Conversation 536-016

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

It is the most beautiful lake I've ever seen in Washington.

Absolutely unbelievable weather.

No humidity.

Loved it.

The breeze.

Burning creole.

Loaded in water.

You know, uh, we have a problem with Mr. Andrews over here.

I don't know if you can get him over here.

Yeah, well, he's, uh, he breaks it.

He's a great, especially a sidebar.

Basically, he can't write as eloquently as Cook at times can be very eloquent.

Ray, of course, is eloquent, but just too fuzzled.

Ray's is too, well, Ray has enough time.

It's beautiful.

Ray seems to be a martyr.

It repels him horribly.

It's something that's going to grab people.

Yeah.

Sapphire wants to grab it all the time, but he doesn't say it.

I don't know how much he can create.

Create is different, he's awesome, he's very humble.

He's got a, interestingly, you probably haven't seen it at all, he's got a fantastically good sense of humor.

Which he could start off being of some help on too, I don't think he's been encouraged on that,

He can be very good at working some anecdotes, anecdotes in life.

He's been doing some of the, you know, watching public events and looking for anecdotes in them, and he sees right through to the key anecdote, plus the fact that he's got, which is maybe a factor of his youngness, but it could be a dang good factor.

He's got an almost worship of you and the office.

Well,

That's, uh, he'll get over that.

No, no, no, no, he does change.

No, no, not openly, but I can see he's over all of it.

But I told him, I said, don't take it because I say it.

I said, look, what do you think?

I'm trying to break it down because I want his views.

Well, this thing comes through in these anecdotes, where he, he is so much more perceptive than the other guys on the skills that you have and the way you deal with people.

And it's just completely flabbergasted.

He watches in receiving lines, for instance.

He just, he's written.

You ought to read.

I'll send you some of the stuff he's written, some of the notes that he's written on some of these events, because they're in your files, and they'll be there when you want them someday.

But they get the humor, and they get the...

Some other people writing books about you someday will want to use them, because they've got the...

I think that's impressed any of us who've watched you in a receiving line, which is this, and you do it even in a crowd, but the receiving line is the epitome of your ability to zero in on each individual at a time and relate to that person, no matter how unrelated the person is.

And he's watched that with...

complete awe, and he perceives it.

In other words, he doesn't look at it just as a thing, but he's seen it in individual things, and he's got a number of...

It's not the same, for example, that Ron doesn't do, because Ron, of course, has enormous capabilities that he doesn't have.

That is not his banning.

And this kid there, he sees it as quite an unusually good little race.

Well, he does, and he's seen it in your program, in the way you talk.

For instance, he was watching that YMCA thing and was fascinated with the little interplay on your obvious, kind of, you couldn't understand what the girls were doing there.

He said, was YW as involved here too?

And they said, no, all YM.

He said, YM?

He said, what?

In other words, you're integrated.

And just as you said integrated, he looked at a colored YM.

You know, it worked into a double H kind of gag.

It just came off very well.

And the kids appreciate it.

And we can appear with this.

I want to show it to you and see if you don't think it's appropriate.

Well, I see you.

I'm sure it's an improvement over Sapphire's, because Andrew's first draft, in my view, was a substantial improvement.

And Ray said it.

He said to him that Ray felt very strong in Andrew's draft.

Part of that is that Andrew's is his boy.

The problem is that Andrew's was better.

Sapphire was not right for that time.

I'm 25, I think.

Where's he from?

28.

He is from St. Louis, originally, I believe.

Where he was from?

He's a Christian scientist.

He went to Principia, I believe.

I'll be there.

I'll tell you where he is.

He's a Christian science organization called Adventure Unlimited, which is a couple that started this thing.

And they run a spectacularly good summer camp to Colorado Mountains, one of this to Colorado, that is focused almost entirely on horseback riding, but is totally oriented to Christian science.

You have to be a Christian scientist to go there.

And they read the lesson every morning.

They have services on Wednesday evening and services on Sunday.

And it is a church camp, but the church, the religious part is woven in

You do the formal stuff, and then they weave it into the other thing.

The guy that started this is John Andrews' father.

Camp vendors.

And all of our kids have gone to the camp.

Earl is on the board, the board of directors.

So this candidate must have a tremendous record.

He's brilliant.

There's no question about it.

How in the hell did we leave him around that long?

Well, John Earl...

I knew about it because of being on the board of this campaign.

He was lost there.

The kid wanted to get in here.

He dedicated to us and all.

And John looked around for a place where we could use him and put him in as an aid to Ron Zimmerman.

Why are we, as an LA in that respect, are you taking a look at us and still waiting to get an aid?

The Catholic priest.

How about Halliburton?

They've got him started to work at something.

Yes.

There's a good property.

Halliburton might be a very good way to work with him on the M.H.

Gold business.

Right.

I've also asked him to have him analyze, right as of now, the whole New York Times controversy.

I've had enough papers to do this.

Well, that's the kind of thing he likes to do.

Come up with what are positions.

I'd like to see what he comes out with.

Probably come up, I'm afraid, with McCann.

He believes, you know, his whole theory is, he's learned to still say, what do you call it, the landscape.

Don't dominate the dialogue.

On the other hand, you may not.

I gave Colson some stuff.

I said, hello to you.

He says, happy July 4th.

You should look at that picture.

Lost one.

Nope.

It's the corner where that sculpture was.

Nancy Hanks and Len Garland got rid of it.

They went out and took the picture.

Wish you a happy Fourth of July.

Very clever.

They're making the point now.

Very clever.

Damn thing.

It's gone.

Well, I, uh, I'm very, I'm smart.

That's right.

But I thought, you know, I'd be close to discovering something.

And I inquired, I said, he had his law firm's call, and you're aware of his statistics.

So he did the time report, and that time report, and they all said it was Goldstein.

And he said, Goldstein?

Yeah.

But did he tell you?

I said, who were they?

He said, what?

I said, what kind of people were they?

I said, were they all Jews?

He said, yes.

I want to look at any sense of the areas around where Jews are involved.

See, the Jews are all through the government, and we have got to get in those areas, we've got to get the man in charge who is not Jewish to control the Jewish

Do you understand?

I sure do.

Because everybody's full of Jews.

I sure do.

Second, most Jews are disloyal.

You know what I mean?

You have a Garmin and a Kissinger.

And frankly, a satellite.

In fact, I've got their exemptions.

But Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the Vatican.

They turn on you.

Are you correct?

Am I wrong or what?

And their whole orientation is against this administration anyway.

So you may have this nerve and attitude, too.

Sir?

So what?

And they're smart.

They have the ability to do what they want to do.

Which is to hurt us.

Which is the problem.

They have the ability.

Some people that are...

I don't know how many Jews are going to go.

And he got this one...

He's got quite a few.

Horrible bastard.

He was probably all right.

I don't know.

Maybe all right.

He just got this little...

I don't know.

But you know, look at his others, he's got a head of aid, his secretary's not Jewish.

Very, very interesting, you know.

I watched him on Winter Oaks.

And his aides, none of his aides had ever been Jewish.

Even Tony Legg, who turned to us.

That's right.

The guys, the young guys that he's always had.

Was Tony Legg always Jewish?

I don't think so.

I wondered about that.

He looked at him.

I know.

Okay.

But so, in a way, David Young, who

It was one of those requests from David Young who sure as hell doesn't know.

David Young is a hell of a good guy.

I wish he could have.

And Peter Henry's kicked him down into the woodwork.

Why?

He's doing, he's doing very sensitive work.

That's probably good, but he's...

I agree with you on that.

Yeah.

He was using this, and hey, he burns them out, but he can only keep a guy for six months or so, and the guy, he just literally burns them out.

Who was the guy who first had it?

Uh, Engelberger, when Helga came in, Larry Engelberger, he's still on our belts, by the way.

He just, you know, if we could get him back, totally collapsed.

Henry has enormous energy.

He has enormous energy, he has enormous arrogance, and unlimited cruelty.

And he's really cruel.

Well, baby, I'm going to determine how to use the camera.

Good.

Excuse me.

Have you been outside today?

Who?

Have you been outside today?

No, sir, not yet.

Please.

You get about one day to hear this one.

They don't get that.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you.

I don't know.

They think, they said, that we'd have more time rather than less.

The reason for that, I think, is that they've timed those guys very tightly, and they're going on the assumption, which is generally true, that they'll read faster when they're on the air.

I'm sure that'll be true, or I would guess it'll be true of Albert.

I would suspect it may not be true of Berger, because Berger is a, is ponderous and likes to be ponderous.

But they're telling him on his ponderosities.

Most people do.

I know.

I'm trying something, I'm trying to read a poem a lot faster when I'm not on the internet.

That might slow down too much.

I don't see, I don't agree with you or John on the fact, on the fact that reading slowly is more affecting.

It depends on what you're reading slowly about.

I agree.

The, for example, that's what I was trying to do, like you had this long business that I could, I don't know the way to describe it, but it's all those long reiterations.

That could be the fastest way to possibly get that out of it, but we have the long stuff on the economy that sometimes it might just get through it.

And that didn't pay the price.

Well that was, and then also, there's another thing.

You see the great mistake, Johnson had a pace of about 70 words a minute.

He just, every word was emphasized.

Yeah.

A lot of people do that.

That took people to sleep.

You also, another thing, you've got to move it back and forth.

Change the pace.

Speed up.

Slow down.

Speed up.

And don't worry if they don't get it all.

Throw us the music.

It was the State of the Union, I think.

It was some speech you did.

I think it was the State of the Union where you did a lot of speeding.

I thought you did the best job I've ever seen done of going very fast through the parts that should be passed and very slowly through the parts that should be emphasized.

Parts that mattered.

But there's a lot of stuff you put in a speech just for the record.

And that you ought to get through as quick as you can get it through.

But this speech, you're not putting very much in for the record.

You shouldn't be writing this for the text.

I'm not going to put it out.

Because the text is going to be put out.

It'll be recorded off the air and somebody can put it out afterwards.

But it's going to be read.

The value of the speech is going to be...

whatever millions of people see it on television.

People will read it.

What will happen after this speech is done?

You get quite a few letters, I think, asking for copies.

And we'll have you send them copies, and that's what you're doing.

Do you realize, given the text of the speech, I believe we've got people saying, well, the text was or was not printed in the New York Times.

It doesn't make a common, different strength.

How many times have you read texts and speeches in the New York Times?

I've read two or three, if that's all.

But not very often.

Texts and press conference in the New York Times.

Not really.

I've never done a text.

I've never done a text with a press conference.

I did read one at Kennedy's once.

But you see, the text goes, all you're looking for is a couple of lines.

And I went back and I told members, I said, now repeat the lines that are going to

that I've used before, like, you know, where you get a good line, I've got some wonderful ones in the first state of the union.

Dr. Custer tried to get a great second.

Sapphire will never repeat.

There's none in the inaugural.

There's some in the regular one.

They won't repeat.

They will use the liquid to dry the green one.

But repeating the line, if you get a good line, like I said,

We must not let what is wrong about America blind us as to what is right about America.

Now, Dan, if you don't like to cheer around, people feel that, don't they?

Let us correct what is wrong about America, but let us not allow what is wrong about America to blind us as to what is right about America.

This is a good country, you know what I mean?

Well, it's true now.

They call that demagoguery and so forth and so on.

That isn't demagoguery.

Well, it really is.

It's basically, you know, it was like Hallett's reaction.

It would be very good to get his because his reaction to J.C. Spieth was not favorable because he didn't have any historic lines.

I mean, not a great line, sir.

You see, he's basically a legend.

But on the other hand, we have got to realize that the average person

We'll hear something.

Unless you've got one line that rants, all they're going to remember is, well, this has a good speech.

What did he say?

Oh, I am, oh, this is a good country.

Have you ever heard this?

I've tried that test a thousand times, a jiffy of times, and nobody can ever tell you why.

Right?

Sure.

We start on the premise, the average guy, by definition, has an IQ of 100.

So you've got to try to intelligent people and say, which is, they don't eat it.

Yeah, I can listen.

But I agree with you a little bit about the Jews, Charlie.

And I like to see a particular type of Jews throughout the administration, where you've got a Jewish cell in any place.

And they're all the way around.

Let's see what we can do about them.

It's under two of the...

I sent this back to everyone.

This executive pay level thing was coming here.

Yep.

I'm just afraid of that bulletin.

Well, they had it to go in early this year, and we, John stopped it and asked my support, and they stopped me, and I agreed completely, and we overrode the Schultz and Effect Enrollment Group and argued that you couldn't do it.

And we agreed then to hold it until the new fiscal year,

Let it go.

It's part of the reorganization plan.

It's in the basic .

Got over and asked for thousands of dollars of increase for high-level people, and we .

Yeah, let's feed these little blue-collar workers.

Ask the Steelworkers Committee.

That's my point.

And I just don't think it's worth it.

I just don't think it's worth it.

On the other hand, I do want to get into common stuff.

I promise to copy those secretaries.

That's all right.

That's reorganization.

The reorganization asking for another undersecretary is one thing.

And I don't mind asking for two of the things, but I think, for example, raising Schultz, for example, raising his salary from 42 to 60, he ought to have it.

But then it's going to be bad now.

It's the races.

I think he just has new positions.

But now, well, the other problem is, you see, it looks to those people, well, if he types for White House staff, you've got a hell of a headline there, which is, you know, President Ike's White House staff salary is coming.

It just can't work.

We do talk to John.

I think you just got to let the thing ride out.

Pass the election.

Do it in 73.

We do.

No, no, no.

Except that I've got to do the Chicago thing.

I promise I did.

Establishing new posts.

All right.

It's the racing down 15 posts.

As a matter of fact, you can establish two new posts in the...

I don't mind establishing a new post in the... OMB.

In the OMB.

I know the point, the point is that George cannot, George is supposed to go to 60.

He should go to 60.

I think it's murderous politically.

Of course, George's view on that has always been that to accept the incumbent, and that's provided in this thing, except it only accepts him until January of 73 when there's still a new administration.

Maybe that solves it.

See, he raises the salary for the position, but he accepts the incumbent from the increase until January 20, 1973.

In effect, that'll be a new incumbent.

You, you sit down a moment earlier than George and discuss it further, will you?

I remember they did mention that, accept the incumbent.

It's wrong.

But I think if you're going to accept the incumbent, why not just do it then?

I think that's right.

It's all about who sits at the head of the table and that's all.

But I really feel by taking the heat of race, it would do it like if George were to move out next week and a new OMB director coming, he would get the new salary.

But the individual who holds it at the time of the race doesn't get it.

Yes, it is.

This ain't the time to give Arthur Burns a $20,000 salary increase either.

Is that in there?

Yes, sir.

I just raised the chair out of the bed to a level.

Ow.

I'm not doing it.

Not.

Now, that decides me.

I think we ought to let Arthur sweat for a try.

Now, does he know what's in there?

Now, probably.

He is not going to get it.

No, sir.

He's been talking about everybody should have a, you know, be restrained.

All right.

He's not getting it.

No, sir.

George has got a benefit from it.

Just put it into new positions.

I'm not going to raise Arthur Burns.

I will not raise him now.

Just bite off the treasury parts right now, could we?

I think Catt can get along.

Well, there are a couple other odds and ends in there.

There are some odds and ends, but changes.

I signed the letters, strike the letters off.

It doesn't make any difference to Catt.

It's a difference of $2,000.

Well, with Catt, you're a great guy.

Bob, let me talk to you about Waker.

I've seen a lot of him around, and they're great.

And he wrote the energy message, the water message, and so forth.

But they're responsible, and though I have people, and I feel here that we've certainly got to get

I mean, John thinks politically, but he cannot.

It's not his way to be plant-oriented, to, like our, I just, I wrote a note, and I saw a nice little editorial on our energy message first on the go.

And it was good, good.

But Jesus, that breather reaction and everything else, we didn't really get out of that what we could because we didn't have anything that sang.

We didn't put it in terms that are

The new NASA, I'm terribly, terribly, I mean, now this is getting early for the job, I should say.

But that's one of the things that I think is terribly important to come out of this thing.

We've got to go for the new NASA thing, concept.

Where do you think I'm going to put it?

As my son, in my situation, we're all here.

That's basically right.

He is, however, damn good.

He is politically sensitive.

He's arguing his case, but once told what the conclusion is, he will go any way he wanted to go.

I'm totally loyal.

I'm a good man to work with other people about it.

When do we ever come down in these programs?

I mean, this is something that seems.

We just aren't coming up with a framework for domestic councils that way.

Let's face it, nothing seems.

There isn't a Peace Corps, there isn't a VISTA, there isn't an Upward Bound, there isn't a Head Start.

Action, I guess that's the one we've got, action.

Not bad, not bad, it's something at least.

It's an improvement.

It's a hell of an improvement and it's deep.

I just want you to know that we taught you that put your slogan ears to work when you get out there in California.

I want to see some things that are sloganized.

We're missing away more money here and a little less credit.

It's really true when they say that the Republicans spend more and enjoy it less.

The reason is that we don't believe in it many times.

I think Whitaker is great, but I just think he needs somebody

Maybe John needs in his shop a PR-oriented title.

Maybe that's what it is.

Do you think that's it?

I mean, who writes in an exciting way?

Whether or not it's drugs or...

It's not so much a PR type as it is a really exciting promotional type.

The idea is that the job just gets cranked up about that.

I want you to tell Peterson that I want him to be talking to Conway about how we can make politics out of restricting trade around the world.

I want Peterson to really work on that.

Peterson, there is, strangely enough, one of the most political men in the whole country, and he's political.

And getting Allen with him is going to be a damn good pair for them.

It really did surprise me how I think he's political.

And I want him there in the gold screen.

Peterson, you remember we said yes and no, but I think he should be there.

I think he should be there because he thinks also in public relations terms, and I think now he can be trusted.

I'm completely convinced he can be trusted.

Only because, not because he, as he faces the world, except for this, where he's captured, he's lost.

Mr. Woodland, I'm changing that clock so it's running.

I've never got a smart glass on me.

Just move your hands.

Our clockmaker hasn't been in this one in a long time.

It's been a working one.

A little less than one.

Less than ten.

Run it about two minutes fast.

Right at ten.

That's it.

Good.

Great.

I said it's going to affect me.

Right.

Publish.

Stoke top secret documents.

Whether it's right to do so.

The newspaper expressed its view in a column in the court where they said that one of the prices to burst the bank might be

I said, that standard may be perfect for the state, but it is not appropriate for the President of the United States.

He said, yes.

Deepen the publication of the story.

It would increase circulation by a million.

It is not worth risking the life of one hundred.

That's good.

Now, that puts it back to him.

That's a powerful line, isn't it?

Yeah.

And that's the right way to put it.

So they're putting circulation above the national interest just to say, even if it means a million dollars.

Even if it means a million circulations.

Publishing a stolen secret document.

It would increase publication.

It would sell a million newspapers.

A million more newspapers.

It is not worth it.

Life.

That puts them in a penal.

It doesn't work.

The life of one.

One American, or the right, or the hope, or destroying the hope of a POW to come home from a stinging cell in North Vietnam.

Just put it just that way, and God damn it, I'll cry.

Make me happy.

Well, if I decide to do it, and I haven't decided yet to do it,

Colson, of course, still was arguing, and I still argue, that that probably should be done at press conference at an appropriate time.

But if I decided to do it... See, his argument is that I shouldn't get into the middle of it, and that's my view, too, now, because that's what I've been and have not been in it.

At Kansas City, the way I would do it, I would have to do it, though I would have to lose time.

I'd just go in and make a brief statement about that and then take off to California and push her out in the handshakes and all that sort of stuff.

Because after cracking, it wouldn't be a pleasant session.

Well, the other way around that would be to go in and do the... You know, you can't do that and say, look, gentlemen, I want to make a statement on television.

Would you like to listen?

The other thing would be to go, well, no.

I can go in and not arrive.

You've still got to know that I can arrive late.

Have yours at all set up?

They're all set up, but we can, you can arrive late.

Then say the president will arrive at 6 o'clock and then go ahead and make my restate and then have a cocktail.

We can still do that.

Or what time am I scheduled to go now?

4, 3, 3?

There's kids who go to 3-3 so you can make the news.

This is the way to do it.

If I do this, if I do it this way, I don't know, maybe if I do it, no.

You can't expect what they'll do.

I kind of think I ought to go right on the news hour, force them to carry a blonk.

The other way to do this, they would be so strong that it might, because of it,

You could say to them what you want to say, or say what you're going to say on the news, and then say, because of the significance of this, I am not happy.

I've asked for time this evening, and I don't want that escalation too much.

I think just going, the median escalation is what I'm thinking of, escalating it only to arriving a little late, going online, saying you've occurred live at 6 o'clock.

And this median escalation, if you also apply it.

Suppose we did this, and it didn't carry at all.

Yeah.

No.

They'd slice it open.

On the other hand, they'd have to carry that part of it and take that kind of a line.

I think it tight as hell.

I don't think it's like his favorite one of the dark arts.

I said it.

Having said that, I'm trying to see, I was trying to think of the only possible way that a statement, am I putting a statement in its best form so that I know exactly, know whether or not it's worthy, worth considering doing at this time.

The question is, still, I lean, frankly, very strongly against doing anything at this time, on this side.

I think so.

Last night CBS had a special on this thing.

I didn't get to see it.

Russ was on NBC on an hour thing.

But CBS had an hour that was more wide-ranging.

They sort of recapped it.

But they had interviews.

They had an interview with Scotty Rustin

in an interview with the Phillip Island Post.

And both of them, interestingly enough, came down against the court decision, feeling that it had not opened the thing properly.

That although it permitted the publication of these documents, it certainly left a cloud over the person that it writes in the newspapers and all that.

Maybe that this is going to settle in a different way than we think.

And now, Rusk, I don't think, did us any great uses there.

Great and good, but he put the focus back on Johnson and Kennedy because it was them he served.

And he did make a plea for President Nixon to have the opportunity to do what he's doing, which is right.

He must have.

You know, he's done a hell of a lot.

The other thing I'm tempted to do is poll over the weekend.

It's a terrible weekend to poll, but we can still reach people.

Let's see if we can find a look at what the change in feeling has been over this last week.

We've got a good base for doing it.

Pulling over the weekend with all this massive, mostly this week, you might have a distortion on the album with the other thing, you know what I mean?

Yeah.

Like you have, let's face it, even though this is the gut issue, the other, you can't pal that much without a disturbing song.

They've been palming for a week before we pulled last time, and still have the people that know them.

That was half, but you see, that was all that it was on.

We got another special show.

They've been hit at prime time, haven't they, all week?

I thought they had two.

I don't think so, actually.

Ellsberg has been off.

But Ellsberg, I noticed, with Buchanan, his people, from Buchanan, were impressed by him.

Impressed by Wilford.

Very able to answer some questions.

Well, an intellectual would be impressed by him, I don't think, because he is smart.

But he looks weird.

He has that glazed eye.

He looks like a fanatic.

He looks like one of the hippies or the demonstrators.

Even if you cleaned up his hair and everything, his eyes, and his sort of basic look and presentation is one of the fanatic.

I don't know.

I think the conspiracy thing may be your...

their best game of life.

But look, even if you polled over the weekend, I don't think that should be the thing that should guide us.

In other words, I'm afraid that polling sometimes may make us do the wrong thing.

We need to know.

Supposedly, if I'm on the poll, it shows that a hell of a lot of people have turned against us or the administration and so forth.

So we're way down.

And we tend to panic.

we'll escalate the goddamn thing too much.

That may be exactly the wrong thing to do.

That's what worries me about the poet.

I think sometimes it's just, well, we don't know what the people are thinking.

Not just, well, we don't know.

I would agree in terms of making a substantive decision, because you shouldn't make that, but it's also going to take a lot of attention.

But I wonder if you should, when you're talking in terms, what you're weighing here is solely a question of

what you do to affect public opinion, not what you do on Tuesday night.

Because you wouldn't be going on to announce any action, decision.

You would be going on to influence public opinion in terms of how they view this whole thing.

To tell you the truth, from the standpoint of our own, you know, reactions, you know, I don't like to be just holding all the time.

I am just bad.

It's a bad morale factor, you know what I mean?

Or you're worried about the bull, or you're worried about what the hell is the bull.

So you go up three points and go over down a few points or something.

It's not a good thing.

As I said, we're very late.

And we just ought to wait because nobody knows we're pulling all the time.

I don't know, but we don't.

It affects us.

It affects us and it affects our...

I just think the hell of a public reaction is, why do we gamble on it?

I wouldn't do it that way.

Okay.

And so, well, it may be, it may be, you know, it might be useful for us to find out whether people support Ellsberg or not.

I think he's a martyr.

I think the government should prosecute him.

I'd wait a little bit to do that.

Well, I'd like to know the answer to that question.

What?

If he gets down to Buchanan, I suppose that, you see, Buchanan is the concern, as I understand it, because he is something we're badly hurt by.

You know, all this rubbing off on us, isn't that basically what he's saying?

And then we there, of course, should say something about it.

Of course, he doesn't know what you're pulling, so...

after the first week of it.

The spy guy does the interviewing, has come up with some kind of interesting stuff.

It's early reactions on Musk.

On all the candidates, he talked to the Democratic senators, get their readings on the New York Times thing.

Right after Humphrey said,

You know, I knew about it, but I had never read any of this report.

Some things were told to me, but never in any detail.

Asked how he thought the Times got the material.

Humphrey said, from the looks of it, in the messages and documents printed, we Democrats seem to get cobbled.

I'd have to say the Republicans got this to the Times.

Politically, who else stands to benefit?

But I don't believe between us that this should have been given away.

And probably not necessarily a bad thing to say.

Muskie, Ellsberg's a Republican.

That's a good one.

See, this was before Ellsberg was surfaced.

And they asked Muskie who he thought was responsible.

And he said, of course, it's good and bad.

I don't know if this kind of top-level secret exchange should be published without giving views from the White House as well.

Who do I think leaked it?

Off the record, I would say who stands to gain the most, the Republicans.

I'd have to say they were probably responsible for some of the stuff after the times.

Same question to Harold Hughes.

Isn't that interesting, though, that their children, how they play their ball, they all know better, right?

But this is the way they play it to a reporter talking to them.

Isn't that something, putting that out there in public?

Yes, Harold Hughes.

Listen, let me say this.

On that score, we don't need to worry.

You don't think anybody makes the Republicans put this out to the audience?

I don't.

There was a little glimmer of that back in the beginning, and this was back in the beginning.

What I meant is, what I meant is, Bob Ellsberg, nobody else would think it.

It's now clear that this is a radical anti-war option.

Yes, Gerald Hughes, he said, the first feeling I had was that the Republicans should be getting close to this.

Look at it.

How did Johnson and Kennedy come out pretty badly?

But there is something like a backlash to all of this, I think.

It could also rub off the wrong way on Nixon.

Muskie said Fulbright had mentioned the report to him, but had never indicated his source.

When Governor preface his remarks with a sermon on intrigues and high-handedness of previous administrations and the compelling need to get out of the war, he says the Republicans must have done it.

They covered the waterfront in this by showing Johnson and Kennedy to be the main forces of the war.

Scoop Jackson said he had heard about the report, but he had never seen any documents.

And he said that some of his colleagues thought the Republicans leaked it.

Scoop said, that might take a lot of Machiavellian thought and decision.

We have to believe they did it and then plan to go to court.

We would have to believe that they did it and then plan to go to court about the matter.

I don't say it was out of the question, but it would be awfully Machiavellian.

The Republicans at this stage certainly can point to the revelations of the Democratic conspiracy almost.

The papers are pretty damn critical of presidents like Kennedy and Johnson.

I believe they show Kennedy left no alternative for Johnson.

He had to escalate the war to get the hell out of it.

The antis are pleased in their strange way to be confirmed in the judgment that this was all deception.

That's a pretty simple assessment, but it happens to be their baby they believe.

You heard me say that Republicans could have leaked it, but so could the Democrats who want to try and knock me or Hubert or Ted Kennedy out of the ballpark.

Figure out for yourself who that involves.

I won't do it for you.

Jackson says, I understand the Times had the material for months.

It could have been provided to them Xerox and returned to the source.

Most of that is truly botany.

Johnson mentioned Clark Clifford in a conjecture earlier also.

So this guy concludes, he says, on a political level within the country, I believe the Republican Party can only benefit with judicious use of the Kennedy-Johnson escalations and decisions.

After all, Nixon by deed has shown a persistent withdrawal rate in troops for them.

So this should be emphasized and reiterated.

To avoid a backlash, the revelations as published should be continually held up as injurious to state-to-state relations.

The question of censorship is moot.

And this guy says, I had a hand in 1946 with colleagues in Paris in getting hold of draft treaties at an international conference.

They were published, and Jimmy Burns, then Secretary of State, blew his sack.

He reacted that way because Ernie Bevin, the French, and the Russians also blew up.

At the time, the episode was almost as prominent as these Pentagon Papers.

By playing it in a controlled and dispassionate manner, I believe the Republicans have derived the maximum political profit.

Any emotionalism about the matter on the floor of the Senate or through friendly sources should be carefully vetoed.

Let the Democrats keep on working.

Thank you, guys.

Now, view.

This was early, but this was a couple weeks out of this before we come back to this sort of thing.

We have a problem, folks, anyway.

I'm not sure that we really were.

I'm not sure we can.

Oh, I don't think it's that big of a problem.

I mean, a lot of people being home.

Yes.

Well, probably a lot of people that are particularly in the upper brackets would not be at home, yes.

I don't know if they all, people go away that, do they go away in that kind of a nursery?

Or are they going to find a place to stay at home?

He goes, yeah, a lot of people are.

You can get enough of a sample, I'm sure.

It might take a few more calls.

All you have to do is look at the roads.

Yeah.

No, I would see it more as a, as a

much of a factor in deciding whether you go on or not, but a factor in letting you know what you're dealing with if you do.

Let me put it this way.

I think we just have to make that decision.

I know, my gut reaction is that I know the right thing to say.

If I go on and tell you 100 million people in America are going to win on that issue, so let's just forget that.

So that is going to change.

the prosecution of Ellsberg or something else, I think we should wait a couple of weeks.

Let the goddamn thing cool off.

What if we did poll and it showed that still only 50% of the people were aware of this?

It won't show that, no.

I hope it won't.

I don't know.

I don't know if it'll show 100.

90, 85, 90 now because of the prime timer.

Also, you know, the press does good stuff across, you know, like you pointed out, that made the environment a nation.

So I put in his protestations, and it's not true.

I think the...

Yes, yes, you know, we talked to Connolly, and Connolly said people were not all stirred up about it.

He said they didn't disagree with the court down there, his friends, at least.

But he didn't bother us about that stirred up about it either, did he?

That's what the other guys have around the country.

Have people talked to you in the last few days?

What do they find, by the way?

There isn't all that much stir about it, one way or the other.

Massive publicity, this is something that directly affects people.

They don't identify with it, they just don't.

I guess you're right.

Let's think about it in that respect.

How the hell does it affect these people?

I said, well, the United States is going to rely on the war.

There's some law on the Kennedy and Johnson.

Actually, it does reflect on the war.

It's a law.

But people have been convinced all along that we've been relying on the war.

And also, the disapproval of the war is so strong, it isn't a change.

That's where we can at this point.

We've got to get in and get people to support the war.

That's true November 3rd, but it's no longer true.

There's no way you're going to get people to support the war.

All people want to do now is to get out.

We've got to face the problem.

They're very enthused on how to get out.

Some people want you to demolish North Vietnam on the way out.

Some people want you to get out tomorrow morning.

And the hell will stop Vietnam.

Others want you to do what you're doing.

Most people want you to do what you're doing.

But whichever, whatever view they have, they still want you to get out.

There's nobody who says sit in there and fight.

I don't think it's a good war.

I mean, a moral war.

I don't think it's a moral war.

Let's talk polls.

And I'll just, and if we do anything against City, I'll just do it for the press and let them carry the damn news.

But my inclination's not to do anything.

I'll just say I'm gonna comment on this matter because I don't know what basis you can say we're gonna comment on what you say.

Maybe you just don't talk about it, just don't even say you're not gonna comment on it.

You don't have to say a word.

Just like Rochester, you know, the argument before going to Rochester was you couldn't go up there and not talk about it.

So I went up, did Tony went up there and not talk about it?

Nobody said, why didn't he talk about it?

You're there for a domestic briefing.

And I expect you to come and cover the whole range of problems in the long run.

I'll be delighted if you do say something, because it'll be a big thing.

Sure.

Just as much as any of the others.

Except I just want to get something to do.

It doesn't matter.

You're not doing those briefings for hard editing.

And an editor's got to fill all the rest of his paper, too.

My guess is that Johnson is not going to say anything until you make some kind of a set-up.

When you put a breast cut to do this, after you order it, you probably need to do it.

And, uh...

He shouldn't say anything.

Because he can only...

The way he would handle someone that way...

He's out of his mind to say anything.

Huh?

He's out of his mind to say anything.

He won't...

It'd be great for us if he would, but it won't help him.

I'd love to say though, this book, he cares about that.

You'd understand if you do that.

You might want to say something on my last times.

But he doesn't.

He doesn't personally gain much by that except the satisfaction of doing it.

Do you ever really talking out that first step?

I guess she's better.

She's supposed to have been reading Kafka now.

Yeah, just that couple pages now.

You can put this on.

You can change the angle of the instrument.

That's how you do it.

Yeah.

There you go.