risk of one more year is actually small. we've already essentially waited for 50 years so the difference of wheat and 50 years to 51 years and that big would. it's exactly the kind of situation but you already have a huge stock so the flow relative to the stock is very small and the benefits come way far away. the costs come for a way of having put too much. and so, the difference when you think about the difference in what you pay to have the earth have a little bit less carbon monoxide defeat could oxide, 51 years from now versus 52, you wouldn't pay that much. i think the economics which are surprising and catch people off guard really do say that what you want to do now is take the steps that are cheap and will allow you to get information about the global catastrophe as quickly as possible and then if
you learn we are heading for global catastrophe you pull out all the stops. if we wait three years and realize things are much worse than we thought it will leave the shield on. that's great because it is keeping the school but we have to basically cut the carvin completely out of production completely. ..
>> but i think the longer we wait the better the chance we can get it. >> the last question i have two issues. one is small and one is large. you have a fascinating chapter on the economics are prostitution and much of focuses on one reader who got in touch with you and i guess you would call it high prostitution who made a fair amount of money teaching an
economics course at university, is the-- of the 18 year-old daughter of a friend called and said i will follow her example, what advice would you say? >> i did not want my daughter to be a prostitute but it is a quintessential weakness of societal dialogue when we can't appreciate that our preferences are not other people's preferences. even if the number of women who would want to read that life, one of 100,000a and although it is illegal that does not mean people like us cannot look at the case and learn something from it. that is what is interesting especially with this town where policy is almost a zero sum game but preferences are come to seen as zero sum game. with that will lose sight of
the fact that people to and prefer a and act differently. that is what politics is ugly. you cannot conceive how he could think that way because it is so far from your preference but my preference for me and my daughter would be very, very different from yours but that does not mean it is not in lightning and also what we do that it is not a judgment that we are making. this is bad or right or wrong and whether you just want to observe the walls or speak to the world or change the world if you have the central foundation to go first. if she can make $500 per hour, that is a strong inside in to understanding why somebody would do that. >> i actually agree with that i am not suggesting that should be the preference but what does the chapter 82 if somebody did
want to go into that field? the data set is very interesting. >> guest: one thing, the last thing you want is to have bit legalize. the reason it is paid so much she can figure out how to get to the barriers and and she knows her rates would go way down. and the other thing that you learn from doing the study i think the one that i've learned the most is that it is such a window into how the inner city work send things you would ever imagine like in the fact of chicago, it is more like to have sex with a police officer then be arrested with one. i was shocked from what we
discovered. and sometimes a star is to give you in sight but maybe policy more generally and what they may try to do with the inner city. >> host: then you have a couple of terrific chapters about health care and very un common datasets. here we are trying to fix something in washington doing health care reform. trying to get the votes from max baucus, what did you originally believed about the health care system? >> i think, not that much. the data that i have the we have looked at on health care on very specific parts of the problem they are not quite right. what it one economist was say based on the data that health care is a market where there is a huge disconnect between the
people who are paying and the choices made. when i go to the store and i want to buy it oranges are apples, they cost me $0.50 on the margin. if i want to buy a car, i pay for it. if we want to rationalize the health care system, the stronger we can make the connection between what people buy and what they pay will be the answer. and a #2 it competes with the insurance component of health care. if you pay on the margin you don't have insurance. i am not saying you should let the economist run the world but it will be one where they had insurance but more or less people paid on the margin and the least popular set up you can have it we would have more
rational items. >> host: one storey read and write about -- right about is one commodity that is sin short supply which is information. we tell the story of two people from washington hospital center the realize the scarcity was damaging not just to their health but cost. they decided the best way to improve health care and cut costs was gather information better, using it, analyzing it, a treatment and in a financial sense and a good news the system has caught on being distributed. because what we see as a cost savings from manipulating and handling information better goes better all the way medically and financially 57 think you so much. we have the authors of our new book for economics.
>> craig and i will do something hopefully you will find fund. rather than him kicking up and giving a long 30 minute speech in which you struggle in your seat, i thought i would interview craig and asking the number of questions and then throw it to the audience if you have questions as well. we would like to keep this as lively and moving as possible. of you want to have something to throw up here please raise your hand but let me ask the first five or
six questions. [laughter] does that sound good? okay. in our i caught -- archives caught -- archives, we have hundreds and hundreds of president reagan and radio address from 1976 through 1980 time frame. when i saw he had that many radio address is, i thought, from the outset right after the 76 convention to be on the air that much then having read in your book the fact he was also writing a biweekly newspaper column traveling around the country dozens and dozens of different speeches giving the convention on word come it would seem to me that campaign staffs and we're not letting this go. from the will let you leave the convention to these to position yourself to run for the presidency. was it that purposeful or
more of a happenstance? >> guest: as a matter of fact the campaign after 1976 pretty much dissipated. the staff when their own way except the to manage the political affairs and commentaries and syndicated columns but not a grand plan that started to mount a second birth third challenge for the republican -- republican nation -- nomination in 1980. a lot of the staff was playing ftse with other candidates including john connally and all of those who took on reagan for the nomination. and, pounding that was the fact that 76 that it was reagan's last shot and would not run again and he would be too old to run again and
1980. >> host: i think 1978 president reagan not even the kennedy had happened upon an issue that i am sure he had been watching for years but it seemed to be the wedge issue in that timeframe that really helped to put them back into the national dialogue which was the panama canal. >> guest: yes. for those old enough to remember, it was enormously huge issue in this country. it was so huge in this country that president carter who was fighting for the panama canal treaty in 1977 lobbying the senate and tried to muster support, he does something unprecedented in a national television address advocating the passage of the treaty's the attacks private citizen ronald reagan. there is a man going around
the country saying we built it come to be paid for it we will keep it and that is not quite true. the president is attacking one as it is sent out of a nation. that is astonishing. the next day cbs news calls a governor reagan and sen would you like to respond? he said you bet after three seconds and they put him on national television and he gave a 30 minute response to carter's attack and his position on the canal treaties. the negative -- issue also brings up the fissures in said the republican party because, at the time, reagan tries to mount a national grass-roots campaign and he is approached by than rnc chairman. he wanted him to sign for the republican national committee to oppose or raise money to oppose such
readers -- treaties and reagan said yesterday he makes over $1 million for the rnc which was a lot of money in 1977. now governor reagan was together a national truth squad to travel the country to mount a grass-roots campaign. he goes to bill and says would you mind if i had some of that money that i raised for the truth squad? he says no. and would not give him one time. the reason, he was from tennessee, a former senator. howard baker senate minority leader who still had not taken a position on the treaty's but also close friends with the gerald ford as an ex president was supporting the treaty's. reagan was furious as you can imagine and after that never raised another dime for the rnc until after he
got the nomination july 1980. >> host: if i have my history correct after the treaty passed is it fair to say that president reagan lost the battle but won the war in the sense of positioned him from a philosophical standpoint two hilco less? >> guest: absolutely. by the time of the passage of the trees in the senate in the spring of 1978, the american people who two years support who has supported the treaty's know all of the national polling has the american people vastly opposed. reagan had convinced them even though you are right. he lost the battle but won the war because it coalesced the conservative movement for the drive for the nomination and. >> host: can you talk about jack kemp? i was not working on the
hill at the time. but by the time i got to capitol hill, his name was already famous. he may have 10 of a young republican but it is remarkable some of his ideas especially on supply-side economics found their way to ronald reagan and he started espousing them quite earn the. jack kemp was truly an influential figure on reagan t when somebody will have to do a book on how important jack kemp was to the conservative movement and the republican party. he brought fire to the republic and kind. he gave us a hopeful economic message, which conservatism and republican as some have never had before. we, republicans and conservatives, had been the agreed vice balance the budget and democrats were the party of hope and
opportunity. they're economic message was spread the wealth or soak the rich but we did not have something that was hopeful. september 1976 jack kemp introduces a jobs creation and act in the house. anybody can introduce legislation but he introduces the bill and it is brought to reagan's attention and it is a massive across the board personal income tax for all americans and reagan unseasonably the political opportunity but what it does economically and endorses it immediately and less than two years later, it is the centerpiece of the economic philosophy to the american people. tax cuts were very important to reagan for two reasons of liberty thinks it is about stimulating the economy, that is true. but from his standpoint he was developing a message of
optimistic conservatism and part of that had to be in reliance on his self as opposed to reliance on this date so tax cuts were to reduce the individuals reliance on the state and upon them sells that is what attracted reagan to the tax cuts that it made them give control of their own destiny -- destiny 37 having read your book reminded me just how many republican candidate says saw the preakness of jimmy carter and decided i will get into this progress seem like almost one dozen or 10? do you recall how many? in the republican primary. >> it was six but there was a your 10 including president gerald ford.
boy through all primaries it ended up being on the reagan versus george bush jim the view of all of those others? is there any particular candidate that should have more momentum to run a better campaign and ended up at the finish line? or was it bush had run the best campaign? >> guest: he had run the best campaign next two reagin probably the best after and i always wonder why bob dole did not catch more fire. he was on the ticket in national political figure and very confident legislator from kansas and a beautiful story to tell, a jack armstrong all-american story but he never caught on with voters and we could never figure out why that
never happened. >> host: you noted president reagan and ran the best campaign and was victorious per car was interested to see in your book you call it a blunt during start. take us back to that time because the reagan presidency almost was not the reagan presidency because of a very bad start. >> guest: what happened, after 1976 and kansas city, reagan does what he was due and communicate to the people his views on america, conservatism the world, communism, opportunit y, freedom it's an june 1977 he gives 13 major policy speech is and on "the tonight show" with johnny carson and testifying on capitol hill against the panama canal treaties he is hither and yon to.
the more you ran him the better he ran. but if you pulled him off to the side and put him in the stable, the muscles start to atrophy. he is doing this from 1977 and 1978. he is the front runner from 1980 but it is the only way ronald reagan will lose the nomination is he defeats him in the primaries. so those associated. [inaudible] this allows the other candidates to climb into contention. then it ronald reagan who should have then the front runner for the nomination only getting 20% of support of republicans nationwide bracket was made the because he had campaign aides
telling him to go against his own instincts which was to stay out there and talk to the american people. he went to new hampshire wants in two years. he had not been to iowa before that 80 caucuses. he almost lost the nomination. he lost in the iowa caucus is then in new hampshire was do or die. >> host: absolutely do or die for reagan. the current primary process is that new hampshire falls eight days after the iowa caucuses. if you had taken the current primary schedule and overlaid over the 1980 schedule reagan would lose the nomination george bush would have won and reagan would have become the william jennings bryan of the party will worsted reagan's favor is that he
decided to take control and new hampshire fell five weeks after the iowa caucuses that allowed him time to get back into the race. >> host: see you are saying if he had not, if we took modern day schedules come a you would not be president reagan? talk to me about new hampshire. my impression is with modern day politics and terms of reports, they're draw but at tha high school debate that you write about seems to be an extraordinary exception to the role. can you talk to the importance of that? >> reagan leaves iowa collapse of the national polls, new hampshire polls, campaigned heavily in debt.
still the campaign aides are saying that just put in a couple of days in new hampshire and he throws up the script he said i'm going there and i wanted to campaign the way i want to. that age was a huge issue in 1979 but what ended up happening, he was traveling and go so furious and fast that the political press traveling with him hang a sign in the bus that say free the reagan 44 because they are so exhausted by a man that set the pace twice they're age. [laughter] but going into a national debate and why this is so interesting and shows a lot about ronald reagan is that he was losing in new hampshire in the day one on one with george bush to make his case why he would be a better nominee than george bush. as those go on reagin creeps
up in the polls then all of a sudden the table is turned. now bush wants the other candidates involved broke then the federal election commission's stance and says the paper cannot pay for them today purpose of the reagan campaign staffs ford and says we will pay the $3,000. now again, the cable -- tables have turned so now the national telegraph only three days before the primary. reagan is surging in the polls but has not caught george bush yet to me he wants the other candidates to dilute the anti-reagan vote. he says absolutely not. reagan says i am paying for this and i think they should be involved. so what has happened is you have a famous confrontation at the high school, 2500
people, dr. than blazes inside. people describe it as yelling and screaming and somebody described it as the bar scene from star wars. [laughter] you have this where reagan tries to address the crowd and calls the other four candidates up on stage and they are played with the national 44 and he wants to address the crowd and explain why the other four should be involved and editor of the national telegraphs tells a sound man turn off his microphone and they will not turn off the microphone. rake in its grabs the microphone and stands up and takes a step in and says look at the video and you think he will hit him. [laughter] he was so mad his aides said they had never seen him so mad as that night that is when he thundered i am paying for this microphone
his hands were shaking it. >> host: a classic moment. after all of that, that was just the beginning, from reading your book there is no question it harkens back to a time there was a very tough campaign and as it went down to the wire between reagan and bush and as a former staff person in the bush administration i asked this with all due respect. when you read the book is just surprising when you see the speed that president reagan decided towards the end to ask george bush to come on the ticket. a lot of backroom negotiations but can you bring this back to that time? it was such a tough campaign and the cancer so bitterly opposed the president reached out his hand to bring bush on the ticket. >> there is a history they
ended up not being the of best of friends but it shows that politics does make strange bedfellows? heche's started a little rocky. and a congressional candidate down in texas by the name of george w. bush running for congress and he had a conservative primary opponent u.s. the mayor of odessa texas. reagan endorsed reese over bush and contributed to his campaign. this did not set well with the bush family and ambassador bush than called governor reagan to complain about endorsing his sense opponent prepare you already have that situation then of course, bush's running in the primaries against reagan and that age issue as i cannot underestimate how big the issue was was shot to
every story written or reported on radio or tv about ronald, was he too old? was he up to the task? and bush tries to exploit this as any other campaign would. he is jogging to the media and he goes to the ymca in new hampshire and does pushups and it is all to exacerbate that -- exacerbate the age issue then on top of that you have bush attacking his voodoo economics. this sent to people around reagan around the bend. by the time you get to day trait the man who made the most sense was george bush because he was somewhat more moderate, and had a proven ability to get the votes in the primaries michigan, massachusetts and pennsylvania and more
minn national television between walter cronkite and gerald ford and the co presidency and rumors passed from delegate to delegate to network and all night launch a network television and recycled back so you had this day of madness about whether or not there was went to be a dream ticket and co presidency. would they address the convention in unison and at the end of the day ford and reagan, this is now 11:30 am i -- this is the might reagan has been nominated by the republican party. he's tried three times, he finally gets it and can't savor it because he hasn't gotten -- he doesn't have a running mate. at 11:30 that night after all these negotiations, and i need to tell you, too, about henry kissinger's role in this, they go in a room for five minutes, the two of them in the trade and come out and reagan tells the guys come peter and wan and
allen and the others, says i can't tell you what's going on but it's not going to work. and so, they sit there, 11:30 at night in the reagan is looking at the aids and says well, fellows, what do we do now, he's got no running mate. and finally after a few moments, peter pan eckert says governor, i think it is time to call george bush, so he calls george bush, and george bush is blown away, no idea. he was convinced like everybody in america gerald ford was coming on the ticket with reagan. >> let me ask one more question before i throw it to the audience for any questions. it directly falls on that, and goes back to jack kemp. why did his start off rise at least high enough to be more seriously in consideration for the vice presidency? >> there was a lot of affection on the part of the delegates and governor reagan for jack kemp, and that comes through and all the people i talk to and
material i went through. there were probably -- the biggest thing that kept jack kemp off the ticket with reagan is that the aides felt like it would be to match to ask the american people to swallow the ticket of a former movie actor and pro football player. it might have been too much to ask the american people in 1980 and that's probably as much as anything because really the delegates would say the vast majority of the delegates but a great number of the delegates really wanted -- really wanted jack kemp and of course reagan's personal preference was senator paul laxalt. they wanted paul laxalt. but senator axle, very wonderful guy, good friend, from nevada was conservative, nevada only had three electoral votes. reagan was going to carry anyway so it wasn't like it added anything to the ticket. >> at this point you have any questions for the folks in the studio audience? [laughter]
>> don't be shocked if you do. we have many questions. normally we would hand you a microphone but i am thinking because of our technical difficulty we might have you -- >> [inaudible] i want to hear what that is. >> can you repeat the question for her? >> henry kissinger was negotiating the treaty of detroit on the part of, on behalf gerald ford and kissinger was a pretty tough negotiator. of course he had negotiated the peace with honor, withdraw from vietnam and after the tough negotiations in the chocolate that day, one of the reagan aides says for the first time after dealing with kissinger all day for the first time in my life i felt sorry for the north vietnamese. [laughter]
i know we had a few other hands with questions. yes, sir. i know this is a bit unusual, but when you ask your question if you could come to the front and ask us because we want to be sure we are able to recorded on the microphone. >> in the early days was the well served by his advisers, and it seems to me when he made serious error is when he did not go with his intuition. >> absolutely. when reagan had his best, when he relied on his own judgment and temperament i think also what comes through in the book and came through at that time was reagan was best when he was mad. wirthlin said he never met a candidate who loved confrontation as much as reagan.
he relished confrontation. mike said he was the most competitive so be that ever lived. this idea that reagan floated from opportunity to opportunity is nonsense. everything that he had in his life he fought for and when he took matters in his own hands as he did in new hampshire and won the primary and as he did in the fall when he decided he was going to be dated jimmy carter that reagan was best off when he took matters into his own career and his own hands, absolutely. any other questions? over here. >> it is an honor to give you this microphone. [laughter] >> dr. shirley, question. [laughter] you spent enormous amount of time studying the campaigns.
at the '76 campaign and the 80's campaign. and yet most academicians focus on 1981, january, 1981 to 1989. what is it that you have learned from those campaigns about ronald reagan that we don't learn from studying his presidency? >> good question. all i learned how much a republican party establishment ronald reagan. there was almost a corrupt bargain in the late 70's between some elements of the republican party establishment and media because the age issue was really corrosive and finally got to reagan. this is a guy 68-years-old, talks with jokes about his age know, he's not getting older, just keeps writing older looking horses. he handled it very well but the
media kept pounding on it and the republican party kept pounding on it and it makes sense because this was the guy that to get to the republican party establishment starting january, 67. gerald ford lost to jimmy carter. the republican party has been decimated in the ticket races of 76 and compounded by the fact they've been decimated in '74. and 1977 only one state in america has republican control of the governors appeared legislature, that's kansas. 49 other states had mir or total democratic control of the state governments. there's states in the south that don't even have elected republicans in office. that is how bad it days. and only 18% of the american people claim allegiance to the party and only 11% of the voters under 30 clean allegiance to the republican party. so, regan looks at the landscape and says we can do better than this. so, he goes out and starts
giving speeches about the new republican party that he envisioned, the republican party envisioned cannot be the party of the corporate board room, it cannot be the part of the country club. it's got to be the party of the individual, not the state. it's got to be the party of the man on the street, the homemaker, the shopkeeper, the entrepreneur but it cannot be the party that it's been the last 30 years because this isn't working. while the entrenched remaining eletes of the republican party don't like this. who is this maverick populace coming out of california to tell us how to run our party? he was just a democrat of 15, 18 years ago and so one thing i learned is how many -- the long answer to a very good and short question is how tough the road it was for ronald reagan in 1976 and 1980. we all look back now 29 years later over history and say yeah i was for ronald reagan in 1980.
it's not true. many elements inside the republican party were opposed to ronald reagan and sometimes viciously opposed of ronald reagan. >> interesting insight. okay i have a question. we have a number of friends that have done polling for the republican party for many years. and my sense of the results from the 1983 race or that reagan was one of those rare individuals who found a way at the time to stitch together these emerging coalitions within the party, this set of economic conservatives who were quite different than those who might be foreign policy conservatives who again were quite different and a circle of people that might be social conservatives. and i think that his success in great part was that he found a way to drive an issue that would pull all the constituencies together to create the majority
coalition. do you see that as being possible in today's modern day republican party? [laughter] >> john, not only twice yet possible, it has to happen for the republican party to survive. what riggins all, freakin''s organizing philosophy was freedom. democratic party from the time of the new deal of until today the organizing philosophy has been justice. justice you have to have a baby government to enforce justice. but freedom really needs only a constitutional bill of rights, intelligent courts and restraint police force. riggins's republican party was organized around the concept of freedom that the individual was more important than the state and the privacy and the dignity of the individual work more important than anything else in this country it is the republican party drifted away from that in the last eight
years and became an essentially the second big government party in america. and so, voters when faced with a choice between five real big government party in america, the democrats, or take the government in 2006 and in 2008 shows the big government party. i think the republican party -- if you look at this practically is that this is a nation of over 300 million people. it is vast, huge, diverse, and i think it is very arrogant to think that we can govern this country from one corrupt city on the potomac river. so really the localism you can call it populist conservatives or localism but it makes far more sense to meet the needs of the american people to handle most things that the state and localities and individuals the we jefferson envisioned it as opposed commandery that reagan envisioned it as opposed to what we have today.
>> if you have a question -- >> fight back. do what the tea party protesters are doing. >> [inaudible] hi said the republican tea parties [inaudible] >> no, that's right. but -- >> [inaudible] >> i think part of what we have to do is fortunately we have our own way to communicate with each other now. we don't have to depend on abc, cbs. so far. but what is interesting is if you look at the recent data 40% of american people call themselves durham to be conservative while 20% call themselves republicans. that speaks volumes about the state of the republican party in america today. but is the way it was in 1977 to read history repeat itself. the party because of nixon and
ford and corruption of watergate and because the effectiveness of gerald ford and his ties to the correct corporate elites became a minority party. and so, now we are -- now they are again in the minority. the way back as what reagan said. reagan said don't trust me. trust yourself. he visited the trust me government of jimmy carter and what the republicans have to understand is that they have to take it to the trust me government of barack obama. >> i'm sorry -- >> i hope i can be heard -- speak to federal reserve and position. i would like to know -- what were his views on the federal reserve and the income tax? >> while, he was asked in 1980 about a particular tax cut and says i favor a tax cut any time.
i don't know -- >> [inaudible] >> well but he reform did in 1986 when he was president and of course 1981 the tax system was the top marginal rate was 70%. he brought that down to high 20s so we knew what his attitude was about the tax system and also of course you have the series of rising steps in the tax system when it was simplified down to the three simple tax rates >> [inaudible] >> i can't address that specifically except ronald reagan was always specific of any concentration of power whatsoever. he saw concentration of power whether it was by corporate america or government as a threat to individual freedoms and too much concentration of power inevitably lead to corruption. so, i hope that answers your
question. >> i think we have another question over here. right over here. >> getting back to the book, john sears, in 1976 a friend and i cornered reagan and new hampshire and asked him for permission to run as delegates for reagan from new york. freakin' gave his total blessing. couldn't have been more enthusiastic. he said go ahead and do it and that was reagan being reagan. we went around the corner and talk to john sears and he said absolutely not. he had made a deal with republicans the would run uncommitted slate and maybe go in the meeting wouldn't but if we challenge them they would never go first. so we lost every seat and to leggitt in new york as a result. >> not everyone. >> i'm talking about 76. >> but his brother, yeah, fred was a reagan delegate. >> the point was he but in --
skiers would not let anybody else run. he got there because he was a senator. >> [inaudible] >> anyway, he said don't do that. four years later of course reagan has learned this lesson and fred and a bunch of us went and carried all but about six delegates in the state of new york, swapped the uncommitted slate. so my question is why did he wait so long to dump this sears? [laughter] >> you know, you've got to remember the national politics was vastly different in 1974, 75 than it is today. john sears had been nixon's delegate in 1968.
he was a republican consultant operative in the early 1970's. the reagan folks are out here after 1974 he leaves the second term governorship and they are intimidated by national politics because it is dominated by the east coast party operatives, dominated by the national media. they don't know the national operatives very well, they don't know the national media very well and this guy john sears, who got passed over because stew spencer and roger martin and others were running at. so he ends up running reagan's campaign but this is a great accusation in the eyes of the media because they didn't know much about this guy, reagan, from california. even after all of his career in hollywood and the g and the lecture circuit is 3,000 models is a long way, a telephone call. he didn't of the internet, cable
television, talk radio, cell phones. it is a big country and most of those guys 3,000 miles away. so the guy that they do know, john sears call this national political experience, he's going to run reagan's campaign. well, that really impresses the national media. but the reagan comes close as we all know in 1976. some say because john got him close and others say because john s. tuck and new york and ohio and new jersey and other primaries. but there wasn't a good acceptable back up, which is why it took so long to fire john in 1980 because there wasn't anybody of his stature and the other thing weighing on reagan and actually mrs. reagan as well was the fact that john had all of his friends in the national media and freakin''s campaign in all 79 early 80 is in very bad
condition. it's losing money, running a huge deficit, about stories are coming out into the press, the staff fighting, then you've got of course the age issue is still there and he doesn't need another spat, bad political story. bye firing his campaign manager because if he fires john that means john's top aides, charlie black and jim lake are going to go with him so they arrive at the strategy the day of the new hampshire primary believing they will win the primary and minimize the story and then because they found an acceptable alternative. it's very long answer to a good question. >> when you who read craig's to get to this 100 page section where every page you are saying why isn't he firing him? [laughter] finally he says to the new hampshire peace when it happens. pliable less do this, i don't know if it is relative to the
campaign. it seems like it was relevant to the president's administration. we had last week former attorney general ed meese, national security advisor allen. the subject came up, nothing to do with john sears but just the topic of apparently it was very, very difficult for ronald reagan to fire anyone. in other words, he just didn't like to do it. she brought himself to debate because of the importance of the act and new hampshire but have you picked up any of that in your research? is that part of the reason? >> if he had any fall it is that he ate too many people to many second chances. and he knew that sears wasn't the guy that was when to run the campaign. so, he actually, he and mrs. reagan sat down with bill clark and asked bill clark if he would run the campaign. of course he was chief justice
of the california supreme court and had some important cases coming but the three of them went through the list and came up with bill casey who worked in the nixon administration and so they've reached out to bill casey and he ended up replacing john. but it was really because reagan had been pushed hard enough that he had -- she had to get rid of john and as a matter of fact charlie black one of the wisest takes on john sears's role in the campaign said that ronald reagan never would have been president if he had been hired john sears in 1975 and fired him in 1980. >> well put. >> i don't know any of you that have either read his book or have heard about or seen any number of the book reviews but it's getting great reviews and what i noticed, craig, is one of the news items that's popping up in their reviews is the story about putting the finger on the individual that you believe was
involved in this famous incident of theft and the turning over of the campaign debate materials of president carter. can you go into that a little bit? >> there's an old fellow i knew by the name of paul corbin, who was pretty much a brogue. i got his fbi file and it was 2,000 pages. [laughter] corbin was, in the 40's and 50's, was a labor communist organizer here in the united states with various labor unions in the midwest and he ran various scams. he was arrested a number of times. he became close to the kennedy family, and about running wisconsin for jfk 1960 and then it was constant after that. and became very close to bobby kennedy and was on the kennedy family payroll from the early 60's to the day he died in 1991. he was on the payroll of the joseph kennedy foundation and
merchandising with kennedy in chicago. he of course was supporting ted kennedy in the primaries over jimmy carter in 1980 and of course as we know senator kennedy lost that lead to jimmy carter and the kennedy family was furious with carter in 1980 because he ran with the fall was a very vicious campaign against senator kennedy. and corydon took upon himself to extract meat extract revenge, and so he secretive the campaign briefing documents, the carter briefing votes out of the white house and gave them to bill casey who by that time was running the reagan campaign and as a matter of fact casey put corydon on the reagan campaign. here is a guy just worked for ted kennedy, had a background working in the communist party politics, labor politics, had
been at arrested numerous times for running scams in the midwest and all sorts of criminal activities. and of course governor reagan doesn't know this. the irony is the briefing books which when i interviewed president carter he believes to this day he lost because the reagan campaign got the briefing books. but the irony is the briefing books were nothing more than compilations of freakin''s speeches, radio commentaries, columns, various interviews over 30 years and if there's one man in america in 1980 who knew where he stood and where he stood for the previous 30 years it was room for again. so the briefings were useless. but it was a huge issue in washington in 1983 but when it became three years later the briefing books had been taken out of the carter white house. >> any other questions? i know i have a few more. yes, sir.
>> what was it about sears that made him so he did and detested among the people he worked for, the u.s. called john satan. >> conservatives -- everybody had their own reason to be mad at john. in 1976 the conservatives including my old friend, and then mops sinner, felt that he was trying to moderate riggins positions. in 1980 when he is doing is picking off one old reagan ally after another, marty anderson is first forced out, then lynn is forced out, and it came to almost blows. this is another thing in the book, too. now on the eve of the new hampshire primary now john is
trying to get ed meese out of the reagan campaign and they have this meeting. mrs. reagan, reagan, john sears and his two principal aides and they have this meeting in new hampshire that goes into to:30 in the morning and nothing is resolved and they are trying -- john is trying to get out of the campaign and reagan finally explodes. he stands up and says your not going to get ed, by god, and he's moving toward sears. and charlie and mrs. reagan have to get between the two because it looked like reagan was going to punch sears, he was so mad at him for trying to take out his old friend. trying to get john out of the rim as fast as possible. john made one enemy too many and had to go.
>> okey, a couple of last questions. the first is obviously the tail end of the 80 campaign many people are on the edge of their seat because of the potential for the negotiations by president carter to obtain the release of the hostages being held in iran. i know this is somewhat speculative but knowing what you know about the recent poll numbers at the time and the concern and the debate taking place over that issue but if iran with the hostages loose prior to the election do you think that would have been enough to make a difference so carter could have been victorious? >> no and i will tell you why. you know, and i thought about that a lot, john. the american people have become so cynical about carter the hostages and they had been, by november of 1980 a majority think that carter was manipulated for purposes of hostages. he went back to the morning of
the, and they departed, the wisconsin primary. teddy kennedy has gotten off the map in the democratic race, he won new york, connecticut. the next primary is wisconsin and he is searching and looks like he might beat carter again in this primary. president carter goes on national television that very morning to announce a quote on quote major breakthrough in a lot of you remember and he unexpectedly wins the wisconsin primary at that time people thought kennedy might pull it off. and there was no major breakthrough or an explanation of why there was no major breakthrough and i still remember david, of "the washington post," wrote a piece, column e fisa reading the president and basically accusing him of no uncertain terms he was using the plight of the hostages to advance his political fortunes and a actually there was data that came out in