Conversation 004-008

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

Hello, Mr. President.

Hello, Henry.

I thought it was another spectacular outstand.

Well, the way they badgered along on that May Day thing was disgusting.

But on the other hand, the folks are for us on that.

That's what I think, Mr. President, the average person.

Yeah, Bob Holloman told me he's had calls from two or three editors.

And, of course, they're all a little dumb.

They don't know what the hell the Constitutional Rights are.

They thought the President was struck.

strong on riots.

Well, Christ, of course I'm strong on riots, but nobody ever knew it before.

That's right.

I think, apart from the marriage of the Jews, what came across to the average person on that one is that you're going to protect the integrity of the government and that you're not going to commit lawlessness to intervene.

And that's all they care about.

They don't worry really about the constitutional points, do they?

No, they don't.

And if it's between what you did and what the critics say,

they would believe that you were on the side of the Constitution.

Isn't it interesting, though, that out of that thing, six questions were on that stupid issue?

Yeah.

Good God, the goddamn thing's over.

We did the right thing.

We kept the government going.

These people were a bunch of dope addicts and the rest, you know, slashing tires, trashing Georgetown and the rest.

Well, you made that point very strongly.

I think that part of it, no matter what the certificate says,

will turn into a very great flood with the average good.

The foreign policy stuff was what we expected.

But it was very, very good, Mr. President.

I don't think we made any mistakes.

I don't know whether you heard the commentators.

No, I didn't.

Well, Cal says the President reinforced the impression in foreign policy it is overwhelming.

Strong point.

Nothing but good news in foreign policy.

He pointed out that where two months ago, or a month ago, the first eight questions had been on Vietnam, this time the first six questions had nothing to do with Vietnam.

Hold just a minute.

I'll be just a couple of seconds.

Okay, go ahead.

I'm sorry I had somebody at the door.

The content?

No, because he asked the question about the demonstration.

That's right.

But he didn't, he didn't miss tickets.

It was, the impression that came across was a great impression of knowing exactly what you were doing.

And... How did Chancellor imply that it was a plus?

How did he do it?

Well, he wound up by saying this was another very strong performance and, on the whole, a definite plus.

I think that was very positive.

Well, the point is that

You know, this silly little jabber-jabber that we had about women's lives, wasn't that a silly question?

I'm going to get the men home, not the goods.

But the point is that we had some very significant foreign policy news in there where I said,

I did not plan a trip to Southeast Asia.

I would go, however, any place.

But I did say that, I thought that little, Buchanan gave me that little business about the Chinese proverb.

Wasn't that a nice twist?

That was a nice one.

Kennedy had used it once.

Yeah.

Did he?

Well, it's good.

But that was rather helpful.

You know, the point is that a trip of a thousand miles begins with one step.

And, of course, a lot of what you said on foreign policy, effective as it was here, will be of greater significance.

Well, I was doing it all for that audience, of course.

But, you know, we covered the Chinese, and I covered the...

I thought covering the U.N. thing, I thought it was about the right line, don't you think?

That we were consulting... After six weeks, put us exactly... You noticed I said six weeks.

Which is exactly what we want.

Yeah, but...

We covered that.

And on Peter Lissiger's question, I thought being a little sophisticated was good, just for their benefit.

Well, Peter Lissiger asked the question about Saul.

Do you do which?

And I said, well, that's what you had told me.

And so I said, well, I thought I'd tell him, well, you know, I got to appear that I knew what the hell was going on, and that made him, that'll impress the hell out of him.

It will impress the hell out of him, and the average listener will think you're really on top of the details of this.

And the intellectuals will know that you were really in charge of that one.

Because, you know, pointing out that they... On the one hand, we had a one single weapon system.

On the other, we had more weapon systems.

And therefore, one might be on the treaty level.

The other might be on the agreement level.

But I wasn't going to say.

That was a good thing to point out.

And another beautiful one was the one on the Middle East.

Because Roland Evans called me around 7.30.

And he said, well, is that treaty so bad?

And I said, well, the treatment tends to be, and I said exactly the same thing you later said, although we tested positive and it wasn't as nice.

Depends on what they do.

Exactly, and it wasn't in my recommended answer.

Don't you think that was the right answer to say, the question really is, because I didn't want to gig the Soviet at this time, not because of the other reasons, but when I thought it was well to say that, well, that,

In the event that arms were delivered, then we had to look to our whole card.

How do you think ours will play in the Mideast?

In other words, did it get across that I said the real question is what it is?

I think it was exactly that I said.

And also it will reassure the Israelis.

They know they damn well we're watching it.

It will be a tremendous reassurance to the Israelis.

You ought to give Rabin a call and tell him that the president did that because he just wanted to put the goddamn Russians on notice that they introduced weapons we would.

And it also shows the Russians that we haven't got family on the way.

So I thought it was, it's one that on the historical record will be one of the masterpieces of this case.

Can't tell.

The questions didn't give me much of an opportunity to be lighter or anything like that.

But what the hell, I don't know.

I don't know whether that's what the average person wants.

We got through 21 questions in 28 minutes, which is bad.

All of the comments, well, I only heard two comments.

I heard Calvin and Chancellor.

Both of them spoke with great confidence.

both of them said foreign policy is clearly the strong point.

And Kauff said, it is of course clear that foreign policy has had nothing but good news.

No one remembers what he said six weeks ago.

I really think, though, that on communist China, that looking at the historical thing, whatever else we accomplish, the Soviets, we're going to be at each other's throats for a long time.

But if we can open to China...

Who knows?

We could open Pandora's box or the Millennium.

Mr. President, we can't open Pandora's box because if they turn bad, our being open to them will not be the reason.

It will be one of the great epochal events.

Our opening to them doesn't contribute to that.

I don't think we said anything that hurt your conversation today.

It was perfect.

And from the point of view of... And the trade thing, I think, saying on June 10th, I will announce it.

That was good.

That was excellent.

And again, that showed your leadership.

I think it was a very, very strong press conference.

We don't want, I don't believe, a great drama right now that people aren't sure enough.

And the questions were really pretty vapid.

They were, they were.

But I thought much less hostile than in the previous one.

Oh, no, no, no.

They were damn hostile on the Washington Drive.

On the Mayday, sir.

Oh, shit.

They had five minutes of that.

Yeah, on the Mayday, sir.

They thought they were hostile, but they were really playing to your strength.

I loved answering them.

I just wanted to keep on the subject.

I think.

And also what you said about the credibility camp was extreme.

I think it was, because looking into the camera and saying, look here, that's the easiest thing we've got, because we're going to end it.

and there was one other, and then they were already beginning to get up and ask questions, and you said that would have credibility problems for all.

I thought it was good to have the opportunity to answer the drug question, not in the Vietnam context.

I thought that was very good.

Because otherwise, you just make it appear that drugs are only in Vietnam.

Hell, they're all over the world.

Exactly.

I thought it was an old question.

But the main point is, every one of these is necessary.

I hate their hard work.

I hate to go through the eggs and produce them, but I think we've got to do them about every three weeks.

What do you think?

Three or four weeks.

Yeah.

It isn't worth doing it unless it's on television.

Not worth doing it.

You talk to these bastards privately, or, I mean, you know, just where they write it,

It just doesn't get across.

It's got to be on television.

On television and another effective thing that was done last year was to go over their head to the editor.

When?

When we went over their head to see news briefings to the editor.

Oh, hell yeah.

That was another effective one.

But this, of course, is the most effective one because that's... We're talking to 50 million people.

That's exactly right.

Okay.

Thank you, Henry.

Thank you, Larry.