Take the [1980] Jimmy Carter-Ronald Reagan debate. Carter kept trying to imply that somehow Ronald Reagan was going to push the button, or was irresponsible with nuclear war. You might have been able to make the case that Carter was responsible. But it's very tough when you see a person with Reagan's nice-guy persona up there to believe this guy somehow wants nuclear war, that he somehow wants to antagonize the Russians into an attack. It's just not credible; it doesn't cut with what all your other senses are telling you.

Show me a man or woman with a mission, and I'll show you somebody that's tougher to beat.

If you're running far behind in the polls and you decide to use comparative advertising, you have to be able to explain to the people why the incumbent shouldn't have then ob.

I don't care what the polls say.

Reporters may be friendly-but if you get through life without having a reporter as a friend, that may be an advantage. If you insist on having one as a friend, don't do interviews with him.

I've been in entertainment, politics, business, business coaching, public affairs, documentaries, programming, news, theater. So, there aren't many things I see that I haven't seen something like that before.

I think it's because I'm unpredictable. I view every situation, every race, and every candidate differently I try not to rely on something that worked before.