larry, let's start with the ross perot episode.ou must have thought that you'd died and went to interviewer heaven when somebody who's a major national figure in the us, a major business figure, comes on your show. the moment he comes on, he's not a candidate. by the time he leaves, he probably is a candidate. i mean, there's a kind of magic there, and i was wondering, before the perot show, did you think it over, and did you say to yourself, "i'm going to find out if he's really going to run. i'm going to prod him"? - i've got to tell you the truth, bob. the answer is no. when i was driving in that night, i didn't know who was on. i mean, i forgot that perot was on. i didn't even know too much that we were going to get into the presidential thing, but it was in the opening read, so i asked him right off the top if he was running or thought about running. he said no. i left it along. i went to other things, and then, if you've been doing this a while and you have any experience of doing it, you start, you know... the evening took i

she is married to ross perot, jr.. sarah is an alumnus so we are very pleased to have them a part of the family. >> how big is your board? >> it is 42. they had a number of official members. they had a voting student that boats for everyone else. we have three bishops of the united methodist church on the board. it turns over every four years. there is a term limit of three- year terms. there can be exceptions but -- 42 is a good size. it obviously has to govern the university andy encourage others to be a part of it. >> go back to the first moment he thought about trying to get george bush to bring his library here on this campus? >> the first time i set it at -- -action when he said we were running. we did not do anything until after the florida vote. after that vote i walked in to my director of executive affairs and said what do you know about presidential library? he said i don't know anything about presidential library. we are going to become an expert. he has been to most of them. we started working toward it. i

>> ross perot, jr.."he is an smu alumni so we are pleased to have them be part of our family. >> how big is your board? >> 42. we have the president of faculty senate, a voting student, and alumni, and three bishops from the united methodist church on the board. it turned over more or less every four years and people have to be reaffirmed. there is a term limit of three four year terms and there can be exceptions. by and large that is stayed with. 42 is a good size and it obviously cannot leave governed university but encourage others to be a part of the university. >> go back to the first moment you tried to get george w. bush to bring his library and museum here on this campus. >> the first time we set it in action when he was running we said, "would it be nice?" after the vote in florida, the next morning, i walked into my vice president for executive affairs position, the one i had at oklahoma, and i asked dr. barry what he knew about presidential libraries. he said he did not know anything. i told hi

when that's the one time that the conservatives stayed home or supported ross perot. and they gave bill clinton was, i think, 41% of the vote the white house. and we had eight years of, well, appalling hijinks, in my opinion. it made the name of "the american spectator" for a long time to come, but it was, it wasn't really very good for the country. and i think that george h.w. bush would have done a far better job over the next four years than bill clinton did. >> host: conservative crack-up written and published, or published in 1992. here is a quote from it. what caused the conservative crack-up was not an overactive political gland, but the conservatives' deep disrelish for politics. by the late 1980s, many conservatives simply ditched politics and went hope. -- home. >> guest: yeah, that's what happened. i mean, and i, frankly, i think that they should have tried to prevail on george bush to keep taxes down. or they should have in the next administration prevailed on him to, to change his tax policy. but i don't think that, i don't think that bill clinton was goo

when you in 1992 moderated the town hall between then and governor clinton, president bush, and ross perotibe that as the crowning achievement of your career. tell us about that speech to a million people watching. i was chosen to do the debate because there have been some criticism about the previous debate. there were no people of color. they got 82 for with me. a woman and an african-american. you know, if they had gone to abc and said, give us somebody to moderate this debate, did you think abc would have chosen me to mack it would have been peter jennings or ted koppel or diane sawyer. i would have been weighed down on the list, but i've was chosen by the campaign and the bipartin commission on presidential debates. i covered clinton, and i covered george h. w. bush for eight years. i knew him very well. they approved my being the moderator. it was very scary to me because it was this town hall format. we have not had one of those before. they had all been panels of reporters asking questions of the candid it. so this -- there were no films that i could go back and look at and see how

hugh in mid-1990 to moderated the town hall between the then governor clinton, president bush and ross perot as the crowning achievement of your career. tell about that. >> guest: 1 million people were watching. i was chosen to do the debate because there had been criticism about the previous debate. there were no people color. so they got a twofer with me being a woman and an african-american, and, you know, if the had gone to adc and said give us somebody to moderate this debate do you think abc would have chosen me? it would have been peter jennings or ted koppel or diane sawyer or i would have been way down on the list, but i was chosen by the campaigns and the bipartisan commission on presidential debates and i had covered clinton and i had covered george h. w. bush for eight years, so i knew him very well, and they approved my being the moderator, and it was very scary to me because it was this town hall format, and we hadn't had one of those before. it had all been panels of reporters asking questions and the candidates, so this i didn't -- there were no films i could go back and look

that said, after nafta passed, one should remember ross perot ran an 1992 on the great sucking sound that would happen if nafta passed. i was with the clinton administration at the time at the department of labor and starting in 1994 -- again, it took time. when clinton first came on and the first 18 months it was caught the jobless recovery but once it started to take off there was remarkable job growth -- 21 million net new jobs created. by the end of 1999, the highest unemployment rate of the population that we ever had in the history of the country. certainly, nafta in the short run can't be said to have caused job loss. the terms of trade -- it is easy to look at and say we could have done that, and why couldn't -- stop that and produce it at home. by and large, what happened is productivity advances. if we look at coal production or steel production, it can be measured quite easily. millions of metric tons. we actually produce the same amount of coal and steel today as we did in 1960. we do it with one quarter of the labor force. in fact, world wide, manufacturing employment as

that said, after nafta passed, one should remember ross perot ran an 1992 on the great sucking sound that would happen if nafta passed. i was with the clinton administration at the time at the department of labor and starting in 1994 -- again, it took time. when clinton first came on and the first 18 months it was caught the jobless recovery but once it started to take off there was remarkable job growth -- 21 million net new jobs created. by the end of 1999, the highest unemployment rate of the population that we ever had in the history of the country. certainly, nafta in the short run can't be said to have caused job loss. the terms of trade -- it is easy to look at and say we could have done that, and why couldn't -- stop that and produce it at home. by and large, what happened is productivity advances. if we look at coal production or steel production, it can be measured quite easily. millions of metric tons. we actually produce the same amount of coal and steel today as we did in 1960. we do it with one quarter of the labor force. in fact, world wide, manufacturing employment as

as far as business goes, i really, i think that ross perot, guys that are successful businessmen, talk to him about how to get a business. what about president of the past -- reagan, clinton? they did an outstanding job. if he would just review all the material that he has and stop playing president. he did more vacations than any president has ever done. in a time when the economy is at its worst. it is time he grows up and starts taking his job seriously. and it seriously, take us serious. listen to what we have to say. i think it is about time as far as citizens go, we need to get these bums out of congress. the democrats are running away. they should be fired. this is crazy. i could not do that on my job. just take off and not suffer consequences. it is about time this country gets back to the basics. and what the constitution stands for. he needs to listen to the citizens that elected him. host: from our twitter page. it is back up. the one person would be an accountant because president obama clearly does not understand money into debt. we talked about new gingrich, the front pag

that said, after nafta passed, one should remember ross perot ran an 1992 on the great sucking sound that would happen if nafta passed. i was with the clinton administration at the time at the department of labor and starting in 1994 -- again, it took time. when clinton first came on and the first 18 months it was caught the jobless recovery but once it started to take off there was remarkable job growth -- 21 million net new jobs created. by the end of 1999, the highest unemployment rate of the population that we ever had in the history of the country. certainly, nafta in the short run can't be said to have caused job loss. the terms of trade -- it is easy to look at and say we could have done that, and why couldn't -- stop that and produce it at home. by and large, what happened is productivity advances. if we look at coal production or steel production, it can be measured quite easily. millions of metric tons. we actually produce the same amount of coal and steel today as we did in 1960. we do it with one quarter of the labor force. in fact, world wide, manufacturing employment as

entrepreneurs also comes out of those large companies, and we can look at history, you know, eds, ross perotwas the ibm salesman, cisco, john chambers was an ibm salesman and so on and so forth. so i think there's lots of -- we need a more nuanced discussion about those impacts. it's good for some of these u.s. companies. is it good for the country? i mean, this goes back to the bob rush. >> jennifer, since you've tried to identify, how do we look at benefits? how do we see how this effects the larger economic forces? is there any way to sort of ferret out the differences, the types of innovations, the types of changes we are seeing, we are using this talent and determining what the overall benefits are? >> that's a good question, but a hard question, and it does tie to a few things that i did want to say and that you, actually, brought up in your initial remarks. when i began the paper, for example, to look at the effect of skilled immigrants on patenting, why did i actually pick pat patenting? because it's measurable, not necessarily because i thought it was the biggest contribution of imm

that said, after nafta passed, e should remember ross perot ran an 1992 on the great sucking sound thatould happen if nafta passed. i was with the clinton administration at the time at the department of lab and starting in 1994 -- again, it took time. when clinton first came on and the first 18 months it was caught the jobless recovery but once it started to take off there was remarkable job growth -- 21 million net new jobs created. by the end of 1999, the highest unemployment rate of the population that we ever had in the history of the country. certainly, nafta in the short run can't be said to have caused job loss. the terms of trade -- it is easy to look at and say we could have done that, and why couldn't -- stop that and produce it at home. by and lge, what happened is productivity advances. if we look at coal proction or steel production, it can be measured quite easily. millions of metric tons. we actually produce the same amount of coal and steel today as we did in 1960. we do it with one quarter of the labor force. in fact, world wide, manufacturing empyment as a share of uneloym

as far as business goes, i really, i think that ross perot, guys that are successful businessmen, talk to him about how to get a business. what about president of the past -- reagan, clinton? they did an outstanding job. if he would just review all the material that he has and stop playing president. he did more vacations than any president has ever done. in a time when the economy is at its worst. it is time he grows up and starts taking his job seriously. and it seriously, take us serious. listen to what we have to say. i think it is about time as far as citizens go, we need to get these bums out of congress. the democrats are running away. they should be fired. this is crazy. could not do that on my job. just take off and not suffer consequences. it is about time this country gets back to the basics. and what the constitution stands for. he needs to listen to the citizens that elected him. host: from our twitter pag it is back up. the one person would be an accountant because president obama clearly does not understand money into debt. we talked about new gingrich, the front page of

entrepreneurs also comes out of those large companies, and we can look at history, you know, eds, ross perot was the ibm salesman, cisco, john chambers was an ibm salesman and so on and so forth. so i think there's lots of -- we need a more nuanced discussion about those impacts. it's good for some of these u.s. companies. is it good for the country? i mean, this goes back to the bob rush. >> jennifer, since you've tried to identify, how do we look at benefits? how do we see how this effects the larger economic forces? is there any way to sort of ferret out the differences, the types of innovations, the types of changes we are seeing, we are using this talent and determining what the overall benefits are? >> that's a good question, but a hard question, and it does tie to a few things that i did want to say and that you, actually, brought up in your initial remarks. when i began the paper, for example, to look at the effect of skilled immigrants on patenting, why did i actually pick pat patenting? because it's measurable, not necessarily because i thought it was the biggest contribution of im