Conversation 848-010

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

You didn't notice who he is, did you?

Take a look at this.

Sit down, sit down.

I would like this picture to be a part of your life.

I don't know.

I'm sure you don't want to have controversy.

The worst thing that can happen to anybody in public service is not to be paid attention to.

Too often, we have marvelous papers that are written, and studies that are made, and issues that are undertaken, and they're so wonderfully non-controversial that nobody gives a damn.

Nobody pays any attention to them.

Anything that's worthwhile in this life comes through conflict, not consensus.

True, all nations.

It's true for each and every day.

And there's honest disagreement.

There is conflict.

It does not need to be conflict that destroys, but out of that comes the ideas that move out.

The last point, I think, is very important at this time, which would be great.

Where are you going?

Just to Russia.

Oh, I'm going to Moscow, Bucharest, and, you know, take a few days to go with the... Well, the only thing they would tell me was to go out there and see the whole situation.

Don't let them get you involved.

I've never seen Holy Wishes Brothers.

I've always had to see government people there.

The reason I'm going to go there is I know I'll never get there again.

It's a country I would love to see.

I want very remarkable people to know.

Well, first, the one point that I think is very important that we get lined up here is the situation with regard to where the administration stands and where various new members and so forth are aware of the position.

So what I'm getting at is that

I don't want anybody after we launch these missiles to say that they weren't consulted or this is something that was just done off the top of our heads.

So I think that's the main point.

Let's get that clearly understood.

I don't think I am, and that's the point that I want to make.

Under the reorganization stuff, Tom, well, before we started trying to reorganize the executive branch, Tom was floating off in a world of his own.

And since we reorganized, he still is.

And the reorganization put this in the Schultz area of economic policy, which it really isn't, I don't think.

It has economic implications, but it's basically political policy rather than economic.

No, but that's what it is.

The only danger in the approach the president's making of the need to

be heard what's the line i don't like to see our guys get out and get chopped down without being supported here on the other hand you don't want tom just as you haven't wanted chuck in certain areas to get shot down by the

So we just want to be sure you don't get lost in it.

Just so there's a meeting, meetings are held, decisions are made, and then we can act so that it isn't, so that we have, I don't think Harper would disagree with this.

Many of the people here don't have a terribly vigorous concern.

Well, the problem is, too, that so many here around here will fear the other side of it.

That's what they want to get.

Now, one thing I was trying to find earlier this morning, the Hillary U.S. Well, that's all right, but it's very important that the whole domestic council has to, you know, prepare the papers and speeches.

So that's, what we've got to do is determine a way that you're tied into the ongoing...

stuff in domestic council and the economic side so that so that you don't don't get left out in left field and get shot down you can't be shot down by people here everybody and there can't be any rumbling around about that when you get out and they start kicking you around see so that's the part i think we've got

Well, let's look at the various things.

For example, it says OTP is prepared to build and provide increased availability of license .

Now, does Hurton say that bill has not been cleared?

I don't know where he has it now and what's the situation.

Hurton hasn't cleared it.

He isn't.

He feels that that's, you know, that this moral thing on that was swung without

okay well i i don't think i think what we've got to do on each of each of these areas is just make sure we're clear on the decks and we ought to do this before you go yeah because you're involved

Because otherwise, when you're going, you can't do this for Rudy.

I think it's got to be you and Tom and Earl and the Chubbets.

Yeah, yeah.

And we've got to do that.

We've got to do that.

The main people against it are the Radicals and the R.E.B.R.I.T.S.

They're not for what Tom has argued has to do with it, which is a responsibility on the part of the local station for what it carries on the air.

They won't have licenses.

Now, with regard to that point, is that point one that the local broadcasters want?

They won't sign up on that one except for Crutchfield.

They will say they will in private because they're getting them to come out front and say, we are going to work actively with our... And my point is that there's something that we can't get through.

I see.

You see, here's the difference.

You can fight the networks, but you can't fight it if you don't have the locals with you.

That's our problem.

So who's going to argue this point of view of their Congress, I find, of the people that are, you've already got Griffin, Bud Brown, Steggerts, Steggerts, Steggerts, you know, all the people in the committees.

I mean, it's such a special place.

Why?

Not clearly on the other side, but we feel that we've got pretty political in this.

Political?

Political in terms of both the networks.

With this?

Yes, sir.

See, we have mapped this couple, what they call, for more local broadcaster involvement.

And the networks are against that.

Yes, sir.

Well, it's sort of against that, too.

example of the representing the whole the whole deal who is against that that particular point anybody gets local control and local responsibility oh yeah who is the list oh in our white house that's all i got is that position one

Why?

He thinks that it's an anti-broadcasting position.

It is, I think.

And it was a network position.

Well, is it an anti-professional position?

No, no, no.

Is it an anti-Chicago security position?

They, I noticed, have been attacked.

Why are they attacked?

They attacked a misunderstanding.

The press reported that it was a network position.

We were going to establish legal controls over network positions.

And we've got a lot of people who should support us reacting to that press coverage in the media.

Let's begin to build that.

I think with the legislation, with the hearing going to go, and the broadcasters supporting our bill, that's going to... Well, the point is that there has to be a whole program, which just not evil at all.

But there are going to be some others that are going to... Now, what's the matter with... Why does the client have to wind up on this?

Does he understand it?

Or is he recovered?

He was in the meeting, and so is the person.

Everybody was spurred on.

But I had the impression that some local broadcasters would like Wilkerson, but others don't.

It magnifies the idea of fighting that, which I know it will all amount to.

Well, you know, this is part of this town.

It knows this doesn't do well.

See, local broadcasters can certainly know this.

I want that thoroughly aired.

about where everybody stands on this, where it's a little bit, you get it so that you just don't go down there and say, we brought up some bill.

And that's also a public relations plan to get at.

We're working very hard to get them to come out here.

I'm speaking to them.

We've got to get everybody more, all the people, the rest of it.

Well, it seems to me that on that,

Okay.

John just raised the question of what it was.

He doesn't know what it is.

What is it, Captain?

That is, he directly set up in 1971.

Right.

I'm the chairman of it at the P.C.W.

Congress.

I'm the chairman of it.

Okay.

How will that be?

Will that report be presented to Cole?

What, uh, how do we go about that?

We present it to you, and we still have to work out what the relationship is.

Right.

It's pretty hard to complain about what this is.

It calls for a legislative framework for the regulation that lets the state play a large role in also letting AMCC do what it has to do.

It calls for a federally-assisted demonstration program for building a joint industry-government program with mostly funding from AMCC.

To explore its uses, we've tried to cut this check-in and aid cycle short so that the services are developed, offered on a cloud basis, industry-seeds one can.

I wanted to be sure that there is a so-called cabinet committee like this, but to be sure that they get all, they get their chance to pop off.

I mean, who is it, Banshee Klein, are they going to come up with a financial plan?

Have they spoken up on this?

What do they think?

Or are they paying that much attention?

The government itself very strongly says this is a good area for us to get behind and push.

Well, it is.

It's a hell of an opportunity for us, because it's greatly to our interest if we can get K-1 set up right before we get out of this.

This is more of a table than a table television.

It should be.

That would be a very good idea.

Put him on there.

We're working through this.

Let's hear again.

And we're going to go on.

It is a question.

I mean, again, Chuck, we can't have Tom go out there and pop off a table television and get chopped down.

Well, he's talking about people around the White House.

I don't know.

He's exceeding his authority.

I don't want to hear it.

If you talk about the goals for this organization in four years, you could revolutionize if we force the technology up, I mean, force the implementation up to what the technology provides.

You could revolutionize communication.

The repeal of the prime time rule.

Who was for that?

For the rules?

Yeah.

For repealing the rule?

Yeah.

It's mainly Hollywood.

Hollywood.

You're never against it.

They are against it.

What about the local broadcasters on that area?

In the long run, they would like to see a repeal of them because they don't like so many FCC rules and regulations.

Some of them might be mixed bag.

The main pressure is probably with the internet producers.

The main negative pressure is the networks.

It's quite simple to talk about.

Okay.

Well...

The point that I make here is, what do you have on the congressional side there, who's forced very little interest in elections?

It's an MCC president.

the repeal of the FCC's prime time rule?

What do we mean?

We recommend legislation, or are we leading to the FCC, or we can't tell them what to do?

Well, we suggest very strongly that it would be a good thing to repeal that rule.

And my thinking is that if we would make some kind of fairly low-key public statement and then just work with the commissioners over there, they are far less inclined to repeal it.

And with a bit stronger measure than that,

against the rule, in other words, on the island.

I took that away, I'm sorry.

The perch.

And while we, once we have a fight, we finish.

When I say we seek the bigger deal out of it, I'm thinking about strong, very unique perch.

Take a look.

I mean, prompt action.

What's the argument?

I'm not too sure.

What about people around here?

Talk to them about it.

Where else?

I talked with, uh, Flanagan in the past, and most recently with John.

I said, uh, when we had a brand deal set with coal and money, and everybody came down and decided, I'm going with the repeal of what we had promised to do.

I don't think this is a dispute on that, and I think it's just a matter of...

You should be aware of that.

What about public broadcasting?

Well, that's the main dispute there is to have an adequate PR activity again so that we're not attempting to...

It must not appear that you're trying to affect the network's news content.

That's what you do, but you must not appear to be doing that.

That's, I mean, it's stupid.

You don't have to.

It's a little, it's a little, it's a little, it's a little, it's a little, it's a little, it's a little,

What I mean is, let's work the PR thing up and then Ziegler can keep saying the rest.

That's apparently the problem, Chuck, is that Ziegler and Klein are not aware enough of this and they get so goddamn much heated.

You don't have everybody speaking with one voice, you're going to have a problem there.

Early on, Joe was speaking with the same voice, too.

He's actually not.

Is he going to ask about it?

I don't think not.

More?

Well, the point is, I want, I mean, you just look, to be quite candid,

If you have a situation in which Colson and White have done this, it's going to be bad.

Because of the whole thing.

Not because Colson and White are bad, but because of the look of it.

It's like it's the same kind of thing where they're trying to say that, you know, the president did the bombing, but Henry didn't want him.

This is exactly the same thing.

I'm not going to have anybody say, we either go or we don't go.

And this is, so I want this aired in a meeting with some people, where Zinger sits in and Klein sits in, all these points, and if they disagree, they are, you know, this is a big thing to take on.

In terms of having a staff, I mean, Cole is a superb operator, you know, because I was asked first base about this sort of thing.

He says so.

I know.

He proposes.

Well, that's my point.

So therefore, it isn't a question for you to give it to the domestic counsel and have them get all those cabin officers and go on base.

This is something that should be handled, in my opinion.

It should be handled by the people that the whole environment should be in on, the core should be in on, the line should be in on, the saver should be in on.

You know the rules.

Right?

Who else could add?

How could the domestic counsel add anything like this?

I was sure we'd get butts into it.

Well, it might be helpful.

But I mean, what's helping?

That's right.

They can't.

And that's why, basically, it's an economic thing.

But I'm not so sure how Schultz can help in it, either.

Well, there's the point.

I'm just wondering if Schultz could.

Maybe just keep that as the cover for it.

If Schultz decides, and then he wants that,

I'm a little afraid of that.

Because he's a, he's a local freeman, let's say, mayor or councilor.

He may come down to the right side or he can go to the right side of all of these issues.

You'll see.

Now let's talk about public broadcasting.

What do you mean it's on the verge of funding the city?

It's a little cut back, controversial public affairs program.

How do they, how do they get away with that?

I mean, it's not the aggressive program.

Is that public broadcasting?

Is that paying part of the tax payers?

That's aggressive.

That's not public broadcasting.

They pay for it separately.

It's produced as a commercial broadcast here.

Is it?

He has two shows.

He has another that's run on an application television.

Yeah.

It's produced entirely with private money and it's run on an Eastern network that doesn't involve the federal.

I see.

Well then.

Why are we pulling around?

Well, because that's just one.

That's just one.

We have Bill Myers.

We have Black Journal.

We have Washington News Review.

All of these things are federal money distributed over a federal fund.

They are?

Yeah.

Well, that's the point.

The point is, how do we get at this without our saying that we're trying to take Bill Myers and some black ones that aren't there?

Because we can't go back.

We don't have the same kind of money.

We did.

We're moving in that direction.

The direction we're taking, which we thought would be to get all public affairs out of public television as far as federal funding.

I agree with that.

That's the move we're taking.

And the reason that I agree with it is whether it's Buckley on the right or Moyers on the left, that the government should not be in the business of propaganda anymore.

That's one of the reasons we don't allow Voice of America in this country.

We're taking public broadcasting.

That should be the line.

Or is there anybody questioning that?

Here?

Oh, I don't think in here.

Oh, I know.

I was going to have a question inside the government.

I don't know if that's my fault.

Well, HEW has always loved the public broadcasting concept because they can put a lot of educational TV into the city.

Well, but then on this issue, if you stay out of public affairs, you can still do that.

You can't accept Congress talking about a second step.

I have come to the point of view, I am not running for president.

And comes another president.

In other words, a very active...

protagonists like the uh like frankly the uh the legal services part of the job of radical deals is correct either way could be on the right you could have a man on horseback or wallace in here except you could never get away with that because they they keep hurt on it but you can sure as hell get away with doing it on the left the point is we can never use the corporation of the brick at all how do we cut this down on that

I marked this time again.

I thought, did we cut the budget on this thing?

And we took control of the board, so it's good.

Our first step for this year is to get rid of the public affairs program.

But how do we get rid of it?

They're in the process of tearing themselves apart.

Who is that?

The people in the public broadcast.

How are they doing?

They're quarreling over what they ought to be doing.

They're quarreling over how they can do a better job and get more money.

I think we should be able to do that.

And over the next few years...

that in order to get this thing.

I just want to stop this crap around here where I remember the meetings where people were discussing about it.

I'm sure everybody didn't sit down and take a vote with them, but it happens.

We start doing something on this one.

People come in and say it hasn't been spat.

Well, now that's no damn answer.

Because if it hasn't been staffed, Chuck, then it's, then staff it right now.

I want it on this week.

I want this thing staffed.

I want it sat down.

I want Clyde on it.

He's going to be leaving.

I want Ziegler in on it.

Ziegler was the guy I asked about this morning.

Great.

Some questions with the tributes.

I said, well, what the hell is this?

It's not going to get back to the tributes stations.

They don't know what to do.

You see, it is never, in my opinion, an excuse to have a man sticking his head in that bus stop and then to say, when he knows he's moving in the direction we want him to move, and then for somebody to come in here when a little heat builds up and says, well, that isn't staff.

Now, let me say,

Because, looking at it from the other standpoint, you seek your autonomy.

Don't you ever do anything without standing.

My reason being is that we're in an area where there's a lot of lily-livered people around here, even among ourselves.

And also, let's just say there's another reason too.

Our interest here is not to just get in a fight and lose it, but to get in a hopeless fight.

Sometimes you've got to appear to be doing other things than we're actually doing.

That's why at least shivering on the pot by a five-year day is all right.

I'm for that.

And I certainly think these strike suits and applications that have to do with minority groups and so forth, a lot of that crap should come out.

On the other hand, local ownership, local control,

That's a sound position, but that hasn't come true, has it?

No.

Perfect.

That speech that he gave kicked off all this controversy.

It was sent to everybody in the White House.

We all had it for a week.

Only some came in and then they came out.

until it hits a man and then they all say you shouldn't have done that

The other thing I think that Tom has to be aware of, and we all have to appreciate, is that anything Tom does in this field, not because he's Tom, but because of this administration, even if it's a local control and station license extension, which they've always wanted, they're going to try to find a choice that we're absolutely here on.

It's just the speech that he gave us.

It was very, very well balanced, but they are only going to pick it up.

That's something that counts.

It's just crucial that we understand the difference between the broadcasting industry and the press that the people are working in.

They don't believe in local control.

They basically think that the people in New York are the best.

They want the strong network control.

You mean reporters.

Reporters.

Anything that breaks it down, I get constant criticism when I talk about local control, because they bring up communities in the South, they bring up the South, and I think it's in the Midwest.

And I think they are a big community.

Three markings for launch up in the Arctic over here at the Sansou Sea.

No better than what that clown in Wyoming should look at.

Well, sure.

Obviously, Ogronsky and Lissigar have a better feel of what they ought to know in Washington than anybody else.

Anything that matches the power of the network is going to have a little press against it.

Well, it's exactly the same thing, sir.

Anything that decreases the power of...

Washington open programs.

I mean, that's what this great deal of the budget is really about.

It's just about how much we spend for this and that.

The other thing, it's a question.

Our real concept is a very violent lander attack because people do think Washington knows best.

And frankly, sometimes it does.

But on the other hand, the reason we don't think Washington knows best is we have to be right with the district.

If this administration, with its philosophy, were to be extended, were to be the type of administration we're going to have for the next 20 years, I would be so concerned about Washington.

But we don't.

But even with this administration and its philosophy.

First, what will happen in four years, eight years, now, God knows.

But even this vengeance must be as far as the bureaucracy, which rolls on and on and on, regardless of what happens to the Chinese.

That philosophy is basically leftist, radical, and authoritarian.

And it's because it is for that reason we have to fight it.

I don't think the guy out there in Laramie, Wyoming knows his ass in the first place as to what ought to be done in Laramie.

But I also think that it's very bad for some little bastard down here in H-U-D, you know, maybe a 16 or a 17, to decide that Laramie, Wyoming, rather than having a new auditorium for their high school, should have a gym.

Or maybe a center for interracial experience.

That's really what gets out there.

Sir, that's the fundamental issue, sir.

It's a question, basically, that out there in that country, there are a lot of very good people that agree.

I mean, I'm so done.

They just don't know very well, and that's why the government is on it.

So they've drawn it all in here.

But then what has been established is a huge bureaucracy that has basically tilted far below that bureaucracy.

That's what makes this issue.

And so this same issue is involved in your view.

But I think on the other hand, it's very important.

You see, Chuck will be on my quest fighting some of these battles with his foundation and so forth.

The important thing is, Bob, we've got to realize that we're going to get this damn fight.

We've got to know it's a fight.

Everybody's got to be together on it.

If there are different views, I want them expressed.

If I call it a decision, I want everybody to shut up.

And I don't want any more snide people bitching about it.

You understand?

If there's going to be snide people bitching, do it before he goes up there.

And then we decided, for example, well, maybe we should have taken on the public broadcasting.

I don't know whether I picked the worst one.

I think everybody would want to take that one, but maybe not.

Or maybe we should have changed the prime time access rule or something like that.

Let's find out now if we're going to shift on any one of those positions.

I see no reason to shift on it.

I'm going to shift on it myself.

If there's a problem, please do it.

I think the other one is that

Oh, the licensing.

That is happening.

But if you go to the cable route, you end the networks anyway.

Let's get back to that point.

And incidentally, why did you assume that the story's got to be on the other side?

No, I didn't work on it.

We had an occasion where we looked down on the South Carolina Institute.

We didn't work on this.

Remember, I'll be working on this.

You don't work on this.

Yes, sir, I do.

Well, why not stop working on this?

Here's one more thing.

Sure.

What I've been telling you is the broadcast is one of the things that's going to do.

And that works very good.

And that works for the other way around.

So they're powerful.

What they're going to do is try to associate the bill with the speech, which says the broadcasting has to exercise more local responsibility.

They're interpreting that part of the speech as a call for censorship.

I just don't think we can do it.

And you have to be willing to accept the call for censorship.

They have to take full responsibility.

We're going to get five-year licenses.

That's not it.

At this point, it's there.

And we agree, gentlemen.

So you're really giving them.

We're giving them.

That is the real value.

The real value is you're forcing them to look at the .

But that's right.

Let's get something out of it.

I don't think they put on an opposition.

I think you can have a major part of the problem here, just the usual jealousy, spat, concerns, as well as this spat, who's doing what and all.

I'm not sure there is any.

I'm not either.

I just, when I see, any time I ever see, well, this has not been spat, I know that that's usually just in front of these guys.

I don't think John disagrees with any of these things.

I don't think so either.

But I do think that he is right in the sense that we've got to be sure this way that we are all together here and we've got to bring everybody in and that includes Clive.

He's got to know what it is, because his mind is not always talking.

And he's had a lot with these people, right?

That doesn't help at all.

We have different points of view coming up.

Oh, yeah.

People will see it on anything they can get on the other side.

Also, I probably don't want to see any...

I don't want to see any columns of the effect.

Yeah.

They have the White House staff.

There are those that don't like this.

I've seen two or three of those.

I don't want to see any more of those.

They have a fight, and we decide it, and we go ahead, or we don't go ahead.

One of the two.

That's what I mean.

You can see my point.

But your next visitor is going to tell you that there's been a hell of an interesting public reaction to the point you're proposing.

Yeah.

Redditor.

Redditor total.

They just won't even local control.

That's the philosophy of this.

He's going to continue the relationship.

I'll try to understand.

I'll explain.

Thank you.

But he set up a meeting with just Chuck and George and John.

Then he moved to the environment, Colson, and the environment, private client.

I didn't know what to say about it.

The basic problem, his stuff has been well said.

We've distributed it.

They don't understand it.

They don't understand it as a man.

The easiest way is to say hello.

Yeah.

Well, that's my problem.

Like, for example, that speech that was made by, I think you were talking there, something like that.

Somebody said to let it clear.

John said he had to see it.

I checked with Chuck right after.

Chuck said, show people that's the ad.

I know they're getting old.

That's why everybody wants to get the principles in.

The first thing to do is get the principles in.

Get it.

Okay.

I was sitting right here, I think, for our meeting.

And it was a really beautiful day.

I was really excited.

I threw down one of those alligator web ties.

And it was, you know, we came out on the road.

And it was just so great.

It was a beautiful day.

What are you trying to do this time?

You said over here, you're the guest.

I've heard what the president has to say.

Please.

Anybody else?

Well, you know, I asked John to say, you know, he gets your bite, so does the public.

I wasn't happy he gets the bite, but I guess not.

I want you to know first that with regard to me, as I told you when you came to receive my argument, I'm really very grateful for, you know, how you have kept us posted on those reactions.

And I also...

And I think another thing, too, if I may say so, is that I don't want to bother you here.

They are going to sort of be our content.

We would like, as time goes on here, without in any way, of course, compromising your own independence, as I've been wording with other pollsters, too, I guess.

We would like to, you know, we do this checking, if I can do the company move, and work out matters that

Thank you.

Because I think it's good to have three friends.

That's what I think you have become.

You have become.

This is the plus side, and I'm trying to say we've done something for you, but you did it for yourself.

But as a result of this campaign, the name of Senator is as well known as Gallup and Harris today.

And I think that's very good.

Because you will grow in a different dimension.

I try to keep them all in this one.

do you know that your stuff is uh you're just taking it right off the grid and also you're a little longer and there's a there's a there's like one of the things that's interesting is that

The last two weeks of the election broke Gallop and Harris through third-party detectives.

Checked you?

Yeah.

It's kind of interesting that Gallop and Harris fought through 1972, which was the year of cataclysmic events.

We're always behind the event of their sales.

They could poll before the president went to jail.

The whole world has turned and their poll was reporting what happened before it was sent out, but the public doesn't know that.

When a guy reads his paper in the Gallup poll, it's where he thinks that's what people think today.

Even though Gallup says this was taken before them sent it out.

Right now, Rockbridge, as he makes his survey, a couple of days out of each month, and then uses that survey for the next four or five weeks.

And although these days are identified in small print, but my associate, he thinks it's in concern.

Three months and about a month old.

Yeah.

He did his right.

No, no, no.

The first full weekend in January.

Yeah.

Before the end of the month.

No, let me tell you what I'm doing right now.

See, we have a network of 47 TV stations.

I don't want to make a deal with the networks.

All the networks will contact me later.

Soon as the others do.

And if I'm going to deal with a network, I'd be subjugated.

And I'd be a tool, and I would find our path twisted around.

So, when you see something fabulous on this last question, do you agree?

Now, when you come to individual stations, what I find to do is to put a teletype machine in.

And then once, and I've got some dummies that I'll send to you.

Once they're made sane, send them about 20, 50, 60 words or 100 words of a key fact.

And then?

That was the back of that.

So we just keep feeding it every day.

As you sell it to individual stations.

I figured that I could make about $75,000 a year out of the network, which was just about the baseline cost of your own network.

With the visualization network, a billion stations, of course.

Oh, yeah, see, because he had 47.

He had 47.

See, I had to have a sanitation.

And all of them wanted to, well, that's depressing me to get going.

And this would give you 47 independent feeds, you see.

Completely ungrouped.

Don't figure it out.

You have to figure out the idea of what he would say.

He had a speech on it.

The other thing we're working on, I'm working with Al on this.

He came up with 19 and a half million Democrats who voted for you in the campaign, never had before.

Might not again.

Might not again, sir.

The trick is, what we're trying to find out is how to grab that $19.5 million and bring it in and keep it.

Well, I had a fight with those issues, and that's why we're trying to monitor some public reactions.

And these people are in those major cities.

I think the whole key to this election, I think the whole key to the whole nation right now is the heart of those $19.5 million Democrats.

who lived in the high electoral states, who had never voted Republican, never conceived of being a Republican or talking to a Republican.

They would not have voted for both Republican officials or congressmen or senators when they did.

And they voted for two things, just two things.

One was your stand on Vietnam, and most of them were ethnicists.

the third, fourth generation, mostly early members, which are staying out of the ethanol, and you're waiting for us to protect it there.

Which protected their escalations of income, so we're getting through the estimator clause.

That is the eroding part.

And then you see these were the people.

in June and July of 71, who were, had just gotten raises in steel and automobiles, other durables, who were about to start buying imported cars wearing form-made shoes.

You see we used to get

Fifty-four, fifty-five million people were claiming that they were Democrats when we had ten million less people than we had now.

Now we're down to, let me just get twenty-one, twenty-two million people claiming they're Republicans.

Now we're getting increased Republicans in our Democrat career.

The last one was down to...

Now that goes back up to about 40.

Back up to about 40.

You mean since day one?

Yeah.

Day one.

About 40 million?

Yeah, about 40 million.

Now, what was interesting about this is the total base of what?

100 million?

No, 113 million.

So 40 million is about 38 percent.

Right, which is about 50.

And what is, what's the end of that?

What's very positive about it?

Uh, independent.

You've got to do that once you understand.

I'm hearing that somebody's talking to you right now as well.

We've got a base of 139, roughly 143, in Alice, 18 and over.

Democrats have 46 million agents, which is 33.5%.

Republicans, 36.8%, which is 26.4%.

Independents, about 41 million, which is 29%.

And we have 15 million, roughly 11%, with no interest in politics.

Aliens, people that are just .

Now, that's interesting, because after these people

When you went up here lately, since the election, of course, it came up during the election, the number of Democrats declined because to justify voting for you, they had to call themselves a Democrat.

He's calling himself a Democrat, see?

So people have to justify their own lives.

They've always got to justify it.

Now, what is happening is we get people saying, well, when you think of yourself, do you consider yourself a Democrat or a Democrat?

And over and over every day, people say, well, I don't know what I am.

I think you better call me back next month.

And this started during the bombing.

We didn't get that.

You see, we didn't get that during the election.

This started during the bombing.

The other fundamental fact is, this nation is a hard core of about 25% deafness.

They're affluent people who live in the suburbs, who inherited their stuff.

They're open, most of them own stock.

They inherited their stuff.

They didn't learn it.

They didn't buy it.

They inherited it.

They go to college.

They attend some college.

And who's these robbers and fishers with the gallery in these houses where the kid and the mother were saying, you know, the peace ideas, you know, and the man would say to us, well, you know, I spent all my life working hard to get my kid to go to college.

He comes home and, you know, I run with my money and my wife's children.

And this was one of the fundamental things that kept coming through.

Now the trouble with that is there are more young people than there are old people.

But then you had this hardcore of 33%, 34%, just as adamant talks as this new bar does.

But the interesting thing is, when you ask the doves, if you had an opportunity to come to the rest of the United States, what would you do?

If I didn't do it, I wouldn't be here now.

But it's quite likely that I'd be out of here.

You talk to the hounds, bang, I'd be out of here.

I'd blow the hell out of them.

I'd knock them off the face of the earth.

We should have done it long ago.

It's always impatient to do it.

what's being done.

And they just did their hammer all the time.

That had another bounce in the population between vastly, never to the does, but vastly to the hog side, but never vastly to the does.

It was vastly to the hog side.

And this is why you had that fantastic support when we were recording during the bombing, because they just cannot hold themselves

And there's always an ethnic connection someplace.

In their job, or in their life, or where they work, or where they live.

And these are the most people, the people not... See, the funny thing is that the real solid patriotic people are not so much the hawks, they're the selfish people.

But it's those in between who are not better than the patriotic people.

The fundamental people.

Now, the one thing about the boxes, they're all for me, the way they come in for me today.

If you'd have hit the war before, with that 19 and a half million, I think you'd have lost 17 or 18 million.

They were just enough.

We should be right about that.

Michigan, if there were just enough in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, California, and New York, Pennsylvania, it would have been a very close lecture.

Well, as a matter of fact, I think that's why I'm guessing your pieces of the hand straightener probably resulted in our... We might have, as you were reminding us at that time, gotten about 65% of this.

I think that's just holding out that idea that maybe, you know, the fact that what you do, what you're doing, you could have had 68.

68, yeah.

You could have had 68.

You knew that 68% of the support.

Well, that's what we did.

He went to the state and told them what you tested.

Well, I remember you said this to me.

You said that we could just get a big vote.

It was all ours, the extra.

And when it was 77, you said it was us.

You see, we got 61.

You see, one of the things that was interesting about that election was

And the same thing happened four years ago on you.

We had a fixed vote for you four years ago.

Which is a fixed vote that never passed and never changed for me three years.

Right?

It was just a fixed thing.

Now, look, everyone I think got every damn vote there was in America.

And each again.

And it was lost again.

And I think most of them were in by then.

Everybody across the country, AP and UB, got all excited and misled by that huge morning turnout.

And this is like when you're in one of the theaters, you've got a good program and everybody wants to see it come early.

And McGovern's vote was in, I think, when it was impossible to count any votes by the hour.

Now, we were here just by the hour of election day.

We did it four years ago, too.

And on election day four years ago, my hours would be if he asked you two questions.

Do you plan to vote?

If so, do you plan to vote for him?

And if you voted, did you vote and who did you vote for?

Now, during four years ago, we had a statistical tie hour by hour.

Humphrey would be one ahead of you in one hour, and then you'd be one ahead of Humphrey the next hour, and then the next hour you'd be tied.

We accumulated this at 9 o'clock that night on the television.

I said, we're going to be up all night because we have an absolute statistical tie.

Now, if you tackle, on the first three hours of our, you know, during last November 7th, Montgomery was running three to one.

He was running three to one.

His votes are really coming out.

Every Montgomery vote came out of the woods.

First to stick it up as soon as they could get up in the morning.

That's what it was.

And this is what threw everybody off of the high turnout.

It was midday.

Remember, we were getting all the reports of that huge high turnout.

I kept saying, I kept saying, forget it.

I kept saying, don't do it.

You see, there was at least eight or nine people.

Democrats who wanted to vote for President Nixon, they just couldn't.

They just couldn't do it.

Lost a lot in California, too.

They're excusing California because they don't need my meeting.

And because the returns came in first.

So we're here in the West Coast, but it's probably that we could have gotten a lot more in the West Coast.

But you also only penalized the people who did not turn out.

I thought that we had a very large incentive.

Well, to be fair, I think this is about 68%.

Did you check the people that didn't turn around?

Well, we interviewed for 10 days after the election.

Oh, yeah.

And, uh, well, it's the number one reason why you didn't vote.

And there's another 8% who only could be my vote.

Or I couldn't vote Democratic, but he's my choice.

You see, the key to our havoc with these dimensions, the fact that only one person in town has made this before in the life of the government was Wayne, and that includes the government.

And that figure never changed.

Now, the actual vote on the government, I checked it last night,

For the first time, I never checked the final vote.

I understand you did.

I literally thought we were pretty good.

On the final vote, it's quite clear that I got everybody in.

Every vote that was there, he got.

I don't think he lost hardly any money.

It didn't turn out.

But, uh, you're right.

I think it was about six, what, about three percent.

Of course, that's the scanner thesis also.

The scanner thesis is that the people that stay home in a little turnout with an incumbent president are those who aren't motivated to throw the incumbent president out of office.

Well, suppose the scanner thesis is that you have a lot more support than 61.

Well, that's the five points we just wrote on the channel.

Is that true?

Tell me, uh, you, uh, you have some views on the media.

Well, I'm just saying that, uh,

Back in the days I was with Gallup, when we were coming to life with the March of Time, media was a very important influence on public opinion.

I worked with the March of Time.

I set the subject.

I could almost predict how a March of Time film would play.

This was the period when we were four and one minutes away.

Yeah.

And nobody was listening to us.

until the end, they started listening very soon.

And then during the early days of the war, there's no question that the commentators came into being through April here, going way back, and the boys from England.

But, and I think, you could almost say that the commentators were tolerant and did not

didn't have to make any connotations until about the Democratic Convention four years ago.

This is the first time I started to sense a public reaction to what was going on.

For example, the first night of the Chicago riots, the Democratic Convention, we had a number of people across the country say, well, isn't it interesting that they get these lights out there?

How do they get these lights out?

They take those pictures at night.

If they set these things up, you know, that's a tactical thing to do.

This came out, and then we started getting a few complaints on the cameras, right?

The cameras, the networks were giving the cameras.

But I think most people tolerated this, didn't they, considering it's big news?

It is.

Like goldfish in your ass.

Right.

It's big news.

Now, I would say that the first real negative reaction that we got from the networks came in the two infections.

First was, people didn't like the way the networks were trying to sell them to the Democratic convention.

I watched it, you could see it.

The networks were in charge.

The networks were trying to do, the pictures showed disarray.

And the networks were trying,

The show organization and planning and so forth.

Isn't it wonderful that all these things are turning out so well, right?

You can tell somebody it's good if it's good.

You don't tell them it's good if it's bad.

He says to you, what the hell are you going to say?

And I have your votes and speeches, don't I?

Then we talked in the reverse of that in the Republican convention, where people were saying, well, now this is going pretty smooth, but it's not going that route.

The networks were doing this the opposite.

They were trying to discredit the smoothness that they were trying to build up in the Democratic convention.

Now the public, not a big section, a sizable section of the public got this.

And then I think that the, where they really lost their credibility, particularly CBS, where they really lost their credibility was when Eric Samurai and all the networks had this sort of meeting scuttled because you'd buy dollars.

I think this is where they broke themselves down.

Because the public, the great many people in the public said, well, he wouldn't have done that without Cheney.

There's only a few places where people are wrong.

But that's what they think.

And the reports from the survey we did before you mine showed that people were saying that this is where Johnson's base was taken.

Uh, they were saying we should have done it a long time ago.

Right.

But on the great second segment of the public function, it checked it.

The Kissinger had been over there, and this had all been checked.

And these talent leaders had the whole thing stuffed in, and it didn't come off, you see.

The stuff that didn't come off.

And I think this is what they really have.

Just let them have it.

So, what'd you get last week?

I don't know.

I guess you got a jerk in your wrist, but... You got that there.

You got that there.

Just a summary of it.

Well, this is the first time we've ever had anything in question.

I'd say that the philosophy on the, on the, uh, on the, uh... About 39% had a positive comment on the commentators.

And I used to be at 70, 69, 70.

I was biggest, by the way, at 93 million people watching the speech.

We have, what, 22 million, 68 million people roughly said that they watched the commentator after your talk.

And that's down.

That was only 72%.

That's down because they didn't this time.

I noticed this going on recently.

People are saying, well, why should I watch them?

Tell me what I guess, sir.

You know, that comes through.

Part of that is just one of that work didn't happen.

And one of that work didn't happen.

Right back to the basketball game.

And the vehicle was together around 40%.

The real names is now up to about 13, 14% with the total names running around 30, 33%.

But we never got those real names before.

Whether it's positive, or whether it's a positive name.

They distort it.

They don't understand why they are always negative.

They are tools of the liberal press.

They are foreigners.

So just as much negative a comment as you can get, and that's part of the country.

You never got people talking about the liberal press.

What I'm saying is, people play back words and ideas to fuck in this generation.

Now, one of the interesting things that's coming up right now is the first day, the reaction was gun control.

The second day, the gun control just dissipated.

And now it's the Supreme Court's fault.

They should have never relaxed capital punishment.

We've got to be stronger.

We've got to be stronger now.

Now, what people are saying to us, you can see from the tags, is they're not saying that they're worried about the Palestinians.

They're worried about me.

Of course.

They're afraid.

They're not worried about the Palestinians.

People don't worry about them.

They're worried about themselves, sure.

And the incident has put capital punishment.

Right now, I have very good faith.

Adrian, do you want to ask a question?

Yes.

on the open-ended question.

The open-ended question is the procedure of thinking of attitude, because you find, as you work with this ad, people only take one thing at a time.

You can't take one, you can't take two things at a time.

You can take one thing at a time, and the priority of that subject changes with the event.

And as soon as that gets down to me, then I will be in trouble.

Let me ask you this.

At the present time, as far as the war issue is concerned, the commentators still don't know why.

Of course, they're all politically wrong now.

They said, well, maybe it is going to work, and maybe it isn't.

And so every day, they hear, well, it is working, and the ceasefire that I have appealed, others are coming back, there are a few problems, and this and that.

But the war issue that has receded as an issue now, it's practically, what do you find now?

Well, what would you say if I told you, I think the war issue would go very well in Africa?

Oh, really?

I had this feeling.

I mean, when I say I had this, I had this feeling for a different reason.

I don't know.

That's why there's no exactly, but that's the point.

When do you think it was over?

You mean...

It was over with you before the election.

But after, before the, before the, the death of an Asian woman, they were first and second on the table at the time.

Yeah, on October 8th.

On October 8th.

On October 26th.

October 26th.

And that's when the shot marked the end of the war in the nation.

Yeah.

And the peace on ending the war, the sun has risen.

That's right.

On Friday, Friday.

That's right.

We're all, on the last Friday, we're all two-tenths of a percent of the population.

So it's like that, but the general public discounted it.

The war was over, you know.

In their mind, they thought it was done, and they just realized that this is not.

And that's why the bombing then gave them a shot.

This cost you 10 million votes.

In the fact that they thought it was over.

Yeah, it was just a vote.

But now, you get it over again, and what happens?

Do those come back, or do they stay where they are?

The people.

Yeah, this is the problem.

Awesome.

This is your problem.

Your problem is that there's no solution to it.

You've taken two things away from the game that made them vote for you.

One, you promised to be a hard line on the PSNL.

Have you protected their place with the weight of the price for this?

He'd taken two things away from them, and he'd worked on it, and they didn't control it at all.

Their first reaction to it was completely freezed with very nakedness, extremely nakedness.

And then he started reading in the press, and they were reading in papers mostly, that Labour had admitted that one of the frees killed the US president.

They wanted the streets killed.

So then they signed in with me and their bosses and saying, okay, maybe this is a good idea.

Let's see what they can do.

So what you've done is you've put the monkey on the labor and management's back.

Now, if this country cannot afford another strike, there's no question that the steel strike in 59 created the 60 recession.

We're too sensitive, like today.

We're too sensitive.

We've got a little decline in confidence coming from those people who are worried about losing their jobs because of the war.

They think they are people, people that actually are being laid off.

And it only takes 200,000 households in the total United States, from my assumption, to jolt the economy, to save the economy.

It takes 20,000.

Maybe the fear of inflation may create deflation.

Because there's a lot of signs that people are thinking about cutting back.

Our automobile sales for the last 15 months after the wage and price race were catch-up sales.

They were buying parts that we had postponed buying, and the denim owners tried to get it postponed buying in 70 because they couldn't afford it.

They postponed it in 71, and they started to pick it up in the year part of 72.

Until about August, at least 30% of the sales were catch-up sales.

Now the boom that we got in December and are about getting right now is subsiding slightly.

About a third of that are pick-up sales.

Barring to the future, anticipating further price rises in new cars.

A new car is the only thing that probably buys.

Where they hit against inflation.

A businessman will buy because he anticipates inflation.

Now, one of the interesting things that happens in our correlations is that wherever the businessman makes a decision, he's always the wrong one.

He's too late.

So what is happening right now is that the businessman is...

plan for plant equipment expenditures, which lag our data about a year.

By the time he gets these plant equipment expenditures in place, he's not going to be able to, he's over his head.

But he's over-expanding for something he's going to do a year from now.

But in doing it right now, this morning in Wall Street, he's asking for money to be set aside from banks to secure that loan.

That raises inflation.

That raises demand.

That raises interest rates.

And he's not going to use this money right now.

He's blocking it now until he uses it later.

He's going to bar it now because he thinks he's barred cheaper now.

He's going to bar it and put it in the bank.

Now, the money supply works with the consumer.

If he has rising confidence, give him more money, he'll spend it.

But if you give a consumer money when he has declining confidence, he puts it in the bank.

He saves it.

He curtails it.

Now, the businessman operates differently than the consumer.

He's always anticipating how it can be.

and save money on inflation.

He likes it.

He likes it because he just likes it.

That's right.

You might have to stick your head in the freeze on it.

The bigger the money is,

What is your view on the issue of taxes versus wealth?

Tax reform?

Not tax reform.

I don't know.

I was thinking of this as a current battle with the Congress.

The Congress wants to spend more, and we have to hold the line on those taxes.

Well, this is why I say that your support is much greater than your vote, because Congress is sure that we have to listen to our phones.

People are talking about those asses.

in Congress, Washington.

What is food?

I told Jacqueline, I have a recommendation for you.

I think you should tell Congress that every six weeks they should take off two weeks and go home and talk to their people.

And they're way out of tune.

Now, the major thing that Montgomery's research missed, which we thought was, sure, America, we're living in a year of change.

People recognize change, but the change that people want and recognize is a change away from the changes they want to go down the middle.

They don't want to go here, they don't want to go over here, they want to go down the middle.

Labor union members, labor bills, we should start working for a living.

No more welfare.

We spend too much.

It's going to be a new word for Republicans and a new word for Democrats.

They're confused.

They've lived all their lives as a Democrat coming back to Roosevelt, all this.

But everything the Democrats are for, they're against.

And these are important people.

These are the key people.

These are the people who chose a large electoral space.

And this is where our problems are, you see.

The nation, I say that the United States now is like all gold.

It's divided into three parts.

Prior to 1969, we were one nation, whatever confidence would slide in one place, it would slide someplace else.

We had a farm problem, it was a universal farm problem.

We had a labor problem, it was a universal labor problem.

But now the country's divided into three parts.

You've got the South, which explains some of the actions of Congress.

You've got the South, with a high confidence level, never even when we had a recession.

They did pretty well.

Well, they're doing well now.

The Congress is running it.

They don't need nothing at every session.

This is what's wrong with some of the people in Congress.

I talked to them.

They don't understand what they're doing.

They can't understand how those people in the North are talking.

Back down there in Australia.

Now, your other part of the country is the rest of the country.

We take the big cities out of it.

The mountains.

by Central California, small towns, and then your problem, which is about a third of the nation's population, is the surrounding areas of the 30 major cities, the cities with their problem and the suburbs with their problem.

And this is where, this is where these 19 and a half million were.

About half of them used to live in the center cities and they've all moved to the suburbs.

The blacks who moved in where they were, this goes into their busts in there at that hole, that front.

Now, the most exciting thing to me is I've heard recently, since this day, are the blacks talking about capital punishment.

This thing that says back 50 years, they should be locked up, they should be shot.

It's the blacks who are asking for the capital punishment.

And there, number one, ahead of inflation and the war and everything else, there's one thing, number one, that's going to apply here.

Drugs.

And it's a serious thing.

Hit it below the belt because here are two of our stupid kinds in a nice cellar in this brilliant, perfect place.

And I have supported, like the woman said the other night, here's, these punks have to shoot a kid that supported them.

They don't support me having this on them, she said.

She was in the spirits about it.

And this is a, this is a key factor.

And some of those interviews we make with blacks, I'll tell you, you've heard sex on the air, and they're even hysterical to me.

There are a lot of things right now that they know what they're doing.

Right down the track, the way that's what we're going to do, Mr. President, is to get some lines brought in.

Someone just told me, some of the members of the Congress, if you could do that, listen to them, because you do listen to them.

Well, the big thing, too, is to take his comments and the comments he gets.

You've just got to take the law and give it to people and have them use that in their own comments.

The stuff that's written for us around here, for the average Congressman, Senator, is so terribly dull and out of touch with how people talk.

And what we can do is, with these very specific Congressmen over, we hope to probably have those in what areas that we can interview in these areas.

But you know, you'll get a much different impression of what's going on.

Like you told me, the government gave up our tax statement that said it was going to be the same, and then you get the same reading from the president.

Right.

He was like, that's right.

Now, I've worked with some congressmen for a number of years, like Moss, Wright, on some of their question sequences that he used.

and i see about first of all they don't want to do they they send out bystanders to constituents where they write their questions to get the answers they want and then they're they're so subjective in the way that people start out and they pretend like it's not that conservative

you get your money a patient came in and listened for three four hours some people just telling the truth you would then stay on the same course with regard to holding the line in the budget fighting against higher taxes but that's number one you would also hold the line

always has a hard line of law and order, capital punishment, et cetera.

I get a hard, don't worry, I believe that.

Third, and I get a hard way, if I didn't have a Supreme Court to be honest with you, I'd have to be able to take care of that.

Third, in regard to the economic issue, the inflation issue and so forth, we, there's dollars, dollars, dollars, dollars, dollars, dollars, dollars, dollars, dollars, dollars, dollars, dollars, dollars.

Good.

Here's your, here's your, you're nodding, but what, how can you control from the brain?

No way.

Uh, no way except to increase production, increasing force, the rest of it.

It was slow.

It takes a lot of, that's a long time.

Not many, many years.

I think it's going to happen this year.

It's probable that the increase in food prices, we have now lived to it.

And it's going to stay at this very high level.

But the possibility of more increases this year is much lower than last year.

In other words, there's a big bump in food prices going up.

Now we have a question we should

If you had an opportunity to talk to the president in person, what would you talk to him about that would help you in your own personal household?

Inflation, food costs, it wasn't war, it's all food costs in place.

And we're starting to get people saying, well, why don't we have meatless Wednesdays?

Why don't we do this?

Why don't we cooperate?

Now, I think there's a possibility here.

Well, let me just rephrase.

You have scared some people that this is going to take a crisis, right?

But I think if you talk to an investor, if you talk to proper time and say, now, you and I got a problem.

How do you solve it?

You talk right down to them.

How do you solve the problem of food?

You have a disability, of course.

Just explain it to them.

But that takes time.

The other reason that we have these rising food prices is that we're only concerned they have much money.

They're rich, too.

And we have created this thing, so why don't we just all take the Thursday night and buy more kinds of meat and so forth, and let's control this thing together.

I think it would be a fantastic response.

But this is their problem.

Remember that people only have one thing at a time.

And if you hit them with the things, they're never one problem at that time.

The number one problem today is to conserve and save money.

This is why you're in tune on the budget cuts.

This is why you don't hear enough of these squawks from the public.

Because you're in tune.

Well, that ties right in with your, what can I do now, myself, instead of looking at the government.

Sure, yes.

You know, I was, the president can't cut the food prices, but if all of us get together.

I think you sit down and explain, as the president sits down and says, now this is a problem again.

How do you cut it?

The only way we can cut the cost of food is to stop eating so bad.

I said, this piece of spicy stuff is greedy.

And what can the president do about it?

He's instructed that all government food installations don't serve meat on Tuesdays.

Right.

Tell him he's mad.

They ought to be mad.

Well, they are, of course.

Just set an example.

I'd like you to work.

You see, what happened here on these spontaneous generations of the government?

People like that.

They want to be loved.

They want to be loved, okay.

that we have to give that chance to our president.

That question's an expensive question because people go on and on and on.

Some people go, I have nothing to say to them.

And then you ask some other questions, you'll find that's just 26%.

No matter what you do, just forget about it.

But the sad part is that they're the more affluent, the better educated.

Those were people who were set apart.

The Hawks, you've got those and you can't think about those any longer.

They're basically selfish people.

See, they liked the war.

Because the war made jobs.

Jobs made them money.

Places they were fighting.

Somebody else was fighting.

They were making the money.

So they're real selfish people.

But those people lived between.

but the thing is that your timing so that you are on the top issue this is

Well, this is, we really appreciate you coming in and doing it.

When you're down in town, as they say, we'll make you arrange, perhaps, when he's down in Washington again, you know, in the next six to eight weeks or something, when we can see how that, because the issues turn around.

Oh, they turn around.

These days are about 30 days, 60 days.

It seems to like build cycles of about four weeks for everybody.

Four weeks for everybody else.

But you see it turn around.

It's a real pleasure to meet you.

Thank you.

I don't know the first interest I had in this arrangement.

Yeah.

I knew Ben Wilberg when I was a kid.

Did you?

Yeah.

And I stood with my wife, Rose, back here.

12 years old, those were only my hands.

The police was sworn in.

And when I started this company, this is for myself, I left Gal in 48, who were helping to finance my company.

And he got on the phone, he called the John Shaw in Chicago, and he said, well, I've known for many years, he wants to go into market research because he needs it, buddy.

He said, I want you to help him because someday, what he's trying to do is some president might be a leader.

I said, I was an ally, and I was a president.

So I am a little impressed by that.

That's what he said this night.

He said, some days I can't believe it.

He's up there looking down at us.

He was a great guy.

If he had information like this, he would have been here.

He actually was probably in terms of brains and administrative ability.

well qualified anybody would ever have the opportunity but he just happened to capture