On June 2, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon, John D. Ehrlichman, and Stephen B. Bull met in the Oval Office of the White House from 3:16 pm to 4:15 pm. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 510-003 of the White House Tapes.
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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.
Mainly I wanted to talk to you about this meeting with the Joint Chiefs and the Defense People this morning.
We just had a meeting with the PR types up there who feel that we are going to unduly emphasize the military aspect of this thing unless we broaden this meeting to include Mitchell and Richardson so that we can come out and say that this was not a meeting about military heroin but about the heroin problem.
So if that's all right with you, we'll add that.
And maybe somebody from the State Department, since we're going to propose that you have a meeting on the subject of international relations and heroin at some time, maybe next week or the week after.
John Irwin or somebody from the State Department, come over and just be there for this thing tomorrow.
And then we can say if you...
across the board.
Now, I had planned to put on a tape.
The PR fellows say they think that would be very bad because it would leak that we had done that and it would look like we were reacting to media.
Instead of that, what I can do is make the tape available to them and have them go back to the Pentagon and play it and I'll take care of that privately.
But we'll have Ingersoll, who's just returned from an overseas trip, to report.
And then we can say that this was not a report about just soldiers.
This was a report about the heroin problem generally, and get that broader focus to it.
That's the thing we want to get everywhere.
Right.
It's just heroin.
Right.
And it's non-military.
It's very broad.
Now, we see a possibility of doing about a four-step bounce.
One would be to brief after this meeting tomorrow and use it as an occasion to brief on what we've been doing up till now with a fact sheet that runs way back in time as to the various steps we've been taking on the heroin problem and hint a little bit about what we're
manageable effort to do.
Second would be another meeting in a few days with the emphasis on the foreign policy aspects.
Henry is preparing a prospectus of what that meeting might contain.
Third, a couple of appearances.
Rumsfeld thinks on issues and answers, and an appearance at the Ad Council who've been helping us with the public education aspect of this.
Rumsfeld's going to speak there and other people to talk about the public education part of this.
Four, an announcement of our legislation and the affirmative program that you have with the military, which will involve legislation...
Well, in two areas.
Three areas.
One, a reorganization of the government to create the Special Action Office under your personal direction.
The whole subject across.
And bringing all of the functions of government.
Well, what this will be is the planning and budgetary control of all of the narcotics prevention,
and rehabilitation.
Everything, everything.
Then taking charge.
Exactly, exactly.
Personal charge.
We'd be doing that in about a week or 10 days.
I'm having them draw the legislation.
I talked to the fellow yesterday that I think is your man to hit this thing, this Jaffe.
He is a tough, mean, smart little dude from Chicago.
Good.
And he knows this field better than anybody because he's running a program statewide in Illinois.
Is he good and ambitious?
Very ambitious.
Yeah.
Very licensed.
And what's that for him?
He sees himself becoming the preeminent authority in the world.
And becoming?
And I...
sabbatical and write things up.
And I said, would you rather take a sabbatical than run a national program with a president's rip and all the money you need?
And he smiled and said, well, maybe I could get somebody else to write the book.
So he'll read it.
Well, I think he is 39 years old.
I said, supposing you could do anything you wanted.
to solve our problem in Vietnam, what would you do?
He said, number one, I'd never tell anybody I was going to solve the problem.
He said, I would establish realistic goals and then I would exceed them.
Number two, he says, you've got to have machines.
The first thing to find out before you tell anybody anything is can we get the machines to check the urine.
He says, excuse me, I'll go out and make a phone call and find out if we can get the machines.
I said, now, hold everything.
Wait a minute.
I just asked you a hypothetical question.
Well, OK, he says, after the meeting, I'll go see if we can get the machines.
And then he goes on from there.
He says, I need some clout.
He says, that military's got to do what I tell them when I get over there.
I don't want to have to play politics with the military.
Then he goes on this way.
He says, I got to have 130 medics.
He says, I'll train them in this country.
It'll take me 12 hours.
We'll put them on an airplane.
We'll take them over there.
And, you know, I like the way he works.
He lays it right out.
And so if we can get this guy, here's the way I like to parlay this.
We'll announce what we're going to do, but we won't announce the director that we have in mind.
Give me a few dates.
And we can announce what part of the week to 10 days from now, 8 to 10, somewhere along in there.
Then a week later, I'd like to have you go to one of his treatment centers in Chicago and see what it is and announce that you've talked Ogilvy into letting the nation have Jaffe because of the successful program that he's been running there.
to tackle this on a nationwide scale.
Now, that's all I can tell you about that for the moment.
We've got the guys working on the legislation, and we'll have it shortly.
We do know we can get the machines, incidentally.
Now, the other thing the legislation will have in it is money for Ingersoll and for Jaffe.
And it will have in it the enablement to permit you to hold soldiers in the service who are narcotic addicts.
The legislation will be only with the military side?
Oh, no, no, no.
So far, it's all submitted.
All right, okay.
Plus, the right to hold people in the military after their enlistment date if they are addicts.
Now, that will permit us to treat these guys in Vietnam before they come home.
Could you leave them on a volunteer basis?
No.
And I'll tell you why.
I'll tell you why.
They won't do it.
They won't do it.
And the plan that Jackie outlines that I think is sound is this one.
You're a soldier in Vietnam, and you know that 65 days from now, you're going to be eligible to come home.
You're called in to talk to your CO, and the CO says to you, soldier, you've got to have 60 continuous days off peril, or you can't go home.
You'll have to go into treatment here.
And it's 65 days now.
So why don't you start right now?
And every day you have to have a urinalysis under controlled conditions.
And within a minute, they can tell you with this machine whether you're clean enough, whether you've had any heroin that day or in the preceding 24 hours.
So the guy undergoes a urinalysis for 60 continuous days.
And if he's clean all 60 days, he goes home right on time, just as he would.
But if he stumbles and he resorts to heroin
At any time.
Then he starts a 60-day cycle of living.
Right.
He has to be in Vietnam, according to Jaffe, if he's over there now.
Or in Germany, if that's where he is.
Well, if he's home, then that's, yeah, same thing.
But, you see, the psychology in Vietnam is that the addiction is associated with that environment in Vietnam.
And the psychologist says to the soldier, look, you're going home.
That's a new environment.
You can leave this all behind and make this change back.
This is the time to do it.
And you can do it.
And besides, you have to do it or you can't go home.
So it's a stick and carrot kind of thing.
And Jackie says that'll work in a large percentage of the cases.
Let's do it, though, in terms of, if we can, Vietnam, just anybody ending this period of military service.
So that we don't just say Vietnam going home.
That environment that we all know is Vietnam.
It's turned into anybody in his period of military service, we're not going to let him go out.
That's one of the things we're not going to let him go out.
All right.
Good.
Now, those are the things that the legislature...
I think we did.
Well, there are not many in this field, I'll tell you.
There really aren't.
And there's one other...
well i explained that to pete and then george doubled back doubled around
Am I wrong?
I don't know personally anything about Brookings.
Brookings is a hotbed.
And I'm not going to judge these people now.
We've gone around the garden track before you.
You've screwed us about 18 times.
The main thing is go all out for others.
Oh Christ, I don't care who else it is.
And also you can tell them right after the election.
The coloration of this thing today is...
Very unfortunate, I think.
But I'll... Well, I mean, the people that are to be here.
They're J. Irwin Miller and a bunch of people like that.
And that's this afternoon at 5 o'clock.
You don't go.
Oh, no.
No, no.
Henry and George and I go.
i think i'm going to suggest to pete that from now on
We collaborate on some of these things.
What are those people coming in for?
Well, they're just going to gas about the long-range world goals for America and the economic overseas situation.
He's having Gardner.
He's not having Schultz that I know of.
Schultz isn't on the list.
He's having the other guy, Kermit Gordon, from over there.
All right.
Yeah, yeah.
I'll find out what I can.
Absolutely.
They just go out and use this over and over.
No question about it.
Is there a better example than that?
That's very good.
Both were partisans against us.
And what's the other guy?
Allen.
And Allen, the education man, all were partisans against him and thought, what are they going to come up and cut you up?
What are they going to do?
I don't know why, but listen, let me ask you a couple of things that will come to the memorandum that you barely haven't gotten yet.
I love this stuff.
I really want you to re-examine whether or not you can have some stronger panels.
Not for... Oh, I got that.
We're working on it.
You know what I'm saying?
Right.
And it's definitely, I mean, I keep thinking of a death penalty.
A death penalty for a, now this is for an actual death penalty.
Right.
Now listen, I did this in California.
I know there's a lot of people, it hits a lot of people wrong who are against death penalties, period.
But I think it's tough that, you know, like the Lindbergh Law application for pushes, not, not,
not a person who's an addict, not a small time, but interstate and so forth and so on.
I think you could have one hell of a couple.
But at the very least, go up to, not the fines, they pay the fines.
Go up to, you know.
Mandatory prison.
Mandatory prison for life.
Life in prison is mandatory.
You know, something like that.
The other, the other amaranth that I covered is the Guard of the Doctors.
I'm going to read it to those doctors.
Doctors, a lot of them are people that bring people to drugs.
Now they'll say you're interfering with their medical advice and all the rest.
They go overboard even on sleeping pills.
Jaffe is very good on that stuff.
They go overboard on sleeping pills.
They go overboard.
They have done it themselves.
I don't know how people get those drugs.
Don't the ups and downs come from doctors?
No, not all of them.
You see, what's happened is that our pharmaceutical houses in this country have shipped these drugs to phony addresses in Mexico.
And so?
And so then they're smuggled back into the United States and into the market.
And we have, we did that.
Well, we took care of that.
We took care of it in our crime act that finally got passed, in our narcotics control act.
So that we have these pharmaceutical houses just the first of July, or the end of this month.
They go under very stringent controls now on the sending of this stuff.
Can we find out about doctors?
There must be doctors.
We will.
That's what your memo said, and we're on that.
Well, you probably already understand I'm willing to take a very hard line to get doctors.
Nobody likes doctors anyway, Bob.
Okay.
I don't, John.
I don't like them.
I mean, it will last.
They ought to take a hell of a wrath and a hell of a responsibility.
And I'm going to get it in mind that AMA, rather than talking about the medical program, ought to ask them to help us in fighting these drugs.
Cappy was interesting.
You know why he wants to take the medics from this country?
He says, hell, all the medics in the service in Vietnam are on sub.
He says they get it right out of the medicine cabinet.
They call them caps.
And he said, I can't use any of those guys over there.
What's heroin?
Well, it's morphine or cocaine or something.
Why in the name of God do these people take this stuff?
It's for the same reason they drink.
They're bored.
It's a diversion.
Drinking is a different thing, in a sense.
Linkletter's point, I think, is well taken.
He says...
A person may drink to have a good time.
But a person does not drink simply for the purpose of getting high.
He takes drugs for the purpose of getting high.
And it's cheaper in Vietnam.
That's another thing.
But the whole motivation in this thing is something you ought to sit down and talk to Jaffee about sometime.
He's very interesting to talk to.
And I understand it.
Let me say, I used to be much too hard on those who took it.
I understand now.
I understand why.
And all that.
And I'm not legalizing it.
I think the idea of legalizing the God family
And he agrees with that.
Marijuana?
Yeah.
You did one?
Yeah.
Well, I thought I'd better comb that out right from the beginning.
He says, absolutely.
He says, you've got to draw a line.
And he said, you're either on one side of it or you're on the other.
And he says, I can live very comfortably with a president's position on it.
The point is that it's what you said long ago.
You're on the Drug Society, the State Society.
And if you get on the Drug Society, why don't you start down that road?
which I'm sure you would make.
I don't know if you've got this.
Who are addicted to heroin?
How many of you?
No, I didn't have that.
I'm sure there's a statistic that is easily discoverable.
People addicted to heroin.
I am sure we'll find that, uh, I'd like to know how many of them used marijuana, correct?
And how many did not use marijuana?
Let me say, it's the same thing as cigarettes and cancer.
You get the deductive relationship.
That's right.
You can say, well, if you smoke cigarettes, you've got 10 times the chance to get cancer if you don't smoke cigarettes.
Now, that doesn't prove that you smoke cigarettes, you don't get cancer.
But it does say, tell us something that makes sense.
Now, the other thing, Jackie, is very important.
The other thing, Jackie, I want to tell you.
All right.
Julie was on last night with Smith.
She said there was no relationship between heroin and marijuana.
Well, that's her argument.
The thing Jaffe will tell you is that we don't know because we don't have any decent statistics in this country.
And we find out this about Harold.
Well, he says, your narcotic statistics in this country are totally unreliable.
And he said that's one of the reasons that he would like to become the director of a national program.
Because he said one of the things he would...
This program is going to be, he got a statistic from Harold.
One of the things he's going to do is he's going to be the record economy in England.
Right.
Is that right?
Yes, sir.
That's why we're setting it up.
That's why we're setting it up.
We're only setting it up for three years.
Like cancer.
Right.
Like cancer.
Right.
And the idea here, he says also, revelation to me, he said, drug incidence among Americans is epidemic.
It comes on, it goes way up, and then it comes down.
He says, we went through this country with cocaine some years ago.
Yep.
And he said, you can expect this heroin thing to go up farther.
But then he said, eventually it will come down.
And so he said, I would recommend that you put a finite term on this thing in recognition of that fact.
And he says, the sophisticates will recognize that you know what you're talking about.
Voice caps?
Not very many.
They have a very strong program.
A very, very strong narcotics education program.
It's one of the good things that they've done recently.
And they're really doing a first-rate job.
Matter of fact, they came in about a year ago for some advice on this.
We put them in touch with Krogh, and he's worked with them on developing this education program.
So we've had a part of it right from the beginning.
Yes, sir.
Do you want them before you go out?
All right.
Because Bud may have some of them.
You asked for another number that we have had right along, and that was on this Black Caucus business.
It's $100 billion.
And...
They made the judgment not to use that in the response because they felt that it would impugn the good faith of the little black caucus people, you know.
But that was it.
You see, here is the line.
I may do something when I have something.
I may do something on a small scale.
Yes, requests.
We've been using the term of art.
Which is requests on the theory that they had no right to demand anything of the President of the United States.
I would like to say a little on that.
I said, we considered every one of them in any cabinet officers.
Is that true?
Easily.
Easily.
Well, we don't want to mention all of them.
I said, a lot of members of the cabinet.
Personally.
helped respond specifically to every one of these demands.
When we met, I told them quite candidly that on some of their requests that we would be able to agree, on others we could not agree, that as a nation we were committed here that we couldn't do everything for every group that came in.
And that I would give them the commitment that we would be responsive and we would be honest.
We would not tell them that we would do something for them.
Now, we have responded.
We have agreed with some of the initiatives.
Let me tell you, as we look at this, that we priced our procedure.
If we had done everything, it would have cost $100 billion in the first year.
And that would have required a tax increase of so much for how much every American family...
It's 50% of the existing budget, so just add 50% to your taxes.
And it's 50% increase in the taxes.
That's the point.
That's the point.
Across the board.
I think as well that they only have black pastors.
I mean, basically because they were, they did not, I mean.
There's a 50% increase in taxes for 12% of the population is what it amounts to.
Yeah, well, they'd all say to it.
They'd all say.
I've got just a couple other odds and ends.
I'm very pleased about the city of Detroit because I think it comes at a good time.
As Bob has probably told you, they uphold this situation completely.
Just mentioned it to me in the yard here and said he wanted to run through with it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
He's not a good publicist.
He isn't like Edgar Hoover.
They all know he is.
I think 70% would rate him as a good company.
I bet you if you'd ask the people, there'd be a hell of a lot more people who'd market than John.
That's probably right.
You see what I mean?
Now, on the other hand, John, this is one area people are interested in.
It's one area that we're taking a rap because we are tough.
By God, let's get the credit for it.
They've all got the fear.
Everybody's got the fear.
Department of Transportation is about to award a $10.5 million contract to the Vertol Corporation for the systems management of urban mass rapid transit.
This is that rapid rail vehicle.
Now, Vertol Corporation is owned by Boeing.
and i put a hold on this until i had a chance to talk to you is that all right okay you know why sure but i uh of course we're gonna help obviously okay well i'll let that go through
I want Magruder to work on it.
He's on it.
The SSP?
Yes, sir.
Don't give up.
God damn it, we can build the SSP.
I had him in last night.
I wondered, we can't take the whole thing.
And why not come in with the Japanese?
Let's do something different.
He's on his way overseas today.
Wouldn't that be an exciting thing?
It would.
We get together with Japan.
And build the goddamn thing.
I've talked to Peterson and to Magruder, and they've talked.
McGruder's on his way to the Paris Airshow.
Yeah.
And he's also going to talk to the, well, as a matter of fact, he's going to fly the Russian SST.
He's going to go over and have a ride out and fly it.
And he's going to see some Japanese while he's over there, the Mitsubishi people.
Why do you like the idea of the Japanese?
Well, it is intriguing.
Just doing something with those cocky little bastards, it allows them to get into the big business.
Well, Peterson's a little afraid of them.
But he also points out, he also points out that they got all those dollars over there.
And that that's one way of getting our dollars back.
Well, the trouble is, do we have to build it in Japan?
No.
That's my point.
Can't we get some of the jobs here?
That's the point.
Use their money and build it here.
If we can make a deal.
So he's given...
He's given Magruder a briefing on the realities of the Japanese trade situation.
I let Magruder read your memo so that he understood what your needs were.
The other thing I wanted to mention to you was that I did talk, I couldn't get a hold of Rockefeller, but I talked to Bobby Douglas, his counsel, about that $100 million.
LEAA is practically a dry well, so we're going to look for other sources of money.
I'm not sure we should go there.
Well, that's what I wanted to check with you.
It would go to the city.
And Douglas says that their crying need is for a narcotics court.
They had 40,000 indictments for narcotics violations, pushers primarily, in New York last year, and only 49 went to jail.
The reason is that their courts are so jammed up that the prosecutors take a lower plea.
Now, he says, what we'd like to do is set up a special narcotics court with judges on loan from other courts that are not so busy and get special attention to the punishment of narcotics violations.
And I said, Bobby, you are singing our song.
Send me down a proposal on that, and I'll get you some L.A. money, because that's a new thing, see?
And I can use LEAA money that way.
So he's getting a letter down to me.
He's on a very short time schedule.
I may have to move very fast on this.
Go ahead and do it.
Okay.
What is the situation on the ground?
What else is the situation on the ground?
I may have to consider it.
three of the numbers that are going to come out in june july august and september i i understand i i think they will come down from the end of the year however they're hanging high in all this period it'll be extremely difficult i wonder in other words all the things we spend money for and so forth and so on i just remember moving on 50 million dollars god damn professors
I want to get away from subsidizing the colleges and universities, and particularly the elite colleges and universities.
I really feel strongly about that.
Remember, I started it before, and everybody said I was doing it because of Cambodia.
I wasn't doing it because of Cambodia.
I'm doing it because...
these package of leeches that produce bad for kids.
Now let's put it into the other, put David at work on this.
You know what I mean?
Yes, sir.
I think if we move it out of that and put it into applied science, it's going to be part of the country.
And let these guys think we'll come to pay.
all right the um well the employment thing in terms of taking pressure off it's just going to move in the right direction well
We're going to have a nasty problem with National Public Service employment coming down here, which is, quote, a bad bill, unquote.
How much?
Between $1 billion and $2 billion.
Now, it just may be that you really want to sign it.
It's a fast way of doing this.
Will it affect employment?
Yes.
uh i can't give you the hundreds of thousands of jobs well i know hundreds of thousands of jobs the circulation is they will veto we've not said so
And the reason is that it is practically the same bill you vetoed last time.
And the manpower folks say it's a bad bill because it's dead end and it's WPA and all that kind of thing.
The mayors say, God, give us the money, you know, and we'll go out and hire people to rake leaves and all that stuff.
It's virtually finished.
We know the formula.
Probably not.
I'll tell you what we're doing to it.
We're opposing it with our special revenue sharing manpower.
And there's a vote this afternoon on it.
We'll probably lose.
We've not tried to clean up the other bill.
We've opposed it with our special revenue check.
We have some public service jobs.
Yeah, but the... Yeah, yeah.
Dropping the bucket.
True, true.
There is a dropping bucket, too, isn't there?
No, it's a lot more.
It's a lot more jobs.
Well, if we're talking about...
something that will really decrease the supply of the roads.
I'll find out.
John, we may have to do it.
All right.
I'll take it this way.
Deficits, anything you goddamn please, as far as we're concerned, you cannot have a psychologist in it.
But incidentally, I've got to know, is the bill highly restrictive as to where it goes?
No, it's not.
We can throw it in California.
Well, I'll find out about that.
No, you don't know.
It certainly is.
Higher restrictions.
Yeah, that'd be my guess.
The Congress probably gets better.
I'll find out about those things and get back to you.
This is one of the reasons that I kind of need to talk to you alone.
George has got a real vested interest in that damn thing, and he's got your best interest at heart, but at the same time, there's some things that we've just got to wheel that way.
All the best, President.
All the best.
Sure.
Is that clear?
Perfectly.
Well, he doesn't understand.
Well.
He understands it, but he doesn't understand what you have to do.
We'll try not to put a double burden on your time, but I really do think only the website thing, the only one that I think really would understand it would be common.
Yeah, yeah.
You'd be willing to break the budget, cut in interest rates.
Yeah.
Well, I just need to get some clear signals from you on some of these things.
We'll admit the common support on that.
All right.
All right.
I'll have you go over it and chat with the company.
I think that's the way to do it.
I want to bring him in more, John, for reasons.
One, he's a hell of an advocate.
Second, because politically, the more we can bring him in, the more useful he may be.
We may have to take him in further.
Yeah.
Well, he's got good judgment.
I think so.
I think he has some very good judgment.
That speech was just the right thing to say.
Just tell the guy in the European to go screw him.
What would you say to him about that?
He's a hell of a smart guy.
I heard he did very well.
Very well.
The whole climate on revenue sharing has changed in the last two weeks.
Will we benefit?
Oh, no.
Oh, indeed.
Broder ran a piece yesterday.
I saw Broder's piece.
Well, that's reflective of the change of climate.
And Muskie hearings have helped us.
They've been very favorable to Revenue Sheriff.
Has he?
Oh, sure.
Now he is.
Of course, he has the advantage of having been on both sides of the issue.
But, see, he had Heller and Peckman.
Are you going to help us disagree with your Revenue Sheriff, John?
Oh.
it's okay if i were wilbur mills and we're playing smart politics i'd fold right now and say okay i was wrong but i see the light and i'm all for this now let's really go on let's put extra money in there maybe nelson rockefeller's right let's have 10 billion dollars in there and everybody forget that he was against it and then we'd have to live with the bad thing now we have to be now well
As long as he resists, we'll get a coonskin to hang on the wall for you.
I think we'll get some victims.
I don't know.
I'll have to look at Bob's poll and see.
Maybe not.
I tell you what... No, I don't think that they do.
Well... Maybe they do.
Understand, understand.
I'm sure they do.
I'm sure they do in the foreign policy area.
Well, basically, but they're on the war.
And maybe, maybe with very big deals like Russia and China.
Very little in each way.
But let me argue this way, and I think Conley's right about you having an enemy.
No.
I think seeing you
Roll up your sleeves, get mad, get in a fight.
Whether you win or lose, get your points.
But if you win, then you get more points.
Now, for instance, last night, on the answers, on the follow-ups on the police, about the third answer, I was ready for you to say, now, just a minute.
Look, let's get something straight here right now.
You and I disagree about this.
I'll never convince you, but just let me make this clear now.
I believe this and this and this and this.
And frankly, I don't care whether you guys like it or not.
I'm listening to the American people on this.
And get a little mad.
And show that you have an enemy.
And that you're defying the enemy.
And that you're standing up for what you think is right.
I think a little combat...
is a good thing at times.
Now, I don't know.
It isn't your style, exactly.
But you were so cool.
I mean, you had the thing under control, and your answers were rational, and you were, you know, you were in charge, and so on and so forth.
And you didn't succumb to the swings and arrows and so on, and you just were serene about the whole thing.
And...
I think people like to see you take a swing, I don't know.
I've been thinking about this whole business of, since Bob mentioned this to me, this whole business of what you stand for.
One way to make very clear what you stand for is to take a swing at somebody.
That's what Harry Truman did.
I must say, I was a bit tempted to.
Of course, as you know, there's another theory.
The other theory is the theory of, well, Floyd's raid crisis, and a lot of other things.
That the people want, I don't know the limit, thoroughly, but the people want the president to be above it all, and so forth.
Taking on issues, and problems, and so on.
And this and that.
I'm getting involved.
I don't have to agree with it.
And I certainly intend to move in the other direction as we go along.
My own belief is that you've got to be quite firm.
Oh, I was quite firm with it.
Oh, sure.
You just weren't me.
No question.
No question also that I was on the side of the police.
But on the other hand, I must say that I think that the idea that I don't think I should do it, not in the way of losing my temper, which I'm not, but I'm just getting very tough.
I'll say now, look here.
It'll be my style of care.
You have your say about this.
I know that the great majority of you in the press corps don't agree.
Make the end of it.
I know you've been writing this.
I said, but I have a responsibility to this government to keep running.
I want to make it.
I don't do the hoodlums or bantles claiming to be demonstrators.
You're going to stop this government.
Let's get that straight right now.
We're going to do it in the future if they come back into town.
What's the next question?
I wouldn't have anything to add to that.
What's the next question?
I think there's a difference between being political and picking a fight on an issue.
on the merits of an issue.
And I think maybe that, to the extent that somebody says, oh, well, he's just temporizing, just being political, you don't get any credit.
But if you say, I'm, you know, this is a matter of principle here, a matter of right and wrong, and by God, you get a little worked up.
I think people begin to notice, at least, and they say, oh, I know what he stands for on that.
And we get some visibility on some of these things that we're for.
You get it clearer, Mark, for a change of nature.
Yeah, yeah.
But you said it as the reasonable man.
Well, but everybody says, John, that that's the great strength.
I know it.
I know it.
The president can be so cool in light of all this thing.
And Sapphire and all the PR archives write it that he's not great.
Well, I may be wrong on that.
Like, for example, that is on television.
and that miserable White House Correspondent's name, I really should have gotten up and said, look here, that was a pretty shoddy performance.
You know, I'm having a funny experience along this line.
Pretty shoddy performance, gentlemen.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
There's wasted two hours.
Well, I'm going to be there again.
Well, I know, but see, that's your way.
You'll sit there and take it, and you won't say it.
I'll be a gentleman.
I'll be a gentleman.
Yeah.
I got in a fight with Ameri-Seattle here a while back over the Black Panthers.
He pulled a shoddy deal on our, on our guys now.
And so I have had more favorable mail as a result of being carried in the, the local papers tried to make a thing out of it.
I've been getting more favorable mail from people on account of being against this guy than for any other thing we've done.
And I'm beginning to be convinced that Connolly's right, that people size you up by what you're against more than what you're for.
Let's do that hell of a note.
Yeah.
Well, as a matter of fact, they sized you up for being against communists for many years.
That's it.
And it wasn't bad.
That's it.
I guess, frankly, that he is going to make the Indians, their side is acting it up.
I was going to shoot him, too, as being against the press.
I think he's overplayed that.
He sounds petty now.
He's getting a little carpy.
What does that mean?
He just keeps bringing it up.
What the hell is new?
What's next?
He's still digging CBS.
We're not going to go that soon.
I don't think he does it well anymore, John.
I think I've never been like you, critical of him.
Maybe I haven't heard, but I've got the impression that
It's getting whiny.
Yeah.
You agree?
Yeah.
I've been reading them in there.
Yeah.
No.
I think, however, I'm in a fairly good position to get pretty tough on some of these things.
I agree.
Especially on the merits.
I need a little guidance, incidentally.
You want to get some, Mr. President, running a few minutes late and coming onto the ground soon.
You want to get a conservative with some visibility.
There is one appointment that we can make.
to the general counsel of NLRB that will send a signal all the way across the business community, and that's our man Dick Burris.
Oh boy, is he ever.
He has a master's degree in labor law.
He was on the NLRB staff.
He was on the House Labor Committee minority side.
We've had him here.
But would they – are you sure everybody gets credit and so on?
Well, that I don't know.
He came in to see me today.
It's the first I had heard of this situation, and I've got to do some more checking into it.
He says that Jim Hodgson is afraid we will offend labor, and that's the big issue.
Well, see, that's what I don't know.
Is there any way – is there any way you can offend labor?
Is it required?
Is there any approval?
That I don't know.
That I don't know, and I should know that.
I don't.
I don't think so.
I think it's just your appointment.
It's a four-year term.
We're later just kicking us in the ass pretty much.
Well, I didn't know what your relationships with Meany and so forth are.
Burris is not popular with either Jim Hudson or George Shultz.
because of a very hard line he took when he was working for Arthur Burns here, when Arthur was on the White House staff, on farm labor problems.
And Burris is very much employer-oriented, and the employer groups all...
I think NLRB needs to tilt in that direction.
Well, he sure as hell did.
The only guy that I think is worth talking to on this, actually, is Coulson.
Correct.
Now, I've got to tell you that I think it's time we threw one advantage.
And let me and the rest of them go ahead and make a change.
They have not done anything for us, and they could have just been asked.
I told Burris that I was going to stay out of it, that I wouldn't get involved.
He was looking for some help from here.
But after he left, I got to thinking that it is plausible
from the standpoint of disqualifications.
That's it.
That's all I have.
Let's see.
How about the Marty Edge?
I've got a
Crawl in for Tim.
I'll see him as soon as he comes back next time.
And see if we can get him on full time.
I mean, I think that, uh...
If you understand that there's...
I'm not talking about the bullets here.
I'm just talking about the... Jackasses and things like that.
Well, we can use a balance.
And Orrin is that good man.
He is that good man.
He's totally loyal.
And frankly, we do need a balance.
You know, let me tell you, I have the greatest admiration for George.
George is basically a liberal.
He believes it deeply.
He tries not to be.
Marty will fight very hard.
And Marty will fight it.
I can't wonder if it goes for me or anybody.
I have offhand.
I have my buddy Mike.
I'll tell you who would be as good or perhaps better than Mike.
I doubt Mike would take it because it would be a slide down for him.
But Harper is quite conservative.
Yeah.
And...
Not really, not a front man, but damn competent in that field.
Let me give out a little thought.
I didn't know that Weinberger was a possibility.
Well, there's, I think he's talked to people about it.
I think Flanagan, I think the move to state is really better than Flanagan's going to do.
Well, maybe harder.
It's a good promotion.
It would be a hell of a promotion for him, but he is very, he is more conservative, let's say, than anybody else I've got.
And he's a pretty good politician.
I've noticed that.
He played our game.
Yeah, very much so.
Well, Marty Anderson.
I'll get Marty if he can be done.
I'll, uh, what the hell would you be pointing to?
Well, the only thing I can do is make him a deputy director of the domestic council.
That's the only thing I've got.
That would bring me any kind of money.
Yeah, yeah.
On this job thing, if you figure out what the, uh, our research has built,
how quick it could have been for it, right?
And how much would it bring it down?
In other words, if you could bring it down and find things, I noticed, for example, red braids are next to 7% of life now.
This may be wrong, but they might be right.
But the main thing is, suppose it hangs six all year.
Because then the city has become an insolubility.
And worse things could happen in this bill.
What I'm getting at is if we could get it moving a little, and also we could solve a couple little problems in these cities.
One thing, I just don't know.
I'm going to look at it as a CCC approach.
Sometimes some of these guys get out of the cities.
Get them out of the cities.
Well, you run that thing, you run it as a pretty tight operation.
It's paramilitary.
And whether you're used to it, I don't know if you can get away with that in this day and age or not.
But, uh, you have to clean up the parts.
Yeah, sure.
And, uh, do pollution.
In fact, you don't go off rivers to clean them up.
And, uh, there's all kinds of stuff that they can do.
And, uh, you can't.
They don't get any weapon out of it.
You just clean it there.
That's what you're doing.
Well, I don't have much confidence in my advice, but it occurs to me as well, you know, because it may never be so obvious.
Yeah, and I think an awful lot of people would have immediately rallied to it.
Although a lot of people did hit him.
I mean, there's a sympathy reaction from this guy up there.
Yes, sir.
On the other hand,
I wonder if they did some kind of maybe a weed reaction.
No, no.
I don't think they did from that.
I don't think you can really get mad at a person or a group.
You have to get mad at the issue, you know.
Yes.
And you can get mad at heroin pushers and really show you're upset about something like that.
But you can't be as mistaken as picking on Dan Rappler or somebody.
Because then you get kind of collided into it.
I think that was fine.
Really, I think so.
I mean, I think it's, you know, the main thing.
I'm trying to help her find it.
You got a personality.
Tom, you got a personality.
Yeah.
Who else?
Damn you.
Kiss me.
Oh, yes.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Oh, I see what you mean.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's right.
Now, all the rest are on the line.
How the hell do they help us?
Well, of course, basically most of the others are light.
And if you're not, you're just a snake.
You're a giant.
So if you have enough, you can take a ride.
You can take a marvelous opportunity.
But you should have taken it.
And he had made an arrangement with the President that Colgate, he's a mayoral reporter, trust me, he's even up there, that he said, I will not come if you're going to allow here this confrontation over development.
I'll let everybody stand.
I'm going to go out and show their defense against the war.
The President said, I agree.
Fifteen minutes before he went on to the President said, I'm sorry, but I was unable to resist the
the man is, they're going to go ahead and do it.
At that point, Rogers should have went with him.
And he would have done an enormous change by listening and finally become a man.
But let me ask you a question at this point.
Look at Rogers.
Here he is.
I think he comes off extremely well.
You know, everybody who sees him on television says he's very persuasive.
We have a curious thing.
John, does Rogers come off to you as a strong secretary of state?
No.
No way.
I didn't.
I didn't, because he's getting their asshole about it.
And it shows in his style, you know, when he speaks.
Even when he gets mad, as he has done a couple of times on television, he doesn't come across strong.
He comes across kind of whiny.
Is that right?
Well, I don't come across whining now, or even in the day-to-day life.
As a matter of fact, I come across as extremely tough every single night.
I'm done.
You have to really think you're done.
And they would just come across and kick him straight in the ass.
They needed it sometimes.
They needed it.
Laird, on the other hand, Laird comes across as totally unbelievable.
Totally unbelievable.
He shouts, you know, raises his voice and so forth.
And everybody sort of smiled at us.
Did you notice that?
Who the hell wants to be out in there, though?
Rodney.
Is that the personality?
Rodney, wait, that's an Irishman.
Huh?
Wait, it's an Irishman.
Both of you.
Like Joe.
Right.
Romney comes across as a zealot.
Sincere.
And I think he's put down as sincere and trying.
But at the margin of ability.
It's a tight end government, you know.
How about, you got Alton Farber out there, anyone?
He's not going to be here.
I don't know about him.
Now, well, in the business community, he's recognized as a pretty effective advocate, I think.
I think so.
Yeah.
He's got quite a lot of confidence.
There's, I can size it up.
But as far as personalities are concerned, there's no standout.
And by now, you know, presidential timber ought to be cropping up.
Hard?
No.
Hard?
No.
I think one of those, the only one I'm thinking of is the President.
In this case, there are only two.
One is, of course, Tom, and the other is Richardson.
Richardson's a classic, a different style.
Richardson, however, Richardson's not weak.
No, and I think he's a Woodrow Wilson type.
In a certain time in the country, I would guess,
that Richardson would be very appealing.
I think, I think he would have been.
I'm not sure.
I'm just not sure.