Conversation 498-005

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Regret.

But it's true.

God damn it, you know, if we could have had Elliott as the secretary earlier, we could have avoided so much problems.

I think we could have worked out the school problem.

I think we could have worked out the health problem.

We were just talking, Elliott is just all the strong administrator now.

He's basically more liberal than any of you.

Really is.

I mean, when I say liberal, liberal means in a sense.

But on the other hand, you know, he's got his head screwed up.

He's got his head screwed up.

He's got school district problems right now, which he's working his way through.

He's taking his signal.

He knows what the direction is.

He's working it along with Morgan and Mitchell.

And the three of them are going to want to come back and talk with you and make sure that they're on track.

But that's the point.

They run along, and if they get to a spot they're not sure, they come in.

And so we don't get surprised.

He's a real player to work with.

He is.

This fellow, let him know that I have him.

He doesn't need it.

He's one of the few that never asked to come in.

He's got something to do.

He never asked for his family to be padded.

He never asked to take a boat.

He never asked to go to camp.

They know that crap.

I'm just wondering, maybe you don't know.

Sometimes one of them just calls in and just... Don't tell them that.

Just say, you know, how are things going over there?

And I've got research that they're not being called in, but let's talk to them.

Well, the end point is you don't really need to, in a way, due to the fact that Elliott does come.

He came in today.

He came in yesterday for a few months on that.

Where else would he come?

Kind of just come in and sit and talk with you alone, not on any arm.

Like you do with Mitch O'Connor.

What about him?

He's one of the big three, not a big team.

You can counsel with him, though, and I think you'll find that he's very sound on things outside his orbit.

Oh, fine.

That's fine.

That's it.

And he reads with us on budget things, so there are no surprises.

for the purpose of sneaking around and going around the staff and all that cheap little stuff.

Oh, see, that's the point.

He worked for the purpose of trying to get you to let his wife go to Camp David.

Oh, boy.

I had a real breakthrough today.

I got both these handwritten commitments to sink the airbag on June 14th.

Good.

That's what we had.

I was trying to call some to explain it that way.

Oh, yeah, but it won't be necessary to exploit it because we've already pre-positioned them.

See, we have a poor guy in.

It's very necessary to exploit that.

Oh, I see.

All right.

I call him.

All right.

I'm a little... Chuckie's...

Just let him know that, and it'll come back, and it'll come back, and it'll come back.

He's got a little bit on the board, and just tell the board, and the board will know.

Now, look, the president was glad that he came in, that he thought the air event was a silly damn thing, but that your conversation convinced him, and we've done it.

And that shows you this guy's got the guts, and he's taking on the whole, the whole, what's that, silly, neighbor crowd.

This thing, we're helping them with some other things.

Well, they know that.

There's a whole group.

That's the point.

That's why this is, in fact, that's one evidence of good faith.

Now, come on, move in on it.

But also, somebody ought to move on GM.

I wouldn't bother with Chrysler.

That's all the guys do.

The guys do.

Sounds for individual money there.

Some of them are rich.

Well, they're all making $500,000 a year.

Then they pay it all back in taxes.

For Roach, it ought to be.

Jim Roach ought to be our friend, but I think somebody ought to go in and talk to him.

Roach is.

Huh?

Roach is our friend.

Yes, he is.

But I think somebody ought to go over and talk to Roach.

Now, we had Ford in Winnipeg when they get Roach in.

Very good.

You know, just think about it.

That was our plan.

We were going to get him, but we didn't want to do it all at once.

We're bringing him right now.

You know, the other thing that Roach is interested in is... Now, Roach, you see, he's a friendly.

He's a rich guy.

You know what I mean?

Roach is strong.

He's a business leader.

He's one of the big ones.

I want Roach to know that I can't call Roach in and say, what?

Not Cole with him.

There's a reason.

Cole is not as friendly to us, number one.

But also, you could approach Roach on the Pete Peterson angle because this is his fighting passion.

See if Roach can come down.

Tomorrow.

I'd like to get it done right now, because I'm going to be gone Monday, and then we'll have your lead next to each other.

He's here somewhere.

He's our computer.

All right.

Is he coming to that thing?

You're going to see him today.

He's the head of the goddamn citizens committee.

You're meeting with the reorganization anyway at 1215.

Why don't you bring him in afterwards?

All right.

I knew this.

Why don't you find out whether or not they're having lunch or something together, whether he's got the time.

What do you know?

I know I do.

Are they having lunch?

They're not lunching here, I know, because we have a business group today.

But before Pete Peterson came, Roach came in to talk to George's name.

He was very concerned about America's competitive position abroad, and he's worried about Spain now.

You can draw him out on this, and it might not be a bad idea to have Pete Peterson sit in with you.

Because, or at least I'm part of it.

Because he has some very strong ideas.

He made a very fine speech recently.

Send me a copy of it.

in which he took your line about people trying to tear down the system in the name of consumerism and environmentalism.

And it was a very thoughtful, constructive speech about the problems of industry today.

Are they going to find out whether he is free to be reactivist if he is not?

Well, you can see him before.

No, I've got a daily one.

Oh, that's right.

So I can see you at 2.30 or I can see you at 3 o'clock.

But I think it's very important for me to have him in my cell.

That would be very good.

I said... Because he will then talk to, in his admission, the other night.

No, no.

GMS power over the country.

I talked to him at a dinner party the other night about the airbag.

Yeah.

Told him Ford had bid in, that we were very concerned about it, and drew him out.

And he had a lot to say about it, and he had a lot to say about the management of the safety bureau over there at DOT, which was along the same line that Ford had discussed.

I said you were aware of it.

I just spoke to Bob about one thing, John, and I want to be sure to emphasize also.

They...

Margaret suggested to Katie, and with, I think, all the best of intentions, where I sit down with the gardener and the head of the CIO and the head of the leader of the voters and mobilize them for welfare reform.

Those people are never going to be in my office again.

Second point is, later, they didn't get the passage.

Because it came out the other way when Mr. Eisoff, when he said, is it the whole...

The total emphasis of our welfare reform support now should be work and not the fact that we're going to put morally and little legal bastards on welfare rolls at $2,400 a family.

You see?

Right.

Now, that is, that's got to be that way for two reasons.

One, that's why you get a trip, practically, you want to get a trip.

But second, more important,

politically the other is absolutely not knowing.

I just cannot be out there bootin' and hollering for, you gotta let people like Pat Moynihan and Len Darnold and others that believe in all that crap go out and talk about it.

But I don't believe in it to begin with, you know what I mean?

So I'm just doing it because I think maybe

I mean, let's go to the total emphasis of everybody.

The mark of all the speakers must be not that we're, I mean, getting rid of the snippers and all the rest.

That's fine.

We're talking to the legal audience.

But otherwise, the emphasis should be this is a much better way.

than we had last year.

It strengthened because of the administrative initiative.

It had so many requirements.

Well, Meadows is hitting that, you know.

He's on the side of these work requirements here.

And I don't understand why we didn't build it.

We apparently didn't get it through.

We got to get this to Elliott, too.

We got to, well, let Elliott play the other side of the street.

But Zegler, at least, should play.

He's never asked about it.

He should handle the work requirements.

And let the goddamned press who disagree with me want us to all be on the other side.

There's two reasons why we're on the other side.

One, it's not popular.

Two, because they're for it.

Four, the other side.

And three, because they're against the work requirements.

But it's work.

Work.

Throw them all throws.

That's the whole deal.

One of the real keys to this is going to be Reagan's mentality.

If Reagan blasts this thing, it's not tough enough, not strong enough on the work requirement at all.

That's going to be very, very bad.

Now, I don't know quite how to wheel that.

We've got a number of problems with Reagan right now.

He's got a letter in view on CRM again.

Now it's squared up again.

And so we've got that.

Well, if we can work a swap, that's fine.

The question is, I'm trying to get Mitchell and the Vice President to advise me so that I can talk to you later today about this.

Well, how about having Mitchell and the Vice President talk to you right now?

See, that's it.

But the Vice President's got to be for this, too.

That's why I'm going to have to be beside this welfare reform.

He's got to support it.

All right.

But that's the swap.

CRLA should be, I mean, as far as I'm concerned, I'd like to know all of OEO anyway.

Well, if we're going to do it, then we can.

Very interesting.

You know, we're getting a lot of support for your bill to move legal services out of OEO.

Once we've done that, then there's nothing left in it.

We've very successfully moved all the furniture out of it.

Newspapers, bar associations, we're getting all kinds of support for it.

Where do you want to move it to, Justice?

Oh, we're going to move it out and form a corporation and let a board of directors worry about it.

Well, that's a bad thing, Senator.

Sure.

It won't work, but that's our idea.

Oh, of course not.

Of course not.

It's a bit of a strangle in its own juices, but at least we aren't going to have to take the heat.

And it just about moves all the furniture out of Ohio.

The idea of the government self-sabotaging students against the government is absolutely repugnant to me.

It's not going to kill them.

Well...

I think we're going to get either that bill or Mondale's bill through and get that legal services thing the hell out.

Well, the only difference is who appoints the board of directors.

He's got a Mickey Mouse formula where the Chief Justice appoints some and the President appoints some and the Congress appoints some, you know, slightly different.

So I didn't care about that.

One or the other.

Well, I said, we can give them that.

I know.

We could just get it out of there.

And I left Odeo.

And this is following the run of Odeo.

He was a damn good man.

We'll put him in another job.

He's a very loyal, true blue guy.

He must know.

I want him to know how to talk with Carlucci.

You tell him, I love him.

You're doing a hell of a job.

Don't worry about your agency.

The president has better plans for you.

Just as soon as you do.

So strangle those little bastards without getting caught up.

Just put it in those words.

OK.

I mean, it's a horrible organization.

You know, he's a career SSO.

I know.

And there should be some possibility in his career line there to do him some good.

We need somebody strong in the State Department.

We have that very much in mind, too.

But I want to tell you, we appreciate you doing a professional hard time.

And we've got other plans for it.

Well, if we could cut a deal with Reagan on welfare, that really could have been well worth it.

Do you want me to tell John Mitchell that I want you to cooperate with him on this?

No, I don't think you have to.

I've been talking to Pat Gray over there.

The deal is clear.

You've got to make the deal on CRLA and welfare reform.

It's just neutral, but give it a chance.

Don't blast it.

But let us then send it to CRLA.

Very well.

That's a good bargain.

Can we do that?

Can we get away with that?

Oh, I think... Well, no, we'll have to do the CRLA thing in a...

Orderly way.

Orderly way, and what we'll do is just let the thing come to the end of its six months, and then, rather than Reagan vetoing again, why, we just don't fund it so that we're not faced with a confrontation.

We'll fund something else instead.

I had a long talk with Peterson in regard to

ideas he has in terms of he's a good property here a good property in the sense that and better than i expected but the point is he's a hell of a smart person

I think we now are in a situation where the government's got to look at it.

Maybe we've got it in terms of where we are in terms of where we are in terms of where we are in terms of where we are.

Oh, he's pretty jazzy.

He's a speaker, you know.

He's pretty, uh, um... My son went to dinner at his house one night.

He has, at Stanford, he has students over, you know.

And he's very, uh, he's very good, uh,

with kids, young people.

And he's very, he's quite a swagger.

He's very stylish.

He's Burmese.

He travels the world.

And he's very broad in his...

The kind of people we need.

Well, he's being new for the Council of Economic Advisers.

That's right.

I'm excited.

Well, it doesn't make this...

to keep pumping some adrenaline into him so he knows he's not supposed to become just a great academic advisor.

Presents a good picture.

We get him on television and say, yeah.

God, he even loves Mexicans, which is good.

Put him out in Los Angeles.

Oh, really?

He does.

That's a damn good thing.

That's one of the first people I've ever found in Arizona or California that really feels the way about the Mexicans.

You see, I have a thing on the Negro man, which is very simply this.

I have greatest compassion for him, but I know they ain't going to make it for 500 years.

They aren't.

I mean, all this, Julie was talking, I asked her about the Black Studies program, and she said, you know, I mean, she's in the trouble of finding the study.

You've got outstanding .

You've got to find a .

Now, the Mexicans are a different kind of team.

They have a heritage.

But at the present time, they steal.

They're dishonest.

They do a lot of other things.

They do have some concept of family life, at least.

They don't live like a bunch of dogs, which the Negroes do live like.

The Mexican-American

is not as good as the Mexican.

And you go down into real Mexico, and they're clean, and they're honest, as he said, they're moral.

You know why you're Mexican?

It depends which Mexicans you get in Mexico.

Actually, generally, you can go into the slums, you can go into those...

There is a certain morality in Mexico.

There's a church.

I don't know what it is.

Family?

There is a belief.

There's the family.

They have their house of prostitution.

Oh, there's a rest...

But Mexico is a much more moral country.

Yeah, you get into Guadalajara or Monterey, Cuernavaca, those places, and you go into an area where, you know, a slum area.

And by golly, they come out with clean shirts on Sunday morning, and the kids are clean.

I'm sorry.

One of the good things in the church, the church is not as short, the church at least,

It hasn't shaped enough.

And frankly, you'll find a hell of a lot less marijuana use in Mexico than you'll find in the United States.

Well, the unions are a stronger force now than the church down there, actually.

The labor unions.

For what?

For conduct and social activity and all that kind of thing.

Well, anyway, this guy's got a higher policy.

I think he's a property.

I think he could be used.

Apparently, not a left-winger.

Not too far left.

I sure do.

Ideally, Peterson has brought a sort of a little vision to me.

You know, just think of this thing as this council here.

Now, everybody's against it.

Rogers doesn't like it.

Stans doesn't like it.

Connelly, I'm sure, doesn't like it.

They get the monetary affairs.

And I think you've got to keep the monetary affairs pretty much.

It's just too complicated.

Nobody can get into that anyway.

But there are plenty of other things to get into.

And, for that matter, the Council is one.

And, of course, Henry doesn't like it.

But can you imagine Henry coming up with any conceptual thinking about what is the United States going to be building seven, ten years from now?

You understand?

Well, it's a different game.

It's an absolutely different game.

And this follows a, this follows also a pretty dominant term when it comes to dealing with Japanese interests.

Much harder than either state or whatever Henry would be.

But coming back to it, forget all those things.

trying to make his brand in regard to, as he says, he wants to put the president in the position of making a major statement on our foreign economic policy and so forth.

He ought to go, where's the US going to be?

Of course, Maury Stanton's got some idea about businesses in 2000 or something like that.

That's all well and good, and that's just the Congress Department.

commercial, and it's all business-oriented, which is wrong.

I mean, it's wrong.

It's fine.

It's like making a speech at the MAM, which is fine.

But that's part of it.

But this fellow's thinking much broader terms.

He's thinking in terms of business and labor.

And I think, too, in the domestic field, John, we've all looked at what we've been doing, frankly, as a space.

Revenue sharing, government reorganization, welfare reform, health.

Education reform.

In fact, all of the environment really, well, the environment's a little different.

But these that I mentioned at this time, I really, how do you run the thing?

It really gets down to that.

It's how do you run it?

What changes in some of it is how do you run this great big thing?

None of them really get at the more fundamental, the much more fundamental thing, which really grabs people.

is what's in it?

What's in it for me?

What kind of a country is it going to be?

Now, I think all these things are important, how we run things.

What kind of welfare do we have?

What kind of government do we have?

Whether it be the cities and counties in which we survive, whether people have a right to have more to say about their governments, and how the president runs his campaign, whether we've got eight departments rather than 12, and so forth and so on.

But how do we run those things?

How do we run it?

cannot, will never, will never, never fly as far as being a political issue is concerned.

We get it through.

We'll run things better.

We'll do better.

And the country, years later, will thank us for it.

But right now, in terms of political issue, we have got to, we've got to say something.

That is, if you get down to it, the personalized and the cancer thing,

That is, in fact, the only applause I really got in the State of the Union when I mentioned the cancer.

They don't agree with the significant others.

Why?

They're otherwise against cancer.

Why?

They'll understand that, too.

Not in all parts of the country, but they'll understand it in a hell of a lot of places that come to us.

Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, California.

Third.

in broader terms, jobs.

That's why he saved 100 million jobs and spent family income, increased by $2,000 a year.

$3,000 a year, $10,000 a year.

$10,000 a year for every man in foreign America by the year, for every working man.

You get my point?

For the poor son of a bitch that is not on the working welfare, that isn't on the working floor.

What's that for him?

What's he gonna get?

See my point?

That's the kind of way that we gotta put this thing out.

A house, well, not two cars in every garage, but two bathrooms in every house.

Now, all of us have got six, or four, maybe three, or one and a half.

You know, the 70% of the American people have got one bathroom?

That's about right.

What?

Goddamn lucky you didn't have one of that.

Not that that isn't enough.

That's all we ever had growing up.

But what I can say is, that's putting us off.

But it's really, these are all things that can happen.

Can't happen until you've had two bathrooms or, I mean, just throw things on the top of my head.

But I really feel that where we've messed up at this point, it's not too late because

Because if you hit it earlier, then nothing happens.

And everybody else said, all right, well, we've got it now.

But as we approach the election year, we ought to start then, start talking in terms of great goals, goals that everybody knows cannot be achieved.

But that we have set our, that we debated on.

Now, we made an effort on that in the State of the Union.

And we called it the American Revolution.

I have no regrets about doing that.

Politically, it's a dud.

It's a dud because it is about how do you run the government.

And people don't give a goddamn about how you run the government.

They want it to run better.

They want it to cost less.

The only thing politically that was good in the State of the Union in those terms was possibly if people could think maybe government might cost them a little less.

And of course, we are addressing ourselves with that.

So having now voters like George's office of OVM, he got wonderful news stories.

He was on the cover of the Times and all the rest of them.

What's the average guy doing?

Nothing.

Then give a shit.

The second half is that we now have got to think of that guy out there.

What's he thinking about?

Well, he really comes down to one of the very simple things, health.

That's why the whole thing is important, so that he can pay his doctors.

in education, except not just something for more money, but the stinking goddamn schools.

If you get a problem like narcotics, we're hitting something that has real gutsy appeal.

Organized crime has no appeal.

Street crime has some.

So I think it's an issue.

The positive ones really have to do with the, really have much to offer.

I don't know what the country's going to be like and what we want it to be like.

As a matter of fact, that's one of the reasons I've listened to you.

That's one of the reasons why I've come out hard and absolutely uncompromising.

I'm against marijuana.

I'm curious.

I am against it.

Why else should I say it?

I saw Joe Bob the other day.

I was trying to do a baseball game and then the game went off and CBS came on with a movie.

One, they made themselves in a hobby that got them to dance, and I heard that two magnificent, handsome guys, and a stupid old fellow, and a nice girl, and these, they were glorified homosexuality.

I mean, the guys were committed to their homosexuals and so forth, and this other girl got some when she was, and I don't know, this guy's blind.

That's about, and I think, is that what people listen to?

Got a panel, sir?

Hell no, it's a movie.

No, that's a regular show.

It's on every week.

And usually it's just in the guy's home.

And it's usually just that guy who's a hard hat.

That's right.

He's a hard hat.

And he always looks like a slob.

Looks like Jackie Gleason.

And then he has this hippie son-in-law.

And usually, the general trend of it is to downgrade him and upgrade him.

Upgrade him every time.

Take the square hard hat out and be back.

But apparently a couple weeks ago they had an episode where the guy...

The son-in-law wrote a letter to you.

He said, I'm writing President Nixon, and I'm going to raise hell about something or other.

And the guy said, you will not write that letter from my home.

No letter like that will be sent from here.

And then he said, I'm going to write President Nixon.

He went upstairs and took, apparently,

took off all these sloppy clothes he wears all the time, got himself all dressed up, all cleaned up, shaved, and felt his hair and everything, and came back out, cleared his old desk, got his paper out, and got ready to write his letter to President Nixon.

Which he did, and apparently it was a good episode, but most of them go this other way.

What's it called?

I've never seen it.

Arch is the guy's name.

But you can't imagine, for example, the Arch is sitting here in his sloppy clothes and here's his hippie son-in-law who's married to a screwball looking daughter.

And you know, the Arch is sitting there.

And they said, well, Freddy or somebody is coming home.

John is coming home.

Oh, you know, you can't let him.

And Hart said, you can't let him come in here.

I mean, he's queer.

I said, well, he's queer.

He's a flowery man.

And the son-in-law said, no, he really isn't.

I think the son-in-law obviously wasn't prepared to go both ways with my daughter's arrest.

So the guy comes in the door.

But he comes in.

He's obviously queer.

He wears an ascot and so forth.

And he used language.

But he's not offensive or so.

And very cleverly, he comes in and uses the nice language and shows some pictures of his trip and all the rest.

And Arch goes down.

So then Arch goes down to the local bar.

And he's sitting around the bar.

And his best friend, Arch's best friend, turns out to be a guy who, for two years, had played professional football as a linebacker.

who has a photo store down the way, and this guy's name is Freddy or something like that.

God, he's handsome, virile, and strong, and this and that.

They're talking about this, and there's this fairy that comes out of the bar, and the guy who's at the photo shop sees the fairy, and, oh, all right, and they shake hands, and so forth.

The bartender, Peter, immediately said, let me just, let me just, please, I just told you, I don't mind trading.

I didn't come back here with my vacuum to see what this is all about.

He said, look, you talk about trading, I don't mind trading.

He goes back to the bar, he talks to him, he says, gee Fred, you know, we've been friends for many years, so this deal where you grasp him and you push forward.

And he said to you, he said, Jim, I have a crazy son-in-law, you know, he said, you know, we've got this bag that comes in the house, but he said, you know, you know what he said?

He said, he's a barrel guy.

He says, go ahead, say hi.

She smiled.

I smiled and said, he thinks I'm that way, too.

And I said, well, gee, that's not a car scene.

And I took a look.

He said, it's true, Archie.

It's true.

How long have you known me?

He said, 12 years.

You ever seen me with her?

He said, but you're a bachelor.

He said, well, I know why you don't see her.

He said, no, it's true.

I couldn't listen.

Well, that's real family entertainment, isn't it?

That was for the band.

I do not mind the homosexuality.

I understand.

Good God, we've got people we know.

Alec Drury is a homosexual.

So is Joe Alsop.

But some of our best friends are.

And some of our worst enemies aren't.

Kraft, of course, is a hopeless fag.

But nevertheless...

The point that I make is that, God damn it, I do not think that you glorify on public television homosexuality.

The reason you don't glorify it, John, any more than you glorify horrors.

Now, we all know people go to farmers.

We all know that people do that.

We all have weaknesses and so forth and so on.

But goddamn it, what do you think that does to kids?

What do you think it does to 11- and 12-year-old boys when they see that?

Why is it that we scout them?

Why is it that the boys of us, when we were there, we constantly had to clean up the spats and keep the goddamn fangs out of them?

Because, not because of them, they go out and do anything they damn please.

You know, there's only tendency among them all.

Well, I tell you, it outraged me.

Not for inhorrorism.

Most people outrage for moralism, but it outrages me because I don't want to see this country go that way.

Do you know what happened to the Greeks?

Homosexuality destroyed them.

I'm sure Aristotle was a homo.

We all know that.

He never had the influence that television had.

You know what happened to the Romans?

The last six Roman emperors, in fact, the last six, Nero had a public wedding with a boy, and they stopped.

You know that?

You know what happened to the post?

All right, the Poles were laying the nuns.

That's been going on for years, centuries.

But when the Poles, when the Catholics went to hell, I don't know, three or four centuries ago, it was homosexual and finally had to be cleaned out.

Now, that's what's happened to Britain.

It happened earlier to France.

Let's look at the strong society, the Russians.

God damn it, they loot them up.

They don't let them around at all.

You know what I mean?

I don't know what to do with them.

Now, we are allotting this in this country.

We'll destroy the country.

Dope.

Do you think the Russians allow dope?

Hell no.

Not if they can allow it.

Not if they can get a catch of it.

They send them up.

You see, homosexuality, dope, immorality generally, these are the enemies of strong societies.

That's why the communists and the left-wingers are pushing each other.

They're trying to destroy us.

I don't know.

We can talk over it.

I have a point of disagree with this, an initial disagree with this.

Goddamn, we have got to stand up to these people.

Fatal liberality.

It's fatal.

It's fatal liberality.

But it's used on television.

It has such leverage associated with it.

The kids believe everything.

Everything.

When I think it's all good, make it respectable.

Because there's a big program for that now, that we should be, that homosexuality should be respectable because it's, you know, it's just a state of the art.

It's what certain people are, and we should respect them and all that.

And they're letting in, like, these gay liberation people, the gay, gay, gay, when I was out at SC, this business group, Justin Dart,

And two or three others on the trustees were telling me that that's the big issue at SC now, is whether they have to recognize this homosexual group as a campus organization.

Board of Trustees have just said flatly no.

No.

And so— John, let us look at an order here.

You understand.

Yeah.

You know what's happening in San Francisco.

San Francisco is gone.

You're clear over this.

I don't know.

But it isn't just down in the ragged part of town now.

But the upper class in San Francisco is that way.

The Bolivian Grove that I attend.

on time to time.

The Easterners and the others that come there.

But it is the most faggot goddamn thing you'll ever imagine.

The San Francisco crowd that goes in there.

It's just terrible.

I mean, I could always shake hands with everybody from San Francisco.

Really?

Well, it's a different set of values.

that has been induced into that.

And it also has very important places, parts of Southern California, Hollywood, Pasadena.

You remember Pasadena had this thing about many years ago, you know, where all the boys were out in the swimming pool, and they had to fire down the faculty of the high school passing the high school, before you were born.

It was a terrible, terrible thing.

And the whole decorator and sportswear manufacturer said, this ought to cost the energy of the crowd.

Let me say, I can understand that.

The guy probably has put it on his wedding, I'm sure it's a bag.

Decorators, they gotta do something.

The rest, goddammit, we don't have to work on it.

Isn't that what it gets down to?

You know one of the reasons that fashions have made women look so terrible is because the goddamn designers hate women.

Now that's the truth.

You watch.

Now, they're finally getting around now.

You know, some of those, you know, they had to plant just the thing, those horrible-looking styles they were on.

That was really the designers taking it out on the web.

I'm sure of that.

And finally, a little bit by, now they're finally getting some more sexy things coming on again.

Hot pants.

Jesus Christ, they're very sexy.

I don't get much of that.

Well, getting back to my point, I'd love to have everybody around here thinking,

From now on, politically.

And by politically, I mean, let's run the thing well, but don't waste much time trying to run it well.

We'll run it better with our left hand than the others ever run theirs, because we're honest, and we're smart, and frankly, we've got better people.

But don't worry about processes and the rest.

I'll just find out new things.

But where we are really weak is in the area where everybody says we've got something to do.

We've got about, we're supposed to have a lot of PR people around here, but I mean, I think before I was, I didn't have anybody here

Except Haggerty, and Ariel, we've got Moore, and Sapphire, and it's supposed to be P.R., I guess Skelly is.

It really finally comes to the point that P.R.

people apparently do not come up with ideas that our speechwriters don't.

which raises the idea that something really has got to come, John, from the people that were immersed in the problem.

I've been thinking back, for example, of the speeches that I write myself.

I mean, I can remember some of the ones that I wrote when I was young.

So I see the children's time.

So I'm proud of that.

But nevertheless,

I think of how it happens.

The man who is actually working on the program is the one from whom the idea that actually one had to come.

Because he'll immerse himself, and he may not be able to find the word or the phrase and so forth, but unless he's working on it, because you take a man on the outside, sat on it, practiced,

all these other people uh more uh they could come up with an anecdote or suggestion of this and that the man is working on the program has he's got to he just got to think more about something say well now here's a great program and say now you guys go out and package it don't work that way you've got it the guys you've got to bring what you got to do is to bring those pr types in with the working group and then remember that that

More important than the program is how they always sell it, how they hold the package from now on.

And by gosh on that, it's sweat.

It's just, it's horrible work.

It's time to sit down and think up a good idea.

But it isn't gonna come from the outsider.

It's gonna come from the people inside.

That's my guess.

I assume we're talking here in the same frame of reference that we've been working in,

Next year's State of the Union is going to be the platform for the campaign.

Next year's budget is going to be the platform.

I think the budget should be, but the State of the Union should be a very brief, high goals for America.

This kind of thing that you've been talking about.

I'm not going to put in, we're going to do this for the farmers, we're going to do this for the labor, we're going to do this for the Indians, we're going to do this for the blacks, and all that bullshit.

But then...

I'm sure of that.

Then...

we've got this period between january and easter when we're going to be moving some initiatives not much okay i don't see any issues i don't think let me put it this way the kind of congress we've got i put up with the kind of congress we've got we're probably going to have enough left over yeah and the only initiative that i think that i really think has any possibilities from the standpoint of gut reactions attempts to

Well, and that's one that I'd like to, as soon as I've had a chance to get off with these people for a couple of days, I'd like to come back to you and sit down with Mitchell and Conley and two or three others and talk through what the implications of this are politically.

Yes, right.

Well, we'll be taxing you on that, Don.

The whole question of tax initiatives and if so, what kind and where we put the emphasis and what potential good things there are and what potential bad things there are, because it cuts both ways.

And we're about to the point now where we're going to have to start putting together some stuff so that in June you can pick what you want and we can get some guys working on it.

But I would hope that between now and the first of the year,

that we can move some stuff like the water thing and some targets of opportunity of that kind, but that basically we just press on the stuff we've got, because although you're right, the political sex appeal and revenue sharing is not apparent.

Nevertheless, that's a terrible engine of war.

politically, and we're tearing up the Democratic Party pretty good on some of that.

You've got Agnew going around the country saying constructive things and getting Democratic legislators to stand up and applaud him, and that's a phenomenon all by itself.

So there's some things happening that are pretty good.

You're getting people like this group you're going to see in here today on reorganization, Califano and guys like that coming around supporting you.

Which tears him up.

He's coming away from a Democratic policy meeting to come here to be a part of your bipartisan committee to support your idea.

Now that's pretty good stuff.

It isn't going to raise the housewife in Duluth off her chair, but it's doing some things that we need to do.

And that's all right.

As I see it, and I want to think about this some more and drop you a note on it after I get it thought through, it seems to me that as president running this time, you have a kind of a dilemma because you are running in a highly charged political context, but you probably can't afford to look too political.

Exactly right.

And so we've got to find the issue vehicles that will permit you to do that, that have the political sock and yet permit you to take the presidential posture.

That's the line we've been moving on, and we've spent a little time on it.

I've got a little group working on it.

And we'll be to you shortly on some specific ideas.

But I think adding Peterson to this right now would be very good.

Bring in, bring in.

The likes of Sapphire, Price, Scully, Moore, .

Chicago has had its troubles on low income housing.

And I sent out this morning for some more information.

Because I was afraid maybe HUD would .

I know all the arguments on that.

Okay, we'll give them another split.

Anything that is needed, if it's withholding, we'll get us a vote, pay the money.

Right.

What the hell is in that description?

I know they all have a mark.

July 1st, it doesn't make a goddamn difference whether it's July 1st or not.

Well, this isn't news to Wyrmwood.

We've been on him and on him on this.

We're sending him up to the Hill today to brief the Capitol Hill press corps, the Senate and House galleries, in the hope that we can get the word around that way.

But at the same time, we've had almost daily sessions on how to shake this money loose.

Let me give you this brief on it.

I think you better read this because this is more material than I asked for on that case because it was a piece of paper this morning.

All right.

It's a federal district case.

The Housing Authority was found guilty of racial discrimination and

ordered them to build their next 700 units in white neighborhoods, and thereafter, three out of every four units in white neighborhoods.

They had a 4,300 unit deficit in housing under their HUD program.

To overcome this deficit, build the 4,300 units to still comply with the court order, Chicago needed to provide for construction of many new public housing units in white neighborhoods.

Now, HUD then told them that they couldn't get their neighborhood development and model cities money, $55 million, until they came up with a plan for doing that, compliance with the court order, because HUD couldn't be financing something that was illegal.

they notified them of this in november of last year because that was the beginning of the second year of their of their model cities and model neighborhood program hud was prohibited by statute from continuing to advance these funds to chicago in the absence of these relocation provisions now hud says since that case

HUD has cooperated with the city in keeping the entire matter on a low profile.

The city wanted to delay the problem site selection until after the mayor election, and HUD agreed.

Then, May 12th, they signed an agreement, a voluntary agreement, providing for relocation on a fixed schedule, which is acceptable to HUD.

Van Dusen feels they've really bent over backwards to cooperate with the city on a very touchy problem and that they were backed by, that they did what the law required them to do all the way.

Since this case, a long series of negotiations and discussions between HUD and Chicago, including this as a formation of a joint team to investigate the problem, HUD authorized funds for a PR firm to be hired to assist in developing public understanding of the problem.

The Chicago Housing Authority didn't implement the PR program after it was designed.

In March of 71, when it submitted a list of 275 sites for public housing, the public reacted with a lot of fear.

There was a lot of resentment.

HUD got dismissed out of that Gatro case, but he says because they weren't guilty of anything.

There is an appeal pending on behalf of the city.

The city is appealing the case, but the judgment by the way of court has been falling.

The chances are we can't win.

Well, the money has now been released.

And our position is that our instructions to HUD have been to cooperate with the mayor right down the line.

We didn't want to louse up his election.

Yeah, we didn't want to louse up his election.

We don't have any control over the court.

If we had our choice, of course, we'd like a reversal.

I think the common law would be for the citizens to manage the rest of the organization and take a lot of the load off of me and the hell I understand.

If he's free, I'm sure it's his fault, sir.

There is a whole lot to lay on him.

If he's meeting separately, he should not come to this meeting.

I want to be sure he's exposed to them.

I don't know how they're supposed to do it.

What am I supposed to do?

I don't quite understand.

You're supposed to thank them.

It's a bipartisan group.

You're supposed to thank them for rallying around behind this great cause.

That's not a partisan cause, but it's for the public weal.

Tell them it's a very tough congressional problem and that it can only be wheeled by citizen support.

That thing doesn't say what they do before and after, and Alex is getting that, which will happen before you go in there.

Well, I don't think, I don't even know.

Tell me, because I need to know.

You need to know.

You need to see it yourself.

Yeah.

Well, that is what I just like to do.

Of course, daily is the key to that commercial navigation, the Illinois Commercial Navigation.

And they, in turn, can help us do something.

Good.

Sure.

Thank you.

Excuse me just a second.

He's coming in at the right moment.

All right, let's sit over here.

We won't have to...

to sit around the back of your chair there.

Mr. Mayor?

Mr.

Yes, General.

I do want to say, I know I can see, sir, I can see you.

I'm George Stoyer, the mayor here from Chicago.

Yes.

That's a very proud moment for me to bring my mayor down to the presidency.

I'm very happy to be here.

We, uh, did you get, uh, to take a picture with you?

Maybe it's making you pretty confused there.

Ha, ha, ha.

Have a holly minute.

Sure.

Good.

They know you're here.

You might as well take a picture.

Well, it's always a pleasure.

You've all got problems with your face.

You don't know what you're trying to do.

What would they have liked me to get?

Get that release on that.

or see bull from the Washington police, if you might.

I'd like to see that.

What I'd like to do is never get to an opportunity to talk.

The church hosts and I were talking the other day, and we realized that there are just a lot of problems that you've got out there.

which is a strong feeling, so I'm trying to respond to that.

I can't control the court, so thank you.

Thank you.

We resolved that yesterday.

What?

We resolved that.

We didn't take the 50-hole enough in a lot of cities.

Not only were we talking about this housing, and the court has imposed a responsibility and obligation that how do you get people, how do you get

force people to accept something that they don't want.

It's an economic question, too.

And I don't think it's, although it's confused with the racial view, I don't think it's a racial question.

I agree.

Public housing is objective to many of our black neighborhoods and communities.

You know, the reason for that is that they, what they're thinking, let's put yourself in the possession of those people.

You put a person who's bought himself a little big house, and that's his, and so he's paid time

We've got lots of that in Southern California.

You've got some in Chicago.

And so here comes the housing.

We're going to build on the housing project.

And if all of this, ah, the value of my house

Well, that's what he's worried about, isn't it?

The economic issue that he's worried about more than anything else.

Not just that it changes the neighborhood, but it's going to reduce the value of his property.

Right, and unless you have some way of enforcing the quote, actually this integration and saturation, you could do what?

What happened to the neighborhood?

After a few and a few more, and then all of a sudden, it's a nexus.

And what we're fighting for and trying to do is to keep our city a...

a private city, and a viable city, and also a city in which we have both white and black.

Otherwise, many of these cities throughout the vision are becoming all but one.

Black Washington.

And this, we don't think, is good for any city.

And the only way we've seen that, and people object to it, are the quotas.

And we have that in the New York light, in a very pure city, right by Kendall.

and then live in the part where they're at 60% or 40% percentage.

The only question you have when you do that report is, those are your practical priorities.

You can't do that in public housing.

You can't.

And that's the unfortunate thing for our country.

Does it work?

It could really do, but it's something that happened in the past.

Thank you.

We've permitted public housing to become what it is.

Many thoughtful people

25, 30 years ago, health care should be a quota.

The quota should be somewhere between 50 and 50.

You should never let it get over there.

That's why I think you have such a tremendous problem today in public housing throughout the nation.

It's been a racial issue rather than a housing issue.

Yeah, because the public housing becomes one race or the other.

That's right.

And it has to get to a certain point.

And then the people will not get it.

That's right.

Tennessee comes off even that black themselves in some portions of our, there's 750 vacancies in Cabrini-Green.

People, black people won't move in.

What kind of community is it?

Well, it's high-rise.

Oh, it's all flat.

But it's high-rise, and that's a high percentage.

We did an experiment.

We took 50 students and 50 social workers.

And we started programs, and in the first 60 days, we've reduced crime 45%.

And we're building the confidence of the people in the police and in the various activities we did this evening.

We can't be done.

We're not willing to give up on public housing.

We think it should be approached in an entirely different way.

But in the outskirts, on the far southeast side, we made a condominium and gave them

negotiated through private people and had them become owners rather than still tenants in a public housing project.

And I'm of the opinion that if we could come up with some kind of a plan like that throughout the nation, we would even subsidize part of their ownership would be much better off because then they would only

at their unit and it would be called upon to do the respective works of janitor service landscaping and all the things that go with it and they have to pride ownership rather than just being public housing i understand that some of the cities that recommended the housing be torn down

George, I want to tell you, if I were to know, you've got a good friend in this hall.

He says that you've got a good friend.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

But he says that he, and he says, I can tell you, you're not a person suffering.

He believes that your city is...

of the great cities of this country is you, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe,

and not go ahead to these neighborhood hoods and break up those patterns that inherit private decisions of people without completely distorting the makeup of the community.

No question about that.

And one of the problems that's been sadly deflected is the rebuilding of some black neighborhoods.

There's a vast, if you were to get these figures in a total amount of the black areas throughout the nation, that runs into a sizable figure

And someplace along the line, we're going to have to find a way to encourage the people, for instance, in Mondale to organize, and this is all black, non-for-profit corporations, and then give them the seed money and then have them build.

Is it working?

It's working with the first number of units, and this is what we hope to do in this program to replace

Well, this is the Austin decision, the federal court decision.

We think that we not only use the federal funds, but I have been committed to the proposition that we'll issue $10 million in our city general obligation lines for seed money for non-profit operation, then get the people in the neighborhood interested.

And if they're interested, you overcome a lot of things.

You overcome vandalism.

You overcome the occasional cost of construction.

You also get the...

problem of the black labor and the building trades and the different activities in connection with employment.

And local leadership is a problem.

You may not have so much of a problem because you've got a pretty good, you've got a pretty good infrastructure here in Washington.

You go out into the neighborhood and you try and get these

these local corporations, sir, and you get into these huge neighborhood battles, and vying for leadership, and one of them is your church, and you look at New York and Brownsville, and since he's got, he told me about that, it's unbelievable.

First thing in the city, multi-family dwelling, and it's like your various yards and so on, as you know, Bert Ringer, I've worked with him on that.

is this notion of a quarter.

Without actually saying so, but everybody knows this situation is going to be managed in a way that is going to get out of control.

And then they have some confidence that they can do it.

And that, among other things, it isn't just the apartment house and what's going to happen to it, but all the things that are around that apartment house.

What about the schools?

What's going to happen to the schools?

And what's going to happen to the crime?

And so on.

And they get this notion that this is

being looked after and managed, and it's being done sensibly.

And that has made those projects work where, in so many places, they haven't worked at all.

We've taken a strong position on one issue that you may have.

It's not come to your attention, but it's important you know.

In the large cities,

We've taken this position on us.

We also maybe have some other

This, uh, Canadian Citizens' Commission, of course, is about halfway through their work.

And a quarter part of that commission is a separate committee studying the problem of financing private education.

And, uh, they're well along.

They're going to have a very strong side.

That's my support.

That's the part of it that you're going to need.

You're going to have to get your heart ready.

We have also, in the legislature bill, appropriated money for special revenue sharing, too.

We have a provision in there that will prevent special revenue sharing in states that have laws to pass through to private schools.

That's going to be a touchy issue in the Congress.

We have to watch that to make sure that it doesn't get dropped out on us, you know, in special revenue sharing.

If that drops to your attention, we're proposing it to the Congress, though.

It would be very important if you could let your Ohio, your Chicago fellowship all vote for that provision now because they will bring one in here.

It's huge, it's a spook.

It's very deep.

But we've taken a very strong position on it.

As a matter of fact, it's never been taken by the church before because I've seen this in the middle.

At first, it's just good in this country to have a yardstick and to have the two systems going.

I just would never believe that I would have published those myself.

I don't believe that it's just going to have one system.

Today, we cannot afford to have a great portion of our educational machinery go out of business.

Because the taxes and so forth for education, they're always breaking the back streets.

And I think we should, in some way, somehow, evaluate the productivity of the educators.

I don't believe that.

I know this is just...

We've got all mad ass because we've suggested a little experimental program about this that will permit the parent to decide where he wants to set his hamster and gives him the money.

And he takes his dog to that and if he doesn't think the public school system is productive, he can go to a private school with the same money.

And the public school's got to be good in order to attract customers.

We're going to try this in about six or seven places.

You won't do it in the person itself, but they've got that space.

Now, we're taking places out of California, which is a small school district with one high school, one parochial school, and a good mix, you know, private elementary schools.

But the education establishment is fighting the students.

They're scared of that.

They don't want you to try to do anything that they instructed nature to find.

We don't expect to see boxers all over the country, but frankly, it's just they don't.

the public education .

What's the situation on the narcotics problem here?

Not any good advice, that's what we're at.

We just have to, we have to, it was the one thing that I was gonna settle, and I had slides, it was about 100 men on narcotics, the best young men you could get.

which I'd rather than from law enforcement.

We've tried to do everything in law enforcement, making the penalties severe and sending the pushers in turn, but it seems to increase the use of it.

The one thing that troubles all of us is this permissiveness in the hearts of leading citizens and educators and the church.

And you have a case, didn't you have a case in Chicago where you had, there was a church out there, Reverend Frank,

That's right, that's right.

He went in there and it was very controversial, the whole business of, you know, bring the boys in and so on and so on.

And let them do what they want to do.

Do their thing.

And you're right.

And that was a very bad, bad situation.

And we fought it.

We got the hell in the face with this guy.

He's gone now.

He's fighting.

What is really needed, Mayor, is this.

Speaking to that, first, there is the fact that we have a big educational program going on.

We're getting a lot of help.

The detection early enough.

See, this doesn't go on without in the warning.

You know, now that they're moving into the elementary school, and they're telling the kids, you know, they're giving them things.

Well, you've got to warn your youngsters.

Don't accept anything, whether it's gum or whatever.

They can't go crazy.

that this is carried out.

It's a terrible problem in the armed services too, you know.

I understand.

And this accentuates the pro-civilian program.

When they come back, those soldiers that have been in the armed service bring them back into civilian life.

And we've seen many instances of that with the police arresting those that are former servicemen.

You know, we've got to shake up a few church members.

They ought to talk a little.

I mean, they can't reach it.

I suppose they can.

The kids are probably going to go to church and can't reach it.

You know, they have all sorts of activities and so forth.

And a minister or a priest can have a great influence on a young person.

Still, I think.

And if you can't get unity there because of the diversity of the educated under the use of the physical problem there, it's like we have marijuana and even in the high school.

Let me tell you one thing that's happened here.

It probably was not played in the press here.

I had a press conference in California, which was not televised, but it was asked about marijuana because a study is being made by a group that they will get the government to.

Now, my position has just had this flat out that I'm against legalizing marijuana.

Now, I'm against legalizing marijuana because I know all the arguments about it.

Marijuana is no worse than whiskey or et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

But the point is, once you cross that line from the straight society to the drug society, marijuana, then it's speed, then it's LSD, then it's heroin, et cetera, and you're done.

But the main point is, well, we can talk about this to me.

I think we've got to take a strong stand, one way or the other, against legalizing.

That's at least the decision that I take.

Because I think if we legalize it, then your high school and elementary school

We've been asked repeatedly to establish hospitals, and I've had the factors of what this division thought of us, where we could get the free, like you do in England, the drug treatment.

Yeah.

I don't know.

Do you have that yet?

No.

This very thing you're talking about, and the legalization, have to.

doctors in the city or court together and say that this doesn't lead to anything.

It just encourages them.

They can go and have their receive the drug any once a week or that the argument in favor of it comes from some of the judges that sit in the criminal court and say that once you're crying to be removed,

If you had this kind of a system, they wouldn't be committing crime to get the necessary funds to fight good.

They have that methadone program here in the District of Columbia where you can go.

But it's not.

It is a substitute for narcotics.

It's like orange juice.

And it's free.

And it has had an effect.

on the ground right here, there's no question about it, because they, and it's not the return to narcotics that you get from some of these other treatments.

So, but this is not a, this is not a complete solution, because then they become dependent on this.

You go from one crush to another.

It's a less severe crush anyway.

Yeah, yes, and they don't get to the end of the moment of criminal elements.

Methadone, at least, was moved to methadone from heroin.

That's a wonderful move, because heroin, that person's, anybody who gets on that, he's finished.

And so if you can get him off of that, which I think methadone does.

If you take the person's, you know, the heart, it has had a dramatic effect on our heart right here.

Yes, sir.

Yeah.

This is the methadone.

You might send the man.

Because of our experience here, we'd like to have our, uh, give him the vaccine because you might want to try it.

I'm not, I'm not, I'm not telling you to write your children, but you might want to try it.

We're looking for at least one experimental, uh, hospital or something.

Are we still experimenting here?

We're experimenting in fact, but if we're going to be good at it, we're going to have to try it.

Then we'd have two places, because Washington may not be a typical city.

Washington is a city that is now about 80% Negro.

No, 75%.

75% Negro.

Your city is still 30%.

That's right.

But it's a province.

How is your, what's the morale of your law enforcement people out there?

Do they feel that this is pretty good?

It's been good.

It's been good because... Manufacturing.

Yes, the community backs and the businessmen back and the labor people back and the police are 100% denying them and they think this is, you know, a flip to their old police department system.

We're recruiting now because of our compensation and salary.

We've raised it to make a career position since I was a recruit.

And what they do, and it's a good thing, many of them then go on to graduate schools and law schools or to become business leaders.

And this way we're recruiting for that.

He did.

Well, he made a professional career in 1960.

And he stayed until 1967.

changed the entire police department from the bucket.

It was done in the police department to love the nation.

Now they respect the police.

This makes no difference.

The police, the women's work, they be passing out buttons.

They should call the police association for work.

This is all good.

How was, uh, Tom Church, how was, uh, hey, you've already heard me, how was it, what did the effect you do?

I'm not sharing any of the truth.

Well, Chicago, we... Well, of course, you're going to say it's fair, but I mean, how am I going to get ahead?

I don't know.

We have to make some change.

I don't have the gap number here, but just...

In terms of the allocations between states, the city government says it's about 50-50, and the ordinance has worked out, because it is between the governors and the mayors of Chicago.

in a very large portion of the Illinois .

And I think also this is a good fact.

I think we were discussing in the cabinet room about the significance of having money that isn't tied to a particular purpose.

We were talking about the public service employment approach.

which in many ways is sort of a revenue-sharing for the special purpose, the time purpose.

And I was telling the mayor that in the case of the discussions I've had, many mayors say, well, I really don't need that.

What I need is money for a car to dispose or for the police or for something else.

And so the same amount of money can be provided for more money, which is the president's proposal, for more flexible purposes.

and each city can tailor that money for its own needs.

We come in and they're in a lot of trouble with their discharges.

And in order for them to have the hearing and the review, they say they must come to Washington.

Maybe you could set up some review report so that they won't have anything but a matter of .

And some of them are due by a petition, but then they say they ought to be able to do that.

And some of them are viewing that around the country, which would be helpful.

They're a death segment of our population throughout the nation.

I don't know what to do with them.

I'm organizing them for the slogan, build, not burn.

And we've been back here since our yesterday.

there potentially could be real builders, too.

Yes, they can.

In the service, they've learned real wisdom from the rest.

They could really turn out all bad, too, if they didn't know all the errors.

Right, yeah.

Because they've just been there.

Yeah.

Instructions have been done to kill the children.

The problem, as you mentioned, of the returning veterans and the importance of not having people get the feeling

that returning veterans are drug addicts, and therefore they're not very good pets for a partner.

That line of thinking against the tech, take over.

And some of the lawyers were, they just, they are just a matter of, they, they, lawyers, and then in a few days let them go, which is bad, too.

We've got to get the percentage of those.

I'll get an argument on that.

We have, really, those guys,

After all, there's an awful lot of people that haven't served in this war.

I mean, they had very late, little bit of hard work to do with everybody like this.

But these guys, you know, I'm generally speaking, let's face it, they're what they call the lord of the glass.

They've generally done their job and so forth and so on.

uh, not just people, but a little bit of an edge when they come back, because they've given up a couple of years in their lives, and they deserve a little edge over their father, who, uh, who didn't do that.

I don't mean to discriminate against the other guy, but when the guy comes back, you've got to make up for it.

You know, that two years, that's at least my feeling.

And in all our programs, including on a lot of the cities, we've weighed some of this on a little discharge, where we've, uh, got the facts, and found out what it was,

I think you ought to do that.

It seems to me a BCD, John, as we know from the services, what do you know, George?

We cover a great variety of drugs.

I mean, unless it's involved, you know, there ought to be a way we can handle that.

But look, we at least try to, you take, we have burgers all over this country where somebody's been imprisoned.

I guess it's in most of these cases.

I was, uh, on this employment point a little bit off this, uh, I was saying to the mayor that, uh, that, uh, the first quarter gross national product figure is going to be announced today.

It's probably not now.

Uh, but it, uh,

It shows an increase above $30 billion, which is a fantastic increase in one quarter.

In the right direction, yes, there's an interesting pattern within the figures.

As we know from the employment reports, employment has not really started to increase very much.

It hasn't been falling, but it is increasing a lot.

Within the composition of this gross national product, we see great strength in sales, retail sales, and employment.

of this process, people are buying, buying very heavily, particularly in the month of March, particularly in the month of March, and that's continued the month of April, with reports from the big retailing tech, Ford, Sears, and so on, all around sales, about their sales.

So it's much broader than automobiles.

It spreads across the wide field.

At the same time, the figures, the change in inventories,

has been very slight considering the period we're in.

So in effect, these sales are depleting inventories.

And what this all seems to add up to is the draw of these sales is going to mean that people are going to have to not only get back the inventories, they have to build them up to a new level.

And we should start seeing this in the employment picture, increasing productivity through this process.

We can't promise that next month is going to be better or the month afterwards.

I was looking down at the end of the year.

Whether it goes up, it's how much and how fast.

And we're going to do everything we can, of course, to keep it moving up.

But as far as the employment is concerned, that is usually the last number to start to come down because people don't start hiring anymore until they have to.

You know, they still want to make the money.

What happens is that when you have a big drop and squeeze, as there was in 1970, employers all worked their costs down.

And when they start to expand,

They can expand, but without having people under their payrolls for a while.

And so you get a big improvement in productivity, and then the employment starts to come along.

In Chicago, I gave a talk in Chicago a week or so ago, and had a luncheon with a group of business questions, so I spent a little bit of my time asking them what they thought business conditions were like.

And it was really very impressive how strongly they felt things were moving.

I mean, we call it the heartland, but you've got that Chicago, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana.

But that part of the country moves solidly and strongly.

The rest of the world also.

The two coasts are more volatile.

The West Coast has particular problems now because of the downturn in airplanes and space.

So there are problems, particularly in Los Angeles and Seattle, are quite serious.

They will change.

The Midwest is a more solid part of the country.

It's solid.

It's vigorous.

Part of it is because I think of the

business firms, and they look as to where to invest, and it really comes down to the nationality.

It's because they think that there's stability in government out there.

And to think so, they figure, well, I think the business plan in Chicago is a good town to do business in.

We were looking at Chicago.

I think you can tell us where to start on here in a moment.

Okay.

Well, I'll tell you where to start in business.

Chicago, we're building a new building that's developing right out there in New York.

We're all moving

The most beautiful part of New York really is not the Easter or old-fashioned people who live now, but the other side of the Huntsman River, you know.

The other side of that is Thistle, those big, I mean, and the reason is that people are moving out, that they're moving plans out and all that stuff, and here is New York with all of its vitality and its strength and its people and the rest.

They're really in a crisis.

And I don't think they're going to solve that crisis.

Jersey just wanted to build a lot of new houses.

They're going to solve it through grappling more effectively with the problem of government in the city of New York.

And I know I'm not being critical, but the business of New York until recently has never, you know, really picked up.

And they do at Chicago.

And they have for years.

They work with you.

And not only with me, but they work with the people who see you in an effort to try to get common problems and common answers.

And we work with them and try to bring both business and labor together to work out their candidates and take a candidate or share a person on this.

Well, you know, New York, there are lots of businessmen that are very, you know, socially oriented to these sort of social commons.

But I think you're right.

I don't think there is a, it's more of a, you know, Chicago is a tough city.

I mean, they play for keeps there.

New York, even more so, it goes on.

You've got the Wall Street crowd.

You've got the, you've got the Diamond crowd.

You've got the rest.

You just always get them together.

You know, it's no exchange of ideas among both of them in common means.

I don't know if the mayor has put this together.

I don't know what's going on.

Everybody kind of ready to say to the mayor once in a while, we'll get you.

Well, I think it's, you know, it's a critical to the men themselves.

I think they're interested.

Somebody's got to leave.

All right.

And when they call together, we had a talk.

I mean, that racial thing, the men have been doing it.

Mr. King was there.

We're for full employment.

We're for opportunities.

We're for always great people suffering from hunger.

If we can make it go in Chicago, we can make it go in any city in the United States.

I'll hear you very well, Mr. King.

He said, don't you fall.

I said, well, I'm going to tell him.

And I said, well, there's a man.

He had the idea of all these back and downs back and downs.

He was right up front.

I know you're not.

I'm not for police brutality, but I think we're for firmness.

Well, there's an interesting thing.

At the end of last week, some of the double-ranked people in the restaurant were banging the chief.

He was too hard on them.

Of course, I was backing all the way to Jonathan.

And so what I was going to say, here's a poll that I guess was released yesterday.

And it's supposed to be a copy from the Princeton Research Group at ORC.

Listen to these questions.

This is what the commentators won't like, because they always have a question in general.

Do you approve or disapprove?

And they, first of all, they ask this question.

They ask the question.

Take a familiarity with the problem.

95% of the problem, of the people of this country who were told, and this was the whole thing all over the country, were aware of the demonstrations.

They either heard about them or seen them on television or read about them.

In general, do you approve or disapprove of the demonstrations?

Approve the demonstrations, 18%.

Disapprove, 71%.

No, not the police.

It says, do you approve or disapprove of the way the Washington police handled the demonstrators?

Disapproved, 18%.

Approved, 56%.

Now, do you feel the police were or were not justified in making mass arrests of the demonstrators who threatened to stop the government by blocking traffic between Washington, D.C.?

Justified, 76%.

Not justified, 10%.

Now, this is the final, this is the

They always bring a question like this.

Did the Washington police use too much force in handling demonstrators?

About the right amount.

Or were the police too easy on demonstrators?

11%.

11% of the police used too much force.

40%.

Too easy.

23%.

In other words, 63% of the people felt the state used too much force.

So it does show you that this is what Wilson did here.

And it is very .

They recruited them all over.

They're just black on their force.

They're black .

But here are these fellows.

They were being spit on.

They were being taunted.

These people were .

I mean, we all understand peaceful protest is not a law against the war.

I understand that.

But nobody's got a right to, as I said,

In order to demonstrate for peace, he probably has no right to break the peace agreement.

This fall here, to hear these policemen, I thought they were great.

These young guys, they're the same age as these demonstrators.

And here they are, a lot of them veterans, these policemen standing there.

Nobody, they handled it extremely well.

Nobody was killed.

Yes.

I'd like to say before we break it up is this.

We have a mayor with major states.

We can't do it with men.

California, New York, for example.

Try to keep a

Through the Vice President, we have an office that has a communication with the federal and state relations in some cities.

And that office, of course, is always available here.

A few, with a few, where we, this is probably four of our states and maybe half of the cities, we do have, I would like to have a special relationship.

For example, like here, we're,

Whereby, when you've got a problem, whether it's with regard to, say, a housing project, or withholding funds, or you're concerned about a bill that's down here, or any of that sort of thing, where have you got a problem that you think we can help out, or where we haven't answered before?

You're getting a bad rap.

I would like for you to feel free to call now.

You can call either George or John.

I would suggest George.

You know George.

You just pick up the phone and call me.

If you do, I want you to know it's just like talking to me.

And we'll talk and we will work on it while it's going on.

And frankly, if there's something that you think feeds my attention, don't hesitate to call me.

But you know, if it's a national issue, you get me on the phone.

But the same program, if we've got some area where we think that...

piece of legislation that will be of interest to the city, important to the city.

I'd like to feel that George can call you here because you live with John, and you have, for example, and then, of course, he has a fine man, a strong man, and, you know, he helps us a lot on these domestic issues.

So would that be all right?

George, feel free.

I want you to do it.

Don't hesitate because that's what he's working on.

I can't say that there's too many.

We don't say it's a large meeting.

But your city is, it's important that your city have a direct line of communication with the White House.

And we want you, we don't want you to fail in any area because of our fault.

And we'll work with you wherever we can.

I want to give you a little memo.

The, uh, this is a completely non-partisan, by the parts you can see that, you know, the CNN is in the room.

But this is a presidential complex with the CNN.

Uh, so it was anti-corruption.

We also have to have for your, there's a little white white that you might like to have.

Any ideas about, you know,

the law enforcement feels uh any of these things where you have a program that's working let us see what we want to do is to try to get some better engines that we can pass around and if we get veterans like methadone i'm not sure it's good but pass it out from here you might want to try it we'd love to see more cities try it because everyone in every location has

Thank you for having me, Mr. Dredd.

Good luck to you.

Good luck.

Tell those, uh, tell those police tonight that they have.

Okay.

Tell them they've got a hacker in his office.

Good luck.

I'd like to have someone come out and talk a little to your housing people tonight, uh, about this, uh, the use of this bullet.