Conversation 342-012

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

I would never get one like that from Richardson.

I mean, there's Orford from Fine East.

You know, I just wouldn't spend the time thinking through.

to plead for you to veto it on the grounds it's too much money and all that.

As Weinberger's pleading, so is money, I so it was, well then I know it's too much money, so we can talk about that.

But Ed's argument, and it's persuasive, is this.

Not to be good.

It says, first of all, after reading the Weinberger piece, that there's another way to do it.

And that is to veto.

Say, if they had sent me the education stuff by itself, I'd have signed it.

Because I'm for these things that I advocate.

There are some other problems with it.

But that's not the basic problem in this book.

The basic problem is that they pass something that they say is blessing legislation.

And here we get the first big case out of the box.

And in order to make very clear the shortcomings of this thing, I'm going to detail it.

And as the Congress promptly do.

Congress then can reenact the education stuff.

If in their wisdom they feel it's appropriate, I should point out to them this and this and this.

About what?

About the education stuff, that there are these minor problems.

But that isn't the base of my detail.

Now, you just laid this on me as I came in.

It occurs to me that there are some obvious problems with this.

One of the largest is that Elliot Richardson hasn't won one in a long, long time.

Now, I have not yet told him your decision on welfare.

I called last night and I told him there was not going to be a signing statement on higher education if you signed it.

And he died very hard on that.

He called, I was at a movie last night, he called Ken Cole three times last night afterwards.

And he's very tenacious, but he's also close to the edge of the thin ice.

So...

It's a question of how much of a person.

Ricky's hired on welfare reform.

So, incidentally, we're getting some motion on welfare reform.

I'm going to have to seek that in the law on Saturday.

And they want a deal.

Because you saw Richardson and Hodgson the other day, we're afraid you might be considering moving toward Rivertown.

And so they said, what's the deal?

Well, that's what we're going to have to find out.

They won't say through any third party.

But we're seeing some movement.

And it's kind of interesting.

Well, the point is that that's the thing we've got to tolerate.

We've got to play it hard and see what we get from it.

So I think them come to us rather than us going to them.

Absolutely.

It softens my...

The other point.

Yeah.

And you say this is it, and I think we've got to run this out.

And I think particularly we've got to run it off through the Democratic Convention.

That's my view.

They all put it right, too.

On this higher education...

which is actually true.

Good luck.

This is a hell of a tough night.

We're talking about the G.H.R.

He plays a very important role in that G.H.R.

You can't tell him what the hell it is, because I'm not going to tell him what it is.

But I can say that.

He'll think it's fame, or he might think it's an A.G., or it could be the Corp.

three different places that he could go.

Those are the only three, obviously.

Now, I think his thinking runs in the direction of the court.

He's got a former law clerk, a Springfield law clerk working for him, and he started steeping in that stuff.

How much as we are concerned, frankly, about our court, you know, the court moves on.

I wasn't surprised that they weren't happy.

Basically,

Basically, that authority is too broad.

It reaches pretty far.

Well, and the only thing is that I was, I am surprised that maybe I, I'm talking more than one line, I realize it.

I would have thought some of our people would be meeting with us.

If I was ready, my husband would come and meet me, and we would jump off and meet.

We'd be back ready at that time.

immediately found out that we have consistently reduced the number of attacks and that the high point was reached during the regime of President Kennedy and Attorney General Robert Kennedy.

And since that has been progressively reduced, why is it quite a funny thing in that job?

I mean, this is not something that we are simply, we have been used, we've been using this in a very restrictive and very responsible way.

We've

They like wiretapping of radical groups.

Now, the other thing is that this court, this decision does not cover the activities of domestic groups with foreign, that are in their foreign agent government, you see.

Basically, I would say, well, that's about the only, that's the only area, frankly, we're visiting, man.

You know, you might have to say that that really doesn't depend on KDR, because that's what we're concerned about.

That our primary concern has been in that area.

If you can get it not covered somehow, you can get it back.

Well, depending on what you do, on higher education, I may reach this point.

And if I do, I can reach for this.

Yes.

Yes, you can say, if we talk about it, you can say, I don't know whether those figures, we have cut it in half, I would say.

I don't know what the last figure, what the return, you know what I mean?

What's that?

Nearly half.

Substantially reduced.

The higher point was reached during the

period of time.

Since that time it has been steadily reduced, the trend has been downward, and now as far as this administration is concerned it has been limited almost exclusively to those cases involving foreign contacts and the contacts involving those cases in which there is involvement of domestic groups with a foreign government.

They don't know damn well what you mean.

And in this case, however, that involves the national security, we are not concerned.

Under Mr. Hoover, under Mr. Gray,

very, very substantially restricted.

And of course, all of us have to improve in general.

But I think I would throw it back to that, but this is not something that we, basically, it maybe isn't all that important, but the point is, I don't like to have them act as if everything that happens is something that we kind of

World War II, you know?

And it got me under Kennedy for obvious reasons.

Bobby Kennedy did.

He represented me.

Well, if this was over 100 guys, I would be awful precise, but that's the thing.

Now let's come back to this now.

I certainly have mixed emotions.

I don't believe, John, that you can lead to it because of the money.

I mean, Cap has always got to make that pitch.

I wish, I mean, to tell you the truth though, if it weren't for Elliot Richardson, I wouldn't.

Because I am concerned about the money and more.

If you've ever gotten a chance to read that book, I'm concerned about higher education.

I just don't want to put more money down the raffle.

Yeah, this does have in one of Hanson's conventions reforms and stuff.

He doesn't mean the end of it.

It has a half a billion of Southern school money, which we could really use to lay around the South, if that makes any difference.

There's this about it.

If you want to think about it a little more, do you have to breathe on the left?

Well, I'd like to go to the left if I'm going, and the only reason I would go is to take the sting out of this thing if you're going to go to the left.

Yep.

I can draw quite a lot of poison, not only on this, on IRC, on the bussing thing, but also on my crack, on the press.

I don't care at all about that.

I totally agree with the crack.

No, no, no, no.

No, they're a bunch of people that are...

They're considering their own little miserable problems.

Don't you worry about that at all, John.

Don't let that be one motivating factor.

That was the only reason.

I totally disagree.

I totally agree with that crack, and I think they need to be caught up a little shorter.

They're very...

It's just great.

You see, it creates

I said, now, one of the things you've got to remember is that now the only hope for a government is to have what Humphrey had in state.

Well, if you think the effort book was better than that effort book.

The analysis is bad.

I'm free.

It'll be double.

Remember you told me that, and that's the reason.

That's right.

We must discredit the press.

Three times.

That's right.

And you did just great.

And I'm all for it.

And they asked me, I'll just face it around.

I said, well, there are many nice people that feel that way.

But I'm not going to express any doubts about the press.

Now, what's your next question?

Great.

Oh, perfectly.

Perfect.

See, there are many of my kids, frankly, feel very strongly about this.

And I said that.

But I, gentlemen, I said, I'm excited.

I expressed my opinion about the press, and I have nothing to add.

Senator, what's going on?

I came to this crack only after they pressed me three times.

About the press conference?

About your press conference?

Sure.

Well, they've got a legitimate beat there.

Anybody that believes in press conferences being a sacrosanct thing has got a legitimate beat.

Of course, if they check terribly, they'll pull Kennedy and Johnson.

Johnson, for example, in the election, you don't need a press conference.

You notice?

Kennedy was way down there.

Well, they might check to see how many county heads were in this position.

Well, I think a year before.

You see, they don't give you any credit for other Q&As.

Like the one in Texas.

The one in Texas.

And frankly, twice before the Congress.

That's the first Q&A of all of them.

I have the leaders.

They all go out and report everything I say.

What I mean is, I am a bit sensitive about the president.

And I get to tell a lot of people.

It's very interesting.

My males are very strong.

What do they say?

In paper.

No, but I mean...

They say they're agreeing with the fact that the questions have been... Coming back to this, I...

I think you could go out and do that.

Sure.

Maybe just as well.

Sure.

That gives us time.

If we're going to do the, is the higher education supposed to be signed today?

No, we have until Friday.

The only reason we're going today was to get it in ahead of your press conference.

Yeah.

The other thing we can do is finesse a couple more days.

You can say it's your press conference and I'm still thinking about it.

Yes, I'm still studying.

I have the signal.

I think we should finesse it.

All right.

Let's don't make any mistakes in the hurry.

All right.

Now we've got to keep everybody a little worried.

Congressional boys tell me that your veto would be sustained in the House.

What do you mean?

But on the busing ground, not on the higher education ground.

And that we would all surely get the higher education right back down here.

All right.

Well, isn't that the best of both worlds?

And so that's got to turn into the calculation.

Correct.

We don't want to have, I personally don't want to have, my only view is this.

I don't want to have hanging over, over the country, a, basically, the difficulty with the, with the, with the congressional thing, and I haven't, I haven't read it, I haven't studied it, I haven't learned it, I can see the difficulty, because it's really, when you look at the legislative record, and you look at the line, and the risk, it's basically too

It could be applied by one court to Detroit, but not by another.

And it could be applied by one court to Nashville, but not by another.

Now, as I understand the whole thing, as I understand what Swan said, basically, well, as I understand it, where desegregation is concerned, desegregation of, in a jury opinion,

media irrigate, irrigate, busing, must be used.

Maybe used.

All right.

And then the burger went on to say everybody was determined to go on, and he said there are a number of other things that are going to be fought.

But SWAN specifically, or burger in its other name, SWAN does not cover de facto cases.

Expressly does not.

So, therefore, this involves a de facto case.

Now, a de facto case, then, the question is,

Oh, and then Berger went on.

Berger, if I recall, or I don't know if he went on, but Berger told me something or something.

He said that racial balance in the back row cases is not required.

Oh, okay.

In the back row cases.

Yeah, that's right.

But what about the jury cases?

Is it required?

No.

And he said racial balance is not required, period.

That's right.

Well, then, as we look at this case here,

The de facto de jure business.

Where did that come from?

Well, Rob is striking out ahead of the court again.

And it's merged into whatever his name is down in Richmond.

And he is apparently, and we don't know, we don't have a final word, he's apparently going to order racial violence.

And he's going to do it on a de jure theory.

He's going to say that Detroit is a de jure situation.

Rob did.

Yeah.

He is very clever.

He's political as hell.

Does he know that he is that political?

That he wants Michigan to go?

No.

He thinks he's helping them that way.

That's what they tell him.

He's giving them a silver platter.

In other words, he, like the other fanatics, really believes in us and in

Yeah.

I read it.

I read the market's analysis in that book.

It was a very balanced thing.

But he said, well, the cases did show that there was an issue.

And it was overhanging.

I'm about halfway through reading the actual study now.

And it's a very good, moderate job.

Do they fire you?

No, we still hang on it.

Why are you doing it?

Well, because that's the way it came out.

He's a scientist.

He must be a sociologist.

He's more of a statistician, really, than he is a social worker type.

He's more putting a number down.

You start asking him the hard questions, he says he doesn't know.

And he's honest enough to say that.

What is it, a guilt thing, John?

Yeah, yeah.

They all feel guilty about what's happened to the slaves.

I feel guilty about what's happened to the slaves, but I know what people are.

This guy, in the text of his study, explains how they came to this.

And he does it pretty much on this basis.

He goes, we're back to Reconstruction.

And he brings it up, and it's a very useful historical review.

Mr. Wilkins has been asking to see me, and I'm going to have lunch with him.

And I'm going to talk to him about this study.

Because it's, I think, something he's got to know.

He really wants to help the bunch.

Because Roy Wilkins is an old conventional...

He's about to enter the room.

He's down there dead in a young man's room.

I'll tell you what it is, is that they're all trying to prove that their policies were right.

Yeah.

And it's the same in Florida policy.

Everybody that came up with something 20 years ago feels that it's got to justify demolition.

Yeah.

Coming back to this thing here, what is your judgment as of the moment on the hiring condition there?

I think it's not a good detail, in my opinion.

And I'll tell you why.

There's nothing basically wrong with the busing amounts.

They're just no damn good.

But there's nothing negatively wrong.

And it seems to me the bite of a veto has to go to something.

Not because it falls short, but because it's egregiously wrong in some respect.

And I don't think you can say that about this, except that it misleads people into thinking.

On a theoretical basis, that's where I come out.

Now, from a practical political standpoint, thinking in terms of how to get your position on busing across crystal clear, it's an available device, and we do need to weigh it.

And I would encourage you to wait.

until later on in the week, if you don't mind.

Because I don't feel comfortable about pressuring this thing in an hour's time.

Well, listen, what the hell do we have against something like this?

I'm just saying, I'm studying that.

I'm trying to get a story about it.

I said the higher education provisions are great.

The busing provisions are inadequate.

The busing, etc., etc.

You prepared me a very one-minute answer to that.

The busing provisions are inadequate.

And I'm having to study further to see whether... All right, we'll get another bounce on it.

And then we can...

So I'll have to get to that first one.

Okay.

I'm very distressed, incidentally, on the attorney general's opinion.

In the Detroit case, that hasn't been published.

Oh, no.

Well, let me suggest in the end, let me just, and we'll never put it out, but let's take some liberties with it.

in his opinion, that it does not apply.

You know what I mean?

Because, maybe, for one thing.

Without going into any detail.

Without the opinion.

Or I close the damn thing and leak out.

No, I don't think so.

I don't think so.

We've got that much control over that.

I've got what I think is virtually the only copy of it except for the electronic copy.

And I don't want to leak out.

Because this thing is so difficult.

Now, the other thing I was going to say is that

I might as well get another man.

What is the situation on Detroit?

I read all this stuff by Morgan.

And Morgan finally comes down with the position that their data free does not apply to Detroit.

But he's concerned apparently that then we will get all the hail rays from Nashville.

He says, that solves all my problems.

The president will veto this thing.

Because then I'm not caught in the dilemma between saying it doesn't apply to Detroit and wanting to intervene for the folks in Nashville.

Unless the bill is gone.

Let me ask you this.

You mean, if you would apply, you would go into Nashville?

We'll use anything we can get to get in on the side of the folks in Nashville.

Yeah.

What about getting in on the side of the folks in Detroit?

Well, same thing.

Except if we say it doesn't apply in Detroit, then we've stopped ourselves.

And so Ed's been troubled by the fact that we're inkling that it doesn't apply in Detroit.

I'm going to try and couch this answer for you in such a way that you don't say flatly it doesn't apply in Detroit.

What they're going to say is, look at the problems that we're confronted with here.

I've got an attorney general's opinion, and he says it can fall either way.

It has all the same prices that we presently have because it's up to every judge to construe any way he wants hard.

I know it does look at the issue again.

I think it destroys the Michigan issue.

It weakens it.

Because you've got Congressman O'Hara and others up there.

who are going to say to the people of Michigan, we got these wonderful amendments for you, and now you don't have any problems.

And don't believe that president down there who's just trying to stir up trouble.

Well, that's right, he does, but then unbalanced politically, he says, unbalanced politically, he says,

Don't have it apply.

That's right.

Anybody with a government-free case.

Oh, yeah.

Sure.

The parents can get to stay.

But that wouldn't happen.

We would oppose it.

Well, or stay the hell out.

And if Ron's smart, he'll ask the government what our position is.

We don't think the statute applies because the parents aren't entitled to the relief.

How about this?

How about this one?

Can you argue a thing on the basis of going to court and say, well, if you're going to court, I like it.

Maybe perhaps that was not one of those long lines that I got to try.

Congress.

We're trying to pull the act to Congress.

You notice, though, Ed's caveat in there about getting the goddamn Justice Department to do anything they want to.

In two, three places, the only way to set up a civil rights division would load that with it.

He's got a problem with getting them to do things the way we want them done for our purposes.

And so there's always that caveat.

He is a real sore first grad.

Terrible load.

First grad fighting these things.

You know, someday, his morale is way down.

He hasn't been feeling well.

I don't know on his story, but, you know, he's got a lot of pain.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

He's had a bad time.

Yeah.

But if you get a minute some day, just give him a phone call and tell him he's doing a good job.

That would be more than all or anything else that he can contract.

Well, he has done a horrible job, and we've just got to be willing.

He's one of those guys who's just a real operative.

Yeah, probably the best lawyer of a politician in the government stands fast.

To that point, I've been trying to think of how to approach it politically.

And I really think when the time comes, he's the guy to go out with Vice President.

Because he's got good instincts.

And I think he has a lot of credibility with Vice President.

So you sign this, the bill at the moment, you sign it.

I can see a lot of advantages.

I know, but if you veto it also, there's a lot of people in the truck that would veto it.

That would help.

Yeah, yeah.

So, I just read your memorandum on that 803, and I just think it's an excellent job.

You put it right in front of the practical.

You raise all these damn questions that nobody ought to be thinking about.

Why can't you get better control of the Civil Rights Commission?

Shouldn't that be a high priority thing?

How many lawyers are in there?

They're all presidential parties.

A lot of them are the other parties.

So whether it be the transfer of talent for the mountain, lands department or something like that, the whole bunch has got to go.

The whole land bunch.

And this thing is really a tough one.

I think we're going to have a delay as we get some more time to see where the judge is going to fall on this.

And I thought the delay was frightening.

And I thought it was not interesting.

But here we go.

And I thought it was interesting.

Yeah.

Go ahead.

We'll get her looking.

Fine.

Do some more thinking about it.

Okay, bye.

Who were Dan Paul and Pete Thomas?

He should have gone to a better dentist, shouldn't he?

Well, he had some kind of a congenital situation.

Well, they're probably better off.

They have good dentures.

Yeah, I don't remember, but Steve was very crooked, and something about the alignment was bad, and so they worked on each other, and we did the whole thing, and so...

He was actually out about a week or ten days without a vote.

Right, without a vote.

Yeah.

But coming back to this, John, one other thing you can consider is to sign the bill and then rank and try when they don't treat that.

That will conquer the issue to an extent.

But I rather think that it's the statesman line that can do it.

Say we think busing is such a horrible thing.

We'll try this piece of legislation we think is inadequate and urge the Congress

to do this and that, and then some lawyer, they get the goddamn, some lawyer over there, they're gonna have clients use themselves to take charge of it, but the poorest damn advocate that he can on this thing, you know what I mean, having in mind the fact that we are trying to win the case.

Now, incidentally, incidentally, in that kind of connection, though, this would be a case where he could try again to get action before the school year begins.

That's up to Roth.

See, he hasn't entered a final order in this thing.

And what he looks to me like what he's doing...

He's waiting for us.

He's waiting until he gets right on top of the school year.

And then he's going to drop his final order.

All right.

If that's what he's going to do officially, then what could we do?

The moratorium is what we need.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

But what could we do in the event that we don't get the moratorium?

If we don't get the moratorium, and if this bill is on the books, if you sign this bill...

Then the only thing you can do is have the people or our guy file an appeal straight away.

And then this will act to stay technically, except that the civil rights groups will then argue that 803 doesn't apply to Detroit.

They'll come in on our side of the argument, so to speak.

And there will have to be litigation on that issue, the constitutionality and the effectiveness of this statute.

And that'll take a hell of a long time.

And in the meantime, the prairie school thing will just be in an uproar.

I don't know where they are.

They won't be boiling, maybe.

Rob may take the view that 803 doesn't apply, and he'll start citing people for contempt.

And then you'll have to go to the Court of Appeals for a stay and try and escalate it to another person, right?

Yeah.

And there'll be a hell of a fight up there all fall.

I quote John No.

22, and I'll be sure to talk to Bobby Griffin about it, regarding his political judgment.

He voted for the philosophy.

He... Yeah, it was 83 to nothing in the Senate, I think, something like that.

I'd like to talk to Elliot also.

about the tactics of this thing, telling how hard you are down on the busing thing.

That's right.

And that you're content with the education thing.

You reject Weinberger's arguments on the education thing.

Right, I agree.

I take care of it.

That you're seriously considering vetoing this on the busing thing.

The busing busing thing, in order to get him more out of the busing party.

That's right.

That's it.

And let's talk about it.

Elliot's got to know.

I suppose he's an editor.

No, he's pretty good on this busing business.

You remember, he was in Camp David as a politician.

That's right.

And he figures he's one of the authors of this whole thing.

Now, there's another thing happening.

You can't get the moratorium on it, but your other bill is beginning to move.

Kuczynski finds it to be to his advantage in Illinois, where he's running against Percy.

No, but he's on our side of the bus again.

And so he's beginning to move your Equal Opportunities Act in his subcommittee.

he could very well force it to a vote in that committee.

Now, if that happens, we might get an up or down vote in the House on your basic bill.

As far as the governance and the resolution issue, the issue will be rather clear if you can make it because he has come about out against any interference with the courts.

Right, right.

I'd like to have it clear.

I'm afraid, though, of vetoing higher education.

I said, don't worry about the higher education people doing that.

Put aside all the pictures you made.

So it really looks like, I think, if you listen, vetoing the busing provision might give our opponents an opportunity to say, rather than veto it, that might help.

Do you agree with that?

Yes.

Is that really the problem?

Something's better than nothing.

Yeah.

It might have helped in his moderate position.

That's right.

He just discovered that he wouldn't... Yeah.

And it might have helped.

See, that's my argument, that it isn't all that bad that you can justify the detail.

It is good, but it's not all that bad.

Now, therefore, what you would say...

Lies.

say that it doesn't apply.

Well, no.

Maybe we've got a legal one that it might apply.

Or you could say, nobody knows.

Nobody knows whether it will apply.

We will take this as a test case, despite the attorney general's establishment on it.

We will take it as a test case.

Is that what you're saying?

I'd say this, that the vice in this is the same as the vice in the present situation, that nobody knows, and that it's up to a judge, and it's up to different judges in different places.

That's right.

And therefore, we don't have uniformity.

The general has told me that he can't give me a firm opinion.

That's right.

And therefore, what we need is a clear-cut, simple, uniform, more or less, urge to conquer independence.

I think that's a much safer ground than to say it does or it doesn't belong.

Well, you can see what I'm talking about.

Yeah, I'll give an answer.

I'll give you that.

Well, let me talk to Griffin and Richardson and some other people.

We can get around on this a little bit.

I've got a couple of other answers, and then I've got just about everything.

I'm going to put out a presidential statement acknowledging Russ Train's report on the Stockholm Environmental Conference is innocuous and everybody's signed off on it.

It doesn't make much difference.

It might be turned down because a lot of them don't want it.

Yeah, yeah.

A lot of it was watered down and the Chinese didn't like it.

We didn't like it.

Everybody had his swing on it.

Yeah.

Everybody's for the environment.

The U.S. has got the exact proof of evidence that we want.

That's right.

Revenue sharing.

There will be action this week in the House.

There are.

The congressional lawyers would very much like to have you write a letter to Albert urging favorable action on this.

I held off on this.

No, no, no.

I'm not going to do it.

I've stated my position.

I'm not going to do it.

Just said if anything.

a patently political act for me to write to him.

Albert knows my position.

I've told him a dozen times.

He'll write another letter.

He knows there's no shift in position.

No problem.

I think you're, you see, let's not give it any more than this.

I'm not afraid of it.

It's got to be.

That will happen.

It will pass the House.

It was that.

I hope to get a few minutes of long set and then talk to him about it.

And let me indicate to him that we've got real money problems, particularly with welfare reform.

And revenue sharing will just complicate the hell out of our lives.

And I don't think that you can talk to him about it.

I think so.

Because he's interested in working a slot here.

And I think I can do it in the context of bargaining on welfare reform.

I'm not sure.

I won't do it unless I figure it out.

I'll say, well, we've got this problem.

We want both.

On the welfare level, as far as I know, I just keep everybody loose.

Yeah, I understand that.

I think it's a great landmark.

Well, the OEO was a great landmark in the Johnson administration, right?

What a hell of a legacy, isn't it?

So where do we want to lead?

eight, six, seven, maybe more people would join.

That's what I'm concerned about here.

I must say, I realize that I'm changing my own view with regard to the philosophy of the bill.

We've gone down the... That's between you and me.

Nobody else needs to know that.

I hope not.

I would agree with what you're saying.

But don't you have some doubt about that?

Yeah, I don't think we can get through the Congress anything that would be philosophically acceptable.

Yeah, do you mean because of its cost?

Because it would be too expensive or because it would be too liberal.

Too liberal, right.

So our best posture is to keep it screwed up, keep it deadlocked, make sure nothing comes up.

And that's, you can tell that when you want to try to put it on the post.

I would tell him first of all, that's political advice.

Stay away from that.

I am very much persuaded by his analysis of politics, but I think it's better to do now, with the way the government's hung up on this thing.

Stay where we are and make them come in our direction.

See, the trouble with the Elliott thing is that we make a common cause with our enemies and not our friends.

Correct.

And that bothers me a bit.

So you've made a common cause with the River College of the West, those people have a pretty great time.

Elliott's got a fine view of that.

At least in front of me.

He says, look, what we'll be doing here is bringing the whole Democratic platform and the government to the president's

closer to the president's position.

And everyone will then see the president's great leadership in this.

And I say, Elliot, how in the world will anyone understand the president's leadership in this?

It would be so fuzzy.

And he said, no.

He said, I think that we can point out the president's been like a rock on this.

And he's provided all the leadership.

And the government's way over there.

And now he's over here.

And everyone will see him over here.

He'll stay right where we are.

Don't move the anchor.

That's the point.

Don't move that anchor.

I may be wrong on that, but I see what I'm not.

This is Weinberger's view, and Weinberger's a very good political analyst, too.

He's absolutely right on this point.

And it's like, that's why Elliot was negotiating with the Russians and Chinese.

We never get any place by moving first.

Just stick, just stick, just stick, and then move it for us.

for us, and then finally we know what we're going to do.

And then we make our deal.

The moment you move, you're never compromised.

That's why the business man, the intellectuals, the rest are lousy.

They never move.

They never move, except to the position they know the business guy is going to accept.

We're business clowns.

Now, he moves to what he's done, except that this is reasonable, and all of a sudden says, well, now I've already come in, and the labor guy can leave, and he says, well, you already offered that.

Why the hell should I give back?

You've got it on you.

And that's why every business labor then ends up with business you're losing.

The thing we've got to get across, and you'll get a chance to say this in person, is that H.R.

1 is a compromise.

We've already compromised.

And we started out over here.

And in the House of Representatives, we came to H.R.

1, and we gave 15 points away.

That's in your answer.

And that's an important point, but we're not getting it across.

There's a lot of interest running in this, because H.E.W.

leaked all over hell that Nellie was in and pitched you for a compromise to the river compensation.

You see, that's the difficulty here.

The great thing about all of this is this compulsion, and I understand that, and it's true, and I guess there was a plan to be done, but it's the compulsion of every captain officer to go back and retrieve this costume.

I wanted to see that first, but we think they have nothing else to do.

They sit around and smoke anything.

But the reason, for example, that we have had such a hell of a time, and actually since earlier, is that we just put Chris, Roger, and Laird going back and bringing them down.

Sometimes we just put Tom in.

Sometimes I would tell Roger, sir, he would keep it if I told him.

But I had to talk directly or otherwise get rid of it.

And it did.

Now, the election, for example, you know,

And what did he say after I got there?

But I didn't show this hell if I did.

Some of it would get out, and any remarks like my appraisals of the Constitution would be for God and Christ.

And that would be very bad.

Would you agree?

Yeah.

What the hell is the answer?

How the hell are we happy?

How can we get the morale of these people up?

Well, there are other ways.

There are other ways.

Well, I guess it can't be.

What really ought to happen is that I ought to come back angry.

But you can't sacrifice the main chance.

No.

Just for their morale.

No.

No, you're right.

You're right.

And for their participation in the rush.

It is a problem.

And it's a problem for the cabinet officers.

So we've got to find little things.

You know, John, a problem is the assistant secretaries and all the buddies.

They already have all the people in the field.

They want to matter.

They want to take things down.

And they don't hear anything.

You know, they're like, what is this?

Well, anyway, this takes the pressure off of you, right?

Or I think higher education would go up.

I would agree with you, sir.

The only other purpose would be to break the press conference, sir.

That's fine as you say it.

That's no problem.

If they want to make it, if they want to ask a conclusion, that's fine.

Why don't we have a press conference?

That's fine.

Thank you very much.

I think that's the point.

But the way you're probably going to get this through eight or ten substantive questions and then some smartass will say, Mr. President, do you think these have been done?

Questions.

Oh, yeah.

And...

I don't question the right of the press to carry the right of my answers, but on the other hand, I'm not going to try to carry the right to a question.

Half of them are done, done.

Repatiting them, and just, not for the purpose of soliciting information, you know, showboating, et cetera, et cetera.

Well, look for Christ Higston.

You don't have to say what you've said.

Read the criticisms of the total vice president, which is by some of the thoughtful comments that the president has come up with all year.

I had a fair amount of mail from the television and newspaper.

I mean, what do they say?

I'll prove you good at saying they agree with it.

One very enterprising guy saying he agrees with it and he thought that what I said about one-on-ones being more productive was correct and if he's available, he'd like to have an interview.

Which do you think is the better one-on-one?

I don't say both.

I think one-on-one is infinitely better.

How about freedom?

Is that better than being in a press conference?

Yeah.

It depends on what your motives are.

I think in terms of showing up your virtuosity, your ability to handle complex subjects, because you have a press conference tomorrow, it's pop, pop, pop, pop, and you're standing up and you're, it just isn't conducive to your getting into an answer.

I think he liked the theater better, yeah.

Well, there's this.

I don't know about the, maybe which one holds the audience.

I suspect the Eastern thing holds the audience, and therefore is probably preferred from that standpoint.

You know, I think actually basically the intellectuals are the worst judges of what moves people.

I really think that's the point.

Debates, none of which I saw.

Don't talk to me.

Something's happening on the field poll, obviously.

There's loads, but not that many.

Have you ever talked to anyone that thought that the only one, the only one I've asked most of the time, I said, did you find anybody who thought that?

They don't know me.

I didn't scan them.

And he got his gun in his mouth.

He got into the issue that that average guy sitting out there chewing on his gutter.

Because I haven't heard anybody.

Well, you've heard a hell of a lot of people, but never an actor.

Yeah.

On Bravo.

Came over and poisoned him.

And yet, he was hurt.

Now, what the hell does that show you?

What does it tell you?

Well, maybe it tells you that.

Maybe it tells you the issues.

And it's more effective for people to realize it isn't just that smooth and that ability and so forth.

Of course, we have the other commentator who got the call for a crisis.

His whole so-called presidential period.

He will never make any speeches except in a monotone.

I mean, I will.

But I mean, never, never, never be involved.

Never answer, never charge.

There you go, absolutely.

I'll be back to you later.

Don't worry about that.

Well, I'm going to pray.

Don't ever get concerned about praying.

Thank you so much, Bill.

I don't know about this, but there will be an appointment for you early now along the lines that you suggested.

And we'll be making some waves, and we'll be making some problems for you because of the waves.

Hell yeah, that's true.

You've got to, man.

You've got to plug them.

I think it's time to resurrect the upper book.

Yeah, I'll do that.

I think you ought to be resurrected.

I think you owe it to you.

Yeah, yeah.

The idea, Bill, is to make what you need at the moment because I'm ready for that.

Right now, Jesus.

They said, we fear the media.

We fear the media.

Why?

Because of what the media did for Humphrey.

To whiff a 10-to-1 Heffron vote analysis.

We fear the media.

I could just know that piece because that's out of their mind.

I'd like to know that piece even better, but I just haven't heard it yet.

But let us say, we fear the media.

And then you can use Spurling to do it again.

Spurling, Joy, the first to go back to the 1968 campaign and say, the press

May it hurt you.

Then you come back.

Forget the three years of the president.

People say, well, Keogh and others have shown that this is better than the other thing.

Now, you come to the situation, I can tell you the truth.

God is firm.

He says, the president is in love with the government.

They work for the country.

What is going to happen next?

People are greatly concerned about the media.

I'm not sure because I've never been around here, but that's a single standard train.

I don't think we're going to be able to do that.

They gave the sons a picture of the Pulitzer Prize.

Nobody came down.

Not a bad point, is it?

Very good.

We're getting the Pulitzer Prize.