Nixon & Connally on Watergate and 1972 Presidential Election

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 Do not cite it as authoritative — verify against the audio and the finding aid.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).

Good morning, Mr. President.

And he caught, and he got Helms ever bleeding.

So he had to go through that, because Alcantara's a mistake.

He indicated to us what he was doing.

He just had one reason.

He said it probably would make no longer respect the national legislation if he would go back on that.

And I told him to talk to Jameson directly.

Yes, I thought it was well to get it right in that channel right away.

And we'll have Helms a lot of time to be sure Helms talks to you.

Did you mention that Helms talked to you?

No, I did not.

Let me put it this way.

The people of the state would say, well, God, we can't get tired of the oil and fighting for the interest.

But the people of the CIA can be directed to follow the line that the American private interests in this instance are the same as the government interests.

So we can't be apologetic.

If we fight about this, the goddamn Russians go into these areas, and their public and private interests

Interests are the same.

That's why they kick the shit out of us sometimes.

We go in, and our public interest is always fighting the private interest.

Is this a... That's the way you are.

Yes.

See, it's a strong stripe, and I realize.

See, it's sort of a double.

It's a double stripe.

It has a light, a different blue stripe, but it has a strong white stripe.

Very good.

I wore it on the today show this morning.

I had 20 minutes on the today show this morning.

I didn't see that.

But it's better show than it is better show than this.

But because you have better questions.

When he was up here with the president, his partner And the case got broke.

tried to fill all the desks in bankruptcy.

Now, they've given some guy immunity down there, and they think Jake's lying.

They're lying to him.

They're lying to Granger.

I don't believe that.

Anyway, I talked to Jake this morning about it.

He's going to talk to her later on.

I shouldn't even mention that, but I know this man.

And he is not a better man in the world than Judge Jacobson.

He's not going to hurt anyone.

It doesn't make any difference.

I know how you and I know, John, how in politics you're going to get involved in things.

You're going to take this stupid Watergate thing.

Well, that thing, believe me, I mean, believe me, you could be sure to make this, but you know what I've done.

Mitchell, Hoffman, Coulson.

Nobody, of course, here had the slightest idea of the project.

But there were some church at the committee at the lower level who, you know, thought, let's go out and do this.

These damn hooligans come in.

We'd like to do this.

And they could answer it.

We stuck with it.

And so what it's going to do is it will come and pass.

But you see, the problem is that in all sorts of things, you can be involved in a business with people.

Some guy falls down.

Uh, and so they try to, they try to, they try to lay it on me about it.

I had to get enough out of mind, and they promised a guy their immunity, so he's gone and told a bunch of stuff, and Jake says, it's a pure damn lie.

So you get, you know, you get all these cross-currents, but that's the side of it.

This is the first time when we have had a national candidate who has come up for a policy that would make the United States second to the Soviet Union.

That's the key point.

The national events issue.

If you catch the simply in terms of other national events, people say, well, that's good.

Let's just say they are spending too much.

But a $30 billion cut would put us hopelessly behind the Soviet Union.

And so it isn't a question of whether a program

Defense policy is what government describes as second rate.

It's a question of whether we're going to be second best.

And if the United States is second best, it'll be a very dangerous world.

That's the next problem.

Not at all.

We have here two candidates, next to America, who have a totally different view of what America ought to be in the future.

I believe that the

established institutions.

I believe in progress and reform and the rest of it.

But I believe in making our great institutions that have made this country great better, rather than destroying it.

In other words, my policy is not the policy of destruction.

We want to build it.

Build it.

And build it better in the future.

And that, for example, we have a fundamental difference in approach

whole problem of welfare and taxes.

His programs would massively increase spending, whether it's a $1,000 proposal or otherwise, and would increase taxes on the middle-income people in this country.

Any one of the various modifications that would not increase those taxes should not.

I am against increases in spending.

I am for decreases

And I am against tax increase.

I think the burden of taxes across this country is too big.

He is for peer government and more government.

I am for less government.

I am for more people.

What kind of an America do we want, in other words?

He is for more central government.

I am for more global government.

That's revenue sharing.

I want an America in which we reduce the burden of big government, as far as taxes and the American people are concerned, and also as far as controlling the lives of the people.

And he is for a massive increase in government bureaucracy in every area of life.

And then you come to the area, the very important area of peace and love.

Here, we have a totally different view.

I have said in 1968, and I say today, that I favor appointing to the Supreme Court and to the other courts judges who share my judicial philosophy, which is basically a conservative judicial philosophy, a conservative interpretation of the Catholic Constitution, which will turn around the trend toward permissiveness that has contributed to the massive increases in crime.

He has opposed, has voted against,

that he opposes that kind of thing.

And also, he would probably appoint a Ramsey Clark to the Supreme Court.

In fact, that's the question that should be asked him.

He should indicate what kind of people is he going to appoint to the Supreme Court.

I'd love for him to say, well, I don't like the Dixon Court.

But I think he should say that.

I think also that, for example, in terms of busing, I mean, in terms of the role of government, busing is a coaching example.

busing, and forced integrated housing.

I believe in freedom of choice, freedom of choice not in the narrow sense that is freedom of choice in the real sense that children should be allowed to, people should be allowed to live any place they want and to go to the schools where they want.

But that government should not force people to live together if they don't want to.

It shouldn't force people to go to school together.

It should not force them.

It should act above everything else.

Children should go to their neighborhood schools.

But anyway, that's not good.

The point about busing is, you couldn't have a clearer example of his view of the role of African-American.

He wants to remake Iron Man.

He said, I have bachelored on civil rights.

I haven't bachelored.

I have civil rights.

I'm against those laws that set up a dual school system and the rest, the differences

He is for forced immigration.

He is for forced busing.

In a way, 75% of the people, including over half blacks, oppose.

I do not believe, I believe that the American people, black, white, et cetera, et cetera, should have the opportunity

to make their own decisions about their future, and not have social plans, intellectually determined.

Now, you have there, basically, first you have the foreign policy issue that's a little hard to understand, where I believe that the security of America, our freedom, peace in the world,

depends upon a strong United States and that we continue to play a role in the world and that we not, in a place like Vietnam, dishonor the United States and thereby strike terror into the hearts of our allies and friends around the world.

Second, that I believe that to make us to be as strong as the United States, we've got to have a strong national defense.

And that means we must never be second to anybody in the world.

But if we have to be first, at least we're not going to be second.

We've got to add that there must be no reduction of defenses unless it's mutual with the Soviet Union.

And that we're moving on.

But it's got to be mutual, or otherwise it's a dangerous world.

Then looking at home, that I see that I want America to grow up in a way that America's future would be one in which people get bigger, and individuals get bigger, and government gets smaller.

really talking about here is that, on the one hand, he has the programs that result in a tax increase.

I have the programs that we're cut spending, or at least hold it where it is, and cut it in the areas where we can, so that we can avoid a tax increase, and work toward the time we can have a tax decrease.

I think he has the programs in every field, in education,

And the other one's the one in Asia.

Massive new federal programs of hundreds of thousands of new bureaucrats from Washington, D.C. that will interfere in the lives of people across this country.

And I'm against that.

That's why I'm directly sharing my life.

I say let the people at home determine their own future.

And I am a big government.

As later God said, it's the way it always is.

We want to get it.

government out of our pockets and big government out of our backs.

And then I heard, and Bessig is an example of that.

And then the whole area of law enforcement, Bessig, this is one of the clearest choices.

My appointments to the court, my total rejection

without paying the price, the penalty, for deserting the country.

My total rejection of legalizing marijuana, even no matter how he's touched it.

My support of strong law enforcement.

My standing up to the kind of rabble that are his major supporters.

I digress.

My point is that, as I said, this is the most important election I've participated in now.

Because it goes beyond my personal desires to win re-election.

It goes beyond the future of my party.

It involves the future of America and of the world for generations to come.

I, it is my honest conviction that the policies, not the man, but the policies that he advocates would be very dangerous policy for America abroad, for the peace of the world, and for our economy forever.

They could result in a recession.

They could result in higher taxes.

They could result in unemployment.

You've got to make that point at a certain time.

And that under these circumstances, since I look at it that way, I,

and consistent with my responsibilities in this office to win this campaign.

Now, what am I going to do?

First, my first responsibility, of course, is to conduct the office of the president.

We have very, very big problems here having negotiations.

We're having negotiations regarding Vietnam.

I have to deal with the Congress if it's an obsession.

We have to, and I will have to lose problems.

But that is my, and I therefore would be totally irresponsible for me to just abandon this office, to leave the office, and start whistle-stopping across the country at this point.

But on the other hand,

It is my intention, without getting into partisan campaigning at this point, it is my intention to, every time I have an opportunity, to speak out on the issues, speak out on the issues for non-partisan performance between now and the last three weeks of the campaign.

And then, at that point,

We will then carry it.

We'll do something else.

We'll long serve on those lines.

So I think if we can reassure the people across the country that we're not, that I'm not sitting here doing politics and how we make the calls and doing a lot of other things, how we have the press conferences and making speeches and so forth.

But the important thing is that we're not doing anything.

The important thing

How can we best amy?

Let me tell you this.

If I thought the best way to be, first of all, was for me simply to leave the office and tell everyone in Kissinger to run everything and crack anything, I'd take all of them, Air Force One today, and go get every goddamn whistle-stopping place there was.

But I don't think it's the best thing to do.

See?

If I thought it was the best, I would do it.

But I don't think the way we've got to put that publicly is I don't think it's best for the country.

Between you and me, I think it would be a mistake

No, I'm going to be a little disappointed.

I wholly agree with this.

Nixon & Connally on Watergate and 1972 Presidential Election

AI Summary

Audio

Transcript (AI-generated)

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Also recorded on July 24, 1972

Cite this conversation