On November 29, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon, John N. Mitchell, John D. Ehrlichman, Clark MacGregor, and William E. Timmons met in the Oval Office of the White House from 8:38 am to 10:42 am. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 625-012 of the White House Tapes.
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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.
Hi, John.
How are you?
I'm Mr. President.
Morning, Mr. President.
All right.
Did you catch up on your sleep last night?
Yeah.
Go the other way around.
All right.
All right.
All right.
All right.
All right.
All right.
All right.
The Treasury...
I made a point that the incentive add-ons resulted in revenue loss for fiscal 72, $4.3 billion.
For fiscal 73, $5.5 billion.
For fiscal 74, $5.6 billion.
additional losses that were written in by the Senate Finance Committee.
In the Senate version, the losses are $7 billion, $10 billion, and $12 billion for each of the three fiscal years beginning in 72.
In addition, there are regular losing amendments, which are one-time losers.
They're simply for calendar 71, there's a whole frame of $50 billion and other amendments totaling an additional $2.3 billion that are
one-time losers only.
In addition to that, there's the passage of amendment.
It's my belief that the countries will substantially clean up the presidential aspects, the revolution aspects, and you're faced with the prospect, in perhaps a week's time, of a bill which
perhaps in the revenue aspect, would be acceptable with respect to the Pastore Chekhov Amendment.
Would it, my opinion, be unacceptable to you?
I believe, as was Bill Cormier expressed when the Attorney General and John O'Reilly were turned to, if you have determined that the Pastore Amendment is unacceptable and cannot meet your approval, that it would be a constructive thing today without a
without publicity, to talk to the President about the great law and benefit that the Senate has been able to bring to the House and give them the benefit of your feeling about this thing.
And perhaps make a specific proposal to them.
Howard Baker had an amendment in the Senate which would have embraced much of the so-called good government aspects of the Pastore amendment but would have required an extra dollar to be paid instead of a dollar taken out of the General Revenue Fund and the Treasury.
If you were to indicate that such a modification would meet with your approval, and I think it could both philosophically and practically from a political standpoint, they would be on advance notice that you found that story unacceptable but had suggested in a positive way in which it could be made acceptable.
And it would, it seems to me, add strength to your position later should you veto the bill and call upon the Congress to promptly repass it without the objection of a pastoral member.
I strongly believe, Mr. President, that should this bill come to you with a pastoral amendment, you should veto it.
And should a couple act veto with a call to the Congress, whether you should come and spend a session or remain in session until we have an act built.
I do think that your position would be strengthened if you had an alternative proposal which you had outlined beforehand, such as the add-a-dollar concept.
Well, it's the added dollar.
It removes the philosophical objections to the bill.
The philosophical objections basically are that you're making each taxpayer an individual appropriation unit, and you're starting a process by which an individual can
exercise that I regard as a non-delegable function given in the Constitution of the Congress to appropriate funds from the general revenue fund of the Treasury.
The Congress here is saying to an individual taxpayer, you may, to the extent that we permit, appropriate funds from the general revenue fund of the Treasury.
This is the basic advice of the bill because of where it leads down the road.
It's an objection by itself.
But if you start a process of permitting a taxpayer to earmark part of his funds due in line to the Treasury for specific purposes, it logically follows that he can withhold the payment of certain of his taxes if he doesn't approve of a particular governmental purpose.
This is a fundamental philosophical objection, which would be obviated by the taxpayer adding a dollar, if he wishes, making the IRS collection and distribution service.
Well, well, has anybody thought through what the net effect of that would be with respect to the amount of money that the first claims would get?
I don't know, I don't know that anybody has, or anybody could.
But I'm wondering if we wouldn't wind up with the same net dollar amount available to the Democratic Party.
These numbers are very tough to deal with, John.
I appreciate that.
There are more Democrats than Republicans.
At the same time, in the significant tax pay brackets, it's about even.
And
It's also hard to know.
What option they'd ask for.
Yeah, it's terribly difficult to make any sort of reasonable prediction.
Now, this morning, it has two or three different sort of speculations on how this would all come out.
So maybe we're better off with a check on both.
uh, without, uh, but I think that that's, that's just what I'm saying.
I just don't think anybody can tell us that that's the case.
We, we have called the figures, the census, uh, polls, everything, practice, and I said to them, you know, I would, I would address it.
So then by doing the baby plan, we might wind up conceivably pretty close to the same physical thing we are in the past.
I'd be very suspicious of the baby plan as a result of the power plant.
President, there is this point in time to be made.
Any, if any, thoughts, proposals, ideas, ideas, ideas, ideas, ideas, ideas, ideas,
has never been considered in an appropriate committee in the Congress.
There haven't been public hearings at all.
You haven't given interested citizens an opportunity to express their views.
There's been no opportunity for thoughtful members of Congress to explore the constitutional aspects of this question.
The opportunity for the Justice Department to present its position with respect to the possible First Amendment infringement.
My thought was that
In some fashion, if you could show yourself concerned about this issue and willing to work it out in the future, in some fashion, I'd show my leadership in terms of calling a national committee to do the good thing to do.
I was not the face of the board secretary treated in 66.
I hadn't had any studies on 66.
The interesting thing in the present is that the way Senator Robert Kennedy and the departed Senator Gore and certain other Democratic Senators now still in the Senate led the fight against this proposal in 1966-67.
So there is a solid record without regard to the effects that it would have on the 72 elections upon which the bottom of the knee, the decision that you made to oppose the sanctuary.
Republican congressman made, that I'd like to emphasize this morning, in John McRaven's presence, and it's still coming to mind.
If this doesn't cure any evils, if there are evils there be in the present system, all it does is concentrate them on the candidate selection process, the convention, or any of the states that have the primary elections at all.
The evil money that's running the presidential elections is concentrated in the purchase of convention dollars.
or in the spine of a primary, important state primary.
The interesting part about all this is that your Republicans are solid in the Senate, aren't they?
Absolutely solid.
Thank you.
We would not have lost those two, Mr. President, had we been able to say to Mac Mathias, we will beat the Pets, sorry, when the vote comes up or down.
Mathias said to me, Andrew, do you have a strength to defeat Park?
And I said, no, we're losing by one vote, 50 to 49.
And he said, I've been out of your license, go ahead.
And as a result of the adoption of the Mathias modification, we did lose Mathias' case.
He's not convinced or heard, he says.
Well, that's just rationalization.
Yeah, true.
Bill Springer was saying that next to my bill, so I spoke, but I think he can't.
It's all about John Reale and me.
Well, I know that we should all look at the trance of the 72 elections, but we missed out on that.
I mean, my wife and everybody, I mean, the scientists in here will not have a 2% or 3% more than we've done that thing in America.
Why he's so involved in Turkey, all the big bad turds in here the other day.
He's always willing to go see those and so forth.
You know, somebody was talking about 18, he's four.
He's a very close friend of mine.
But he said, look, he said, I went through the whole business.
First off, I got the walls done.
We had to just get some money to be safe because, you know, it was lost by God.
They couldn't.
They had no money.
They had too much.
He says, what you've got to remember is that the most overestimated factors in presidential elections are vice presidents and money.
He said vice presidents are very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very,
uh... uh... or or
So, it's going to be harder.
It's going to be harder.
They're going to have to have money.
They're going to have to borrow.
It's going to be hard.
They're going to have to have the time to get the money.
So, once conventions occur, and once nominations occur, they will be heard.
and the meters that there's in all that, and in the area in particular.
We could have spent three, four times as much as we did in 68 if we had made it in this area.
We could have spent all of the traffic we've been in based on how long we've been in this area.
Well, that's my view about the 172 effect.
But I...
I think 172 is much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much.
that they should mention in terms of the long term.
It wouldn't matter without a question.
It's very, very important to raise money for small homes, large homes, for the most part, those who aren't volunteers, the workers, and people in this, are also givers.
And this idea that
whatever he is, whatever he determines, we want to make another very grand effort to have the presidents and the states elected in this country more and more and more by the non-religious people who have no national state and responsible government.
That's what we're getting into.
The whole idea that, well, it gets big money on, big money on the banks and so on, big money on the banks and so on, big money on the banks and so on, big money on the banks and so on, big money on the banks and so on, big money on the banks and so on, big money on the banks and so on.
Why is it that all democratic candidates have been totally in the hands of the Jews?
Why is it that all democratic candidates have been totally in the hands of the Jews?
They're coming here for business.
But it's basically in terms of what you're really about.
It's the special interest groups that control votes.
That's what it's called.
It's the special interest groups that control votes.
The next step is awful.
I'm sorry.
I never stressed that here we'll make decisions on this or other.
that are not, that are interested in the United States.
Since the formation of Eggman, I as a monarchy, the closest to getting that strong concern, there are many others.
And I knew who it was, who probably was sort of too strong on that issue, who probably should have left the great great issue in the brain, who didn't turn away and let the people out on that circuit.
That's my concern, is to agree that the Constitution, LRS, and all that, I think there's serious constitutional problems here in the region.
I've heard about it, and I've ran into it.
The 18-year-old's talking about the Constitution, too.
Does that make sense?
A lot of people, a lot of people, highly qualified people,
But anyway, on this one, the real problem is that it's a matter of conviction.
I mean, on the money side, it's kind of funny, because as well as they will probably matter, because I think you're going to find that
a very disproportionate number of people who have the sense enough to care about political effects will quickly be taking off.
Take your example, take your example of the violence.
Now, I'll be fair, you're gonna have one hell of a time, except in the past days, to get people to go over there, there, usually.
Easy did.
I accuse any group who would like to know what the hell to do.
If I don't want you to have credit, I'll lose the money.
Well, I think it's going to work.
I think we'll get the money.
I think we'll do all right.
This is over.
But we have to have some time.
There's so many other things.
It freezes in the third party of the American system.
And the wrong third party, or a third party that could be used, that's the main level of liability lost.
It provides $600,000.90 to stop an accident, a loss, whereby the loss can romp around.
So when the amendment passed, the Allen amendment, say so, the Allen amendment, the loss can romp around, and the three on three, and the
I'm not sure, Mr. President, that the Democrats, depending on who their candidate is, can get all this money.
You are an incumbent president.
You have the exposure.
Of course, their candidate, whoever it is, will get some after the convention.
But I think that they're bailing themselves out if they find a way to do this with this amount of money, with 12 million bucks.
is going to give them an exposure for identification that doesn't exist now, if it's anybody except Ted Kennedy.
And, of course, the, uh, Wallace.
Wallace.
You point out that it's just, uh, mostly his father.
Just saying what that is.
Just saying.
And, of course, George Wallace will find ways to siphon additional money, and other than the $4 million, you know, all of his
It's just a convention.
The real problem that I see is the how to do it.
I'm not sure that
It looks exactly one of the others as well.
I think that this is a little bit something that's less bad.
It hasn't been thought through.
They haven't had hearings on that either.
They're all the same.
Objections are full of that.
And you'll never get a distinction, too, in the public eye.
The point is that I think what could happen, the real thing that could happen away is that I'm not going to lose your innocence.
I'm not going to lose your innocence to be told.
I do not believe that it is simple enough.
And I know that there are people who do, but I'm not sure what that's called.
I mean, I looked over, I looked over at Bryce, and my analysis was very, very, very good.
I'm afraid that, you know what I mean, I wish it the other way, but I, because that would be nice if you want to say, all right, we build this building because it has provisions that change the Constitution.
They get equal time, too.
Oh, Christ, yes.
And their equal time seems to be one hell of a value in this case because I like that common cause, you know, everybody else would be in there and say, here, it's, it's all, you give them an opportunity to knock your brains off.
Or,
So the question is, what do we do with the PR issues if we don't do it on TV?
The other one is,
I'm concerned about the argument that the onus is on you.
You need to veto this onus of delaying tax relief.
uh... uh... uh...
it seems to me that somehow or another you have clearly almost backed the Congress because it's a political self-run, that it doesn't belong in the tax code, that it was a bad statesmanship to put it on the tax code in the first place, that it certainly won't have a veto, and that the only way for people to get tax relief for the economy that's sitting on it is to put a Congress that's in the states of mind.
Thank you.
That thing now, the thing that ought to be done in that instance is to get off.
Try out 75, 400 words later.
And then everything is, you're saying there's a new way.
But there's, there's, there's, there's, there's that.
But that, it seems to me, the plan of Hillary before the Congress Act, so that they know, and people know, before the Congress Act, that detailed and eligible consequences in their actions.
Then, if somebody says, well, the President did this, and that's why we don't pay taxes, we get it.
There was already enough new fiction and TV speculation on this that it was full of tentative disability.
Clark and Bill had the idea that this meeting would then be the subject of a leak by Beth.
or Berners-Lee as well, that says the president laid the trumpet down to the congressmen and the leaders.
Because Berners-Lee said to us, look, the president of the United States should have told the countries what to do.
and great resentment for that guy.
Well, assuming that there's any validity to that, probably smarter to do it that way anyway.
I think this city, quite a bit of it down here, but let's actually go out the other way.
Now, you see, you bring in these stalls, and it's a nice little compliment, isn't it?
But I don't have any influence.
I mean, after all, that we've been wearing, in fact, Wilbur Mills will be just as tight in here every day.
It's just a needle that's already with us and wants to come in every time.
And Johnny Burns will look at it.
John, if you'll lose your mic probably not.
I guess putting that out wasn't to me, but I don't think that out of that much will there be.
And at this moment, he goes, John, because, because, uh, the law is so radical that the law is smarter than all of them together than will do.
I'm just concerned about that.
Now, I don't, nobody has any illusion of change over those.
Well, I think there may be one chance in a thousand that there is, and so our meeting would be, is when you said, don't be honest.
I would say so, sir.
I'm not going to be honest with you.
If you have them in here and go through this dialogue, they'll be in a posture to say, we told the president that this bill was going to be passed regardless of responsibility.
Well, for example, when you cut off, we've got to take responsibility then.
So lay the attention on it.
That's the difference.
When I remember the game, it's not going to be with the president.
It's going to be with the president.
I would think that the important facet is your claim on the president.
himself, giving them the least time in order to rebut it before they have to act on it.
Well, the idea, the idea of a contract is a great obsession about all the countries and so forth.
That's right, you know that.
It's been all the time.
In fact, they haven't reached it yet.
They're there.
We had such wonderful, straight, and utterly
There's a fantasy going today with a statement because the business community is still excited.
They don't today think they're going to be signed up.
And we need their help because they've got an interest in this thing.
And if we're having a chance at rejecting the county's report, they've got to be mobilized.
It takes a few days as well.
Back to a lot of complexion about the report.
Thank you, sir.
I talked to his administrative assistant and I had a meeting with him this morning.
Just so, yes, I'll
But it cannot affect the politician.
No, it cannot affect the politician.
I've been hearing about how they're going to do these.
I'll try hard to press these.
I'm very glad I'm here to do it.
I don't know yet.
It's rough.
Yeah.
Something that first motivated me from the start, and every step in the legislating way we've dragged our entities to how we could defeat this, so as to avoid the impossible.
To be presented with Scottie Lewis, very...
I thought he was a fighter.
He did such a fine job.
I'm deluded by what he pulled.
Scottie Lewis, by what he pulled.
Crazy woman, to be honest.
Let me come back to the propositions for you.
If you would make it like a bill, if you would make it in the House, or make an auto-company for it, it's a little chance.
and then to the downing, and then to the downing, and then to the downing, and then to the downing,
Let's take a reported bill out.
That's a bill of about $40,000.
Let's look at it.
Let's look at it from a global standpoint.
Okay, now that's not possible.
Uh, an indication of that, for example, is, uh, when you hear it, you have to say, well, this fellow is the smartest fellow there is.
He gets a good number.
He just makes a person decide.
You give that a lot of promise.
Now, go on.
Tell me what you can't do.
uh... uh... uh...
Why did you do that?
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
A lot went out of it, Mr. President, wasn't it?
I thought that publicity was going to be fine.
We thought we were going to roll it off and out of it.
We were going to do everything.
But now China is coming, but we aren't going to send any news.
So today we're going to send a number of guys out to jail.
And now it's all gone.
and maybe four or five senators before we go.
If we can't get these Democrats to do anything except try to play everything that they hope would, because they have any illusions, we better not, because it's what they're up against right now.
They're only going to go with it, all the other states, if they do it.
They make a political order then, more than they're going to hurt us if they don't do it.
That's what's involved here.
By the way, I don't know what's going on.
She's going to lose attention.
And also, I thought he was going to look at the self-interest.
I think that if the coverage of the campaign is funded by the Treasury, that means that the private stock of the MPL, kind of the territory of some of the ticket house members, who always get the blackout on all the papers, right?
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
You're right.
It's going to start to come to that event.
They're going to be funding income.
They're going to be in funds.
They're going to be decent income.
Most of these guys are going to be .
These are colleagues are more interested in being re-elected than they are in becoming a jury.
Any income is more important than being re-elected.
Because they don't want to pay off the party debt.
And, uh, it's, it's really, uh, what got, I had to introduce some of the things that we, uh, directly off the market, that's what those people can't see here.
And it's hard to get, I don't know, to get it down.
It's really hard to get it down.
It's really hard to get it down.
It's really hard to get it down.
It's really hard to get it down.
It's really hard to get it down.
I wanted to get you quiet about the thing about stress.
I guess I'm just a little bit concerned about bringing the four in.
Getting them to be a chance to go out and hear what the light says.
I'm wondering if the weather will often be in our time.
Of course.
I'll just let you run this by me just to see what I've got.
Go ahead.
I'm sure they say it, but when you fall on the high ground, you fall on the high ground.
That's what it's all about.
And you put on a show.
And I love that.
I suppose we can focus on a very simple subject, and that's the experience.
I think that we can make it all straight away.
You can put it, it's not a hell of a lot of work reading out the bad parts of the rest of it, but it's a piece of work.
We're going to do a lot of reading out of it.
We want to trust the Congress to do it.
I would put it this way.
I congratulate you.
It's one paradigm.
with exceedingly mixed service management.
As a result, an increase in deficit by 150,100,000.
I trust in my life, sir.
May it be in your power to lead and to be secure in peace.
Congratulations, sir, on your service.
And thank you, my God, for your kindness.
By you, by the good and the right of these two wishes, I must go to check on myself.
That's basically what happened in the 1770s and 1770s.
I doubt that, I didn't think it required that, that they would bring in a man and have a man believe.
I don't think the person agrees with us.
I am not a sensitive person.
I don't agree.
The doctor asked me and I wouldn't say it's not great because I'm here to converse.
Well, I think that's nice.
Chrome is how you try.
How do you do that?
How do you do that?
How do you see the play about?
They'll go up the wall, and there are no many great speeches in the present who are going to do this, and that's the other thing.
This is going to be very likely to be some of the things that are going to happen.
It's not going to happen for whatever reason.
Thank you.
That's pretty important.
Mr. President, can we single-handedly, can you just say, if the Congress delivers down here a bill of these provisions, and I have to veto it, and if your Congress adjourns, I will surely call it back to the people's business of what they did to you.
I think you should take my word in my mouth that I will consider it, and I will consider it.
I will consider it.
uh... uh...
and we'll create an estimated, at least biodegradable, to 500,000.
The bill, the House, it's an action, a tax bill I can be responsible for.
However, I need to agree with it.
I need to sign a bill.
I can recommend it to you.
In fact, the bill reaches my MCM in the form.
And I think approaching that point, that I would probably like to say to the media, first, the bill has two totally unacceptable features.
One, it sets the conscience.
Two, it's a hell of a question.
If the Times, by its action, goes down, ratifying these same features is not necessary.
But I feel the talent and action on that show.
But I would ask what is necessary to accomplish in the event that it was done.
And if the congressman says anything, I shall meet with all the congressmen.
I shall, if necessary.
And then the congressmen, they're here, without action.
It's partly honest.
This is our, and the kids on the elevator, they enjoy it.
And we've got it all around us, you know.
We've said, the spouse said, well, this is me.
We don't at all.
This is everybody.
We listen to it.
And outside, there are studies.
You get serious about it, so it's all in there.
But everybody says it's correct.
It's still in the state of emergency.
And then you get another crack at it on Thursday.
I'm just explaining what the Congress has done here.
Why do you have an interest in it?
You're talking about that as a follow-on.
Sure.
Not to suffer, but not to react.
Oh, not to announce the fate of it, not to announce the move, but it gives you a whack at the reaction.
Why do you do that?
Well, just because it will be happened is because it will be on television.
It is a platform that comes at a good time on the same part of time it would be quite interesting to go.
I think if we make it straight, we've got to have a platform.
I think if we do all that, obviously it's a pressure.
That's much harder to do than anyone else.
I don't think it's true.
I don't think it's true.
I don't think it's true.
I don't think it's true.
I don't think it's true.
I don't think it's true.
Now, a whole lot of these racial people are going to have to speak up there in this thing because a lot of the people programmed in the lunches.
Maybe we ought to pass the word to people to have a look at this thing in their stations over there.
The tax increase.
but for everybody all across the world, there are all kinds of goodies, plus inflation, which cuts in more freely than anybody else, because they're going to fix their accounts.
I agree, and I think this is good.
Her constituency is those old folks a hell of a lot more than the youth that we're fussing our guts at all over about.
I've got a question.
I've been out here a long time and talked at one of these lunches.
I know maybe what I'm going to do is talk about the devious political moves here and about the back stage.
The thing is, it would interest them, but it would also give us a chance to cut the Democratic leadership on the slush fund.
But at least that's available.
We might select the first act as the first, but we might do just the main thing.
There are many more things.
There are many of these, and we're seeing them crying out in the morning, or walking in the streets.
But we have had plenty of these at this time, or they're trying to do it, but everybody else can't do all of these.
because that's their responsibility.
And I believe that even meeting the needs, especially with this, results in raising prices for all people because of this equation.
But at that time, when there are needs, crying out, please cry out, we can't accept our work.
We're accomplished, so deliver the solution.
They love it.
And newspapers are $130,000.
$130,000.
Stop hearing.
about the need to play a big role in the state's commitment to this program, is preparing us for programs in many areas, and we shall only wait in action for Christ to come again.
Yet here is the Congress, a government hosted by the President of the United States of America, George S. Bush, and President of the United States of America,
So, an error on the bill, we already figured last week about 12 companies that put funds in at that recommendation you mentioned.
So, just say I want to go back to the questions.
You might be surprised also, we've got hundreds and hundreds of hours given to the consideration of welfare reform, as opposed to the zero hours of consideration given to the selection.
It's very good.
There's no need to have a welfare department providing all that sort of stuff.
In the Congress for two years, the Congress took two weeks.
Congress took two weeks to act on the discussion, but it was wonderful.
to ask for people, the taxpayers who made their campaigns because of their ability to go out and get people involved.
If you haven't determined in your own mind
that you must be of the spirit of my recent past story.
I hold the view that you should communicate that feeling before the country is reached agreement.
I do not subscribe to that power.
Before they reach agreement, they won't reach a final agreement.
They won't get the past story until the market is present.
How about this?
They will focus on the record of the 91st.
The statement that you got on it doesn't say, do this or else.
It's telling me what you can do, what you can do there.
Why don't you put it out here in the world?
I like it.
I'd like to get to the public statement.
Why not get the statement out while you've got the Christmas tree aspect of it?
Put that in the public mind beforehand.
So he wins on that.
All the countries do today, Mr. President, is discuss and outline so every country understands the various Senate amendments.
they'll, in my judgment, they won't reach any decision, even on any of the Christmas tree last time today.
So it's basically like any of those three things along the lines of what you suggested to us wouldn't meet my objectives completely.
And I can recognize the disadvantages of having to cross along the border and help us get into Kansas.
A lot of the speech and the hodgepodge have anything to do with all of this.
The other argument is that if you get into a discussion about
They've got all sorts of reasons why it's happening.
I don't want to compete with them about this.
They know goddamn well where the president is and what he has to do about it.
And you know what I mean?
So they go out and say, well, the president's arguing with Sir Malaysia.
He said this.
We said this.
You see what I mean?
It just gives them time to put together what they have to do.
And if the purpose were to win, I would be very negative.
But it is not.
You're not going to affect Wilbur.
You're not going to affect Russell Long.
You're not going to affect anything.
Right?
I'm afraid they'll use us or we can use them.
That's right.
Now the other...
The Lord told him that there was some degree of trying to cooperate with Curtis.
He sent a letter to Lieutenant Curry.
He gave the same, the same thoughts that we were going on, validating that we both knew this.
What it gets down to is this.
There you go.
It's really a case of having to roll it out there and see if it can keep it on.
You might have to call back and see.
And it's now the end of the road.
What do you think, Bill?
I think a letter to the counteree, at least to the chairman, would at least be helpful, and you'd have a follow-up when they find the report, if indeed they keep the check-up in there as we all suspect they would.
That's right.
Well, let me say this.
Is there a 2-202 man there?
Should the letter have came at this time?
I think so.
I think that whole idea is that you would hold that threat until the 2nd of March.
But you could say that the letter that Congress must not adjourn this year would not get canned.
You see, I think there's a big possibility, and we don't want to throw that forever.
I'll call the Special Administrator later.
But I do think that's what it is.
Well, you're anticipating something that's unnecessary.
You don't know that they'll go out without responding to the legislation.
That's true.
Maybe we should hold them.
I always think about it.
I think now the average senator or house member is looking to see what the conference reports, and he's looking at his vote on that.
We don't know for sure if the House will get the papers from the conference before the Senate.
The Senate may get them first.
And the motion to recommit to conference with instructions is available to either House.
I'm looking to a statement by you that would encourage a motion to return the bill to Congress with instructions to delete that story.
So there is a good argument to be
I'll receive the call right after the conference is agreed.
Can you get it out of the top now?
Hold that until then.
And this is now.
But let it be.
You're going to need a special session today.
You should go out so that they can reassure that this is going to be the election.
So they don't start quiet and sit in the comments and override the veto.
Well, they're not going to override the veto.
They won't.
They've got to start.
This is one of the Republicans.
The reason, John, I know you were talking about this.
John's already mentioned this.
I did not buy it.
I did not buy it.
They did have a meeting.
They made the decision to go to Israel.
See, the point is, the old ladies are not here.
The Jewish folks in Israel know that mine is not in their pocket, and they know that they've never grabbed it.
Mr. President, on that subject,
I hope in this week that you present yourself where you're doing this and not the State Department.
I think all that does to the job, all that's going to do is to keep that beatings over the head.
And they haven't decided.
They've had a long talk with their acquaintances.
I'll tell you about it too.
I'll talk to you about it.
I would point out that you're still in office for another 14 months and that there is the prospect that
I don't think that's what we're doing.
But the point is, basically, I've got to finance savings, and the down-and-coming candidates will have utility money, and those who are counting on their own money are still going to be financed.
That is what we've all got.
But what it is about them is whether or not we make the decision.
that has historic implications for the future of the work process in this country, which is a lot, and I don't think we can do it.
I'd have actually wanted to make those arguments.
I mean, it's a few that I've been saying about here in 30 years.
I'd like to, I'd like to witness that with you, but I don't think it's the, the three words you mean, but you are, oh, yes, some of those are.
It's terrible, but you have to care about that.
Some of those are, you know, the days of the sun, you know, the days of the sun was overshadowed with,
The way that it's not a healthy thing for candidates
not to owe something to the responsible people for their election.
The one you made, Clark, just didn't draw that to raise money from the little old ladies.
I mean, people that don't want to do anything.
I mean, we've got all sorts of opinions, some on some.
Most of ours are just people who want their government.
They're basically concerned.
They may even want to be in prison.
Now, why is it that a Democratic congressman or senator is usually the pro-leader who's responsible for the bench in the government?
The reason is that he doesn't have to worry about that.
Nothing at all.
All he has to do is to go down to the Labor Council and they put up the bill.
Right?
All right.
Now, as far as this is all going to change now, as far as the president wants to nominate, well, every stage is true.
There's a lot, there are various sort of solutions.
You've got to, suppose you've got to nominate to the government.
Why does he have to be worried then?
Well, it's good things.
You don't have people who are responsible
the successful people in this country.
Who the hell are they going to be responsible to?
Because for every successful person in this country, there are ten hundred successful people.
You've got to have a political process.
Every successful country has found a way to weight its political process somewhat on this topic.
of the more creative, the more productive people, if they don't do enough to break down the thing, they're only going to mob us back down.
Goddammit, that's just what we're talking about here.
Mob, political science, right?
This is, Mr. President, that's what I'm concerned about.
This is a matter of getting back down.
This is a matter of getting back down.
This is a matter of getting back down.
to initially the business people, I think, to sort of get their help on this.
And they are trying to help some of you in this.
It's really a work of art.
Now, we have a bunch of really less helpful business people.
But you've got to get across the sort of participation that you and I help out so well, and the rest of us do.
But I can remember in 64, and again in 68, going to little meetings from the first one, very old one.
And there was a job.
based upon how effective I and others were in saying we need this man for President of the United States of people.
We contribute to people coming to me.
I put $5 in the jar.
Put $5 in the jar.
And if you put the $5 in, they grow two others.
And they're really saying something like that.
Of course it's true.
I hope you know, the use of the tax system, of course, that's two copies.
You understand what I mean?
You're dead right now.
You're dead right now.
That would be one of the worst things.
One of the worst things, because if you're going to check off your first price trace, you'd better check off the rate of returns,
Well, this is spreading.
And a lot of people won't pay the telephone tax.
People were using to pay the federal tax on their phone bills.
And I think that that's really .
Let's run a mile.
Let's suppose we .
You did a good deal today.
I would like to see you in a very good restaurant, if that's a good idea.
I mean, that's the first thing I have.
I may not be able to go to the restaurant today, but that's the reason I'm here.
Well, what do you mean?
Let me sit.
The problem today is... ...and I don't believe that I should walk out.
Well, it is a good idea.
It's a bad idea.
I think I'll have to change it.
That almost implies a response.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of what the conference means.
As to what my views are on the bill, I have great confidence in the conference.
I hope you will be responsive.
I want you to know what I would consider necessary to do so that you can thank your class for it.
Yes, of course, Mr. President, the letters that we make public could be sent to the elected leadership of the House and Senate, bipartisan leadership.
Why can't it be copied?
I'm arguing for a statement as against the letter, because a statement doesn't get anything but a newspaper response.
Or an obligation to respond on the floor.
Yeah.
Well, they'll respond.
I know, but not directly.
You know, that's not the way we could do it.
We could go to that case, or you could do it this way.
You could have a...
I'm just thinking, it's so high-level.
And we ought to use a few new dimensions.
It is basically not a mossy guy.
It looks a little bit routine and fresh.
Besides, Mark has had these pressed backgrounds, and so has the light, too.
Well, we had the 1966 experience.
You might be able to take some questions on that.
We'd be happy to.
Now, there's one other shoe we haven't quite dropped.
Supposing you do come back, and supposing they sit on their hands, or they reenact this, or they do something other than what we want them to do,
I think we have to, you're going to have to actually get out of here.
You see, Paul, why didn't you call me back, John?
I thought you said he was going to go to those numbers.
Is that yours?
Yes, I'm very close to that.
That's right, I understand.
Do you believe they're going to try to take it out on the 12s?
Right, yes.
What do you think?
Oh, 13.
I think it's Johnny.
Okay, so I call back at 5 p.m. to get the Sunday off.
And they go, and you look for that person.
They will be up the wall at 8 p.m. Christmas time.
They go right to 8 p.m. Christmas.
Well, now, you have some commitments that we need to have.
Sure, there it is.
You've got a conference.
I hope you're good.
20th and 21st, 1st.
I got my first vaccine.
I don't have to be here while they're considering this.
I don't have to be here while they're considering this.
I don't have to be here while they're considering this.
I don't have to be here while they're considering this.
What they may well do is give you your tax bill and give you some other things that you don't want.
They may give you some things you don't want.
They may give you a sense of popularity.
They are a farm.
They can take it to, you know, hide social security or give you some other things.
They say, okay, the president wanted it.
We're out of work, but we are going to work.
We're going to be strong in round two and round three, and we're going to do some other things.
That's the nature of the problem.
What is your idea?
But that is the danger.
You have an option.
Well, I don't call that going without the tassel.
No, I don't know.
You didn't say without the tassel.
No, I don't know.
They have to make through for protection.
They are in this advantage.
Assuming they do that, assuming that in this week they try to crack something down their throat and they don't do what you want them to, and then they leave the cabin.
Then they're gone from what they leave to the temporary hangar.
And all through that time, you have initiated
It seems to me that every Catholic officer that gives us a year-end or three-year report talks about this.
We just dominate the news every day for that period and score all the runs on it.
And it's by acting irresponsibly, Mr. President, they open the battle between the Congress and the President.
As John says, we can carry this time.
And you have the guns.
And I don't see you losing under any circumstances, no matter what the consequences.
But all we're trying to do is get these folks out of the Senate.
Well, and every person, then, for the next two months,
meeting with all the heads of all the companies in Europe and all that.
Do you think that's true?
I think it's true.
I mean, it's coming out in the news over the holidays.
Of course, we like to get the economic picture because of what it does and everything.
And they recognize that, and they don't want you to have it, really.
I mean, did you read?
I didn't see it as perfect, but did you read the news story?
I guess I did in the present.
What did you read?
A provider of total irresponsibility.
Here's a son of a bitch that has been followed by a son of a bitch that has been followed by a son of a bitch that has been followed by a son of a bitch that has been followed by a son of a bitch that has been followed by a
He knows it won't work.
He knows it kind of damn well won't work.
They know now, but we have something here that I'm afraid we're too loud.
Very nice play.
This morning there was a private economic predation by one of the major New York
That's one of the, one of the .
the rank of our minds in 72 is going to be an extremely good year.
Everything else.
Yeah, but you see this, this tax bill, who would help out with it or what?
That's their assumption.
You see that?
And they said, I'm on the assumption that the Congress adopts these measures.
Yeah.
My view is that this is going to be the least tentative.
They see us vetoing this bill because of this thing that's over the top, and politicians are fighting for us.
Fighting about politics.
They're not going to give us our tax bill.
I think you can posture them in connection with that, particularly publicly.
You can turn it back on the Congress.
Period.
It's back in your lap.
Now let's get going.
I think we can energize that group, that group that meets the Federal City Club with.
We must say, we've got to say that we've seen it all.
But they have work to do.
They've been on wires.
The reason our Republican leaders mentioned on that day is that we don't sound the same.
We're coming through now.
We're going to have to retreat soon.
We should have sent more leaders.
If I hadn't had leaders, I would have had the brains to have gone to Seattle School, wouldn't I?
I guess so, too.
That's two, I think, but it's four, so it's, you know.
Well, Jimmy Rose is, uh, Rose is, uh, and he also, uh, yeah, he also speaks, that's all, as President of the Republic of America, the Republic of America, and, uh, Santa's got much better.
There was a nice story I was going to see, uh,
43, of course, actual time should have been there.
The record is on Washington this year against the Doves, and the Doves would have really won by two victories, not ten.
That's a simple story.
it might have been a sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample sample
is the world we have to face, and we've had the ownership of it.
And we also need to watch the lack of progress of domestic issues in Florida and other parts of the state.
In other parts of the state.
Let me hear your opinion now.
I saw your hand.
How about, how about, how about, how about this is a mistake, and then, and then, and then, and then, and then,
I would say that
But do you think we should raise this as the main point?
There's a serious Constitution problem.
Yes.
Yes.
It's a big deal.
It's an entirely new Constitution.
Well, it looks like he's in politics.
Well, but everybody knows he's not in politics.
Well, he can say it's one thing or another.
He's a responsible member of the Supreme Court.
Well, he has the best number of members in the entire justice system.
The Constitution questions the world.
No, I think this is good.
We wanted to get all the bridges.
They always want to be seen in the water, but they're just dead men.
They're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they're not,
These are the ones that are crying out for funding.
They're good workers.
We are funding the brave men.
There are some that we are not, because we can't fund everything.
If we funded everything, we would reduce the value of your dollar even more, and increase the problem.
Rising, rising, rising, rising.
But look at this Congress.
It's taking $100 billion, which is used for low-income things, for youths, for young people, and putting it into a huge, whatever it's like, slush.
This is wrong.
This is wrong.
This is wrong.
This is wrong.
This is wrong.
This is wrong.
This is wrong.
that we can get the like a second punch after all the conferees have reported coming from you, I think it would be more timely to have more effect on the Congress, even though the conferees will get the signal here now.
Well, let's go here.
Do we ever want Clark today to say once the bill is passed by the Senate?
First, he's right about that.
The tax bill is indispensable before this Congress adjourns.
This Congress must not adjourn until the tax bill is passed.
2.
That tax bill can be tossed if it is dispensed to create 500,000 new jobs.
And it is already delayed too long.
It's delayed in Congress too damn long.
Second, the House, through this credit, acted responsibly.
Third, the Senate election, however, was totally weird.
It was highly, they said it was highly irresponsible.
On two counts.
One, because it broke the bank, broke the budget.
And therefore, it would be inflationary.
It has the political and political structure
unless these two, these two fatal weaknesses, these two fatal flaws in the legislation are removed, the president will be locked in the Senate.
Would you think I should tell you that?
President, that's got to be the time, because they'll ask you that question if I don't throw out the question.
You don't.
I think you said the other thing, but I don't know.
You don't think you should.
Well, I'm supposed to say you should, but I want to be sure I didn't overstate it in talking to you.
I think you should.
I think you should.
I think you say at least a table of laws.
You're not corrected.
Yeah.
You will have no alternative.
Yeah.
What do you mean, Bill?
I think you just say the president's going to beat you up.
It could be helpful in trying to get the votes, and after all, we can reject it.
I'm getting it.
I'm getting it.
I'm getting it.
I'm getting it.
I'm getting it.
I'm getting it.
I'm getting it.
I'm getting it.
I'm getting it.
I'm getting it.
I'm getting it.
make the point that he's making this statement now in order that there will be no question in anybody's mind about where the responsibility lies in that we don't get the native legislation.
Those who participated in the conference and those who may have the opportunity to vote on the conference report will have no illusions.
that if the bill comes to the president in these forms, that this form will be used.
And that they will have to assume that they, therefore, will be taking upon themselves a responsibility for figuring out the tax rate that means 500,000 new jobs and relief.
The tax rate is 500,000 new jobs and relief.
I suppose this is going to be worded so that if either the Christmas tree aspect of it or the political aspect of it are left-handed, it still leads to a veto and not just a conjunction.
That would be one of the first questions.
Attorney General, I have a case.
What if the Congress leans on the financial legislation?
My answer is that...
Okay, does he, does he, does he, does he concern about 72 elections?
Matter of fact, our analysis shows that we would probably get more 72 elections than we might have.
That's it.
I think it's a
I'm going to think about it.
I've got to do better shit.
That's the truth.
I'm going to think about it.
I've got to do better shit.
That's the truth.
I would think that you'd be better off to go after the market, because I think the market may have a little uprise today.
Follow through.
Follow through with the...
Now, move it over here.
I like it also, Bill, they move the party from their hands forever.
That's right.
He drives the party.
They help move the party around.
Well, it does.
It does, and that's what it looks like.
Exactly.
I don't know how he got it.
What the hell is he doing here?
Yeah, I don't know.
He's also been approving Rehnquist, writing the big articles in favor of him.
Yeah, I can prove it.
Most left-wing and racial questions that anybody ever asked.
Yeah, I can prove it.
and left us off the right-of-way for this country for the first time.
Unfortunately, we, a lot of us, moved much further than we should go because we had no trace of any of these kinds of countries that way.
But if you really consider what was good for the country, we really have to turn it around.
I guess about the only place where we've done any work without Madisonville
I hope not, Mr. President.
That's not what they're saying in the Senate.
The Senate doesn't believe they're too far left.
It's very hard to say, Mr. President.
It could be as early as the end of this week, but I honestly think it will not be until next week.
You've got another event.
Yes, sir.
We all agree.
You can see my concern about calling out over the energy bill.
I don't know, I haven't heard, I was prepared to do it, but the reason I couldn't claim last night, the way I thought we ought to better talk about it, I'm sure they're going to be coming out.
I think Peter's going to be asking.
And, uh, we, uh...
Okay.
Well, I'm fairly happy with the shot, but, well, the main thing, I did this.
One advantage shot, when the first meeting on the media was on, I mean, a couple of kids were out there quacking.
or better or worse, it's the hard-eater thing.
In other words, it falls alive.
You can't believe it.
A lot of American friends are calling us right across the country saying, oh, who did this to him?
When you stand there and say you're going to detain him, you're going to attack him.
which is, I think it's just a threat for people to get into the operation, just kick somebody right in the balls.
You know, the opposite of that, of course, even if it's a crass political that you put in the address of the Republicans ahead of the interests of the kind of action.
And so we've got to handle that.
You've got to really anticipate that.
And I think the L-South column is starting to help some here in town with some of these colonists.
I don't know why, but maybe this is as good for the Republicans as it is for the Democrats.
And you should say that.
You mean this bill?
At his point, this is our bill.
As Mark said, it's a little very important.
I just think it isn't good for the country.
But I think what I can say is this, that my analysis as far as the next election is concerned will probably come out to be a wash.
And I don't believe it's going to be effective in particular, but that's what I've been at with what he's been saying.
And Al says that in terms of the future of this country, that it is a wrong step for the League to do the liberation of the Partisans, to destroy them, and to sponsor them in any way that we can.
We've done this before.
We're seriously jeopardizing the United States and France,
What do you see?
Now, there's that.
And, now they need search, and hundreds and hundreds, and I don't even like that name, it's very good name, is it?
This, after all, fundamentally, the amount of time, fundamentally changes political structures overall, that profile.
Now, let's take, for example, another major issue.
Over two years ago, in August, he submitted a revolutionary change in terms of welfare reform.
It's been debated for over two and a half years.
A year ago, he submitted a revolutionary re-organization plan.
It's been debated decently, but they should rather share it after their 11 months.
But here, this was more profound, the future, the revelation.
well-formed, and government reorganization, whether it is China's revolution or the other.
But this can have a revolutionary impact on the American political system, not all the others, but again, man.
that such a program, such a system, should not be around.
As a writer of the past, it actually should not be put on that.
That was the idea, the purpose of forcing, forcing the president to sign it.
It always makes bad law.
It always makes bad law on the president of sports,
to take something back in order to get something good.
In addition to that, it's an expediency just to help them get Democrats out of their current situation.
Thank you.
Well, I like this scenario because you'll have another shot at it after.
Yeah.
Oh, yes.
Oh, yes.
Strong and hard.
Who are they?
Well, they're the Lambert people, essentially.
Are the Lambert people.
How does the power change manage for this?
Good thing to do, Mr. President, if they come at me hurriedly to quote Bobby Kennedy or Albert Gore.
Well, I'm sort of leaning a little, as you suggested, away from, I think more of a high road, away from the idea that, well, this is a Democratic Party flushed behind us.
I mean, it's good, but more to the idea that it just makes a great change, such a nice change.
I think if they get down to the deal with the Democrats and Republicans, I think the next act is a win, and they'll figure out a lot about it.
You can say, in conclusion, this is going to hurt California.
That's what I'm wondering.
The outside line is, if this election gets the most money, who's going to get the most money?
Who's going to get the most money?
And I think you ought to get a little bit of money from Congress.
We believe in a two-part system.
And this breezes a, if this goes through, if this situation goes through, this is very difficult.
We would better keep this problem in their eyes a lot longer, in which they trust we've got a majority in the votes and have a majority mandate.
That's true.
You see, we would have put any asshole there on a third party, and I'm not sure you have any.
No, I'm just trying to say, take it when you have a church that is financed with a Bible and six million bucks, and you can get it.
7% or 8% of the vote.
And that is an impossible.
All elections have decided that they're going to be racist.
My job at Eisenhower won the first time.
You remember my 55-year-old mom did something to somebody's son.
It was also a better race in 1952.
He went to Dr. Jordan.
And they didn't get one or 60.
I'm going to check that so hard.
Now, this is not a healthy thing.
John, around the country, this is not much of an issue.
It's all there.
Her plan is back, and I was going to ask her that this morning.
But his staff, sir, will have pulled together their shareholders over the weekend from major papers around the country.
Well, it's still not a good one.
All right, so long.
And people say there are other persons who have been in this process.
Yes, there's a number of others who have been in this process.
That's what they're saying.
Oh, yes, I know.
So we just learned that one thing.
And we've been charged with coercion.
And it's terrible to think that we'll lay that by your side.
We'll bring these guys back, and they're going to stay here in town, and they're going to work around the city, and they come in, and they're going to work around the city, and they come in, and they're going to work around the city, and they come in, and they're going to work around the city, and they're going to work around the city, and they come in, and they're going to work around the city, and they're going to work around the city, and they're going to work around the city, and they're going to work around the city, and they're going to work around the city, and they're going to work around the city, and they're going to work around the city, and they're going to work around the city, and they're going to work around the city, and they're going to work around the city, and they're going to
Why don't we have to recognize and reintroduce the original tax bill right away, clean, and sort of maybe tomorrow or tomorrow we're going to raise the house bill, maybe the other day we'll report on which tax that was.
The other way is pass the house.
It should be introduced right away, I agree.
They're anticipating a veto and a sustain.
Now, it's especially such that if you're going to let that leak around, it already has to leak around somehow.
Those taxes must have no, they must have no solution, you know.
They're not going to want to have Gary and Matthew and the rest come back and say, yeah, I'm going to try to carry them.
Because I'm going to stay here right through this period.
I don't think it has to be.
You better say it out there.
No, Jerry.
Hold on a second.
I want to lose it.
We can lose it out there.
Right now, the veto is just a belief.
Jerry.
Jerry, will you?
Jerry feels very strongly about this.
I'm telling you this.
Jerry.
Jerry.
John, I'm not so sure that they can say we're doing politics from the text.
They say, I'm not sure they can stop it.
I think it's one of those things that I feel
where a small part of political science in Washington has an issue.
So they're not.
It's bouncing around for the comps like I was a quarterback right now.
And I would say the Washington-based comps will be playing this kind of commentators on the networks, though.
They were talking about $49 already, and the quarterbacks had $9 in the hole.
And they probably want to keep that.
And that's the way it's carrying over the weekend.
But that will go to the issue.
I think you thought that you would be calling back for a special session on the tax legislation itself.
It will get you off the wake of politics over the economy.
Might not get paid back, Mr. Tritton.
Yeah, Mr. Tritton, is that... Yeah.
...considered an issue of success?
I think it would be an honor to have that for you.
Well, that's something we ought to know.
Yeah.
If I say so, we're going to have to do it.
I think...
I don't know.
Yes, sir.
Don't we get up and send it to yourself?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Mr. President, we do have some characters in the house that are prepared to get up and starting today with one-minute speeches to attack the Senate bill.
And they've done this on their own.
You'll make it partisan.
You'll make it partisan.
Tell them to make it partisan.
You can tell them to send them out and all the rest will say, uh, this is not partisan.
This is a huge one.
We're attacking them.
We're responsible for having them back.
The most we need, and I don't know if you're talking inside, the most we need is a wagon of prisoners.
Right?
Right on.
We've got to take charge.
We've got to be intent.
And I will accept it.
I will.
If you get it done, I'll work with them.
Work with those guys again.
They've done great.
I don't know how we'll possibly send them to the well.
And that's part of the practice, too.
You know, the county chairman and everybody used to be really working on this.
I'm not having a conversation with anybody.
I already decided that one of the solutions is to relax and not one of those solutions to have a response to the public.
Yes.
You got that right or not?
Oh, they were great.
Oh, stop.
Everybody else?
I just need to look at this present.
Jerry Mann told me that
uh, in his constituency and in most others, they strongly support your policies and they want, they want their Congress to stay away, a long way away from the, from the amassing of the surrender people.
You know, this is, this is, this is,
Although, again, Bill went back and looked at the Democrats now still in the House who voted consistently against this in 66, 67.
And there's a pretty substantial people.
And we've given that list to the automobile people and said, these are your leaders.
First of all, make sure that they're still at the same line they were five years ago.
And then start to lead the fight for one of their southern Democrats.
Okay, let me ask you one other thing.
We have Dr. Buston and the person at the door saying that he heard you this morning and the Senate office is even doing the same thing tomorrow.
We are prepared.
We hope to be able to get to about a third day assessment of Democrat opinion, although it's been very difficult to get to that.
I don't think we have anything on that yet.
The real problem you have with their department is the funds.
The money went around the track.
The money went around the track.
The money went around the track.
The money went around the track.
The money went around the track.
The money went around the track.
The money went around the track.
The money went around the track.
You can read them in the questions when they're done.
If you talk to her, what you do is big hiding.
Power.
Yes.
And the power of my side, if you avoid it, pretty much is the power of faith.
It's the best that I've ever seen.
We have some options to use this, and it's so silly to prepare it, but if you follow me, you can have it all.
It's like a rock in the head, and I'll show you the forms.
I have a lot to say to Mr. President.
I know some consideration has been given by others in the selection process to John Connor Lyle.
Apparently he was dismissed pretty rapidly to the school region.
I'm not totally loyal to you.
It looks like .
I think probably .
I love it.
I was advised of your choice on, uh, late on, uh, Wednesday afternoon about J.R. before you met with Carl Curtis here, and, uh, the next day, what's his job?
So we did it on the, or what's up with meeting with a lot of members of the House of Representatives, are you?
Yeah.
It's true, but, uh, it is true that Bob Dole, Jack Miller, uh, Carl Curtis, and a few other stuff, I think you should reference them.
Yeah.
I'll leave it up to you.
We're making every effort to get people who are in the agribusiness to not identify as being agribusiness, but as individuals, to be writing their centers, and to be talking about their centers.
George Aitken has made some suggestions, which I've got USDA working on.
He says that you have a Future Farmers of America and 4-H and a certain number of the other organizations.
People have thought it would be pro-Buds.
He's got an association with a lot of these groups.
He's been a member of the past 4-H group now.
So we're trying to get some sort of pressure that's developing.
I just can't believe that they will turn Mr. Buds down.
No, I don't think so either, Mr. President.
I said it in the memorandum.
That's true.
I'm trying to think that Herman Talmadge cast his vote.
on political grounds to make the issue as narrow as possible.
The vote of approval on the Senate is narrow as possible.
But I have much to admit to the end that he was in a good form.
Plus, he didn't say it categorically, but he made a good record in expressive witness.
So, well, then with Jack Miller, it would be a sort of challenging exercise to get rid of him before he went on to vote against him.
I think the big question is how much the Democrats can get out of this in the future and how long they can continue after he's confirmed his executive act and both of those things.
Unless he can counteract that by his activity.
and hopefully some growth increases, et cetera.
That's what we try to plan, Mr. President, that we do have some programs.
If we have some programs, if your programs for 72 are good, if you're concerned about 71, if you respect the recommendations of your new secretary of agriculture, I want to confirm that, after all, in coincidence with the announcement of his selection, there was an announcement that you're going to preserve the Department of Agriculture.
This is not a minus, this is a plus.
We had a hard time getting our people to adopt a positive attitude because of the Trump part of it.
We had complaints because, as I said, here's the point, we had 230 letters, we had pluses, pluses, not a quarter.
Now that, asserted, there must be something better we can do about it.
Is there anybody who's been quite slow about doing this?
Well, I'm not sure if that's over.
In fact, it actually has to come through organizations.
And a lot of the emails that are sent, as far as we know, emails from organizations wherever they are department, I would say, have been secure.
Well, again, the behavior of the American Farm Bureau is unconscionable.
I apologize for the language I use.
I call it prostitute, but they're exactly the way it is.
They're very devoid.
And again, what would they want to depart from?
I'm going to ask them to get out and muster support among their local groups.
They want to depart from our support, which is my line of legislation.
I don't know how it's best to perform in these contexts, so I don't see where you're going to get it.
There's Mark.
I talked to him.
He's going to be in college soon.
I didn't get back to you, but I saw the circumstances, the shapes that I had.
He must be out.
What's your alternative now?
There really isn't.
I don't think so, Mr. President.
But if the Senate defeats Butts,
I think it's a very close call.
I think you lose a great deal by, you know, viral.
back it off, even if he did it on his own initiative, which, you know, he's willing to do.
Can I ask for a quick, if I can, on the combination of those four nominees?
You backed off the right from the left.
Well, what was the other three?
What's up there?
Any other stuff?
Uh, for the first time in a hundred years, we've had a little bit of tiredness and a taste of blood, and, you know, we've had some good stuff over the second time around.
There's a danger of that.
I have a question, which is unrelated.
You've got different women and different people shooting at you.
I don't understand the way you talk to people.
I don't understand.
I don't understand.
I, according to FAM, I got, what, 65 confirmed votes, plus some decided it'll probably go that way, too.
And I know, John, that there's a concern about this, that if they do sink their old bus, that they would be encouraged to go after Rehnquist.
I can't believe it.
It would change the vote.
Maybe two votes, no more than that.
As a matter of fact, it might react the other way, as I think John said.
Yeah, well, you can go ahead and stick with it, Mr. President.
I think it's a bad lesson for the future.
Any time a guy gets in some heat, all they have to do is call 911, ring the law house, and get out of the back office.
It's a bad situation, but I don't seem to worry.
I mean, it's all going to be different.
The thing is, since you don't have a candidate, my general feelings have always been split with me.
I've seen facts in the future that this is not true, and I don't know any others.
back off here anyway.
They're going to choose it.
They're going to choose it.
That's the issue.
And I'm not basing it on the basis that he's not here.
It's all the case.
But again, it's the law.
It's not that much of a constitutional system.
It's the law.
So again, if anybody was standing up for him,
He called me late yesterday morning.
We had a nice talk.
I called back.
I said, you'd be great if you'd lead the fight for the World Cup.
He said, oh, I will, Clark.
He said, I'm going to have some supporters, too.
The old man had an initials.
He had an initials.
Jack, he could have voted for it, or at least to get his son on the floor.
You know, a sad, reserved, judgmental, final confirmation.
But the President, by the way, had his army on the floor.
You know, that would have helped some.
One of the biggest horses' asses up there.
He's incredible.
Mr. President, he is making his decision on what goes off the ground.
Purely, Jack, on a political ground.
If I wasn't 72, then I wouldn't have said what we should have said.
I can't forget looking beyond that.
If I had to do it again, if I was in the wrong, I wouldn't have said that.
great ok good good good good good good good good good good good
There was a time in the middle of last week, and I talked to Bill Johnson, and there was a time where I thought, this is all so insane to me, and maybe I ought to withdraw, but I felt weak, and I went over to talk to the attorney general about it late Wednesday evening.
And the people was,
Stick with it.
We fight it through.
We lose more than we gain.
That is what we do.
We fight it through.
Indeed, it is rejected.
I just say this is another example of how we still strike hard as it should with the instructions of this Congress.
A man of my integrity and women of my integrity asked first if I had started setting this Congress.
It is what we are.
It is the Republic of Georgia.
Yes, I'm sure it will be played in the Congress.
We have our own Kansas Congress and all of the Republicans.
Absolutely.
Of course, I had covered Jack Norton when I talked to Jack Norton.
I said, when you find this man demonstrably unfit, this is the president's choice, to be a cabinet officer and part of the president's team, and you would have decided to vote against him, Jack, because you find him demonstrably unfit?
Oh, no.
No.
And I said, well, since you've decided to vote against him, then you would be out and calling others to vote against him because you feel it's a matter of principle.
that he should be secretary of agriculture.
No, he said, it's just going to hurt his farm.
It's going to risk an island.
So that was the last straw.
You know, you have to look back to the Hickok confirmation.
Everybody was against agriculture on the line.
And all of a sudden, he became the darling of the environmentalists.
I bet you'd like to hear this.
That way all the time.
Yeah.
All right, good luck.