Conversation 792-001

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

and say, oh my.

I think the responsible members of the Democratic Party will be turned off by this kind of action.

I'm not trying to characterize Senator Scanty.

As a matter of fact, I don't .

I think he deeply believes in a number

Mr. President, one of those issues is Vietnam.

Do you see any possibility of a negotiated settlement before the election?

The settlement will come just as soon as we can possibly get a settlement, which is right.

Right.

South Vietnamese and North Vietnamese.

Please, for us,

I should emphasize, however, that under no circumstances will the timing of the settlement

For example, the possible negotiation of a ceasefire, the possible negotiation of unilateral action regarding the bombing of home.

Under no circumstances will such action be affected by the fact that there is unilateral action.

I simply say, having seen what happened then, we're not going to make that mistake now.

The election, I, indeed, will not emphasize, will not end with

Now, second, because I know this subject has been discussed by a number of you, and it should be in the commentary and in the reports, the negotiations at this time, as you know, have been in the private channel very extensive.

We have agreed that neither side will discuss the content of the brochure.

I will not discuss it.

It's one way or another.

I will only say that...

will not succeed and I cannot, will not predict when they will succeed but I will say that any comment on my part with regard to how the negotiations are going could only have a detrimental effect on the goal that we are seeking that is as early as possible a negotiated settlement

There are those who believe that they are motivated to understand the 1968

into a bombing hall before the election was adopted.

Defeating me was more in their interest than electing my opponent.

I do not claim that that was the case.

I must say that both Senator Humphrey and I thought the election was quite responsible for that election and reduced the comment on what were then the only preliminary negotiations recognizing that.

Any comment by one who might be present might jeopardize the success of the negotiations.

Now, as far as noise, putting their eggs in that basket, that only indicates that the American political scene is one no one can predict.

The polls say, despite some indications on our side,

There are many in this country and many abroad who think there's a chance the other side, under those circumstances, they may obviously conclude, with some justification, that my insistence that we will never re-consult, if we propose a common discovery, directly or indirectly, and seek to solve it now, has prepared

We are talking.

If we have the opportunity, we will continue to talk before this election.

And we will try to convince them that the way we plan the election is not the same.

Mr. President, there are those of us who are beginning to think that bombing is really serving a useful purpose.

I understand that you think that.

What purpose is bombing now serving a useful purpose?

had not just resulted in a settlement in view of the fact that there's still some degree of military activity in the South.

Well, I think Mr.

Kills is correct.

Mr. Lee, the real estate, the bond, the claim, and the certain old use of purpose are not certainly on its own purpose.

Those same critics, however, as I pointed out, the same commitment they have since the settlement in view on May the 1st, that weekend,

all regional, including the South Vietnam, the Times, Newsweek, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the three-quarter network commentators, and I'm referring, of course, to the British and Chinese reporters, who all, in varying degrees, wrote and spoke

I took that action of mining and bombing.

The same critics predicted that some of them, some even went so far as to say we were risking world war three.

Those predictions could be wrong.

Now these same critics say that the bombing and mining was not necessary.

It has accomplished no purpose and is not necessary to continue.

Well I would say based on their

I would only say the bombing and the mining was essential to turn around what was a potentially disastrous situation in South Vietnam.

The back of the enemy defenses had broken.

They hold no provincial capitals now at all.

And this could not have been accomplished without the mining and the bombing.

And the mining and the bombing will continue, of course, until we get some

I applied to have such allegations of

and that particularly some of the wheat growers in the southwestern part of the country who sell their wheat early, usually in order to get a precinct, were left holding the bag when they put it down.

If they had the advanced information, there was going to be a deal.

They could make some amount.

If there was any impropriety, if there was any illegality, we want to know.

And the way to find out is to put

the best investigative agency in the world for the work of finding out.

As soon as their investigation is completed, we want to do as quickly as we can.

It will be made available to the secretary, and people will take whatever action they need to give if there is a rebellion or a crime.

And I'll let me turn, if I could, and please be allowed to repeat.

The other side of it could also come to my attention.

I'd rather be moved by some of the comments

And I said, well, you acted like a capitalist.

But in any event, it might be because you didn't tell us that your brain failure was the greatest one.

And of course his response was, well, what would you have done?

He said, we knew we had it.

The first that we've seen cost us $100,000, $10,000, that you know of.

Payments, farm payments.

That's what we got.

Farmers got $1 billion more farming now.

There were thousands of jobs created, including jobs in America, working on the farm.

Now, in addition, the wheat deal, this one, the one that we've made with the Chinese, the one that we've made with the Japanese, the grain, and so forth and so on, have had a very significant effect in improving our balance of trade, meaning our balance of pay and position.

And as far as the terms are concerned,

When we went in, I negotiated this directly after a lot of memory work.

They wanted 10 years at 2%, and they finally took 3 years at over 6%.

Now, they got something they needed.

They had a truck full of crap, and they needed it so we could see more people.

But it was also good for us.

Despite that, however, we certainly

no one would have gotten any inside information to make a profit out of it, which was illegal or improper.

And if that did happen, we're going to find out what exactly it does.

Mr. President, do you agree with Secretary Buss that if he had known that one of his aides was going to join the grain dealer, that he would not have taken him along and negotiated the Russian deal?

Well, I have very great respect for Secretary Buss' judgment on this matter.

The only

It was only then that we were sure.

Many, of course, are now wondering what's going to happen to the trade agreement.

I can't tell you whether there will be one or when.

I think there will be one.

When we negotiate in this economic field, as is the case when we negotiate in the field of arms control, it is tough bargaining up and down the line.

And until we get it nailed down, we are not sure that we're going to get it.

In this instance, while the President did take a trip to the Soviet Union, he certainly, I think, would have been very obliged to rely

on the possibility there was going to be a deal until 1 May.

If he did rely on it, he probably did win.

He probably enlisted since it came out well.

He could have come out the other way.

Mr. President, on the question of property taxes, sir, Mr. Ehrlichman has said that the administration's long-term goal is to reduce property taxes by 50%, which would mean about $16 billion from the federal government, presumably,

two states to make up for the property tax loss.

How do we find that $16 billion without having to increase other taxes?

We can't do it all at once.

We have to begin with that.

As Mr. Erlich has said, that is why we have set as a goal that reduction.

Now, let me indicate to you the priorities that I see involved with regard to the property tax relief.

We have to start flirting with the elements.

When I met with Mr. Merriam, who you know is a professional advisor in intergovernmental relations, he gave me some statistics, which to me were terribly impressive.

There are one million retired people in this country who have income of less than $2,000 a year, and who on the end pay a property tax of 33 and a third percent of that income

Now that is fiscally wrong, morally wrong, and certainly tax wrong.

And we must begin by lifting that burden for most people who have worked all their lives, are now retired on what is basically an adequate amount, and are paying a third of their taxes for property taxes, which then basically shows in the schools.

I have discussed this matter not only with Mary,

uh shelters and i had to be noted a number of meetings on this in the past few weeks uh we hope to have uh which we can present uh at an early date i uh i cannot indicate to you what that date will be but i will say that it's one we are going forward to the next time it's a plan that will relieve what will start down the road

reducing the burden of property taxes.

The first priority will be to reduce the burden of property taxes on the elderly.

And second, whatever step we take, one condition is it must not require any increase in other taxes.

And we think we've gone far enough to do that.

Mr. President, don't you think that your administration and the public would be served considerably and the community and the audience would be treated better if you people would come through and make a clean address about what you were trying to get done in Hawaii?

One thing that's always puzzling me about it is why anybody would try to get in an OIC.

See, that decision hasn't been made at lower levels.

I had no knowledge of it.

Well, surely you know math, sir.

Yes, ma'am.

I certainly feel that

Under the circumstances that we've got to look at what has happened and to put the matter in perspective.

Now, when we talk about it, please rest.

Let's look at what has happened.

The FBI assigned 133 agents to this investigation.

It followed out 1,800 leads.

It conducted 1,500 interviews.

I conducted the investigation for this investigation.

of this country was basically a Sunday school exercise compared to the amount of effort that was put into this.

I agreed with the amount of effort that was put into it.

I wanted every lead carried out to the end because I wanted to be sure that no men or women in a position made the responsibility to committee the election had anything to do

this kind of reprehensible activity.

Now, the grand jury is handed down indictments.

The indictments include who were with the committee on the law of re-election.

One who refused to cooperate and another who was apprehended.

And under these circumstances, the grand jury now has acted.

It is now time to have the judicial process go forward and for the evidence to be presented.

I would say, finally, with regard to commenting on any of those who have been indicted, with regard to, say, anything about the judicial process, I'm going to follow the advice which I appreciate the members of the trust for.

My constant and my trust will always continue to be very responsible critics.

I stepped into one on that, if you recall,

made an inadvertently comment in Denver about an individual who had been indicted in California in a mansion case.

I was vigorously criticized for making any comment on the case.

So, of course, I wouldn't.

I know you'd want me to follow the same single statement.

When are you going to begin an intensive campaign?

I repeat the

until the Congress adjourns, my primary responsibility is to stay here.

And particularly to stay here to fight the battle against bigger spending over greater taxes.

I made a commitment, and I make it here again today.

There will be no tax increase in 1973.

However, there is one problem.

presidential tax increase.

But we need the cooperation of the Congress.

And there could be a congressional tax increase.

If the Congress, for example, does not approve the $250,000 ceiling review request, that is going to make the possible chances of avoiding a tax increase more difficult.

It does not make it impossible, however, because we have a second line to defend.

If the Congress, as it appears like,

continues to pass bills that substantially exceed the budget that already is at the highest limits that our tax income will take on, if the Congress continues to pass bills that send in the President's debt to exceed that budget, the Congress will have voted for a tax increase.

However, I still haven't on what that's going to be.

And my own prediction is that

Democrats in the House, and that even though the Congress will probably send to my desk in the next two or three weeks a number of bills that will substantially exceed the budget, and it would result in a congressional tax increase, I think my vetoes of those bills will be sustained, and that that will make it possible for me to keep my contention for no tax increase.

Now, that shows one of the reasons why it's important for me to stay on the job here in Washington

Congress adjourned until that contrary, during the danger of an tax increase caused by congressional overspending, is amended immediately.

Now, once the Congress leaves, or what I see that as passing, then I can make plans to go into various parts of the country.

In the meantime, I'm going to have to limit my travel, as I've indicated, to a

If I had to choose between all of the spectaculars of a campaign, which I've been to virtually all my life, every two years,

Our goal is to

I know that the political questions are .

The problem with a candidate who is ahead in the polls.

I like this kind of problem better.

The problem of a candidate who is ahead in the polls and his organization is a very significant one in this respect.

Now, what we need above everything else is a big vote.

And in order to get a big vote, it means that people have to be sitting in the vote.

That's one of the reasons that going to the country and participating will help get that big vote out.

And when the time comes, that's when we'll go to the country, you know, to get the vote out.

With the candidate who is behind,

I'm going to give you all the posters, and the posters always remember what they predicted right and what they predicted wrong.

This doesn't prove anything.

The margins are up in the 60-40 range.

On the fringe, it's always quite soft either way.

But in 1964, I was interested to find that Gallup never had Goldwater in Oregon.

before the election showed Goldwater at 32%, he got 39%.

Why?

The Goldwater people voted.

Many of the Johnson people voted against May.

We, of course, have the same problem.

Of course, Johnson still won.

What I'm simply suggesting is, as far as protection is concerned, I told all of our people, don't rely on the polls.

Remember that the candidate who was behind will tend to get into it.

I'll tell you not to get out.

get our vote out and try to win as big a popular vote as we can and as big a left vote as we can.

The purpose is not to make the other candidates look bad, but the purpose is to get what I have described as the new American majority, in which Republicans, Democrats, and Independents join together in supporting

not a party, or not an individual, but supporting the record of the past four years, the positions, which are very clear-cut that I have taken on the great issues, and thereby giving us the opportunity to continue our support.

Mr. President, as the election day comes to an end, we will also be criticized

Isolating yourself, not making yourself available.

Hi.

Question.

Hi.

how we avoid a tax increase.

I know that Mr. Ehrlichman has written on my view, and Mr. Schultz has, and a number of others.

I tried to cover it here briefly this morning, but I can't do it yet today.

I completed a speech that I made on the Sunday, and while I can't get away this weekend, I'd like to deliver it by nationwide radio, nationwide radio on Saturday night.

Then it's in the writing press.

You will have a few times on your paper.

You can ask a question to the public.

and it's one that requires hard work.

I recall it's an LA Mass Dimension III press conference, and I think I told you once that the writing of the back of the play wasn't as good as it is now.

And I recall the speech record.

Now I hated to write a speech,

Yes, I used to.

But this is how I do it.

I consider it necessary.

Let me go through the pressure.

Because the writing of the speech disciplines my mind.

It makes me think through the issue.

And I must say the preparation is most confident.

considered a possibility to use in that format.

Maybe not just here, maybe in other places as well.

And we don't know what we would expect.

Mr. President, now that the welfare reform appears to be dead or at least gone, that would

I'm wondering, after all this, whether you still support the principle implicit in H.R.

1 of minimum income assistance for poor families, and whether you would push for that principle, and suggest that both families, and as far as the 12-day reform is concerned, that is not completed, it's action, it's iteration.

The problem

to start over again.

One point, however, that I want to emphasize in regard to the welfare reform.

The program that we have presented for welfare reform, with its strong work requirements, and with its assistance to the working poor, with the purpose of providing a bridge around, again, an incentive to get all the welfare workers to work, from a fiscal standpoint,

I would oppose any program that would add more people to the welfare rolls, millions more, as would all three of the programs advocated by our opponents, whichever one you want to pick.

I would oppose any program that would add more to the welfare

and not raising the ante so that people are encouraged to go on it.

So I would take H.R.

1.

I would very greatly strengthen the work requirement.

And if the Senate and the House, if there is possible now, not like, not certain, not hope, not certain, fails to act, we'll grapple with it in the new term and try to get the support for it.

Thank you, Mr. President.

He wanted to catch up on something.

And that is problematic, as I understand it.

If it is not passed, I wonder if it is due to the support of the Constitutional Amendment.

I have indicated that the first time against Spock was, of course, one of those clear-cut issues in the campaign.

I'm against amnesty.

I'm against fraud.

I'm against massive increases in spending and the required tax increase.

I'm against cutting our defenses by $30 million to make a second division.

I am for domestic proposals, and I'm set forth with such great detail to send to you.

Say that we intend to add to them, Mr. Semple, to recall the day, and I am in charge of all of those.

Those are part of the purpose of the future.

Thank you.

now right in the Congress' lap.

And if the Congress fails to act in a way that provides some relief from these excessive busing orders that have caused racial strife primarily in northern cities, that is to say southern cities, then I intend to do

There are two ways we can go.

With a new Congress, which might be very much more responsive on this issue after they have found out what people think about us.

With a new Congress, we might get very quick action on the legislative front.

That, I would prefer.

If we cannot get Congress to act on the legislative front, then we would have to move on to a constitutional matter.

I would point out that, however, the legislative front is preferable

and also easier because it requires and quicker because it requires only a majority and also can move quickly.

So if we don't get it now, we'll go for it as a matter of the highest priority.

I haven't read the book.

I didn't even think of them.

It wasn't a slushie.

It looked like a slushie.

I gave it up.

Well, I'm glad to see you guys.

It's helpful, it's helpful

Do you want him scouting?

Yeah, Mr.

Scouting.

Is that a new suit?

Yes, sir.

How much did it cost?

Not much.

Okay.

Because of, well, you had obviously given a different kind of thought to it.

Because you're using it more.

And that's probably why I do all of this.

It's such a god damn place to sit in this office.

Instead of doing it on the telephone.

But you turned so much of this that it probably is something you couldn't have done that well on the telephone.

What it looks like now doesn't make any difference.

I was going to tell you that.

One of the bits of information you don't need.

We'll probably go for a different Saturday rather than Saturday night.

If it's okay with you.

It gives us a much better ride on radio all day Saturday and the TV Saturday night, which is worth our getting.

The point is that we don't have to.

And I love going to the campaign.

It's going to be the campaign that's serious.

I was present, Mr. President.

I didn't want to disturb you, sir.

I just wanted to put it down.

We've already... We won the last radio time.

Put that on.

Just put it on radio.

It's like the marketing campaign.

It's like the radio campaign.

I just want to say that, President, it was...

I had a bye time.

Bye-bye time.

Bye.

Oh, absolutely.

Bye-bye.

Just go.

Screw that.

You mean to run the whole thing?

Sure.

Run the whole thing, sir.

Run the whole thing.

We are also going to buy XR.

But we're going to immediately get on the whole thing.

We're immediately going to get on the whole thing.

We're doing both.

We're doing both, but the thing we're doing immediately is getting...

radio time.

We were just talking this morning about things you talked about yesterday, setting this line of not relying on polls and working for the majority and all that.

The whole point, everybody knows that's what the president's got to set.

He's got to keep setting it.

He's got 39.

That's the thing I love.

That's your last answer.

You brought up the issues that they hadn't asked you about, but we got you there.

Well, it was beautiful.

It's a campaign director's delight.

It's a great case.

Oh, beautiful.

The thing of, you know, I oppose any additional welfare with all three of our bonus programs, whichever one you want.

And you got the correction, and they said you're accused of isolating them.

I said, I didn't isolate them.

You know, they're also saying, oh, that's awful.

I was talking about, I really think...

We have another crack in the press conference in about two weeks.

I think we'll be fine, Mr. President.

Any offers?

I don't know.

This is a big win.

Mr. Wilson, Lawrence, I'm generally obsessed with you.

I'm a witness for the community of Lawrence.

I've been around you.

I've heard you're going to Seattle.

Yes.

He's going to the city of Northwest.

He's going to Seattle.

He's going to be gone for four days.

He's leaving tomorrow morning or perhaps the night after.

It was a soft and gentle poverty today, which was beautiful.

We, I don't know, Chuck Colson and John Ehrlichman and I were up at John's office and me and the Colson got on the phone, one phone hanging on the other from Colson to get the text of your remarks out to all the people who were working for you on the country.

And to buy half on radio, just read the entire press.

I think it's a good idea.

Radio?

Yeah, radio.

You had that, did you pick up the questions?

Yes, sir.

Can you hear the questions?

Yes, sir.

Can you?

Yes, sir.

In some cases, a question is too loud, and the questioner's voice is too loud.

That's all right.

Well, actually, I was planning to have this all along.

I go in one a month, as you noticed.

And I'll see if we get one a month to go to San Clemente.

And in the office, I'm going to be able to talk with him.

Now, that gives you the equal time.

The moment I walk out, there are three networks.

And they're going to put him on the three networks.

And we just aren't going to give them that.

I'll let them.

But looking at the office thing, I was thinking that we ought to probably, even though the voltage of the tax and so forth and so on, maybe only satisfies the press.

That we really don't have to do that.

That we ought to consider maybe doing it one in a couple of weeks.

What's your view?

What's your wish?

I'd be very much in favor.

What's your wish?

Well, I think it would blunt to the opposition.

What was your mind?

We're talking about the oppositions.

Are we talking about the press?

You know, I'm going to talk.

I should.

See, I can't miss it on that.

It'll flood the McGovern scene that she never talked about.

Are you going over to Seattle today?

That's long.

Do you want to?

Do I have to ask?

Well, I want to...

Just mention something to me about Cincinnati.

Oh, go ahead.

Do you mind covering these people?

No, I didn't know about it.

Are we boring?

We're postponing it until after the election.

All right, good.

Yeah, okay.

I'm very happy about this.

Well, you've got to play it.

I want you to know about it because there will be some backlash.

Oil producers.

Oil producers, true.

God damn it, but let's get a little credit for screwing it.

It'll be noticed.

All right.

Well, what I meant is this idea that the oil producers were going to take my hands.

There's only one thing I want you to do.

I want you to call Kyle.

All right.

Tell him that we had to make this decision.

There was no other way.

Well, you're not really making a decision.

You're postponing a decision.

Tell him you're postponing a decision.

Tell him why and that we want him to protect us.

Some of the oil producers don't agree to sell them.

They never had a better friend than the Dan White House.

So you see you get a little of that and it's okay.

That's the only thing, but I have no, it costs me no trouble at all.

What are you going to do with the sample?

I'm doing a fundraiser.

A lot of people.

You?

Yeah.

$500 a plate.

Yeah, that was my job.

I had a chance to do some pretty neat stuff.

Yeah, that's a pretty good thing.

I'm sorry to Jessal.

Sorry about this.

That was a hell of a black press time.

I love it.

We were talking about whether we ought to put another one.

I'd like to see, by time, just play this one over and over on the radio.

We've already got it in process, John.

Mr. President, I just... Well, I don't know whether they... We know that it was a very relaxed... Oh, I...

Contrary to this week's hysterical rhetoric, your tone today on the radio came through as very calm and deliberate.

That's just...

very much in command.

A gentle and yet authoritative tone.

Can you bring the press into the President's office in the White House, conduct a presidential press conference, tape record it, and give the tape recording to the committee for the re-election of the President and let them buy political time on radio and run it?

Why not?

Any time he makes, any time the President makes a statement, we'll do it.

Well, you can do it.

I think what you've got to do is get it all right on.

But we've got to release it then first.

As a matter of fact, you would get a free ride today, the whole thing.

You might as well release it now and get it on ready.

You would tell them that we have checked the quality of it.

Oh, I've got another request.

Mr. President, I was saying that it blunts the McGovern thing that you're close fighting for if you have more of these, but more important than that, Mr. President, you are now so completely in command of everything that they have said that it gives you an unequal platform

to make your own positive parts.

And so that if they do have some little critical thing that they've surfaced in the meantime, you can handle it.

But above all, it's a positive platform for you.

And it shows you in a highly presidential post.

That's a good word.

It was presidential.

As shown by the wide range of questions that you had.

This is the first one where you really had good spread.

And the questions were pretty good, yeah.

Because normally they're so loaded with

I got that knocked off very quickly.

I wasn't going to comment on it.

Rory, in the back, was trying to get a question in, and her question was going to be based on John Early Clinton's.

She said, do you think that the questions are soft and flabby, Mr. President?

She told a lot of them afterwards, but she didn't think they were soft and flabby.

Did she think they were soft and flabby?

No.

She was trying to...

I told her, and she said that, and I said, Mary, that was too personal.

But the answer to that is they learned a lot.

For the purposes of planning, Mr. President, I would hope that you would do the same thing as you did this morning, shortly after the adjournment of Congress.

I think you had there the... Yeah.

That's a wonderful...

But you see, those guys are trying to adjourn, in my opinion, now until the 1st of November.

Do you think so?

Well, I think... You're projecting my thoughts.

I had thought that they will not adjourn on the 14th, but we'll go over into the next week.

I don't think they want to go home.

Well, they're the Democrats.

They're going to lunch when you introduce Jerry Walden.

And members of Congress is supporting him.

That way they'll never forget him.

Well, you helped us because we sent out that Washington Post story throughout the country yesterday, and you're highlighting it in your answer.

I don't think they better pick that up today.

They'll pick it up.

I mean, I didn't use the word gunner because they would have picked it up then.

And you know, they tried to hang me with that, too.

So I didn't use that.

Just as well, if you hit it, I'm not going to care.

UPI, when he was president today, brushed aside Democratic nominee George McGovern's charges of corruption, which he predicted it would turn off the public.

Well, it also

First, speaking in low tones, the President noted the government's corruption charges and accusations that the U.S. policy of Vietnam was the worst crime since the Nazi extermination in the Jews.

Some of my more partisan supporters have said I would respond in kind.

The President said, but I'm not going to dignify such comments with a reply.

The President said today there will be no presidential tax increase in 1973, but argued that congressional overspending might make one necessary.

Holding 40 minutes conference in his other office, the president declared Vietnam peace talks are in a sensitive state.

Yeah, that's perfect.

Also, the line on Vietnam that we were not going to make a settlement, we're not going to settle anything because of the election.

The president said he would not let the November 7th election dictate the ill-conceived settlement of the Vietnam War.

He ruled out pre-election bombing homes and said former President Johnson made a very, very great mistake when he stopped bombing four years ago.

I didn't say it at all.

Well-intentioned.

Well, it was a great mistake.

It was a mistake.

I said, I don't criticize.

And they did with the best of intentions, but we got stuckered.

That was a good line, I thought.

Oh, and then you asked with Mark.

Ramiro asked for a translation.

I think we got stuckered with Mark.

Well, Mr. President, as far as your planning is concerned, I would hope that you do this in approximately two weeks, whether or not the Congress is again.

That's your view, John?

Yes.

All right.

We'll do it at least in two weeks.

No, I'm for it.

I'm here.

What do you like?

I'm not opposed to it, but you wait and see before we can, you know.

I just keep playing this one over and over.

Bill Potter, I had in mind, I didn't want to tell him that, because I had in mind doing another one, but I had in mind sort of doing it about, you see, we go down to the lab the next week, and we rush off to New York, New York, New York, New York, New York, New York, New York, New York, New York, New York, New York, New York, New York, New York, New York, New York, New York, New York, New York, New York, New York,

These are much better, because the questions are better here.

And you have a smaller group.

See, this is much better than the east group, because the east group basically have all those vessels in there together, and they all are showing off.

Anyway, also, the problem is, in some of its equal time, I'm not going to do it.

He's going to get his time the hard way.

On that TV guy's article, Joyce Brothers was fascinating.

Who was Joyce Brothers?

She's actually a psychologist.

What?

She wrote a long article on the TV guy about the press conference.

questions.

The average question is what?

Fifty seconds.

And they televised the question.

The average question in the office is nine seconds.

Well, basically, I wouldn't knock on that much.

I think the TV conferences have been generally very good.

They've been great.

You just can't use everything in here.

No, and the questions are not that bad either.

They ask a lot of good questions.

The point is, after you get past the three network guys, the two wire service guys, all of them ask good questions.

Analysts are going to ask

and not just McLennan, but others that are going to ask a majority question.

What do you think, John?

Isn't that the problem?

If you could limit the questions, basically, to the working White House press corps, I wouldn't mind them there.

But when you get a lot of guys that just are down there and they haven't studied, it's those that come in with the jerk questions.

That's why these are better.

These are working guys.

They're all prepared.

They don't need to be no other kind of press corps.

They know what needs to be done.

They ask me the same question I ask them.

I always ask you these questions, sir.

Did he always ask questions before?

I showed up 45 minutes earlier to get that scared out of my head.

I don't know about that, Dr. Rose.

Resting and meeting and trying to... That's just awful.

Oh, correct.

And she can't bring it in.

Trying to interrupt.

Well, no, I'm doing it.

I said, wait a minute.

That's all right.

Oh, of course.

You were endeavoring to answer the question that was put to you, and they were denying you the opportunity to complete your answer.

I wonder who's going to pick up the single standard line.

President, you go ahead.

Look, I have a single standard answer.

That's why you came back with it.

You opened with it on the...

And the press will draw their own conclusions about this kind of campaign, following the single standard.

That was the first question.

It was, though.

Why?

No, because it showed the sort of impolite, harsh aspect of the question that was carried through the voyage.

At the same time, your voice never changed.

Oh, voice never changed, sir.

Mr. President, at some point, I would like to suggest that you play that back and listen to the tone that you had there.

It was precisely right.

Were you out of the room?

You listened to the room?

No, but I'm sure you'll come across.

I was out of the room.

It was beautiful on the radio.

Beautiful.

Well, what it did is it had a put-down quality to it.

I mean, right from the outset, you have... Well, that first question that Charles said, you sound like you were really, you really felt sorry for the poor son of a bitch, screaming like he was about this stuff.

I mean, I know that he said this, he said that, and he said we're corrupt, deceitful.

In comparison to Hitler, in comparison to the president who went to China, the Soviet Union is the number one... War brush 500,000.

War brush 500,000, right.

I'd find more partisan advisors.

She said that I should respond to God.

It's the same call.

He said, isn't it too bad that those Mexican children are not a population?

Who is that partisan advisor?

We ought to get rid of that guy.

It's you.

Amy Riverbaugh is going to offer HR1 today.

He is?

Yeah.

Great.

He's got the most good profits in the South.

He's got the most?

Long says he'll fill us with meters.

Well, that's good.

We're going to have a chance to do it later.

We're going to hold stuff in HR1.

for it, but it's got to have better work requirements.

It's not going to hand anybody to the welfare rolls, not one that high over, not going to give an answer.

CBS, I played that clip too, it was great, from your speech when you announced it.

You said we have time to take people off the welfare, put them on welfare.

Do you see that?

It was a great commercial.

All right, we'll see you in three.

Thank you.

Did you really listen to those guys?

I've been telling people about Gregory.

They tell me every night.

No, you were here that night.

No, you and Timmons, they said, listen to him.

Why didn't you tell me?

Well, that's what I say to my friends.

You know, I'll tell you, John, before you hit it.

It's one of the funniest stories.

I used to have a fellow working for me that I never saw.

They had the Red Squad, the FBI Red Squad in San Francisco before.

And one of the, they had a bug in the head rooms, a part of a woman who was in a spot and so on and so on.

But she was a maniac.

And the job of listening to this is the most horrible thing in the world, because it's dumb, and so forth.

And he said, these guys should give up their leave to get in the business of listening in.

Oh, he wants to move right now.

Why?

We don't do something now.

What's the negative?

There's nothing that I can see.

There's no damn good reason why we should decide that right now.

It's just crazy.

We've never realized this.

Well, I'm sure they did, but we're not going to let you hear this.

You can find time for this, but we can wait a few weeks.

You know, the thing about this is that those put these folks down in a kind way, but don't let them get away with anything.

You've got to mingle them with that single standard.

Oh, yeah, I don't want you to do it, of course, if you've just demonstrated that it's a single standard.

This was far and away the best time for Prescott that you've had in years in terms of effectiveness.

I agree they aren't always, you can't keep them all at this because you never know with the questions that come out of a lot of them.

Well, they wanted to do this over.

No, that's right.

Next time's a new deal.

The rack session.

This one really did ring a bell.

I just love to see it play over and over again.

It's got a lot of payoff.