Conversation 531-024

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

I thought it was an extra.

Well, how's your day going?

Well, as you know, I do this New York Times episode.

It's a great opportunity.

A couple of ways.

In several ways, I can get out towards a similar opportunity.

some of the some of the people who feel that it does as I'm sure you know I don't know I just thought I don't believe it does I think the I think the argument that president which is a constitutional severe constitutional president talking about the president right free censorship can go one way without in any sense affecting the

the act of stealing documents.

I've been amazed at how it's spread.

And even though one could argue that if the court held that the documents were not damaging to the national interest and therefore could be published by the New York Times, that does not excuse the act of stealing those documents, especially

Since Ellsberg did it with Malice, he did it.

I'm like, no.

Well, certainly we ought to get more proof of it by the time we get to the court case.

I don't know.

We're talking about a contemporary scene and they get screwed around in a little thing.

I don't think we can get this court case.

I don't like to track the case.

I'm not satisfied with how they handled it.

I don't think they were really prepared to handle it.

But either way that case goes, it's interesting the reactions that I've gotten to the prosecution of Ellsberg.

I noticed my partner.

You said, why, he's a thief.

He's a thief.

He should have stolen.

I was told, you know, Cassidy, it's what our polls show.

Our polls show everybody bought the facts out of the office.

They thought they got out of the prosecutor.

Carpenter yesterday was doing some work for me.

First thing he said was,

He knows it in the latest.

He said, I hope you're going to get that son of a bitch who stole those papers.

Part of the things, too, is he's a marvelous target.

Of course, prosecuting him, whether we ever got him ever sent to jail or not, as long as there wasn't a jury grade in his favor before the election.

But prosecuting him keeps that issue alive.

And I think that the issue cuts the Democrats

It doesn't cut us off.

The issue, from our standpoint, is a very good one to keep alive.

And the congressional committees will help us this forward when they hold hearings.

Prosecuting Ellsberg will keep it fomented in the press.

And I just... Also, isn't it true that the Senate hearings are complicated?

Both of those will keep it alive.

Senate hearings are going to be bloody.

They have to.

It's going to be otherwise.

Now, the big pressure that the Democrats will take is to try to find something on, how much is this administration?

They'll try to find something.

When?

Post-1968.

But there's nothing in that.

There's nothing in it.

No, not that I know of.

No, no, no, there's...

The study was completed in 1968.

Oh, in that study?

Right.

But the fear I would have is that there would be a real attempt to leak something out.

Oh, by somebody in our administration.

Oh, sure.

That's the one worry.

The focus of it from the Johnson administration, the Kennedy-Johnson administration, to the two artists.

There is going to be another leak.

Let's hope.

But what about my division?

I was out in the Cambodian.

That's fine.

It doesn't hurt to say it worked.

Laos doesn't worry me.

It doesn't hurt if the casualties are 21.

They were 310 when we came in.

That's 19, 25, 25, 21.

That's right.

That's just what I predicted.

We've got to get that across.

Here we are.

We've been nice.

That would be less after Laos than it is.

You never know this in reading the press, but I think there are papers, you think there's a .

The Americans aren't fighting it, sir.

The casualty figures have been running pretty well.

They've .

This week, the commentary has been good, I think.

Is it?

Yes, sir.

I think that's been running as a plus.

Well, the Oldsburg situation, you know, it's interesting, our constituency,

is aroused over that.

Nothing else.

Harry Bird, when I saw him yesterday, he made a great point about the press meeting elsewhere.

He said, I'm sure there are other people behind this, and that's the attitude that you're going to find all across the country with our supporters.

They're not going to want to see us let them off the hook.

If there's any way to do it,

Well, I don't see how that, I don't see the argument myself, and I agree with some of the suspects, and I don't think that it kills them, because legally it does not.

Now, I don't think the public, what I mean is, nobody in our church suggested we drop the prosecution of the ex-officer.

Has that been suggested?

I've heard it argued that we'll make a martyr out of him.

Sure, of course we'll make a martyr.

Relative to peaceful system, of course, he's done that anyway.

He's on the cover of the Times Magazine today.

The left will make a eager look, but that's fine.

It keeps us organized.

Do you need an enemy?

I agree completely, and he's a marvelous person.

His looks, the way he talks on that television interview we had last week, he's a perfect enemy to him.

And it's interesting, as far as we know, he's afraid of being asked.

The first phrase that you used, the first day this came up, stolen documents, stolen goods, that's really thoughtful.

I've had any number of people use that phrase back to me, and it's showing up in the press.

You start reading the press books, and you'll see, oh, stolen documents, stolen documents.

You just got to keep repeating it.

Trafficking, tracking, stolen documents.

That publicity is worth a hell of a lot to them in terms of it.

The press issue will say whatever the court says this week, the press issue will be behind this and the focus of this will be on the argument within those papers.

So the argument being that now that we make a moderate resolution, that's the other side I don't agree with.

It's a question also of credibility if he wants to go after you.

If we thought these documents were important enough to go into the Supreme Court, we can't act now.

We've got to feel they're important enough to go after Elzer.

And I think an awful lot of other things may fall out of this.

We don't really know all that's behind either his motives or who he worked with.

Getting those companies distributed all over the country had to be an organized effort, but that wasn't an accident.

You don't get .

Mitchell is in Peckhoff, that's where he's coming from.

Okay.

Attorney General, I've heard from some of our left of center people here.

No, he's a prosecutor.

Yeah.

Yeah, Dick Moore.

Dick Moore was very, very nervous about it.

It's good.

It's a good thing to have the arguments out.

Well, we cannot rock this case down.

We cannot rock the case.

It makes us look like a lot of fools.

Also, we've got to protect the security system.

Also, we've got to keep the problem to the Democrats.

I think this is all correct.

I mean, whether it's a record or not is a little bit weird.

And I'm not going to go up to a little whale here and then drop a case.

I don't believe in that.

That's public relations law.

And it's not good to sound politics in my opinion.

People aren't even rolled around in politics.

There are some that are right and some that are wrong.

They're always looking for a better way out.

No, this is .

Jesus, keep looking at him.

Do you know this is the person that all of the apologies are coming out of his friends in the liberal media who are saying, well, I interviewed him in 1965, and he said this, you know Dan Wentz, when he's scurrying around, that people like to go up on the Baltimore side.

He came up with it.

Sure.

Saying, bail me out, bail me out.

Yeah.

He's in...

Awful shakeup of this.

I'm just convinced he's done.

Oh, yes.

I don't see how he could survive this.

Muskie.

Muskie's having problems on the two-way.

He's having problems.

And what we've got to do, what I've been telling our people today, keep the pride in Johnston.

Well, keep talking about the Humphrey-Muskie ticket in 1968.

If Humphrey is discredited because in 1968 he campaigned, knowing of these decisions,

Hell, Muskie was his running mate.

We shouldn't let him off of that hook.

And if he was running at that time, defending Mike, that element of defense he made of the Johnson warplank, that warplank in Chicago, which we have on tape, that was a, not element, but it was impassioned, waving his arms, defending the Johnson policy.

And that should be just as... That's right.

That should be just kept flashback every now and then.

Every doctor, I appreciate it.

Dick Ballantyne, okay.

Now, they're both .

No, sir.

And Gallup came up with similar findings.

Yes, and Harris will be testing the same question.

I didn't get that out of the summary today.

Well, I see.

Actually, it didn't have as aggravated numbers.

It kind of had the same split.

People favored the publication of the documents, but then opposed the theft of the documents.

Opposed publishing rights of the documents, but favored publishing these.

Which only goes to make the point that it's related to the war, this war, which is not popular anymore.

and is considered old news by people of the faith.

If they thought of it, if they didn't think of it as old... Well, he hasn't asked this question, though.

Gallup doesn't ask questions about that.

He spoke this morning about the ORC.

No, I don't think he did.

I asked your question.

I saw Gallup on the 300.

Well, that's all right.

But it's still a 700-year question.

I think that O.R.C.

poll was correct.

I do too, but we know who it is.

We know.

We don't vote ours.

Do you have a chance to read the O.R.C.

poll?

That's a fascinating analysis.

Well, the way I kind of figured, though, I don't see how they... Oh, no, man.

It was my hope, sir, and I think that that's what I was going to be.

How did you put yourself in this position?

Oh, yeah, I knew about this, sir.

I didn't hear the text of it, sir.

President, this is the last question.

I mean, the only one I worry about is Muskie, whether he could sustain and he starts getting a little smarter in his approach and he becomes the least objectionable candidate.

And I would much rather see us running against Teddy than against Muskie.

Or Hubert.

Not now.

I'd rather see us running against Teddy than... That isn't going to be Hubert.

No, it isn't going to be Hubert.

I don't see how it can be Hubert.

He'd be the best for us at the moment.

After this, that'd be the easiest.

I think Teddy next.

I believe the Harris thesis.

The Harris thesis is that he just cannot get a majority of the votes.

There's much too much

from an antagonistic factor built in right from the beginning.

Even when he's paired, it's a year away.

Yeah, but it's two years away from Chuck quitting.

It's still hanging over his head.

It's reflected in all those answers that people give, personality and leadership qualities.

Of course, he's tarnished by this because the Kennedy image is tarnished by the whole idea of bringing in a superior intellectual talent from Cambridge and the academic establishment.

And the Kennedy mistake is badly damaged by these documents.

Yes, sir?

I don't think so.

There's been an awful lot.

There was an analysis of McNair on television this morning which indicated he was, someone in the day show that was doing Head Down by Everton, indicated he was really losing his grip in the last couple of years.

There's been not written and not printed enough on television that people begin to have written

Scotland, please.

That begins to permeate.

People begin to get that feeling.

They get disgustful of that the kind of men that come from that environment, I think right now, are not held in high confidence.

And that Richard Steadicam, because he's under the same mode of development, because you

something like that happens, and you think of all the problems that it's created over the last couple of weeks for us, but when you really analyze it, it could well be one of those great political gifts that you never plan on, and never can anticipate.

I think it lasts all along.

He's lost some of his respect.

On the other hand, he'll still fight.

He's a camper.

He'll go around.

He'll still play around.

Yeah.

Ransom.

I want to be sure that group today is when they come in and I brought up immediately and be sure that you serve with Ransom.

I should be at the beginning or not.

Which other arts group?

Do you serve them drinks before they go into the... You serve them in the big room?

Yeah.

Well, give them a basically sort of double drink as they come in, because I want them to be sure to have a drink before we get in.

We would not, but I think that's the kind of group of folks that drink a lot.

That's fine.

Okay.

All right.

So you're open until 12?

Yeah.

37.

Well, it's kind of a thing where you've got all sorts of people kind of, you know, getting jittery.

Jays and all that sort of thing.

It's just terrible, terrible.

You know, a lot of people wait out there.

People don't keep their heads.

Nothing is all as bad as it sounds, or as good as it sounds, basically.

But this, this,

presents enormous problems for the Democratic Party, and that's just terrible.

I don't see how they can get out of it.

That's what your three correspondents are telling you.

Yet, of course, they may be reacting on any of the immediate things, but maybe they were trying to take the long view too great.

Oh, I think so.

It's for each one of them.

I've talked to more people than I do.

Over the course of this weekend, I've talked to a dozen people whose judgments

political sense, instincts that I trust.

And they've all taken the same viewpoint, that this is just devastating to the Democrats over the next year.

You know, as you think about something else, I was studying a separate poll that Harris did today on the economy and the attitude of the public.

Do you think that with the public perception of the economy as bad as it is still, would

the war still being a political liability because people aren't sure yet that we're out there.

With all the heat that we've taken from the media, from the hostile press, to be above 50% or even active, it's extraordinary.

And if the current change, if the current

economic developments begin to reflect themselves in the public attitude four to six months down the line.

If the war is winding down, and you start with a base that even in this heat that we've taken is as high as 50 or 50-plus, I suppose that's a damn strong suggestion.

There'll be a backwater effect from this in many times.

And economy is all of that, you know.

Economy is fine.

Economy, basically, you sort of only want to have $20 million rather than $25 million.

I forgot to say something.

My idea is don't have a go-to gas right now.

Don't have an employment come down too soon.

We want it to come down next year, not this year.

That's 51 or 52 billion dollars in the first six months of this year.

That's a staggering figure.

That's right.

We don't, I don't think we can often enough to

project how good it is.

And Bob told me of your speech in the cabinet room this morning, which is, which is, was vitally necessary.

You've had too damn much great actors and second-guessers and so forth and so on.

Well, that's good.

It's just contagious.

And you start a little bit of that, and that ripples out, and the press would love to see it on a division, so.

You know, the fact that we hold as well as we do is, I don't know, it's got to mean something.

Of course, on the other hand, you have a lot of talk.

There is great concern in the country in many parts about the lack of leadership and all that sort of thing because the media constantly airs it.

And yet the people are not really, when you go to Indiana and Illinois and other places, they don't feel all that bad.

They don't feel at all a lot better than I think we did.

And then, granted, we have to take polls.

Sure, people say that people are pessimistic about the economy.

But they're seldom optimistic about it.

And they really are.

And they think they've done bad the last five years they have because of the Johnson years, which of course they didn't make any gains in our years the same.

But now they're going to make gains.

If I were sitting on the other side of the political fence watching what's happening here, and I knew damn well that the economy was, the trend is right, especially how fast it went, I would know damn well that one way or another that war issue was gone next year.

And I would see a president sitting with all the junk that's been tossed at you over the past year sitting here still

and 50% or better in the polls, I would figure that next year would be one hell of a time for you to be in the fifth.

That was the point of the John Roach account that came out last week where he said that you will be tougher, this will be the toughest election since 56 for the Democrats, as tough as 56, or tougher than 56, because

of all the things that you will have going next year, like the economy picking up, the war issue diffusing, the fact that an incumbent hasn't voted in five to ten percent.

He's got to have five percent, right?

Basically, yes, they are a presidency, for sure.

And here's John Roach, who was a Democrat, or he was a conservative, and one of the best columns I've seen.

He's a good writer, but he analyzes each of these points, and his conclusion is that

As the Democrats look at 72, they've got a tougher job on their hands than they've had any time since 56, and they'd be tougher.

And I think it's true.

I think if you could take all that has gone on and know that public attitudes on both the war and the economy are bound to improve.

We can only go out on both.

On both.

But you've worked from a 50% base in the polls.

Yeah.

The economy, if Harris' theory is right, is already turned up, so people are going to start reflecting on their attitude six months from now.

Is that his theory?

His theory is that six months, whatever the turning point was, whether it was April or May or whenever it was this year, six months thereafter, the public confidence will be restored.

Thank you.

He said there's been a historical item that has never failed in anything.

Well, the only question is whether that will still happen in times of television, night after night, and NBC is not again.

You know, they really think, they really think they've got economic concerns.

They did.

They're wrong.

I agree.

They're wrong.

I agree.

We've never had that kind of situation before, you see.

Whether or not that will so discourage the American people or whether they'll react.

I don't know, Bill.

Well, I think

First, we'll get, we'll begin to get some better news even.

We're not going to say none of that.

It will not come this month.

Next month, I mean, next month is going to be a little, it's not very.

A lot of it, Mr. President, is what we do and how we do it.

That's why I think your meeting this morning was so important because if we, we feed most of this.

Sure.

The leaks that came out of the

Council of Economic Advisers in the last three weeks.

I raised hell over one ten days ago.

I just blew my cork with McCracken.

Because all it did was to give Dan Rather two commentaries in a row on how the administration is torn, divided, uncertain of whether its economic game plan is working.

I just can't give him that kind of an excuse.

Just so far, in the

in hurting us in any kind of way.

But we have to give them a little bit of a handle where they don't... Well, we're going to get contact on the front line.

I'm going to silence the others.

We have our problems with Arthur Burns, but we're just going to isolate him.

It's sort of a buddy-buddy, what you can do.

He's got to play that game.

We can play it, too.

Arthur thinks that he's doing everything in his own right.

He's there because I put him there.

And I'll start saying some things, especially if you go along, I've got to be...

in my place is a war issue.

That's going to be another 60, 60 days.

60 to 90 days, but it's just July.

July, August, September, which is September.

Back at this time, I just didn't have Ellsberg in the news for a while.

Of course, the travel started for me to go up and down.

It takes a long time to fix a jury.

We have to find the person.

He has to be indicted and the grand jury first.

The grand jury can be before the grand jury.

I wouldn't hurt it.

I think they did.

I think it's one of those that you want to, in this case, it'll take a couple of years.

I would like to see it go right in the minister's office.

If the case is going on and his testimony can only be, from a public standpoint, can only be harmful to him because he's trying to rationalize why he stole government secrets and that's pretty hard, very hard to do.

Even when he has an issue of

We're not talking a war.

I would think we would begin to get a cripple of comment, even from our...

I've got to figure out how to handle that.

Harry Bird makes a few comments and others in Congress.

It would begin to be a little outraged about the stupidity of these guys.

Oh, that's coming in.

Is it beginning to?

Yes, sir.

I saw the...

The man in the girl today had one day.

Maybe a dozen.

Very, very few.

The girl with the... Two directors.

The girl who said a good one.

And of course the coffee chain.

There we go.

That's about it.

Coffee.

Oh, I think I did it.

I did it.

Well, anyway.

I got the message about Houston Harris on our next issue call, which we'll do tonight.

I think it's useful.

Oh, I think it'd be marvelous to try it on ourselves.

You may have a way to get at it.

You'll be also complimented if you do it.

That's the whole thing.

That's all he's looking for, plus the fact that I'm convinced that he knows that he believes that some of us have got to be elected.

Realize that.

He thinks that he's going to have us abused for a while.

That's it.

When they cover everybody, they tend to get, you know, they all say everybody's going to have to get out.

They're going to win against all these economies and all this shit.

The war is starting to spark and so forth.

But, uh, and they all show well in each and every campaign.

They run well in the Tri-League.

None of that means a damn thing.

It kind of means at this point.

I remember we've all done well in the Tri-League.

But nevertheless, if you get, if you get down to the white bird, they have to get out there.

They have to, they have to take the hammer and go, I'll give you some money.

Because they're there.

That's right.

That's not going to help.