it is william jennings bryan. convictions about revolution. the first part of the question is important. it is an interesting question because i get asked a lot. and that -- is an easy one for me to answer. in doing the research for this book came upon this amazing class of public defenders. the death penalty bar. and they work in texas, georgia, illinois, places where executions are carried on routinely. most of their clients are guilty . they list the horrible things they say they have done. they know they're not going to get them off, and yet they throw themselves into the defense of these on the principle that everybody needs an offense and if the death penalty is wrong. and makes collectively over the past and 15 years i think that they have, you know, helps change american attitude about the death penalty. we are switching back again away from executions. about ten years ago it was the thing to do and people were dying almost daily around the country. so this very unselfish, known, unrewarded group of defense attorneys that nobody knows

they didn't like william jennings bryan, they probably thought he was a socialist, but their view was that we want our thinking in the white house and in the justice department, and we want someone who sees the economy our way. is that a business interest? is that a philosophical/ideological interest? you know, after the election the great line that came out of that was henry clay frick who said about roosevelt we bought the son of a bitch, he just didn't stay bought. [laughter] and roosevelt ended up saying we ought to get rid of private money in federal elections, we ought to have public money out of the treasury because trust corporations shouldn't be deciding who the president is. i think if you look back at the supreme court in the citizens united case, what you see is a court that has two very different views, the dissent and the majority, over what's happening, and we see it played out this year. we have your view, um, which is a perfectly, i think, you know, respectable view of aspirational, that there will be all these independent groups, and they will be speaking, and they w

they did not like william jennings bryan. they probably thought he was a socialist, but their view was that they want their thinking in the white house and in the justice department. was that a business interest? was that a philosophical and ideological interests? after the election, the great line that came out of that was about roosevelt, "we bought the son of a bitch," but he just did not say bought. i think if you look back at the supreme court in the citizens united case, what you see is a court that has two very different views over what is happening. we have your view, which is a perfectly, i think, respectable view of aspirational that there will be all these independent groups, and they will be speaking and saying what they want to say, and candidates may like it or dislike it, but it is going be independent and fully disclosed. then you have the minority, which i think you have the reality -- some of the groups this year, maybe not all of them, but they are virtually correct. they say, wait a minute, this will be de

in america george mcgovern stood in the tradition of henry david thoreau of william jennings bryan, andpeople sought to break down the barriers of a closed political system his voice was there. when sinister forces corrupted the political system and haunted the corridors of power in washington, he was there to warn us. voices of conscience make us uncomfortable. our political system forces them to the margin. those made uncomfortable by george mcgovern's voice of conscience dismissed him as a liberal in an age which ridicules liberalism. but he was larger than any political label particularly a demonized one. liberals did not get elected and reelected in conservative midwestern states. liberals did not throughout their life take on unpopular causes particularly in recent years. and most of all liberals did not fly dangerous bomber missions in defense of our nation. this made his many critics who avoided military service especially uncomfortable. somewhere in some small town in this great land is a young man or a young woman who will learn of george mcgovern and his voice. someday, that

that was ideological and they did not like william jennings bryan because they thought he was a socialist. they said if you want our thinking and the white house, we want somebody who sees things our way. the great line that came after that was that theodore roosevelt could not stay bought. theodore roosevelt said we should have public funding out of the treasury. if you look back at the supreme court in the citizens united case, you see a court that has two dare -- very different views over what is happening. we have your view which is a perfectly respectable view of the aspirations that there will these -- will be these independent groups speaking and saying what they want to say. it will be fully disclosed and it will not be corrupting independents. then you have the minority that caught the reality of most of the spending this year. their view was that this would be funded by giant corporations with specific legislative interests. that is why they will give so much money. it turns out it is not fully disclosed. it turns out it is not for individual candidates. it perhaps crosses the l

they didn't like william jennings bryan and they thought he was a socialist, but the view was we wantour thinking in the white house and in the justice the board met and we want someone who sees the economy our way. is that a business interest or philosophical and theological difference? the great line that came out of that was henry clay who set about roosevelt when he bought the son of a bitch and didn't stay bought and we ought to get rid and have public funding of the treasury because the trust corporation's shouldn't be decided who the president is. i think if you look back at the supreme court of the citizens united case what you see is a court that has two different views in descending the majority over what's happening. and we see it played out this year. we have the view that is a perfectly - respectable view of the aspirations that there will be all these independent groups and they will be speaking and saying what they want to say and the candidates may like or dislike but it is to be independent, it's going to be fully disclosed and it's not going to be corrupting. then yo