone ever remembers me i'm hoping it will be for

civil rights." and indeed, it has been. >> rose: that's what he said? >> yup. he knew that. i think he knew. the last public appearance he made was when his civil rights papers were opened in austin at the library and he was even then popping bills pilz because he had some angina attacks. and that was his hope, that those civil rights -- >> civil rights and i assume civil rights might include voting rights-- >> and the desegregation act the civil rights act of '64, and the open housing act in '68 but also -- >> and economic-- >> he saw everything together. he saw economic and legal rights as joined at the hip. and they were. >> rose: for all you say john connolly told me-- >> uh-oh! >> rose: for all you say about the the war-- war-- and maybe this is in fact confirms what you're saying-- john connolly said to me once over lunch "lyndon johnson sent him to chicago to make sure that humphrey didn't change on vietnam.

that was his purpose there. >> wow. >> rose: whether i believe john connolly or not i assume in that circumstance, to believe him, because other people have told me that's true. >> i have a funny story to tell you, though. i was at that convention. i was just on a vacation with a friend of mine -- >> i was too. >> i was with a bunch of friends who were all antiwar people and i'm working for johnson and i feel what am i doing here? this is my true roots because i was originally against the war. i made a comment, "i said if he calls me and asks me to do something i'm going to say no. this is going to be my principle moment." we're all in a room and he calls me up and says, "doirs, i have a favor to ask you. last week you were at the ranch and you borrowed my toothbrush and i can't find it." i was so embarrassed. but here's the point-- then i said, "how are you?" and he said, "how do you think i am?" he said, "i was supposed to go originally to the convention--" it was his birthday the convention "and they were going to have a huge birthday cake for me and land on the top and now they're telling me i can't even

go, i can't even go to the party that was for me for such a long time." glai party given to me by my party. >> there i am at one moment hating the war and being mad at him and another moment my empathy comes back. i like to believe what that experience with johnson talk taut me as i went from johnson to kennedy to f.d.r.to, lincoln and teddy and taft was to look empathetically and nonjudgmentally from the people i studied and try to look at them from thed in out because that's what he taught me to do about him. after i wrote the article against him he said, "bring her for a year and if i can't win her over nobody can." he did win me over. >> rose: tell me about the relationship. you know i've kidded you about it forever. >> i think what happened is i was young and i wasn't threatening in some ways and i was a woman which made it easier for him. >> rose: and you were from harvard. >> i was from harvard and the future. at one point he crazily told me

i reminded him of his mother which was rather bizarre. he took me on a picnic at the lake -- >> what effect did that have on you? >> it's even worse because he told me he wantedded to discuss our relationship and i thought uh-oh, here it comes. and i had been talking talking about boyfriends continually to try to get it off. and he said, "doris, more than any other woman i have known--" and my heart sank "you remind me of my mother." >> rose: what was the nature of the relationship? >> i think he was lonely and he wanted somebody to talk to and i was there. and i listened! i listened! >> rose: that's your final answer? >> that's my final answer, sir. >> rose: he said to you-- oh, this is what he told you "for millions of americans i am still illegitimate, a naked man with no presidential covering, a pretender to the throne, an illegal usurper." i mean, those are the words of an intelligent man. >> no question. >> rose: i know no question

about intelligence, but those are the men who would have been at home with shakespeare. >> right. >> rose: you know? >> no, that's right -- >> shakespeare would have spoken to him like no one. just listen to that language. "i was illegitimate, a pretender." >> he's saying this right after j.f.k.'s assassination. he's telling me that's how he felt. he's thinking all my life i wanted to reach this point and look how i had to reach it. not only was j.f.k. assassinated in my state but the murderer of the-- the murderer of-- he was assassinated, too-- he said it's just unbearable this is the way i came to power. >> rose: the the worst thing was it happened in texas while he was there. >> exactly. the incredible thing is he took command almost instantly. remember, the country doesn't know whether this is an outside thing, a conspiracy, part of a whole group of people that are going to try to be assassinated. and he knew i had to take

command. he said when he was a kid his grandfather was a cattle driver and the worst thing was when a stampede occurred. you had to get a horse in and take the people away on a tour-- not on a tour but get them out of there. >> rose: get them out of the way. >> and that's what he was able to do in those first nine months. the first nine months of his presidency are extraordinary. the civil rights act -- >> the night he comes back from dallas and literally seized the government. >> and tells them this is what i want to do. i want to get a civil rights act. i want to get a poverty program through. he knew what he wanted. >> rose: some ask did he have more talent to be a legislative ladder or executive leader? >> probably a slf leader. what he was able to do one on one is he knew what every senator wanted, what every congressman wanted, which ones wanted to take a trip around the world, which ones wanted to come to the white house.

he could store that in his mind. the executive thing was bigger. he couldn't make a deal with ho chi min. if he could have, he would have. >> rose: the interesting thing about him, too, what bob carol said the power, i think he said basically, when people get power they reveal who they are. and in some ways, it inspired the best instincts in him. >> right right. >> rose: look at voting rights. >> more than, that i think-- you know, where does ambition-- when you think about it, there's a doubleness to ambition. some people want the power for themselves. like he said one time, some people want to just disrupt the hail to the chief. i want to use it. >> rose: or, "what's the presidency for if you don't get to do things?" >> isn't that great? and from the early part he had that sense of the otherness even though the power was for himself he was going to use it for others. >> rose: what's interesting now is people are looking at him because of the play, because of

television, and we'll even see more with steven spielberg's film. but it is the dispooct i always bemomented this-- he should have been willing and his associates should have been willing to let lyndon be lyndon. >> without a question, charlie oh, my god! i mean, to stand behind that teleprompter and to give-- i mean, he gave some wonderful speeches but they never allowed him to talk the way he could talk. he had the best language. i mean it might have been a little bad at times -- >> it was the command of both ideas and emotion. >> right. even when he was writing a memoir i used to actually on the chapters i worked on write down everything he actually said, and it was hysterical. and he would say "that doesn't sound presidential. i can't say that." if he had been himself i mean, he still would have been a controversial figure but he would have been an unforgettable figure the way those of us who know him know he's the most interesting person we ever met. >> rose: i thank you for coming. you owe me.

>> that was your best line. you almost got me. i owe it to history to tell you. >> rose: thank you my dear. >> oh, this was great. i'm so glad. >> rose: we leave you this evening with an audio from lyndon johnson's conversation with dr. martin luther king jr. they're talking talking about passing the voting rights act. >> this is true, if you can find the worst condition you run into in alabama, mississippi, or louisiana, our south carolina where-- i think one of the worst i heard of is the president of the school at tes keyingy or being denied the right to cast a vote. and if you just take that one illustration and get it on exproo get it on television and get it on-- in the pull pits, get it in the meeting get it

every place you can pretty soon, the fellow that didn't do anything but drive a tractor will say "that's not right. that's not fair." that will help us on what we're going to shove through in the end. >> yes. >> and if we do that, we will break through, as-- it will be the greatest breakthrough of anything-- not even except the '64 act inge the greatest achievement might have administration, i think the greatest achievement in foreign policy, i said to a group yesterday, the passage of the 1964 civil rights act. but i think this will be bigger because it will do things even that '64 act couldn't do. >> rose: william f. buckley jr. and gore vidal were frequent guests at this table over the years. their debates at the 1960 political convention became legendary. >> you must realize what some of the political issues are here

that-- >> people in the united states happen to believe that the united states policy is wrong in vietnam and the viet cong are correct in wanting to organize their country in their own way politically. this happens to be pretty much the opinion of western europe and many other parts of the world. if it is a novelty in chicago that's too bad but i assume the point of the american democracy is you can express any point you want-- shut up a minute. >> no, i won't. the answer is they were well treated by people who ostracized them and i'm for ostra sizing people who igon other people to shoot american marines and american soldiers. i know you don't care. >> as far as i'm concerned the only. >> let's not call names. listen you year stop calling me a cryptonazi. >> gentlemen let's-- >> go back to his pornography and stop making any illusions--

of the infantry in the last year. >> you were not in the infantry. -- >> you were extorting your own military record. >> rose: a new documentary "best of enemies" looks at the impact they had on the role of media in the political arena and the political debate. here is the trailer for the film. >> this the republicans decided to hold their convention south of the mason-dixon line and i blew that one. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> pieces of the ceiling start flying. and that whole thing started giving away. >> to help us extract meaning from these conventions, two of america's most eloquent commentators william f. buckley and gore vidal. >> bill buckley was the first modern conservative to see that ideological debates were cultural. >> do you think mini skirts are in good taste? >> on you i think they are.

>> people at abc asked him was there anybody you wouldn't go on with, and he said, "the only one i can think of is gore vidal." >> gore vidal is one of america's most successful and distinguished writers. >> we are all prostitutes in one way or another, ethically if not sexually. >> for buckley, vidal was the devil. >> i'm a happy warrior in battle. i'm enjoying it. >> he represented everything that was going to moral hell. >> these were two visions of america clashing. >> each thought the other was quite dangerous. >> all this security makes me very nervous. it's necessary, apparently. >> if buckley were not taken out, his ideas would take down the nation. >> the country-- >> it's almost as if they were matter and antimatter. >> freedom breeds inequality.

>> he's always to the right and almost also alzheimer's in the right. >> the fact that anything complicated confuses mr. vidal. >> somehow-- >> balderdash. >> shut up. >> they really do despise him. >> stop calling me a crypto-nazi. >> let's stop calling names. >> you stay plastered. >> this is william f. buckley jr. in new york. perfect. >> rose: oh, my goodness. i am pleased to have the directors at this table for the first time welcome. >> thank you very much. >> this is so much fun. >> it was fun to make. >> rose: so bright and so smart and so articulate in the command of language and retort was so good, that it was a perfect mixture. >> when you set out to make a

documentary, you're throwing yourself into something that's going to take a lot of time. when we saw this footage in the raw, we were all ready to dive into the deep end. >> rose: the steam bath will give you a head start on whatever you want to do. >> watching that now it reminds me of how incredibly witty they were. >> rose: under pressure. it's live. >> yes, yes. >> rose: not scripted remarks. >> although -- >> although? >> i actually went through gore's papers at harvard and i found a couple of pages of prescripted insults that he had ready to go with buckley. so -- >> people do that but you don't know when you're going to get to use them. >> dpoar went into the debates with an agenda. he came in to destroy buckley. completely. buckley came in thinking it was going to be another episode of "firing line" where he could use his wit and immense debate skills to get by and this is different. >> rose: who won? >> well, that's complicated. i think the debates themselves,

you would have to say that gore won, and that's because buckley loses his cool there in the clip we just saw. >> rose: the crypto-naughty-- >> the crypto. >> -- he had been so calm and collected and awms in charge on his tv show and his life and he lost it one time on this huge national stage and it kind of haunted him for the rest of his life. >> rose: where are your political affinities. >> i'm liberal. i actually used to work for gore briefly right out of college as a fact checker which is not the easiest job to have because it is my job to tell gore he wasn't perfect. >> rose: that he played loose with facts. >> no, he was almost perfect. >> rose: a point not worth making if it's not exactly true. >> he was an amazing writer. i had immense respect for him. i'm a liberal. but the key thing for us in making the film was not to make a film about the arguments but how we argue. >> rose: did you come away with a much greater admiration for bill buckley?

>> yes. >> both of us were taken by fact that off camera, he was a bon i have vanity, that he enjoyed to hang around with people who didn't agree with him. >> he told an editor who he hired at the "national review" upon moving to new york. don't hang out with the conservatives. they're boring. hang out with the liberals. i can't think or imagine gore ever saying the same thing to somebody who worked with him. >> rose: gore had a sense of-- of-- he was smarter than everybody else. >> absolutely. yeah. he believed it and in almost every case, it was true. i mean, he was incredibly smart man. he -- >>-->> he also worked hard. >> he worked hard and he played hard, he did he did. he was a novelist, playwright, a screen writer, essayist. >> rose: and a good actor. >> yes. he did so much and crammed so much into his life. in a way actually, that's true of buckley too. buckley crammed so much living into his life, too. >> rose: because he couldn't

edit the magazine. he couldn't go out to make speeches, which he loved to do. he couldn't sail. he couldn't ski, he couldn't do things that brought himself him pleasure and purpose. >> here are two men at the center of american life for a moment, and they've each had a huge impact on american culture but at the end of their lives, they were both kinds of lions in winter characters who had seen the main stream pass them by in should way. it was difficult for each them to deal with that. >> rose: this is a clip showing how they prepared for the debate. here it is. >> buckley expected this to be an opportunity to debate the issues, to have some fun. he was not prepared for mr. vidal. >> gore told me he hired a researcher. he wanted to paint "national review" as being racist, if he could, anti-semitic. >> i don't think he was really

interested in conducting a debate about the issues or about the parties or about the policies or about the platforms of the two parties. what he wanted to do was to expose bill buckley. >> your confrontation is about lifestyle. what kind of people should we be? their real argument in front of the public is who is the the better person? >> rose: who is the better person. >> it's a culture war. these are the cultural battles that we're fighting today that the nation is engaged in, embodied in these two men. and i kind of think that's at the root of their ebb enmity. they fear that people will see the others that-- i'm sorry that people will see the other

as themselves. bill and gore-- they're so much alike but so polar opposite in thinking, and each on the same level, that they see an-- like a dark fun house mirror. they see an anxious version of themselveses. >> rose: how long from when you saw the debate and decide to do something with it? >> it was instantaneous upon seeing the debates. a friend of mine had a bootleg copy on a dvd and i saw it, and morgan and i had made films together and i shipped it out to him and we dove in. we were very quickly making this film. it took a while to make, but we embarked immediately. >> rose: why did it take a while because you were doing other things or because-- >> that, but also i think we instantly saw it as a film. >> contemporary film. >> and we saw it as very contemporary. i think a lot of people didn't understand it that way. it took us a long time to tell them this is about today. >> rose: they didn't, people

would understand it, its relevance. >> yeah, what's the relevance of these two guys sitting in a room talking 50 years ago. >> it's the story we had to tell and the evidence was when we first decided to try to make it as a film. we sent interview requests christopher hitchens james wool cot, and dick cavett, all wrote back saims great idea, come here, come now. and those interviews gave us all the ammunition we needed to make the film. >> when people see the film now the most common response s i can't believe how contemporary this film is." >> rose: what was the wraeks around the country? >> remember, this was in the summer '68-- everything else is happening. i think people were shocked by it but the difference is, there was no youtube at the time. now, a clip like, this a fight like it on television would get played over and over and over, and it didn't. it was buried for decades. >> well, but this confrontation

was spread over the republican convention five days there and five days at the democratic convention. so as the-- as they came-- as the horns locked they-- you know columnists were writing about it, and word began to spread. and the ratings went up. at abc they had been-- they were the fourth out of three basically, is the way someone in the industry described it. and this brought them a lot of attention. >> rose: yeah. take a look at this. this is a clip from this show both of them at this table at different times. here it is. >> i said it, just one silly example, in 1968, the conversations with william buckley on television at the conventions, the very first debate we had 1968, republican convention, miami beach. and i said there is no difference between the two

parties. each is paid by the same people, paid for. explosion. "how you can say such a thing." hysteria on every side. >> rose: on every side or you mean by bill. >> bill. i had starria is always there. >> rose: people like bill buckley, not withstanding the fact that they disagreed strongly with what he said, what he wrote what he believed. >> i say likely because they've come around. >> rose: no i don't think. so don't think lowenstein or galbraith ever came around, do you? >> you're talking about very special people. >> rose: do you think they came around or just liked the company of the man they were keeping? >> now this sounds being glorious, but i do, al lowenstein and ken gall graight

read reading what i wrote or brought to their attention listened to. >> rose: oh, boy. i remember so much there. he-- he wrote me a note after that after his first appearance on the show and said, "you're going to be the best thing flattering to me since mike wallace," which brings me to this clip. this is gore talking to mike wall wallace on "60 minutes." here it is. >> mike, i am so in touch with reality and you are so far off base and i can't begin to save your soul in the remaining seconds left to of to us. i am absolutely right in the general line i have taken in what is wrong. this country is a success because of cheap labor and cheap energy. we're never going to have that again. we're going to have to adjust to this. we're going to have less gross national product not more. we're headed for a complete economic crack-up. there's no doubt about that.

and i can quote you any number of bankers. >> are you planning on spending us in the last days in the bunker or abandon us to our fate. >> i am not an expatriate who think those-- i have been involved in elections and the life of this country. now, i think as the times get bad and i see darkness all around me, and i see these disintegrating cities and i watch these frightened people-- they're getting scared-- i would be very inclined then to return because if there is a disaster then you have a part to play. and i think that if the world is about to end or at least society as we have known it is cracking up, it's best to end your days, as it were, on native ground. >> rose: you see again this

whole sense of gore's sense of thinking in larger terms. >> epinick their ideas, i think. and i think very original in their thinking. something-- they didn't shill for either party. they were-- even at these-- in the film you see them bucking their-- their party not that they-- they disassociated with the party. but they share those sides of thinking. >> rose: who was it who famously said, before there was reagan there was goldwater, and before there was goldwater there was buckley. >> "national review" he started in 1955, he was building a movement and succeeded. >> rose: "national review" i think was his finest product. >> it was certainly the most productive. >> rose: what happened after this? did it change anything? was it simply something that

happened between two engaged warriors at two national conventions and then they both went their separate ways never to speak of it again? >> i think we can see what happened by reading the ratings the ratings got a huge response. the networks had made fun of abc for forsaking their journalistic integrity. in '72 did exactly as abc had done. nobody did gavel to gavel after that. everybody brought in color commentary. this idea of point-counterpoint developed. people saw that -- >> "60 minutes." >> on "60 minutes." >> shortly afterward. >> and people saw what an audience responded to was fireworks, and over time, the forest fire gave way to just the flame or just the image of a flame, and now we have-- you know, we see people tune in to

political shows to see yelling but you can kind of do it on mute now. >> in the wake of this, because it was something that was such a high-profile event, and haunted both of them, particularly bill, that bill felt compelled to write a long essay in "esquire" magazine about it. the following month gore wrote a long essay -- >> in "esquire?" >> in "esquire." and then they sued each other over it -- >> over the articles in "esquire." >> and the debates. they had a massive lawsuit that went on for years and year. >> rose: how did it end? >> it's interesting because the suit was-- gore's suit against buckley was thrown out on lack of grounds, and buckley was also suing "esquire" who settled, and buckley held a press conference dropping his suit and declaring victory over gore. >> and bill's move was brilliant to have this press conference and make this declaration. and someone in film points out it riled gore all his days

thereafter. >> rose: gore had a good point in there. he was not in the end-- although he had a lot of critical things to say about america. he loved the history of the country. >> absolutely. >> gl and he loved-- >> he considered himself the country's biography. >> rose: he lived in italy part time but was always here writing, appearing on television and being gore. >> it's interesting because they were not just fighting about 1968. they're fighting about the republic, and both of them had such an understanding, not only of the american republic but of republics going back to ancient times. i mean they were such scholars in that way that the stakes for them couldn't have been higher. >> rose: congratulations morgan neville and robert gordon. the film is released-- i guess opens july 31. >> over the month of august it will spread wide we hope. >> rose: another terrific. thank you for coming here. >> thanks so much. >> rose: we'll be right back. stay with us. >> senator cory gardner a colorado republican, is considered one of the stars of

the large republican freshman class in the senate. he served two terms in the house before winning the election last november in the swing state of colorado. we sat down and talked to him about his expectations in january. he was optimistic. we welcome him back again. >> thanks for having me. >> rose: it's nice to see you senator. let's take a look at what you said back in january as the congress was just starting. >> we have to prove to the american people that we can govern, that we can govern responsibly, that we can govern maturely. that's something that i've talked about over the past several months and the months leading up to the election. and that means that we put ideas, practical ideas on the desk of the president, ideas that have support of republicans and democrats alike to prove that we can regain the trust of the american people. >> 200-plus days. have you met those expectations? >> i think we still have more work to do but we've come a long ways. and the exciting thing i've been a part of is to watch in one single day as we voted on american amendments in one day of this year than we did in all of 2014. right now, if you look i think

the numbers we've passed over 60 bills, most of which were bipartisan. 25 of which have been signed into law. and i'll never forget a particular story early on when i was presiding over the senate it was during the keystone pipeline debate. i think it was a democratic senator who had been offered an amendment hlost the amendment and heim up to the vote clerk and asked for a copy of the vote tally. and i kind of teased him a little bit. i said don't you usually keep a copy of the winning votes? and he said he never offered an amendment on the floor before. and i know this senator had served in the majority. so to me that is a great sign that we have made a difference and we are starting to open up the process. >> let's come back and talk about some of those specifics in just a second. what has been your biggest disappointment? >> i thought after the election that we would be able to really work with the president that we could find some common ground that there would be opportunities to really do some big things and big ideas. and there has been one moment

where we were able to work with the president. that was on trade promotion authority. but really that's been the only moment. in fact, there have been some big legislation passed with overwhelming bipartisan support like the corker-cardin legislation on iran that the president initially said he would veto and finally reluctantly signed the bill. i think that's probably been the biggest disappointment. >>disappointment. >> both sides ended up agreeing on that bill. >> they did but it's been seven months, and those are probably the only two things that have really involved any level of the administration actually being able to work. >> i spoke to some people in colorado who told me that one thing eye don't know if it's surprising or not-- but corof cory gardner, a pretty conservative republican, and bennett, a pretty liberal democrat you two have a close working relationship. >> we do. we have to. i think all senators do. if they don't, they should. >>un as well as i do, they don't

always. >> colorado is a place where they didn't expect us to go to washington and retreat to our respective political cornerrers. they expect us to do the work we're here to do. >> he's up for re-election next year. so far no real opponent. are you going to beat the drums to find somebody to beat him? >> i think there will be an opponent, and i think he knows that but that won't interfere with the work we have to do in washington. >> you are very much an optimist as you just showed a few moments ago and you talk about some of the good things that have happened. but there's also a sense that some of the greatest tensions in the congress have not been between the president, but in the party. senator cruz called the majority leader a liar. someone called on the speak tore advocate the speakership. that's not going to happen. isn't there a great deal of tension in your own party and does that help your party? >> there's a great deal of pent-up angst, to get something

done a lot of what we haven't been able to do is because of a 60-vote requirement in the senate or a president willing to veto legislation we put on his desk, like the keystone pipeline, people elected in 2010, 2012 2014, who want to get things done and that leads to differences of opinions. if you watch what happened this week as members were talking about different procedural motions and whether they would exercise different option toss change the senate rules. it worked out. there will be a strong caucus and conference going forward. >> i do want to ask you one question about donald trump who is a front-runner right now today in the polls for your party's presidential nomination. s thathas trump and his message been good or bad for republicans? >> i think it shows an anger in the republic. but i think it shows the anger on the democratic side. if you look at bernie sanders and the attention he is getting. so on both sides the democrat

and republican ticket, there's a the love frustration with people who want to do something different than the way washington is heading right now. >> it trump helping or hurting republicans? >> again, i think trump has his opinion that i have disagreed with many times as others have. but we have a lot of good candidates. we have a long time between now and the election, and i'm anxiously awaiting over the next several months as it source itself out a little bit. >> is he one of those a lot of good candidates. >> again we have a lot of good candidates -- >> i don't think i'm going to get an answer, am i senator. one thing he has drng he has really beat that anti-immigration drum. when we talked in january you were really hopeful that somehow something could go forward on immigration. tusm has made that much more difficult, hasn't he? >> we start from the recognition, that the immigration system is broken right now. and spoke and met with an individual in colorado who had taken years and years and years to actually achieve their citizenship, even though they were trying to go through the legal process. of course, the disincentive that

creates if it takes too long is to not follow the legal process. what we need to do is when we talk about the need for immigration reform when we talk about the need for border security, and when we talk about the 12 million people here without their documentation we need to do it in a way that recognizes the value that immigration has brought to this country. >> but congress has done nothing in seven months. >> and we need to act on it and that's the bottom line. >> you don't think donald trump has at least set back efforts by appealing to some of those neg-- >> i'm very wrped that anybody who talks about immigration does so in only a negative manner. and we have to make sure as republicans we're talking about it in a solutions-oriented manner. people aren't going to agree. i didn't agree-- we talk to the hispanic community in colorado about what we would do to provide immigration solutions and we're still talking about those ideas with leadership wcolleagues on both sides of the aisle to find a way forward. >> you don't expect anything in this congress, do you? >> again it's doubtful, but i

never give up-- >> are you an optimist. >> i have talked to some of the most strident voices on both sides of the issue who all agree something needs to be done and out of that sort of talk there has to be something we can agree on. maybe it's a baby stet today. maybe it's a baby step tomorrow, but if we don't take any step we don't get there at all. >> you are also on the senate foreign relations committee and you almost immediately opposed the iranian nuclear deal when it was announced. let me ask you to respond to david ignatius, the preeminent foreign policy columnist for the "washington post" who said it's not a perfect deal. it's not a permanent solution, but it's just exwrn any of the alternatives. >> again, i think that's a false narrative that we have. because the alternative that the administration wants is this or war. that's simply not true. the alternative is to actually go back to the drawing board and strike a better deal and to get back to what this deal was

supposed to be in the first place, and that is to make sure that we have a nuclear-- that we prevent a nuclear iran. that's what we must do. this deal doesn't do that. in fact, we had a hearing today at the foreign relations committee where we talked to two experts. both of whom by the way one who supports the deal and one who opposes the deal, both agree it is not a zero sum game. it is not this or war. they both disagreed with that premise. we should go back and increase sanctions. there are things we can do to make the deal better, so they don't continue with the nuclear research that will allow them in eight and a half years to move forward on the development of reactors that could lead in the very short time frame from that point forward to a near-zero breakout period. i'm concerned what the deal does right flow is create a facient pathway to a nuclear threshold state. in fact, it will do so with the blessing of the world in a flourishing economy that has tremendous influence over the

region. their ballistic missile embargo will have been lifted. and they're going to be able to sell oil. it's a dris situation. >> let's go back to what you said a moment ago, the french have signed on to this. the british have signed on to this. the germans have signed on to this. not to mention the chinese and the russians. sanctions are dead. i mean, you know, if the senate or the united states congress defeet this, which, you know, might happen, this can't reimsuppose sanctions. >> i don't think sanctions are dead. if we can't impose sanction the snap-back provisions of the deal won't make a difference either. the penalty under the bill is to put sanctions back in place. if sanctions don't work, why would the snap-back provisions work. >> i'm saying if the deal is killed, the deal is void, you're not going to be able to re-impose sanctions because the other allies won't go along with it? >> i think we can create a scenario of sanctions that are

stronger and we can put sanctions in a way that affects our allies. if we're doing business with a company or country sanctioned under this deal and they lift their sanctions and we have secondary or third-party sanctions that would affect them i think they would pay attention to it, very much so, and it would still bring iran to the table. we hay briefing with the sphaipt, woo had secretary kerry there and a state department analyst talking about the sanctions and the analyst said the sanctions sanctions are eroding support for the iranian regime daily. and secretary kerry said sanctions can't continue to worker or something to that effect. those two points don't mesh. there's a conflict between those twoy points. either they're work or they're not. the state department said they're working. let's make sure they continue to work. let's pring in tougher sanctions and make a deal that results in no nuclear capability, no nuclear infrastructure. >> let's go back to domestic issues which you were saying on

obamad care, i'm for repeal but we have to have an alternative. it's not enough just to repeal. and the senate voted again to repeal but no replace, no alternative. the republicans haven't been able to frame that. >> that will be a argument in the conference and something we need to recognize is to fight for both repeal and replace. while i disagreed in the supreme court's decision in king versus burrell, one of the outcomes was several republican alternatives put forward talked about openly on the senate floor. there were multiple ideas many ideas, good ideas to replace obamacare. but we can't just talk about them on the senate floor. they need to be voted on. we need to put them into place-- >> in five years obamacare-- aren't people about to say, wait a minute, as somebody said at a convention, how long, lord do, we have to wait for that alternative? >> as somebody who grew up lutheran, we wait for a long time. the fact is this, we have a

health care bill that is driving major and megaconsolidation within insurance markets. we have a health care law that's driving up spend ago in fact just today they talked about the increase in health care spending and we have insurance premiums in colorado and elsewhere going up 30% or more. >> do you think that will have to wait for the next president? >> i believe the last time we had a conversation, i think i said with a president named obama it's unlikely they would repeal a bill named obamacare. going back to what we talked about we have to show the american people we are committed to ideas we ran for and show we can and that's why it's important we have the replace idea and move forward. >> we can't talk to a politician from colorado without bringing up weed. a piece of legislation i think you have been working on-- the problem in colorado is where marijuana is legal is that the banks could run afoul of federal antidrug laws if they take the deposits from the marijuana

companies out there. are you anything anycloser to a solution for the pot problem? >> well, we're trying. this is one of the greatest hypocrisies that you can imagine and it's a safety issue as well. here we are, a public safety issue, businesses that have millions of dollars in cash on hand. they can't take it to a bank. they have to pay their rent in cash and taxes-- and they get fined for paying their taxes in cash-- and they collect tax on marijuana. so they can pay the city of denver or whoever it is and they can cash it and put it into a bank and then fund public activities with it, but the business itself can't. so it's creating both a public safety issue and certainly hypocrisy issue. >> why doesn't the senate acting on it? >> we introduced legislation to allow-- senator bennett and i are working on it. i don't know that it's going to pass this year. but the fact is it's an educational process. i think this is something that every state in the country over

the next 10 years is going to be facing. and they're going to be paying a lot of attention to what we're doing in colorado. >> now that you've hay chance to wath it work, do you think colorado was right or wrong? >> again, i think it's still too early to tell. >> we talked about what's happened the last seven months, your expectations and where we are now. what would constitute success for the rest of this session? >> personally, i'm working on a major piece of legislation called america competes. this is the major research and development reauthorization for many of our federal agencies. it means a great deal to colorado, excited to get that through. we're working on that with senator peters from michigan. >> what about the trade bill? the trade bill is absolutely critical. it's the biggest opportunity in a generation. it means 260,000 jobs already in colorado, trade-related jobs with these nations. >> how about increasing the debt ceiling? will that go through without threatening-- >> again, i haven't heard anybody threaten. i think we need to have a republican and democrat solution to look at how we address a $17

$18 trillion debt in a reasonable manner and provide the government with the resources necessary to move forward, to avoid any kind of a lapse in funding. but do so in a responsible manner that doesn't continue to burden future generations in this country. >> senator, thank you. >> thank you for having me. >> thank you for being with us. and thank you for watching. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

this is "nightly business report." with tyler mathisen, and sue herera. >> oil slick. profits from some big energy companies hit a decade low. and with crude prices still declining, are their dividends safe? payday. but not the kind many would like as wage growth hits a record low. and the big idea. meet the kids who want to create the next hot start-up at summer carve. all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for friday, july 31st. good evening, everyone. tyler is off tonight. big oil profits slammed. exxon mobil and chevron posted their worst quarterly results of the current decade, as two of the biggest oil companies in the world showed investors just how much of a toll crumbling crude prices are having on their