Conversation 751-014

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President.

That's our guy.

That's right.

Do it again.

All right.

But another stupid thing about me is I prefer cold drinks to coffee.

Coffee's good.

Keith.

I love cocoa.

I mean, I see all the premises.

Just that.

Coffee's good.

I used to be in the line.

But we had, as we had it down the road, a period of, I say a period of convention, a way, a right of convention, where responsibility first was far more important.

But everything now has to have a master's exam.

And I think there are two or three things I'm going to suggest, which I've already mentioned.

For Haiti, I particularly want a lot of memories.

You know, you've devoted to Haiti.

remarks that Richard and Julie will be making, because they'll be doing a great deal.

And it's very personal, very brief, but also substantive enough to say something, say something which they've been doing.

And I think those are, in terms of what we call our service,

They have a unique distinction of drawing better than anybody else, with the exception, of course, of the .

The second point is that I think it's important that we recognize that we have what we call a great number of spirits.

They vary in what they can say.

And some are very positive others

run the Senate or the Congress or something like that.

And so what we need here is a pretty good mix of things.

But you may find that the writer fits one of them.

It may not fit me, and vice versa, of course.

When you really look at that group, it's a pretty impressive group.

What is Buck Ray, if anything, to your issue with the Vice President's staff?

We're not really writing anything for him at all.

We don't really know.

He asked us to help on one person, and we did.

But he has his own... Who does the writing?

Of course, he's got no person to be listening to.

He's got John Coyne, and... How's John Coyne?

John Coyne.

Yeah.

How's... Oh, he's...

People work for him and present ideas and so forth.

Well, we may have to give some assistance there, too, because he's going to do a great deal.

And when you think, what you might do is when you get a good idea, you might sit around and say, look, this one will be said, this one will be answered, this one will be said, and the vice president will want to do it.

And that's what we're doing.

I don't think they're going to have any problem in terms of people who want to use things.

They're already in a, they just aren't creating people when it comes to various things in general.

Greger, who does he use?

Does he use your shop or, you know,

He has a couple of people that are not reiterating.

And we took very serious.

He's a very strong .

Oh, you mean .

Yes, sir.

I don't know who isn't doing this stuff.

I think, too, .

Are they able to ?

I think it's so new that it doesn't really work.

Do you coordinate with ?

I'm not at this point.

What do you share?

But you look at what we have, what we have now compared to what we had in the way of the 1960s, it's quite impressive.

Well, you can take 1960 when we have perhaps a better comparison because we were in office at that time.

The Secretary of State heard her.

Secretary of Treasury Anderson also took a trip around the world.

And in terms of the candidate people, they were the ones who got into it.

Bill Rogers did not make speeches as the Attorney General.

Now, this year, if you look at the candidate, if you run them down,

First, in each of the first two that I mentioned, and perhaps the third in a speech or other speech, you may be able to do phrases or lines.

Rogers.

Rogers will be non-cultivated.

That will be non-cultivated for us.

It's going to be very, very effective.

Laird.

And Laird, of course, is going to be doing events across the whole of the country.

That could be very effective.

One of the most, one of the strongest men who should be used and accused effectively is Clint Eastwood.

Clint Eastwood, as compared to Mitchell, is a good speaker.

He's good on television.

His policy did not meet the rest.

And also, he's a national figure.

For that matter, perhaps even as much as Mitchell, he has disconfirmations, but you can ask him out of that.

When people see him, that's what there is.

That's so forbidding.

Yes.

Thank you.

And, for example, one of the more important issues of the campaign, which I have seen very few people refer to, I mean, we refer to the national defense issue, the foreign policy issue, the economic issue in terms of welfare, tax, thousand dollars, and so on and so on.

And, of course, the collateral was like musking an industry in marijuana.

But in terms of the differences, these very

very basic differences between the two candidates, there probably isn't a greater difference, it's harder to, and I don't say it's greater because the others are so great too, than the attitude toward the courts and law enforcement and the rest.

And the way you demonstrate that, of course, is to put on the kind of men you're pointing at.

In other words, the appointments that I have made with both of you every time,

honor and reputation in some places considered to be favorable and other places not favorable.

And here, if you don't mind,

However, it made all the court just beginning.

Beginning is a very important one.

But the body of the court seems to come down.

We have to remember that for an imprint to be left for you on the court, you have to keep courts throughout the country.

That is, it takes longer than you can afford it.

You need to do it.

And the gains that have been made, it preserves some balance for the court.

So if you wiped out,

I don't know if it's very easy.

For example, the next president is going to go to college at three, maybe four, at least three years, of course.

And Douglas, of course, has a Ph.D. in agriculture.

And we're going to have to come to the Powell, Powell, the oversight, or the election is over.

and all men at that age have other problems.

So you see, the court can be a very, a way to make the issue of the law, of course,

Obviously, the Clintons can't speak to that issue.

But others, too.

Every server, can we say, rounded up to speak to that issue.

You go on and down the line.

Schultz is not.

in his way to get the job done.

But in his turn, he would be quite a gangbuster with the farmers.

I mean, he just gets out there and likes to move over to other areas and does very well from time to time.

Hodgson can't do quite as well because of the nature of his position.

But all in all, he had a very good job.

And of course, you've got

We have, of course, a very great and potent speaker at the audience tomorrow in Kamala.

Kamala, of course, must be used effectively

in all of these areas, whether it's the subject of the country, or the Taliban, or foreign, whatever the case might be, that you remember that you've got to hold proof there.

And if somebody says she doesn't get great speech from somebody, then I'm prepared.

And when I see we can find nothing to get it out.

I should also say that we have other events.

very strong.

And Dole does well, too.

So we have an insurance of the national political figures.

So much of the material you have to work with.

I think that the need that perhaps is the greatest at this point

This is something that's very hard to come by.

I believe it's perhaps the greatest work of everybody I've ever heard.

Not what I would call acute phrase to phrase, but for some phrases that some of them issue, and then people can remember.

We call it grab.

Everything.

We're very short on that.

We've got two, but they have to get out somewhere.

The other thing, of course, as you all know, is my feeling as far as my own material is concerned, the need for strong and good material.

You've got to, I'm not sure what you're doing, but I was talking about the letter group today.

After the Republican convention, after all, since the Democratic, you're likely to get some

My own appearances were, of course, for the foreseeable future action.

I can't see the terms go around here and other places.

But we'll be limited to talks on issues before and after the war ends.

But you can't be the most effective, that can't be.

We're going to use a very effective way.

As far as what we might have in the future, that remains to be seen.

That is, of course, very important.

very effective campaign.

But I think another thing that you might hold when you're sitting around in a full session together is this.

In 1968, we had a scandal.

And we had a lot of very good speeches and position papers, et cetera, et cetera, and every conceivable issue.

We want to remember that in campaigns, the average person

Probably someone at three.

And usually one, but it's three to four.

That doesn't mean that you want to talk about one.

One of three is just one to talk about.

But it's three to four.

And you'd be very sure you'd have her go through and come back to it and deem after them over and over again.

The tendency to think, well, now I've got to make a speech today.

Forget it.

It won't do.

I mean, you can raffle that up to some general thing, general speech, say, well, we're for a monoclonal monoclonal program, if you get that.

But if you get it, you get it in terms of something full of too many, too many positions of that sort.

The issues are not.

style, et cetera, et cetera, you would start with the proposition that you probably haven't had, in this century, a clear choice between the candidates that you have this year, by a clear choice

as commonly implied in spell it out.

It's a critical choice, not simply on the means to achieve good ends, but on the ends themselves.

What kind of a world do you want this to be?

What kind of a defense do you want the United States to have?

What kind of a role does the United States want to play in the world?

And at home, what do we want the American economy to be?

What do we want this country to be?

What should the role of government be?

It's the, when you compare it basically, this is somebody who said it wasn't their choice, not an echo of Goldwater and Johnson, not all that much.

It's not that much because both Goldwater and Johnson were strong national allies.

Both Goldwater and Johnson were private enterprises.

Both Goldwater and Johnson were, I don't know if Goldwater or not, but they both believed in the old values.

Johnson, anybody that knows Johnson, of course Johnson came in with the Great Society and all that.

But as far as he was concerned, he was scared about anybody with regard to his, did he want to change the values?

Goldwater did because of, basically, not because of his views, but because of the means to strive.

The disadvantage was that Johnson had about 99% of the press.

Now, we have it just the other way around.

I mean, we have about 80% of what we call the media trying to help the government as well.

But deep down, they share their directions.

They share their standards.

And now they'd like to see it get well.

And so under these circumstances, you'll have a tendency to blur these very, very monomaniacal differences.

But when you come down to it and you look at these monomaniacal differences, they're quite clear.

I don't think you could probably see a, unless there would be a monomaniacal difference.

They're so clear.

They're an ancestry.

They're a role we should have, a power we should have.

And the reason that this was spent, the moment on that, the reason it was so great in there is because of the air.

I thought it was very interesting.

totally different from Vietnam.

We have a treaty.

And so if anybody wants to withdraw troops from Thailand, it's the United States.

I mean, her name was treated in Thailand.

What then happens to NATO?

What happens to all the other small countries in the world, including Israel, with which we have no treaty, but an implied commitment?

What happens to that?

But these are the parts that set us open.

But what it is we have here,

And very honestly and sincerely believes that America should withdraw from its world war.

Now, that doesn't set it in any sense of trying to do a level of charge.

It can't be backed up.

But he does believe his votes over the years have been that way.

Totally backed up by his votes.

This is another very clear indication of the difference between the two.

It's what he said about Chile and Gandhi and Castro as compared to what he said about Greece.

The Greek government then is hardly getting a bullet.

Doesn't get a bullet.

Because any intelligent person, I always say, withdrawing first that saying a little bit about Greece enormously repeals

But the saying we did about the Greeks is, first, it would give a body-building order, a mandate on the future of the empire.

The Greeks are the 19 divisions.

It's the southern anchor that would split off the Turks.

Second, from the standpoint of the United States in its future, it would deny us the owning base on which we have to have a viable policy in the Mediterranean and in the Mideast.

And that means not just Israel.

And then on the other side, if you want to take the consistency line, he says that what we want to do is improve our relations with Washington and improve our relations with Castro, despite the fact that they are

So you see .

The point is, here you have a very

My point is that here you have a very, it's kind of been pointed out, and this is the distinction, this is why the choice is so much greater, a great difference between any campaign since World War II.

our economy is changed with certain film.

I turn to situations compared to national events.

Here, there's a complete vulnerability, because not only is there the number of issues, which again, over $3 million, they say, well, why not just cut it back and put it together and put it in the health care and all the rest.

But the thing is that it's not there to find out.

they have spelled them all out, how many carriers you can get rid of, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

The main point is that the defense cut in that magnitude and the way this issue came up, the only way to arrive is this.

I'll tell you about the two polls.

One has been called in, the other has not yet been called in.

The Gallup poll put a very stupid question.

They said, do you favor cutting the defense budget and the state defendants?

I'm surprised because people want to cut it.

You said you want to cut the domestic budget.

Yes.

Another question was asked.

Do you favor cutting the defense budget by $30 billion?

If that results in the United States being second to the Soviet Union in its defense capabilities,

with a number of 73 to 27.

Why is this?

Django is a nun.

The American people know that if the United States ever gets in a position of a purely orientalist overview, that they are a danger, that there are policies in there.

And of course, we know, who run foreign policy, you can't have a foreign policy.

You can't tell the Europeans anything.

You can't demolish.

You can't tell the Japanese anything.

It's kind of honest, for that matter.

The Chinese wouldn't find us worth talking about unless we were equal to the Soviet.

So when you really come down to it, that is why our policy will say, oh yeah, we're reducing defenses.

But always on a mutual basis.

The sea is a totally different approach.

If you don't like what we've got in Europe, we say, no, future.

If you don't like what we've got in the Netherlands, we say, no, it must be future.

Or otherwise, we're going to keep it up.

There's been a lot of moving around in the solar economy.

his whole policy and his approach to welfare is to end people with welfare rules and ours is to get them off.

Ours is not to make welfare so attractive that people are attracted to stay off.

That's why you've got to keep that number in family assistance down around $2,500.

Even if you go to Rivercoff Road, too much.

And they'll sit in their families because it isn't the natural tendency for people to want to work despite the

But I guess, hold on, don't say that.

There are some who still have the view that cannabis would be a necessary and perfect animal and so forth.

And always striving for the best will do the best.

And it just has the opportunity to.

Not true.

Not my view.

That's the word.

And anyway, we have here a situation where, in this field, we have a totally different approach.

A totally different approach toward the private enterprise system.

In other words, here is a candidate who

programs that would raise taxes.

As a matter of fact, the $1,000 approach to the pollsters would require an increase in taxes for the middle-income people of very, very significant amounts.

And every other approach that has been floated out results in a very substantial increase in taxes.

So you've got the taxing, bigger government, more spending, more taxes against

limiting the power of Americans, reducing, holding spending, reducing the cost of it, and certainly resisting the tax increase.

It's basically different from philosophy.

And then you have the role of government.

The busing issue here, I think people would disagree with Archie, or I have various comments, whether it's forced integration of housing or forced integration of busing, I am very

to move toward that direction.

He had just the opposite view.

And so he said, if you have a choice, a choice which goes far beyond us, it goes toward the road of government in all the areas.

Now, having said all these things, then you have a choice.

Then you have a choice.

The positive things are there to be said.

They can be useful.

They can be used.

I think somebody suggested that one thing we might emphasize is that we have had, in the field of foreign policy, initiatives toward the Soviet Union and China.

We have had a very

We've had a revolutionary policy which, looking to the future generations, is going to make the world a safer place for migrants and for everybody to be there.

And it's something that should have been done something before.

It probably shouldn't have been.

But nevertheless, at least it should be done now.

We've soothed the moment.

Now, in the domestic field, we've had some successes.

But whether it's welfare reform, revenue sharing,

The many other fields that we're in, we find over and over again, we've been signing with Congress.

So we are quite out there.

That our programs in the domestic field are not basically status quo.

We don't want to get in a position of being somebody fighting for things as they are, because the people want change.

But ours is a program of responsible change, of moving this kind of,

moving the country forward.

And that, of course, doesn't get any votes.

It doesn't send any money.

But I think that you can point out that what you have here is also because we look at the institutions in America, the institution of government, the institution of political parties, the institution of the church, the institution of business, the institution, for that matter, of lawyer unions.

And we say, now, they're not perfect institutions.

But we believe that we should build

improve those institutions and not to tear them down and destroy them.

And his approach, as indicated by what he did in the Democratic Party in Miami, his attitude toward all the various institutions that he's been stressed, is to tear them down.

That's a very fundamental difference.

So having said these things, what we want all this to come out of, this is imperative where I am concerned,

as the most fundamental difference between two candidates in this section.

Foreign policy, defense policy, and domestic policy.

And second, we wanted to come out as one where the two candidates, and this goes away from the characterization and so forth, where the two candidates really honestly believed

He almost believes in these things .

And just as we readily admit that we just disagree.

If you put it on that way, you can make the point, which needs to be made, that we have on the other side a candidate who's been nominated, who represents a person, a rather

of its own party.

And that we, on the other hand, represent perhaps the trust that the majority of the country believes in its own party and independence.

These are some of the thoughts that I think we can deal with.

Now, as we get along, during the

probably.

And they'll have, of course, again, very, very great assistance from me.

They'll have me work a lot like them and give us very few breaks and so forth.

And as that happens, we, of course, have to respond.

The main point is to keep these differences constant with the people, and so that the people realize

That the choice is the one that they have to make.

So that they have to remember, too, the average person doesn't need to sit down and think about the one issue.

He gets an impression.

One man is made because the other man is trying to go to save him.

One man is too far left.

The other one might be too far right.

But whether the ball is right or left, it might

He was a little more comfortable with the law.

He was quite inspired by it.

One man was a little more reasonable.

The other was not reasonable.

They look at you.

They look at all that's around me.

And a lot of people will naturally make it appear that we're surrounded by big, fat, big businessmen.

They're asking for pay raises and so forth and so on, and exploiting the people.

But he also has a problem with that respect.

He will claim that.

We don't have to claim what he has to do.

It's people.

We will create, as they have partially created by their own convention, any pressure to where the people will say, what do we want?

We want to handle that kind of supporters in the White House.

And again, it's very, very difficult to handle because it

Ray, why don't you tell me about a question that you had during your trips there about some of these things?

Well, I think it was good for a good start.

And I think just supporting particular things, if you want to stress, I can pretty much help out.

You had a point in your memorandum, which you might also give a regard to.

Did you see the problem of how to handle the shifts in positions?

It's a very serious one.

You can do one of two things.

You could say, he shifted, but you don't know what he said.

Or you could say, he shifted, but you didn't know what he said.

He said what you believed the first time.

And he said that he didn't know where he stood.

In other words, a fellow that really doesn't know, he pops off.

And he said, in fact, I heard Goldwater, her dad, in fact, Goldwater would lob him out of here and there.

And everybody said, well, this guy shouldn't say to the president.

I mean, he hasn't thought it through.

He's deep enough.

He's profound enough.

Why don't you expand on that a little bit?

Because that's something that, if you can do that without hitting up the ground,

As far as the first impressions, and I think if you ever give us a round and say, well, really, this one really didn't mean that you know about the defense, but it changed the position.

It made it when you said you got $1,000 for every person in America, raise taxes for everybody with $1,000, and you changed that position.

It made it when you first said it was true.

One of the things that also helped drive that into the people's minds

customers.

And so that's the same problem that everybody has.

I don't think any president can want confidence that a guy's going to think before he acts, and especially when they're very...

I get the impression that on these rather serious matters in the government, it's just lobbying out things that have not been thought through as policy as it is, and then having to shift to change and so forth.

Then, ideally, what you do is...

to get across the idea that DSDs do represent beliefs.

They're also very sloppy proposals that he loved, and that he had to retract.

So the idea that you picture him as an instinctive radical who was not even very careful about his radicalism, and had to consider that character.

I think it was some American

constantly hammering at his original position so that he didn't make him be the one who has to say, I've changed.

Well, the time, as time goes on, .

particularly what I mentioned, what I call the whole issue of national security that covers foreign policy.

We don't have such a

and the situation with regard to domestic policy, the fundamental difference with regard to what we want in the future of the American economy wasn't going to be at the role of government.

And in his case, as the so-called recovery market has indicated, it scares people.

It scares people.

It may be that a great number of Americans would like to have the base of our economy

change, they may want redistribution as well.

And they may want a system of that sort.

But the point is, we've got to give them a chance to make that choice.

And we have an interesting, interesting answer in that matter.

Taking the original proposal before it was sort of changed.

But you know, the original proposal provided for

pay $1,000 for every person in the country, and that it was to be paid for by increasing taxes only for those receiving $12,000 or more.

That's not a big hole in it.

You can't get it from that.

But nevertheless, in terms of politics, it's very clever because the median income is only $10,000.

There's a lot more people earning less than $12,000 than over $12,000 in the United States today.

I can't tell you what the answer was on that.

72% of the people said no.

I hear, let's put it strictly, that's it.

The Secretary of the Government has recommended a program to provide, the government will provide $1,000 for every man, woman, child, and parent.

This program is to be financed by an increase in taxes only

All those who received $12,000 a year or 72% of the year, people said, no.

Surprised.

Probably what motivates them there is that when you get down to the blue collars, when you get to the guy where the fellow currently lives, he may hope that he is mundane.

But deep down, there's probably sort of a gut reaction.

There's a tree that has something wrong with this.

And also, there's this.

I was very much surprised.

People voting for their interests, you walk into a loser.

You're going to get $1,000 and no more attention.

As expected, the group thought that all that money was going to be some, but they don't seem to have a sense of fair play.

Right.

It might be.

But they just don't think it's right.

And I've heard some people out there have been in crime.

I see a lot of people earning less than 12.

First, they don't want to be.

The other thing is, you've got a lot of people in the 7, 8, even as low as 6, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, all that area.

who are out through the country, who are, they're people, they're proud people.

They are on welfare.

They don't want to think that the government should give them a hand out.

They wouldn't take it.

So a lot of the work ethic, they call us to that.

They tell me, here's what we're told.

There's a lot of brothers and sisters who are in more than 12.

It splits the family up.

There seems to be a growing consensus that raises against

that you're very cross on.

And I raise the question, there are two issues here that we're still running as.

One is Congress, a Democratic Congress.

And the other is the Democratic conditions left in 68, 1668.

And how do you play those two into the earth?

First, as far as the Congress is concerned, that is one of them I serve.

I'm not going to use too much of it.

commonly, by my instructions, is doing is enlisting Democrats only for the presidency.

I'd like to say this.

If we do well at the presidential level, we'll do very well at the congressional, senatorial level, because people don't know that very much about smoothing things.

He knows that, too.

But nevertheless, his ability to get many loyal

that we said, we're out to elect a Republican slate on and on and on.

So I would say, running against the Congress, you would say, rather than leave them, you would say, and I would talk about the obstructions in the Congress, rather than the Democratic Congress.

I just want the word Democratic totally struck out.

Everything that's written to serve me, for me, or anybody else, it should never appear.

The word Democratic, if you can only use it when he can.

I told McGregor, he's not using it.

My great-great-grandfather was a great voter of the Democrats.

That's exactly the wrong thing to say, because at that executive council, there's not one Republican on it, except on Hutch.

And he hasn't been around any Republican on that for many years.

So you've never used the term, but you've raised a very good point.

Now, with regard to the previous administration, I would do it more in terms, I never say the Democratic administration, but I would also always do it in terms of two previous administrations.

See, you've got to remember, Vietnam started with Kennedy and Johnson.

The first 35,000, how many people?

You've got to be careful not to put it in terms of the Johnson Man.

We're going to have a Johnson Man for us the way we're going to have our leaders, and Jackson Man, and Humphrey Man.

We'll have Campbell, for example, Humphrey shot, we'll have John Johnson, Jackson shot, we'll have George Christian, Johnson.

So with this in mind, you can't be in a position of kicking them.

And as you know, I've been extremely careful about it.

I've always said it.

I've always started by saying, here's what we found when we came here.

But I'd have to go on and say, for example, I never want to see anything, anything ripped off this Memorial War.

It's a line the State Department has been following two hours as well.

They say, well, this

But now that we're in it, we'd like to do the best we can for the bad thing.

You mustn't give away the moral ground.

You can't do it.

First, I don't believe in myself.

I have grave, grave reservations about how it was conducted and how deeply we became involved and failed to use our power more decisively in a very much earlier time.

But that's why I'm on the bridge.

The moment that you gave away the moral ground regarding the war, then I was right about that.

The reason we went, the reason we went, whether any killing is Marvel is a very debatable question.

It was rather interesting to me how a great deal has been made out of the fact that

And the question was, I once talked to Eisenhower about this.

Well, we arrived at Quantico in 1953.

And of course, as you know, he had some German background himself.

And he was reminiscing about the war and about that trade.

I said, well, what was the main thing that he looked for?

He had to pick one single acronym for the lieutenant.

In other words, .

He said he thought of that.

He could have said hard work, and he could have said intelligence, and he could have said loyalty, and all that.

He said selflessness.

He said it was a crime.

He said it was a terrible thing to do and all that sort of thing.

He said you had to weigh that against the potential of Indian Americans dying and also enormous devastation to Japan.

But then came the critical point.

He said, for example, he said

the most immoral thing that we possibly did was the indiscriminate bombing of German cities.

What happened to Dresden?

Beautiful little city.

I stood in what was left of the Krupp Gap, under the watch tower, and I looked over Essendon in 1947.

Unbelievable.

The atomic bomb couldn't have done it any more.

Just like that.

I was in Berlin.

Down.

You know.

We didn't.

We killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

We did.

Is it immoral?

If you were to ask almost anyone, and so are our pilots, they'd say, well, that wasn't immoral.

Why?

And you get to look.

And as Eisenhower said, the question is, it would have been, his insurance, it would have been more immoral to allow Hitler to nominate Europe.

Is it immoral?

And so the question of Vietnam to get down to here, where there is no deliberate indiscriminate bombing.

There's nothing there.

It's only the military targets and so forth and so on.

But anyway, it's a long, dreary, miserable war.

It's so beautiful.

But once you make the determination, the people of South Vietnam prefer not to have a communist government to oppose your continent, then the question is,

After you move out, after they have been committed to you, and then left, as you pointed out in your report, then everybody, the lowest figure, his maker, would get it.

Because when they took over in North Vietnam in 1956, they took over in that time.

And 800,000 came south.

And the figures run any place from 100,000 to 500,000 were either killed or starved in the north, as a result.

Now, in South Vietnam, where the fighting now is that none of the South Vietnamese, the Irish, but what are they going to do?

Of course, they're going to come.

They're going to give it to them.

And that's the way it'll be.

troops that tied us in contact, and some off shore, until we got our prisoners.

But if we didn't get out, then what do you do?

Suppose we didn't get out.

Where do you go land?

Because by that time, the South Vietnamese aren't going to let you in.

It's a dead loser, of course.

But nevertheless, getting back to the morality and the moral of the moral argument, if I didn't get to the point that either of you

Don't draw the sword.

Or if you do, it must work.

Because in this case, you have to draw what you feel is a just cause.

And if in this instance, where our own self-interest was not involved, although I think you can make a pretty good case that what happened some long stretch ago is not effective.

Nevertheless, having made it, having done that,

could only have the effect of an enormously ghastly destruction of human life itself, the imposition of the non-destruction of the whole country.

But all the repercussions that that may have on are those who are looking to see what the United States

But getting back to this question, I would not say that, I think what we should say, I would put it in more positive terms, and everybody will get the message.

I would put it in terms, when this administration came in, here were the problems that we inherited.

We inherited a war of 550,000 Americans.

The cash was running as high as 300, actually, so it's higher than we

They were 10 of 68, with draft at a rate of $35,000, whatever it was, et cetera, et cetera.

We wound down the war, and so forth.

And also, then, in a foreign policy area, with no communication with the Chinese or the contracting position, the Soviet would do so much with arms.

In an arms race, the Soviet Union would, them racing and us not racing, all in one line.

We don't think that's what SALT does, of course.

We stopped then, where we're not doing anything.

And then in the economic field, the fiscal policy, inflation, all the fires, inflation, stove.

And then we got the employment, of course, dependent in great part to a $30 million

crime, drugs, narcotics, et cetera, going up.

Now we finally, we haven't brought it down to nothing.

But at least we have turned the tide.

Our colleagues will be around here this morning.

We were losing the battle against trying to fight the neighbor's drugs.

and turn it around.

And of course, the whole area of crime, permissiveness is important.

But I think it's very important to say that not the Johnson administration, I don't want to use the Johnson administration, the Kennedy administration.

I should keep away from that.

And the Democratic administrations.

This is not, I think this is important.

These issues that I can mention are too important to be discussed.

these issues transcend the party lines, they transcend the lines of difference that we may have in region against region and so forth and so on.

And so I think that many of the playing, not quite as strong, not the way that our field of attention, I don't want to mention, but it's, I have found, because this is my public matter,

All of the .

I never used the term the Democratic administration.

I had referred to them by name at times, but not this time, this time, because we had too many Johnson members.

And so we don't like that.

And also, it's just a low blow anyway.

I mean, Johnson has suffered through this thing.

And he's got whatever happens, he's got Warren speaking, and our success will be in on anybody else.

He is a man who is obsessed about his place in this country, and I don't know.

We've got this.

Now, we say, okay, let me say one other thing.

Another thing I think is not a bad point to make is this whole business of dividing America.

What he's doing here, and I think it's unfortunate, I got this set up again, right, to mention.

He's setting the

the North against the South.

And they don't campaign the South.

And we're campaigning the whole country.

We are a party of national liberty, of national liberty.

He said, labor leaders.

I guess for him, he's by his tax and various institutions.

He said, the old against the young.

He said, the black or the non-white against the white.

He said, the poor against the rich.

the employer against the employee.

You know, it's a classic kind of campaign where you say, well, Roosevelt did all that.

To a certain extent, that's how he built the old coalition.

Except in his case, he didn't have the labor direction.

And in his case, he didn't.

He, of course, maybe had his peace in the South.

Those were the two major differences among others.

But in our case,

We are not making a second kind of appeal to the young.

We're for young people.

We believe in our programs, and they're just what it is.

They will play a very, very role in our convention, our campaign, and our administration as we do at the present time.

But this isn't a question of young person.

We're not a young person.

We're not putting the South versus the North.

doesn't so far.

I think, on the contrary, I know nothing that creates more racial tension than forced immigration and poor health education and housing for that matter.

You have people I've known in New York well and believe in, and here particularly in the Jewish areas of New York, that community.

Never have we had a more tolerant group in America than that group.

And now, a lot of them are highly

irritated about the reason why, because it was just rubbing them together that way.

I'm saying it's true here.

Blue collar people were told most of the Italians were dressed in places like Detroit and so forth.

So I think this idea, whether you could work something out there,

They have divided their party.

That's a pretty good indication.

If you're going to unite somebody, you've got to start by uniting your party.

They have divided, first, their traditional support worker.

They divided the country, North versus South.

I think you can make a pretty good, we need to bring this, bring Americans together, work together for us, and get away from it.

Oh, God.

That has been figured out by this whole election.

I hope that...

But do you remember, it was the PR policy.

Wonderful guy.

But anyway, it's stupid.

It's stupid for Democrats.

Because they want to say it's democratic.

They say it's a good word, Democrats.

It's just stupid.

And the main thing is, democratic shouldn't be used at all.

This time, the appeal is going to get across the body.

You're going to have a lot of squeals about that.

Your southern Republicans are going to go right up the wall.

They see this as a chance to win.

But they've got to be bright enough to understand that if you win by a significant amount, they're going to dislike you.

And if you don't win, they're going to go ahead.

I mean, look at Johnson.

Johnson, very cleverly, if you followed his campaign in 1964, he had Republicans for Johnson.

You remember, it was an under-appointed group.

And he was very careful.

not to attack the Republicans.

Very darn terrible.

Why?

Because he wanted to win himself and win big.

But what happened was that when Johnson won in 64, it was inevitable, absolutely inevitable, that he would carry the House of Senate with him.

Of course, he already had it.

But after 62, he

He brought, instead of 180, Republicans had gotten out to about 146 or 150.

And the number of the Senate got down to 32.

The number of governors got down to 14.

That's what happened.

Or 60.

And it was inevitable.

And it wasn't because Johnson was attacking Republicans.

He stayed miles away from them.

Because he's a pretty selfish pro.

Now, in this instance,

The campaign committee's down the line, sure.

They've got a campaign for Republicans, for the House Republicans, for the Senate.

We expect them to campaign hard.

And where it serves their interest, it must be party.

But as far as we're concerned, what we can best do is to get people to think in terms of a national tie.

And they go, because take your swishers.

Take your swishers.

If you ever get a kid in that top corner,

I mean, it's just too darn hard for us.

But they do in a lot of states, California, it's easy to know that.

It's very hard, and we are harder than any kind of .

And then also, there's just a tendency for people to vote for the department.

If we ever got in the business of making this a Democrat versus Republican, then we're going to drive confidence in people right off the ball.

And so we've got to avoid it.

I think we're going to do the same thing.

Here's the one thing.

This is a broader base.

And I absolutely love what he was talking about.

The convention is where there would be more intolerance than ever had afterwards.

And so they've got to.

Now, that's because they will be expected that we've got to have elephants around.

And people wear the republic and the elephants and the calisthenics.

We expect that as part of the party system.

People will not resent it.

But blatant partisan group.

Republican versus Democrat won't do.

What they need to do is to talk about this administration, what it has done, that we have a lot left to do, that for the field of foreign policy, we've had a great beginning, and now we have a chance to realize all these things.

And then in the field of domestic policy, of course, we need more help from the Congress.

And there you can get some people to elect a Congress that will support the president.

Well, for example, would anybody in their right mind put out and support the opponent of George Mayhawk in Texas if he was interested in the success of this administration?

Deeply out of his contact line.

Would anybody, for example, support title?

Would anybody, for example, support the opponent of John McLaughlin in Arkansas?

If they do, I would kill them.

Because we want McLaughlin.

We need him.

And he would be better than any Republican.

There would be another Republican younger and so forth.

McLaughlin is a solid opponent.

able guy who has supported us on every mode of significance in the foreign policy and national security market.

And why in the world would we oppose it?

It doesn't make sense.

He's my share of the America.

And so again, that's my point.

And I think the convention is going to be a problem there.

And some people, just as a matter of health,

and just just constantly just constantly reiterating

that I'm expected before her to talk about this pretty serious historic contest involving the African-American Party.

But I'm not going to throw that all away, because we've got to decide what these great people say.

One very effective speech device, which I've used on occasion for years, is simply to ask an audience, I would use it now, but others do it.

Let me talk about some of the major problems we have.

Let me present questions.

How would you expand these questions?

Write them online.

Three, four, five, six.

And then, of course, prove your point.

Prove your case better.

Get people thinking issues.

And then, if they do that, they will think in terms of the other fellow being

He didn't quite say those things, but you know,

But the thing here is, you see, God has said many things that are quite interesting.

I don't know, I don't know.

There was a letter that was grossed or something.

I mean, your staff normally just do a mistake.

I mean, you got it.

You got to say, well, that's it.

But I think that's going to be a very,

I don't know about that, but I mean, sometimes I'm trying to think of other ways to say that, because it's extreme.

The main thing is that he doesn't look or sound like people who didn't write about him.

That's right.

So it just doesn't stick.

Actually, I read it all.

You mentioned somebody whose hair is going, you know, red and gray.

You see, actually, he basically is a very low...

low-profile, and frankly, to many people, very, very dull kind of person.

A radical is not dull.

A media is going to be dull, except when he read his speech.

He just got out a letter, and everybody had their pencils out.

They were trying to see what he'd drop next.

But in this case, as you know, but extremely, his extreme position, the extremist tag,

Basically, you're never really, that's what they're, you know, he's an extremist.

You know, an extremist to the right.

Well, this is all, in a sense, really is.

But I think I would say, I kind of like him always to put it in terms, which we should accept the same thing.

He is just a sincere extremist.

He's very, he believes it.

I would always, I'd always give that.

And you see, you're always going to turn the things that they use against us.

And they're going to say, well,

about his people who know him, I understand, that he just sincerely believes in these things, the policies that are basically isolations, the policies of attorney, redistribution of wealth.

I found the word naïve sometimes.

Naïve, it consists of sincerity and loneliness.

He's a well-meaning, well-intentioned, sincere article.

With all the other areas of the arrogance, his self-righteousness, I have to say.

But it's the, I haven't seen it.

That's the thing Henry tells me.

He knows it incredibly well.

I think the kind of the ideology that you can take as an ideologue, I think also has very much to do with it.

You can, of course, as the line of the candidate, which is really true, which I have, in the farmers, in the blue collar, in the silent majority, against the candidate in the right of the chief.

And been very good recently.

But, oh yeah, there are a few people who are from Georgetown.

But I met the other one.

The other one is a son of a bitch, yeah.

And he's a... Those are things, though, that have to be very carefully done so that you don't...

But I think what we're really trying to do is get across the truth.

particularly when you're dealing with the media that will be watching, or the microservices, or anything that's too long, unless it goes to a fundamental truth.

Now the truth is he is an extremist.

He is an isolationist.

He is a redistributor of violence.

He is basically a believer in remissiveness.

You know, he believes that.

He believes in the act of goodness.

I believe they're useful to us, that we can't reform them.

In other words, we are for reform, and he's for destruction.

We replace them.

Reform, and there may be something in there.

We're the reforming institutions.

I mean, starting with that, we have the primary responsibility.

But he, and particularly his supporters, are for destroying them and paying them over.

the rest of what happened.

They weren't reformed.

They were expelled, you know, across town.

That's it.

That's a lie that you heard.

There comes the problem.

Yes, turn it around.

I don't know what you're talking about.

There's a good, I'll tell you one group that

are the laborers.

And usually, they're meeting talk, or Fitzsimmons, or Peter Grant, or us.

Or for that, the same type of talk.

And there is some.

These guys, I don't know what they can say.

They're going to care.

The fact is that they have a way of cutting to the heart attacks in ways that we don't.

I say they do this because they're very close to the river.

And they like to hurt people by the river.

But we, this idea of the intellectual elite and all that sort of thing, I'm very, very afraid of that.

Let him have it.

Let him do it.

Let him have it.

In other words, we'll take the teamsters and he can take them to the stadium.

That's his job, taking the teamsters.

And I don't hear anything.

I had one other thought about that.

That's fine.

Thank you.

President, you've told us what you think the impact of meetings and decisions, the decision of the NFL board means for us.

You think if he unleashes code for the local candidates, that this will have a far-reaching effect on them?

What does he do?

What does the city agree means?

First, he denies through the government's national campaign what it may mean for funds.

Now, whether he can get funded adequately or not, I don't know what that means for the city.

But assuming that he can get funded, he's going to have to work for it.

Now, one of the most difficult things for a candidate to do every now and then is to have to spend any time for funds.

And I don't think that now, unless he's got some angels around that I don't know about,

has some problems there.

A second area, another reason that he has some problems with Montessori is that he has less enthusiastic support from where most of the current candidates usually have just had an open satchel, and that's from the Jewish community.

Because the IOC doesn't have some of them, but we've got a lot on the money side.

And so I would think that the major low to him, a major part of the low

This is true also of tinctures.

It means nothing to us.

We don't need the money.

They will spend and pay.

The tinctures pay.

The NFL, CIO, you start building trades, most of which we do get at the very end.

What it does mean is that instead of the usual 30% to 35% of labor, which we always get, we always get that back.

or that many that say they don't like what our leaders are for anyway.

It means that we might go to 40% to 45%.

We go to 50%.

See, the leaders don't have that much trouble.

But let's put it this way.

A labor leader coming out against us doesn't hurt us that much, because they aren't going to affect us every time.

A labor leader coming out

So now, they will be concentrating on the races for the houses.

But if they consecrated racism for the House and the Senate, you can also figure that a number of those people who were candid for the House and the Senate may have been away from the governor.

That's another factor that will become more evident as you go on.

It was one thing which just killed the water.

Killed it.

I can't make the conference in 36 states in 1964.

I had a hell of a time ever fighting a Republican.

Stay away.

So now, he's going to have that problem.

And district after district will come to this country, state after state.

There will be candidates.

Well, they may say they'll be endorsed, and they're going to take them.

They will find new soldiers, finding .

That's way out of that box.

I think the labor thing is a, it has another benefit for us that is very significant.

It's just a good not to have all the leaders of organized labor against us because it builds up the image of the fact that we're for business and against the working man.

When you've got these and those guys, I don't care whether he's the Fitzsons or Peter Brennan or a Teddy Gleason or a Jesse Callum

My album is on television the rest of the time.

I like this guy.

That helps, because it gets us.

That's something we've never had before, actually, at the top level.

And those are the only guys who get off the tube.

So it will help us in some.

But only in that magnitude.

They don't deliver 100%.

They never could with the other side.

But as I say, a later in regards to them,

I think the main line is that you get the debate done.

I think the main line is that you get the very, very good point yesterday.

The negotiations for policy.

Well, that's part of it.

That's the main reason, of course.

And that's just a quick thought.

You have, of course, a lot of interesting things.

You're always for debate when you're out here.

But our line is to me that if that was the case in 64,

government voted that Johnson should not debate.

It is ten times the pace of the day when we are engaged in the most sensitive negotiations, not only in Vietnam, but in China and Russia and so forth, in which the incumbent president, for the interest of the country, simply wouldn't be served by his government.

Now, you can act in a press conference.

You can say, I'm just not going to talk about

The other thing that I think is, and here's a chance that it comes to a close point, but I didn't see that we would have the prayers that you mentioned.

That is, you don't need debates this year because the differences between these two candidates are so broad and so clear, you don't need to base your point on them.

I think that is the key point.

That is quite true.

With Kennedy and me, the differences are what matters and means.

But here, these two candidates, I'd say, totally disagree on the major issues.

There's no reason to debate on them.

One's going to present his views, and the other's going to have them.

That's all there is to it.

I mean, the purpose of the debate is to see, you know, develop the differences.

We're not the media's kind of...

Well, I've got to give you your number letter.

Here's your pen.

These are the new copies, I suppose.

I'm not sure that he has them.

I've got your serial number.

There you go.

That's great.

That's what's coming.

Well, we appreciate all your hard work.

We appreciate .

Very, very, very first never democratic republic, never personal.

Maine is very positive on the issues, very positive.

I mean, of course, when they get the Q&A,

Never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never,

I don't want that to just get a little bit, you know, I'm just not doing that.

But we're doing it.

So what's the time?

Oh, sure.

Well, give me my differences.

never get them in a position where they have to say, well, let me change the $1,000.

Maybe he doesn't mean about the defense cuts and all that sort of thing.

I would put it in very general terms so that it will stand up and they won't have to debate the technical part with that.

But it's a very clear choice that one can, I think, very honestly believe is cutting defenses in a way that would put us in line.

So that's the only way to make a defense.

ever made in terms of cutting defenses for the purpose of jobs and the rest of it.

Larry can do that.

He goes to McAllen Brothers, which has one of the great enclosures.

Thank you.

I told you I couldn't wait.

I know.

Thank you.