Conversation 313-009

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Hi, John.

All right.

I hope I'm not interrupting you.

Yeah.

You've been doing pretty good so far.

You shouldn't have even considered it.

Good.

Oh, yeah.

Good.

Not out of your life.

No, no, no.

We didn't...

There were, uh, we'd expect, uh, the, the common jobs and all the land gathering somewhere.

They, you know, I mean, it just was, uh, just a few were able to come anyway.

It was different, but, uh, it was different.

Let me ask you, uh, one question and then we'll be long.

I work in the state of New England this week, and I just talked to John Hartman before, and he said that he talked deeply about his plan that he had and so forth, and that he felt that you felt it was all right to handle it on this basis of sort of triumphalism, in other words, that what we would start to preempt the issue, and I would try to keep

this week with McIlroy, you and I, and Richardson with McIlroy, that we would all, we would have the governmental committee with, yeah, he'd get them together for the next meeting, so before the day of the meeting, and he would be present, and he would be there with them and ask them to think about it.

Now, that would leave us, as I understand it, in a position to either go or stop four or three more months from now.

Does that sound all right to you?

Yeah.

All right.

Well, we will use your name in it, but that you at some time will just say, well, yes, I'm studying it.

My people are studying it.

It's a very, something has to be done, but we don't want to.

Another argument I think John Wilkes should make to everybody is to say, look, we have a very practical amendment.

We don't want to send down to that committee with all that has on its plate

piece of legislation that is for pure political reasons.

We want to, we know they're not ready for it yet, and we want to think about it more, and they've got a chance to think about it once in a while.

Doesn't that make sense, too?

Because Uber is going to have the, you know, the revenue sharing, it's going to have health, it's going to have their gold bill, it's going to have all the, I think that's a good reason for it.

Now, in terms of the, maybe you can make it soft, that's not,

That really isn't going to leave us too much in the way of something really quite new.

Now, I wonder if you feel whether that combo isn't all right in a sense.

Or tell me what you think.

I've been trying to scrub up something, but I've seen it's worked bad.

Congress now to act on those things that we already presented before.

Right.

You see, really,

in a sense, with welfare reform, health, government reorganization, revenue sharing, we have everything there already that is needed, you see.

Not to mention, of course, the cleaning up of the International Monetary Fund.

So I really think that we said, now, here it is, and I'm interested in it.

And it really is.

Also, another thing that concerns me is that we must create

There's a whole new scheme to solve every problem.

There really isn't just a...

Right, right.

Right.

Do you, is what you did with your back or muscles bad?

You ever had him before?

For some.

I used to hire him.

You wouldn't, when a rival comes down on a limb, you wouldn't like for him to take a little, he's this great, awesome guy.

You want to take a crack at him?

Well, no, no, the point is, do it if you don't have anything, because what it is, is this is the best rock bar he's ever used, Mitchell knows, and he is the, he's the great one, he's an MP, too.

But I'll be a source of cheap justice.

He's the better.

That's right.

Okay.

I'll have a call you later.

Bye.