← 512-014512-016 →

Conversation 512-015

TapeTape 512StartFriday, June 4, 1971 at 12:15 PMEndFriday, June 4, 1971 at 12:22 PMTape start time02:28:09Tape end time02:34:04ParticipantsNixon, Richard M. (President);  Haldeman, H. R. ("Bob");  Bull, Stephen B.Recording deviceOval Office
AudioNARA Description

On June 4, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon, H. R. ("Bob") Haldeman, and Stephen B. Bull met in the Oval Office of the White House from 12:15 pm to 12:22 pm. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 512-015 of the White House Tapes.

Nixon Library Finding Aid
Conversation No. 512-15

Date: June 4, 1971
Time: 12:15 pm - 12:22 pm
Location: Oval Office

The President met with H. R. (“Bob”) Haldeman

     Economic policy group
         -John B. Connally
         -John D. Ehrlichman
         -Peter G. Peterson
         -George P. Shultz
         -Peter M. Flanigan

Stephen B. Bull entered at an unknown time after 12:15 pm

     President’s schedule

Bull left at an unknown time before 12:22 pm

     Economic policy group
         -Jobs bill
         -Maurice H. Stans
         -James D. Hodgson
         -Clifford M. Hardin
         -Stans
         -Connally
         -Flanigan
         -Ehrlichman
               -Poll results
         -Need for public confidence
               -President’s schedule
         -Flanigan
         -Paul W. McCracken
         -Shultz
         -Peterson
         -Troika
         -Quadriad
               -Arthur F. Burns

Haldeman left at 12:22 pm
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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

First, you, Connelly, should be Connelly, Earl, Peterson.
Robert Peterson.
And I guess, now I have to do the planning because I think it's, I don't think that he could particularly add to it.
I mean, he operates, but what I'm really getting at, and basically this is more policy, I'm really thinking about policy rather than operations.
And like when we take up such a matter as the job bills,
You know, I mean, there's the John Christian Bill and economic moves and so forth, what to make.
It's really to get down to a, it's really to get a sort of cross-fertilization with regard to where we go here.
You see, I don't want, the ones I'm not including, I'm not including deliberately because it's just too, there's too much.
You can start adding stands and options.
political sense, really.
You know what I mean?
They don't, they aren't going to contribute.
They'll have stands that have some, but they aren't going to make contributions to what the hell we ought to do if we want to do something in some of these matters.
But, see, Connolly does long-range thinking about the economies, and what he does in terms of, well, how the hell is this going to affect us politically, you know what I mean?
Like on the job bill or something else.
Now, unfortunately,
rather weak relief, but it's about all we've got there.
And maybe he's, he does represent a point of view.
As John earlier said, this is not a question that you should have me respond to.
It's a very bearish report.
Of course, the economists, I don't say, are a group that goes up and down.
And on the other hand, as John points out, our poll indicates the great
a deal of pessimism among people with regard to the economic prospects.
And, of course, that could be a mixed bag, too.
It depends on the questions and what had happened, when it happened to continue to support and so on.
You can't certainly talk people on this issue.
It's a question, really, of getting more of a feeling of confidence and buoyancy, not just about the economy, but about other things as well.
It gets back to this whole radio thing.
The trust is clear enough.
Basically, leadership, hope for the future, what's going to happen after Vietnam, what kind of country we want, why this is a good country, and all that sort of thing.
Which is the reason why, if you tell Ray, we will not do any radio thing this week, I don't think any of them are ready.
I think we'll get more trust, but I do think that
He could be pulled into a larger...
If you give us about the... What do you think about the...
I guess maybe you ought to have planning and interest getting the meeting so damn big by that time.
I would have planning.
He's more, in a lot of ways, more political than maybe the rest of them.
Except maybe...
It's a problem.
And in some ways...
Maybe not have, maybe not have McCracken.
That's what I would wonder is if he could maybe Schultz can represent the same kind of Schultz.
Schultz, yeah.
To an extent, although Schultz tends to be
more optimistic and more or less ain't fair than McCracken, you know what I mean?
And by basically Schultz's, he's McCracken's cautionary.
That's the economy Schultz.
If you had economy Schultz, would you have Peterson?
He thinks a lot about these things, doesn't he?
Or the economy Schultz, Peterson.
Or would you leave him out?
Connolly sells Erland, for sure.
Those three, for sure.
That's a question of planning abuse, right?
Right.
Right.
They ran together and talked first, you see.
Now, Connolly, basically, John, John should set it up so that Connolly brings it in again.
I don't want to add, I don't want anybody to add into this, understand?
company are useful.
If you have the triket or anything like that, or things like that, that simply just becomes too still.
And then if you have the quadrant, you've got harder there, ruminating around.
If you just, if you spend all of this time talking about guns and talking about the others, why don't you see a lady get it together and say, you know what, come on in, come on in.
And they can come in and moderate to me.
← 512-014512-016 →