Nixon, Price & Ziegler on State of the Union Address and Speechwriting

Transcript (AI-generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI (WhisperX) and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Names and numbers are often wrong; speakers are not identified. Do not cite it as authoritative — verify against the audio and the finding aid.

Download transcript (.txt) · JSON data

Click a timestamp to play from that point; the page address then links to that moment (e.g. #t=125).

I think the way that we handle the economy is just better than the way that we look at it.

I think that is our goal from the war on the economy.

I think that's our goal.

We'll see if we don't have to.

Thank you.

I'll send it.

All right.

That's fine.

All right, fine.

Those are the names, Julie, that you want.

Thank you.

Well, I thought I'd agree.

Is this going to be, is this the parents of Kennedy's inaugurator going to be interpreted by somebody that wants to reuse the slab of Kennedy?

Not intended that way, basically.

But you could have picked up some things even then.

Johnson, of course, is the king of the war, even Eisenhower and Dulles in the period before that.

the American position after World War II up and killed, well frankly up and killed the so-called next doctor who was willing to defend that country.

So I mean, we had trouble just as Uncle Sam.

Now, when you try to take it out, it takes a lot to clean up.

Take it out just to say, just to say our policy,

It does strike me as a needle.

I thought it was an intended failed needle.

Of course, you go on to say that

or you put it in context as if the world has changed greatly since then.

And I think that reorganization, putting that first, felt to put it in context that it would be picked up, especially in the wake of Teddy's right-of-slash attack yesterday.

My point is worth it.

My feeling would be yes, that it is worth forgetting.

It's a valid point.

And the contrast with the case .

It makes the point that that's basically the bar of the really hypocrisy of the professional liberal establishment, right?

It really is.

Whether it's only for liberals or anything else,

It goes back to the interventionists in their case.

And it's the ones who applauded that most oddly who are now, or who applauded Kennedy most oddly, who are now the loudest in saying that we shouldn't intervene.

So in other words, you can put it in and just not worry about it.

You know, I was thinking, while we were here in New Year, I said it so often, maybe we should take that out on our policy.

Yeah, I thought we'd have to say it, don't you think?

He wants that we have others in the area.

— 1 min 8 s with no transcribed speech —

I would make the last sentence a separate paragraph.

We may go on closer.

How many pages have you changed to make it possible to cut?

Do you think it's worth putting in that business about agriculture?

I've got it in a big focus, I know.

It does stand out for a little bit like a sore thumb.

I think it's a little bit reaching.

I think we've made the point.

Why not just say our borough is very smart?

I hope you read my last borough.

I don't really think they do anything.

Consent for the speech is better without it.

They don't have a solid enough feel of the... People worry about those, of course, all the time.

The main thing is dimension.

For some reason, we have a dimension mark.

We've got one hell of a lot in here that we just, well, I mean, our budget will help me to raise money.

I hope we can revitalize the world.

I think we take that.

The other thing covers it well, if you like.

That was Dr. Rockwell.

God, he sure shat in the lungs, didn't he?

Did you see the papers?

I didn't look.

I don't know what to say to this thing.

You know, it's an interesting thing.

There are two professional liberals.

They fight harder than...

They fight better than conservatives.

Sometimes.

I think so, and you'll see the change runs through on the 17th.

That's something I worked out this morning.

I wonder if we...

This is something I looked at.

He makes the point that productivity is one thing, technology is another.

And that really our prerequisites as far as the meeting foreign competition goes would be on the productivity side.

And...

I don't know what my point is.

Let's see.

to remain competitive by improving our own technology still further and raising our own productivity still further.

We must continue that as a super recent productivity in America.

And as you see, I think that the thought of the last clause of the preceding sentence.

It says with certain sense that the purpose of it is to suggest that we are running on two different tracks here, two separate tracks.

That it's not just technology, but probably not

I wonder if the productivity is still further.

I go, it doesn't.

If you can't get it, worry about it.

Is that to say we must give it a continued emphasis to increase the productivity in the American industry?

How is raising productivity still further different from emphasis on increasing productivity in American industry?

Only in the second one we say we're going to do something about it.

That is the goal of the first group.

To remain our goal is to remain competitive in our technology and raising our productivity still further.

It's about, I know it's a subtle statement, but in a sense, it points me to rather than by improving our technology and increasing productivity in our industry, but I'm just saying, and increasing productivity,

the American industry.

How's that?

That's fine.

Let's make an end by increasing.

By improving our technology.

And by increasing.

Can you give that a change, John?

On page 21, and there's one of these, as well, prepared for him.

That proposal has been for the Congress and Aldermen for many, many years.

The email is Sarah Westbrook.

This is...

We're at page 28 in New York Harbor.

the last few days.

It's slightly different from what we've been through over the years.

I think it's page 30, the last one.

If we can pick out one of the Congresses and the Americans look back and say that it's not safe.

Right.

This was truly a great time.

I realize it shouldn't be the time to defer, but I think it was because my call on the Congress today, my call on the very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very,

In terms of the organization of the fraud, I'd rather they look back and say that because we're fighting the breakers that

It's just hard to deliver that word.

In the years to come, Americans will look back and say... Go this way.

Say, in the years to come, that Americans will look back and say, because it withstood the intense pressures of the political year, and achieved great good for the American people and the future of this nation, this is truly a great Congress.

It's almost like your first version, except we've put it in.

Americans will look back and say that.

You had it, Americans will look back and say that because it withstood the intense pressure of the Brooklyn year, it kind of did very good for the American people.

I think that's the way I want to see it.

because they stood at great pressures for a political year and achieved such great good for the American people and the future of this nation.

This truly was a great Congress.

Okay, how's that sound?

Well, that's about it.

getting the farmers to get off this town in about three and a half years.

I want to talk to you on the second part in order to give a little more to the farmers while I'm doing it.

All this factual stuff I'm just saying, like, America's farmers deserve their fair share of America's fresh garbage, and we're determined they shall get their fair share.

except to raise farm income.

To raise farm income.

And, well, to raise farm income will help.

By helping to revive this program, and by giving, and by giving to American farmers their share of America's

Increase the prosperity.

Give it to the Americans farmers.

Give it to the American team.

Ensuring?

Ensuring.

Providing?

Well, giving is our current, what which which do you like?

I think probably giving.

Giving to the Americans farmers.

They're their share.

To the Americans.

Increase the prosperity.

That's it.

Hit it completely out of the way.

Come on.

Set it around.

Yeah.

Set it around.

Get her up, Ted.

Get her up right off.

Uh, anything special I can tell you later, or when you're on the release?

I don't care what you do.

Well, I guess your thought was to do it with your team.

He always does it tomorrow morning rather than the night after.

I do it tomorrow morning, Saturday night, so that we don't have to do everything.

We can all hang around, but I think tomorrow night is fine, but I've got plenty of time to write.

He usually doesn't want you to get up too much or too early, because then you go up and get into stories too often.

The critical stuff.

You go around and write the same story.

Why don't you have a cigarette?

I don't want any of it, no.

It was pretty rough.

It really was.

It was also soft work.

.

You think he didn't write it himself?

What did it sound like?

Did it sound like an old, pro-Irish politician, or did it sound like a clever, young college kid, or what?

It sounded more like a clever enough, very bright, young college kid.

Could have been.

You know, when he was writing on that.

It was certainly a hard hitting and it had the knives in and in many ways probably effectively, which people don't think.

But there wasn't an ounce of statesmanship in it and there wasn't an ounce of responsibility in it.

There are a lot of lies.

No, I don't think it does.

In the long run, there's no harm for the senator.

He can survive that kind of crap for years.

But anybody who's going for the top is not going to want to have his totally irresponsible statement.

Totally irresponsible statement in the direction of his findings.

You know, you're always asked about it.

I've been asked about things for years.

And parts were just incredibly callous, you know.

I think we put up a long 15,000 word version early in the morning, 7 o'clock, but then give it to the horners and some of the PM people in the wires on a slide at night so they can read it.

Prepare their stories and

to be ready to go at 15,000, 12,000, 13,000.

That's 15,000 word.

Right.

Then I think we could get the, your address, we could put that out at maybe 10,000, 13,000.

Not the thousand together numbers.

Well, that's not the end of this one.

That should do it.

Do you have another question?

You're more familiar with how this is actually used.

They mix pretty well.

The $15,000 is more in the nature of recapping and justification and so forth than this is, I think.

This is more an appeal for bipartisanship and derives from politics, in a sense.

So the leads would really key off of the oral address.

Yeah, no question.

It wouldn't have happened, because else they'd have said it.

But it's important that the eventual leads key off of the oral thing, too.

Well, if that's the case, maybe we should.

Maybe we should.

What we could do then, if you completed the oral address,

and make them both available when they get o'clock in the morning.

They're going to

The oral thing isn't like the 70 and 71, when in each case we have great affinity with everybody.

Everything we are saying here has been already pretty much projected.

The oral is basically toned more than anything else.

So it's got reference to the possibility of considering some sort of tax reform in the future.

new technology in its body, but otherwise it's the toll.

It's the fact that it's not partisan, I guess.

Well, I think this is the worst thing that's ever happened to you.

Yeah, well, I don't think you can give the planet time to write.

What I can do is ask, we'll do that median thing tonight.

Sure.

Oh, I invested.

Then tomorrow we have time to write.

Okay.

And for responsible seconds.

We won't do the massive release of it and Senate gallery availability of both of them until maybe 10 o'clock tomorrow.

We'll cover it with the wire.

We'll cover it with the key papers.

We'll cover it with the networks.

And then, you know, people are going to follow up on it earlier so they have the time to digest.

But we won't make it available in the Senate galleries.

You're not going to have a network of reading, other than reading the big oral message.

You know, I don't want to read the Congress, but the big oral network of reading, I wonder if it is worth reading.

Well, we've talked about that, and I think it's pretty well self-contained.

In other words, let them read it and write what they have to please, rather than try to write the stories for them.

Well, I'd love to get started on stories for you, but when I talked to John about this,

And there's a feeling that at least there wasn't much to be added to the written version because of this.

All right.

That sounded very great.

When you need it tonight, we may have problems because there's a massive production job and there's still final changes coming today and so forth.

And the big one.

Yeah, and the big one.

What we can do

is actually to give it to them in the morning.

We'll try and get a few of the people who are going to follow up into my office with Ernie or some of them.

Just how they should do their .

I think we should do that.

The people who are going to ask any questions to the Revenue should say, well, they're exactly the same.

What does the thinker really expect action on?

And you should say, well, the president expects action on revenue share price welfare reform.

We expect, in other words, hit that.

There's no excuse for not having a hill, an environment.

And we expect that there's no excuse for it.

How long are we going to detain the people?

About a battle, you said, that depends on what they do in the fight.

You're already put out effective before the pulse, isn't it?

Yes.

And I'd like to the two messages .

This is going to be pretty great.

I think it's a pretty changed speech on Monday.

That's got a hell of a play.

What do you think of that?

I think this is .

Well, I think it's going to be more responsible than the Kennedy thing.

And I think that's why Kennedy just keep walking out on their own plank.

Let Kennedy walk out on their own plank.

Keep walking out on the plank.

Let the others just keep walking out on the plank.

And then I think it's going to come the right time that they go off the edge.

And I think that your policies are designed to make that happen.

I'm not concerned about it.

To be quite frank with you, it was very dumb.

I think it was great.

It was sort of sophomoric in terms of its style.

Nixon, Price & Ziegler on State of the Union Address and Speechwriting

AI Summary

Audio

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Transcript (AI-generated)

Also recorded on January 19, 1972

Cite this conversation

Nixon, Price & Ziegler on State of the Union Address and Speechwriting

AI Summary

Audio

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Transcript (AI-generated)

Also recorded on January 19, 1972

Related conversations

Cite this conversation