i got there when there was still some of the old segregationist were still there, james eastland and a whole lot of other folks. but even in those days when i got there, and the politics was intense, ideological differences were real. but it never got to where it is today. it was never personal. it was never cast in the context of you are good or bad. there was a presumption that the other guy or woman you were dealing with was acting in good faith. and governor bryant, you know, both your mississippi centers -- senators act is supported when i tried to get a nomination early on, and we had come on civil rights we were a thousand miles apart. and most importantly you didn't question the other guys motive. you really went after the judgment, you know, it was like hammer and tong fighting over so many fundamental issues. but it was always about a judgment, not the motive. and the way things have gotten today, and i'm not singling out any party or in a group of people, just the politics, the culture in washington now. it's become too personal. it's too corrosive. and i was saying to pet

to decide whether or not to send the bill to the judiciary committee which was then headed by james eastland of michigan and it would have got there or to use some complicated formula to get it directly to the floor which was the strategy that senator mansfield and senator humphrey decided on. so that was a debatable matter and they debated that for a couple of weeks and they finally brought it to the floor and then they had, i believe i historians in the room, it's still the longest single filibuster in senate history. 84 days. as we said earlier, it was a stretch to try to write about it. one day i wrote senator long, who came back and talked about the part of the bill where -- i think it was title vii about employment that they had to have female priests or something and so and so i wrote for the "herald tribune" the next day, you could just about get away with this, "senator long, who had dined well, but not necessarily wisely." [ laughter ] went off on this -- then i wrote about it. i also had a great advantage, i must say, over the "new york times" because it was so arcane what was --

to decide whether or not to send the bill to the judiciary committee which was then headed by james eastland of michigan and it would have got there or to use some complicated formula to get it directly to the floor which was the strategy that senator mansfield and senator humphrey decided on. so that was a debatable matter and they debated that for a couple of weeks and they finally brought it to the floor and then they had, i believe i historians in the room, it's still the longest single filibuster in senate history. 84 days. as we said earlier, it was a stretch to try to write about it. one day i wrote senator long, who came back and talked about the part of the bill where -- i think it was title vii about employment that they had to have female priests or something and so and so i wrote for the "herald tribune" the next day, you could just about get away with this, "senator long, who had dined well, but not necessarily wisely." [ laughter ] went off on this -- then i wrote about it. i also had a great advantage, i must say, over the "new york times" because it was so arcane what was --

i got there when there was still some of the old segregationist were still there, james eastland and whole lot of other folks. but even in those days when i got there, and the politics was intense, ideological differences were real. but it never got to where it is today. it was never personal. it was never cast in the context of you are good or bad. there was a presumption that the other guy or woman you were dealing with was acting in good faith. and governor bryant, you know, both your mississippi centers -- senators act is supported when i tried to get a nomination early on, and we had come on civil rights we were a thousand miles apart. and most importantly you didn't question the other guys motive. you really went after the judgment, you know, it was like hammer and tong fighting over so many fundamental issues. but it was always about a judgment, not the motive. and the way things have gotten today, and i'm not singling out any party or in a group of people, just the politics, the culture in washington now. it's become too personal. it's too corrosive. and i was saying to peter