I got the sense that Priscilla Buckley and burnham were sort of distant ancestors of neo conservatives and meyer, of course, being a fusion test some the fusion test would have disagreements. Was primarily about what conservative should do about the welfare state. Um wondering what russias role was in as ideological debates. A very good question. I would commend something he says which is, i dont believe there was much conflict about what position to take on the welfare state, but there was some. It was not russias primary concern. His primary concern in terms of radiology was that National Review must be in the logical, that the exact positions it took would very often be secondary, but that insofar as it had certain believe some these issues, in the issues, it should be really serious about holding other conservatives and especially Public Office holders to account in showing lead on them and in supporting candidates who were most likely to really be solid on those issues whereas brenham would, in fact and did in fact say in the example i have in mind, medicare and 65. It was inevitable. I mean, the nature of the health care situation, the elderly population, various things made it inevitable. Rising mass pressure for it. Congress had to accommodate that. Making this new thing work as well as possible. Does that sound familiar . It is good that there was a voice theyre saying that. Buckley was more freemarket. He was more interested in economics and russia was. So i dont think there was a big dispute about the welfare state to the extent there was he would be the advocate of accommodating it. Still, he is conservative, even an economic conservative. Russia was not as libertarian, but in general the two of them lined up. Im sorry . What about Priscilla Buckley . I simply dont know. What is perfectly clear is that she and prince or very close and a professional sense. Their personalities meshed together really well. There were both very call people. They both believed in a very high literary quality for the magazine and in keeping things that just didnt measure up intellectually or that might be too extreme of the magazine. A little more accommodating to the hard right in respect. I am unaware that there was any real conflict between Priscilla Buckley, managing editor for about the same time that rusher was there. They overlap substantially. Everyone liked to respecter, so she wasnt really involved in personal conflicts. There was a terrible personal conflict between burnham and Minor Committee launched a conflict as well, but neither of them ever quit, which is to their credit. Two more. Whenever. Please. Advice officially conveyed will take a question. No one to make sure and give a couple more clever quotes from rusher to share with you is barbara personality, just his cleverness. You must have had conversations with mr. Rusher about his second term. He considered the presidency and unmitigated success. Were there any reservations about a second term . Ip irancontra and president reagans alleged declining intellectual capabilities . I apologize. I was wearing ear plugs earlier today. Would you mind restating the question . Loud. The question was regarding if he had any reservations about the second term in terms of his mental capacity declining or the irancontra issues. Okay. Rusher on reagans second term including irancontra. Yes. Rusher was one of reagans most consistent offenders among in the logical and leading moslem conservatives. As Richard Burr Kaiser who is still a major figure of the National Review and was a writer for it than in pretty give friend of rusher said to me if reagan was elected rusher decided he would defend him on every single thing. In terms of president s this is the best guy were going. It will never be better, and it will never be as good. You have to back this guy upon everything. He had some concerns about reagans first chief of staff who had come from the other wing of the party. He was he questioned whether someone like that to put his heart into aragonite program. A couple of years after that rusher is very upset about some legacy technical pr mistakes on the part of Communications People in the white house. Soso ought to be fired. To happen. His main concern in giving advice to raid in which he did not do a lot of, but his main concern seems to be lets make sure we are effectively communicating with the American People and getting around the liberal media. On irancontra, what i say in the book is that he followed it with a kind of beautiful interest. I dont think you was had a great emotional investment in it. He was a syndicated columnist for over 30 years unwritten number of columns about irancontra, taking the president s side. It came down to this, maybe reagan had been guilty of a few errors of judgment, but he said it seems to have come down to an overly solicitous attitude over and a really passionate attitude toward getting the hostages back. Thats a crime of the heart. If Ronald Reagan has to have a weakness, and kind of glad someone. He was damned if you is going to let the democrats in the media who he saw as the same thing get a republican president. Im going to take the risk of has rincon of the what would russia think whats going on to the question but i want to ask more about what you thought pressure might have to say about where National Review is positioned. It seems increasingly to be positioned, i want to say in a more moderate place, a slightly less combative placed in some of the other outlets than average incidence. I would be interested to see what russia had to say about this. Russia like almost any active reasonably responsible vigorous fearless conservatism. He therefore appreciate it talkradio. He watched fox news. He specifically admired rush limbaugh, even 20 years ago before he was quite as much allows old name as he is now. I asked him about National Review which for some time. For some time it had been more reportorial and is oriented that once was. And there were people who didnt like that. He said he was fine with that. Although he also told me and i dont believe this is really a conference. When buckley himself retired from the actual editor ship of the magazine, he told them and i dont know if it was personally want. Was very important that it not be just another conservative magazine. And so its clear from that that he specifically mentioned the catholic ten if. He very much admires and respected it as part of National Reviews message and sensibility. She had no real beasts with National Review has later years, although we did think there were some younger people there who probably should know more history and more of the right wing side of history. He had relaxed attitude. He did not have utopian expectations about how much people would know or have ideological there would be. In his older years even more than earlier he was very much a team player. A thing that comes out clearly in the book. An example of russia rusher what. In know the name of ted sorensen, one of the great wordsmiths for the kennedy presidency. I dont know if he ran for senator from new york, but he tried to cut tried to get it going in 1970. Rusher in 1970 is really in his prime, about 47 years old that point. He has been a staple on talk radio in new york for about the last ten years. There is a man who is still alive and a belief still this area show in New York Convention and radio now, a very prominent host a greatly admired russia. And sorensen basically accuses National Review of racism and extremism and associates that with nixon and George Wallace and loves it all together, not a very intellectually impressive performance. And rusher goes after and it keeps going after an and finally says based on your performance tonight you may think youre qualified to run for senate from new york, but based on your hysterical performance tonight you would not be elected dogcatcher. So sorenson says, it seems to me youre being rather hysterical. And he says, yes, but im not running for the senate. Earlier on the show somebody south africa was already an issue. Rush had not yet been there. Somebody said his liberal opponents said have you been to south africa . He says, no, i havent. But you must have been or you would not be making such heavy weather of it. Now what did you learn . You think its so important for us to know. He turns a weakness in the strength. Dont give an inch. Turnaround. Is that the politics of personal destruction. Certainly a politics of personal one upmanship. There was a role for wit and trauma. Final , off the top of my head, he love to ski. He also at one point visited the soviet union and at the National Review group that got together. Most of them went and i think it was the winter of 75 or 76. They dont have the right to grant permission. Im not going to ask communist permission for anything, even to visit their country. He told me, i once said that i would no more go to the soviet union on vacation then i would if hitler had permitted it and skied in the austrian alps to our world war ii. He said buckley took some exception to that. It is a rather specialized point of view. May have handicapped me a bit, but i stuck with the. [applause] books about the financial industry in crisis. Starting in a p. M. Eastern, the personal finance industry. At nine Kate Institute president john allison argues that Government Policies caused the 2008 financial collapse. Alan blinder makes the argument that Government Intervention prevented the crisis from being far worse. Coming up on cspan a conference on a clear weapons proliferation and then on book Tv Supreme Court justice and cynthia held talks about being the wife of former cia director. On the next washington journal, gun ownership in america. The center of republican integrity who recently wrote about the role of the bureau of our call, tobacco, and firearms and a background check system for purchasing firearms. Live from the blue ridge arsenal, a gun shop and shooting range. In addition to interviews and live demonstrations executive director of gun owners of america and Washington Times senior opinion editor, author of this years emily gets her gun. Washington journal is live on cspan every day at 7 00 a. M. Eastern. Youre watching cspan2 with politics and Public Affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u. S. And reid on weeknights was key Public Policy events in every week in the latest nonfiction authors and books on book tv. You can see past programs and give our schedules our website. At this conference on Nuclear Weapons former congresswoman says u. S. And russia should further reduce their Nuclear Arsenals to 1,000 deployed weapons. Followed by a discussion about Nuclear Weapons in the middle east. This is just over an hour. Welcome to the fifth annual Nuclear Deterrence summit. I am the president of publications and forms. Before we proceed would just like to recognize a couple of our partners this morning. Cbi. We appreciate partner in with industry to bring this summit together. We are meeting at an auspicious time those of you have the privileges of getting usa today saw in the headlines massive cuts expected. Maybe an army. Those cuts wont happen until after march 1st. A lot of folks are saying its just not gonna happen. It is a crazy time. Being in government and watching government, the Public Policy arena for 30 plus years, i find it totally debilitating and frustrating to watch what is happening, and im sure you do also. A lot of you a lot of you most of you, what you take, is going to depend on what happens in the next few weeks. What happens with the clear weapons is going to be critically important and how people view it. This is what this all about. Dealing with our Nuclear Deterrent capability. For our opening speaker we half the hon. Allan tonsure. He came to me and said this morning, this is not your fifth one of our first speakers will we started this series and so we are very happy to have probably for the halfdozen time we will have a real public servants. The hon. Allan tonsure. [applause] a very special honor to be here as a guest of you. Monitor publications. And very lucky in life. And no have our quadruple threat. A former former former former. Former undersecretary of state, former member of congress, former chairman of the Strategic Forces subcommittee and former special envoy. That allows me to tell you that amount of government. For those of you that i worked with the last 16 years for those of you that i worked with for losers, let me just thank you personally for your Patriotic Service and for all of your work to remind you that are not speaking as someone in the government because and not. If im speaking as anybody says myself. One of the things that i do now that im out is im the vice chair of the scowcroft center. Let me just say that because i am out of government i get to say what i believe and what i think is important. A little provoking. Let me just say that my purpose today is not to rehash some talking points that have been cleared by everybody which was one of my former lives, but to put forward some of my own thoughts and opinions and over the last few years ive got into the habit of reminding you that in political parlors all of you would be called my base. For those of you there have never worked in livermore because we on the too much about politics these days from the 24th lottery, just to remind everybody, the a group of people that are most important. When it comes to the anything and everything there clear your the base. That they could support the today the help we can work with you. Eckermann bureau and poured it is to be active and for us to find a way to create a call for action on how to make sure that this Interest Group interest of the National Security, interested about their weapons and the deterrent and not proliferations, we all Work Together to augment the Political Capital and to inform and influence the American People. The choices that will be coming whether we want them to or not and how we can move the new and political policy. So i guess the question is obvious. Where we and our Nuclear Deterrent . That think we think we have moved things pretty for. In many ways this is a changed. Just over trough, the chin, 14, 15 years ago. Fairly new term. We have done a lot to reassure everyone that we dont need to test. As much as things have changed, something seven. One of the biggest changes i think is that no one considers that we have any kind of real threat of a great power tool or any wonder. So that causes some people to question the value of a Nuclear Deterrent. Certainly people that are my daughters age, 21 years old, question the need for Nuclear Weapons. They dont understand the history, and because they are active voters were going to need to make sure they understand the value at nuclearweapons still place in our Overall National security strategy, where they underpin major alliances and the way that we work both multilaterally and bilaterally and the number of different reasons. I think its important that we consider the Nuclear Weapons complex in its totality because we can represent it that way. Its also important to remember that very few americans think of it the way. Very few americans understand the number of people that work at the labs, work throughout the complex, the kind of science that has been developed there, and all of the many, many different innovations and technologies that have accrued to the American People because of the science developed there. Despite all these realities of all the good that has been done in because we still have way too many weapons, the debate about the size and structure in the management of our stockpile is still one that is contentious. As i said, we created the in an essay in 1999. We have had a lot of accomplishments in the world arena. A very successful 2010. I was there for ten days as a hostage. We get the new start treaty negotiated and ratified. Another hostage. We have not been able to ratify this ct bt. Great consternation around the world. Getting 67 votes is very difficult, and i can understand why the administration is really concerned about whether it has the Political Capital right now to make that effort. Secretary carried would like to think that we can get a c t b t, and i think that as we look at the 2015, we have to have a pretty good excuse for the World Community as to why we have not moved forward. That lack of action is put the entire World Community into a very untenable place of waiting for the u. S. States to agree to agree to our own stated national policy. With roughly 15,000 total warheads in the deployed not deployed strategic nonstrategic baskets. Unfortunately, bilateral relations between the United States and russia are not what theyve been in most recent past. Neither the united data rush to require them to be added to the teeth as we are currently, causing the price to main tape the dcom security and effectiveness of each country stop auto to be prohibitively expens