>> host: in the book you compare barry goldwater to harry truman. how so? >> guest: he's one of those guys who over the years his positions have gotten forgotten, his specifics, and he's come to be viewed by partisans on both sides as somebody who was really a straight shooter, who told it the way it was, who had the respect of a wide spectrum, and i think as history has passed, he is in that category regardless of whether you agreed or disagreed with him at the time, you look at him now as somebody who really had the best interests of the country in mind and spoke his mind. and that has a certain charm and certain well reception or good reception with the average voters. so i think there's a nice comparison. >> host: and as you write, admired for his principles. is there somebody on the national stage today that is a barry goldwater? >> guest: i'm looking for him. i'm not sure there is. there are, there are people who speak their mind, but he was, he became a, you know, a unique figure in american politics because of his outspokenness and his -- he took a

explain. >> guest: pure goldwater to put it in context is just that. i had read the senator's autobiographical works where he had worked with co-authors and i don't think they ever found this material and years later talking to him he told me he had taken a lot of material he had composed over the years and put it in the historical foundation. i haven't seen that in his books and when we were going to do another project i realized at that time i said there is really good stuff in here and it is pure gold water because it's not by a speech writer were by a staff person, it's the senator and goes for everything from a personal diary he kept starting when his son died, excuse me, his son was born until his own in def and it's not regular, but there's enough of it that it gets a sense of the man threw a lot of years it's very personal. he hammered it out on a little portable typewriter when he was first starting it later when electronic dictation became available he would dictated and everything would be transcribed and it boils and well filed initially, b

barry goldwater can't remember william rehnquist, working for you.he president's lawyer, it is ignored. hi happen to work at the department of justice, they are scrambling. it is a lot of who is available to get confirmed that a given time. box a reader through, and william rehnquist was my candidate. i was later shocked to the degree of his conservatism, more moderate than he turned out to be. and another guy who walks into nixon's will office. howard baker, lewis powell, nominated and howard baker, and the minority leader. fairly young, nixon would make good justice and probably would. the kids put through college and the financees, it was on the high court. and put into a conversation with nixon close to the chest. it is not until richard more mentioned he was a law clerk for robert jackson, robert jackson is a great justice bite any partisan's definition whether you are republican or democrat. nixon recognized that. that seemed to close the deal. he is not very interested in baker and when he learns that thought was number 2, had that wrong, he w

goldwater republican headquarters of arizona. you keep doing what you're doing with the clintons, and we're going to take your name off that building. and the senator, of course, being the senator said, you keep doing what you're doing, i want you to take my name off the building. >> host: we'll go to charles next from illinois with john dean. welcome to the program. >> caller: hello. i'd like to ask mr. dean if he could comment on the family of secrets by russ baker where he reiterates the charges that were in the lawsuit as a copyright 2009 book, if the he's going to bring suit against him too? >> guest: i'm still looking at mr. baker. he's somebody i hold in minimum high respect because he's not a terribly solid journalist. so i'll just leave it at that. >> host: next is marion from erie, colorado. go ahead, please. >> caller: hi, good morning. this is a wonderful program and thanks to you both. i have a specific question, and it has today with the watergate tapes and specifically a moment -- and i've only read the transcripts

as a matter of fact if there is anybody who was not is premises or racist it's barry goldwater. he is the man who integrated the arizona national guard long before truman had even gone so with the armed services. he's somebody who for example were black and white theaters in phoenix and as a member of the city council he eliminated. he's somebody that voted against the '64 civil rights bill much to his leadership grin on the advice of two lawyers he was impressed with. i ask him this question one day while in the world of -- i happened to be in the gallery for that vote by prison law school at the time it went to see the phone, such a historic vote and i was curious as to how he was going to vote on it. i of another friend in law school whose father was in the senate and got us nice prime seats in the galleries and waited for that historic vote and when goldwater years later had the advice of this young lawyer from phoenix i greatly respect by the name of bill rehnquist and another professor from yale, dynamite by the name of pork. he said do you know robert bork in bicycle shor

i never asked barry goldwater to help me find a job.nce i had taken a job at the house judiciary committee he said to me one night you have got to promise me you will start your way out of government and be out within your fifth year. i said why? he said i have seen too many guys come here, go to work, never leave, you have a lot of potential and have got to get out and i said done. i promise you that. my fifth year came up and something else came up. 71 is when the pentagon papers were leaked. those of us who had gotten together in the years since realized this was when everything changes at the nixon white house. it goes out, it is not a pleasant place to work. nixon's mood changes. everybody's mood changes. after taking a brief vacation i came back and said it is time to leave. i went to see bob haldeman. i stopped in new york. had some inquiry. had some very nice job offers. one was a short-term assistant or deputy general counsel and be boosted up to general counsel. worldwide shipping line and the other was a wall street job, inve

the irony is reagan and goldwater could not pass the litmus test today. goldwater was pro-choice and in favor of in the military and ronald reagan signed in abortion law. he presided over tax increases when necessary as governor and president. all principle people, leaders of the conservative movement that when you try to dumb down our politics and make it one-size-fits-all, history has a sense of humor and the reality is that goldwater and reagan wouldn't be considered conservatives today by the people who were acting like such ideological absolutist in the sentinel of the conservative movement. >> the young lady here, just wait for the microphone. go ahead. >> i hate to ask. >> what is your name? >> arianna from the area. i hate to add such a glib question,

and when goldwater -- years later i asked him, why did you vote against him? he said, well, i had the advice of this young lawyer from phoenix who i greatly respected by the name of bill rehnquist and another was a professor from yale who sent me a dynamite memo by the name of bork. i -- he said, do you know robert bork? i said, i sure do. so on those two constitutional analysis, the '64 bill, he believed sincerely that it was an unconstitutional action and it, indeed, would be thrown out by the courts as such. and that was the basis of his vote. >> host: let me go back to something that you wrote about in your book on warren harding. you both grew up in marion, ohio, and you write about a speech given october 26, 1921, birmingham, alabama. >> guest: in woodrow wilson national park. >> host: and in the speech he said i was say if a black man is fit to vote, he should vote. i would say to a white man voting when he is unfit, he should be prohibited from voting. and he said unless our democracy is alive, you must stand for equality. this is 1921. >> guest: i had

goldwater-nick koles was basically designed to grow officers so they had more experience with the other services, and we called that joint, the ability to operate with other services. and operating those commands and not be stove-piped for their entire career. but like anything, when you make some sweeping changes that impact culture and the rest of it, there are some mistakes made, and there's something here i do agree with bruce about. one thing with the joint chiefs is in a sense they politicized the position. because he is the principal military advisor for the president of the united states, quote-unquote. in the past the joint chiefs were the adviser to the president of the united states, and it there was problems with the systems. you may surprised to know that war was being run by commanders in the field. one was mcchrystal and one was -- petraeus responds to no four-star in the military. he responds to the secretary of defense. and that's appropriate. civilian control of the military. what you may be surprised to know is the joint chiefs and the chairman have no operational ove

and in particular the fundamental change in american military structure brought by the goldwater-nichols act of 1986. before that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff was -- before that, the members of the chief of staff voted and the chairman was basically a coalition-builder. he couldn't speak out unless everybody agreed. we had as it were a check and balance system within the military. and the military members of the joint chiefs were mostly interested in more bombers. more -- more soldiers. more battleships. and that's really what jostling around. and the chairman joint chiefs of staff for the first time in american history and for the first time certainly within the period where we had a big army began to speak for the military. ... president of the you of the united states what the military strategies are. >> i entirely agree with your description of what -- >> -- mcchrystal's peach, word for word, because that really isn't what he did in my view. >> well, -- >> it was in the q & a period and it was a general question between a rating approach to a complex problem in afghanist

barry goldwater is--cronkite would say it, and you can get the old tapes out. "barry goldwater said today..." i got it. there's something wrong with the guy. there was a sense he was off the--off somewhere. he wasn't really somebody to be respected intellectually. and the media was like that, and prime time television is very secular, it's very liberal. it's liberal on things like gay rights and respect for gay people and for all kinds of things. you never see anybody saying on "frasier," "i got to go to church now." it just was that way. and i think a lot of conservatives say, "that doesn't represent my life. i've got to offer--so when fox came along, they said, fair and balanced. and everybody knew that was a joke. nobody really believes it's fair and balanced. nobody who watches it believes it's fair and balanced. they believe it balances off the liberal media, and they think it's fair only in the sense that it's getting even. they don't believe it's fair and balanced. yeah, i'm sure. that's why i don't trust a lot of polling because, yeah, sure it's fair an

goldwater was pro-choice in favor of the gays in the military decades ago. reagan signed a liberal abortion law, grew the size of government and preside over tax increases when necessary but as governor and president and principled people, leaders of the conservative movement but when you try to dumdum politics and make it one-size-fits-all history has a sense of humor and the reality is goldwater and reagan wouldn't be considered a conservative today by the people acting like a logical absolutist and the sentinels of the conservative movement. >> the young lady here just wait for the microphone. go ahead. >> i hate to ask -- >> what is your name? >> arianna. i hate to ask and glib question -- >> there are no such thing, just click answers. [laughter] >> if we don't give these people attention -- with a diffuse their power? and how do you see your book as changing the discourse around this issue? >> it's a question i've gotten in one form or another white people who do believe that you only see these folks with attention. i take a different view. i think tha

he's a traditional to goldwater. goldwater wouldn't have endorsed j.d.an vote in the primaries. >> look, if my endorsement helps you, john mccain, if you've got it. if it doesn't, throw me under the bus. i don't endorse by the way. >>> up next we'll talk about the president. i want to talk with this expert who has come out with big book on the president. where is the president headed and can he put it together? can he bring the working class whites aboard, can he build a real national unity? hasn't done it yet. ♪ [ male announcer ] we make them beautiful. ♪ we make them tougher. ♪ we make them legendary. we make them better... ♪ to make your life better. ♪ and we've never made one... quite like this. the 100% electric nissan leaf. ♪ go to hotwire.com. when four-star hotels have unsold rooms they use hotwire to fill them, so you get them at ridiculously low prices. ♪ h-o-t-w-i-r-e ♪ hotwire.com >>> the fbi is now -- actually arrested a california man for making threatening phone calls against house speaker nancy pelosi. officials say the man could recite

>> well, it is a -- a perennial seam in our acquisition system that goes back now to goldwater nichols0 years or. as everybody in this audience knows, that in the main -- goldwater nichols decreed that we shall fight jointly, but you are right, that we still in the main, still acquire severally, and so joint acquisition has always been a challenge and it's a challenge in the wars. as well. in all the ways you might imagine. if there are inherently joint capabilities, that is, things that everybody needs, like some of the counter-i.e.d. enablers, all the services that are present there, that have installations there, that have personnel there, need some of the eod equipment, and it makes sense for us to buy them in one lot. that's why we have organizations like the joint i.e.d. defeat organization, as jay suggests, it's joint, -- as the j suggests, it's joint and it buys equipment for all the services. we also have to have different services take the lead for equipment that go to other services, so when joint urgent operational needs statement comes in, what's the j in juon mean, it mea

>> well, it is a perennial seem in our acquisition system that goes back now to goldwater-nichols, 30 years or so. as everybody in this audience knows, that in the main -- goldwater-nichols degree was that we shall fight jointly, but you're right that we still in the main, still acquire severally. so joint acquisition is always been a challenge and it's a challenge in the wars as well. and all the ways you might imagine, if there are inherent only joint capabilities, that is, things that everybody needs, like some of the counter ied enablers, all the services that are present there that have installation to their that have personnel there, need some of the d.o.d. equipment. and it makes sense for us to buy them in one lot. that's why we have organizations like jieddo, the joint ied, and it buys equipment for all the services. we also have to have different services take the lead for equipment that go to other services. so when a juon comes in, joint urgent operational need, it means that an army unit need some air force support. and air force needs to resources that support, and they

on many issues i still consider myself a goldwater conservative. i am about as nonpolitical for somebody who writes about politics as you can imagine. and i say that in a partisan sense. i vote both sides. i don't believe that anybody has all the answers. and i try to study a problem and vote for who i think might be the best candidate for the best circumstance and try not to be driven by any ideology. i'm registered in california as an independent for all practical purposes. they have a clause where you don't have to declare either party. so i don't. so those are my politics. your next question about -- >> host: the frost/nixon movie. >> guest: i have not seen that yet. i actually have it on my iphone. and i got -- i was thinking about watching it on the way back but i watched "in glorious bastards" instead. i understand it's well done.rst i certainly remember the original.w3Ñ÷ but i think -- i was delighted to see it because ron howard does such a good job with everything he does. it brought those issues to mind to another generation. and trust m

on many issues i still consider myself a goldwater conservative. i am about as nonpolitical for somebody who writes about politics as you can imagine. i say that in a partisan sense. i vote both sides. i don't believe that anybody has all the answers, and i tried to study a problem and vote for who i think might be the best candidate for the best circumstance, and try not to be driven by any ideology. i am registered in california as an independent for all practical purposes. they have because we don't have to declare it a party, so i don't. so those are my politics. your next question about the frost/nixon movie, i have not seen that yet. i actually have it on my iphone, and i got -- i was thinking about watching it on the way back but i watched in glorious bastards instead. so i haven't seen it yet but i will soon. and i understand it is well done. i still certainly remember the original, but i think -- i was delighted to see it. ron howard is such a good job with everything he does. it brought those issued to mind of another generation. and trus

my model for that is goldwater-nichols. it's been mentioned a couple times this winter for those of you who may not be similar, the department of defense created after world war ii by the national surgery act of 1947 as amended, we debated it. we thought about it for years but i was a product of that environment. my service in the penn state navy, if i taken a tour outside the navy i would have been feels like for the next promotion consideration. that was the way the process was disappointed i was there for the debate. is a right, is it wrong? every service chief, every service secretary testified under oath, we pass this bill, it will ruin the united states department of defense. it was passed in 1986, signed by president reagan. we had a dustup called desert shield. every service chief in every service secretary since goldwater-nichols has said it's the best thing that's happened to the united states military. it was a radical transformation. now, here's my premise. a bureaucracy was established in any bureaucracy, you p

but goldwater-nick holes is not. -- goldwater-nichols is not. >> we considered a number. 22 agenciesgether in the new form has proof to cause a number of digestion problems. those of us considering what to do wanted something much schismer. and we used models that had been suggested by as i mention, the joint commission and the 9/11 commission and others. this seemed to be sort of kind of right. obviously mike's experience in the military gives him a certain advance that i don't have. in understanding how goldwater-nichols worked there. i continue to believe that the joint command idea, the orchestra conductor idea was a simpler way to leverage the straints of a number of agencies. it's not just the cia-dni relationship. we were very mindful and i am mindful since my district makes most of this from our office that hopefully will never be able to be produced anyone else on the planet. but leveraging those assets that so everybody wins. not just an agency has ownership over them and can use it for that agency's agenda of it is a big piece of what we had in mind. i think on balance our

they supported barry goldwater, for example. conservatives could get from john birch conspiracy theories riling up the base, was probably outweighed by associating conservatives with those thinking controlled by good dental care and milton eisenhower. so the john birch society got exiled essentially in the '60s. they barely survived in the fringes for decades after that. until this past year. the conservative movement decided to bring them back into the fold. the john birch society was invited to co-sponsor the big c-pacc c-pac. i sat down and talked with them. they were still trying to sell me on the evils of fleur ride, i kid you not. they were very nice to me, i spent some quality time hanging out with them. i did not learn very much but we certainly had a pleasant and cordial time. given our spirited hate-free jousting, i was surprised when one of our excellent viewers recently brought this to our attention. it's a new six-page john birch society fundraising letter which has gone out to their supporters. on page five it says

sometimes you remind me of my hero growing up, who was in fact barry goldwater.nd i began to see the complications of life like people get old and they don't have a lot of ability to save money, so they need social security and we need a civil rights bill, even if it was done under the interstate commerce clause. but the fact is it isn't always as clear and simple as libertarian philosophy would argue. you have stuck to your position. you still believe way less government is way better. z but aren't we on the verge of proving our point? social security sounds good, but it's broke. and even if they take care of sending out the checks, eventually the checks won't buy anything because we'll just print the money. i think our point has been proven. that's what this whole movement is about. that's what the tea party movement is about. i mean, the failure of government is everywhere around us. >> let's just take -- i used to argue this with my dad, who with a sort of middle-of-the-road republican. he would say, some people don't save money. they live paycheck to paychec

today goldwater could face a challenge for being too liberal.iliar social issues could be getting his conservative credentials challenges. if conservatives can be thrown under the bus the republicans may be purging themselves out of national contention. i remember the old groucho marks line about his refusal to accept any club that would accept him as a member. if it keeps purging itself like it is now and moving membership standards further and further to the right the republicans might find themselves shrinking to a party the great majority of americans don't want to join. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. right now, it's time for "the ed show" with ed schultz. >>> good evening, american, and welcome to "the ed show" tonight from new york. these stories have got "my hot buttons" going tonight. now, there's trouble in the foxhole. bill o'reilly just won't quit telling the lies. it was sean hannity, he gets yanked from a tea party protest. what's that all about? apparently ginning up the angry right wing mobs doesn't fit the d

of the letter 18 letters a copy on one and pronouns and it changed my perception and i voted for goldwaterse size of the break-ins were done because of his compulsive desire to win by a landslide. thank you. >> it is interesting mcgovern what i have come to know i met him first while doing a profile for the rolling stone in the republican convention and went to see him and he was wearing a blue suit and i said this man is so much more presidential than the president i worked for. in recent years he and i have shared a stage and we had an even to to join me and we have an awful lot of fun up there. we have no pre-plan program and we seem to interact for everything he is 87 and may we all be half as a sharp as he is that 87 per isi say we had a pleasant french up. >> karl rove who was working at the time for george herbert walker bush asked a fundamental question he said i found it increasingly difficult to what good could have gone from burglar raising at the dnc use of that was his way to be an enormous defeat. why? >> the first time i heard curl grove sayre is time with a small file that

i believe that the reform, that was modeled after the goldwater -- the idea was a joint command structure across 16 intelligence agencies. this was designed reasonably well. the original bill was introduced by the democrats on the house intelligence committee. this had to change in order to get through congress. this was based on the recommendations of the joint commission on intelligence, which was bipartisan. this is probably the last bipartisan effort that we made after 9/11. this was based on the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. this command structure was supposed to be flexible and a coordinator across all of these agencies. . in the five years we have had three -- i am looking at one right in front of me. mitch mcconnell worked very hard to implement the law here. i would say we still have a work in progress. it is 50% loss and 50% some leadership, and let me -- 50% law and 50% leadership. i think we all understand the best sixtfix we did have is sustained leadership at the front -- at the top. i am saying sustained leadership of the talk is what is going to make an excellent

my earliest political hero, senator barry goldwater, urged two republican presidents to get a handle of civil service and change the law to make it easier to fire and root out people, as llewellyn said -- >> i just said, how do we get the productivity up? we have been very productive here. we are just about out of time. i hope you two will not offer each other violence when we get off the set. >> you can have my red tie. >> i hope the government services are available for john gizzi should the need him -- one of the pledges living in an advanced country instead of, for example, living in mogadishu. you can't see us and speak to us and write to us that whchronic . .com cheers. >> "white house chronicle" is produced in collaboration with whut, howard university television. from washington, d.c., this has been "white house chronicle," a weekly analysis of the news with a sense of humor featuring llewellyn king, linda gasparello, and guests. this program can be seen on pbs stations and cable access channels. to view the program online, visit us at whchronicle.com.

. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> host: john dean from "blind ambition" and "lost honor" to "pure goldwater" and the "thest choice." thanks for being with us here on booktv's "in depth." >> guest: pleasure. >> host: as we continue the conversation the personal side of richard nixon. what was he like to interact with? >> guest: for me he was certainly easy to work with. he was always pleasant. he had met my wife once flying on air force one and he would say how is your pretty little wife and things like that. i discovered actually when doing the "the rehnquist choice," i listened to a lot of tapes. with a lot of different people. he's sort of a chameleon. he would have a different personality with different aides. i never realized it until i'd heard him, you know, doing one-on-one with others. it seems that, say, for example, haldeman and coulson would bring the worst out in him with mitchell, he was talking for a long time with more of a peer. seeking his advice, what do you think, john, you know, so on and so forth. with people like ray price and with me, you don't hear him swear. you don't hear him use

for those who don't know what goldwater-nichols says, it was the law that eventually created in dod join miss or joint duty and what is often referred as the color purple. i'll let mike mcconnell and others who have lived that part explain it in more detail perhaps on the panel. but here's the problem, the tension lies in that what was given to the secretary of defense, there was no secretary of intelligence in which an operational way he could execute this model of a goldwater-nichols approach. so the real questions are, is the dni able to implement information sharing, drive the innovation of foreign and domestic information, allocate intelligence expenditures against the highest future challenges of our nation and continue to enhance analytic trade craft in this model? i personally believe we can. let me digress with a little story. it's a story taken out of genesys in the bible chapter 32. and there is a would-be patriarch, not a pitcher at that time, jacob, who was about to reconcile with his brother esau. the night before, in that chapter, the story goes that a stranger shows up fo

i don't know if we need a goldwater-nichols for contract that i think the gansler report and looking in terms of what occurred with on a contracting was an eye-opening experience for is that it was a significant emotional event. we can never go back to those days. so it's up to ed harrington and bill phillips with the support of shape a sod and many others in congress to make sure that we never go back to those days. if we don't institutionalize this within our army we have missed an opportunity. for my three years or whatever my tenure is here, i will work hard on that and i will make sure that it doesn't fall off the gears of our army leadership. and i would also like to say that we're getting tremendous support from the army leadership. general carelli as mr. assad has mentioned a couple times, general casey, secretary of gq, was asked me and ed harrington and others to make sure we go around and we talk on track and. another point, general casey asked me to go and talk to the division commanders and assistant division commanders in north carolina about three weeks after i came ba

america is we can say cross roads, maybe a time for choosing, reagan and goldwater. point.ç explain what you think the two directions are? >> if we have more people on the receiving end of government. more people as the middle class becomes sucked in more and more to entitlement programs for example, we are going to be in a place where it is going to be hard to go back. it is going to be hard to take away stuff. it is not impossible. we are -- we have an opportunity to do something this year, starting this year in this country that has never been done before that is go halfway to a welfare state and turn aroundç go back. every country that i've studied that has gone down this road has gone down it. we are seeing it in europe, in weakness they can't pay for their own defense any more. that's one road. >> sean: let's say we take that road. predictable similar results is europe? predictable similar results as the decline of the soviet union to each according to his needs from each according to his ability, bankruptcy? >> we don't know. europe is still developing. look

the best, ray bliss of ohio who rebuilt the party after the goldwater meltdown, bill brock, former senatorsee who built the party up on the eve of the reagan triumph, they were perfectly anonymous. and i'm not sure that this man has understood that. >> you know, obviously i'm not a rocket scientist but when you have lesbian bondage strip club associated with your name it's never a good thing for anybody unless you're employed at the strip club. you know, the only difference between democratic officials at a strip club and republican officials at a strip club is democratic officials say hi to each other. i think the problem is hypocrisy. it's purely hypocrisy. republicans go out there and talk about fiscal responsibility and they talk about family values and they have a party leader and party officials who go to a strip club who are involved in this process that say that their private actions or their actions with donors' money doesn't match what their message is. that's the problem. >> in addition to this problem, tell our viewers what american crossroads. >> is american crossroads is an o

i can't answer your question that i don't know if we need a goldwater-nichols for contracting. i think the cancer report on what came out of iraq and a particular kuwait in terms of what occurred with army contracting was an eye-opening experience for us but it was a significant emotional event. we can never go back to those days. so it's up to ed harrington and bill phillips in the sport of mr. assad and many others in congress to make sure that we never go back to those days that if we don't institutionalize this within our army would've missed an opportunity. and for my three years or whatever my tenure is here, i will work hard on that and i'll make sure that it doesn't fall off the ears of our army leadership. i would also like to say that we're getting tremendous support from the army leadership. general gorelick, as mr. assad as much in a couple times. general casey, secretary mchugh, who is asked me and ed harrington and others to make sure that we go around and we talk contracting. another point, general casey asked me to go talk to the division commanders and assistan

i was there for the debate of goldwater-nichols. was it right or wrong? every secretary testified under oath that you pass the bill, it will ruin the united states department of defense. it was passed in 1986. it was signed by president reagan. we had desert shield and desert storm. every service chiefs and secretary said it was the best thing that ever happened to the u.s. military. it was a radical transformation. here is my premise. a bureaucracy, once it is established, will fight to maintain itself to the point of redefining reality in its own self-interests. that is true of any bureaucracy. without interests of oversight -- interests of oversight of forces beyond the control of the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy will refuse to change. -- without intrusive oversight or forces beyond the control of the bureaucracy, the barack receipt will refuse to change. i use my beloved navy as my model. virtually every change in the navy was forced from the outside. there's a long history there that we do note i wod like to as if you want to follow-up on that issue.

either way, i've often cited the goldwater ranges as an example where the marines and border patrol got together because we have a huge problem with illegal coming across and having to shut down mission over the goldwater ranges. and now it's worked. it was with commercial, off-the-shelf capabilities. so let me get what you just a second about fences. in san diego, as you are very well aware, there's been construction of triple fences and the climb has gone done a great deal in san diego, is that correct? >> that's correct at the crossings in a particular portion of the sector had decreased a medically. yes, sir. >> does not order for double and triple fences and urban areas? >> in the places of infrastructure has always depended, senator mccain, on the professionals on the ground making their recommendations. or as you note in the novalis port of entry you have significant fences and other places in el paso you will have duplicate fences. this is always about a professional judgments about how best to direct the traffic and to manage the flow. so i think as the secretary has implemente

either way, i've often cited the goldwater ranges as an example where the marines and border patrol got together because we have a huge problem with illegal coming across and having to shut down mission over the goldwater ranges. and now it's worked. it was with commercial, off-the-shelf capabilities. so let me get what you just a second about fences. in san diego, as you are very well aware, there's been construction of triple fences and the climb has gone done a great deal in san diego, is that correct? >> that's correct at the crossings in a particular portion of the sector had decreased a medically. yes, sir. >> does not order for double and triple fences and urban areas? >> in the places of infrastructure has always depended, senator mccain, on the professionals on the ground making their recommendations. or as you note in the novalis port of entry you have significant fences and other places in el paso you will have duplicate fences. this is always about a professional judgments about how best to direct the traffic and to manage the flow. so i think as the secretary has implemente

guest: no one could imagine lbj eight debating -- lbj debating goldwater. can you imagine? that would be fascinating. i think americans were turned off to debate. we had 30-some mind-numbing debates. some people think enough is enough. i also think it is a great thing. it is a great to hone your skills as a candidate and a great opportunity but the american people who have television to make a decision. if you can see that candidate every week for a year, you can make a choice. they have become more contentious, and one of the women who put it to get -- when the women who put it together and the voters, parties took it over, it did not go so well. it was better when the league of women voters were in charge of the show, and the american people should realize that this is part of our democracy, a good thing. if you don't want to watch it, fine, if you want to watch it later, fine, but is there. these people will be in your living room for the next nauseating for years, so you better appreciate them on tv. you might as well go out and make the toys, and tv is a great way to d

and so in if my hierarchy it's citizen first -- you affiliate, even today with goldwater/nichols and as much as we have a joint task force and so on, people still will identify with their parent organizations, which is not a bad thing. .. blonden nonpenal goebel conversations >>> all this month, see the winners of c-span studentcam did you documentary competition. middle and high school students, 45 states submitted to use on one of the country's greatest strengths or challenge the country is facing. watch the top winning videos every morning on c-span at 6:50 eastern just before washington journal. and at 8:30 during the program meets the students who need them. for a preview of the winners, visit studentcam.org. >>> now, news corporation chairman and ceo rupert murdoch interviewed by former "meet the press" anchor and harvard professor speed. from the national press club in washington, this is one hour and 15 minutes. [applause] hello, welcome to the national press club and another addition of the kalb report and the guest tonight is rupert murdoch the subject of the making of a mo

guest: no one could imagine lbj eight debating -- lbj debating goldwater. can you imagine? that would be fascinating. i think americans were turned off to debate. we had 30-some mind-numbing debates. some people think enough is enough. i also think it is a great thing. it is a great to hone your skills as a candidate and a great opportunity but the american people who have television to make a decision. if you can see that candidate every week for a year, you can make a choice. they have become more contentious, and one of the women who put it to get -- when the women who put it together and the voters, parties took it over, it did not go so well. it was better when the league of women voters were in charge of the show, and the american people should realize that this is part of our democracy, a good thing. if you don't want to watch it, fine, if you want to watch it later, fine, but is there. these people will be in your living room for the next nauseating for years, so you better appreciate them on tv. you might as well go out and make the toys, and tv is a great way to d

i was there for the debate over goldwater/nichols. every test defect -- every secretary testified under oath that if you pass this bill, it would ruin this department. it was passed by ronald reagan. every service chief and every service secretary said that it was the best thing that has ever happened to the united states military. it was a radical transformation. here is my premise. the bureaucracy, once established, and the bureaucracy that you pick -- any bureaucracy that you pick will fight to maintain itself to the point every defining reality -- of redefining reality. intrusive oversight or forces beyond the control of the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy will refuse to change. that is my premise. some might agree, others might take issue. that is an older gentleman observing the issue for a long time. . . >> is your job in defense of the constitution to let the facts speak for themselves, not to twist the facts to fit some policy objective, but let the facts speak for themselves. the closest analogy we have is the director for the

i think that the reform, which was modeled after goldwater- nichols, we wanted to set up a command structurecross 16 agencies was to -- was designed well. the original bill was introduced by democrats on the house intelligence committee. i was then the ranking member. it had to change in order to get through congress. it was based on recommendations of the joint commission on intelligence which was a bipartisan and bicameral effort met urgent effort -- bicameral effort. it was also based on recommendations from the 9/11 commission which came after us. the joint command structure was supposed to be a flexible and nimble and -- coordinator across these agencies. coordinator is not a strong enough word. orchestra conductor is closer to what we intended. we had to make compromises to make the bill go through. you remember the opposition donald rumsfeld. the chairman of the house armed services committee, as well. we had to make compromises in order to get the bill through. in spite of that, we were courageous as struck the final compromise. we have had three dni's since then. i would say we stil

caller: my grandfather had me handing out goldwater buttons when i was 10 years old. i have always been interested. i used to be the mayor of the town i live in. i am 100% disabled. i have never received a dime in benefits. i have social security. my husband dropped dead january 10, the day after he turned 57. i have zero income and benefits, and i have paid for my house three times to pay for my surgery is because we did not want welfare. now i am a widow with no income and fighting the government, and caught social security and two allies in april -- two lies in april. they just should have recertified me, disabled widow. there will be thousands of dollars trying to keep me from getting what i paid for. i realize social security is going broke and everybody else's, but the people that put the money in are my age. it is just like the military. you do not make -- take the benefits away from the wives and widows after they fought in two wars. host: how old are you? caller: 56. host: so you qualify for social security based on your own disability and being aware of. cal

shown, the product of a systemic campaign by the kennedy and johnson administrations to silence the goldwaterovement in conservative speech and they were actually collecting different mentions that were sympathetic to that side and fostering fairness doctrine complaints. now, just to show this is an equal opportunity doctrine, the nixon administration did the same thing on the republicans and we should expect nothing less. people will use the rules for whatever leverage it's going to give it. so bottom line what do we learn from this? the internet is not new. it's the first time we've met from these types of things. what we learned from the supreme court cases they say intermediation is inevitable and beneficial. and that, in fact, we cannot as we go to a world of user-generated content and the world of plenty it actually increases our need for editors to shift through it not decreases it. and that's something that the original tech nooptimism just missed. and that intermediation serve free speech values at a minimum there's two sides to be balanced. it's not just about the speakers and their