Nixon, Brennan & Sanchez on Patrick J. Buchanan and Book publishing

It was actually a little cold in Florida.
A little too cold to take the sun much.
It wasn't too rainy on Earth.
Where'd you go?
I stayed back here with the family.
I was down there in Florida over Thanksgiving.
It was bad.
It was cold there.
Oh, I want to talk to you about the bull thing.
Go ahead with that.
I closed a deal with those folks yesterday.
I've got to have it done by the 15th of January.
I've outlined for him about 10 chapters.
I think I gave him a brief rundown of it.
Yeah, I was about to ask about that.
Well, we're working on the first chapter.
First, what is their demands?
What do they want you to do?
They can say it's done by the 15th of January.
But I mean, they could be the subject or what?
No, I could take the subject.
It's sort of the Nixon administration in retrospective prospect.
Well, the next administration.
Right.
But here's the thing, I can do what I want with this.
And as I'm working on the first chapter right now, let me sort of go back and take the year 1968, all the tragedy that happened in the country, your election victory, sort of a personal trial.
Let me, let me, let me try, let me go over a few, a few thoughts that I had that made, all right, stay in the journal, thank you again.
It seems to me that, uh,
I do not think it appears to be a threat about the administration or our future in the past, and all that sort of thing, given the philosophical event and so forth.
But also, it is in a book like this, if you put it out in here, and I'm writing it all in here, and I saw it, and we've talked about it all the time, it provides an opportunity, something to make a hell of a lot of points like we did in that history of the Third Times.
Historically, it will be a basis like the Teddy White kind of stuff, you know, where you draw your in-house guy and you can write well and so on.
Don't you think so?
Right, right.
Now, I think that, I think that among the plays that need to be made, that the press
quite deliberately out of the states, or covers up, or has not made for obvious reasons, are these, on the personal side.
We've got one of them, a theme that Hart was supposed to write about, and here we get the book out.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTSON.
Jeffrey Hart, he's still going to write the last chapter on this election.
This is all done except the last chapter.
The point is, I think you should write it in quite personal terms.
The, what you might call the most unbelievable comeback, the greatest comeback you could say.
You might even begin, if you write it in personal terms, you're
before the elections of 64.
Was that the middle of the 64th or the end of the 66th?
The 66th.
You were around the 66th.
Well, then you might begin.
I think what I would do is it would make too much distinction.
It would begin the election night of 1964.
The Republican Party, the great landslide, the Johnson landslide, the Republican Party, the Shepard,
with blind governors, blind congressmen, blind senators, etc.
and all the seven states in the country had to say much to senators.
How was the party to be redone?
Would it ever come back?
The commentators called us and said, it's finished.
It's done.
It's done for us a quarter of a century now.
And before it comes back, we're not going to go back five or six more years.
And we should also find out that the recriminations that have flowed down on Goldwater's head as a result of the private fund, for example, and others, I wouldn't spare the horses of any of them, but the private fund, the liberals in the party, and even some conservatives that were working so well that it was for the campaign.
You should also find out that perhaps
Who there had to be, somebody had to take the part, and somebody had to bring it back.
Perhaps the most unlikely candidate for that was next.
And then you go back to the 62, and you lost in the 62.
And when you lose, if you get, if there's anything worse than losing big, it's losing small.
If you lose small, any one, a number of mistakes could have been responsible.
You need to do the big, it doesn't make any difference.
So after 62, people said, well, we've only done this around the other day.
And after 62, and after, and after they all ran out of democracy, he had no thoughts about any political future.
He just went by the professor and left.
That's all.
And you should point out that the former vice president, you could say, as former vice president, he had no Senate money.
He had no funds, you know, and so forth.
He had everything that he did, every activity that he engaged in.
He had no vision.
Every activity that he engaged in, he himself had the plans, not his own.
So that's not, I don't mean all these points need to be made, but they're right.
They're not known.
Here is a man, no staff, no opponents, no other position.
Man, so what did he do?
After 62, he traveled around the world.
We ought to get into some arms, some other travel.
How did he travel?
I think it was by coach plane.
I saw one other individual.
Never had a stenographer.
We had those guys.
Never had a stenographer.
We would sometimes have only one other individual.
And he visited all the education bureaus in there, et cetera, et cetera.
Of course, that's 67 somewhere.
But the crowd began in 63, 63, 64, all through the years.
But I have a digression.
You get that.
This is the matter that began in 64.
Republican Party launched.
Who was the most unlikely man?
Bob.
He had it.
But this man had one thing going for him that no other man, Republican, had.
very old water, very real.
He had been the one who, after the better convention and so forth, went into battle with the country on his own, traveling in commercial airplanes with ordinary people, camping, all out for the day, for the low water, after the primers and the percenters.
What he did was lose the cause.
Goldwater, who served, he had a man out of all states on the street.
So Goldwater had his partners.
And here is a man who stood by him.
Although he was young to recognize that he was a man who did not share all of Goldwater's views, but he stood with his partner.
Then, Mexican contenders, other Republicans, of course, were shattered.
There's Gloria Johnson, after his landslide victory,
And yet, after the detection, it was very several.
You can always get your leads with a press man.
For example, if I ever started a book, I would almost put in, at the beginning of each chapter, a press man, very respected, a little bit of an asshole.
I don't know what you mean.
I didn't think of Byron Peronsky or Scotty Resnick or something.
Richard Nixon is real.
never any of our friends, all the time.
Or you can say after Cambodia, or after May, or so on and so on and so on.
If you can't possibly win, you know what I mean?
It's an excellent way to catch attention again.
I could use the quote at the beginning of your article.
You might use that as the beginning of the chapter is.
And then here's what happened.
Because the whole story, basically, is triumphing over diversity.
Then in 66, he fell.
And yet afterwards, the Gary Severider, one of the indicators, went on television.
The big loser in the selection was Nixon.
I don't know.
While he could hand in for everybody, while he predicted it correctly, new stars.
Here's what we've seen.
Rockefeller, Ray, Brown.
Remember both these magazines had those six guys, same six in the cover, and we weren't on the cover?
I remember.
Great day by the election.
Right.
You put it in the magazine.
Right.
There was one television who, that night, I remember hearing this guy say, big loser, loser gimmicks.
All right.
That came in 66.
The Romney star was somehow, someway, always opposed.
Again, he traveled around the world again in 67.
And that became the campaign in 68.
And, of course, the win in 68.
Now, the points are .
You've got to point out that in winning
that where we started from, the low point was really 64, with so many congressmen, senators, and so forth.
In other words, that in order to win, I had to win a distinguished Johnson, who
When Johnson won, he had a majority of the congressmen, a majority of the senators, a majority of the doctors, a majority of the state legislators, and a very substantial majority of the registered voters.
You've got to start with the fact that we started with a minority of all of those, and 25% get the exact vote, according to Gallup.
Or 26%, or 24%, whatever it is.
Only 24% said they were Republicans.
This was true in 68.
It was also true in 19...
See, the point that is also missed with regard to this election, and I say, well, Eisenhower did this and that.
Take David Eisenhower.
It was a goddamned, the country was very evenly balanced in the Congress and Senate, among governors and so forth.
The country was better off even before Goldwater, when it was very easy to count.
But after 64, it was demolished.
In 66, it came back some.
But still, even then, in 1970, in 1972, we had nothing to be done in 70, but in 1972, we started with a minority of congressmen, a minority of senators, a minority of governors, and, let me say also, a minority of the Republicans.
That's a minority party.
Then I could go on with this.
And ironically, too.
I don't say this as a bitterness or anything, and certainly I do, because I know that narrowly a candidate in history, in 1972, for example, when you get to 72, had more editorial persons and less support among the Washington representatives of the press.
And the representatives of the national media, the opposition of basically the liberal establishment media, the media that comments, that this has to do with the whereas it was exactly the other way around.
And with Eisenhower, at least it was about an even split.
We don't have any hats or a hat.
They weren't ever that much.
But in our case, in 68, it was that way.
They were hungry.
In 72, they were with Montgomery.
Oh, sure.
They were pissed off.
And they wrote bad things.
We don't mean to .
We all know that.
But deep down, deep down, you would go down through the national television media and so forth.
And the Akron syndrome, I don't think you could say was repeated as bad in 72.
In 68, it wasn't.
I don't know, was it or wasn't it?
No, it wasn't quite, no.
The 68 was a horror show.
that, frankly, the guts that it took and determination and stamina to continue to fight.
That's too many of the people right.
Well, it's just a question of luck.
That's the symbol of courage.
Well, it's definitely something more than that.
It is from 1962, from 1961, the time I left the Vice President of the CDC, until 1968, the very fifth, when we were elected.
I didn't have a goddamn suit from any public source, you know what I mean?
Right.
I had to earn it all.
Right.
You see what I mean?
Right.
We're so part of the support.
You know, sure, they, the party center paid for expenses when we traveled around the world in 1966.
Remember, they finally got a plane.
Yeah, that's it.
You have to remember, this was, this was a case where we had, I was supported out of earnings and so forth and so on.
Right.
It's somewhat similar to the way, in fact, Church, remember, wrote books.
Of course, he had a little money.
But he wrote books.
When I was out of office in the 32nd election in the United States, sort of involved whatever.
I didn't .
Why is it I really had to earn the money I took?
Hell, anybody that was out eight years making $250,000 a year, or so as I did, should have had a hell of a lot bigger net worth than a half a million dollars if I ran for office in 1969.
Why didn't I?
After eight years.
I spent a hell of a lot of time doing that.
The point that I made is to get across the fact that we did it with a minority party, with a minority of the Congress, with a ban.
And perhaps in 68, above all, an almost
led her to the opposition from the press.
By the press, don't be very good about using the word press.
Basically, write the press and tell a lot about it.
All you need is it.
And always point out there are notable exceptions.
Always point out that there's no... One of the most remarkable things is that that opposition
except for the little lips of the China crew and the Russia crew, with unrelenting animosity, to use the word, throughout the four years.
Not a minute this way.
Not a minute this way.
Over and over again, they said, this is the path we have to follow, and so on and so on.
This is Killson.
Somebody else is going to come along.
And at first, it was Muskie who was going to be it, and then it was Humphrey, and then it was McGuffin.
And yet, somehow, we don't know.
could point out that, you know, and then how the use of, the effective use, how do we combat this?
In office, we combat it not only through spectacular plays, but through, in rather spectacular use, in November 3rd.
Again, what do you mean?
And of course, the trip's broad.
And the office can't.
I remember when we talked about Camp David, the idea is to, instead of compromise and conciliation when they were building up all that heat, you drag in the voter column about the breaking of the president.
Remember that time back then?
Yeah, he wrote a great book.
All right.
And then we just quote directly from that.
And then, you know, the mixing in trouble stuff in the news magazines and the demonstrations here.
Yeah.
And then the speech is, rather than being a speech of conciliation and compromise, it's a confrontation.
Right.
And then we've got the polls of Gallup that showed you go up there, I think, to 68% for us.
the new American majority, and that's the whole second chapter.
And then, of course, the other thing is, and the May 8th is the same thing.
Right.
The May 8th, but the most amusing thing is that both Cambodia and the May 8th years, Cambodia, we had the problem.
We didn't fall as a result of Cambodia.
We stuck right in.
Right.
But the most amusing thing about all of this is the Iranian thing, is that the...
I mean, every time you can, you ought to fight out.
It hasn't been an easy four years.
Because basically, it's been one.
And you ought to point out that it is the job of the press.
A lot of people, it's the job of the press to criticize the president.
I followed it for years.
And I have no, I asked for no order, and I did no order.
I have great respect for the members of the press, the media press.
All I asked was for a single standard.
You should have a single secretary, and that's all I was just upon.
And you can point out in these four years, if you want to get across the point, that no press man has ever been tailed in the air and raised up.
No one has ever been called to the phone.
No editor has ever been called.
No publisher has ever been called.
No television version has ever been called.
Except for recommending them.
That's actually totally true.
It's been done by a few other supporters, but it should be.
That's their job.
But they point out this is a diagram.
The difference, you see, in comparison with good ol' E.J., the three television stations chattering in the office here.
I mean, they're chattering in the little room back there.
You can't even get the ticker back.
They have three TVs in here.
And I think the fact that we have sailed somewhat serenely along with it, naturally it gets to us.
We never had him with us.
He did.
A very good point.
Also, that I am
And I would say to the president, certainly in 62, he took the press off.
But let it be noted that in eight years as vice president, and in years of the his case, he never took them off.
He only waited until after he was leaving public life, he bought them.
And he did so that only in terms of certain people.
But nevertheless, I would say that as a result of that, that one time, he never took the press off.
And as a result of that,
That perhaps no man in this office has been more, basically, well, not faithless, but more, I understand it, man.
I'm not resentful of it.
And I'm not affected by it.
I'm not emotionally disturbed by it, man.
And the criticism rolls off my back.
I read it because I think it's my responsibility to know what people are reading.
And also, they may have something worth sending at times, and they do.
But on the other hand, I think the most important thing is to do the job.
And once the end of it, the other thing is this.
Let me put it another way.
I think when we talk about the news summary, you know I try to keep up with it sometimes.
But I try to keep out of any puff pieces or anything that goes all the way up in either direction you go.
The greatest mistake a man who is a leader can make is to be the victim of either self-adulation or self-pity.
And when he reads the favorable press releases at the time, which I didn't do, or the covers, then he begins to indulge in self-adulation.
And he's on the rise of the fall.
And on the other hand, when he reads the excessively critical people who are
who really are trying to get under his skin, not really, not really to report what they're leaving or anything.
They don't agree with him.
Then he indulges himself in it.
Either results in a man not being able to do the job.
An individual, put it another way, the moment that the individual who is in this office allows the issues to become personal, allows himself to become the issue,
or allows or thinks in personal terms, then he cannot go through the great crisis.
He will not make the great decisions.
Well, I have a rule that I must reduce the personal quotient to attention.
I try to be totally detached as far as any personal reaction.
And that means to friends or foes.
Friends will come in.
You know, trying to pander and praise and this and that and the other thing.
And foes, there are not many of those in the press or otherwise because all the people run from trouble.
They never take it on.
And foes, of course, are going whammy and whammy and whammy.
There's got to be no tension.
You've got to be better.
That doesn't mean from a personal standpoint.
You pay attention in terms of the substance.
In other words, the substance is important because these are intelligent people commenting upon great issues.
So that is why I use the news sign rather than taking the hot news off the tube or off the ticker.
I live it.
I read this in an attached way so that I am not in a personal way.
And I never take it personally.
I have no personal animosities.
That's a very good point.
All right.
Let's leave all that.
What I think, in other words, in addition to all the substantive stuff, I think you've got to point out that it was remarkable ever to come back in 1968.
The man most unlikely to succeed, you could say, in 1964 was Richard Nixon.
Or the man most unlikely to succeed after 62, you could say.
Most people like to start there.
You might start there for 64, but any time.
But then, how do you do it?
And he did it without funds, without support, and so forth and so on.
And that went on to put together the victory in 68.
Then, throughout our four years, virtually all of our friends and supporters were telling us that we were doing everything wrong.
There was already any time, any minute time, that people thought that we were really, I mean, not that we didn't support them, really.
There were political standpoints.
There was, oh, you're blowing it this time, or, you know, where they got their nose to, to, uh, can't go either way, but, and, and the 1970 campaign was a case in point.
But that somehow, in all this period, you can't win 49 states,
the biggest portion of the two-party voting history, without doing something right.
Now, what was done right?
Well, here's where you come to another point.
The general tendency of much of the press to say,
Oh, Nixon didn't win it, McGovern lost it.
But it wasn't McGovern the man who lost it, it was McGovern's ideas who lost it.
That point must be made.
You made it before, because sure, the man blew the view.
But basically, when you came right down to it, if there was ever a campaign in which the country decided whether they were for or against busing, for or against
permissiveness on drugs and crime, et cetera, or against bug out.
Those were the issues.
Those were the issues.
There was the social issue.
It wasn't that you can't say it was these racist Southerners, because it was a national victory.
I mean, you win the big industrial states except for Massachusetts, you win them all.
The national character of the big, in other words, the whole 50-state strategy that we apologize for.
The southern strategy were, but what was the southern strategy?
It wasn't a racist strategy.
Basically, it was a strategy simply of treating the South as part of the country.
And the
And, of course, restoring the big plays on China and Russia, the big play on the economy.
They would have come back to Vietnam, I think, without the August 15th stuff.
But Russia did.
They did.
They did a lot of great things.
But that's not all I have.
You tell me what your challenge is.
OK. Well, what you said starts in with that.
First, you've got a year of triumph for us in 1968, which is really a year of tragedy for the country.
And you go back to a year of triumph, and you go back to 62 and carry on through 68.
Sure.
In fact, you can take what happened in 1968.
Ted effects, McCarthy, Kennedy in, Johnson stepping out, the assassination of King, and the riots in Washington, the assassination of Kennedy.
And then we just contrast your triumph with the
But the tragedy then, at the end of that, you say, but at the same time, you say, even though you won, you've got 42% of the vote you win with.
You've got this small, narrow margin.
You've got 30 million votes, whatever it was.
And then you say, here's what all the other, because opposition is going back to the practitioners.
They control the media.
They control the universities.
They control the foundations.
They control the Congress.
Earl Warren on the Supreme Court, they control that.
He tried to resign early, so you couldn't appoint a successor.
And you say, you've got you here.
You've got all these...
All these assets still control the only used liberal establishment.
I know.
I would say, I wonder if it isn't, why don't you use liberal establishment?
Well, right, we can get it.
I don't think you should use eastern establishment.
Right.
But go back to the corner piece that I used the word, I would say, basically, it's the Washington establishment.
I would call it that way.
It's the Washington establishment.
But it is a liberal establishment.
I don't know any other goddamn words.
There'll be no mistake in what we're talking about.
So then you say, all we've got then is we've got to set up the fact there's a collision.
I mean, there's a collision that's inevitable, a confrontation that's inevitable.
And you say it's not long in coming.
And the way I see when it really came, when we really won the mandate, was in November 3, 1960.
That's when they all started.
We had the summer.
We had that summer, though, which was really excellent for us.
First, you had the guys landing on the moon.
You were there.
Then you had the Guam dock.
Then you had Vietnam.
Then you had Romania.
And then you came back all over the month and delivered that speech, welfare speech, which everybody loved.
Then you rolled off to California.
And one month later, he came back with the storm clouds of ruin.
The whole left is gathering the demonstrators.
The media is out.
The left wing up on the hill is raising hell.
And then the news magazines, Nixon's in trouble, both of them, voter rights columns, and they're trying to break the president.
And then we say, with this set, you know, then the speech comes, and it's a speech not of conciliation or compromise, but of confrontations.
And that, when you go to 16%, reveals it.
This is a shorter chapter, but that's where it reveals it.
The left, in fact, although it has all these assets, all this formidable array, it's out of touch with the common man.
68% is talent majority.
Talent majority.
Sixth generation.
Then we move from there to the media.
And I'll have a little bit of that opening it up.
And to have you point out that on all the important speeches that I wrote, I mean, let's have a little read about it.
I just read, trying to do something on the event.
And I wrote, Christ, I find that Dan Roosevelt, God bless him, he had a group of speechwriters.
They did them all.
He just said, there you go.
Right.
Okay, then the third chapter is the media, right on the beach.
Just take the whole establishment of the media, the power they've got, and I'm just going to introduce it with the chapter title being November 13th, the beeper on some morning, and he launches an attack on you.
And then just, after you set that thing, yeah, it's attacked.
That's about four or five paragraphs.
But then go into the whole
the media to control the dominance of the Washington Post, all these networks, and really make our case against them.
That'll be, I'm sure some of the media will pick that up.
Oh yeah.
Here's the thing, the book is a giveaway.
30,000 is not for sale.
But here's the thing, if you write these things at about 1,500, if they're thousand word chapters, then they get picked up as Outlook section or Top Ed.
My fourth thing is either black versus white or the Supreme Court.
There's one chapter on the Supreme Court.
It could be about 1,000 words, your whole philosophy, why you want to do it, and which decision.
We changed that right.
The next one is the black with white, and we'll roll in there.
We'll get all the things that have been done for the black, and explain why they're so hostile.
The only group where you didn't make tremendous gains.
Right, it's not that.
I'm pointing out a very strong personal feeling I have, a personal commitment, that anybody that knows it, that I work on here, that I work on in person, can do whatever they like.
Those blacks that work closely with Nixon are all boring.
They're enthusiastic as anybody.
But the point is, here again, it's just, it's the fashion that you don't agree with until it's busted.
Basically, the black liberal establishment on busting the welfare act couldn't be forced.
Do you agree?
Right.
Right.
Why is that a thing?
Well, they get the Supreme Court thing, and they just
It's a lot of things that are just almost inevitable.
One of them's not our fault, right?
Because I could go on.
I mean, they just said, well, it's hard to go on.
So then you've got that.
Then you've got...
But do you want to remember that even the Eisenhower period, we only got 30% of the blacks.
No.
The blacks.
The Eisenhower period.
The Eisenhower period.
Got only about 150% of the blacks.
I read it.
It was only 20%?
of the Jews.
I mean, of the Catholics.
Then we got two, and I wouldn't go into these too much, but go into the one on this foreign policy course, which we'll have a lot of pictures.
We'll have to take some pictures from all over China.
but do foreign policy, the whole sort of a philosophy behind it.
And then China, and the wide movement toward China, et cetera.
And still, you know, we've got problems in the future, but you have pieces, you know, and then the successes go into that.
And then go into Vietnam, I think, which were more chronological.
In fact, I think in terms of success, anybody would say four years ago, you know, it would be 30,000.
When is your deadline?
January 15th.
I might have to just be cracking this night and day.
I know.
Let me tell you, don't write that until the last.
I'm going to devolve it, certainly.
And you might imagine that you don't know anything about it.
I don't know something about it, but we'll see.
We're not doing what we're doing.
We're just going to follow along.
Okay.
Then the next chapter would be?
That would be it.
We could develop it.
Then there would be a thing on the new American majority.
And you get into the whole, how it was put together, that's where you get into your government stuff, how your position is taken on the issues, and you get to Mayday and these others.
Put that all, just weave that in there with the new American majority.
Also, you understand the new American majority.
It's no accident that after I had this, that I always kept the door open for the laborers, even after the very tough competition of Georgia v. Miami.
They always said that we had something to come.
First, in the main bond, the strong stream of patriots, the strongest supporters, the most focused supporters, the ones that didn't have to be us to support the laborers.
Whenever we had these great crises, the business leaders were generally silent.
And the media, of course, were generally hostile.
There was that.
Another thing that came up was, frankly, the work ethic.
I was against the welfare ethic.
I appreciated that.
And consequently, there was a sense that while they were basically on the other side politically, there was deep personal respect for Mexico.
of labor leaders, including George.
And it was that personal respect that paid off.
In fact, it was either Charlie or Bolton's support in 1972.
And then we get a final chapter.
You can just do a lot of things.
What's the future and what the problems are.
This is freewheeling.
Well, the freewheeling thing.
You know, we've got all those things, the government reorganization, trying to get the bureaucracy down, trying to keep the spending down, trying to keep taxes down, getting more responsibility to people.
In other words, there is a philosophical thread here, but it's almost as strong as the difficulties of getting the credits put together due to the congressional problem.
But we look forward to making quite a bit of progress.
But that's part of the reason for living by so much loss.
OK.
I think there's an awful lot of things I know we want to get out and just get them down there.
Black and white.
I'm going to get one anywhere I'm sure from 11 to 15.
And I'm just going to make sure to get all these arguments and things in there, get them all contained.
There'll be no problem with that.
Yeah, and again, try and write things so it's not only going to have numbers, publications will pick up.
And if you do really something like that media thing, I'm sure you're going to be able to jump right on that.
Get a lot of money out of it.
Get some of those articles.
You know, you get an argument, I guess, deep on that.
I, uh, I mean, uh, some of our people are sure to constrain the state to not go, uh, to the meeting and all that in the present time.
But I don't see what the hell else we can do.
God Almighty, you know, the Savior stands up there day after day and takes our bad shots and he teaches about a dress.
Uh, I don't know what more we can do.
We've tried everything.
My God, we've tried, you know, we've, we've, I mean,
We give them the best accommodations we can.
We never go the trips of Johnson, Gator, Bratwine, or Five Nuts, making them all go in a hurry.
We don't give them the press conference they want because there are reasons for that at this point.
That is really their problem.
Their problem with the media, basically, is they disagree with us.
They're least in touch with the... You agree or not?
Yes, I do.
But it's right.
That's why we constantly come back to collisions.
Even in times of good, we do things that would consist of our philosophy.
We keep doing that, and they go right up the wall because they just totally disagree with us.
And the conflict's inevitable.
What concerns me is
That little group of them has so damn much power.
You know, they just all, they got all three of those networks with a little click.
And that's what everybody sees.
60% of the people see at night is where they get the major source of news information.
But you can, uh, you can make arguments.
But the point is, let's face it.
68 weren't they?
They were against in 72 and we still won.
We won 72 for the day because basically that's basic.
Well, McGovern, this is part of the conduct of this candidate.
McGovern's view is for their views.
They had their candidate.
He was their candidate.
He stood for them.
They stood for them.
Oh, sure.
They wouldn't like $1,000.
They wouldn't handle the economic brochure.
They'd like $1,000 people to buy them.
Yeah, sure.
You know that.
Oh, they're all redistributing the wealth.
That's exactly right.
You don't have to think about such a thing.
I don't think this is the idea of a guy who
One thing we should do is we should get ourselves a coordinated strategy and get everybody that's knowledgeable in the area involved and get everybody on board so that we can sort of move forward with a set of just ad hoc attacks.
We ought to have it, I think, just programmed out of what we're going to do.
You're talking about the networks.
Networks probably have to be resolved.
The networks, their concentration of power, from that point of view, is just something that's going to be an ongoing problem.
And if we can crack it, I think it would be a great thing to accomplish.
Well, we've succeeded in one thing, in collapsing their support among the public.
We're down to about 18% now.
They're a band, yeah, they're a collective.
All the institutions in the country, in terms of collapsing support from the public, the greatest drop in the last couple of years, Gordon Harris and Olsen, the National League.
At 18%, they're doing a really good job.
And not because, not for the reason they say, well, it's the job of the media to be after presidents.
If they didn't consider it their job to be after others,
No, they didn't.
I really wouldn't come down to it.
No, it's now that we're in this.
Their job is to be kind of challenging and confronting and quick.
Yeah, that's right.
And I think they're from hellishness now.
You go out and you have to put on early.
Just like all the other guys.
But my view is not to never show my name.
Not unless you show it in a mosque.
No better.
But really, I really don't want anything else.
I'm confident that this is my intuition.
They know it very well.
They don't get it in their minds again.
And this is really not just a presentation.
It brings us all to that position.
It's an intelligent person like you.
Is that the train run?
Yes, sir.
And we consciously, we consciously indicated that I'd be paying attention.
Exactly.
You look perfect.
You look great.
You look great.
You look great.
You look great.
You look great.
You look great.
You look great.
You look great.
You look great.
You look great.
You look great.
You look great.
You look great.
You look great.
I don't know what the...
I agree.
You've got to change the personalities, man.
I mean, you've got to get down to the wrong kinds.
They could do it themselves.
I think white is not that bad.
They could do it themselves.
I mean, they bring...
The women put a little pressure on them.
They've got women out there, too.
There's the blacks, too.
They've got a few black guys out there.
But you see, we raise hell with them, and they don't bring forward anybody that agrees with us.
And we're getting scared.
Yes, it's very frightening.
I went out to lunch with a small old man.
I went out to lunch, and I just about laughed my head off.
What are you scared of?
Well, they think we do.
That's right, that's right.
And you just need to bust it up.
Oh, yeah, right, that's right.
You've got to sit on that huge empire and all that well.
people that may need some other licenses.
Their licenses can't be questioned less.
But I need a license.
They're coming out of their own state.
I must say, you know, it allows you to offer .
Now, they bring it.
We don't trust them.
Of course, that Biden speech was knocking the hell out of him.
That's right.
Shouldn't the local station have the responsibility for discovering the station?
Right.
Why shouldn't somebody in New York determine what the people in El Paso see?
Huh?
Exactly right.
The responsibility is for being in El Paso, not New York.
Right.
Exactly right.
Shouldn't they have responsibility to balance?
They're making all the money on the thing.
They can sit back and let that stuff roll over the networks and take it.
But that's frightening a little bit.
We'll have a little fun getting this done.
We don't have time necessary to do it.
Okay.
It should be controversial, isn't it, with that?
Look, there isn't anything, believe me, anything, that ever gets public attention that isn't controversial.
Unless it's basically something that lives totally for, you know, a flower or almost anything.
That's the number one thing.
It's like a cup.
Or a degree.
Or a hand.
Or anything on our side.
It must raise God's heart.
So that, one thing, I must say, that we're playing great.
You know, I know that.
They really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really,
The general public one time was 10,000 members of the public.
They didn't get it because that was cut off.
The public's getting it.
Here's the thing.
We got that one.
The Des Moines speech, everything, a lot of the substance attacks, the networks haven't escaped the last four years at all.
They really haven't.
They're salivating.
Well, that's not just that, but the substance of that.
But the whole public is now six times.
The whole idea is these guys are pirates.
When they watch TV now, they don't just say TV.
That's not it.
They say, look at that guy.
You know, he's looking the way he's like.
They're looking.
The whole national public has said stuff about what they're doing, and they know it.
So you want to hear it, so you're not feeling it.
That's what I heard.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Thank you, sir.
I think that basically the Washington establishment is out of step with the country.
As they say here, I would say that they are victims of intellectual dissension.
I do think so, but it's not bad.
Their problem is they're afflicted with intellectual, their product, intellectual incest.
Intellectual incest.
Mentally.
So what happens is that they become less and less effective because they talk to each other, you know.
You know, they break out of each other's glasses and their cocktail parties and so forth.
And as a result, mentally they're in, but they do not know
I'm sorry that it was one of the ambassadors.
One of the ambassadors from a European country told me earlier what he said.
He said, I was really amazed because
What we see in Washington, this country is not depressed.
It's not sick.
It's a good country.
And these people in here have talked, and they've cited themselves, and that's what it is.
They have cited themselves into believing that the country is, that the country isn't sick.
I believe that people
That's true.
They're sick, these people are.
They start around, grousing about how bad things are.
And they're waiting for it.
That's a good term.
They're waiting for it.
But what it is, is that they are
But that is, you can pick up Novak's quote, I don't know, that's in Tampa, where he gives them the campaign evidence.
But then when they are the predicted governor, remember they had those comments in the last year, the governor was closing the NRA.
Next thing they know, we're dropping back here, we're dropping back.
Polls, these polls, they've been closed.
That, of course, is the greatest commentary on that.
And so that's what it is.
And did you see what November wrote about it?
Yes, I did.
It is true.
It sure is.
It's great.
If you would have read it, if you would have read it in our newsroom, three weeks before election, we really got that.
This is really nice.
It never died.
And it never changed.
Did it?
Is that it?
613, you know it.
of the Vietnam War.
You took all the television coverage.
You think that the South Vietnamese had run from about 5,000 battles and scattered, and yet the brave, clever, courageous North Vietnamese had controlled zero provincial capitals.
The South Vietnamese were able to run from every battle.
Now, about 90% of the country is out of all the provincial capitals.
The other side of the line, too, is .
They're trying to get .
very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very,
He only had civilians.
The rockies in the civilian cities would not regard him that way.
It's a matter of policy.
Assassinating, murdering civilians.
A civilian.
At least our policy is one of deliberating.
Try to handle the military charges.
Never do that.
Never, never do that.
The devil's a man of contention.
Given the truth, it goes back a long time.
The truth is that he was born for Christ's sake.
very, very small thing.
You remember our Revolutionary War?
Right.
We called the .
We talked about the Revolutionary Army and the against and those who supported the British were called, what the hell did they call them?
The whole hell of them never used the word loyals.
Oh, they did that to find out what I mean.
It was either Tories or, well, it's a terrible phrase.
But in the Spanish Civil War, they always referred to the communists as the loyals.
The loyals.
And it's the Brandoites and it's the Reynolds.
You see what I mean?
It's the loyals.
Well, it's the war of the sea, thank you very much.
The whole reference to the war is called the war of the bay.
Right.
The governor said that they were going to keep the sea to be the same.
But I'll tell you one thing that is very powerful in this office, and one of the reasons I use it sparingly, is that I don't want to overuse it.
Thank God I didn't overuse it.
And that is television.
I mean, man goes off into television.
First of all, that means never go on.
Right?
Never go on because they're accounting for a restaurant.
Or do you agree with that?
I do agree.
You ought to be honest.
I have something to say.
I don't want to be like him.
Or.
and spit it out, and I'm getting advanced emotions.
That's right.
I'd demonstrate it on any professor.
That's right.
No, I agree 100% with you.
This is us, our method of communication.
Why should you let them set all the guidelines, the timing, the scheduling?
Who are they to do it, really?
I don't know.
I have a duty.
It's one of the methods of communicating with the people.
One of the methods of informing the people is to expose yourself in front of the press.
Orphans like to come to Texas.
I'd like to say the greatest mistake was the food.
Now, I remember I used to go out every week to the press conference.
And it began to matter to me that some of them partied out of blood.
And I used to live the life out of it.
They all knocked off the glass.
But Johnson practiced very well.
He was right.
God damn it, they were just very savage.
Why should you walk out there and be killed by him?
I agree.
I do.
I think he handled it very badly.
He shouldn't have attempted to emulate Kennedy without it, you know.
Kennedy had a particular style of press access to throw up his big cheese balls, and he's knocking them out in the park.
You know, it was a great 4 o'clock afternoon show, and Johnson tried to say it back.
I don't know.
Kennedy had a big letter.
He had a clever response.
They all laughed at the clever response.
Trump's aggressive.
All right, thank you.
Don't worry, that didn't come off very well.

Nixon, Brennan & Sanchez on Patrick J. Buchanan and Book publishing

AI Summary

Audio

Transcript (AI-generated)

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Also recorded on December 27, 1972

Cite this conversation