Conversation 255-033

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Yeah.

Hi.

How's your problems today?

Well, it ain't easy.

Everything you do, everything's hard.

Sugar-coated?

Not like that.

None of my business.

Good.

How's your business, then?

Well, it was, uh, two...

One of the Panthers they were looking for in New York.

Yeah.

Hello.

Hi, Greg.

How are you doing?

Good.

Now, I'm over at the other side.

Yeah.

Are you going to take a boat tonight, or what are you planning to do?

Okay, then you and Bobby.

Okay.

Which is, would the four of you like to go on the boat?

You arrange it if you do.

It might be a nice thing to go out.

It's important.

Either of you heard about me.

I don't either one.

Can't be here.

We're open for either one.

All right.

Oh, yes.

I looked out.

Drive, drive.

Yeah.

Well, hope for the best.

It'll be all right.

So, okay.

On the housing thing, I had a couple of thoughts.

I looked it over and sent it back to you.

You've got my copy, right?

I've got a copy you sent back first, and then you said you wanted to rework it, so I sent it back in.

That's it, right?

Yeah.

That's it.

Is there something?

Well, I looked it over and it was okay.

Not much.

Here's what I decided to do, what I think .

First, I wonder if we ought to mess up this Sunday's neighbors with this thing. .

I tell you what, I just kind of think that some son of a bitch might think we're just doing it for the black galaxy's sake.

I don't want to have a person that just isn't working.

Well, I'll tell you what I've done.

I've moved up our deadlines 24 hours.

So it would be a second shade of color that I thought I'd like to do rather than make it two by seven.

What I said in the...

I imagine Butterfield has, let me turn it down.

I don't know, I'll just get the, Butterfield.

Well, anyway, I'm going to say, John, first we bring in that gold price for second.

Second.

I have asked that you take the legal stuff.

It's very spongy.

You've got some beautiful language in it.

I let most of it in.

After I read it, I cut out a few more on it, more on it, and things like that, only because I don't get that ass down.

I mean, it's a...

In my view, as I don't know what you agree with, my view of the law has always been that the law is not based on morality.

The law is based on certain other considerations.

I think Don Emmerich, who thinks it's right or wrong on death.

And morally, I may disagree.

I may not want to live by a black death.

Or I may want to marry a woman's death.

Right or death.

But if you agree, there's no relation to the law.

If you agree, I understand.

Another thing I do not like is the spirit and letter of the law.

I didn't mark it out.

And Bill Rogers has raised that point a couple of times.

He says, what do you mean the spirit of the law?

He says, there is the law.

And the spirit of the letter of the law is really, he says, is bad.

And I'm here for Rogers to say this.

I think he makes a good point.

Or do you agree?

I agree with that.

I'll take that off, too.

I didn't.

That's only in there once.

I saw it.

And hang a little bell with me.

I saw it.

I said in there once.

Then I thought I should say in the last that we should sharpen up the discussion of the case.

Well, you mentioned that the other day, and we did that in a draft that you haven't seen.

Well, and I want to sharpen it up a little more.

I'll tell you what I have in mind.

Why don't your stories have the right story elements?

Why not announce in this, this is what we have.

For example, the blackjack is involved in a clear case of that.

Can you do that?

You can.

I'll tell you this.

Let Blackjack be the lead.

Then you decided Blackjack instead of deciding the policy.

I don't want every one of these miserable, dirty cases to come in or go out.

The president announces a policy and it's up to the department to figure out what to do.

Yeah, I marked up the housing statement.

Do you have it there?

Or is it gone early when he's here and I want to have it again?

Thank you.

I see your point, I forget.

Okay.

Then just sharpen up the other and it's ready to go.

Go right.

Now who's going to brief on it?

Well, I thought I would go over and not say a whole lot.

Well, I don't think frankly Romney ought to brief on it.

I don't think.

That's it.

We get into this.

Who lost this?

Yeah.

And I think you should brief on it.

No.

Well, another guy that could brief on it.

Well, if you could, the only other one that could is Price.

Now, Price has given a hell of a lot of thought.

We've never used him in some reason.

You might have him there.

What I'm getting at is that he, fortunately, from the top of his mental path, doesn't feel as strongly of an ideal on this as I thought he did, where he's not for this integrating housing.

So, what would you think of Price?

You know, he could throw in some great touch, some beautiful... Ray Price could put in a view of the idea that he worked with the President on the speech and so forth.

You should be free there.

Well, I don't have to.

The reason you should be there is strictly legal things.

In other words, you should work out with Price.

Price understands the law pretty good.

But if, for example, the matter of lack of wine and so forth and so on, you could step right in and say, well, we can't do this.

The president shouldn't do this.

We're not going to approve Judge's case.

You'd be there for that president to say, if there's a crisis, we're going to put the president in development in this basement here pretty much.

How's that sound to you?

Or do you like that error?

That's fine.

Because he has a, he has a fucking good touch with the press.

I mean, you don't have to turn these things.

But also he's, he's smarter than any of them.

Or as smart.

And second, totally believable as a liberal.

Yeah.

Right.

And here Christ comes in.

And everybody knows that he worked with me on speeches.

Yeah.

So they don't think I had something to do with the damn statement.

So I'm not very proud of it, but although the statement is about balance statement, I read it again, and if you take on a little bit of the moral, it's a pretty damn balanced statement.

Here's the fact about this, and maybe we should capitalize it.

This statement was an HUD draft.

But in terms of, I don't want a black, whether it's yours or not, actually, you see, it's got the pedigree of all those blacks and Romney and everybody having come up with, essentially, this content.

And I thought we laid pretty much this off on them.

All right, fine, fine.

Maybe it's better not to have them ready then.

The stories, the spec stories have all been to the fact that Mitchell won and Romney lost.

And that this is going to be a hard line statement and so on and so forth.

Is that true?

No, it's the other way around.

Romney sent over a hard line statement.

But forget it.

Do whatever you want.

I'll see your comments.

I think maybe it's better for me to speak miles away.

I would think so.

I would think, therefore, I wouldn't get a price on it.

It's like if I get in there and turn into a house and I simply say, you're briefing on a new president from the domestic council.

Actually, our role in this was simply as a sort of a meeting place for the departments.

This was basically an HUD proposal.

which was reviewed by the Justice Department from their standpoint.

There have been modifications of the language and so forth, but essentially it is, the essence is what they should be sent over here.

And they're very happy with it.

Justice is very happy with it.

So, it's a surprise to me.

Now, what we did, of course, and what I won't say, is that we conditioned the hell out of H-E-B as we pulled this out.

Well, but we indicated to him there wasn't any sense sending over here a lot of stuff that wasn't going to be bought.

And I sent over a draft to him.

And what was it, about four months?

Well, that was a very hard line of stuff.

And I got a lot of it back in their statement.

I don't mind saying wrong, I don't say it's moral, right?

It strikes out all the underline.

There's a lot of nips, little nips that don't matter.

Now, page 12 is the third paragraph, the last sentence.

It says this bit, and this figure is, of course, not the only thing.

What I said, this vigorous enforcement, as required by law, will continue.

Right?

As required by law.

I just think it's well to say that we're doing it.

Or do you know what I mean?

That's fine.

That's good.

This vigorous enforcement is going to go on.

The whole theme of this thing is that the federalists are not going to do it, so you don't think they're going to do it.

I just struck out the title of the question.

I don't know if my parents did it, but they went on to say it.

I just struck out the culture of flags.

It's quite a good little thing.

It's not quite as bad as it used to be.

This is in a sense before that is where the spirit of all our purpose is to carry on carry out the law

You carry out all the requirements of the law.

You're saying you carry out all the requirements of the law.

What do you think that is?

Do you want to say spirit?

You can say spirit, but I don't know where to start the next time.

Why do you think that is, if you carry out all the requirements of the law?

All of the requirements of the law.

Not only the letter, also the spirit of the law.

What the hell is the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law?

It doesn't add anything.

I think it's fine to carry out all the requirements of the law.

But we already have all the requirements of the law.

Because if they go on this racial discrimination, how is it going?

They're not intolerant.

Why go along with the spirit of the law?

Then they go on to say to you, John, when I listen to the spirit of the law, isn't that an instant realization?

The spirit of the law is not different.

You're in a very spongy ground.

Why do you notice we attack in here the term fair housing?

Good.

Because it is such a spongy term, and all the way through, Ray picked that up, and he plays that all the way through.

The fact that this is one of the problems that this holds off, and we don't want to have any.

It's all done.

Okay.

A little bit.

Now, the next point is, I understand that...

So, you know, how did Peterson get along with his briefing?

We started so damn late, but I don't know whether they stayed or not.

They sat around.

They sat around very long.

He thought it went fine.

A bunch of remarks were very helpful.

We're going to have a follow-up meeting today.

Senators?

No, no, no.

I mean the staff.

I mean, uh, Pete and Hillary.

Yeah.

Five at night.

Uh, it was too bad, but, you know, we waited.

We waited.

The damn senators didn't come, and I couldn't come over there late.

Uh...

John, I am concerned.

I mean, we've got to look at the first things first.

Vietnam is a horrible problem.

However, we have got to, we must not play this in any way that makes Vietnam our major problem and more of a problem.

That's why I put it in the context of drugs and all the evidence.

I am afraid that that 60-day provision on keeping the guy in Vietnam will be looked at as a convenient gadget.

The risk is one death.

And here's the reason.

Even though he's kept in a hospital, you know, there are acts of terrorism that are potentially as we were 19 years ago.

Not one of those factories is out shooting.

There are a lot of shells and all that sort of stuff.

And I just feel, I feel that we might get into a problem.

Now, I don't think there's any problem if you put it in the broader context of the service.

I'm just saying about, I know the problem and I, if you talk to the man, yes sir, and I want you to talk to him.

I think that's really the best way.

I've got it in the middle for you to see.

The thing I'd like to do to broaden this, you know, that maybe Henry mentioned to you, that he and I talked about, Monday morning, I'd like you to sit down with the ambassadors, our ambassadors, to five countries where we have particular narcotics products.

Are they here?

Well, we'll have them here.

All right, fine.

Plus, see, Bunker has to be here now.

So this is a recall of Bunker, so that doesn't all set you back up.

We're going to Mexico, Turkey, Thailand, and so forth.

plus Rogers and the ISTOP people.

That gives us a worldwide aspect to this thing that we need very badly.

And it doesn't focus on the military.

We won't have any more intermediate bounces, but then about Wednesday, well, let's see, the day before the Okinawa thing, what is that, the 16th, it's a week from now,

Well, anyway, the day before your open hour signing, we'll go with our program.

Let me tell you on open hour, I'm going to do it here.

I'm not going to sign.

I mean, this wouldn't sign.

I'm not going to sign.

But I told Henry today at open hour signing that it's just one of those things.

From now on, we're going to think of what else is at home.

The people of this country are sick of this goddamn Japanese way they're playing.

No reason for me to do it.

And, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and,

I think it makes sense.

It makes sense to send a good signal to the Japanese.

It makes good sense.

I'm just going to walk away from it.

I am not going to sit there and sign that it was not what it was.

It would be the signal.

I'm going to hardline this.

Like, for example, to show you another way we were hardlining, Henry had sent in a letter in my kind to Deputy Kessler.

He was going to tell him to go by, but he was going to go and gush it over to some bitch.

The last paragraph said that I appreciate your invitation to visit Canada.

I look forward to any chance of discussion with you.

Check it out.

I'm not going to Canada for this election.

Not a goddamn lie.

He's kicked us.

We should screw them over.

There's not a vote in it for us.

You agree?

Absolutely.

The point is, there isn't going to be any foreign travel between now and next November.

Unless it's in our interest.

There are only three places to go.

One is Moscow.

The second is Beijing.

And the other is Europe at the event we do Moscow.

That's all.

And there's not going to be one other trip except the first and the second.

Those are the three reasons why they don't shoot me.

The port travel isn't going to help now, we would think.

We've gotten all the benefits out of it already.

You can't, you're going to be cheered once anyway.

We've gotten cheered.

Now we've got to be up there for big deals.

Well, maybe we should plan to step off the Okinawa story from the narcotics story, I don't know.

We got out of the way of it by changing the date of release.

Don't worry about it.

Okinawa is not a goddamn thing.

We've already had the benefit of it.

It's out of an eye announcement.

It is signed and that's that.

I will not sign the Okinawa thing for the rest of the year.

I'm going to tell all of them that I'm not going to do it.

Well, in that event, that gives us a little flexibility, and that's fine.

We'll go then with our narcotics thing either that day or the day before, however it works out.

But that's next week.

And I've got some stuff here, a crow that answers your questions on physician prescriptions, for instance, on doctors, you know.

Richardson is going to have a meeting with the top officials of AMA and the Freedom to Arrive Act on prescription practices, and we'll get that out.

And also, I have the willingness of many doctors to treat that, which is something I didn't realize.

They won't treat it?

Yeah.

Well, I wanted to tell you that I've spoken to Henry.

I've been talking to John here, and I have not got anything to do with that over-the-counter cycle.

He doesn't understand it, and I don't know what he's going to call it.

But this is no time to do anything.

I can hear you.

Okay.

I hear a relationship between marijuana and heroin.

He says there is ample basis for the president to contend that there is some association between marijuana use and heroin addiction.

but not for the position that there's an inevitable cause and effect of a progression of relationship.

The consensus in the field is that immersion in the drug culture is the prime factor in a move to heroin.

What you said long time ago about you're either a straight society or a drug society.

Right, right.

You're in the drug society, and you are.

Because a lot of very hidden people are not on drugs.

You know, people who don't consider themselves square.

And then I've got some statistics which I'll send over to you on this.

But let me say what I have in mind here.

I've got to find a way.

I guess very much afraid

Maybe you've checked it out a little bit.

Stay in the room.

Look, we're going to keep servicemen in Vietnam after they're free.

I'll keep them here.

Keep them in the service.

I don't mind that.

Don't.

But you cannot assume the burden of proof on this.

I'm not an expert.

I want you to hear this guy, and then you decide on the basis of your political instincts what the right thing to do is.

True.

He will convince me that that's the way to cure him.

I know that.

But that's not the overriding issue.

The overriding issue here is that if we keep a guy over there taking Vietnam one day beyond his service and he gets killed, we've got political issues that are massive.

And I just got to get prepared.

And the other link to this argument, of course, is that the way to get out of Vietnam is to get on heroin.

And then you get a free ticket home.

and that the good guys, who are clean, all stay behind them and are killing them.

And the bad guys get a free ticket.

Now that's what Steele and some of these other congressmen are playing on the Hill.

That the amnesty program and the present policy is all backwards.

Now, we can keep them in Vietnam for that long.

I mean, any man who's on drugs will stay there until the service money is gone.

It's just the fact that if you're stable, they stay behind.

Well, let's do this.

Just keep an open mind on this until you've heard JAPI.

Then you don't have to commit to JAPI one way or the other.

We can talk about that.

I don't care.

I didn't get the feeling of the congressional thing.

I don't care.

I hate you.

I don't care.

penalties for drug traffickers.

We went up heavy on our penalties in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Prevention Control Act, which was our bill.

So we had done as much as Krogh and the experts think we can.

If you go any more, the judges won't send us advantage.

So we can take credit for having increased the penalties.

And we have worked out

this alternative to the public services appointment.

Well, George and I talked about this morning about scheduling some time with you to lay it out in the context of the overall strategy for what is going to happen in the middle of the year.

They're not two weeks.

Oh, we've got time.

We've got two weeks plus ten days.

So we're all right on time.

Is it outside or inside?

It's not closed there.

You know.

Yeah.

Oh.

Graveline.

They walk in, you walk in, glass is dirty.

I want to ask you about your

I heard that that was Rockefeller's attack on Pelosi.

It sounds the way we're supposed to sound.

Let me just take a quick look around.

He's got $800 million out of the state budget.

I don't know what kind of cut.

Hey, it's all hokey.

What are you getting at, John?

I think your idea of really taking a hard look at this situation, is there a need for public service areas and so forth?

The same is with the budget, in terms of the budget on hand jobs, and frankly, public works and so forth, all these GSA programs, we go over and put them on.

On the other hand, in the soft areas, like model cities, I've always mentioned that, or some forms of education.

I don't know.

I know when we get into this, remember, we never get anything out.

You get a little out of space, naturally.

Well, you make a list, and then we go down the list, and we say, oh God, we couldn't do that.

Oh, we never end up doing it.

And then we never end up doing it.

Now, I still got a good list of places that, you know, I sometimes think that they, I sometimes think that they list very few exceptions, just across the board.

So, supposedly say 25% of the control.

Well, why not?

You know what I mean?

Maybe we've got to do that now.

Of course, there's so much whining and crying around.

Of course, the capital people are all special interests people, but if, for example, you tell me that the amount of goddamn money we're spending on transportation, if it isn't going to produce jobs for five years from now, how am I going to spend that?

You see, if the money that we're gonna spend on saline water is gonna cruise in and in for four or five years, you're not gonna know anything.

That's the kind of thing that I'm trying to get at.

And I don't think we've ever had that presented.

I'll tell you what I've done.

I've got a little budget in the domestic council, and I've hired an outside outfit to do a quick-down, dirty study.

In about three weeks, I will know what kinds of

government expenditures created jobs in terms of men and money, payroll.

And I can't, frankly, I can't rely on what I get out of the departments on this.

And it just didn't do any good.

So they're all picking up their job.

For about $5,000, I can get this study done very quick.

And I got that other way, I authorized that yesterday.

I got Kunze coming in today to talk to him about what buildings he can build in what states.

And we have some idea of what choices we have there, but I don't know how quick these things could be started.

So I would say by the first of the week, we ought to be in possession of better information.

But I get your message.

I don't know.

Maybe you disagree.

No, I don't.

I'm coming down to the fact that my son and I, we talked about, let's go back to our exercises last year, John.

We all talked about the expansionary budget.

I bought it.

And God damn it, the economy was slowing down.

Everybody said this is going to be George Shultz and all these guys that came in.

They sold it finally.

So we're going to have a deficit.

That's great.

It hasn't.

Well, George claims it has, and you've got a splint in this.

Because George comes along now and they say, well, we've done everything we need to do.

Just hold the vote on this course and your unemployment's going to come down and your economy's going to go up and you may even have too much.

Well, I think that's monetary policy.

I'm speaking budget policy.

Oh, well, George is with you on this.

He says, our budget's out of control.

We've got to keep it down.

We've got to cut it.

And, uh...

You're gonna get down under that pole and fall in love.

So he's with you on this.

He's talking about fiscal year 73.

We gotta talk something about fiscal year 72.

That's really what we're talking about here.

Now I've asked Harper to get out our own list of budget cuts.

Because we did a, we did a back book on it.

Well, you did Marty Anderson in that too.

Marty was here, and I hoped he was going to be at that meeting yesterday morning, but he got stuck because he didn't make the cabinet meeting.

He is willing to do spot jobs for us, and he's going to have to keep going.

He's writing a history of the draft, and he's very much immersed in that, you know.

But we can get Marty in a way that we can spotlight him.

And we will.

You should talk to him some day.

He's out of town today at the moment.

Next time he's back, I'll get him in for a few minutes.

But we'll keep plugging on this job thing.

And as a third person, we ought to have something permanent for you.

And when would we be safe?

Well, we're probably a company that we should wait for next January.

Now, this is a part of what we do about these big appropriations bills that are coming down.

And we send out a modified budget or something.

And I just see you say, before any specific bill comes down, say, here's the, kind of like this, here's our pickle.

And here's my philosophy of it.

And this crazy Congress is doing this and that and the other thing.

And so, I am standing down here ready to knock this over when it comes along to the general proposition.

And for my part, I'm doing this and this and this and this.

I'm worried about jobs and I'm doing this.

I'm worried about the old folks and I'm doing this.

I would be disassociated from a meetup.

The only way to do it is to refer them to me, Thomas.

I read every detail, and I said, refer back to some basic statement.

It's a permanent.

It says we care.

We're taking care of them.

We're not going home.

We're taking care of them.

Why not start at 96?

Wow.

Alright, we've said, I mean, I mean, I'm calling out a lot of people.

We've said we need welfare reform in this country.

I know.

And that's our aim and that's one of our goals, right?

Okay.

So what this would mean is we'd go out there and we'd say to the Rules Committee, we're taking an open rule on this.

And we'd say that the House of Representatives cap out that part of Section 4 and put it behind the Senate.

We gotta be careful to get the right signals out on the house side so we don't find ourselves getting ourselves going down the street.

I don't quite know how to do that.

John, if we were starting fresh, I wouldn't have to do this.

that weren't important to us in that regard.

I wouldn't have, well, I'm not trying to get an agreement.

I'm simply saying that at the present time, the amount of money that we're going to spend would have a hell of a lot of increase in welfare in 20 years.

I think they're working for him.

Over a period of intercom, it will help.

I think so.

If you think there's none of us, you should.

I think it's probably a better chance of working than anything else.

None of us is sure.

On the other hand, right now, we've got a hell of a punching problem.

Where the hell do you start?

And I don't know.

You may.

We're very well into the details.

Well, fair enough.

Because they'll have to punch him.

Yes, sir.

I don't know.

Yeah.

That's right.

And they will come.

How much is something that you're checking now?

If they're satisfied, they'll cut it all over.

But in either house, it's done.

Well, it's OK. Do your analysis, John, on things in terms of just the cold turkey.

We're going to have to .

It's really a question, in my case, of whether expenditure-producing jobs have to do with the expense of this or that.

I think I don't understand it now.

We don't have very good information on that.

That's the reason we can't at all see any of that.

As a matter of fact, in my view, this is probably an expensive country.

I think that's true.

And you hire temple, they build them.

Or you hire people, they're in the services.

You hire a lot of people, they're there to stand around and do that, you know.

That's the reason the cuts there are so damn helpful.

It's the spongy stuff that others need.

That's why I say,

I want to raise it again.

I know they are.

We're changing the portal.

We've now got three.

We'll lay it out here.

Give us an opportunity to actually change the whole thing.

Hey, here.

What else do we argue?

There's a lot of changes we can make right now.

But why haven't we made more of them?

Well, we have made gradual changes.

We can make more radical changes.

We have made a lot of changes.

There's a lot I didn't know about, and I was trying to get the information out of me, because the arguments are more there than the arguments.

The problem is getting confused between NET and PBL, but we've already had changes.

We have nothing to do with NET.

And that's what Fred's reference is.

We don't subsidize it anymore.

That's the thing that we cut out.

We've cut way back on the AT desk.

Those are individual stations that support themselves in various ways.

That's it.

Public broadcasting is a...

program, production, and that we can get some control of.

That's the one that you said is one good thing, and I'm not sure how good it is.

That one is the one that we now have a frank face that we can replace him.

And it's the one that, the only problem there is Macy is the guy who runs that, and Macy can be replaced.

And that's what they want to do is come up with a proposal.

You've got a problem of cutting, and you cut it, and then you keep going in the other direction.

All of a sudden, you're reversing your behavior.

You know, you take such things like, for example, that I regret that we've gone so far as artists.

I'm not going to put 40 million dollars in the yard.

I'm just not going to write it.

I believe that all of you buy it and I like it.

I'll see you on Iris and all the rest of the 40 million bucks.

Jesus Christ, John, for just a fair amount of time, there's something about that thing that isn't produced in one job.

It doesn't matter.

You have had more political mileage out of that, I know.

You've been sold over.

I sure have.

I think that is one of the really smart political things we've done as far as the political key.

In terms of buying those for dollars, that's if.

If we could just buy 10 more things like that.

Well, that's not going to be too hard to do.

The point there isn't the artists.

The point there is the fat caps, people who support the artists.

Now, I'll bet you that in terms of financial support, in your campaign,

That is an old story that never had opened before.

And that's, that's all I mean by what I'm talking about.

There's community leaders in places like Cincinnati and Seattle, what was Seattle?

Cincinnati.

There's a lot of, a lot of places that the people who are the shakers and bookers, the love chambers of their, of their areas are, they're all involved in the arts, they're all involved in the arts because it's a, it's a, it's a way to,

We've got a meeting today on right to read.

We're going to do a pilot project in the district to get these kids caught.

So we've got a lot of congressmen and senators coming down and a poster of a star and some people like that.

to get this thing off the ground.

We invited her, but apparently she can't come with lunch, and so we'll get her off.

Let me say this.

I'm not too sure I had much wood when I was in Sunday, but that's new here.

The point is that I think the right to reason is part of those things.

She's identified with making the White House better and all that sort of thing.

That's not even killing me right now.

The right to reason.

Now, let me come to another thing.

On the volunteer guy, I just want to be sure about that he is put on solid in terms of

I say not three or four or five, two.

Two projects.

I thought, we're going to know that something happened that's whether or not it's going to happen.

I think we're in a hell of a spongy area there, and I don't know what other people are doing, but I think, again, it's like everybody else in the country.

Yeah, we just can't.

We've got all over the place.

We've got to, I think that volunteers and, if, I know that one thing they did, they got the inoculations of people, they don't have to take the, you know, fine.

Maybe there's something like, like, maybe there's something, something they could do.

Maybe they could have brought the, the population to us, maybe there was, and they got a lot of mileage.

I don't know.

Can we, can we get them, can we get a hundred, I think that there could be more interest here.

We really need a couple of the goals we wish the volunteer center is fighting for.

Volunteers done this for America.

This pilot project I'm reading will require 5,000 volunteers in the city.

Now, maybe he can get tied into that way and turn them out.

Well, could we do that and make it?

But the thought is that once we've done it here, it can be done anywhere.

This is probably the toughest crack.

These kids are all 34 years behind.

And the only way to work with them is one-on-one.

But that brings them up, magically.

That's what they're using as a foundation, because it is here.

And they have these women in it.

Does anybody follow or not?

That's the blind following the blind.

See, we got him to the dinner, put the arm on our friends to support him.

What in the name of God is he doing except organizing?

What is the project?

You need a couple of projects.

So that he says, by next year, I want folks to know that volunteerism is this in America.

The only reason I happened to get into this reading thing is just partly because my wife said it, but also because Strayer is an old friend of mine.

Let me say, I know he's a very good man.

I'd even come to the luncheon if it were big enough.

Well, I would even come, I think it's so important.

But I have spoken the right to read people myself for a long time.

And nothing ever happened.

There's no reason for it.

I can't stand by this.

I want to do it, but this is horrible.

This is a kickoff.

They now have a program.

They're going to start it in September.

Who is that?

Well, Stray Lake's group, the National Reading Center, which we've funded with human advice, plus Hugh Scott, who's the superintendent of schools here,

I mean, before you go, let me just say on your political side, Bob has made us study all these issues.

I think what we have to do, John, is to sit down and pick out three.

Three issues that I'm considering.

Subsidiary ones, you know, like parks.

I think that's one of the three that's most considerate at the moment.

Air pollution and the rest.

Now, let me say it in terms of issues.

And I'm turning it on to something that we want people to know whether there's a sharp image of this administration.

for example, as far as revenue sharing is concerned, unless

is the rapid tie-in to tax reduction.

Forget it as the major issue.

Welfare reform.

Unless it is tie-in to get the assholes off of the welfare rolls, forget it as an issue.

Now, I don't know if that leaves us much else.

We're doing an awful lot of work.

Now, let me say that again.

Don't be concerned that it's something we're going to do.

Let us remember that Kennedy in 1960 ran on phony issues.

He created them.

They were immediately issued.

And he won.

Right?

Missile bans have been the only issue.

American expressways have been the only issue.

Good prices have never been any higher since it was in President Obama.

Right?

It's been going down ever since.

all through Johnson, all through Kennedy.

We brought it back some, as far as press duties.

But it was an old issue.

Getting the country moving again, yeah, to a certain extent was an issue in the fact that the economy was down.

But it didn't conquer it.

My point is, I think you've got to look at issues, not just in terms of, well, here are the things we're doing, here's the honest way to present it.

You've got to look at the issues in terms of, how did we create these issues?

Now, in order to create those issues, you've got to make them dynamic.

In some cases, you've got to have controversy.

I don't go so far as Rumsfeld does on the connotation idea, but I did hold connotations on that.

So I'm inclined to think that one of the issues may be the drugs and law enforcement, because it's a strong suit.

I'm inclined to think so, and particularly when I see how weak we run the polls on it.

I am inclined also to say that maybe you don't want to make an issue on employment and inflation.

Certainly on employment you don't want to make an issue.

Maybe you do.

Maybe you want to have it in an offensive nature in terms of doing something to bring it down.

Inflation.

Maybe you make it an issue for the purpose of

of the equation that I think is going to work.

My argument, what I'm getting at is this.

Of all this huge amount of stuff we have done on the domestic front, not very clear, is that right?

Now, that isn't the fault of the domestic company.

It isn't the fault of .

But for better or worse, comedy, at least, is creating an image.

And the assholes tickled it.

I don't see other Canada officers doing that.

We have got to do it in this field.

And we talk about PR, but we don't have any.

On the foreign field, I've got to handle that.

We haven't done that well here.

The idea that we've been leading the war, the war is a different problem.

Certain problems, we'll handle it then.

But in the foreign field, Christ, we've done a hell of a lot of things.

Nobody knows about salt.

We haven't really asked the question.

You're talking about people not knowing about Europe.

There's a danger here in that you have part of this bullet, not all of it.

That's why I'm trying to ask you to get it wrapped up.

But there's one question there, and I don't think everybody has covered it, but it says, do you think U.S. press deed fraud has increased, decreased, or stayed about the same since Nixon took office?

Yeah.

I think 18% think it's increased.

About 50% think it's decreased.

Which is much worse than Kennedy two years in.

Kennedy did any more of an increase or any less of an increase.

We're going to keep talking to you today or tomorrow about these things.

On issues?

Yes.

That's the only way I can spend my time.

I know.

One of the things that I would like to get at, and I'm going to talk to the pollsters on how to do this, is the whole question of fear.

Because I think that the questions aren't being asked right now in terms of crime and narcotics for instance.

I'd like to get at it in terms of what are you afraid of?

And I'd like to bring the issue back in terms of allaying fear, if possible.

I suspect that even though there is the penetration of all the salt and all these other things in the morning, there is a general feeling

that there's less to be afraid of today in foreign affairs than there was when you came into office.

There's less to be afraid of in racial affairs, less to be afraid of in student affairs.

Exactly.

Now, how do you get a point where you, well, but look, when you break it down into specifics,

People don't know the reason that they're less afraid in specific terms.

They have an impression that they're less afraid.

And you've got to translate that somehow into a vote of confidence by the guy who says, yeah, that's right.

Remember how we were, Ma, back in 68?

Remember how we used to lock the door and bar the window when we brought that gun?

And now we aren't afraid anymore.

And the president did that.

Good.

Let me say God's Father, not to say the Prestige.

That shows a point that I remember.

I can't let other people know that the rest of us all don't know it.

The rest of us, the Europeans, the Christians, the Canadians, the Christians, the Muslims, the Christians, all the rest.

I don't think it's important to be closer to the perception of things, et cetera, et cetera.

It is important to be close to how the president is received abroad.

And here, we do extremely well.

We are here for them.

They only, we do as well as can be and as well as I can do.

Johnson never received well abroad.

The prestige thing, however, I think is dragging because of Vietnam.

No question about that.

That will be right.

On the other hand, it shouldn't drag that low if we had gotten across.

What the hell do we do the foreign travels for?

That's part of what we'll say, too.

That's part of the general impression.

Nobody thinks now

specifically about your reception in Spain.

It goes into his general impression of you as president.

Yeah.

He got a good impression at the time.

It adds to a total feeling.

I agree.

And what you really come down to, well, coming back to the domestic view, I do know this.

Scrape away all the crap.

I mean, even a sugar boy.

Leave that out there for somebody else to have one.

The main point is that let's just concentrate on three issues.

I mean, you, your brain.

And let's pick the issues that are going to give us the kind of sharp image that we want.

I'll either be a crime fighter or I'm permissible.

One of the two.

The worst thing is to be evil.

And I think what Bob's poll shows is that we're neither.

Unfortunately, I don't have the right thoughts.

And it's not because of what you've done or not done.

It's because of what you are perceived to have done or not done.

There's a real difference.

Because despite all the live television that I've done, all the live television, primetime television, and we talk about how much we've done, you want to remember that we've done a lot more than him here.

Because he did this in the middle of the day.

One primetime in a month is worth 10 at noon.

10 at noon.

And you're on there, and you're singing crime, and you're being burned.

And right then, somehow or another, it just went through.

I don't understand it.

I just really don't understand it.

You mentioned Sugar Corp.

which strikes a responsive note because I had a phone call this morning about it.

Are you working on sugar pox right now?

That's what I said.

Oh, I don't want to worry about it.

Oh, I see.

No, I'm not like Henry worrying about the Ecuadorian fishing.

No, I would have done better if you had told me to eat deers.

Exactly.

I don't want to worry about it.

But when we come to you in San Clemente,

It is going to be very much like I imagine an advertising agency comes to a client with a campaign to try and get some penetration into the minds of the people of this country on some transitions.

It will give you a much broader range than free tape.

Take, for example, John.

which I'm convinced of, and here I want you to have a talk with Cox, who's a very shrewd boy.

Connelly called the O3 organization, his reason for it, was not because he thought much of what he liked about it, he thought it would be a good political issue just to be against the way things are.

The organization apparently is not the way in particular that people are prepared to give on them.

My view is this.

revenue sharing, reorganization.

Reorganization of the setting up of the office of budget management, setting up of the domestic capital home.

In fact, we run the machinery better and better.

Is that something that is worth anything?

Can we make it worth anything?

I doubt it.

My view is that I could even spin our wheels on a whole lot of things that don't sound like a bad thing.

Now, on the reorganization of revenue sharing, I suppose there, what does it show?

We're forcing Congress and the professional press

Because that is, I don't know, I think so, somewhere, some second.

Because it's one of your strong, other than Fannie, and your other strong faces and straighter, that's the thing they, that's the, maybe that's the thing they look at strong.

Now, that's going to be important, that strong manhood of yours.

The place that's not as important, it seems to me, is not in the abstract, but in the comparison of the president versus some challenge.

Sure.

I think I saw a president versus some guy who's, that's why, that's why, incidentally, in trial, he showed me one damn thing they never did before, and they never do now, because when you finally get down to it, two parties now, and then you see the two people, all of a sudden, you realize one of those guys is going to have his way to the top.

That is where, that is where you're going to have it.

The polls affect the politicians, but I mean in terms of what they measure.

They don't measure until you see those two guys and then begin to measure.

And even the president begins to measure.

Even the president.

in my view, would probably worry about hitting even the president.

Even though they would be poor for all the other reasons beyond that.

They would worry about that.

So here you have a claim and wonder what kind of crime is going to happen.

That's why some of this good, solid, gray may be money in the bank in those terms.

But it may be doing us some good in other ways.

You don't go with the

everywhere from 50 or this last poll, it's like 54, I don't know what it's called.

It's not 50, 54, it's low, but it's basically considering the fact that the economy is not static.

We get it from the television last night.

You have Vietnam and Vietnam.

Again, the goddamn Congress Department.

There's more instance of any ability to run this department.

The statistical departments of labor and commerce are a constant source of embarrassment to the small guys, and I am on them constantly.

That census thing that came out on poverty levels, oh, I wrote Maury, and I got back the most abashed letter that anybody's ever written me about that.

They said we were wrong, we were stupid.

You know, so I said, I'll do that.

And so, I've been on Hotson over the other day about your friend Goldstein.

There he was.

And so, he's got the signal loud and clear.

And the probabilities are that we will transfer Goldstein someplace and we'll just catch him right in hell for it.

But it's worth the wait of luck in the night, you know.

And you'll send a little signal around that may be of some help.

I'd like to bring you a range of reasonable ideas.

Some of them will be better than others.

In that hierarchy that I put up on the screen there yesterday, this idea of goals and objectives and policies and programs.

I think we don't think very clearly sometimes about some of these things that are really programs.

The key word on the billboard is the goal.

It's jobs.

And then...

If you get down to very simple things, a job, maybe not.

Maybe you've got to save 20 million jobs.

Fine.

Maybe you've got to save 5 million jobs for the next five years.

Maybe you've got to save... Let me argue again from a standpoint of gut feeling.

The guy doesn't give a damn about 20 million jobs.

He gives a damn about being afraid of losing his job.

So you've got to put it in those terms to him.

In other words, they're eliminating unemployment.

They're eliminating, somehow, his fear.

In other words, trying to make a job is a way to do it.

But if you say, I don't want to have unemployment, you've got to back it up with something other than saying, we've got a program in the OMB for the purpose of working on a fine file.

I can't get over the fact that Henry Wallace had a dramatic impact on that, since he made the job.

50,000 airplanes, somewhere.

In a way, if you could put it in grand enough terms, it sort of gives the guy the feeling, God damn it, they're doing something.

Well, Kennedy would have reached the moon by 1970.

Yeah.

Okay, but it caught the national imagination.

You've got people who quit thinking about Cuba.

Let me tell you about another silly thing.

And that's the environment.

I know you know.

I recognize as a phenomenon.

It's a big issue, but it's there.

24% can't be moved.

And somehow or another, I've got to figure out a way of convincing you that this is something that you can ride to your advantage in a way that that will pick up a part of the spectrum that we don't now have.

I agree.

It's your door to that 18-year-old vote.

Because they're very, oh, God, are they ever.

They're consumed with it.

They're liable to 24%.

They're the reason.

Their enthusiasm is the reason it shows up like that.

The problem is, though, how do you do it without simply being in his business?

That's the challenge.

But you have all the credentials right now.

You have all the credentials to put up on your billboard clean air and clean water.

Because you've done all kinds of stuff.

Right.

Well, then why don't we clean up home?

I don't want to spend five million bucks on this.

Take an area and buy a building.

I think so.

Now, one of the problems is that this isn't a low-employment area.

It would be better off to clean up a river in a low-employment area.

I'm looking for one.

Thank you.

And we'll do a pilot there.

We get a hell of a lot more money out of cleaning up the Ohio reserve than we would cleaning up the Tony.

That's the drawback of the company.

Because you're going to win this city anyway, and you're going to win Virginia.

You've got Maryland.

Maryland.

Maryland's country code isn't worth worrying about.

Maryland already has it.

When you get out to the Ohio, you're dealing with apartment states that are struggling.

Illinois and Ohio.

There's a group on there.

The only problem is that we've got a plan.

We can start the work tomorrow.

We have a plan on Ohio.

Well, let's see where all the jobs are effective and so forth.

But what people want, I don't think so.

I do know this.

I know it's a question of zeroing in, John, on the military thing now.

We've been around the track, and God believes we've been around all this, and Christ, I guess I get all of our careful people to understand that

Is your Rockefeller handout?

No, sir.

Well, he doesn't.

He must have.

He's really put the gold on this suit.

You know, he took it straight the last couple of days with public service employees.

And Rockefeller is just making it tougher and tougher.

He's tightening down on it.

He's tightening it down on it.

He has to figure out something to get out of there very quickly.

He's got to find something to lock it up.

Well, I thought it was over.

I would say it's temporarily suddenly conceded.

Well, the whole pension rights and the sewage people went out.

Oh, did they?

The bridge people went back to work, but a lot of the bridges are still open.

But now the sewage people are on strike.

They're dumping raw sewage in the river now, which they feel may create a monumental problem for our health and our lives.

I agree.

How do you work on the environment?

Oh, I think there's a little money to be made there.

I told you we were doing some analysis of that.

And still are.

Well, I don't mind being a clean air, clean water, open space man.

Well, you've paid the price.

You've already paid for it.

That was our initiative last year.

We paid the price.

We've got to go.

And we're spending the money.

Clean air, clean water, open space.

You're down there.

I see right out of the issue.

And Ruckelshaus is better known for the issue now than Muskie is.

Is he?

Yeah.

Yeah, I'm sure he is.

Did we just figure out a way to get an arm around Ruckelshaus?

The only thing about Ruckelshaus, I don't find him attacking anybody.

I don't want him to demagogue against business.

Well, not demagogue.

He can attack, but don't demagogue him.

That's all.

I'll tell you what we've done.

He can attack government.

He can attack people.

He can attack dirty items.

Now, I pulled him into the domestic house.

And I've got a committee.

that's half business-oriented and half environmental and consumerism and safety.

And I've got a good guy sitting on top of that now.

And we're making Robert's house clear before he does all regulations, all committed actions and all that kind of stuff.

Oh, he can sure do that.

I don't want to say, though, please don't think that I consider that one of the top three.

I understand.

I think it's good for the state.

I like it that we've got to do something with the news.

We've done everything else.

We've done it wrong.

We've done all those things.

Now we've, well, and then there it is.

It's bought and paid for.

There's an additional you have to do with it except to exploit it.

And that you can do.

Parks are zilch.

It's pollution where the money should be made.

So you don't think that park was any good?

It was all right.

But you look at this poll, and parks are, what, 4%?

Some of that kind.

Pollution is the thing that takes the weight off of it.

So we might as well get on that.

Air water.

In the air, yep.

We can do some things over here in San Clemente.

We can go up and talk to the Air Force guy in Los Angeles and identify with that.

We can kind of write that down.

There ought to be a way to tie that into some jobs for a couple of times.

There it is.

We've had some stuff go on, Matt.

And maybe we've had some of those guys in.

And I'm sure he said, I'll get you a California thing.

LA is still the fourth headquarters response.

That's right.

That looks pretty good on the billboard.

That's where we're going.

It's clean air.

You see, a lot of it is cleaned up there.

And if you ever go to one.

They did.

Yeah, yeah.

It took them nine years.

But they've been very intelligent about it.

They didn't do it without a text in the car.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, a lot of restrictions.

Most of their pollution wasn't coming from the garbage.

All of L.A.'s pollution is gone.

A lot of stacks, a lot of consumption of coal and that sort of stuff that they've cut out.

L.A. has cut all that out, cut off very many garbage.

They found out it's still the old bill.

Everything out of the pollution gets worse.

The automobile, plus the weather conditions there, they just, they have an accentuated problem.

I'm sure anybody that grew up in California knows you have fog in the morning.

And so that's smog when you've got cars.

You've got to have the weather.

Well, you remember, too, when we were in the States, it was a bunch of fogs.

Yeah, yeah.

First the weather, then the weather.

You should have known then what was going to happen.

Next week kind of comes out as drug week, which is good.

We can do that.

But they may just appear to be somebody else did it for you, isn't it, buddy?

So, pussies.

But what they generally come up with is the impression that they create an impression on diversity.

It never comes out as a clear thing.

We have to solve it.

You go back and look at it, 38% are over, which is pretty high alert.

Your efforts, and of those, 72% think you're doing a good thing.

They're all plusses.

They're kind of overwhelming.

Henry would tend to think that 98.3% are aware of solvent and 100% of those are propane.

When you look at this, there's only about 30 people that go there.

Three quarters of those that go there.

Would you ask DERG to give you an analysis of what is the Chinese Communist Party came out so differently from our S&M?

Not from ours in Gallup, but from ours in Harrison.

Harrison's the two-to-one the other day.

And all the shows are the other way around.

There's something screwing it.

They've got to do something.

Down in the head.

The thing is that our first China, see our two polls on China are identical.

Yeah.

Our first one was before the China thaw.

Yeah.

Both Gallup and Harris were right after the thaw.

And then from the big shootout and then ours, now it's after the attention of the speaker.

That's, uh, it will change quickly enough.

I don't know why.

I don't know.

The difficulty is 17, I would agree.

At the bottom, it's 17.

At the other point, that's a good idea.

At the other point, what Irene would like to see, but I see the whole program.

As to whether or not what the others are going to say.

and how I start what the other's going to say, exactly how many minutes I've got, and then some thoughts.

Don't you really feel that I ought to have done that straight into the camera?

Yes, and that's the way they were intending that you would do it, too.

Well, that I could memorize that piece of work?

No, I see.

No, that was a starting point for a piece for you to do.

I think you've got to be fitted into what the others are thinking, because you do feel that it's not something I should read.

It's possible, I think, that you have to read it.

Don't worry about it.

You can read it, but then close with a couple paragraphs.

You're all right there.

The best thing is, you know, this was one where you're fighting toward the end.

That's right.

But most of the time, you can't do it.

It is worth trying to do it.

This thing presumably could be an altering network across the nation.

Or do we know what we're going to get?

I don't know.

They haven't said anything.

I don't think so.

We won't worry about that until I know what we're going to get out of that.

Are there any more questions?

And then I want you to be in touch with him.

or somebody that can handle it closer and makes the tape so that I can use it.

I invite them in.

I invite them to my house to make tinctures well and make them well fast, just before the convention.

Do you know what I mean?

I invite them into my house for a meeting.

So we can sort of build them up a little.

Shock waves should be placed.

This is when we start to hold states, but we should not hold states when we start to fall.

But at this point, President Kennedy's laws fall out.

Nationwide, it is the same.

State by state, it may be one hell of a lot better, right?

It may be a good effort to win it through.

It might change our views.

John loves politics anyway.

To get him thinking in terms of the

I think he always was, but he didn't feel it was his job.

Do you agree?

Yeah.

He's always been injured.

That's right.

He's been trying to run the machine together.

He's thought it was right to do the right thing, and of course, Schultz knew that by accident.

Well, Schultz always will, but what you're saying, John, is exactly the right thing, which is forget about all the crap, and you put your talents against the fact that three things are going to matter.

That's right.

What that says is that three-fourths of the people don't think the environment is an important issue.

But who is the one for it?

And he says it's the kids.

It may be.

It is.

It's probably worth playing with.

Just to pray that out and love the world as they work on their contemporaries.

But if it's only Democrats, if it's only liberals,

Well, John argues that if we get a constituency that we can't put otherwise, we have another idea of winning people over.

Then you can analyze it.

Do you get them without paying any price on your own initiative?

That's right.

And part of what Ruffles House is doing is not consistent with that.

It is paying more price.

You're screwing our own people and murdering some others.

You aren't going to let the others do it.

And it may be that we have got to start taking a harder line on our own initiative.

Mm-hmm.

We don't have any TR people around this time.

We don't know a person by the name of TR.

We've just got people that have worked for about 24 hours a day, trying to do the right thing.

Now, we've made a few rounds, and we've got people who look behind the scenes.

Frank, they made me do it.

I made that blog for this guy.

He's a wonderful guy.

Thank you for your attention to the reading of it.

You're always talking about Kennedy's great interest in the arts and everything.

It's kind of funny that you're reading this stuff.

I see people that are great artists in the United States.

If you look at Kennedy and the Institute, you can get away with that.

I see people who got off in a far-right way, but a Boston politician who spent the rest

They are now some of that discussion.

I don't know.

Bring that over today.

Mother.

Elyse Larkins, chairman of this group, please.

Chairman of the board of W.L.

Griggs.

Chairman Paul Hayes, the associate chairman of Washington, Maryland, the owner of the airport, Andy Wall.

The governor, my associate chairman, John Kershaw, the chair of the airport.