and andrew johnson was not a funny guy. there are no andrew johnson jokes. there are no andrew johnson self-deprecating remarks or antidotes. i really loved, and theirs is just not a thing. [laughter] >> his bodyguard is god a describe him as the best hater i ever knew. james k. polk, a fellow tennessean, the president, described him as very vindictive and perverse in his temperament conduct. he was not an easy guy to get along with. and this led to such terrible trouble. and this is a think the kennedy book, profiles in courage is something i take after at the end of my book. there's really been a misunderstanding after the civil war, there was a real reaction, one of the catchphrases of it is the north won the war and the south won the peace. there was, that johnson was right and letting the south do what it wished and not protecting a freed slaves very much and there was this terrible risk of oppression of the white people by the freed slaves. johnson talked about the risk that the south would be africanized, which was a pretty horrible phrase. and he sai

affect a certain kind of regime change if you shift presidential power from abraham lincoln to andrew johnson or from one branch as john wilkes booth did, or from one branch of the republican party, james garfield to a different branch, chester arthur. when garfield assassin proudly announces that he's attempting regime change as he is being tackled to the ground at union station. is said i am a stallworth and garfield will be a president. and in his pocket is a letter for who should be in garfield cabinet. so this possibility of a shift of one political party to another is in crisis from martin sheen to john goodman, for those of you who are west wing fans, is a real one. is a considerable policy concern. there are other policy considerations about the case of temporary disability, can a congressional leader easily step in just for a brief period. when that brief period will require resignation from the speakership and from the house of representatives. so those are some, many policy considerations i think that counsel in favor of removing congressional leaders from the line of succession. i

keep in mind that after lincoln was assassinated and andrew johnson became president, he was impeachedby the house and came within one vote of being convicted and removed from the office by the senate. at that time the next person in line for the presidency was the president pro tem of the senate who voted to remove johnson from office. who had a very strong vested interest in that process. and so it's not just -- or hypothetical. it can be impeachment. but also let's just get back to a kills point. you can have a four years with the political will of the country by moving from somebody at one end of the political spectrum to someone radically at the other end. it's really worth thinking through whether that is an appropriate way to have succession. and add to that, in our temporary politics, the speaker of the house and a leader of the senate, even if it were the majority leader are not sort of consensual figures in the country that naturally unified people, because they are strong leaders like nancy pelosi, they are really quite controversial figures, oftentimes with a negative ratin

caller: i just wanted to say, during the vietnam war, there was a canadian who asked andrew johnson won he would not end the war, and he said, all my friends are making money. they say the taliban is cruel and ruthless, but they did not bombing iraq and destroyed the country. we need to get out of the business of empires, if we are going to afford health care. host: do you have any comment on perhaps the legacy that has been left by the prior administration? as you have come into this new position, how much do you look back at history and what has happened in the past as you go forward with this new policy? guest: diplomats tend to look forward, so i am of the mode of trying to look forward. there will be a lot of opinions, a lot of books written about how the u.s. got into iraq, our motivation, etc. i had a lot of personal views on it, but what is important is, here is where we are, and this is what we need to do. we do not want a situation where our troops come back from iraq in a state of chaos. we want to leave them in a state of stability. i do not think anyone foresaw how difficul

affect a certain kind of regime change if you shift presidential power from abraham lincoln to andrew johnson or from one branch as john wilkes booth did, or from one branch of the republican party, james garfield to a different branch, chester arthur. when garfield assassin proudly announces that he's attempting regime change as he is being tackled to the ground at union station. is said i am a stallworth and garfield will be a president. and in his pocket is a letter for who should be in garfield cabinet. so this possibility of a shift of one political party to another is in crisis from martin sheen to john goodman, for those of you who are west wing fans, is a real one. is a considerable policy concern. there are other policy considerations about the case of temporary disability, can a congressional leader easily step in just for a brief period. when that brief period will require resignation from the speakership and from the house of representatives. so those are some, many policy considerations i think that counsel in favor of removing congressional leaders from the line of succession. i

just give one historic comeback keep in mind that after abraham lincoln was assassinated and andrew johnsoname to power, he was impeached by the house and came within one vote of being convicted and removed from the office by the senate. at that time, next person in line for the presidency was the president pro tem of the senate, who voted to remove johnson from office, who had a very strong vested interest in that process. so it is not just deaf, or hypothetical, it can be impeachment. let's just get back to your point. . political will of the country by moving from somebody at one end of the political spectrum to someone radically at the other end. it's really worth thinking through whether that is an appropriate way to have succession. and add to that, in our temporary politics, the speaker temporary politics, the speaker of the house and a senate, even if it were the majority leader are not sort of consensual figures in the country that naturally unified people, because they are strong leaders like nancy pelosi, they are really quite controversial figures, oftentimes with a negative rat

affect a certain kind of regime change if you shift presidential power from abraham lincoln to andrew johnsonrom one branch as john wilkes booth did, or from one branch of the republican party, james garfield to a different branch, chester arthur. when garfield assassin proudly announces that he's attempting regime change as he is being tackled to the ground at union station. is said i am a stallworth and garfield will be a president. and in his pocket is a letter for who should be in garfield cabinet. so this possibility of a shift of one political party to another is in crisis from martin sheen to john goodman, for those of you who are west wing fans, is a real one. is a considerable policy concern. there are other policy considerations about the case of temporary disability, can a congressional leader easily step in just for a brief period. when that brief period will require resignation from the speakership and from the house of representatives. so those are some, many policy considerations i think that counsel in favor of removing congressional leaders from the line of succession. i just

keep in mind that after lincoln was assassinated and andrew johnson became president, he was impeachedby the house and came within one vote of being convicted and removed from the office by the senate. at that time the next person in line for the presidency was the president pro tem of the senate who voted to remove johnson from office. who had a very strong vested interest in that process. and so it's not just -- or hypothetical. it can be impeachment. but also let's just get back to a kills point. you can have a four years with the political will of the country by moving from somebody at one end of the political spectrum to someone radically at the other end. it's really worth thinking through whether that is an appropriate way to have succession. and add to that, in our temporary politics, the speaker of the house and a leader of the senate, even if it were the majority leader are not sort of consensual figures in the country that naturally unified people, because they are strong leaders like nancy pelosi, they are really quite controversial figures, oftentimes with a negative ratin

johnson. thanks for joining us. sonia sotomayor begins confirmation process tomorrow. tonight our coverage begins with wayat andrewscapitol hill. >> reporter: judge sotomayor faces almost certain nomination. the path she took from the bronx to princeton and yale and then the federal bench make her the ideal nominee. >> this is a remarkable judge. >> reporter: but republicans will argue the judge has explaining to do. her comment about a wise latina woman reaching a better conclusion than a white male has led to charges her ethnicity is more important than objectiveity. senator jeff sessions was on face the nation. >> she has criticized the idea that a woman and man would reach the same result. she expects them to reach different results. i think that's philosophically incompatible with the american system. >> reporter: and republicans question why she saw no discrimination against the white firefighters in new haven, a ruling over turned by the supreme court. >> it's quite plausible here she was using her own experience in a way that did not result in fair treatment for the firefighters. >> reporter: but other lega

johnson, a family company. sean: and tonight on our "great american panel" he is a columnist for the washington times, publisher of breitbart.com and big hollywood, andrewreitbart is here. she is the host of give and take julie menin is with us, and noelle nickpour is back with us. people don't trust the president, people are scared he's spending way too much money, people want him to put the brakes on. where does this go from here? >> he's become actually too liberal for some moderate democrats, and he as far as i'm concerned is very radical for the republicans. look, he pushed and pushed and pushed to get this $787 billion stimulus through, it was an emergency. people are not falling for the health care emergency as well. sean: throughout my whole career is i've always wanted to underpromise and overdeliver. obama way overpromised and has underdelivered, and he's still pushing for more and more and more. people don't trust him. his numbers are have been so off. they don't believe him. >> his numbers are exactly where reagan's numbers were in the first term. sean: wait a minute. of the last 12 presidents he's number ten -- at this point in his presiden

affect a certain kind of regime change if you shift presidential power from abraham lincoln to andrew johnson or from one branch of the -- as john wilkes booth did or from one branch of the republican party, james garfield, to a different branch, chester arthur. when garfield was assassinated, he says i'm a stalwart and arthur will be president and in his pocket is a letter addressed to president arthur with suggestions who should be in arthur's cabinet. so this possibility of a shift from one political party to another in a crisis from martin sheen to john goodman for those of you who are west wing fans is a real one. it's a considerable policy concern. there are other policy considerations about the seamlessness of transition in cases of temporary disability. can a congressional leader easily step in just for a brief period. when that brief period would require resignation from the speakership and from the house of representatives? so those are -- there are many policy considerations, i think, that counsel in favor of removing congress leaders from a line of succession. i just wanted to hig