Conversation 512-029

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

He thinks that in the end, well, it won't be, it may not work, it's just hard for this or that or the other one.

But yet in the end, coals, the rest of the unions end up that way.

But we go after members.

Well, I'll tell you, we're gonna, I think a lot of union members would like to get mail off these plants.

That's what I want to talk to mom.

That's what I want to talk to mom, John.

I thought maybe, Marty Anderson's coming in today.

And I thought maybe I'd turn him loose on this.

Well, that's what I'm going to proposition.

And I thought maybe I could turn him loose.

All right.

Good.

All right.

Well, that's great, because I don't know what he's going to say.

All right.

Let me hear something else.

Why not appoint him to be beaten?

Well...

What's wrong with that?

I don't know.

That's the other one.

Not like trucks.

It isn't like cars, though.

It doesn't civilize.

It doesn't involve a lot.

They say, well, man, it's an anti-laker.

So, well, isn't that the way to draw the union line?

It's a lawyer.

It's in disguise and arrested.

Say, well, we've tried to appoint somebody.

And get rolled.

You can make him out to be an expert.

Right.

Yeah, he is an expert.

I know he's an expert.

Yeah.

Don't you feel this way about unions?

Yes, I do.

Very much so.

I'm one of those guys that had to join one, you know, to get a job one time.

I had to join the teachers, and it was just great to help them.

And I just had to pay tribute to them.

And I think there are a lot of people who are union members who feel that way, that they've had to join, that they get nothing for it.

And, you know, that they're the creeps in the sky for us.

Alright, I'll check with McGregor.

Marty Anderson, if you agree, I'll put him on a project of trying to develop issues that will split the leadership and the Morankin Club.

And let's see what we can come up with.

I don't hear very much.

Did you get Ogilvy all right last night?

Sure.

I'm sorry to press you on that, but we wanted to move very fast on him.

You did fine.

Good.

That's great.

And also, I said that I wanted him to come into Washington with me.

Oh.

And appear, this is the press conference, to say a word for him.

He said he'd be delighted.

Come in, George.

How are you?

I haven't seen you in a few days.

I've been running around, I understand.

I don't know about you, but this time I had the words right.

On Jaffe, before we drop that, I would like to announce that Jaffe's coming to the federal government without announcing what he's going to do or what our organization is going to be.

Does he have a problem?

Well, if he has, he'll write him another day.

We say, I'd like to do it at 5.30.

Then I can go over and do the picture.

It's not just a half hour.

Beware of corruption.

5.30.

Same place.

I mean, I can do some other things.

Well, I went all out with what would be happening.

He says, I was afraid you were going to be talking to somebody.

Oh.

He says, I was afraid.

That's what we were talking about.

I was afraid.

But he said, of course, I'll do anything you want.

He's the best man.

I'll come in the city with him.

Good.

All right, Washington.

That's great.

He's got a cup of coffee.

Well, we'll do that at the time we announce the agency.

Right now, I'd like to just get the word out to Jack.

He's coming with the federal government so that he has an excuse.

Jack agreed to come.

Oh, yes.

Yes, he's already agreed to come, but he hadn't told the governor.

Yeah.

Well, all right.

All right.

Yeah, we hired him last Thursday.

Oh, great, great.

Yeah, so he's the one.

And we just announced he's coming with us.

For our talk, I would say that he's agreed to join the federal government at the top.

He calls it by last name.

No, no, for now I just say... At the very top of the federal government.

A leading federal role or something of that kind.

A leading federal role, which should be announced at a later time.

And this has the approval and support of Governor Earl Spoke with me.

Very good.

He'll keep the story running out that way.

I hope he's a good man, John.

Well, he's in town now.

I may want to run him in tomorrow, if that's alright, just for you to get acquainted a little bit with him.

I think he's our best guy.

I know we're in the right direction, as I see.

I see some of the left-wing columnists taking on the thing of marijuana.

It's interesting.

Time magazine missed it a mile this morning on what we're going to do.

In terms of bringing the government together at a point with your personal control.

We haven't given them the final word on this problem.

We said that there's going to be this new activity and so on, but we haven't said what it's going to be.

And I want to get that out with a punch, that you're taking command of this thing, that you've appointed Jaffe, that he's going to run the government operation that's going to cut across civilians as well as military.

And lay it all out there.

I'm meeting with a... Well, I've got Elliot and his assistant secretaries for a meeting this noon.

And I talked to many...

I hope they're not interested anymore, and they're doing what they think is well, because they don't know a goddamn thing.

Elliot's the board.

He's on the line.

Elliot knows the problem.

He has people down the line that are mad at him.

You know it.

Mad as hell.

I think you'll find that we'll get pretty good results this way.

Elliot's the board.

He's the board.

This is a perfectly legitimate University of Chicago

in Chicago.

God damn it, can't you get anybody from the University of Illinois for me?

Like, everybody's right out there.

I'm on somebody from Ohio State, maybe.

They graduated a good place.

That hasn't been our approach, Mr. President.

We try to find the best guy in the field, and then they always turn out to be from the University of Chicago.

Well, no, no, that's true.

There are better people, these great people, at home universities.

The music went to Westtown, and brought it into my office to say hello to somebody there.

And I was sitting there talking with our blackers, and they looked at each other, and it turned out they were next door neighbors.

When is this going to be ready?

About a week ago.

I've got 85 people working on this right now, on various aspects of the legislation.

And that's as many as we can conveniently run and get good results.

So we've really got to co-important it.

And it involves this whole business of holding people in the service afterward and so on.

So we've got every head of steam on it.

We know how to get it.

I pray for you.

What's holding the service?

Is that a sensitive issue?

Yes, sir.

Holding them in Vietnam is a sensitive issue.

How long?

60 days.

That's all.

Well, here's what you do.

You say to the man, look, you're going to get out in 60 days and go home.

Now, stay clean for 60 days or you could go right on time.

But if 10 days into the program, he shows up with heroin in his urine, he goes back and starts his 60 days over again, so he stays there 10 days longer.

I wouldn't go that way.

Let me say this.

It's Harrison.

But I think the keeping in Vietnam could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

I don't see that it's necessary.

You give them the 60 days provision, and then they're in the service, and we keep wherever the hell we want.

Let me hedge on this, will you?

And you talk to Jaffe, if you would, about this.

He has very specific reasons in terms of results for keeping them in Vietnam as such.

You mean to scare him?

No, no.

It's this kind of a thing.

Their addiction is associated with Vietnam.

And it's just like when you move to a new city.

You can change your lifestyle.

You can quit smoking for a change of 120 days.

Well, I can do that.

I can do that.

But the point is that the break is a geographic change as well as a habit change, you see.

And this is an area of expertise where I'd like you to be able to make a discretionary.

So I can do that.

I would not have it in the terms of a mandatory requirement.

Oh, no.

This is enabling only.

And the law won't say anything about keeping them in Vietnam.

Okay.

So I've got to see your point.

It's a...

It will not say anything about keeping them in Vietnam.

No, sir.

No, it will just play my downplay, just so that we don't get a very important, but basically an issue that would be used by the people that are for heroin, which they are, to destroy the whole program.

You know what I mean?

They'll never get one.

This program has had to be couched about with PR like we've never had it before.

No.

and this is one very important part that we are working on and i'd just like to have you keep an open mind on it until we get into it because there seems to be good reason for most of these things that we're going to be doing okay the only other thing i have is the uh timing of the housing integration statement um if we can well if we go out saturday of this week uh

It will go out with the wedding news.

That's good.

And it'll play in Sunday papers.

Good.

And if that's all right with you, we'll need some clearance from you on the statement itself.

You want me to read it?

Right, you will.

Okay.

That's a good time.

I forgot it was for the wedding news.

That's good.

It's a good thing.

I have it.

All those books.

Well, George, what are you deciding today about this event?

After being assigned the rest, you got your base in the country reestablished a little.

It's always good to go out and see a little clean, few clean folks.

It is, and they're very impressive people, and they really work this job.

They are, I would say, rather depressed, as they somehow don't feel things are going their way and they're worried.

I'm uptight about the SA-5 problems, which I have a very special view of.

I gather.

But I'm opposed.

I'm ready to see the civilians.

Sir, you can see the civilians on your trip.

The civilians, no, it's all military.

It was all right on that base.

I don't want to get a chance to reveal it.

Well, I went out from there and took in my daughter's graduation from the University of Denver.

Oh, I knew you were going to fall around and wander around.

That's the first time I've gone to a big event where I haven't been tackled.

There hasn't been, no.

There hasn't been a special seat or something.

We started wandering in like everybody else.

I know what you're talking about, I think.

In Denver.

Oh, the energy, of course.

The energy message was a tremendous story out there.

I testified this morning for the second time before the House Committee on Reorganization.

And he's been becoming increasingly friendly, as these hearings have gone on, of course, before, beginning with your discussion with him in the airplane.

I think we can feel a lot better about that originally in terms of his attitude, not that he's saying that he's supporting it, but he's talking about the tactics of getting it done, and things of that kind.

On the Senate side, and last week's hearings went well.

They got good support from people outside the administration, the House of Administrations, in particular.

The same thing happened in the Senate the week before, and that's being picked up again on the 21st.

And John Connolly, who was out of the country when they wanted to start the hearing, he won't come in and give a good kick in the Senate.

I watched the television yesterday.

And he certainly is unequivocal, although he does leave his opening in his statements, which is what he would offer.

Barbara Conable, Thursday night I saw Barbara Conable, and he was telling me about the hearings.

And he said that he had made a very strong and somewhat emotional counterattack.

Barbara?

Barbara did, in support of Reverend Sherry.

And after he was leaving the hearings, he ran into Larry Woodruff, who's Bill's technical man.

And Woodruff took him aside and he said, don't get too worked up about this, Barber.

Before long, you're going to get most of what you want.

So Barber reported that to me.

What it is, of course, is a lot of bargaining and a lot of going on.

basically is that from a political standpoint, the industry is getting done.

In other words, they see it related directly to their pocketbook.

In this poll, I looked at an extraordinary amount of literature that I actually find shows that that's the part I read particularly.

If you read it very carefully, the first thing it shows is that

The other point is that it shows, as far as this argument remains, whether or not you want federal control or state control, if you break it down only in the South, does the argument go

They want the federal government to have the strength in every region of the country, except the South.

In other words, your national figure, therefore, gives you a historic view of how we all comfort ourselves in the National Assembly.

It's the Southern.

And actually, they're voting their civil rights, and they don't want the Big Brother to tell them what to do.

So on that, we're on the right-wing end, technically, but it's not any good politically.

On that, we encourage

in regards to revenue sharing in general.

Everybody wants the cities to really ask them.

They want the federal government to spend more and they want the cities and the stations to spend less.

I'm thinking about cutback of services as a second choice.

Curiously enough.

So the argument on revenue sharing, which is the weakest from our standpoint, Mr. President, let's rest assured

services.

Okay.

I could, in revenue sharing, could be sold with something held out in terms of, well, maybe you could get your taxes down, your property taxes down.

It might be worth something politically.

I'm not suggesting that we ought to, I'm not suggesting cutbacks in services.

I personally think it ought to should be.

But I am on the same, from a political standpoint.

and running around and being for revenue sharing on the things that we have bought.

One, we want to rescue the cities to ensure they have enough money for their services.

That is not politically popular.

And two, that we want to provide more space for local and state government.

That is unpopular in the acceptance.

though we do not have the issues that are good, three in order, it is the right thing to do, and it is useful to get something through.

So that's really what you get down to.

And there's a very high penetration of public awareness of revenue sharing.

Well, they know about it.

Seventy-nine percent, as distinguished from reorganization, where there's only twenty-three or four percent in revenue sharing.

Would you agree with my analysis of the other points?

I'm not sure about the one about local control.

Regional breakdown.

See, I saw that figure in the first one.

And I read the regional breakdown.

And I said, there's something about this.

I want to see what the South did.

The South was about three to one.

No, that's interesting.

And then the North and every other area of the country.

Ignore it.

They did not want regional control.

They wanted national control.

In other words, they don't trust their state governments or their city governments.

But the right thing to do is to make them trust them.

But it was that big of a debate that I found extremely interesting.

Because I had rather, I rather respected the South.

I knew the South may be hiding us in the black situation.

So we'll come and integrate them.

That's a big number of times I'm going to take a look at.

Because our people said people should always make that argument.

Because the fact that 35 or 40 percent, even of North East, North, Midwest, and Far West are foreign.

He does talk with that 40%.

We don't make it very loud with him, because it is not one that is as popular or anything in and of itself.

I expected it to sound in the South, you know, like hella loud.

I'll let you track down to that and tell you what to do.

Tomorrow, it started back.

It started back.

Tomorrow, we will not refer to this poll in the domestic council meeting, but I will show some poll results from other polls.

to show some trends that are very interesting as to what issues are fading and what issues are coming into more prominence.

Well, you could show it from this without telling them what it is.

Well, if you don't mind.

Oh, all right.

I would say if this was a poll, I'd say some industrial concerns have taken the poll.

They've piggybacked some questions.

And so here are some interesting things.

Well, I'm just going to show them some charts.

John, don't worry about it.

I'll tell you what it is.

Okay.

Go on.

All right.

I always use the gag to pick it up.

Good.

All right.

It helps.

Education is a new issue.

It's just coming out of the chart, actually.

And some old issues are going on.

If you read the chapter, I get a fascinating thing.

If you read it, keep it all to yourself.

It's a fascinating analysis of the feelings of the American people.

Some very good questions.

Where things are moving.

The thing I thought I'd do tomorrow with this domestic house meeting was simply to indicate to them

The purpose of the meeting was to air some work.

We draw on really working on three levels.

Goals, or four levels, I should say.

Goals, objectives, policies, and programs.

Eight.

Right.

Eight.

Did you get a practice?

No.

Oh, that's nice.

I got a copy.

I'll do that.

Why don't you have, in this domestic council meeting, have a, why don't you try to, in the extension cabinet, you should make it rather broad in terms of the other secretaries and others that are coming.

All right.

All right, if I could do something in that respect for the whole cabinet, which would be good.

We've been trying to think of what to do with Blount.

You know, we've got to get a party.

Everybody said, well, let's have a party before the cabinet.

We'll have a cabinet.

So I decided to go out and make it a part of a real deal.

And I would say around 30, 20 people.

And it had to be a candidate and a sub-candidate and top agency heads and their wives.

In other words, the whole field.

But there's a lot of those sub-candidates, undersecretary types, and so forth there.

And in addition to that, we pull out of the White House, of course, I'm here in office.

Well, I tell you what I have done.

I've told them that the principals had to come.

since this is going to be an exchange on policy.

Well, and so we've discouraged undersecretaries for that reason in order to encourage the cabinet officer to come.

The way that all the principals ought to come to town, I'm going to be.

I have.

And the president is put aside.

I'd like to have the principals there.

But then say that we'd like to be able to bring one person.

Okay, that's fine.

Be able to bring one person.

And that sounds good.

And I hope to get a lot of freewheeling discussion out of this.

It's not going to be a lot of slides and stuff.

It's just going to be a little bit to provoke them.

I don't think that's a problem if they each choose one man to bring.

And the only other people we'll have in there will be domestic council staff and the White House.

But it's tough to hear the people that are here.

And they've all done homework on this.

They've all sent us their proposals.

Oh, yes.

Oh, my, yes.

I don't understand.

I was supposed to be in the hall for 20 minutes.

This is the kind of thing, I don't know if you know what John Connolly's doing, but he has directed his people to spend a half an hour every day thinking.

To leave a half an hour unstructured in their schedules every day.

And once a week, he wants an unconventional suggestion, a creative suggestion on paper from each one of his top people.

And I thought without mentioning his name that I would tag the meeting at the end, or you might want to do that, with the idea that we've now drawn on all kinds of conventional sources here, polls, the department's bureaucracy.

Give me two sentences and I'll say it.

All right.

And I'll mention the company's name.

Why not?

This is an idea that can be developed.

It's a hell of a good idea.

I'd like for all of you to do it.

It's good.

Also, it gives them a feeling that they're contributing something.

And sometimes you get one very good idea.

And we're structured here to accept unconventional ideas.

They're not going to come in, but they can talk about it.

They're all, they're all the friends of ours and great and supportive and so on, but they end up being buried around the citizens and the rest of it.

But do you yield that vote?

Because you're, you're inundated, and I'm sure you, you know, can, can lead to the reckoning, because you know this is a hard problem, and supportive and so on, and you're in about labor management legislation.

So I'm still in on this, but let me be honest with you.

I mean, I mean, it's me.

I said, I could stand up here and talk about it in the next year and a half, and it would drop without a trace.

I said, both labor committees are disaster areas.

The leaders, both Democratic leaders, both House and Senate, will never rule those committees, so they can't ever get a vote on them.

I said, if you change the Congress, we'll have a chance.

And there should be some changes.

You're never going to get enough.

But you know, the business community generally

They all fall back on that, and frankly, I must say, when George goes out and makes that rip-roaring speech with the labor legislation, that encourages him more in his stand-up than the rest of them.

Goddamn it, of course with the labor legislation.

How are you going to get it?

How are you going to get it to this conference?

Not one chance.

The only way you get it is like we got postal reform with a crisis and a disaster of some kind, and then out of the

Ashes comes the second.

Well, three of errors.

But I think the thing to do, though, is to tell them to quit fooling around, saying, yes, we're boring.

We need to talk quietly.

I mean, these guys are going to help people.

No chance.

No use in killing themselves.

George, what are your, I ask you a few times, and I use it in the time of discussion, because it's been a long time.

But, uh,

I was thinking several notes on the various economic things that have been coming in from Stein, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

And then I was wondering what your lack of, the lack of Schultz actions that have been coming in from Stein and McCracken.

Berg's actions.

Are things as bad as, you said,

signed on a great wall that was placed yesterday in the staff meeting.

Oh, that was last week, wasn't it?

No, no, it was on Friday.

Right, last week.

Yeah, that's it.

Well, I think that we have a pretty good expansion going on, as I've said.

You don't need just the time to throw in the towel and start to... You don't have a lot of other things.

I think he is actively considering controls as an alternative, judging by the way he talked, I'm afraid.

But he doesn't know how.

He doesn't know how.

He doesn't know really whether it's a good idea or not.

He has an open mind, literally an open mind.

I wouldn't put that word in his mouth.

I'm not sure.

Well, you can see from the quadrant being in the dark, it was pushing very strong in this direction.

Oh, yes.

In fact, his proposal...

But he's still trying to prove that he was right, that's all.

He will, after we have become...

He goes over 1065 bar terms, so he should have controls.

I know.

But that's the way we all are.

His proposal in steel is interesting because he sort of explicitly wants to propose something that'll fail.

So you can therefore say...

Since this income or this wage price board couldn't control the steel settlement, and it can, nothing can control the settlement, we better have controls.

I see that one of the members of the Federal Reserve Board came out in favor of controls publicly.

I saw that in the papers yesterday.

How could we for what?

For wage price controls.

Are we going to get more and more than that?

Well, I suppose so, although the consumer's price index performance has been so dramatically better than last year's.

But, gee whiz, four months is something pretty good.

We must have done something right to do that.

The wholesale prices are a problem, and I think, as I've said to you, I think, frequently over the last month or so,

It seems likely to me that the problem will not be expansion and unemployment and so forth by next year.

The problem will be much more likely inflation to that extent.

I agree with Arthur, but I think that it really requires hanging in with our basic policies, not letting the deficit get further out of control.

It's in bad shape now.

I don't know.

Of course, the monetary picture, I think, is crazy.

You mean international?

No, domestically.

Well, we've had very high rates of growth since January, but it's been a dramatic zigzag, erratic pattern.

Arthur just doesn't seem to think that he can get it into a consistent pattern.

All my people that I talk to think that it

Certainly can be handled a lot better than it is now.

Yeah.

Let me ask this, uh... Is it conceivable, maybe, that he's not a manager?

All right.

Mr. Reed?

See, Mark, Mark, with all of his failures, could run the damn thing.

I'm not sure Arthur can.

Arthur could run the board.

I found that when he ran the board, he got rid of it.

uh well he feels that the expansion is going forward very strongly that we shouldn't worry too much about the durable goods orders and the plant equipment that was the specific gear that you have but that was more a question his view of the composition of the expansion rather than the total rest of the expansion

I'm not so sure I can grab that completely, but anyway, that's his view.

He feels that inflation is likely to be a problem given the performance of the Fed, which he thinks is the bad actor in the piece, and that they just have this extreme swing in monetary policy that's bad.

He also has a lot of thoughts on the international side, which he thinks you handled extremely well in this.

keeping quiet and forcing the other countries to go ahead and float is the right way to do it.

Let me ask this.

One thing that comes up on this poll is the matter of confidence.

I mean consumer confidence in terms of their future plans.

And basically on that point, that's a very negative right time.

In other words, this is our consumer confidence, you understand, not the University of Michigan's and not the Dyer Survey or something and so forth.

Now, it happens that our poll was taken, unfortunately, during the period when we had the International Monetary Index.

And of course, Jesus Christ of Jesus made that look as if the dollar were going to go to hell and all that sort of thing.

And also, our business can be exactly like each other.

And I must say, on the confidence factor, George, I've always said, I just know you can get out.

Conley can talk confidence.

You can talk confidence in everybody else.

But it'll be a mixed chorus in any event.

It'll be a mixed chorus.

And somewhere, over some time,

I guess the confidence turned around.

But what's your feeling about the confidence?

I've never been very big for that.

We're not putting that on the pedestal when Arthur puts it on.

And I think that the... We ask the question always.

But Arthur's been going around saying that the big problem is confidence.

And I think the...

Spending, which is what we're talking about, consumer spending, let's put it in the operational terms, that's the factor.

That is beginning to come.

I would have to say that late April, early May didn't seem to be so strong on the sales side.

What's happened in the last two weeks of May?

We've just seemed to have picked up some and

And we noticed the change.

Sears, Wards, Pennies, and so forth, report issued, I guess, in this morning's paper, shows a very substantial gain.

Sears, I think, year over year, was about 7.5% gain.

It was big, and they were all like that or more.

And the auto picture has picked up again.

I think we should, when we have this meeting.

How people feel about comments, of course, depends to such an extent on what they've seen that night on television, too.

How do you feel about comments that were said that night?

Is there somebody out there in D.C. that...

He cried about, gee, the international monetary situation, very serious, the dollar going to be in the stock market, maybe down 300 points.

Good God, I said, you heard that meeting we had here where that fellow holder was sitting here and said, the market will go down 300 points.

You heard what he said, yes.

I wrote it down, 300 points.

I looked at him in horror and said, no, I'm sorry, Mr. Perlman.

And he just cried at that centrist state vote.

I don't know what you said, Steve, but about ten, three, four minutes later, he came in with a little piece of paper and handed it to you, handed it to Paul, handed it to me.

The market had gone up.

Well, on the market, the international market is one of the best things Stein did.

And Stein, I consider to be a very solid guy.

He's trying to prove his figure to the right, too.

He's worried about things.

He wonders what's going on.

He took it off of Bernie last summer here.

I remember Paul was the way, I remember he said how clearly here we had a meeting and he was the absolute optimist.

Things were really rolling.

And he said that publicly.

And then he... Well, it wasn't his fault.

He just got the... No, the steel strike.

The other strike.

He just got a real eye on it.

And the other thing is that you can't move your guns.

But on the other hand, there's, on the retail sales, particularly with the big durables, that's an entire bunch.

Well, that's not bad, you know.

You notice, John, I figure I mark one time.

I guess when I say I mark, you all see it.

But housing isn't bad if the goddamn interest rates don't go up.

And that's the thing, although there's only a useful percentage.

But there's housing.

But more than that, what goes into houses?

I mean, refrigerators, et cetera, automobiles, all strong, right?

Heavy things.

How your question is phrased in here, I don't know, but it seems to me the way to phrase the question to the consumer is that

In terms of, we're not confident, but in terms of, do you plan to buy an automobile in the next two months?

That's not in there.

This is, are you better off or worse off?

Will you be better off or worse off?

That's what they asked.

Are you better off?

Do you think they're going to be better off or worse off this next year?

So it really has to get down to the fact that's how they do it on a plan.

how they feel about wages, and how they feel about prices and inflation.

And on that, they aren't too damn confident.

On the other hand, they may still buy.

They identify unemployment and inflation as two of the top five national priorities.

But what the hell is he talking about?

Well, thank you, Pierre.

No, no, no.

Thank you, Pierre.

Thank you, Pierre, Mr. President.

But again, Benjamin has a pretty nice phone, as far as I know, nice queries.

Milton Friedman is going to be in town tomorrow afternoon.

And he has a different slant on things.

He's a little different from mine and from others.

And I don't think he's going to worry to listen to it.

Sure, I hope he doesn't listen to it.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't.

I'm not sure.

You know, I know I'm going to stay short of the agency because of the hierarchy.

But he's a lot.

He's a lot of truth.

Yeah, I'll put it that way.

Part of the campaign is to jolly up the top people of each of the departments and make sure that they're all aboard as we go along.

It's kind of a periodic contact thing.

Not nice.

Well, it's not nice, but it's... No, no, I mean it is.

I think it's nice that those poor people do a little encouragement.