Conversation 514-017

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Get out of here.

Oh, I want to tell you that I'd like to look at the house for editing purposes.

I think it could be improved by cutting.

All right.

Do you read it all?

Oh, yes.

And it's in one line right over here.

Now, I guess maybe that's my problem.

We cut it about in half from when it started out.

The difficulty I have with the job is that I just don't like all that crap about morality.

And I don't like the title.

There's one title in there, Complexities.

I don't like that.

You can't ever admit that there's such a thing.

Well, let me get it back to you.

Well, you understand, the substance will abide.

The only one thing that I have some concern about is why we couldn't be a little bit more precise in interpreting those two cases at the end and gotten the cases that you, I mean, I like them.

And to me, it seemed to me that the, and it may be that you're trying to

We're trying to bend over too far and make sure these, well, are the liberals lying there.

And the clear implication of those cases is that was the question of intent, and it weren't a question

in the case of people at large voting in a referendum.

That doesn't come true at all.

And the way that paragraph is written, it's got us along and all that.

It got a little... We can sharpen that up.

Well, I think it should be sharpened up.

And read the case.

Because that...

Doesn't that really give you the basis for doing the other one?

The one coming up...

I think that the goddamn people want it.

They want to live in a neighborhood of higher-priced homes.

They have a right to.

Absolutely.

This does not make that clear.

It has in the economic narration and all the rest.

And

I think it's there, the detention, but can we get through approximately 18, I think it's 22, 20, 20 to 5,000 words.

It's pretty much lost.

Well, we'll try and cut, say, cut 25 to 30 percent of it as a target and see what we can do.

That's quite small.

Yeah.

When we started, we cut pretty hard, and

You know, when you live with a draft, then you figure, gee, this is bare bones at this point.

But we can do better.

Well, Ray, is Ray the draft?

Yes.

I know.

We were working on a draft.

Oh, yeah, I've got some more.

Did you get a second?

Do you want us to do some cutting, or do you want me to take another look at it?

Maybe I'll take a look.

I'll get it back to you, and then I can spend some time on it today.

Maybe I'll be more careful the second time, because I just thought of it last night.

Well, let me arrange to get it back to you.

Let me just make that goddamn brief, because that was a bunch of assholes.

And they've got 30 minutes, that means an hour, with that son of a bitch who's a scolding.

Yep.

Well, I understand that I was supposed to be, but I can't be.

I have a conflict, so that probably won't be there.

I think it's so ridiculous, and I don't like the concept at all.

Eisenhower, that is, is a head of the bank.

Hello?

Yeah, what I was, uh, talking about on this, uh, assignment, the presentation of laws, you have, uh, did you have, did we have anybody there that was trying to, uh, take our, up our side, or what, uh, or was there any preparation?

I understand what that means.

Wait a minute.

Uh, uh,

They thought they asked about the disclosure on laws and so forth and so on.

As a matter of fact, we disclosed the whole goddamn thing, didn't we?

Because I had a case that was in Saigon, Hawaii that calls upon the administration to disclose what we're doing.

Well, goddamn, we disclosed it.

It seems to me that...

But we got somebody that can take the offensive on the thing for us, sir.

What have you, what's been done on that?

Who'd you talk to, Colson or who, McGregor?

That's just a terrible thing.

They always dominate those, don't they?

The other thing that you got that final cash to put your hand on, it is 19.

And that's your time.

Now, I want you to pass that, if you would, immediately to Scalia, and tell him to develop a plan as to how we can get a maximum impact from that plan.

They should say the president again proved right, you know, the president catched us in the holes.

That's what you say they were.

This was pretty...

It's down for five and a half years, because we might as well curl online, don't you?

This is the first time it's been below 20%.

Yeah.

Yeah, yeah, we've heard about it.

Yeah, yeah.

Why don't we just say that I'd like for him to go a later time.

It won't fit in that something we're doing was the Russians or some damn thing.

I'll take the orders.

If you see a white burger, hurry and come in.

And, uh, hello.

And make sure that he's still around.

Let's figure out how to get all three.

Take that, please.

Yeah.

Do you take care of certificates, et cetera, for, you know, in those things?

I want to be sure that all those groups, not all of them, it's pretty busy.

You know, like the Tulsa Choirs, there were about 18 bands there and so forth.

Did they all?

Good, good.

And all those, all those will be covered on the Tulsa visit and on the West Point visit and the rest.

Good.

That's routine, but it'll be very, very good.

Good enough.

Thank you.

Oh, yes.

Yes, he and Larry are invited to all of this matter.

And Rogers would come ordinarily if he's in town.

Now, we wouldn't let Irwin come.

You're right.

And so...

I guess, for all I know, I should have given you that chance to say...

I don't think they were actually counseled, right?

I just want to see.

I got to swear, right?

They're catching him now.

Turns out that we have a parent who's testified.

Curtis Parr, please.

Uh...

Wait a minute.

If you've got any further on Rochester, is it all going according to plan?

Just an ordinary briefing, is it?

Just a briefing, not to meet the mayor.

I just thought very much I didn't want to have an interview.

So we're looking into the idea of having a reception at Paul Clark's house.

I'm sure he's willing.

At that point, he was weak.

Yeah, he was using that room.

He just saw it for a little time.

If Paul could have...

And so that was you, I thought he had a very high level heart with him.

So that he knows that I wanted him.

He had one minute or so when I was there in 1954.

In fact, you just ought to call him on the phone and just say that, because at the end of the day, I just wanted to have a few buddy-buddy friends.

You know, only me, 15 or 20, where I could sit around and talk to him.

I had a great experience with him.

I don't know what that means.

Establishment.

what we call a working dinner, a working lunch.

I've told Bob, the State Department, and so forth, that there is no such thing as a working dinner, a working lunch.

You work before you have lunch.

You want to take a car, I guess, or other people might need to do them.

But I've got a... And so, like, when we have Brian over here, rather than having 28, or they allow me, I just listen to the jackasses.

I just wanted to congratulate you on that fine picture of you.

You look strong, vigorous, manly, and I thought, boy, you wouldn't want to drag me.

I bet you've got a lot of good comments on me, haven't you?

Yeah?

Good.

Oh, of course it was sad, because my wife, she had his own issues to do with me, and somebody was a little bit nuts.

That's what they are.

They were exhibitionists, basically.

When they come chatting at you like that, all you can do is throw it off.

You can handle it, but they can't do it.

And, uh, you have, uh, you have to stand this day and then.

Never, never, never worry about it.

Many times, you know, you're better off other than by your academies and your friends.

You know what I'm saying?

Yes.

Uh, bye.

Poor guy.

Always worried about these things.

You're...

I guess why I heard you're not here.

Well, anyway, what I had to do is, like in Rochester, all of these libraries, I had these editors before, so I don't want any editors.

But I mean the business only has editors.

The Rochester elite, rather than the Rochester man, he might have a few from around, you know, that's a pretty big area.

Yeah.

Well, I think it was a useful meeting for the people to have a chance to sort of raise their

It gives us a foundation of security.

Well, it's a big, it's embarrassing, man, because basically, you know, it's just about, you know, and it's really sorry, it's sad.

They've all worked hard, many trips, many stages, and I don't know if the rest of the funding comes through.

And as I said, we don't want to have to be captains.

We'll probably be known as scholars.

We have to work on these fellows to constantly be creative in their attempts to penetrate the public consciousness.

Boke talks about going to Maine and tearing down a billboard.

I don't know, maybe that's our fault.

Can I suggest this, Bob?

You do give me, and I'd like to see it, but I've got to do it tomorrow.

Tomorrow.

That's a better day.

The three points you think cabinet officers ought to mention.

Remember I said that, I think one thing, for example, they all have to talk about something about the president.

They can talk about, first, the world leader, the leader deal.

Second, the dignity deal.

Bolder.

Stronger.

And that's the one that hasn't gotten through that should.

We've got all of them.

Do you want me to come in?

Yes.

No, that's good.

Well, I understand.

I understand.

Well, that, of course, was the main one.

But I think the world leader relationship is strong.

Right?

It's good for other reasons.

It's so easy to say, right?

You know, sit down, strength out, strength, toughness.

That's the one that seems to me can't help but be believable, that has easily backed up points to prove it, and yet hasn't done so.

Cap, I wanted to talk to you about...

I want to make sure I have it.

I want a better approach to the budget this time.

That's something else, but basically you're a politician.

You understand that.

So if you want to say this is the first time we've had a lot of politics, man.

The great problem we have now is that we're not making the spending that's funny enough to bring the spending politically.

And too many times I get something in here a lot of times, and I refuse to send it.

It's his show.

It's his job here.

something to prevent $200 million from once you've gotten that.

Professors, I signed it.

I shouldn't have.

I shouldn't have signed it.

I should have said that we spent $200 million for interest rates or something like that.

You see my point?

I don't want to help any professors.

I don't want to subsidize any schools.

I don't want to give any for education.

I don't want to do any of these things.

We're doing enough.

And politically, politically, that's right.

Now, there must be some other areas where we've got some things like that where we just take our lives.

The other point is that

I really think that as far as the domestic policy is concerned, there is nothing that could be more important than the project that we need to take.

I'm already saying summertime chosen.

You know, like he had those 200 points.

But sometimes he does have a point.

He says that he does.

For example, in automobiles, he was right and both he was wrong.

And if Marty Stantz hadn't come in here and fucked me about automobiles, I would have stopped that goddamn airbag.

And we'd have had the airbags.

And we'd have lost more automobile sales.

And we'd have had that crazy seatbelt sign with the lights flashing.

So we thought, that's only two good things we've done.

We should do a hell of a lot more.

I just got a card the other day.

I said, my God.

I got a card that says, what in the hell is this?

It must be one of the Blinkins.

I said, oh no, this is the newest type of board.

Jesus Christ, all kinds of gadgets and stuff around here.

It's all the most people put on because of the government requirements.

But I think that's amazing.

What I'm getting at is this.

I really feel that the bigger deal with the environment, and I know it's tough, and I know that I'm a minority in this field, and that we will catch on some of the environmentalists, but I really feel that we've got to take some necessary jobs at this point.

And we've got to hurry up the agencies on it.

Amy Martin's department is one of the ones.

Is that the one you're talking about?

That's a funny, that's a funny issue, Mr. President.

This one is required by law.

that you've got all of these environmental lawyers just cursed.

stop these projects.

So you've got to be meticulous in filling this damn thing out.

Well, I don't have any evidence that anybody's dragging these feet.

I'll check around, but I... Morrie is so hung up on this.

I had these guys in, and we've gone over this, and believe me, Morrie is just hung up on this.

I'll have my guys double-check it again.

But I don't have any evidence that anybody's dragging any decisions as well.

I have had, let me tell you, I've had the consumer people and the environment people in, and we would shutter them on that.

The woman is doing a great job, and there's people there who are doing a fair job, and they don't think we're going to do that.

That's one of the reasons consumers don't appear on that list, really.

It's the woman.

Jessica, you should call her and say that we were talking about her.

The president thinks she's looking for her.

She's doing very well.

She makes a name for herself.

This is an obvious matter of jobs, Captain.

Now there is going to be legislation regarding tax credits, they're all concerned about that.

There's not going to be any.

There's not going to be any tax credits this year, and there is going to be any next year in time.

Now, we will come out with some next year.

We will make, and then they'll put it on the basis that this will create about 2,000 jobs.

But having in mind as to what we're going to do this year, we have to consider this budget in terms

of what will create a job.

The only thing I've seen across the desk, and I understand, apparently, is some person's shed yard out in California.

That's fine.

Is that true?

We're going to, yes.

What is that?

Merchandising program that provides for the building of a very large business.

All right.

California.

The other thing is, in the field of housing,

You know, they will never be done out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of, out of,

And it's an area where I really want to roll out.

I want you to study it with me.

You've studied it, but John, you haven't studied it.

I've got to make matches and tell you what the hell it is.

All right.

But I'm afraid, tell me if I'm wrong, that when they talk about it, when they talk about interest,

a subsidy for interest for middle income and other housing, and that is something that would require the legislation.

Well, not only that, that was an end rot in there.

We've had this process going.

And the problem with Romney's idea is it will put such a demand on the money market that your interest rates go right through the roof.

So we've been trying to work out a way of doing this without going into that money market.

I understand.

But we have got to.

I mean, there's any way, any way, any construction.

I don't need house construction of any kind.

I don't care about that, where it is, but I don't care about next year.

I don't care about 72 now.

And then I want to announce every stinking one from the White House.

Every dead one.

Now understand, there must be something.

Is that crazy?

Well, we got something that we opened.

Is he a billion three for rapid transit, which is quite a bit?

Is it money?

Or is it appropriation?

It's not authorization.

It's authorization, but we're spending it out of the five-year.

Well that's rapid transit and that's because it requires all the design first.

But we can, the housing and there's a lot of construction.

The reason that the budget office is worried about the

public works and construction.

It's not the first year, it's the third and fourth year because it builds up.

Let me tell you the problem we've got here, Captain.

We're either going to do spending the money this way or the Congress is going to force us to select the wrong money.

In other words, it's no good choice.

I know we shouldn't screw around.

I think the best thing we can do for the economy is to let our money go to 7%.

Frankly, that's what ought to happen, but we can't do it now because we won't survive.

And also, we can't do it because the Congress is going to let us.

John, the Congressman, killed that guy on the trip, and they'll pass it over to me.

No, that's the whole deal.

They'll pass it over to me.

No revenue sharing by burning up the money for a lot of other nonsense.

Yes, yes, yes.

On the revenue sharing, too, as I say, this does bear out my point to you, John.

We have gotten presented now, from now on, tax, dealings, tax, nothing else, nothing else.

And next year's conflict has got to come up.

With the tax reform bill, I don't give a goddamn what it is.

Increase taxes if you want.

But we're going to decrease your property taxes.

You know, I hadn't realized the point that Elliot made.

You know, I had never come home.

It really, the property tax is the most progressive of all taxes.

All of us have all been taught that in our community.

They're colloquing an onyx.

Because the sales tax was the great wrestling tax.

But the property tax is more.

Oh, sure.

Because, you see, because of the income tax.

And, you know, because down there you pay a higher percentage of your money for that.

Well, you know, the old folks, you weren't there at that time, were you?

No.

Let me tell you what they said.

Now, here are these old folks all out with their hands on the money, you know.

Why wouldn't they be?

But, my fellow, the one thing all the groups agreed upon, they said, did you know,

Could you do something about our property taxes?

Did you know that 70% of us own our houses or apartments?

70% of the entire people in America.

If you want to do something for the old folks, that'll be in that speech in Chicago.

It's the property tax.

Not in terms of people, that's what I was speaking about.

That's all you have to do.

But for the great blue collar guy, he's a dork and stiff and sits out there and he lives out in these single little suburbs.

I think that house is in Orange County or Cicero, Willamette, and the rest.

And he always goes to a place and it's his.

He can't keep living in it because he can't pay the taxes.

But he can.

But he can't move.

He can't move.

And I'm not sure that...

Believe me, I don't know that the taxes are that big a problem.

I think the reason that he has a hell of a problem with the taxes is that it has distinguished from the income tax, which is much higher, and the sales tax, which comes out of him day by day, week by week.

So he's forced to do it, like insurance or whatever.

But in the case of the property tax, it comes at a gulp, and the poor son of a bitch has to save for it.

So he's got to go to the bank to make those who accredit him.

I want you to play this with cold bulletin steel.

Do you remember?

Every decision is to be made in terms of jobs, right?

Every decision is to be made in terms of, as far as revenue sharing, hell, I believe that.

I think it's a great issue.

I don't agree with the Vice President that there are major, major faces for the issues, and there's a Democratic establishment.

That's true, but it may not live.

That helps the ratings.

The real problem with revenue sharing is that it's got to be related to the folks.

Now, as I talked to the

Now, the other thing I want to do is, I want to take the issue pulled from the bottom when she did it, and I really want that analyzed by somebody outside, you know, I don't know what it is.

I ask them, you can get the canon, that's an outside rule, analyze it.

All right, somebody else analyze it.

What you've really got to do is to get it analyzed.

Let me explain.

A superficial look at an issue pulled,

It can lead you to terrible, terrible mistakes.

And I must say, I think we've got to continue to take issue polls.

About six months from now, I would wait that long.

I would wait that long.

But the Gallup issue poll isn't worth a damn, due to the fact that it tells the person

Well, I'd like to do one of those right quick.

You know about this one.

What's the main problem?

What do you think is the biggest issue for your family?

It comes out all together, Victor, but what is the biggest issue?

Confirming the nation.

They have to be forced to have plans about the nation, but he's going to go to his family, not the nation.

It's fine.

See, the war is not gone.

I mean, we'll be looking good in that.

But then they're going to have something else created for the media to address.

And I think in front of this family, well, I'm part of the family budget.

Everybody should come to that picture.

You're just going to take the old lady out to the movies tonight.

But we can break that down.

Yeah, but see, we can break that down in a family issue.

No.

Into what kind of issues?

What kind of economic issues?

Is it taxes?

Is it... Now, here's the place, here's the place, isn't it, where you might be able to, Colson might be able to lose that poor Harris.

He is supposed to be awfully good at analyzing.

Blue Harris.

And analyzing...

So that's where he's good at.

He's a liar when it comes to polls, because he loathes them to fit his analysis.

But on the other hand, he's good at analyzing where you go.

So he guided Kennedy into the various things that Kennedy had to hit in 1960, and he guided him pretty damn well.

Kennedy took them.

He may have made it there, but the missile crash was not an issue.

He also hit us on the top of the river.

It was simple.

If you talk about it catching speeches at 6 p.m., you only make one.

We're actually moving at this time.

We're moving at that.

Our press speed has never been lower.

No.

In other words, it's not going to start being interesting.

You know, he finished.

There he is.

I'm separated.

It's moving.

Oh, sorry.

This old woman here broke this glass.

Excuse me.

Maybe an old man, a very old man.

Are you doing that?

Why are you doing that?

Maybe a very old man.

Well, what I can tell you is that that is a very good way to heal.

Well, it's not only, it also is good for you.

I want you to get, for example, on a con, and we've got to, I want to con these people.

This training is bad.

I don't give one damn about all the rest of this stuff.

It's all a question of meaning.

It's a, you're talking about the cost-benefit ratio.

The hell with the benefit.

The question is, it's cost-job ratio.

Job, job, job, job.

Every time.

How many jobs do you create in a house?

And when?

When?

Now, a little bit of portable stuff, but you might have so many jobs that you know we're a jury, the time is good.

But we've got to get something fed in.

I do feel that your idea of separating out, I didn't want to lift the curtain on that, I guess you already told them, but separating out, I mean separating out the vampire from the

Well, I'm getting the numbers on that.

We'll have that by noon.

But I didn't want to broach that with anybody until we knew whether we could do it or not safely.

And Nathan's working on it right now.

I would like to make it clear to Commissioner, if we veto their bill, just to say here is a bill that will provide 500,000 jobs right now.

We just got it.

And incidentally, whatever it costs you to get the jobs, get it.

I don't care about the budget.

I don't care about the inflation.

It helps get the jobs because whoever, if those who oppose us should win, the cost is

in terms of budget and inflation will be infinitely greater.

This is the strongest point I would make.

I've done a lot of talk recently, or spoken through some others, and there's a lot of carpeting, a lot of agonists, isn't it?

Too hard, too much devastation.

I always ask, what's the alternative?

And then you run down the list of these extinct volcanoes in the sun, and they are absolutely, at that point, is the strongest argument you can make.

When you take, for example, I didn't raise it this morning because Bob said,

Don't worry about Brown on that now, because he's been really fighting that down.

Oh, it wouldn't fight that down.

They came in, they presented a session of requests and orders and...

And I told him, quite honestly, I said, the trouble is with all of our groups, there's been a tendency for them to hear from government everything they want to hear, and things have then proved wrong.

And I told him the truth.

I said, we can do some of these things, we can't do others.

But we'll be honest with you, I'll have everyone, 80 cabinet officers, spent hundreds of hours working personally on this, and we gave an answer to all 60.

Now some are horrible, some are against it, and some we had to do to get an answer to.

Now, if we had to say yes to all 60 demands, let me tell you what it would cost.

$102 billion a year, right?

That's a 50% tax increase for every American.

Next question.

Well, you can tell them how much they need in the enterprise cards on our people, right?

And the jobs like that.

It's a 50% tax increase for 40% of the people.

Right?

It should be controlled.

12%.

It's getting worse.

Of course, in some cities it's really getting worse.

Well, I know you've been doing this before, but I think maybe we haven't focused enough, John, on our own lives.

Focused on the whole job, and let me say, particularly in terms of talk now, was Mark talking through his hat, and he said, if you give me that saline water... Yeah, right through his hat.

Yes, that's very slow, okay?

I mean, announce the progress.

Some things will have to do, but they aren't the designs, do you?

The place we can really make jobs is, for instance, in GSA.

We've got a whole lot of federal buildings, all designed.

with a land all bought with a whole lot of money.

The thing that we did this year

lease, let us sell the land and sell the design to private construction firms and let them build the building.

It would keep the land on the tax rolls locally, and it would give us a lot to add to that.

And the Congress thus far will not vote on that.

It's a very, it's a, it's a difference between being able to do with the normal financing about three to four buildings a year as it gives 35 to 38.

But we could do 35 or 38 force account.

if we decided to reallocate our priorities.

Well, if we reallocate some priorities, if we can stop some of the other things we're doing, but the other people will agree to stop many of the other things we're doing.

Well, like model cities, like some of the costs of education, some of the best jobs, things of this kind.

We can't find them.

They're all tough.

There are kinds that aren't tough for me.

Education is not tough.

Model cities is not tough.

Model cities is the least tough.

But the building construction, the irrigation, the flood control, all of these pay quickly.

The thing that pays off the quickest and has the most immediate stimulation is, of course, the tax cut.

And the tax cut.

But that's legislation.

And I agree with you that the tax legislation is going to be a very difficult thing to get within a year.

Just about impossible.

Well, the other thing then is really to get, frankly, to get eight-year-olds

This is Blue Dog.

Sorry, Public Works.

Yeah, that is a Blue Dog.

Well, it's awesome.

That's what I think it will be.

That's what I'm saying.

I know.

See, that's got all the evils.

And no good.

What can we do?

They drank it out of us reluctantly by overwriting each other and all that, but I think that what we can do is offer this.

The only thing that I've always tried to hold out for, and this is a responsibility, is to try

And that's the point at which... Well, how about arguing this?

Supposing they send us a $3.5 billion accelerated public works program and no tax increase.

All right, then that $3.5 has to come from someplace because we can't admit a deficit.

So you say, all right, now we're going through the process of figuring out where we're going to get the three and a half.

We can get it through cutting model cities and education and some of these things.

So we've identified a pool of three and a half that we don't need accelerated public works as a piece of legislation.

We can take that three and a half that they've required us to identify.

And we can go over here and build 38 buildings for which we have plans and we'll create immediate public employment in a sense.

So we vetoed the thing.

We announced we're slashing the $3.5 billion.

And we're announcing the start of 38 projects that are already on the books that'll make immediate jobs.

Now there's a strategy for meeting the accelerated public work start cut it out of domestic programs.

Well, we can.

They're tough.

They're nasty.

They really are miserable, but they can be done and they can be found.

What's needed is the, well, frankly, what you just said, that you're willing to do it in order to keep the gas.

But what I'm suggesting is that rather than being in the posture of simply vetoing jobs, as it would appear, we say we've got $3.5 billion worth of public works.

that we can accelerate, provided that Congress is really willing to make the commitment to dig this $3.5 billion out of someplace except deficit.

And we might put together at least a rough scenario like that.

And it would be a hell of an unpalatable thing from the Congress standpoint.

But you'd have a complete defense.

You'd say, I can't go for more inflation.

I can't go for greater deficit.

So I've got to dig into the key here would be that this would be the defense.

for two and a half years.

The accelerated public works is the greatest silly issue there is because it just doesn't happen.

We're still getting out now on the accelerated public works that was passed in the early 60s.

And that's how slow the day stops.

Don't get off on that.

No, sir.

Absolutely anything.

Don't drive in the streets.

Yes, sir.

I completely agree that you've got to have a fight in order to dramatize your posture.

Right.

I'm going to send over to John to invite, for example, a very different...

I'm going to sit over these notes that I use on this television because it's right down the line.

It's the one thing that offers an opportunity to cut property taxes or leave them low.

It's the one thing that redistributes the tax burden.

33 and a third percent of the gmp going from taxes at this point really seems to get over and i think that's the way you as a general as a general rule local taxes the taxes leveled by local government are regressive as a general rule the taxes living by the federal governor progress yeah and the alternative is if you lose revenue sharing the only way

and you just squeeze the property tax drive.

We have been hammering this argument hard, but it's got to be translated into the average guy's tax bill.

That's right.

The other point I make is the only opposition... Let me see.

Let me see about one page on that.

And I'll submit every capital option.

I've got a set of notes, and I'll feed it in to John.

Again, the same argument.

You lose revenue share because you have more property taxes.

There's no other alternative.

And also, the only opposition I've ever encountered to it is in Washington.

It's nowhere else.

It's just in Washington.

Everybody else is for it, but Mills and all of the barons of the Congress and so on.

Mills was on Meet the Press Sunday, and they said, why do you want to restrict cities?

He says, I don't want to restrict cities.

I just want to restrict the way cities can spend the money.

They, they got doing pretty good on this whole, uh, on this whole, uh, tax business.

Well, I'll get you something on that.

Well, I'll just say that I might be able to cash something.

Well, I'll tell you what you can do.

The one guy that seems to have something, that of our writers, it's the best way to go for the jugglers, if you can.

All right.

And let me see what he says as to how it could be distributed.

And I'll take a look at it, and we'll get it out and have everybody say the same thing.

We've got to get that thing.

We might make this the major thrust in Rochester.

We'll do some research on Rochester property taxes and what they've been, and New York property taxes generally statewide, and focus right in on revenue sharing and property taxes up there.

The only other issue I have with the insurance

police force, isn't it?

And the correct difficulty is that it's related only to the pay rates, right?

Well, see, that's the fear because of Lindsey's experience.

Everybody's watched Lindsey take all these additional reps. More and more pay for government employees and the local acceptance groups.

Except for the police.

Well, even in the instance of police in New York City, Lindsay's had such round heels with that police union that people just, you know, think they're throwing their money away.

Well, I don't know.

It's an interesting thing, though, John.

These guys, county officers, they only have one department to run each one of them.

Why are they so goddamn illiterate?

Now, here let's say they raised a point that was not legitimate.

Martin made a point that was not legitimate, was not backed up at 2,000 jobs and saving water.

Robin made a point that had not been briefed out because it would have kicked up the, you said, the interest rates and so forth and so on.

I got that.

What's the matter?

Well, they're all advocates.

All right.

And they're all constituents.

He's not a nationalist.

And this is the whole function in here, frankly, is to...

This is the only place where there's an overall view.

It's right in this room, and it's a pretty darn rough one.

No one else is... What everyone else regards you as some sort of enemy that's trying to keep them from doing something they want to do.

Yes.

The idea...

I understand they're being advocates, but my point is an advocate should be right on his facts, or he was wrong on his facts, right, John?

uh so was martin was wrong in his facts and so was the wrong about that people should not be wrong well the best facts source of facts is george and cap and arnie shop over there and when we get up we get a paper in from martin who says i'm for saline water make 50 000 jobs and don rice goes to work on this and they dig into it and they say yes over a period of eight years

You know, it's true, 50,000 jobs, but we just didn't ask the right question.

When?

And so... Can I ask one other thing on the Loki operation?

You know he has a foxy staff, but is there anything that we can really do there in terms of... Well, there is enough money.

There is a lot of money.

He's got one pilot project, but they're building it out in the desert someplace.

Well, here's a project now that ties to the thing Martin said.

It appeals to me.

It isn't Volpe's area.

You know, he said, let's take one drainage basin and let's do a job on it.

And I think that's valid.

I guess John Connolly said that.

We've been after the Potomac River.

The only thing that's going to take this off the Potomac River is money.

And it's going to create jobs.

And so in this whole West Virginia, Maryland, this whole area, this whole drainage basin, runs clear up into Pennsylvania.

Now, there's something where a lot of plans are already drawn.

If we just block this off... Oh, yes.

That's right.

Over a period of five years.

That's about a billion dollars a year for five years.

The one thing that I'm always emphasizing in there is the worry about a tax increase.

I just think that's the one thing we can't possibly propose.

And I think that that's why I keep emphasizing that if we're going to start something new, fine, we've got to take something else down.

Maybe you can't propose it, but maybe you can't face the fact that we...

If it's an increase, I think it's just about impossible to sell people because of the total they're paying.

Now, not just federal, but that's the big thing about revenue sharing.

It doesn't require more.

It shifts the total amount coming in to better areas.

But if you have to go in in January of 72 and ask for more tax money because you can't stand the kind of deficits we're having,

And that's where you get the ideological hand up with the conservatives, because we keep doing all the crappy stuff.

And then add the other... That's the thing.

I get it in all of the Republican or business-oriented speeches I make.

They always say, what about this enormous deficit?

What's that?

So I told them about the alternatives and what they're going to get if they get some other government that is as worried as we are about it and all the rest.

But if we have our fight with the Congress, if we have to go in and say in January, we're going to have to have more taxes, then I think we're very close to dead.

We've got to have the jobs, but what we've got to do in order to get them, I think, is to stop doing some of the other things we're doing.

Because in terms of getting the burdens away from the tax, the property tax, we've got to do something.

The only way, that's a local tax, and we can't slide out by giving more people money locally in the home field.

That's why the credit or something is this.

city and county and everybody that doesn't have one now, but something that has a condition attached to it that in order to get federal funds you've got to lower your property tax is a very useful device.

But anything that's identified as a tax increase, I think it's the other way around.

Let's see if we can deal with the tax rate.

Well, we've built into the property the revenue sharing formula.

We've built in a set of four tax, the maintenance and tax, which I was rolling about.

Well, did you notice what's happening up there now?

The five mayors that were up there yesterday, Johnny Burns was pounding away on them.

Your state taxes less than other states.

Why should we help you when you fellows aren't taxing yourselves?

And Stokes and all the rest of them had to admit that they were below the national average, that their cities are in trouble, their cities are not getting money, and of course one of the problems is that the state legislatures are not being responsive to their cities.

It looks at it on how much he has to pay all three levels of care.

Very good.

And when he knows, as he knows now, that that's a third of his total income, perhaps add on the average a hell of a lot more for some, for our constituency, really, then he doesn't want any more.

And he doesn't care how it's devised or anything else.

The federal government says, we've got to have more money from you.

We hope it will lower your local taxes.

I hope you've got to have a clear-cut issue next time.

indicating that we, some way or other, probably that we have a scheme whereby property taxes will come down.

I don't know how that's going to come down.

But that's why I'm always so reluctant on it.

Well, there's been a change.

It keeps forcing us into that.

But we can cut some things.

But they're all very miserable decisions.

There's just no question about it.

You can have Class A and Class B federal taxpayers.

And everybody who's in a Class A state pays a different rate of federal income tax than everybody in a Class B state.

And a Class A state's one where they've lowered their real estate tax.

They like equal protection of the law.

You're going in and meet the new board of directors.

And you're going to say to them, fight George!

New Board of Directors, you're a fine group.

And tell me all about your troubles.

And then you're going to sit there and listen for about 15 minutes and then tell them that you've got an international crisis that you've got to go and look at.

If Opie's going to be there, I've told Krogh to tell him that the 30 minutes are not available and the entire meeting has to be disclosed at 15.

That's right.

And they will want to report to you on all their troubles and about how the Congress doesn't like them because they've cut out a lot of lines and all that stuff.

But they're under, I hope he's under instructions that this is a 50- Oh, that guy, homebuilder, sat there for 40 minutes, read from, I didn't think he'd ever get through those sheets, like the next president, you know, from the yellow pad.

Yep, yep.

One after the other.

Now, and another thing, Mr. President, I'd like to mention, and another thing, and another thing.

When Frank got all that, he said, they finally get to the first thing, and we finally got to the last one.

How about labor legislation?

Yeah.

Well, that was enough.

We finished well.

I don't know why we met with him, frankly.

I guess it was for the purposes of what?

And the same one.

Marty's a businessman.

He's useless.

He's a swine, a bitch.

there where the damn even the mayor got them.

Let other people be with them.

We've done that, particularly the big business types.

That's a sad fact.

Well, you know, you're coming into our friends.

We'll see.

Let me argue another side of that.

I think you're coming into a campaign phase at this point where, in the same sense that you work a fence and you shake hands with a lot of people, you touch a few, you know, and everybody you touch

That passes the word.

Passes the word.

He goes away and there's a multiplier.

Let me say this.

We've touched, for every voter, we've touched more business hands.

About every time we turn around, I need some business.

But this is a business administration.

I know, I know, I know.

If you were Lyndon Johnson, you'd have to see all the terrible labor leaders.

Oh, I see them too.

Well, but not quite as on the business side.

We are, as I was talking about, we go over and over and over the same thing.

I know.

That's true.

at some of the small businesses, some of the local businesses.

God damn it, I've been through that business council thing and the same thing.

Yeah, we see Harper and Weiner and all those guys.

They're the strongest advocates of tough wage and price control in the country, and it's just time to see how... Oh, wage and price control is philosophical.

And yet, when you come right down to it, you're going to want wage and price control.

That's right.

Yeah, the throwback.

I don't know if I've made accomplishments like this on this room.

Well, there isn't anybody in this room that'll argue with you that... Well, listen, who can I count on to get the meeting over with?

Because I have no...

I'll go in with you.

I'll tell you.

What the hell was the matter with that Airwest?

Crack show there.

Ran into an airplane.

Yeah, that's another airplane.

Who?

Which?

I don't know, but which is the wrong guy?

Nobody seems to know.

They were on a different path.

They were away from cities or airports.

They were in the rain.

They were doing the right thing.

I told them, I said, I have a question.

I said, I have a question.

It's a telephone or something.

Yeah, I'm starting to get a little excited.

It gives me the idea of doing something about this.

So, I'm going to take it from here.

And then I'm going to set it up.

So, I'm going to pop this.

It's going to get set.

And then I'm going to pop it.

I guess they're going to have to cross coverage of these attendees.

We have done, I should say, on this Peterson congressional briefing, the Allen Amendment is going to be voted at 440, which poses a problem to help make one happen.

The recommendation is that they move at 4.30 being to 5.15 and cancel a reception of us to follow up.

I think he would simply open it at 5.15 and let Peterson carry it forward to conclusion.

And he would conclude an Ascendance close to 6.30 as he can.

The Queen's Garden Party, the British Embassy is tonight, and they've all been invited to that, so they'd be willing to go.

The order is to shift the date, but it

This is a good way to squeeze it, and if we're better off, at least we have.

Maybe I'll just open it and stay, all right?

Open it and stay.

But I'll tell them that I have promised them, because I'm invited to the embassy, I have promised to return promptly at 6.30.

The embassy is at 6 o'clock, but we can invite them to stay.

If I invite them to stay, they can leave it out to the airline over there.

Just say at 6.30.

How the hell can he handle the breathing at that speed?

Well, I don't know.

But wait until he was done.

Yeah.

The other thing is we can move him to tomorrow.

There's no way he's going to get any problems.

It's almost like the weather.

Yeah.

Yeah, why bother?

I don't know.

The other thing we just learned is that President Johnson is coming into Washington today to go to a dinner tonight honoring Jake Pickles.

Now, the night here and then going to New York tomorrow, I don't need to get a citizen's award for questions.

What do you want to ask for breakfast?

This is only, you know, nobody's recommending it.

Where is he staying?

He's staying in Madison.

State of America.

Do we keep the Madison suite, they say, the presidential suite there?

Is that paid for by the government?

It's supposed to be paid for by the government of Madison.

Would you check?

Yeah.

Check.

Johnson.

That house is not

their decorators and things around the damn place.

Or just not do anything.

He hasn't notified us of the trip or anything.

I don't think we should.

I think it's over.

I've been down there.

Yeah, well, that's it.

He just did respond pretty well.

He's very grateful.

He really appreciated that, as you've seen from his letter.

You're a superb doctor.

Did you see that one thank you letter?

from him where he just came in.

He concludes by how much it meant to him for you to be there, and he said he hopes that perhaps someday you'll be able to throw him around the Nixon Library.

They really have, and each one of us, what the hell it is, because you can't do it alone, so I'll be making a list.

I was going to ask you one thing.

With regard to the press conference, you had the

of the approval, that state was penalty 31.

Is that partially what the others are?

Or is that a little lower?

Is that, that's a fair, excellent rating, isn't it, on that?

Somewhat favorable?

No, it's not fair.

It's fairly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, very unfavorable.

Now, what would you attribute that to, I suppose, just in general?

We're essentially at five or six points lower than the others.

Also, another point, and this is very rare, is the way I've been asking for questions.

That's right.

We didn't ask it.

The others we asked right afterwards.

You asked right afterwards, I think, to get a higher rating.

I don't think you should doubt that.

Well, we know that.

This is a very meaningful question to both people.

There you go.

Because it, uh, maybe we shouldn't bother asking.

Well, Steve suggested that we should.

Why don't we drop it off at the end of this?

I wonder if it does mean much.

Just, uh, what the hell are you going to say?

If I had to put out, I was going to suggest that you put out.

I think the Romanian research ought to put out publicly their marijuana collection.

I'd just like to build up a little public sympathy.

What do you think?

What do you think so?

Just that by itself.

Nothing else you can put on?

We've already had our demonstrations, so that's that.

I wouldn't put that on.

I'd put out the marijuana.

Well, see, that's the problem.

They don't put it in terms of the president.

Oh, you have to because of the president.

That's true.

It's a good idea to put out a down-to-earth reaction to the president.

I don't want that.

Oh, I see.

Then there's a proven fact that some try to get it so that we can't have a... We can ask a straight question.

Do you have faith in globalization and all that stuff?

Yes, sir.

Put that in the next poll.

Generally speaking, I feel that we're going there.

Were you able to pass on to the Scali history of the business on the lack of awareness of salt?

I told Scali, Scali is the important one here.

So he was, uh, was Anderson's brother.

Yeah.

Sure.

Well, I'll tell you.

I'll tell you about it.

I think I'm going to bring you to talk to Scali about it, please.

Yeah.

Oh, how are you?

Good to see you.

Good to see you, too.

I don't know.

Well, we thought that since we've had everybody else's views on the economy, as George knows very well,

So he said, well, you're going to be in town, and I thought you should give us a few views.

He began by saying that, as you can imagine, we have... Would you prefer tea or coffee?

Partially cold.

We have everything, if you like, cold, but...

The problem that we have with our economy is that it will become increasingly heavy in the next few months.

It's a tendency to sway by all.

one end of the pendulum and the other, where one day everything is great and the other day it's gone to hell.

And then to do things because of those attitudes, either not to do things or to do things.

In March, there seemed to be a rather considerable wave of optimism.

Everybody likes everybody like a bunch of cattle.

And then in April and May, perhaps as a result of the international monetary thing, which shouldn't have had that much of an effect on its average, people received quite a few

They say, well, maybe we've got to change our policies.

The Congress is reacting by passing a huge public works ruling on them.

And others are suggesting that, of course, the businessmen are doing real stupidity or they're waiving price controls.

But when you ask them, what do you mean if you're giving price, oh, no, no, not profits, just wage controls, right?

Well, the first one's a wage price board.

Income policy, as he puts it.

And the real question is, as you sit out there in either the towers of the University of Chicago or look over at these lecture halls, is there anything to change the plan?

Or whether ups and downs and zigs and zags and so forth, we should stay on our course.

That's what George calls our steady as you go.

But let me try to put it in a broader context by saying, first, that, of course, it would be interesting to hear your own evaluation of where we are.

Second, in terms of what we do, we have to realize that, as I tried to emphasize to what would happen if we weren't here.

You know, what anybody else would do to you.

Well, that's not what we're talking about.

and how you're going to get it done and so forth.

But that's what I'm saying.

Basically, I think perhaps we're really interested in the facts, but also we have to realize, I remember the letter you wrote several months ago, almost a year ago, where you said don't throw away 1972 by trying to do something about 70.

And of course, we didn't do an LOI on 70.

Now, we have to realize that while the sun wants to be real brave, save the dollar and stop inflation and so forth, be a real statesman.

And if we fail, if we fail in terms of the voters in 72, forget the dollar.

and forget the free American economy gets finished.

That's my political judgment.

That I'm an expert on.

I know what these other guys would do.

Hubert would do it.

Muskie would do it.

Teddy would, because their constituencies are all on the left.

Steven Spielberg, Jackson, because, well, he's on the right in terms

policy, his constituency is so elated.

So that's where we are.

So you really, what we're really talking about now is sort of a moment of truth in regard to what decisions, what changes and decisions of any should be made in order to have the economy look reasonably good.

I'll recognize you.

We've got to continue to have some inflation, quite a bit.

And we're going to continue to have a lot of money in life, but we've got to have a lot of money.

certainly better in one field or the other, or particularly the unemployment field by next year.

So there you are.

Is that your problem for the day?

Well, Mr. President, as of three months ago, I would have answered it more optimistically than I will today.

And that's not because of the administration's policy, but because of the federal law on the horizon, as I say.

If you put that to one side, so far as the economy as a whole is concerned, it's

Now, if you want to hang around before you leave Archer, by the aberrations, you mean the ups and downs?

The ups.

You have had an explosion of pressure.

It's an unprecedented situation.

Don't convince Archer that he ought to raise interest rates and all that sort of thing, because Archer is the

do all those things, and they're not going to crack this forward and knock the housing market up.

There's no way, and that's why I say I'm not optimistic, because you cannot avoid rising interest rates in the next six months.

There's no way you can do it.

If you try to avoid rising interest rates by pouring in so much money in the short term to hold them down, you will stimulate a price inflation that will raise them back up again.

We're in danger of repeating the mistakes which they made in 1967 and 68.

Well, in trying to hold down interest rates, they actually managed to.

And so I think you must suppose that there's any real possibility of not having a rise in interest rates in the next six months.

Certainly on the short term, the short rates, they're definitely going to go up.

The long rates, there's a little bit more hope that they will be moderate.

But the prognosis on interest rates is not good.

On the economy as a whole, the prognosis is very good.

Because you've got an awful lot of steam in the boiler and it's pushing to get out.

When you pour money at the top of the system, it's got to come out somewhere.

But it takes some time for it to work its way through.

And you will recall that

If I may take you back by the way, from the fall of 69, lots of people were saying, well, look, we've slowed down the money supply.

Prices are rising like mad.

We haven't done enough.

We've got to do more.

And some of us were saying, hold your horses.

You've done, if anything, too much.

It'll come out of the recession in 70.

That's what happened.

In the same way, beginning in early 70, you started to afford more fueling.

And it was clear by the end of 1970, by December of last year, when I talked to you the last time,

It was clear then that the recession was going to be over and an expansion was in process.

As a result, what had already been done.

That's working its way through.

Oh yes, I don't think there's any doubt.

No, no.

A large part of the size of getting the first parents is undoubtedly influenced by the recovery from GM.

But even if you try to allow for that, if you take into account the marriage, of course,

I think if you ask a group of people foolish questions, there's only one kind of answer you get.

If I look at the statistics, the records of what people are doing,

In every area, almost without exception, you have a pretty clear sign that the recession came to an end about November of last year.

This trade, in fact, concealed the fact that the recession was coming to an end and the turn-up was coming.

The first quarter was a much greater rise because of the reaction to the GM strike than you would have had, but even if you could get over that, it was still pretty good.

The third and fourth quarter will again be confused by the

anticipation for the steel business.

If they're taking the two together, they will be good for it.

If it weren't for the money problem, I would say that your forecast made it that good.

That would be an excellent forecast, and there's no reason to back it up on it if we can get down out of this monetary explosion without causing too much damage in the process.

Now, one point about this.

with respect to interest rates.

Interest rates are in large part a consequence of what happens and not a cause.

If people are engaging in a lot of housing construction, that tends to drive interest rates.

If the government is borrowing a lot, as we shall be doing, that tends to drive interest rates.

If, on the other hand, the demand is weak, as, for example, there are the recent reports about land and equipment expenditures being weak, that's weak.

From this point of view, I regard it as a good thing, because it takes some of the pressure off of the industry.

And I think that it is, from the long-run point of view, a serious mistake to think that we can manipulate the industries as a cause of what's going to happen, rather than accept what happens to them as a consequence of the demands on the part of housing, industry for investment, and the government for financing.

or in public works.

Oh, it's a very bad thing to do all around.

We've done it again.

The problem is that most mistakes in economic policy in the last 50 years is that the following.

I'm studying it.

Reflect, figure it out for what's already in the works and acting on the basis of today instead of on what's going to be the case tomorrow.

A fae has had this tendency to swim from one side to the other, and so has a girder.

Because right now conditions are bad and you think you have to shove stuff in, but by the time that fae, you're already on the other.

Great.

And what it does is to give you two rapid, two vigorous interactions with itself, who are then driven to go in the other direction.

Now I think the problem now is that there's too much steam in the body, not too little.

And the great danger...

Yes?

The great danger is that you're going to have a resumption.

Unfortunately, let me go back, let me look at the inflation side.

It's very, very well on the cost of living.

But that's partly spurious.

But even if we allow for it, it's spurious because of the way they handle housing and everything.

But even if we allow for that, if we look at all the price increases, there clearly has been a definite taper off of the price.

It's come down from a peak of somewhere around 67 to 100.

because it makes four, four and a half.

The wholesale prices, the cost of living, the cost of living.

That's exactly what you'd expect if indeed there's too much state in the blood rather than too much.

I don't think about politics, but it does seem to me that nothing could be more damaging to you in 1972.

If the price rise in 1972 is back up to 7%, I think in general, unemployment is much more damaging than political inflation in place.

Yeah, it is.

When in particular case, yes, people want it.

When inflation, they fish it out, but they, when it's unemployment, it scares them, and they react with fright.

But in the particular case of your administration and yourself, I think it's even, well, I would be co-honest.

We took expert measures and worked with our leaders to do something about it.

And now it must pay off.

We're in a position where it looks as if that was all for nothing.

But one other thing that ought to be taken into account in the amount of crimes in yellow, and that is, who is doing the crime in yellow?

It's more of that, more stationary measures.

It's mostly the Democratic economists and politicians.

Do they want it?

In order to improve it?

Right.

Do they want it in order to improve your chances of getting elected?

They wanted to create it.

Oh, I think you're...

Someone wanted to create an issue.

Someone may want us to do the wrong thing.

I think you're not giving them enough credit.

They want it.

They wanted to create an inflation in 1972, which will be... Issue after issue, in effect.

Here's the mistake we made.

You should go make the same mistake.

Right.

Whether it's waste, price, or worth, or too much saving the blood, or whatever it is,

Well, I was fascinated, Mr. President.

You're not so concerned about what's going on in Washington, D.C. You're not so concerned about what's going on in Washington, D.C. You're not so concerned about what's going on in Washington, D.C. You're not so concerned about what's going on in Washington, D.C. You're not so concerned about what's going on in Washington, D.C. You're not so concerned about what's going on in Washington, D.C.

I did a lot of use of it.

You were fascinated by it.

I was going to say, I was fascinated by an experience in 1969, shortly after your election, when we had one of these meetings over at the Fed, like we're going to have tomorrow.

And as we mentioned before, I had to be the hawk so far as policy was concerned.

He was saying, well, now the way to stop this inflation is really to step on it.

Well, if you create a lot of unemployment, you create a lot of unemployment.

But that's the only way to solve it.

Now, he never would have said that if Mr. Humphrey had been elected.

And now, my interpretation after the event is that, to begin with, the ideal thing for the Democrats would be for you to create a big recession that would really break the inflationary spiral so they can make you unpopular enough so they can come in and then they'd be in a wonderful position where inflation would have been done.

And now, in the near past, when they discovered that that wasn't going to work,

that you weren't going to fall for it, and our policy wouldn't have been produced.

And now the question is, what's the second best policy?

The second best is to produce a severe inflation of such a kind as to say we went through this for nothing.

Now, I really don't want to put...

I understand.

I could be right, but let me... Let me come back to your feeling about the economy.

So let me...

Take housing.

How do we keep housing?

I mean, you say the interest rates, you just got to let them go up.

But we just can't get the housing boom.

That's about the one thing that creates quick jobs.

But part of the reason why interest rates are under pressure is because of the housing boom.

Because the housing boom is so large.

In general, there have been two ways in which people have analyzed economic prospects.

is to take each area separately, like housing, employment bills, investment, see what you can expect in each one, and add them up and get a total.

And another way is to go from the top down and say, you put in a certain amount of money, you put in certain fiscal pressure, that's going to produce a grand total.

And how will it be divided up among the various parts?

And over the past 10 years or more, you've had a lot of work done on both of these approaches.

And there's no doubt that the approach which starts from the top and goes down has just outperformed by a very large margin the approach which goes from the pieces and pulling them up.

And that's why I'm inclined to look at it from the top down and not from the bottom up and to say, well, if the housing boom were to taper off a little, that would reduce the pressure on it.

That would make interest rates lower than they otherwise would be, and it would encourage business planning equipment.

It would encourage inventory housing.

It might encourage consumers to buy other durable goods.

So that I think the problem is not how do you keep the housing boom going, but how do you get the right amount of overall pressure so that it will come out in one or another of these places.

The trouble with trying to keep the interest rates down

by policy is that there's only one way to do it in the short run, and that's by pouring out money.

It will only work for about six months.

And then it starts to raise the interest rates.

The problem, the reason interest rates are such a tricky policy tool is because what you do in the short run is lower regularism in the long run.

If you want to lower them in the long run, you have to do something in the short run that would have the opposite effect.

For example, if we look now, not at 1971, but at 1972, the pressure there is to keep interest rates down for the rest of this year, the higher they will be in 72.

If I may take you back, what happened in 1967 and 68?

The Fed increased the money supply rapidly in 67 to try to hold down interest rates, and then interest rates shot up in 68.

Sure, it increased.

Yeah.

Well, I think maybe we have to subsidize the interest rates.

You can't get legislation.

Well, we had legislation through that gives us a chance to do that, and we basically kind of inactivated some of it in the budget because the interest rates have gotten below, actually, the level at which the subsidy... That would be the other way to handle it.

You could do that if you wanted to.

I think the point Bill makes is the same one that

that I was making at the time of the argument over the GNP, and I was going to happen to it, namely that the people who try to estimate the economic rise by examining all the pieces and trying to figure out how much each piece was going to go up have consistently underestimated the strength of the economy.

And you sort of have to...

I mean, let the things fall out the way you want them.

Accounting does have...

I think has a natural starring role because there is such a natural demand for it.

From our standpoint, looking at the offshoots from it, it's very attractive because if you upset many times once you get the house done, you have to put some stuff in it.

Let me ask you one other thing on that before I consider that because this is in order to keep the housing thing from being net at this point.

It's very important to see what we can do.

I mentioned it to John earlier.

John, anyway, whatever the case is, why can't we consider the other role?

I mean, I don't know.

Do you see what I mean?

If you're going to, rather than trying to take the shorter route, I can say, you know, it's fine if you go the shorter route way.

You may keep getting those grades down for six months and then raise them when we want them.

On the other hand, I think we're at a rather critical time in terms of confidence, and that's what our interview is telling us tonight.

The problem is we don't have anything else but confidence.

We've got to reestablish confidence.

And I say the way to reestablish is to have a wage price board.

And I don't know, I guess somebody makes a speech.

But nevertheless, I do not agree with that, because in my place, I go by some confidences.

all the damn talk in the world about how things are going are going to make people less confident.

They say, well, those clowns know things are, people are going to react to, you know, other forces, and that's, that's what they're going to take care of.

But on this particular point, is that not the lesson of the two evils?

Recognize you can many are quoting the subsidy altogether.

The lesson of the two evils is to let the interest rates move up and then

when you're such a leader to keep the housing thing going.

And certainly to the extent that that blends itself to more confidence in a reasonable monetary policy, that's a good result in itself.

I think the thing that terrifies me about the Federal Reserve

is erratic.

That they'll get so struck by Milton's advice, or other people's advice, that they'll decide that the thing that they have to do is to get this big cut-off on-wise.

You know, we've talked on-wise drives.

They'd better just cut it all off and then just rest all day.

They did.

Arthur extended the beat since he was not this way before when he is now.

Extremely erratic.

Hell, he was a total...

a total optimist a few months ago, and now he's a total pessimist.

Really?

Well, because he's been already here.

Oh, he's been here.

Well, they're like the stock market people.

And I'm going to work, and we should pay attention, because it's why 11% of the GNP wags the tail of 89%, which we represent, we and our friends.

That's a hell of a note.

These international...

That's what they are.

You know, vampires sucking the blood out of every transaction.

They want a stability bond.

They make money, fortunes.

But the monetary crisis, the international crisis, was the best thing that could happen.

It was a fine thing.

I wasn't a vet.

We need another one.

If we could only stimulate another one over, then yeah, everything will be in fine shape.

Because it means that we can stall Barbara a little.

Yes, and because it eliminates, if they'll only float their roots, it eliminates this problem of these large afro movements going from one place to another.

They only move because they have a sure thing, as long as rates are fixed.

Let rates vary.

And then it costs them something to speculate.

There's a big policy debate going on about flexible exchange rates.

Flexible exchange rates have been on the losing end of all the banks.

Treasury people all want fixed exchange rates.

It's a blessing that we have to send a promise to cover their dead bodies.

Oh, sure.

They said the market was going to be a bigger place.

Thank you, Mike.

President, I'd be interested in your comments on the capital control program.

I noticed one of your sheets that I got you put a question mark, sorry.

Let me go back a moment.

I'll go on the housing problem.

I think there's a danger in these areas as there is an economy as a whole.

of listening too much to the people who are going back and forth.

The housing boom was off.

I don't believe you're going to nip it in the bud by half upon your eyes.

Do you think it is on?

I think it is on.

Off?

Off.

The housing boom was off and running.

Oh!

Not that it's still going.

Quite the opposite.

One of the things that we've learned from the past, I think, is that once you get one of these movements going, they keep going.

They don't suddenly cut off.

You've got a housing boom started.

You're going to have a housing boom.

It isn't going to take a drastic measure, I believe, to keep it going.

Now, as an aside, the measure you could take to keep the housing boom going is unfortunately 21.

That would be to eliminate Davis-Bacon.

That would help more to keep the housing boom going than the subsidy on interest rates because the cost of the labor involved is far more important

and the cost of the interest rate and the interest cost.

I realize all that, so I was saying, I know.

You don't write that.

I know, I'm going on terror.

Well, you were very brave to cut that data straight, and I wish you had kept it off instead of going into these dark construction boards.

Well, we've made some progress there, though.

You ought to talk to Jim Hodgson.

You know they have made some.

Instead of 16%, at least the dance elements are down 12-baths on that.

Well, some of the more recent settlements have been in the 6th to 7th.

6th to 7th recent ones.

Well, that... And incidentally, there are...

I'll make the point of...

Mainly by the market place, but anyway, it's... Well, that's all right for the show now.

Yeah, three to four years.

But coming on, the economy generally, you're that, what you say, the federal.

But I don't... Don't get Archer too... Don't... Let me put it this way.

He... Archer has got to have more basic...

You know, he's a very intelligent man, and he's an enormous improvement over his predecessor, Martin.

Because I think he knows a hell of a lot of hell about it.

And he's a great friend of mine.

But the thing is that Arthur's over there buffeted by these banners.

And they're the dumbest bunch of bastards there are.

Those selfish people.

You know that.

That's true.

The spot market crowd.

I know them all.

And everybody says they're our political supporters.

Balls.

They support whoever's in.

But that's the way it is.

I don't care about it.

My main point is, don't get Archer into a position where he reacts too much to what you say.

Tell him to cool it.

You see, Mike, you don't sit in these quadriathletes.

Boy, they're hairy sessions, right?

Well, some of the discussion is hair-raising.

That's what we should do, by the way.

See, you see what I mean?

No, but what I mean is, if you could tell Archer the main thing,

to have stability at the Fed and so forth, but don't have him come in and say, well, not that, because if you influence him, because he'll play to his own privileges, from what he's heard from Hayes and some of the other jackasses on there, he might crash it right now.

We must do that.

That'd be a mistake, too, wouldn't it?

Or would it?

Well, you don't think so, huh?

No, I don't.

You want a flat money supply, don't you?

No.

Or can't we?

Let's take a deep breath and say, let us get mine a reasonable and sustainable, steady growth path and stay there.

But that depends on, the problem is... That's what I've been for all along.

They were on it until January.

That's what's so annoying.

There's no reason in God's name...

It's seldom possible to correct it without some cost.

The Fed has made a mistake.

And now, I think it would be a mistake to go too far back in the other direction, but you've got to go farther back, I think, for a second figure, than was the necessary before.

Let me give you the numbers.

If you were to go back on a 6% growth path of money from December of last year to December of this year, you have to go at 2% from now to the end of the year.

That's because how rapidly they can go even with that formula.

Now, I don't believe that that's desirable.

I think we've got to fight some of the inflationary implications of what you've done.

But I think you cannot go back on the 6% roadmap now.

At this stage, I think you've got to come back some way or part of the way.

They had a gigantic decline in money supply.

Exactly.

Paul, that probably has something to do with some of these attitudes that you saw.

But so far as the attitudes of people are concerned, the worst problem at the moment in the financial community is that there's a universal expectation that inflation is not going to result.

You will find that all over the world.

The capital controls businessmen.

Oh, yes, we got it.

We got it.

They served no function for us.

They are harmful to us.

Oh, no, they are.

Oh, it's happening.

I said it was good.

But in addition...

They are a reason for the strength of the euro-dollar market, which has been bothering everybody.

We, this U.S., did more than anybody else to create the euro-dollar market.

And we did it by making New York a bad place in which to finance internationally because of regulation of the ceiling on interest rates that could be paid on the bank time deposit and because of the controls on lending by banks and investment by American enterprises.

And the way for

American and other multinational enterprises to get out of those controls is to do their operations through money.

So an additional reason at the moment why I believe it would be highly desirable to get rid of capital controls is because that would tend to dampen off the appeal of the euro-dollar market and would therefore be offset to some extent by declining that market.

Those controls are counterproductive.

They do us no good anyway.

And I really think it's a shame we didn't get rid of him the day you came in.

Arthur was for it then.

Of course, he was a favorite of getting rid of him.

You don't consider, our friends in the business community wouldn't consider that to be inflationary, would they?

The capital control.

They would be concerned about it unless it were addressed properly, about its effect on the balance of payments.

But they would not consider that inflationary.

No.

Balance of payments, yeah.

But on the whole, let me go back to my name.

I don't want to overemphasize the problem.

On the whole, our situation is marked.

That's why it's so darn annoying to have it spoiled by this money apparatus.

As of January and February, I would say, you couldn't ask for anything more.

We're on an upward pass with the economy at a slow enough rate so it won't start the inflation up again, but at a fast enough rate so you don't have the unemployment coming down, the shock rate is going to be 10.

And that's why I say the only flaw I see in your prediction, in your forecast, is this modification.

And then the other danger is the danger of listening to all the voices of global doom and getting...

and getting diverted from what I think has been an admirable past, steady policy, and not wandering too far in either direction.

You wouldn't change the policy?

I certainly would not change it.

You wouldn't go for a tax relief, what others say, let's, of course, have a mix of spending programs.

And the third thing is to have some controls, and that's about it.

And foreign people say, name a speech.

I don't think any of them are worth a damn.

Well, I think one of the strategies is to put things up in a super-inflationary way and then put controls on it.

And then you'd have the problem, both of the inflation and all of the alliances, problems that go with trying to enforce a big set of controls next year.

That's another trap that seems to be...

In general.

I must say, in general, it's... No.

Of course they're going to work.

They aren't going to work.

They never have.

But I have always been in favor of tax reduction under any and all circumstances for any reason.

This is the only way to get the size of government spending covered.

That probably makes sense too.

But I could and cannot say from a cyclical point of view there's no justification for tax reduction at all.

The deficit as it is is going to be too large, not too small.

You don't need it.

You've got the steam in the boiler.

The economy is on the way up, and the problem is not to let it go too fast.

That's an external statement.

You're being on the way up, but some of these businessmen are taking the business and coming in crying, fucking full of tears, like all they used to say.

He's on four boards, and all these people are cutting back on that plant and equipment.

So what?

Is that concerning?

No.

Why not?

Because in the first place, as soon as business picks up, they'll change their mind.

And the sample price, at the moment, I'm delighted I haven't cut back on trying to quit until it takes some of the pressure off the industry.

The time you want them better, the way business will pick up, of course, is sooner or later.

And they have to give the economy a hell of a lot of good.

The most bullish statistics of all are the statistics on what's been happening to retail sales.

I noticed the apartment sale in the big chain, Sears, had a year-over-year about 7.5% rise.

And even these surveys at Consumer Center, which I get very awake to, if anything, they've been showing results.

So I think you have to, the great thing you've been able to do, Mr. President, is to take a long view and not let yourself get buffeted back and forth from week to week.

And I think that's the right thing to do at the moment, this technology.

Is there any way that art can be satisfied with this wage price that they have?

You know, they talk about their own job and all the rest of it.

I've had only one suggestion along those lines, and that is, for things like the steel industry, and that is that the correct answer to the argument that artists and others make in our escalator process is that

plant and steal people to negotiate.

And they will make money-wage contracts that embed in them a higher degree of inflation than we will actually have.

And therefore, after the event, they will turn out to be too high.

And this will put them into difficulties.

This requires the real wage rates to be high and will force them to raise prices.

Now, the answer to that, logically, is to separate the real bargaining from the nominal wage bargaining.

to say to the steel people, okay, you have an escalator clause.

Make your contract in real terms.

Then if prices go up by 2%, we'll be ready to go in real terms.

If I may go back, the General Motors contract, which was widely castigated as inflationary, was not, in my opinion, inflationary in the slightest.

Most of that increase arose because the prior contract did not have an escalator clause in it.

The great bulk of the first year improvement increase in the GM contract was making up

for the fact that in the past two years, they've been underpaying the workers.

And they actually have, what is it, a 2.5% productivity increase, a 3% productivity increase, but then they have full escalated loss protection.

And I think that's a very good model, and in a way, it solves the kind of problem that Arthur is speaking of.

It doesn't have the dramatic impact of a wage and price war, and it wouldn't solve it on that channel.

We've been suggesting that more or less with the steel people, but I think it's something...

do it quite quietly, because the union is won, and companies have historically resisted it.

And that means that in the firing, the companies can get something for it.

So we must give it away, but that's the way to do it.

Thank you, Mr.

Senator.

Hello, George.

Oh, no, I haven't done it.

We have a little game I'm going to show you.

I'm going to give these to people with an admonition.

This is the first time I've seen paper.

Yeah, right.

It's small because I don't believe in a hell of a lot of paper around there.

The paper in your desk can't be held up that way.

Get rid of the paper.

Oh, that's, uh, that's not advice for good.

The slide desk is always in the public's good favor.

Now, one of the, one of the, one of the stressors, uh, is copy that picture they took here.

Oh, yeah, let's mention that.

Yeah.

And, uh, George, would you mention that, too?

Well, they did do it in my full, uh, I mean, I'll, I'll, uh, get a load of that gun right then sometime and get you to sign it.

I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll.

A copy of the picture that our partners took by Ronald Reagan and all that.

It's great history.

And we'll be ready in three or four days.

I just want to make sure it gets associated.

I love him.

He's my boss.

He's my assistant.

I understand.

I'll let Arthur go too far.

I don't think I have that much control over you.

You have.

You mark your name.

It depends on how you hit the man at a certain time.

You see, you're very persuasive.

In fact, the moment you go in, you speak confidently.

If Arthur's leaning in a certain direction, he says, I better go.

He hasn't yet.

It depends if you were in the other direction.

He's a very intelligent man.

He wouldn't move him.

But when a man's already leaning in a way and persuasive, that's the arm's effect.

Now, Arthur's a tough one to persuade.

I don't know how he wins.

I don't know how he does that.

He works with our experts.

We're all in the boat.

We're all in the bank together.

Holy shit!

Thank you.

I'm not going to bother reading about this.

All right, so now I just have to tell you a little bit about this.

This is going to be very, very, very personal.

That's the only thing I want to bring to your attention.

Two things.

Congressman from D.L.

Democrat, New Jersey.

This is what this comes in.

He's written down the two lines that you've written.

In your remarks, you have explained that it's a must to be supposed to be a Republican.

Do you like it?

Well, we'll walk it out to you, sir.

Yeah.

All right.

I'll be here.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, sir.

Well, shall we walk out and read our grant of time this morning?

Our use, as they are told, is incredible.

We'll work it out if you can.

If you can't, it's okay.

I'll leave it at that.

Mr. President.

Good to see you, Mayor.

Good to see you again.

Mr. President.

My wife, Claire.

Very nice to see you, President.

Nice to hear her voice.

My oldest son, Jack.

Andy.

Tom.

How old is he?

Fifty-two.

You can tell them to come, huh?

Well, that's a great family.

Don't let them know about us.

We've got two more boys.

Six-year-old and a two-year-old.

Isn't that nice?

Five boys, whatever.

Five brothers and mine.

All boys, no girls.

We've all had little issues.

I know.

Yeah, I used to do that all my life.

That's a pretty good family program.

There we go.

It feels good, doesn't it?

It's pretty as warm as Phoenix, so this is what I'm trying to do.

Let's shoot it over here to the flanks.

Come on, come here.

Now the way we'll do it, you get on this side of me.

There you are.

Now let me see.

You stand right in front of me like so.

That's right.

Now let me see.

That's right, that's right.

Now you get in this side of your eye.

There, there.

Now, now you've got it well balanced.

You've got a smile on your face.

He took a picture of my daughter, which is on the part of Tom, you see.

Tom Kennedy's daughter, yeah.

There's a picture of his dad.

He's one of the, we have him on the table now.

Ha!

This is great.

The good housekeeping is stated by another.

He took all these from Tom.

The good housekeeping is so, you know, sweet.

Yeah.

Yeah, and then there's one low, too, that's on.

I appreciate you, your fine work out there.

Being a painter is the toughest job in the world.

I mean, it's a great city.

It's a great job.

I'd like to have you later.

Very much so.

Is that, to you, Mr. President, the Centennial Coin?

We just completed the titanium here at Phoenix.

This is a silver-coined straw can.

It's been 35 years of being here.

Oh, that's great.

Well, I'm glad to have this.

I got the, uh, some kind of thing for Birmingham the other day.

They come in, so...

I won't go back 300 years, I'm afraid that's another thing.

That was very innocent.

I saw her in these spaces, the Yom City, like Yom, sir.

The bottle from the big cities, and the road from the Yom to the city, and the people.

And, uh, all 300 years ago.

Don't get in there.

I know people are gonna come in there.

Now let me see, we got a few little assets for you.

For the boys, we'll get you a little tighter.

That's it.

Now, why don't you see the presidential seal up there?

There it is, the presidential seal.

That's it.

You get one.

And here's the tie.

Now, see, you're going to look at it.

And that's for you.

Ten percent for the other two boys.

You get them tight.

Do you have one of these?

Yes.

Well, yeah, but you can take it and all of it is wonderful.

That's for the hand.

I never looked at it.

It's a very special thing to see.

Well, we wish you all the very best here.

The other boys didn't rain.

Yeah, well, they won't appreciate us much.

Six-year-old would probably be deeply regretted not being brought to here.

I hope you have fun.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I'll be testifying on Friday.

I know you'll learn about that.

We're working on it.

Yes.

I think that we'll get it sooner or later.

I'll tell you, we've got most of the mayors, most of the governors, most of the county officials on our side.

And just lay it on the line.

They'll give you a rough time.

Just stick in there.

Thank you.

I appreciate it very much.

Here you are.

Take a special tour now.

Oh, here we go.

It works.

Bye.

I mean, I thought that this has been a very fortunate exercise.

I could see this morning that it began to get some focus, but I, Connolly, and Opie, and even a few others, but several of them came around to the view that we had to focus on one or two issues, that that was a real problem.

And I think the, but I think in terms of focusing on leaving, I think that you've got to leave them.

You've got to leave them and tell them how to focus, don't you think so?

Maybe that's what we have to get down to.

What are our issues?

What do we want to do?

So I'm going to do drug and crimes on my own, and we'll have colleagues hiking around about the economy.

I get the impression, I must say, I get the impression, you said in the meeting, I realize we're just pissing away a hell of a lot of money, and these goddamn cabinet officers are running all over like a head of chickens with their heads cut off, doing things that are exulting as far as contributing to the success of this administration.

You agree?

Yes.

I guess the budget is presiding over the bureaucrats, so we've got to do

We've either got to decide now that we're going to bobble along as well as we can through the election and then do what needs to be done afterwards, or that it's worthwhile to take a bold move now that, I don't know if John's raised with you, but something like going in for zero funding on the basis, well, no, on the Great Society programs.

On the basis that, you know, you've got a lot of stuff that doesn't work.

It's proven it doesn't work.

You've got to get the budget and keep going.

With your 73 budget, it's got to be in full employment balance or full employment surplus.

And it doesn't add up.

I mean, it just doesn't.

And there's no way.

The way the budget stuff stacks out, there's no way to get it in the line, apparently.

Except to cut something.

Okay.

Unless we get a big defense cut.

I say we got a horrendous problem because it screwed up operation in the Defense Department.

Yeah.

You know, it's very interesting, you know, in your poll, how heavily it came down along the side of the staying head of the Russians.

I'm sure you've got a potential issue there that we could use if necessary.

And that's one, of course, that would...

I was trying to be candid about this whole conservative business today, and he said the other stuff, what he'd reported to you, you know, is all this, you know, you have a radical conservative group that you can't worry too much about, but he thought you ought to be aware of what they're thinking, just so you know what the right effect, but he's concerned now because they've gotten Buckley and some of the people that have been with us are worried about Saul, and...

So that's where we get into it.

Don't let him get into that.

I'll tell you why.

That's all going to...

I know.

No, I'm going to put it this way.

That will all be determined by what happens.

The main thing is for Henry to get off of his ass.

I've told you a dozen times, start talking to those people rather than simply talking to John Gardner.

You know, at the Council of Foreign Relations, the person that's believing Henry has talked to every son of a bitch

That will not help us politically.

Correct.

Yeah.

What else were you starting to say that we can't come up with based on all this?

Well, the defense spending concern.

There are a whole lot that we're never going to settle them on the full employment budget.

I don't know.

I mean, we're violating the basic principles.

But we can't change on that, Bob.

It won't lose us votes, it'll lose us some... Enthusiasm.

Yeah, enthusiasm with the people that should be strong with us.

And then you get into the whole domestic program, the fact that we still are eliminating anything, we've increased it.

Or at least maintain it.

I know it's over at ATW and all these other places.

All this stuff at ATW and HUD and OBO to do the programs.

Giving out more food stamps.

Our polls show that people are all for those things, don't they?

They want more for education, more for housing, more for everything else, right?

Don't hold ourselves there.

It's what people want.

Ask if they want more taxes.

That's right.

That's pretty weird.

They don't want the hell with that.

That's correct.

Oh, two times.

Patricia called.

She asked me to ask you if you would have your picture taken somewhere else.

today, and I said that according to your schedule, about 5 o'clock as you're walking over to the diplomatic reception, we can do it right out on the steps.

Tricia seems to think it would be a good place.

Not these steps, but the outside steps over there.

What kind of a picture do you have?

Well, one of you and Tricia outside, and this will run after the...

But would that be worth it then?

Oh, sure.

Before...

She wants just with me, dressed like I am, you mean?

Yes, sir.

I could do it any time, but why do they want there?

Well, this was Tricia's suggestion.

Apparently in her discussions with life, they want one outside.

And you talk to them, and that's what they want.

And they want it at 5 o'clock.

Well, I suggest 5 o'clock.

I think it would be more convenient to you and Tricia send us 5 o'clock.

Well, our reception and the meeting is at 5.15.

Yes, sir.

All right.

How did the...

I didn't, I didn't, I wasn't able to look at the, look inside, but I thought that Atkins' time cover was shaking.

Oh, the whole time thing was great.

Good story.

Great picture.

Sensational picture of Julia and Tricia.

Up in the, and the outside terrace shot was good.

And the one in the, one in the queen's bedroom.

It just... And Trisha and Ed in the...

Contrast between that and... Life did a story, a picture story on the Kennedy Center, the Kennedy Gala.

Yeah.

It has a full-page picture.

I'll show it to you.

You've got to see it.

Full-page color picture.

It has all the pictures.

It's just repulsing.

It's just repulsing looking people doing kind of obnoxious, typical Kennedy Society type things.

You know, I'm drunk and making faces and all that.

But they're interesting.

They're gay.

Not really.

They're slobs.

They really are.

But the full-page Codex Arcturus Square, if I get it right, of Eunice Shriver and Pat Lawford, the two Kennedy girls.

And Pat Lawford is wearing them hot pants in a metallic, looks like an acrobat suit or something, you know, the trapeze artists would wear or something.

And these two...

They're close up enough pictures that their faces show, and they both are so hard, disgusting.

Yeah, hard and crude.

The degenerate looking faces, you know, the wrinkles and the sides and all that sort of stuff.

I remember those two.

And they dress like a young girl ought to be dressed, you know, a 17-year-old.

The girl would look great in that thing, but this old bag wearing it just looks terrible.

And the contrast between that picture on the cover of White with Teddy and Joan Kennedy and the picture on the cover of Time of Ed and Trish is just truly something.

It sparks.

We can't call the Kennedy-Sparket guns.

Oh, no, Kennedy still would.

I'm not putting it down, but I'm talking about the... You mean the Kennedy mid-type stuff?

Yes, yes, yes.

Where is it?

I don't know.

might be.

Well, I'm glad you say the time for a cover of the Newsweek one is all right.

Newsweek is all right, too.

It's a number of pictures.

We weren't able to cooperate with it because it came out fine.

It came out fine.

Now, Life is doing a cover after the wedding scene, but they want to intersperse.

They're going to do the cover with the wedding shot, which Trish is a formal wedding scene.

That will go after the wedding.

And they wanted to fill

and with other, you know, before-wedding type things.

That's why they would like to get the pension.

I think that's fine.

And revenue sharing in the briefing today said that the American people were pretty well taxed out at the local and state level, and that's why revenue sharing has such widespread support from the local officials because it's dollars that will help them meet their problems and the pressure of the increasing property taxes and other forms of taxes at the local level will then

I'll tell you what I would do.

You might put it in terms of this segment.

The choice of the Congress now is that it's happening on its own.

We're either going to have revenue sharing or we're going to have to increase the property taxes.

That's the choice.

Revenue sharing is the answer.

It's stopping the increase in property tax.

And to get that goal to reduce the property tax.

Which is why virtually everyone, everywhere in the country is in favor of revolution, except a few old men in Washington.

Well, I said, what we have to do is, I heard someone say this, but I said, what we have to do is break the protective band around Congress.

I said, what we're doing, we're out across the country, we're enthusiastic about this, and what we have to do is crack through that protective band.

They said, well, Bill's in.

Out across the country, he's seeing the same people.

Why don't he?

I said, well, because he's against it.

That's right.

I hope he gets a movement out of that.

You know, at Rising, they did not press me on allowance today.

I'm not sure they would do that.

Well, it's an old story in the end.

It's basically the West.

That's all been covered.

Exactly what it is.

This program started in the previous administration.

This administration completely disclosed it.

There's nothing new in these areas.

Period.

So I've referred.

I've got one line, and that goes back to 1962 in the Kennedy administration where the North Vietnamese broke the Geneva Accords.

And I said, we've outlined in your March statement what the situation was left at the time.

Well, I think that the whole wedding thing is, uh, why don't we finally decide, you know, about the, uh, I mean, the, uh, movies.

The TV.

The TV?

You know, that's all worked out very well.

We're going to allow them to begin to use it at 6 o'clock.

We're going to allow them to begin to use, um, what they'll cover at 6 o'clock, which is to start a motion show now.

so it's going it's going to get dirty very big very very big tv and i think the way that we've done it which is not letting the carrier builds their interest and force them into the to the i don't know the interesting parts of it are they going to carry this inspection oh yes sir they're committed to it abc

Has it special about anything?

NBC has two specials.

NBC does one from 6 o'clock and then from, I think, 8.30 to 9.30, or they're still working around 8 to 9 in prime time.

There will be very few people in this country that won't see that.

Who won't see it and won't have an opportunity to see it at a different time.

They will see it because it's going to cover so much.

See, because the NBC first session will begin at 6 and will run in pattern.

In other words, it'll be 6 here, then 3 in the West.

But then their evening special will be across the board at whatever time it starts.

What's the second half hour?

Hour.

How the hell do they know?

Oh, I guess.

Oh, you look at guests arriving and talking about the cake and walking down the steps.

Back up, drunk.

Oh.

You're letting them in now?

I'm guessing I want to find a way to keep it so I don't get Nader getting in the picture.

Can you do that?

Is the whole deception line being photographed only?

No, only the first 15 minutes.

They'll get Nader then?

Well, we can... No, but I don't want that.

Oh, no, that's all I mean.

Oh, I know he's got to be photographed, but I don't think we ought to play him up that much.

Oh, well, don't worry about it.

Did you sue the line?

I didn't want to glorify him, by any chance, but...

I think he was doing very well in the magazines, and I think it was good we didn't do any pre-TV stuff.

No, I agree.

Well, maybe...

I think you're right.

Yeah, we don't want to make a goddamn drama service.

CBS is going to do a special the night before on the wedding, and I think it's a half an hour.

Preparations.

Preparations, and...

There'd be quite a, quite an impact on all this wedding stuff.

Oh, sure, there are.

This is really getting more than the Johnson wedding.

That kind of big play.

Well, it's a great big play.

Because they did it live, as I recall.

They did the wedding live, didn't they?

They did something live.

They did it live as they were coming in, but they didn't do the ceremony.

I saw part of it on TV.

I didn't see it on TV.

Very good.

Extremely well done.

They had her coming down the stairs into the mall.

The tall one?

Well, you did get a chance to talk to Henry about the public knowledge of salt and so forth and so on.

Not that he could do anything about it, but just the fact that we all got to realize, and I would hope he would put it off to Scallion if he would.

I had an alert this morning that I wanted to try to make a special alert.

I want you to give this to the gallery too about the fact that the carrier was even 19 this week.

It's really, that's the first time below 20.

It's up to, of course, one week was 16, but it was actually 21.

Yeah.

13 is home this week.

Do you want to see it?

He's recommending that it's T is that you might find it useful to talk about the value of cellular connection.

in the Soviet situation.

He's recommending 15 nights.

Well, he wants a half hour.

Sure, I'll see you.

Okay.

And they are recommending that you see Cooper... What?

This week.

Well, he still wants to report to you on his trip.

That would be of ostensible purpose.

The real reason being that he...

Yeah.

Can we do anything about this business?

Can somebody handle Opie and get his report?

Oh, sure.

Hell yeah.

Another one that wants to report to me is Don Kendall on his trip.

Well, I talked to Don, and really, if there isn't a Don, then he has to say to me.

I think the thing to do on him is just solve it.

I talked to him and told him the wedding was on this week.

You know, said that, said that I'd seen, I'd seen E.T.

down here next week, but he said it isn't urgent at all.

He said, I don't need to, I don't need to go down.

So, the other one was actually, it wasn't important.

Stan, huh?

Javits.

Stan Javits, I used to see him.

I'd rather not see him now.

Because it isn't about Israel anyway, so we should see him.

It's a presumption for him, even to ask.

I don't think this is going to happen.

The other, uh, scheduled thing is whether we can confirm an official visit of Matak in August.

We had, you know, sort of agreed.

We had agreed to the Lando visit and then we told them.

In August, we had sent a Lando visit for us.

They wanted an August, then we suspended that.

Matak has now said he would like to call on you wherever you are.

You do it in California, you've got to be there.

Is that a good time?

That's what they think.

And the idea would be to strengthen his position at home.

He's doing a good job.

Demonstrate support.

Yeah.

All right.

Fine.

It would just be an official visit, not a state visit.

Well, all I want is to, you know, go ahead.

All right.

You've just got to hang tight with guys like Bowlby, don't you?

And others.

I think so.

I think we've got to just let him walk all over us all the time.

You don't have to.

The thing to say is, you don't need a report on this turkey like Henry to get a report.

You've got Stephanie, Pops, Kevin, all the reports put together.

First, I'm going to put him on some cabinet meeting.

Let him board the cabinet.

I'll get back to that show and tell the cabinet.

That's the cabinet.

Thank you for coming.

My view is that we're in a situation, in terms of our public position, which, as I would put it, on a personal standpoint, we're better than I think we thought.

Yes, we're better.

From a history standpoint, we're worse than we thought.

And that's what it means.

Or if we're damn low, considering what we've done, we've got goddamn no credit, Bob.

And that's because of the water.

No, it's just the water.

But I think the other thing is, for Christ's sake, the Mideast, we get negative ratings.

We get very little positive ratings on salt.

No positive ratings on China.

Do you mind if I...

Here are all these big things we thought we were doing.

The world here doesn't come true.

I think you believe me.

You've got to realize that...

I'm good.

I think you ought to talk to them.

I think you really ought to talk to the scalpel and say, all right, this isn't a wonderful opportunity to get scalpeled more.

In this case, say, okay, here we've done all these things.

What the hell is the matter?

What do you think?

Don't you agree?

I think maybe we've got to let them out more.

If the public doesn't get anything, then I should make it simple and just repeat it.

That's the point.

And it's not repeating over and over.

We do not repeat.

We do not have to sign it.

Make one solid announcement, now it's all out of the way.

The various actors have a lot to go on about that.

I don't know that this is a law issue.

We're going to reverse that.

The economic issue, we can't do a goddamn thing about it except fight the inflation.

We've got to find a couple of benefits.

And fight the unemployment.

the whole, I must say, was really pondered around.

I, you know, John was surprised when I told him that I'm ranking second.

I gave him your analysis, and I said, John, he says, it has no, he said, what about those with control?

I said, no, no, no, only in the south.

Do you remember?

I said, you've got to look at that question.

That's why you see the analysis of that poll is so important.

so that you don't get the, you know, so get the break-ins.

You do, you really have, with the Buchanan thing, whatever, you can't get across the Buchanan thing.

You've got to broker the law.

You've got to broker the thing.

You've got to go to the police, and you've got to do all that stuff.

And he's very strong at that.

Yeah.

He just said, you know, he got sent to the other side of the agency, but I don't know, but he just, besides the positive, there, he does a lot of government law, you know, to get the card,

I put a tar on the plate off.

I forgot to tell him about it.

Oh, that's a compliment.

It isn't your view at all.

It's all personal things.

We're probably going to want to accept it and tell some people.

I think.

Which is, it's an idea related to issues that is a bit low and a bit of a, in a courageous sense.

So that is the strong need at this time.

Strong, strong leader.

Well, I quote that because again, they don't need to be a congressman.

Well, because there's no clear-cut thing.

There's nothing like that.

That's right.

They aren't fighting for something.

You've got to fight the Congress, Bob, or you've got to fight the labor unions, or you've got to fight...

the best coroner's interests, or the bureau, or state coroners.

That's right.

And we're not fighting them, but we're just nice guys.

The only thing I fought, so to put it, in the public mind, and that we've gotten a couple weeks, is that I fought against the demonstrators, right?

That won't be forgotten.

We've got a pretty good line on that one, because we've done it.

May last consistently, and people feel strongly.

So, on the matter of the

That is enough.

Fighting demonstrators are an admiration.

They're not a high grade, not a scurvy temper.

You've got to be against something more than that.

That's right.

But taking our strong suit of foreign policy, I do not agree.

And you'll agree with me on that one.

We've got Henriette Scully and Chris.

When I talked to them, they said, this is our strong suit.

We're doing very well in foreign policy.

The answer is, we're not doing nearly as well as we ought to.

I don't agree.

It's a no-go.

It's just a no-go.

Sure, the war is a drag.

That's true.

It's a no-go.

But we've got a whole lot of policies in the foreign policy area that we simply aren't getting any credit on.

Right?

Yeah.

But as the war goes, I think those are there, which, they need something there to take the people away from.

Well, they can't assault those who have been assaulted.

It's not a bad thing, and I know it would.

No, the nuclear arms, when you announced it, I thought, yeah, the invitation to arms, I think it would mean a hell of a lot.

Because that, they're going to get to the people who are scared, maybe.

Certainly, assaulting does have some effect on them.

I don't know.

All right.

Spread it a little bit.

Spread it.

Oh, yeah.

That's what it is.

Yeah.

All right.

But you're trying to pass.

I don't think he thought he was getting out of it.

He's in the dark.

He's in Washington.

He's trying to make it.

Oh, my God.

I saw that.

He's in the dark.

Oh, God.

This morning, this morning, this morning, that's nice.

I don't know.

It's not worse than usual.

Yeah.

I hesitate to speculate.

Is this substandard and all the others are substandard?

Oh, really?

I have no idea.

They're coordinated to just kind of increase the pressure.

And I don't think there's any signs.

How about the fire, the police already had there.

Yeah.

There's a fire over there.

Do you think police are not the shooter?

The kind of misdemeanor is more when you have an employee.

I don't know how many bridge standards there are, but it certainly doesn't.

Yeah, I know.

I saw a picture of Tom this morning.

Huge numbers of cars, you can imagine, on the bridge.

If we all are going to be riding along, there is the bridge for the boats to go through, and the traffic backs up for miles.

What do you think of the foundation?

I think it's great.

are oddly unaffected by this, or takes the quickest route of walking, which is up to LaGuardia, New York, by an unusual route, just a couple of 18 minutes from Rockefeller Center to LaGuardia.

Fastest trip ever by a traffic jam.

To cross the Leesburg Bridge and then the side streets, to stag off the Tri-Berlin Grand Slam, and stag off Grand Slam.

Well, traffic today is crazy.

Well, we got the engineers and the teams going around.

All night long, we got half the bridges closed and open to traffic.

Clearing the traffic.

And some people, you know, just one day off.

We were discussing this before we came in, how New Yorkers respond to this kind of stuff.

So I'm looking forward to our attendance.

For instance, it was about that.

People came to work.

... ... ... ... ... ...

If you want to arrest her, then arrest her.

If not, then find a way to arrest her.

If you want to pretend to stare at her, this is the best you can do on me.

Well, uh, I can say to you that I want to talk to you, uh, in this room, because you have very good students who, yes, you can see that they're, they're in such good ways, but I can tell you, I'll be sure to give you a few seconds.

on the business side to see whether we're all in the same position.

Let me start off with a question about cable television.

I've had a lot of previous conversations

What is your position on that?

I think probably this is what I can do.

is a question that I think both of the others, they see much more prominency as both ways, because whether it was to be sure that this decision, as far as the government was concerned, was one that was very carefully considered, because it was very bad, very, and this is, so.

We have a terrible response.

We have a violent reaction.

It is a new normal, you know, annual six, U.S., uh, 25.

Yeah, we've had to digest ourselves a little bit about two years.

Uh, but a 25-hour show, we believe, is a new horse.

We have the background of this.

It's an additional method of discovering programs.

But we don't think it will reach the scope or size or enormity of broadcast over-the-air television.

It tells us 150 million people all the time.

People subtract some of it because the television is big enough to suffer, and some subtract it without paying attention.

So you need to at least hear it after you saw it on the same CD.

And I think it's better to leave it on there.

You see it over and over again.

When a new force comes out of the national interest system, which in legal terms, administrative, regulatory terms, is not geared for it,

There's a great deal of confusion and a great deal of delay in having the system, the regulatory and people system, absorbed.

I think that's a period where you satisfy the government agencies.

I don't think they know what they're doing about it, but neither does anybody else.

That's not what the problem is.

Now, I think we would be congratulating us on the fact that unfair and unfair is CETV as compared to broadcasting as we

have it now, but for it to be able to co-exist with us, we think, is the future.

It is a supplementary system, a system which will have frank analysis that deal with the question.

Yes, oh yes, yes it will.

There's one part, Mr. President, that I don't think is a technical or legalistic point.

CHP was born and now largely lives

intelligence programs in which other people have proprietary interests, which are picked up by CATV systems,

and distribute it without any economic return to the people who own the programs or created the programs.

That is a copyright question.

That's the thing that we'll be looking for.

That's right.

There's a contract that's not going to go through yet.

There's a power update that's running through it.

And there is something quite inequitable about a business being created as a power site.

Yeah, I've had enough of this without taking it.

I think we're going now through the troubles of accommodation.

And I would expect that in the next two or three years, there will be legislation that deals

It's probably inequity.

There's a complex situation because the copyright terms

the programs that were created and then broadcast to be viewed by people in a certain area.

Sometimes terrain and conversion, as the ATV system may help accomplish the original purpose, but when it goes beyond that and transports programs two or three hundred miles away, that is eating into the economic structure of business on a sufficient basis.

John, you had a comment after that.

There's a load of the book, ATV, Writing Piggyback, on C-ATV, which is built up through carrying these free signals, and then there might be a dependent force to withdraw one program

But it's very difficult to assess that.

Of course, another thing I thought we'd have to think about is that the breakthroughs that take place in your art, who knows what it's going to be you do in the future.

I was talking with a good lad yesterday or another, a couple weeks ago, who was a performer on the end of The Genius Kid.

And, you know, at the present time, he did fantastic.

where where somebody said in washington

This is only an institutional question now.

The research has been done.

I can't explain it to you.

I keep on looking at it.

Nobody understands what's happening.

That is enormously important in terms of something that hurts.

are controlled by either of the great powers or any of the three great powers can only be agreed to if there is some sort of verification.

Now, regardless of the Soviet or Chinese or any of the totalitarian system, they will not allow that verification on the spot, which of course can give you some degree of vulnerability.

But anyway,

They were taking my pictures, maybe in my house, to have a missile.

They first happened to show you how important it would be to have it as far as quickly as possible.

You may remember last summer we had a flight with the Soviets.

And we got in and asked if they were going to build the missile sites in the canal.

And it was an intelligence question.

Were they going to do it or were they not going to do it?

They said, no, we're not.

who is of course one of the best optologists in the world.

They said they worked very well.

Three years later, when we got the next set of pictures, they were, they had arrived, they had started three years before.

This thing, the flag, that's the problem, that's what you get.

So I'm not suggesting we go around and do this and this and that, sure.

But assuming that you had it, you would have it instantly.

Now, that's my digression.

It seems to me that in your field, who knows what's going to come along.

I mean, it doesn't mean that you're...

If you look back, I'm sorry, is that a sell here?

No sell here, NBC.

Stop.

No, if you look back 25 years, you're not going to miss it.

I'm just asking that.

And I'm launching both futures I know to bring something.

And you cannot, you cannot secularize a cancer at any time.

It's going to break you.

If there's a market for it, and if there's even a basis for it, it is going to happen.

If it provides a service that a lot of people want to pay money for.

I cannot be right.

We're aware of that.

The fact that you was present at the meeting, we didn't have some discussion about it.

I wish you had some reason.

or is it in regard to the decisions of the early investigations leading into perhaps the regulation in the display?

I always say this because of my business orientation.

There are biases.

There's a lot of biases.

for the, for the, the system, the very strong applications that you've got, the influences and the standards of the start down, or what you start down for, the, uh, uh, the power of the, uh, of, uh, the, uh, field of, uh, of, uh, the particular start down, or what we call, uh, censorship, repression, and so forth, and the liberty and the direction of that thing.

Let me hear your views on it.

How serious do you think the problem is, or are you concerned about it?

What is it they have to do with that?

I don't mean to pre-practice their words before they occur.

I indicate only my concern that as you move into this kind of field, the whole way too far, especially these days, that I would have...

a great deal of, a great deal of, about allowing this to move too far, knowing that, knowing that, that inevitably, if you start over this path, you say, well, that's bad.

And then you go on for the whole business is bad.

And why do you have advertising at all?

And why don't you just go for public stuff?

And then you're finished.

That, I mean, I think, good programming, but...

You want to talk to them?

Yes, very much so, because you really have a testimony to tell us.

Well, it's worth talking about the position I'm sitting here to be in, what the position of the government is, and so forth.

I mean, it's been two months since I saw the CPS people.

They raised me.

Fine.

You really have a testimony to say that, had you asked us what is our one greatest concern, we would have said that, not just the FTC investigation, but what it symbolizes and signifies.

I've spread it over all areas of America, not just here.

Your branch here, in Congress, and throughout the city, and throughout the country.

And that is, the networks are big.

They are successful.

Why don't we have just a general plan that exists that encourages people to, on all levels, perhaps in the Justice Department, in a fairly stagnant community,

All of the many things that are done simply say, let's knock it out of the list.

Let's see the big boys suck.

We think broadcasting systems, which we have now, is the greatest in the world for Americans.

As you said, it's a little broad, but it's going to work out.

television, you come back home and you sort of actually see it on commercial television.

I mean, yes, we have a standard television.

Yes, we do.

So do Japanese media.

That's right.

But we go step by step.

The greatest broadcaster is the former through the competitive system.

The competition is the greatest of the false.

Of course, we've got to correct ourselves.

But throughout the regulatory agencies, there is a sort of failure of that.

All the networks would stand and have a certification disappear, and that's the key to the product.

We don't need to be in that business.

The networks don't need all the time to take half an hour away from a problem and give it to somebody else to see what that does.

We're primetime, and that hasn't been done.

I mean, you're talking about, you're talking about the situation, and that's what you're saying.

You're not talking about these political problems.

This is the question where, what was this when the play raised?

The crime time policy, I don't know.

It's one of the reasons where some caught the shelf of this drug.

Apparently, the X for equal time because of the .

What is it?

Nobody can be serious about suiting against Standard Oil.

Oh, yes.

Sure.

That's what they're doing.

They're going at it.

Well, this is part of the second problem.

The Prime Time Act has ruled this very briefly as an FCC rule that says instead of permitting stations to take three and a half hours to network each night, they may take only three hours.

The other half hour must be brought off by the station, off from independent producers.

And we think that has resulted in a

lasting equality programs.

And I think the conservative community will take a couple years to straighten it out.

We're not asking you to dis-understand.

That was the most rigid piece of paper I've ever read.

But my position, let me say, I think we are agreeing on everything, but there might be a line of help, and that's not going to be it.

I have a very strong position on that, for the incredibly part of the network problem.

very difficult to push.

They need to make an absolutely compelling case, and I think, Chelsea, you agree they made a good one.

I think we're moving in the right direction on that.

Tell us what else it's saying.

The FCC has, of course, would have some difficulty reversing the media right away.

I think people are lying.

I know our viewers, but they know the news, and they're being reasonably liberal, I think, choosing the way.

exceptions to it.

I think he has exceptions.

He has to be a citizen.

But let me say it.

You've got to, you've got to, you want to save a lot of things.

But I'm a hell of a lot more interested in saving the American movie industry than the French movie industry or the Italian movie industry.

Listen, there's $50 million in film production on the market.

We've got to get out of that one from the standpoint of the other of that of the spectrum.

I suppose you are rich that the movie studios aren't.

Only two of them make money much.

That's right.

We're not that rich.

We are not supposed to be involved in that.

to gather evidence that leads towards some kind of study of the influence of advertising, television advertising on people.

I don't know whether it's done legally, and I don't know whether it's done fairly and properly according to the FTC term, but on the influence on people's minds of television advertising.

Tom, you can close this.

Whether or not the appeals...

Emotional motivations.

Yeah, there.

Because again, I have a business orientation, which I would have to admit, but what is the action on the other side?

They say that this is simply an inquiry to develop facts to see if television advertising isn't different from all other advertising.

But if it's more restrictive rules, they'll have to be applied to television advertising.

For example, let's say, while we have always allowed a certain amount of pottery,

in the sale of products, and that's part of our American economic system.

It printed that.

But in television now, maybe we've got to do away with poverty.

Because, as a matter of fact, you have to have a higher income.

Well, maybe we have to bring it back down so that the only advertising that you can have on television is a simple fact advertising about the product, the kind of things that you consume for course, and not allow any kind of appeal

to sell it.

We can't make a commercial for it at all.

This is news, though.

Very nuanced areas.

We have sexual hospital effects.

It's the whole business of every, every, every, every extreme doesn't really get, I sat and talked to some of these people in Boston, you know, it doesn't get brand names and everything else, you know, they mentioned it, that's why he had a brand name, that's why he had a name.

It's every, every, every, every, every, every, every, every, every, every, every,

I was wondering, on the other hand, on the other hand, all of you would agree, and I'm sure there's a bit, to be honest, to be honest.

There's nothing to do with it.

We have 37 people working full-time to make sure the claims are substantiated, that people don't... You would blame yourself.

I would blame myself.

We work at it very diligently.

We think that's the way it should be done.

They don't know what the network is.

They're looking for something.

Mr. President, I recognize that it's not an inquiry into misleading advertising.

Or advertising, at least not to be based.

But advertising has an emotional appeal rather than a wholly irrational appeal.

Do anything else that I say that makes people buy it and get away with it?

I don't care about that.

Go ahead.

Right.

Are you sure you didn't tell me?

Yeah, but now we're going to consider it.

We're going to consider it.

Yeah, sure.

A little time has already been here, and all of a sudden it might have changed.

It's going to fly.

You have things like the Flat House Children's Board that you got, or Mr. Tye says you were going in, which is really sort of built or made up from people who had that preconceived notion doing it, and are reporting to you some preconceived notions about that.

Now we agree, first of all, children's programs need to be improved, and we are trying very hard to do that.

And we are working with Lee Birch, who is a fireman, and we always agree with what he says.

actions of the Commission.

But we are working with them and trying to see what we can do to increase and improve our children's program.

The fact is, all these things are systematic.

I was about to say, I don't feel I'm making my point very well.

You say you are business oriented.

I think you are.

I think the kind of plan that exists in our business now is one that you would not personally approve or your party would not approve.

And that is a plan that says

Let's see what we can do to the network, to the column, and the... Well, let's see what we can do to television, because it is a package.

Yes.

And the more successful or effective you are, the more you can take it down to the lower account level.

The prime time access rule, which was passed by the way, when you really get down to it, it just throws out the faces.

It said, the system of networking is so inefficient, we have to take something away from it, open up,

Well, it's a curious thing not to beat the prime time access rule for death, because certainly Chairman Birch

Why is it a bad rule?

The irony of it is, it acted to take us down a peg, as David said.

Actually, it will decline economically under the rule.

The problem is that the programs will not be as good.

Not to bore you with it, but something we put great store by, special programs, the programs that come on and interrupt the regular series of programs.

It has a devastating impact on those because it gives you less maneuverability in time.

You'll see it on news specials.

You'll see it on press conferences.

It's a very big issue.

It compresses the space in which you can present one time only news events, entertainment shows, which is my area.

sports programs, and anything that has a much greater effect on that than the mere arithmetic effect of one half an hour out of three and a half hours.

Unfortunately, it's the audience that sucks, and that is the broad audience as an entity.

And in our view, the broad audience as an entity really didn't get any consideration for making the book.

A man's brother and I asked you to do anything.

I don't know what you're saying.

But we have enough.

I thought you wanted to tell us.

Yes.

Coming to the, uh, but you, you, you were saying, uh, what you, what you do here is good about you, isn't it?

I can see.

Yeah.

This is your channel.

Yes.

I used to say, you know, you look at him, that's five years.

No, no.

great advantage to the business and the system to come through an effort to make advertising and get it done in business.

And in this case, particularly television advertising, which has large impact, reducing impact, to say the process has large impact, it should be pure information that no field desires or wants to use.

I can see that in other areas.

I can't.

First, good programs cost money.

Second,

Advertisers don't pay money for the programs unless the advertiser sells products.

Third, if the advertiser is lousy, not emotional, they won't sell the product.

Fourth, they're going to have more programs.

I know that.

It's just a reality.

No question.

I understand.

How do they know about this?

How about this, sir?

Sir, this is Sif.

I, I am still here in the MTC.

We're going to have a little movement as much as we can.

The staff, sir.

Yes, sir.

They're all running down.

This is a conception.

This is not a Senate bail.

It's the Senators involved.

This is our Congress.

I don't believe Senator Frank Moss.

Senator Frank Moss.

Senator Frank Moss has been introduced into a bill.

which has some of the same overtones, but I think that was an independent moment.

I think probably the way back to the origin would be when you put a man on a cigarette, and it was the same theory you were expressing.

So you want to de-attack and then use that to move into something else that they love.

The reverse point, the charm of the MTC, the inversion, to consider that when it's commissioned, passing general regulations,

to think about the differential effects that they have on different media.

Regulations which the attorney would be effective to tell us might be very destructive, as you referenced at that point.

Now, of course, the FCC is doing some reverse destruction.

Well, the commission has been considering requiring advertisers who have been found guilty of having misleading advertising to print all of their ads.

and all that, and sort of broadcast and all that for the next six months, a confession of guilt that says the Commission has, the FTC hasn't judged us, guilty of misleading and stashing business respect.

You can do that for six months.

But you can put that fine print in the bottom.

print it out, you can still have an effective message.

If you put it on television, you might as well not use television at all.

You are using television to confess your sins rather than set your problems.

You've recognized the toll's off, but basically the problem's how to go about it.

Applications have been made to restrict permission.

Well, they've not yet applied to that.

What problems do you find in such a speech?

...regarding these people, times, or by various so-called minority groups, et cetera, et cetera, especially minority groups, is there any focus on...

Yes, we are.

Okay, what types of groups, like... Common Cubs, an American group, asked to buy time from us.

And they bought time?

No, we rejected that on the grounds that we...

Thought we should not permit just the person who had money to buy time on the air.

We do not have policy of selling time to anyone who asked for it.

We require that the- We are required to do what we do.

But we operate on the basis of facts, and we believe ourselves, and what the facts stop us from there, seem required.

to make sure that all sides of Congress could issue a cover on the end.

We covered it some time, but we covered exactly the same program the next night, exactly the same length.

But in the course of doing that, we get a lot of requests from the Black Caucus.

We get some requests from the Republican group that organized a composition of that, and we operate them on a common program, as we did the Black Caucus.

of common cause, again, we have a plethora of multi-duplicated requests from the Democratic National Committee to respond to various presidents that you have made, and as the campaign approaches, that will intensify the problem of the FCC, and judging whether or not they are going to get extra time will also intensify time.

Do you want to expand on that problem to girls?

Well, right now, as you probably know, the Commission is under consideration of three separate petitions from the Democratic National Committee.

It's on the case of the interview and Barbara Walters' interview.

That's not yours.

That's right.

And they are asking the Commission to adopt a rule every time the president appears on television that

folks from the opposing party by who will be given an opportunity to appear.

Shouldn't you just have the rules?

You just do.

Yes, that's what we have always been doing.

Now, many different groups have come after us with a variation of the ruling on cigarette curing.

Commission rules some years ago that if we broadcast cigarette commercials, we have to make free time available for anti-smoking vaccines.

And all of the ecology groups are coming at us now and saying, if you can carry a commercial for automobiles, for automobiles, they call it the air, therefore you must give us free time to present our views on how to combat air pollution.

Chevron Gasoline says that it is

helping to clean up the air.

That's the discussion of a controversial issue that you must give us free time.

The President of Arizona was on this.

The Commission has turned all these people down, but they've all appealed to the Court of Appeals.

And one of the cases is being argued next week, so we're kind of sitting in an anxious seat, waiting to see whether or not the Court approves the Commission's provenance.

Who is president from access to the air?

I think it's short and simple, but I think you're different.

I think you do have a problem.

I understand that a lot of people do.

You always have a problem.

It's hard.

You're speaking in a way where you can't do anything.

I reckon with regard to a political matter, as long as the president is absolutely...

uh, discipline and use it as either a partisan or personal, uh, over time.

As far as that, it's very difficult to make a case that, uh, for people not as presence.

I mean, otherwise, what are you going to do?

You're going to have a situation where you're going to take responsibility.

This is responsibility.

And I want that any, that any president gets

He might get into it as, say, next year's date, maybe not.

But he gets into positions where he uses even a press conference to take the time for responding to a question that involves directly an attack by a phone.

And then he responds to it, and then he wants to have the time.

I will give you that problem.

It should be, but I think, as you say, it's time next year.

We may have a different kind of problem.

If anybody has got a different problem, I'm going to say, if I use the presidential press conference or the presidential appearance as part of the press conference, that's where you want to call the line.

Oh, good.

Those reporters.

Yeah, the camera.

Oh, good.

I'm not sure that we will, that it will be as easy for us to reject the entreaties of the opposition for time as the campaign goes closer, even though we don't talk about it.

Well, we would certainly expect to do no differently now.

I open that problem down to you.

What I'm talking about, sir, are the regulatory rules that the Commission's adopted, away from Section 315 and away from political, away from campaign partisanship.

The Commission required all three networks to give the telegraphs another shot because the President appeared on the air five times on an influential conference.

That's right.

I understand what you say.

I understand.

So you have another problem, too, which you're personally aware of.

making your own decision, you've got to be aware of the candidate party situation.

Not so much the Republicans.

At the present time, you know, Sarah, we have to say the odds are that instead of trying to read, you're likely to have four or five candidates that will be able to take place.

I guess it's something that you've got to do nationally with the Republicans and the Democrats.

under the law of 315 is passed

That's correct.

Without having to give the minor parties.

I think you would have to give the minor parties some other sort of a document.

As a matter of justice, we would do.

Yeah.

If George Wallace would have had a princess, we would give him some time.

The very minor split party candidates, we probably would put on a single program or a public program.

Well, I guess that's true.

I guess that's true.

George Wallace would have had other securities.

Well, I think you might have put two, certainly two, two major third parties instead of just one.

Even with the repeal of 315, which we were pleased to see soar, which we've always had to see the repeal, I don't think we would put them on nearly to the extent that we would put the major parties on.

We would put them on.

I don't think there would be a time for Ference if he did that.

This idea of taking on the networks, so I would say there's a part of that in the other thing.

They've been trying to direct news coverage in their specials, but they've made the issue a hell of a lot bigger than that.

And whether that might be, I don't think it's

I don't know what it's for.

But I can't believe it.

The fact of the matter is, yes, it'll be here a while.

But there'll be a lot of people on the bus, a hell of a lot of people.

They've got to spend a lot of money.

And they'll say, well, you know, this is nice.

And here it is.

We've got a bunch of cars.

Okay, just that's what I do.

You have, if you're going to free yourself from pollution, there is, you have to give up some of the powers that come.

One thing I would suggest, and I feel the world is such a wonderful place, as long as you don't put a gun somewhere on the border, you can bring it, it's brought to your, brought to your attention, and you can talk to it all night long.

It's not a discussion, it's a miracle in here.

It doesn't need to be said.

from literally millions of people in Asia and Latin America, particularly today, and are living weather-wise on a competitive and value-advantaged star basis.

And we're going to pull our post-lifetime, also outside of the chemistry of the moon, to keep those two mobile hands, of course, and take the ET.

You know, a star, that's really the point.

The question of the use of chemical fertilizers, the use of sprays, all that sort of thing.

It's a question of balance.

Sure, there's an engineer in it, and you apply.

The question is, what do you pay in case you don't apply?

And you go back.

The other one, if you're taking pure ecologists and carriers, your items to the exchange, and you have us all go back to the channel.

I was so drunk about that, you know, in those first few seconds.

man was an actress, they were not very affable to be.

So, we just, it's a, it's not, you know, all of us as people, and it's here that we're being placed in arms.

You know, here's this emotional impact.

Here's people, you know, they, you know, carry those, I mean, they take the risks and they're essential for progress.

And that's what I'm concerned about here in this country.

I'm far more concerned

We didn't have some bridges.

We didn't have those peaches.

Or apples.

Or what have you.

I mean, if you've got those, if you've ever seen them, if you've seen America, if you've made those, if you've seen them, if you've made them, it's natural.

I worked on this problem for me.

It was not as routine.

A few months ago, I went to my mom's to hear about this.

I went to see if they ever had a supermarket.

Some of the little vegetables they had.

Well, I would be very strong.

Don't be afraid.

Don't be afraid in the public interest to fight or to have some of these people come and take you over, Lord, and this nice stuff.

Now, down the steps, on your steps, just as I have on mine, it's the thing these days, the kids coming out of college and universities and so forth, the systems of work that are, they drop everything.

all progress is bad, no growth, you know, stop at two, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

But anyway, whatever the case might be, at this point, I do feel that, I do feel, that's why I think Weber's talking about the system, which is that we've got two good media, television, and television, and there needs to be a little bit of balance in here.

I don't see it all that far along on a program sometimes,

Here's a guy who's totally intoxicated.

He talks in English and has a Mexican accent.

But here it is.

It's wise for selections.

It's not chemicals.

It's DG and the rest of it.

It's what you're told.

Not in there.

It's true that television can have a wonderful beat.

We'll have a great amount of hit and ball.

We can have a great effect.

It gives it balance, you see.

But I really think people make mistakes when they look to television to solve the problem.

All right, we really can do this.

Ruben says television is the transmission of an experience.

So many people come to us and say we could only get everybody on television to say this or say that in a certain way.

Then we would solve the problem.

I think what we can do is...

is to reflect the attitudes that exist in the United States, and they change rapidly in the country that they're switched from.

Now this here is a hot mess, one year.

In fact, that is a change that really is what they were supposed to do.

I agree with that.

I don't want to decide .

That's true.

On the other hand,

You have to pay for it.

It goes into memory.

You didn't have to pay for it.

Are you concerned about the repression and that sort of thing?

So I wanted to speak up on that.

Alright, fine.

I've talked to him for a few years.

He has to take the rest of you, too.

We've gone back a long time.

I know you always really have.

That's a frequent question.

We went back to the days of Mr. Harry.

It's R. L. Thomas.

Yeah.

He helped us get our theater excluded from the rights to press and to cover.

That's right.

That was among the first times that we ever had radio microphones in the covers, live, because we didn't have anything else.

As a matter of fact...

... ... ... ... ... ...

I'm far more concerned about that than I'm going in the other direction.

And as you tell me, Corcoran didn't have as great of a role as those

I don't know.

I would be very strong.

Don't be ashamed.

Don't be afraid in the public interest to fight for and have some of these people come and take you over, Lord, and this nice stuff.

Now, down the steps, on your steps, just as I am on mine, it's the thing these days, kids coming out of college and universities and so forth, the system doesn't work at all.

They drop everything.

All progress is bad.

No growth.

Stop at two, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

But anyway, whatever the case might be, it doesn't matter.

I knew the people.

That's why I knew whoever shot me about the system was a citizen.

We've got two good people from television and television.

And there needs to be a little bit of balance in here.

I don't want to sit all night or long on a program or something.

They taught us to do it in years, but here's a guy who's totally different.

He taught us to speak American, he taught us to speak English, he taught us to speak Mexican accents, he taught us to speak Spanish.

But here it is, kids and wives versus the Russians.

And it's not chemicals, it's DG and the rest of it.

It's the ones that you're told to die in bed on.

Then we would solve the problem.

I think what we can do is

is to reflect the attitudes that exist in the United States when they change rapidly in the country that they're switched from.

Now this here is a hot mess.

One year.

It's bad.

It's a change.

I agree with that.

I don't want to decide .

That's true.

On the other hand,

That's what I'm underestimating.

You know, it's harder than you think.

I mean, it was the thing back then.

I mean, not Bison.

Yeah.

But I mean, let me ask you about the, let me ask you this.

Are you, I'm sure you're, you know, you're usually concerned about the repression and that sort of thing.

So I want you to speak up on that.

All right, fine.

Here, I want you to feel it.

It's not a Paris, but it's a subject.

No, I...

I've talked to him for a few years.

He hasn't said a word to me, too.

We have come back a long time.

I know you always really have.

That's a great little information.

It goes way back to the days of Mr. Harry Carnell Thomas.

He helped us get our theater excluded from the rights to press and to cover.

That's right.

That was among the first times that we ever had radio microphones in the covers, live.

We had to get very much, as a matter of fact,

Yes, sir.

Well, I say I know you both have that for you.

What I would like to mention now is that we are not indeed biased.

I know that you've been through a lot of experiences.

You've seen a lot of things on television that are like RTV.

Well, I think maybe that's the wrong way.

It's really the other way.

And what Pat said may not reflect back to me what we say on the air.

But I really would like to confess to you that we do our best to be fair and objective to everybody.

And I don't know any way of doing it in particular, except because we're having to look at what we do on the air.

Well, let's just say that we have to do it.

I don't know.

When I say that, I don't know.

I think it's one thing.

I think it's another thing.

The first statement is for people who look at the technology program to judge it.

I think the most effective way

Well, we don't like to think it's a kid.

I'll be really honest with you.

It makes more sense.

Sometimes we think what used to look on a station ground is really a report of a fact.

One day, a number of negative facts, facts negative to his cause, and I heard, oh, that's a lie.

I think that is the wrong way to look at it.

We have proven that as we're working under these seniors, staff, they are highly professional, and we think that they should be regarded as professionals.

We make mistakes, and we will always make mistakes, and we make them.

It's not with malice or with any attempt to fake it with one side or the other, but sometimes, just as I read the trade press and don't like what they say about SBC, I recognize a view of brutality sometimes.

Look at what you see on television and don't like it.

But television is here, and it's a fact of life, and it's not going away unless the people who want it are really unsuccessful.

And more and more people do, and it depends on the level of newspapers.

That's the source of their news, our newspapers.

And we do the best we can to make them fair, and legit, and thorough, and accurate.

Maybe in some cases what we do is not done with any intent of favoring you or disfavoring you.

Oh yes, I think the main problem is that there is this sort of two-way.

I think the main problem, the main point that I see is the problem that television has is not as great a problem as the newspapers.

It's supposed to be an editorial page, and then it's supposed to be, I don't know, they're going to destroy it.

It's the whole time.

Ours used to say that the trouble with most people is that they said right about the Secretary of State, they were Secretary of State.

So it is, and there's arguments in that.

In the cases of television, where, of course, you do have, sometimes, you do have commentary, and it's called so-and-so for blacks,

and have had another piece of the next action presented in a way that the individual farms will see.

Come on, go to the judge on that.

That's something you have to judge on.

It's a very, very responsibility because you know that that piece of presented in a way that people watch your reading, watch your television.

They get their reasons and their stories.

I agree with you.

Totally appreciate the two-way discussion.

If they have a two-way discussion, we're going to let the public go.

I don't know if that's going to happen.

The government is like, they're going to have to invest in financing.

And if they now talk, and they're not technically buying it, it's easy for others to go and press it.

And that is popular, I think, with a lot of agencies.

Can we make one point about your CPS?

I guess it's a part of that.

Yes.

Sure.

I haven't seen it.

Okay.

I'm sure it brings to have a chill.

I think so.

I think we just mentioned one point in reference to your appearances when you appear on the couch.

It's the way that you go about it.

So we think the way, Ron, that we did last time when you told us that the President wanted you to appear for a press conference on Tuesday and then gave us a couple days to work it out.

with networks is absolutely the ideal and perfect way for us to, rather than having a title selected by you or by whoever selected you.

And we're notified because sometimes our problems are

multiplied by a special thing often.

But we recognize the fact, we recognize the fact that it's difficult for all three of us to get together.

And we recognize it's frustrating for you to try to get out together.

Now I think maybe we should just work on our part, but if we could have that grace of a couple of days to try to get out, it's an improvement for all of us, because otherwise we always wind up at 9 o'clock.

And maybe it's

It doesn't have to be that negative.

To your advantage, it's one of those powers that could be, sometimes, but sometimes it wasn't the other way around.

I thought, recently when I did that, I understood it, and I'm interested in this too, that all three of your people, all three networks, they were not cutting the movie or the specials or whatever it was.

This was not in the

I know, I know.

We have, on occasion, selected 9 o'clock because just the circumstances indicated that we should be on time because of your various programming.

We're not programming too much for that time, so we've attempted to make it easier on you by selecting a time.

Occasionally, but we've tried to get enough time.

We've tried to get a lot of overuse and say, why don't we go to the restaurant?

Our reporters are on one side of that.

We will continue to work with the school here in Ohio.

Excuse me, what do you think is the right time?

We will always do that.

We will have this concentration.

And the neighbors are not necessarily against it.

We do want to cooperate.

We don't care.

I also do not use it.

I'm aware of the fact that this time it looks like it's, uh, you're going to have to talk to your sister.

We already have that for restaurants.

Yes.

Now that we're talking to you in a restaurant, I'm going to help you.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,

Let me say, I think we've got two different situations.

And so we can talk about that.

I didn't once think a campaign begins.

In other words, once I had one or two party convictions, I may not have had it.

Or in that period, you know, I can get past that.

Unless there's a news event.

The armistice, for instance.

You cannot put on any more than you can put anybody on.

Then we start to give the time to the other side, because even though the president goes on and talks about the whole nonpartisan subject, it's a presidential process.

But for example, you did provide a study that was in the National

That's for sure.

In 1966, Johnson had a press conference.

He goes straight to me on his campaign for Republicans.

Because he had made his deal using press conference for the purpose of personal attack, which I had arrived to do, but of course I hadn't learned to respond.

And he was on his emergency decision, which was to have our...

In that situation,

I heard the same thing about the students.

Must be the rest of the town.

Must be there the last five or the last year or so.

If you give me more time, I want you to.

You've been very kind.

I just leave you with one thing.

Let me say one other thing that I think you should know, too.

I think that you should have fun.

I can assure you that we will not, I will not, I'll be careful, I know your problem, I'll be careful not to lose your voice.

And I don't have a problem with that.

The second point is that, however, there is one area where I think you've got to go through, where it's important, which is very important.

It would be so important that you, who I am, get a quiet girl.

And in that case, you're not going to be in touch with me.

You've all done that since the night.

I don't want you to think that we are complaining about Dave Cooler, but just on that point,

It's not a question of being poor, but we have these certain five numbered presuppositions.

There's such a thing as that should occur.

I realize you don't have any count.

We have total control of the time.

It should occur during the time of the Apollo slash that.

What is this?

July 31st.

Don't worry about that.

No problem.

What I'm getting at is that we need to go into the Atlantic.

And the one thing that we need, though, that we, I must say, that was just at the very, very highest point.

In the event that there is, we can't give much advance.

We cannot give any of that exposure to the president.

We can't move down.

Because they're trying to jeopardize the event.

On the other hand, we have one that we've been very fortunate with.

We've had conversations with the network to not get out of reach.

If you'd like, you know, let's suppose, for example, you had to cover a place where you have this house.

Really, it's a couple of minutes of a place somewhere a matter of hours and somewhere a matter of months.

Let's take Helsinki.

Yes, let's take Helsinki.

Helsinki would be a matter of Moscow.

Moscow would be a matter of arranging with the Russians.

And that's because of their cooperation, because it has to be their equipment.

That's wrong.

That's the whole point.

That's wrong.

That's the whole point.

I don't believe that the trip has ever been the same way, except on the last trip, I think it was some filter down further down in the ranks that perhaps needed to be.

And I would have about, let me say that people, I don't know, I was quite candid when they asked me about this trip last week.

When I said that I had no trips in mind at this time,

I would be less than candid if I were not to say that if we do the balance of this year, there is a possibility that something will happen.

But I am sure that we will be able to come out of stuff.

Anything that had happened was meant to be a very important thing.

And if it was important, it would happen however.

That's what we need now.

We'd have to get through it.

What I meant is that we want to.

And I think what we want to do is we'll get through it, not close on it, not kept.

I think Rod has a good sense of the number of days it might require us to do this, and we have a long history of teaching things like this class, and it's absolutely vital that we have a simulation long time ahead for us to do it, and some of that is really important.

I don't get a lot of gratuitous advice, Mr. President, but I am technically qualified to give you something.

Yes, sir.

I own the cover of Ellis Chappell's Magnet Center, and I suggest you do what I did and play golf the day before the wedding.

I'm sorry.

You say you're my doc.

You're my oldest chap.

She's the oldest chap.

My only doc, so.

So we had a wing date.

You were lucky to do it.

Yeah, it is.

Well, I just told him, you're supposed to do it outside.

But Todd was supposed to pay us.

He asked a lot of questions.

In Washington, the days I remember when I used to go to the office.

On this 13th, when you come back, I don't know if you must have a quote.

Yes, we can.

No, he hasn't been robbed of us, but we know he's been robbed of us.

That's right.

But I don't respect the life of us.

I don't respect the life of us.

Who else is here?

Well, I don't know.

I'm going to ask Bill Brock a number of numbers of Congress.

Have you done anything to gain some of it?

But I think the tone has to be set by the President.

And I think it is unfortunate that the tone is set that questions the credibility of progressions.

And I'm sorry, but I'd like to correct him.

If there's anything we can't, that is... Oh, here he is.

by the way.

Well, I figured you had to do that.

I don't know if you can speak to that.

I perhaps should be faithful to my lawyers, because I think they're enjoying my submissions.

That's what I'm learning.

As far as I am concerned, as far as this is concerned, I don't think they'll get you.

Well, I don't feel repressed.

No, I don't feel repressed.

I don't.

I see them all the time.

They feel completely repressed.

I, uh, we start getting out of the office, and we always, uh, just, uh, we do it.

Yes, we are.

We expect a chance at it.

I really need it now.

The administration needs it.

It's very, very important.

As I said, I was quite curious to see how it would be.

It's the nature of the office that could be, that might be the question for us.

It generally is.

It's very smart of them to impose the prices of coffee to the administration by knocking it down.

So, what I'm going to do

Now, I understand that, and it is because of this illustration.

Although, perhaps, all right, in fact, I do have to agree that the, that's, that's, all right, I'm going to watch how you do this.

All right.

So what I'm really suggesting is that I think you have your situation where no one should

No one can be honest, no one can be candid without saying that there is not bias in our schools.

Because here, people are, through every question we ask, going to show up.

The reason that you as a network expect these kinds of special responsibilities is because of your choice.

Also because, as I pointed out earlier, that the fine line, as I mentioned, the very fine line between the facts and the purpose of a law

In fact, for the purpose of supporting the opinion already held by the commentator, it's a very big responsibility.

I don't change it.

I mean, I still pretend.

I will always say what I need to do.

I can't decide, but I'm going to yield to you, the commentator, and sort of bring it right now.

So I would expect you to be different.

I'm going to see you.

I expect you to trust me.

Because basically, you're ideologically different.

On the other hand, I don't think we do ourselves any, I don't think there's any service for us to say how much cost there is.

That's not true at all.

Let me say that we have a large responsibility for that as executives of television.

How would you suggest that we would like to do that?

We can't do that by ourselves.

We do have a power to do that.

I was talking to the editor of Publisher, and it turned out that Publisher just wanted a very conservative newspaper.

And I was like, well, we have five types.

So the editor was impressed, and I hired these guys, and they all disagreed with me.

And I said, I'll help them edit, I'll read the article, and so forth.

And so what happens is that you've got to expect that bias does show that you've got to expect people, politics, to agree on that.

But you can't do that.

I don't know.

As far as I'm concerned, I've always said it.

People say, oh, I knew it.

So in fact, I'm not going to be serious.

You're already lying on CBS.

I know the entertainment side of how to do the things.

And he says,

It's not your fault.

It's not the fault of any of the executives.

It's just a fact of life that journalists by nature have an individual bias because of their interests and they're all nervous and whatnot.

That's the thing.

It's a train.

Whatever biases, all individuals have biases, which is your point.

It's true.

But much more than any bias they ever don't have because they made you go there, they made you go there, went to whatever college they went to, and they're all EVs instead of BSers and all that sort of thing.

I said, much more important than that is

If we're hiring the right people, if they're any good at all, more than whatever their biases are, they are trained reporters.

And you wouldn't have all this coming out and let them all just a bunch of jerks.

They are, foremost, they're disciplines.

You know, professionals, of course, they're disciplines.

Those have been trained reporters, and it's just too simplistic for them to say, well, they're all biased and nothing.

Your fellas can do that because you're basically a businessman or something.

You may have this background.

And those fellas just run amok in your shop.

There's nothing to do about it.

I've never convinced him of a second.

I don't think so.

I didn't believe the expected one.

You can call it whatever you want.

It's very important.

He's very proud of his profession.

And he also knows he's biased.

He's just biased.

He wants to be known to people.

We've had fans.

And we have a profession.

And we've given games to Ruben.

And as I say, as I grow up, we will.

But it's difficult for us to...

And we would not want that to influence on this thing.

I had a conversation like this with the editor of the newspaper, a younger one than the one you did.

You're specializing on this.

That's the reason.

And as far as the Midwest piece, he helped work pretty much, you know, very articulately.

He prestates pretty deep on his particular point of view, which was, you are biased now against what the government policies are.

And he said, one, you should not question the actions of the government while it is in operation.

And I was like, well, you're asking us to manipulate it in the way you'd like.

So that is a danger that I advise.

Who is the judge?

How do you know it should be done?

We have no danger, Max.

Either way, it turns out that way.

No, actually, I think what we have to have in mind is that this will make it the best answers to get the nasty questions.

I'm really sorry that you feel it, but you feel it's always going to be that way.

What is it that you read?

No, I'm not discouraged about it, because it will be that way, I suppose, in the future with others.

But the point is that it is a God that's in the center of it.

I just think that's part of our system.

In particular, if you look at everyone in this office, in America, they disagree.

They disagree, for example, with the man.

But I think that we have to, in our system, we have to recognize reporters in our institutions.

I expect, and we cannot expect a reporter as strong

Some people want to shake the world a little bit and say, well, I disagree completely, but I'm going to write it the other way.

Because you see, the advantage, the reason no president can ever come to mind is that he has the greater advantage of now and then saying to certain people, if I didn't, I'd be dead.

If it hadn't been, and I'll put it that way, you see, without Thomas, I wouldn't be here now.

For example, I had to allow the people of this country, and I had to make up their mind about the gains, through an opportunity directly to present its case, so it can come out about me.

That's why I said, that's why I've been so careful with that, not to set it up in my own case, but I don't think we should be under illusions that there is not a very honest bias, and so be it.

Let it be that way, but that's going to be, that's not a problem, but it is there.

And there isn't anything you can do about it, but maybe you can just be proud of it.

Well, I would like to be proud of what I'm buying.

Thank you, though.

Well, I wish you well when you're ready.

Thank you.

I'm sure that with the help of the NBC crew, which had a gentleman, excuse me, all right, coverage, sanity, will be corrected.

He may even help prevent it from raining.

We have a marvelous plan for contingency.

You're able to do that.

Your house is bigger than mine.

We're only four o'clock this year.

That's who you want to bring in, sir.

Well, let's see.

We always give... We've got a few cranking up before you go.

You'll get a complex.

All of you.

If you notice, this is the city one.

This is the president.

Just to show you my lack of ISP, this is the first presidential complex that don't have my name on it.

It's worth saying that any person can do it.

Thank you.

Now, how many of you are golfers?

Well, you're all going to help out.

Probably one of your advertisers.

This is, he made these.

It's quite nice with the seal and the signature.

And the standard joke is, I'm giving everybody what the vice president wants.

These are about this high.

I know I've lost all three, but now I'm proving you're wise.

These are the same.

Oh, that's a good one.

You're going to get something.

I said, this is a small paperweight.

The moment of hatred, yes.

Thank you very much.

These are our tickets for the day.

Marvelous.

Thank you very much.

Good to see you.

It's an argument with Nichols.

I hope he's well.

Yeah, he must be out of the whiskey business.

I mean, whiskey is out there.

It was the end of Julian and I had lunch about 66 or so, right?

Way back in our future, right?

I didn't know I'd be here.

I didn't.

This way.

We're back over at the bridge.

I don't know why you wouldn't just stay here.

Thank you.

What happened, Colson?

I thought those guys, they never had it like that.

They had never had it.

It was funny.

That was his little speech.

We can do something about it.

He was trying to say, I'm sure we can get honest reporters.

It was marvelous.

But I said there, they know.

These guys have got to know.

They watch their programs.

They watch these press conferences.

And everybody, Rockwell, put an article that these reporters should buy.

Go out in the press room.

Ask that press man.

Talk to Bill White.

Talk to Neil Scott.

Talk to John Scali.

I would say, yeah,

And, uh, so, and I could just sit there and act as if, well, everything, your spine falls and so forth.

It falls.

But, you see, they had a code that, the thing that I was, I thought it was effective.

It was to get from cold to, you know, because I could sit there and just talk to them quietly, and they knew that I was just, you know, doing, you know, not, you know, not, you know, not, you know, not, you know, not, you know, not, you know, not, you know, not,

It was intense.

I watched it, of course, and I'll guarantee you that Walter Scott couldn't look at you while that was coming out.

He's a gentleman.

I like him.

He's fine.

He couldn't look at you.

Julian Wilson was looking at you.

I don't think he was believing what he was hearing.

His hand was tumbled.

But that's exactly the effect that these folks reacted.

That's precisely the tone they understand.

I just am so thrilled we did it.

I mean, they said, oh, it came through.

They passed it through to the others.

Oh, absolutely.

I got that.

That just rocks us, guys, because they're arrogantly proud of their cowardly.

The point she made is that we've never used the economic leverage.

You're a reporter against what I stand for.

They're against my foreign policy.

They're against what I do with other fields.

I understand that.

They were against what I did in Washington.

You saw it.

I said, just as long as I can.

I said, look, if I had to be a reporter in the country, if I were a reporter, I wouldn't be here.

But you gave me the chance to go there and do the people.

Oh, that's just me.

When I left here, I couldn't wait to get them out.

I wanted to run in and tell them, oh, what a fantastic job you've done.

I've been searching for a way that they could better understand the connection between the activists and the reporters.

And nobody could have done this as effectively as you did.

You did it in a way that was not, that they can't defend.

Because what you did was simply say, well, you fellas can't do anything about it.

And I'm not holding you accountable.

I understand that's the way it is.

And they're biased.

I'm sure they're biased.

And I understand it.

And I mean, we can do about it.

The point you made about the point you made about their credibility, if they attack your credibility, we'll have a good game to talk about the men who are critical of their credibility.

Well, yeah.

There's a film they've produced sitting here.

Sitting here saying that we attack our credibility.

And I said, well, of course you attack ours.

What do you expect us to attack yours?

I mean, it's a little funny how far I've lied to me.

which they ought to take it down.

You could present facts and let the viewer make up his own opinion.

Or you could present facts that would support your opinion.

Now, it's the way they're going to do it.

It's the latter.

They do it the latter way.

They know goddamn well they do.

And what's most important is they know, you know, and aren't going to tell us if it fits.

And a very cruel, or a lie, would probably die.

There are those understandings.

Well, the psychology of it is so perfect.

I guess you do know Julian Goodwin.

He said, when I went to see him in a New York lesson, he had one thing on his desk.

He had the inaugural note of the only thing on his desk.

And they are arrogant, but at the same time, they're cowardly and secretive.

And you just rocked hell with it.

He is going to be...

super-sensitive to his coverage from here on out.

Super-sensitive.

And that will go down through the organization.

And with the slightest bit, they know that... Well, I did it in a way that they can't go to their headquarters and say, President, you know, I said, look, you're biased.

I understand that.

I don't mind about what you're saying.

And also, you know, it's in the back of the bag for the rest.

I think incidentally, though, I think Agnes should lay off the damn thing.

He's doing it in too broad a brush.

Don't you agree?

Oh, well, he's now become white.

He's become a broken record.

Even in his own constituency, he's lost his credibility because he's saying the same thing.

Oh, there it is.

I'm all for it.

I agree with you.

But he's right.

That's right.

That's why we pulled Dole off.

I didn't want Dole to lose his convictions.

There comes a point when you've made the case that you, and it's also very important that I never take them on.

I must say I was greatly tempted to.

And Bill White was concerned after this and thought that I shouldn't take them on as reporters when they asked questions in the demonstrations at their time.

In retrospect, they've not.

There will come a time, another time, when they'll do it again.

and frustrated question asked a third time, repeating the answer a third time, finally got that message home.

Don't you think so?

Absolutely.

They were helpful.

I could have asked you that question then, but I was over-jewish.

But I mean, Bill likes my notes.

I should have read them and asked.

I should have lectured on those and said, I don't care.

You've asked that because it's how I answer you.

You disagree with me.

Let's go on to the next question.

Then you would have lost the... A lot of people...

respect for the way you just stayed very calm.

I think you'd have lost that thing.

And before that, you never know.

It's quite nice to change something, right?

Showing a little fire.

Were you sure of the termination?

You said you were very serious.

You didn't try to pressure them.

You just repeated yourself.

I'll tell you, these guys have never had to call to see a lot of that before.

I didn't understand that.

You know, you had Khrushchev and you had Jessica and what not.

You've got to treat the tall characters, and that's what they are.

Just cold steel, very calm, very quiet.

He said, you know, listen, I deliberately talk to you in very low voices and so forth.

He responded to it and said, oh, I understand.

We'll say it up next time.

I'm kidding.

Let's be honest.

I don't want to be honest.

I don't want you to want me to say something I don't believe.

I just don't believe it.

I'm going to give you that practice.

That gets them, too, because they know that, well, I'm being honest, and that they're not being honest.

I'll tell you, I think they at least will report that conversation around their drinking clubs in New York.

Of course, you did a good job.

will react very sensitively to that.

He'll be conscious of that for a long time.

And he was head of the news out here.

And he's basically a newsman.

And he is very, very biased and self-righteous in the objectivity of coverage.

NBC is the most biased of the networks.

Also, CBS has been worse in the war and more effective.

NBC is more biased.

NBC has been very tough on us in the economy.

But NBC

Well, like CDS, they'll go through phases, for instance.

You can tell when they're reacting, when they're sensitive.

But you build up in that dispute.

I didn't know it was kind of active, really.

Well, I just decided to bring it up because we talked about everything, and I was on their side on advertising.

I am.

I think it's silly to give equal time on advertising.

I think it's silly for the FTC to do it, of course.

In fact, it's silly to do it, Chuck.

It's wrong.

That's the wrong approach.

Would you see if that meeting is going to go on at 5.15 or whatever?

They're going to be delayed enough.

I don't understand anything.

The FTC is out of our control, believe me.

That's a target.

But my point is, we're not going to do anything.

I think it's wrong.

I do think our television, I've seen all the foreign broadcasts, they aren't worth a damn.

I think public broadcasting is a disaster right here.

I told Paul to drop it over the side.

We're changing the people in that.

Well, I don't want to change the people, Chuck.

All I can do is to get rid of the goddamn thing.

I mean, how the hell can you

How the hell can you?

We've been changing people there for years.

I'd rather get rid of it.

You know, we've been increasing it a damn bunch of times.

It makes no sense at all.

But I want to be sure, I know, you follow up again.

I spoke to Hall and I said you could follow up on that.

I want that budget cut.

I don't want it decimated.

But they screw us every time they go on.

They put fire in the ground, shooting all those goddamn clowns on there.

To your question, my breathing will probably be delayed until 5.20 a.m. early.

I believe all signs and signals spoke to me earlier regarding photogravity.

I think when I'm on the max, it's like, and the schedule is for a long-term course.

So it's closer to the time of, we were 10 minutes.

We want to be 10 minutes later, 5.10.

So now if I was over 5.10, we have a 50-day period.

It just won't take long.

Well, let's be sure I don't leave a good picture, so find out how long they need.

As much time as we need, I'll take it.

I want to be sure that you have a good photo of my shoes for the picture.

If you want us to try it again, we'll come here and see what happens.

They will.

You just say it.

You can talk to him.

When he does talk to the president, the president is sorry about it.

He's asking you to look into it.

You know he's an independent agent, this and that, but he's very interested in this thing.

Keep us posted.

Give him a little bit of bullshit.

We'd like to keep posting on this site and so forth.

We've got to work.

We've got to get it done.

I made a very good deal with this.

They might do a little something for us.

They've got a friend in the business.

They have.

I'm the only friend in the goddamn business world that ever happened to me.

It's going to be funny to cover it up as much because the thing that's killing them is the

It's the demands of the conservationists for time on all of these.

They ought to put a fellow like Borlaug on there.

They've created this ecology issue by putting on these crew balls.

Really, they ought to put some people on and say, look, the cost of this when you want to go back to that in this natural state.

Jerry Reavers, though, you know, is always that good little model we have.

People met in their natural state.

Well, you did that superbly, but I just, it was sitting, I was sitting there.

I got that in actual conferences a lot, so I had a lot of practice.

It was just, it was such a perfect crew to do it with.

You filled up the whole aisle of the proceeding.

It was such a very low-key deal.

And you gave me the opening, and he took it.

And I thought he was going to squirrel this complaint and have you say, well done.

Let's just not go with it.

We're sorry.

We won't do it.

I think the president ought to stop these people from doing anything.

Can he stop them?

I mean, frankly, Chancellor Hill, I'm not going to prejudice him.

I will.

Let's not get ourselves into that question.

Once you've got that space, you don't mind us.

It's got to take a ton of the shell to understand it, but I think he's learned about it.

I know he's coming around to it.

He's silly enough to see it.

He knows how to get something out, and how they screw us.

And in a sense, he's up to it.

He just heads out with the wires, which is good, but he knows that the networks are wrong.

Oh, I think Skelly's a great find.

Great find.

He's getting the president done his point.

He's done the right thing.

And when it's in the plan, it's only in the plan.

We do get to it.

We may not, we may not take it.

But Scali will be absolutely indispensable.

The normal city will be much more effective and safer, because he knows the issues, and Safer does not.

Scali will work with them.

I mean, he'll love it.

Did Bob, speaking of the biases, did Bob come and tell you about the vaccination on Sunday?

We had our young people.

No, the young veterans and their mom.

Well, he and Tony McDonald, who had two Vietnam veterans, were on, but George Sherman, Bruce Morton, CBS, started burrowing in so hard that halfway through the program, they stopped and apologized.

They said, we want to be sure that the people realize that we're not against the American soldiers just because we keep asking them these tough questions.

Oh, crash.

But as so, it was superb, Mr. President.

These boys, if I don't feel this at once,

The American fighting hand at the event supports the president.

He said it 18 times, and he talked about the success of the organization.

If there weren't other war crimes, gosh, he was great.

We've got him on that.

And he looked just marvelous.

We've got him on the Kevin show.

We've got him Thursday night.

We've got him on the Today show.

I try to just get equal time.

Well, why not?

You know, another thing that I expect from these networks, those factors are trying to lay the foundation for getting equal time to the Democrats.

the presidential press conferences.

And I put it to them, I said, now you treat them the same way you treated us, and they got that signal.

I want them to know.

Oh, yes, they said, yeah.

But you know, then they went on to say, well, next year it's going to be hard.

I said, yes, it's going to be hard.

But I said, I said, I looked right back at it, and I said, you know that I am very careful.

I said, if I ever take a man on personally, or if I make a partisan point, you owe the people time.

But I said, I'll never be so stupid to give you that chance.

You know, thank God for that.

If they have that point, and not to, I don't know how bad you think it would be, they'd back down completely.

The newsmen, they don't, you know very well why the newsmen are trying to force me to tell you this.

The newsmen know the minute I start to think, why doesn't it do it for public politics, for media, but second, it raises equal time.

I don't need a question.

I'm not going to respond to any question about McCoskey or McGovern or Happy or anybody.

I'm just not going to say a word.

Of course, the newsman, I want to thank you at that point, because giving you the price and images is hard.

Try it.

They'd love to do it.

They'd love to do it all of us.

But they did.

That wants to do it very quickly.

I will say one thing about ABC.

They have been fairly consistent, legal.

CBS has given us the greatest difficulty on this.

Final question.

ABC has given us terrible trouble on one occasion.

And these things, as you well know, the question is not time.

No, it's not.

As you well know, the question is approaching the eyebrow.

The question is, you know, they all said you ought to see our news programs.

They don't want me to look at their news programs.

And I don't really see the bias, because they do show their bias of how they look and stare and snarl around.

But I just read it, see what I mean?

And for that reason, I have a very detached view.

And that's the fairest way to treat the numbers.

to read what they're saying.

Do you agree?

Absolutely.

I've actually read cold, hot words.

Sure.

I hope that it grows me, and he'll ask me, well, what does the president talk about?

Because I have examples that he can't challenge, and I would just say, if you're asking me, the fact is that when unemployment goes down by two-tenths of one percent, we get 30 seconds buried in the program.

When it goes up by one tenth of one percent, it's a three minute lead, isn't it?

All right, let me give you a better chance this week that I can agree with you on that.

That's the law since October 1965.

In other words, we finally wrote a plan for the first half of the global climate.

Nineteen, Chuck.

Now that...

These sons of bitches have run headlines and everything else.

They said the cash was highest in three weeks, you know, maybe even some proof of that by.

Now it's the 19th.

I'll lay you a money deal.

We'll drop that out of the news.

We can drop it off or just put it to the cliff.

But the point is, on this one, I've got a real record to make, and I work on a scalator.

You've got to remember, you should talk to a scalator.

See how Scali can get that.

I want that hit in the networks.

I want to get it compressed, compressed.

But here the president can't prove right.

He said taxes would go down as the models they have.

Get my point?

Yes, sir.

That's a great figure.

Nineteen.

It is a great figure.

You see, last week it would have been about $16,000.

What happened?

The week before, $24,000 was.

All three of them were scared of the 24-feet because they didn't get much play.

This one they should get some play too.

This one they should get some play.

But I think this is one that's a hell of a figure.

We've got to find a way, like I said, I think there should be some guys in Congress

about this, and I don't want to lay it to the band, because I don't actually have a reason not to do it, but I think some guy shouldn't do it, hit it in the floor, you know.

So I called two of your deaf best guys, about a night before, and he had just got sprayed, and I didn't close, you know, five and a half years, as the president said about, also to do sarcasm, and rejections, and that,

The Vietnam issue is fading now, but maybe some.

This is all the way to the war, as people are saying.

Hardly can you keep it alive in 1910.

They're putting out a big push this week to get Ted Field and McGovern passed.

I think they're passing.

Well, Maxfield says that they haven't changed a single vote, and they won't.

And I don't think they're passing, Maxfield.

We won that by 60%.

We need to adjust to the feelings, and I'm sure Jim, I don't think this is going to be our most encouraging conversation.

Yeah, we see.

Who do you want?

Well, the question is, who do you want?

Who?

I mean, it was just a little bit of a school nap, and I said, you know, the president called over to call me, and he said, let's talk a little bit about this repression business.

Repression?

Of the networks?

No repression.

The administration is repressing it.

You know what I mean?

Holy shit.

What do you think?

I know you're biased.

You think we're all biased.

We're both biased.

I think they're inquiring where he's dead.

They could see, as I said, that I didn't give a damn.

I don't care about their reporters.

I don't care what they say.

You can't do anything about it.

As long as you give me an answer to the law, I don't care what you say.

I just say that.

That's the reason about these bastards.

They would like to deter me to be like Johnson.

I don't know.

Because the other people are biased.

I don't know.

They can't help me.

Did they respond at all?

Goodman's right hand was trembling.

And as the president was going out, the president said, he said, even though I understand you can't be advised, he said, I'd like you to be profitable.

Goodman said, we wish we could be profitable and advised.

And I'm sorry, I did want to know.

I said, look, I should let you tell you this.

If I had had very much upon what you're, what the press,

how they would let me into the country, I wouldn't be here today.

I would often take a 52, and often get a 56.

I would never survive to this time, only because I've been able to go to people's homes.

You may read that same thing in Time magazine, because I said it to the Time people who are doing this.

They're doing a cover story on communications or some damn thing.

You made the same one.

I said exactly the same thing.

I said, what in the world do you mean?

I said, I mean exactly that.

He said, well, let me be sure I understand what you're saying.

I said, do you understand what I'm saying?

I went through the whole thing.

I said, it's perfectly understandable.

I'm not criticizing the law.

You're...

group are basically dedicated liberals who honestly believe the opposite of what the president honestly believes.

So I can understand why you're against them.

I'm not criticizing you for it.

I'm merely stating a fact.

The point of the person in government was wrong and kept twisting.

He said, we've never used the economic leverage of government against you.

We won't, of course, but...

If you hit it, it will go back to the head.

That's a good deal of blood running.

But I think what was happening more than anything else in the country was the style of it.

It was such, it was absolutely, for Texas, it was an absolutely cold declaration as if I just cut a piece of meat up.

And that's why I told them, I told them I was going to show a bit of temperance.

See, all the way to the end on the tongue, that's another reason they didn't, that's another reason they didn't.

They know they've been through something.

Those guys.

They walk out of here.

Oh, they'll squeal and whine.

Wrong.

I'm wrong.

Terrible to worry about.

I've heard really, really impressive sometimes.

Did Ruben Frank respond at all, or did he just sit there?

He said he was a little bit of disbelief.

I said, I don't want to say that.

I just want to be perfectly honest.

That's all I want.

They just don't want us.

They can't do what they're trying to do.

They just don't want us.

They can't do what they're trying to do.

Did you notice when you were handing out the...

Because he reminded Goodman of that lunch that he'd had with him and Nichols three or four years ago, which just hasn't been six years ago.

And the president said, I never thought I'd be here then.

And Goodman, just like a little boy, said, I did.

He's just a goddamn anxious dude.

That's the typical New York, but that's the way they do.

They all bend down and drop your pants and let me kiss it for you.

But I will guarantee you that they are headed back to New York on their corporate jet tonight

will be in those offices looking at their logs and their time and their calendars and who they've turned down from the administration for coverage.

Do they have it?

I got into another interesting thing with the time guy.

He was pushing on why is the administration so always accused or reported as being so public relations oriented and

so many public relations people.

And I said, well, first of all, that's ludicrous.

There's only one public relations man in the whole White House area, as far as I know, and that's Bill Safar.

And he's not really a public relations man.

He's a political man.

And he said, well, what about Colson and Dick Moore?

And I said, well, those two both, you happen to have hit pretty badly there because they're both lawyers.

kind of looked surprised.

He said, is Dick Moore a lawyer?

And I said, yeah, he's a lawyer.

And then he was a television station president, management man.

He's never been in public relations, never had an I.O.

to the public relations.

Chuck Colson's been running a law firm all his life.

He has never had one day of public relations experience.

And I explained the difference between advertising men and public relations men and men.

He went to all the J. Walter Thompson people and I said, that's a lot of bullshit.

In the first place, those people were J. Walter Thompson because I met them in a political campaign and hired them.

And they only returned to government.

They're here because they're politicians, not advertising.

Because they've been involved with us in a political campaign and been so outstanding that I took them into my company.

Secondly, advertising men are not public relations men.

I explained the difference in that to him.

And he said, well, why did they say that?

I said, I honestly believe that the only reason is probably because it's a convenient way of explaining why the president has been so tremendously successful without giving the president any credit for it.

And it therefore satisfies the need to admit to success but not give any credit for succeeding.

And he just write that down.

I said, why don't you put that down?

And so he said, I will.

He wrote it down.

There's been no image-making at all.

It's absolutely true.

We don't have any image-making people here at all.

The image is made solely by the television, press conferences, by the public appearances, period.

That's it.

Nobody goes out and pimps the line.

Then he said, well, what about Ray Price and Herb Klein and Pat Buchanan and all those people?

And I said, well, you've hit it again.

You've named three newspaper men.

None of them have had one day of public relations experience at all.

I'm also all over not writing on public relations.

None of that has anything to do with public relations now.

I'm not advising you on public relations.

Nor does anybody else.

That's right.

There is nobody who advises you on public relations.

That's right.

Never will be.

Where has it been?

Were you able to get it?

There's been a few that have tried.

Press conference, preparations, and things like that.

They weren't interested in that sort of thing, I suppose.

He's...

I'm all ecstatic about how great you are at press conferences.

I don't know whether that's what he's showing out to me or whether it's going to be in the archive.

Well, I'll tell you this.

We can go.

You and Bob, you would have enjoyed this.

We have put these people in the store.

I would have enjoyed it.

I would have loved to have been here.

You'll be here.

This is just to be sure you don't back up anything.

Because the point is, I know exactly what I was doing.

And I had to do it.

I didn't want to have the three networks go through without them and I was there.

They're all this repression and all the crap.

I said exactly the same things I don't want to say on national television.

But boy, this is guilt test.

Boy, it counts.

Boy, they were, when I got through with them, they knew that I, I said, you're biased and I know it.

You're going to continue to be.

And we're going to get into the beach.

Yeah, he said, every, he said, I don't see that your people are ideologically opposed.

He said, I don't hear about it.

Yeah.

Go.

He said, we do the trainings.

These are professional men, and they are trained to be objective.

Now, you saw that.

Go to this guy down here.

Sure.

I was wondering if I could have said, well, Capo is a subjective thought.

He is, except in civil rights.

No, sir, don't do it.

He is an objective and civil rights justice, Capo is.

for example, on civil rights.

He goes completely overboard.

He can't speak.

He's blind.

Now, he's very objective on other things.

I think sometimes we don't talk about coming.

I don't think the way they do it is the way they do it.

He doesn't whine.

way, I'm afraid.

But I don't, I weren't the only one in charge.

He was the son of a .

Because this was a, you ought to tell Henry, he'll love this.

He'll love it.

He'll just love the way we handled the breeding, the test with a couple of them.

And you'll understand, they conquered it.

But the whole point is that they, we sat there and we just put them a dice up in the back.

cold, strong, keeping the draw in.

They got through.

They went through a battle.

I couldn't believe it.

I was just sitting here in the state of Texas.

I kept watching.

Every time you tore in, the right hand was there.

I think it sounds a lot better.

I don't watch that coverage.

Nevertheless, I don't want any of these people, the art members, to think of fighting

but I've never, I've never loved a son.

Here you go.

Yes, sir.

Yes.

I'll tell you something, Chuck Colson said it's necessary that you've got a piece of art.

Well, I think it was good work.

It was really good for me to do it for my own self-respect.

I did have one.

Well, like I said, I just, you're not going to sit there day after day after day, week after week, taking that shit from the press, just being abused, and never saying anything about it.

And it was needed to be said, and I said it nicely and done.

Lay it right there.

I'll even lay.

But you see, we cannot be so dishonest, Bob.

We cannot be so dishonest and be shot with our own selves.

I'd say this to Herb, and I'd say it to Scali, and I'd say it to Ron, to say that the press is fair, tries to be fair.

They are not.

They're trying to screw us.

And it's more than they try to screw others because they disagree.

Correct?

Not personal.

They're violently opposed.

They're a nice hand for us.

Correct.

That's right.

And that is it.

It's a...

So why, why, why, why are you emotional about it?

Also, I think they're stronger against you because they know that you're more effective in doing what they don't want done.

I'm a formidable adversary.

Right.

I think so.

I think it really bothered them, I must say.

I don't know whether to check it.

I really think they were more bothered by the fact that I was so goddamn cold about them.

Cold, smiling all the time.

You know, how bad it is.

I was just cold, a soft voice.

Oh, I just gave it to them, up and down, on the side, and sliced them up.

It was about time.

It was time to end.

What happens is this, that our other people have to go in.

Sucker.

I know we all cry and complain about this or that, but generally you're fair and Agnew is sort of in charge.

I didn't apologize for Agnew, not a bit.

I didn't apologize for the old man and all the rest of it.

I just said, well, now, you just might want to give your ability without having yours in charge.

Well, they know down deep that you're right, too.

They have it.

Sure.

Well, I can't do what my son's graduation is.

My son was out with his daughter, Patty.

And I said, that was Saturday, and they had a damn good front page Saturday.

They had that big picture of who's this Curtis Tarr knocking that kid down.

And then they had a good story on the economy.

They had the figures on the unemployment.

They had the figures.

They played it the right way.

And some other good story.

I said something about, I was kidding.

It was kind of...

We enjoyed reading your paper this morning for a change.

And he laughed and he said, you know, I know exactly what you mean.

It must be depressing as hell to pick up our paper every morning for you.

I said, it normally is.

But today, for some reason, you had a couple good stories.

And he said, well, we had a fight on that economic story.

Mark Rowland said we were doing something wrong.

And the guy that wrote it said we should present it this way.

And we fought it through.

And I put it in this way.

And this is the essence of it.

any question about it.

The Starz played it wrong.

The Starz and I before played it badly.

The Starz were very bad on economic.

Always bad.

They never failed.

And they always played down our game against them.

Consistent.

Just like NBC.

NBC is always bad on economic.

Worse than they are on war.

CBS had worse on war.

Well, I made a prayer.

I said, I don't mind.

I said, but listen, I'm kidding each other.

I said, they are.

I said, I know.

You can't think about it.

That's what God said.

I said, I don't mind it.

I know it.

I'm not complaining about it, boys.

There it is.

God damn, that kills me.

I said, you're biased.

I want you to do something about it.

It's all much better.

Yeah, well, then they could have leaped up and said, well, you know, that's a terrible thing.

The president's telling us how to run the network.

You didn't tell her that, did you?

I didn't try to tell her.

You commiserated with them in the following day.

That's good.

We're friendly in those people.

Sure, sure.

They all have lunch together.

I should keep you out of your mind just talking to your employers about this.

I didn't say, oh, yes, we do.

I didn't say it.

I said, I remember in 66 I got one.

You easily have the R, and I said, I've never, right?

It was the algorithm, a little football game, but I said, but I will take that in, and then I'll talk to it.

So then he tagged me personally in a press conference.

That's what he did.

I said, I'm not going to make that decision.

If I do, you give people time.

But that's the only basis for giving time.

I don't have a chance on that, too.

Why bullshit about that?

Are you going to close it?

Absolutely, guys.

They might put us at 11 o'clock at night or maybe noon.

Fine.

We're going to do just what we want to.

Mr. President, there are, well, Mr. Peterson is likely to come now and do it, but there will be no senators present.

They're on the Hill for the two who voted on the out amendment.

And out of the 30 members who were invited, 20 are present today.

Just do the housework.

The senators are not having it at all.

Not at all, Senator.