Continues now with Erwin Gellman on the 1960 president ial campaign, candidates Richard Nixon and john kennedy and they close and come of the election. The Richard Nixon campaign is the host of this event with the president ial museum in belinda, california. Tonights conversation will be about the 1960 president ial election, the effects of which continue to reverberate across todays political landscape. We all think we know that that history was well written and well spoken for. But, now, Erwin Gellman has become americas contemporary looted authority on the 1960 election. It is they first historian to use mounds of material from the archive to tell a more complete account of the 1960 election, including unused sources such as the fbi surveillance logs of then candidate john f. Kennedy. And the papers of several others. He is a scholar of 20th century president ial history who used to prior books have documented Richard Nixons life. His third, and titled the campaign of the century kennedy, nixon, and the election of 1960 does not disappoint. Gellman is joined in conversation this evening with another renowned 20th century historian who holds the chair and president ial studies at university. He is a New York Times bestselling author whose credits include two volumes of the nixon tapes with history in a biography of henry cabinet lodge junior, and he is now at work on a history of 1968 president ial election. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming our guests. First of all i would like to thank you all for coming, i appreciate it. I hope you enjoy the evening. I would like to spend two minutes and thank my wife, gloria for tricking me and coming into the next library. I had absolutely no intention to write a book for nixon, let alone an hour three blocks for recognition. Nobody else will do it. It is a project that most historians, especially academics will not do. You just cannot have tenure, promotions, or anything when you write about darth vader. And too many academics nixons darth vader. Which is unfair, untrue, et cetera. But, i was married to gloria day for 29 years and she was a wonderful, wonderful person. I just want to let you know that i would not be here if it were not for her tricking me into coming. A couple of other things. Some of you have been known friends for years. Paul took me out for dinner and more importantly, most importantly there are true people sitting over there. One has gotten a haircut and trim his beard. [applause] the other is susan altus, who was the chief archivist for years, and years, and years, and is not only brilliant but is a sweetheart. And the reason i wanted to point it out was, at the beginning of my book i have acknowledgements. These are not just names, they are important people who make me better than what i am. They help me more than i deserve to be helped. It is a great kindness that i have done. So when you read about my acknowledgment you will find out that there are a truckload of people like susan and joe who have helped me and ive really appreciated it. I want to give you a picture of what these people look like and how kind people can be to research historians. Again, susan, joe, thank you. [applause] well, thank you very much for that welcome. In particular to the Nixon Library and the Richard Nixon foundation. And also to cspan viewers who are joining us virtually. Starting a little bit more personally, welcome back to the west coast. I think for many years this was a second home or a home for you, how many years did you spend here and did you miss it . I spent with susan, seven years going through documents day by day, week by week, year by year. This volume as a mere two and a half million pages of research which is what i do. Since you asked that question, i have a little plug and i forgot to give. A year from now, luke nichter will be sitting in the say. He has been finishing a study of the election of 1968 and the incident had virtually nothing to do with the election of 1968. If you are here now, come back for a loop a year from now and find out what really did happen in 1968. We can just be an opposite sides, at that point. But, juxtapose that experience of studying residential records for seven years with what it came from. I once heard you talk about or describe yourself as a small pant from baltimore. So, how does someone in that situation go on to get a ph. D. In American History and eventually come to write not a book, but a series on the subject . I was very lucky i did not spend my life in jail. I have a 19 inch knife scar on my shoulder where a guy was nice enough to hit me and walking home from school it was always a kindness if i had less than four people p beat me up. How in the world i got out of it, i am guessing it was sheer luck. How i ended up getting a doctorate, i still have to pinch myself. I guarantee you, if any of you think i am that good, truly i am not that good. So, we are here to talk about a book and some no but some may not know it is part of a larger series. And so, when you are doing show and tell with nixon books it is never easy to carry them around. But, i will briefly introduce these books and have you say a line or two about each one. Just properly tease them for the audience. The first book in the series, Richard Nixon the contender that Congress Hears in 1946 and 1952. The basis of the book is that nobody ever, really, seriously did the research that susan helped me with. The remarkable thing i found about it was the charges of nixon beating jerry for his first Congressional Election in 1946, that nixon smeared voorhees as a communist. That never happened. It was all made up. And the real story was here, at the Nixon Library. It was in the jerry for his papers. And the second thing that i found remarkable was that nixon smeared Alina Hagan Douglas in the 1950s senatorial contest. The problem was the only time he ever referred to her was in the private conversation between him and his Public Relations person. But, as far as the reason why she lost can be found in oklahoma, in her archives, at the university of oklahoma. So, the whole nature of how nixon was darth vader in these two elections are fundamentally flawed. Moving forward in time, and nixons career. The second, the, biggest thickest of the series. The president and the apprentice, eisenhower and nixon in 1952 to 1961. That one is basically nixons vice presidency, and how he ran for the vice presidency. Again, once more, the story is so flawed. One of the stories came from an oral history interview where Dwight Eisenhower was watching nixon gave what was known as the checkers speech. And he slammed his hand into what he was writing and tore the paper. The only problem was i found a copy of the speech, there was no tear. There was nothing. It was just an obvious of paper. And then, even better than that was that nixon and eisenhower did not get along. That really, eisenhower did not like nixon. I am saying to myself, self, how in the world can Dwight Eisenhower be president for eight years and have next and as his Vice President for eight years, and they did not get along . Quite frankly, they get along fine. Once i wrote i know this is going to shot you, but people stopped talking about that. Isnt it amazing that you can lie so much until you get caught . And then you just stop. You do not apologize for basically intellectual cowardice. And so, then, with the latest installment in this area which we will dive into, campaign of the century, kennedy, nixon, and the election of 1960. How many heroes would you say you have been formally or informally working on this collection of works . 25 years. And how many pieces of paper, pages of records do you think you have examined, or investigated. I read about 800 pages a day, that is what i do. And i can do that with comprehension. The fact is i do not think it was a book. I was a fan of theodore right in 1960. I thought he told everything. And then i started to do the research. Again, to surprise you i was wrong. There has been, up until i wrote this nobody who had ever read or searched on the great debates of 1960. Of kennedys catholicism of 1960, they fraud in 1960. All of that stuff had never been done. It had been mentioned, maybe, but none of it had ever been done in a serious, archival way. So, i look at all of this material and i discovered that rather the theodore wright, who by the way i am writing or i wrote the making the president of 1960 perfectly, purposely in his memoirs. Making kennedy the hero, and nixon a villain. That is not the way you write history. And so, this is basically not only a corrective of theodore right. But, basically to say that the entire story of the 1960 election had been seriously flawed. So, having that as background, lets take a look at what the critics say interviews of these books. All three of these books have been reviewed in the New York Times, as well as many other places. That is alone signaling that books are worth paying attention to. But, the critics on the reviews have no shortage of things to talk about. I went through in preparation, i read all three reviews in the times of these three books. I would like to go through just the top 20 outtakes from these reviews and get your thoughts. These are comments, quotes about either the author, the work in question being reviewed, or about the work characterization of Richard Nixon. It refers to the works as a forgiving judgment of Richard Nixon. He equipped nixon of all charges, he takes one side, more polemical than persuasive. He distorts the views of those he would rebut, the rancor filled prejudice says against his own clear eyed distillations, they are naive. You are not persuasive. They are a feast of the leaves one hungry, simplistic, land. I am not done. A sympathetic glow, in a way substantiated. Nixon friendly, spin, adds nothing here but fresh outrage. A hit job, lacking, nothing no, and circumstantial. So, my old boss at cspan was bryan lam. Just to say irwin gellman, what are you doing wrong . I keep on telling you, i am a lot less than you think i am. Even with these people, i am even lesser than you think i am. [laughs] they wonder of you i got in the New York Times for this book said, nothing new, everything ive written is bad, and that, quite frankly, if you read the book you are an idiot. That appeared one line in the New York Times, and my sales went up four times. And then made the sunday edition of the New York Times and my sales went up three times. And then, the week after it appeared in the New York Times sunday edition to show you how crazy the New York Times is, i became an editor of choice. So, the editors of the New York Times repudiated their owner of your. It just goes to show you, if any of you out here are familiar with fair haven i am probably the reject from fair haven. Why i am not sure where to go with a question after that but what i would ask is, why is writing about Richard Nixons still so controversial . There are several reasons, the main reason is one of the reviews that i received, which was a nice review. It was not bad. It said i cannot see it, nixon was so bad and kennedy was so good. There is no way that this book that was written as well as it was written, and the arguments that are made are so reasonable. It just cannot be. And, one of the reviews i got from a syndicate in canada was, this is an important book and you ought to read it, but 60 years they have gotten it wrong, gellman it is swimming up street. The general tenor of nixon being a despicable individual. One of the greatest things that i remember as i was writing the second volume was that just about every liberal commentator called the speech maudlin. And maudlin is not a good term. I found in the stephenson papers of princeton about 120 letters that were favorable to stephenson, and unfavorable to the checker speech. The only thing i left out was they were about 3 million pieces of paper that went into the Republican National committee. Saying how wonderful the speech was. And yet, to this day, many people believe that they checker speech was maudlin, when in fact it was a great speech that was considered by an overwhelming number of people. Just imagine, 3 Million People wrote him to say how good the speech was. And yet, we remember 120 or 130 letters by people who probably did not even listen to this speech, on how awful it was. Something seems to be a little out of balance there one 100 plus people can say it was awful, and 3 Million People can say it was great. I think that we have become, generally speaking, so conditioned two things that have never been challenged. People do not challenge what they do not think about in many cases. And, what i did was not so much to record what i personally thought, but what the records show, and the records showed something blatantly different than what has been published. I think that for watts of a better, rationalization or reason, that the fact that people have accepted this nonsense so easily is because they just want to. I think that theme of the many myths and misunderstandings in the nixon era is a theme that resonates throughout the book, here. I have highlighted, i call the myths or misunderstandings. There are about seven of thems that come to me writing the book. I have some photos that will help to illustrate that we will clip through. But, for each one i think what i would like to do is stay the conventional wisdom or the mid and misunderstanding as it has existed in the literature over the decades. I will allow you to respond to each one. I think number one, a role of eisenhower. Nixon lost in 1960 because eisenhower did not do enough. That nixon was on this illfated ticket that did not have eisenhowers support. He might not have been eisenhowers choice to run. There is a lot of mythology about exactly what eisenhowers role was during this year. It is something that you address in the book. Once more, you write what you think people want to raid weather than writing what really happened. Just imagine, for a second, that eisenhower absolutely hated nixon. Can any of you seriously, here, believe that eisenhower would want a senator with no legislative experience, with no legislative record, to be his incumbent Vice President i would carry on his role . The whole idea that eisenhower and nixon did not get along, or did not have a good relationship, is flawed by the very nature of all the things eisenhower had people doing. Going on ship trips, legislation, being invited to all of the various meetings that eisenhower and nixon shared together. It makes no logical sense when you talk to people and say, how come all of this happened and eisenhower and nixon cannot get along . For eight years they made faces that one another . That is absurd i could not choose just one eisenhower photo, i like this one because it is emphatic. Could you say, the 1960 election has been called one of the first modern campaigns, can you talk about a 1960 of the role that nixon played and the role of women in the campaign . I am sure that all of you already know all of the numbers of voting, but, remember how charismatic kennedy was. Remember how womens mood. The election of 1960, for the first time in American History, more women voted than man. It will never guess what the breakdown was between this wonderful, charismatic kennedy and women voting. It was 50 1 49. I made one small air, 51 for nixon, 49 for kennedy. Pat nixon took the position that this is what her husband was. She was very ambitious, like her husband, very smart. Very attuned to what he was doing. And, the ultimate performer. And she and mamie eisenhower, and Dwight Eisenhower had a very good relationship. And, if you look at the letters between Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, again, big surprise, just about every one of them said say hello to pat, i really appreciate her help. Does not sound like eisenhower and his wife did not get along with dick and pat. A second misunderstanding or myth of the campaign is that nixon and lodge were ill suited together on a ticket, and that lodge was the downfall for Richard Nixon that year. What do you say . On january 7th 1960 draw it as an hour wrote a secret memo to his own file. His president ial pick was Richard Nixon. His Vice President ial pick was henry cabinet lodged junior. It was not so much nixon picking lodge, it was eisenhower picking lodge. And, at the time lodge was the representative for the United States. And was the main person who talked about the russians being evil, and made a tremendous amount of television time. He had the ability, he was a boston robin. By the way, you might not know the person who wrote the biography on henry cabinet launch jr. It is luke nichter. It was not a self serving question, i promise. Third misunderstanding i highlighted about the 1960s on the democratic side. Also interesting that on the 1960s senator john f. Kennedy, that candidate would not have been elected president without johnson, it was really eisenhower the trip to the south. Louisiana and 56. Virginia both campaigns, began to eat away at the democratic south. Would kennedy have won the presidency without Lyndon Johnson from to texas to hold down the democratic south . As we would say in the most area tight turns, not a snowballs chance. What Lyndon Johnson brought to the table was what a famous texan journalist said. Every election that johns