Nixon, Cook & Findley on Atlantic Union and Presidential endorsement

Transcript (AI-generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI (WhisperX) and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Names and numbers are often wrong; speakers are not identified. Do not cite it as authoritative — verify against the audio and the finding aid.

Download transcript (.txt) · JSON data

Good morning, I'm Greg.

Oh, how are you?

I'm good, thank you.

Great.

See, that's good, too.

Well, you want to take a picture?

Well, now, that'll do it for you.

All right.

Thank you.

Your job is done.

Well, it's very promising.

If I were in Congress, I would vote for it.

If I were in Congress, or in Senate, and obviously I came out for it before, in my votes years ago, in my election.

51.

51, 51, but also, I mean, it was in the period after my presidency, before 60.

Oh yes, you had, I repeated on it.

Yes.

And the...

Gentlemen speaking, I am not, well, I wish you well, but I can't follow the policy of not, of not, I mean, endorsing a resolution in its form and so forth, and then having to take the burden of presenting the case for it and so forth.

If there's some way you can...

I was going to say, I don't think that the problem here is, if you would work out some kind of answer to this, which would be, shall we say, positive, without putting us in the position where I have to be an advocate.

It's like those, in a sense, like the Equal Rights Amendment in the state legislatures.

I endorse the Equal Rights Amendment.

I support equal rights.

But when people say, will you intervene with the Montana state legislature, the answer is no.

And we can say, and it's a letter, it might be a letter that you could read, where I could say, I endorse the principle, I endorse it before, and so forth and so on.

It is my policy not to do this or that, but you're welcome to use this letter in the debate.

How does that sound to you?

Could we work that out?

Is that fine?

No, I think that's all right.

Well, you would put a, I think what you could do is put a pretty, you could write a letter very strongly.

I feel, Mr.

Governor, I think it has the right to a problem with this.

particularly with all the physical problems right now we've got with the Europeans, I want to put something else on their plate.

You see, for example, we've got this European Security Conference coming up, and if I get too much out in front on this, that would immediately be thrown into that thing, and that would... You got my point?

Yes, the Atlantic Union is a concept that only covers three years, really.

It does, and yet there might be some advantage to you in identifying yourself with this concept.

Well, why the concept?

You see, the problem with the endorsement, I mean, looking at the conference, would be, with it coming up here, they'd say, well, let me say, I would be, to have a conversation, those are no problems at all.

And I don't want to be in a position to be sponsored.

That's the problem.

It distracts attention from some of the important concrete things that we've got right on our plate.

And the trade negotiations, whether you're negotiating with the Europeans or not, aren't interesting.

You can only take so much on that I can push.

And if I do something like this, they'll say, well, why don't you push it then?

Why don't you do something, you know?

It's like the equal rights matter.

They'll say, why don't you do something?

You can't do everything.

You've got to follow the word of the Congress, right?

You've got to read those people's words.

And then I think there's great advantages...

in a broader sense, as well as your personal sense, to identify yourself with the goal, and to do it early in your second term?

Well, why don't we do this?

Why don't you identify with the goal?

I don't see any problem with that.

I have previously.

I said that I think the goal is one business.

It is, I've always supported one, and I think the Congress should do it.

I'm serious.

I'll tell you what, I'll leave it to you to work the other side.

The resolution has a joint one, which would require your signature at some time.

And so that's easy.

Once you've got congressional actions, then that's different than that.

Well, I think you can say that.

We can say that.

I would point that out.

It's a resolution.

I would be very, very happy.

It comes before you.

It comes before us.

Of course it comes before us.

I mean, it's a great, great.

But it's something that has to be considered before.

In regard to the security conference and NBFR.

Yes.

The effect of the letter you just mentioned might be to take any notion from the minds of Europeans that the Atlantic community is a negotiable institution.

And I'm sure the Soviets have a mind to try to negotiate the Atlantic community out of business.

And this would serve to answer that.

Yeah, that makes sense.

And I would think your identification with this would serve to support your new triangular world structure.

The Chinese would surely be pleased with that.

Well, they like it.

The Chinese seem like the best members of NATO.

Yes, sir, they are indeed.

My God, they even like us in Japan, though.

Yes, sir, sir, yes.

And the monetary crisis, I would think that something of this sort would end.

There are some noticeability incontinence in the monetary picture, but there is a better seeming thing to end on.

You're always good at the very best if you don't do the housework.

Well, it'll be through the Senate next week.

Yes, one through the Senate last year.

We were deadlocked in the rules committee, but we have a more favorable rules committee this year.

We have a couple of problems, and one of the main ones is Peter Britton.

Yes, he is in touch against this from the first day, and I don't know how he's going to do it.

He is.

All right.

Well, John Anderson has taken an interest in it, and I hope he persists in it.

He's an able-bodied.

He is indeed.

He's not a foreign person.

He's not.

He's a co-sponsor of this.

He's on the rules.

And he's taken an interest in the Senate, too.

Oh, I know.

I know about that.

I was thinking foreign affairs.

He only gets good.

Well, I don't know.

That's right.

Yeah.

I think Rumsfeld is a very able man.

I wish he were not in Europe if he's serious about running for the Senate, but he's there.

And I want to say, Mr. President, too, that I think that the country, including the country of America, is led to a lot of expenditure control, even though it gets reaped and water and sewer grants.

The traditional law, they're probably over, but they're very smart in thinking.

I think we've got a chance for that one, President.

Yes, sir.

But before, there were about 80 members absent, and I think that without Jerry being there and without a strong feeling on the part of the Minority Committee, I think it's a long shot, but I think we've got a slight chance.

But you'll never, you'll never sustain vocationally in a political initiative.

That's going to be a very rough one.

Democrats are counter-strategizing fairly smartly by pulling those three on top.

I think the vote rehab and older Americans.

The point that I've been trying to get across to Jerry and Paul and I were talking about it earlier, and that is we know that this is their strategy.

We don't control a sequent floor.

Everyone's right.

And, for instance, Al Cui the other day, he said on vote rehab, and he voted it out of committee, he said, well, Vic, it's just an authorization.

I said, yeah, well, that's what we said back in the mid-'60s.

And that's why we're in this jam we're in now.

And furthermore, the fiscal impact will be in 74, where you're most concerned about.

Well, any of that, well, we have to say that we, at least, if it's going to be passed,

And it's not an appropriation.

We still live in it.

You see what I mean?

What I really encourage you to do is when they say you've got some money in this economy, you've got to spend it better.

The issue on overriding was not really joint yesterday.

There's been little advance work to try to win negative votes.

And I think a lot more votes can be secured when it's clear that it's a presidential election.

I do, too.

I think it's a long shot, but I think we're... You see, it never says that.

I don't see the sound of it.

It has to.

I hate to put our houseguards to the sword.

But on the other hand, you know, the way that it really ought to be put, when I sit and I veto something, you're not vetoing the cause, you're vetoing the facts and grace.

That's the point.

And when they say, well, what about this?

What about the idea of the law?

Why are you against this?

This program or that one, or they'll support the goals that the American people 65% want, you know, aid to the underprivileged and send aid.

So therefore, all right.

You ask America to do anything, they'll want that much of an increase of your income.

But if you ask them the question in the proper way, are you willing to have your taxes increased in order to provide aid to the people in San Diego?

They'll say, no, it's 85%.

And that's the way we've got to frame this question.

We've just got to frame it that way.

That's right, it's the best amendment to the treaty.

The delay is an effective date until Congress can either raise taxes, raise the public debt ceiling, or the Comptroller General certifies there's enough money in the bank.

Yes, that's a very good amount.

Well, at least we'll win some of them, I hope.

Yes, sir, that's the key.

Mr. President, I think that there's a

As difficult as it is, I think there is a chance to get the Republicans to hold in line on the first two or three.

It might not be difficult, but it would be tough, very tough.

That's right, sir.

That's what they said.

Well, back to

and got together on that veto strategy, and as soon as the Republicans on the Hill stuck together and sustained two, I think it was, two vetoes, they went back to drawing, and they folded up their tent.

That's it.

We'll see.

Well, we'll take a copy of the picture, your souvenir, and buy it.

And I'll put it for you, the letter, right?

Well, the letter helps mark the word or something.

So we didn't find a job that we didn't live with.

And I'm sure the world will see it.

We'll see it.

I think what he would talk to me about was the trading department.

I don't see a hell of a good assignment in Indonesia.

I don't know whether you'd like that, but would you?

I don't want this to be a thing, but... Of course, you can do anything, because you know you're...

If there were a way that you could do it in the basis of...

I haven't thought it through, but I want, before you do it, I want to talk to you about where you could take a bigger portfolio, frankly.

You see, it's a waste for you to just work economics, but you've got to work into the political thing.

See what I mean?

And George is a very aggressive fellow.

He's like a blocker.

He's picking up everything he can around the world.

And I like that, because he's a very capable man.

And that's why Treasury, therefore, might be a spot.

But it looks like economics is the name of the game in Europe for the next year, doesn't it?

Could be.

We're the West Europeans, of course.

I will talk about it.

I've mentioned to Henry the thought that how could we get it to Fort Boyd.

So I told Henry, and he mentioned to me, and I said, well, I don't understand.

He said, but he's still right across the street.

I said, then we're in that way.

So, uh... Yeah.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you, Paul.

Thank you.

And we don't get mad at those who don't go with us.

I understand their confidence.

I understand.

Good luck.

Nixon, Cook & Findley on Atlantic Union and Presidential endorsement

AI Summary

Audio

Transcript (AI-generated)

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Also recorded on March 2, 1973

Cite this conversation