i think to myself, that must be what strom thurmond's head looks like and of course it was strom thurmond. nye that when people were trying to shake his hand. i wanted to shake his hand, too because i'd been in d.c. that summer for the first time, and i'd met all of these politicians i'd seen on tv. it had been a great thrill and i was about to go home and speak to my dad's rotary club and i wanted to tell about the famous people i met in washington, dc. so i was there trying to shake his hand, when i got off the plane, about as i got off the plane where there are people already lined up to shake his hand, and i didn't get in line. and i didn't -- i was thinking -- i wasn't a cob sit opportunities, -- constituent, and i didn't have anything to say, and i was a little self-conscious. there were a lot of people there and i felt self-cop shoes about standing in line waiting too great a man best nope for his segregationist harangues. so i thought it was good enough to say i had seep him and keep walking. but i -- i'm conflicted, though. and i walk down the counsel course about 100 yards and i

if you you are i write about colin it there is no way we can do it the way judith thurmond did. what i'm really doing is saying what about him is like me? how can he train a search light into the dark that i might not otherwise want to look at its? if i'm writing first i would have to call it fiction and secondly i would be thinking what she like me? would call at like me and how is that going to change things and how can i possibly be objective? interestingly enough there are two women deliberate about him wonderfully. one of them is surely howard one of new york's accomplished -- the great fire is one of the great books of the century but when she writes about green she turns in a cute eye on him but also you feel she was repelled by him in certain ways and a level in which they didn't get along. she writes again and again the one thing missing is -- and anyone feels that is the main quality. such tenderness towards other characters but she could never in real life -- and then look at gloria emerson a war correspondent. she wrote one novel and her life. it was called loving gr

he and strom thurmond. ronald reagan the kennedy center , the president's box, a member of congress invited me. he seemed like a very affable, personable guy the most amusing thing to me about ronald reagan is that he told the press when he fired me and the press asked him why. a reporter came back and told me. i fired her because she serves of my pleasure and she is not giving me any pleasure. of the laughter that one. >> the server and pleasure. that was almost as bad as the guy in the bush administration and the justice department. supposedly said he liked his coffee like mary frances berry, black and better. i guess reagan's was a little better. i served at his pleasure. but i'm not giving him very much pleasure. that was brought into evidence. massoud. reagan fired me. the courses, among other things, the president doesn't fire people who are in an independent agency or what starting him. they're not giving you pleasure. or not supposed to be giving him pleasure. we're supposed to be monitoring what he

twenty's in the thirty's in the forty's well in the in the teens in the ots in the twentieth century thurmond as a dixiecrat exactly nine hundred forty eight walk out. but you know it. but here is the here's a chart of the use of the filibuster just nine hundred sixty five right i mean you know there are different different variations on it motions filed votes and cloture and cloture actually been invoked. it seems to me like this is really screwing up democracy small d democracy. throughout the partisan politics except for the fact that i can't throw out the partisan politics because i i don't know of a time when democrats have have committed this kind of abuse against democratic process so part of it is you can't throw out the i understand what you mean by throughout the partisan politics and look at this thing but you can't because hyper partisan politics is one of the reasons we have this this is the rule the reason that it's become this technical back and forth with the you know the roberts rules of order and they're looking for any way to get around majority rule because these people do

. >> john: we read about strom thurmond standing on the senate floor for days reading phone books to civil rights being voted on. why don't they force these guys go on c-span and read the phone book. >> there is a fourth and a fifth. they let this game get out of hand in the first term. don't upset them because maybe we can deal with them. don't upset the right wing crazy--it hasn't worked. the press has dropped the ball. they will not explain what the entire filibuster culture is, and there is no price to pay for being radically obstructionist. >> john: that's why i read your column. thank you for being here this evening. >>> it's time to be here when were you players enter the baseball hall of fame which makes it a proud day for--nobody. that's it. [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> john: for the first time since 1996, the baseball writers of america did not elect anyone to be inducted into the baseball hall of fame. this despite the fact that to of the best players of the last 30 years were on the ballot. roger clemens and barry bonds. a seven-time mvp, the only player in major league history

rethinking strom thunder minute minute -- strom thurmond. we only remember him as the cartoonist race figure from the deep south. ... >> well, thank you, 'em john, and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. >> there were two bills at national review. and in the conservative movement, two bills. bill buckley, a brilliant shooting star who lit up the sky, and bill rusher, a never-wavering north star by which conservatives learn today chart their -- learned to chart their political course. many have written about william f. buckley jr., that irresistible renaissance man, but no one until david frisk has given us an in-depth portrait of the other bill, william a. rusher, who among his other salutary contributions played a pivotal role in the life of the national draft goldwater committee. and that was critical. because if there had been no draft goldwater committee, there would have been no presidential candidate barry goldwater in 1964. and if there had been no candidate goldwater in 1964, there would have been no president-elect ronald reagan i

he had strom thurmond used to send them all the time. ronald reagan, the only interaction is at the kennedy center in the president's box and a member of congress invited me. he seemed like a very affable, personal god. the most amusing thing for me about ronald reagan as he told the press when he fired me in the press asking why, a reporter came back and told me as proprietor she stared and she's not given me any pleasure. the press got a big laugh on that one. that was almost as bad as the guy in the bush administration and the justice department supposedly granting voting rights to study the disc off the lake mary frances berry, black and bitter, but i guess bacon was a little better. i served in his pleasure, but i'm not giving them very much pleasure. the court responded to evidence when i sued reagan and the court says that among other things. the president doesn't hire people in an independent agency who are watchdogging him because they're not getting a pleasure. supposed to be monitoring what he does. but i found him to be an af

. >> bill: bring backstrom thurmon -- bring back strom thurmond. >> do you think from what you know thate will be changed and the negotiations will work out? >> i think senator reid and senator mcconnell have worked out -- i shouldn't say they have worked out. i think they're working on trying to get an agreement on modification, especially on -- you can actually filibuster a bill twice. you can filibuster a bill on the so-called motion to proceed. whether you should even take up the bill and then you can filibuster again -- actually three times. then you can filibuster once you're on the bill and you can filibuster an amendment to the bill. so what they're working on, as i understand it, i haven't talked to senator reid about this. as i understand it, they're taking away one of the motions on -- motion to proceed. you couldn't filibuster on that. that's a start. but as i say, i'm not sure rules changes are important as going back to the old practices we had when the system really worked. >> bill: it's that motion to proceed, i think which is the one that bugs people the most. because yo

folks like strom thurmond holding forth for 24 hours. we have, however, seen that a person can only delay the senate for 24 hours, then someone else can seek the floor and you can proceed. so that was a fairly modest strategy. now, in both the case of the denying quorum and in the case of speaking as long as you cou could, you had to spend time and energy, you had to organize and it was visible before this body. it was visible before the reporters gathered in the balcony. therefore, the american people, long before there was a television camera here, could see what you were doing and the public could provide feedback on that. but now we come to the modern era. from 1970 forward. in which it became popular to start using the objection as an instrument of party warfare, the objection to a final vote. you know, if we turn back before 1970, you had an overlap of the parties of perhaps 30 members. and so if one had used his objection, they'd have a good sense that you would be able to get cloture. furthermore, there was a social contract that

in 1993 i testified before strom thurmond's armed services committee pushing to lift the ban on gays serving in the military. and i ran into a world of misperceptions. i thought i was on a "saturday night live" skit. today, at last, that policy is gone forever and we are a country that honors the commitment of all willing to fight and die for our country. we've gone from a senate that passed doma over my objections to one that just welcomed its first openly gay senator. there are good changes that have taken place for our senate and for our country. but we have more work to do. this place needs more women, more people of color, more diversity of background and experience. but it's still a remarkable place. i am reminded of the letters of harry truman that he used to write home to his wife bess. he sat in the back row of the chamber. and late one night after the great debate of the new deal era, he wrote toes mother, "-- he wrote to his mother, "i hear my colleagues and i look out at them and i pinch myself and i ask 'how did i get here'" several months later he wrote bess once more,