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.

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.

It's better to be in charge of change than to have to react to change.

You better be able to defend it after the attack - so don't stretch it. In other words, if the guy's guilty of A and B, don't make him guilty of A, B, and C. That's what a lot of people do.

Fighting with the media almost always is a mistake. You can't win the argument, the media has the last word, and most times your argument is not justified.

I love rich people. Any time I needed a job, I went to a rich person. I like poor people, but they never had a job for me.

In the Rather/Bush incident, it was totally unfair. CBS was trying him and convicting him and trying to execute him on national television. They had made up their minds. CBS made the fatal error of trying to become the political opposition to George Bush. And, when they did that, they put themselves in an arena where they can get knocked on their fanny.