Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564150",
    "label": "Transcripts - 10/15/1974, 10/31/1974, 11/07/1974, 11/12/1974",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564150"
}

{
    "id": "118564150",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564150",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Transcripts - 10/15/1974, 10/31/1974, 11/07/1974, 11/12/1974",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564150",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Press Conference Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-012-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-012-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-012-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564150",
    "naId": 118564150,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408622/40-840-7408622-P04-012-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "8b7e1d3bfa5ea230",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual\ncollections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Press Conference Transcripts -\n10/15/1974, 10/31/1974, 11/07/1974, 11/12/1974\nBox: P04\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\ninventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at:\[email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\n10/15\nNEWS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD OCTOBER 15, 1974\nReported by:\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's press conference is\nfurnished to the members of the News Corps for their convenience only.\nBecause of the need to get it to the News Corps as quickly as possible,\nno corrections are made and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy).\n000\nGOVERNOR: Good morning. I guess I can't tell anything about the baseball\nfans here present with the Series divided at one and one yet. No chance\nto see any gloom or doom or joy on anyone's face. I'm just as neutral\nas anyone can be in this job.\nQ. Are you going to get to see any of the games?\nGOVERN OR : I don't think so.\nQ. What's more important?\nGOVERNOR: Just scheduling.\nQ. Senator Cranston said today he has been talking to Republicans about\nthe nomination of Nelson Rockefeller as Vice President. He said he talked\nto you briefly some time ago and as he put it received \"an inconclusive\nresponse from him as I did when I talked to him about Gerald Ford, he said\nsomething pleasant but it wasn't an enthusiastic endorsement.\" What are\nyour feelings?\nGOVERNOR: Who did you say you got that from?\nQ.\nSenator Cranston said that was your response to him when he asked you\nabout the nomination of Gov. Rockefeller.\nGOVERNOR: I don't recall Senator Cranston ever asking me. I don't know\nanything about this. The only call I recall is he called me about wanting\nto come out here and hold some kind of a conference prior to the President's\nconference on economics and on the inflation problem and would I\nparticipate and I said I thought that no, I wouldn't, I didn't think it\nwould serve a useful purpose at that time, that I preferred to wait and\nsee what the National Conference what their recommendations were.\nQ. You don't recall talking to him about Gov. Rockefeller's nomination?\nGOVERNOR: No. I don't think the subject ever came up.\nQ. What are your feelings about the Rockefeller nomination now?\nGOVERNOR: I don't think it would be proper for me to comment right now.\nHe is there before the House Committees. I have said all I have to say.\nI have known Nelson for a long time, his record is there for anyone to see\nWe have had a cordial relationship.\nQ.\nDo you hope he will be confirmed?\nGOVERNOR: Yes, I think it would be fine if he were.\nQ. In the light of recent developments in the last week, Governor?\nGOVERNOR: I am not going to comment further than this. When I say that\nin answer to your question that it would be then that means that I would\nhope that these various issues that are being raised would be proven to\nhave no validity but I am not going to comment when there are Congressiona\ncommittees that have to hear this and I am not present, hearing the facts\nor knowing what has been brought up.\nQ. Cranston said there was still some residual bad feeling from the\nGoldwater campaign. Do you personally harbor any of that feeling or know\nof the extent?\nGOVERNOR: NO.\nQ. Senator Cranston said he was surveying Californing Republican leaders\nto see how they felt about it. Now from your own knowledge of California\nRepublican leadership he said over half of the California Republican\nleaders he surveyed were against the Rockefeller nomination. Does that\njibe with your own knowledge of the situation?\nGOVERNOR: I have never made any effort, nor I couldn't give you any\nfigures or anyting of that kind. I have not discussed this matter with\nRepublican leaders and if I am a Republican leader I am one of the ones\nthat he didn't contact, inspite of what he says.\nQ. With Mr. Rockefeller's nomination being in stormy weather as they\nare calling it do you think it would be wise for the President to start\nlooking around for another choice?\nGOVERNOR: You would have to ask him that.\nQ. Would you be available if he asked you?\nGOVERNOR: I am not going to go beyond what I have already said.\nQ. Mr. Flournoy over the weekend said in a speech that if he is elected\nhe will probably replace most of your major appointments to state agencie\nas heads. Do you have any reaction to that?\nGOVERNOR: Anyone who is elected Governor that is his prerogative and\nI am sure that everyone has his own choices and his own personnel whom\nhe would like to have help him institute his programs. And I think most\nof our people here in government expect that. I am sure that no one\nwould want to feel that maybe he had someone who had a lingering loyalty\nto anyone else. I can only say this that as far as might-have-been\nthis is one of the things I will be the proudest of, that we have brought\nthe level of the quality of employee to state government, that we have\nhad here greater than at any time I have every known, here or in any\nother state. We have been fortunate in getting men who were willing to\nmake a sacrifice and give up other careers and come here and serve the\npeople for a period of time and there is just no mathing the level and\nI hope Mr. Flournoy has the same thing in mind and I am sure he does.\nQ. What do you think about TIME magazine's decision to place Jerry\nBrown's picture on its cover this week?\nGOVERNOR: Isn't there something about the curse of being on the fron\nof TIME magazine? No, I don't know, I haven't seen TIME magazine.\nQ.\nWhy haven't you done any campaigning for Senator Richardson as you\nhave done for others statewide Republican candidates?\nRepublican\nGOVERNON: In my general publix appearances I have included him and\nreferred to him as the entire ticket.\nI\nmade myself available throug\nthe Party, they have scheduled me and I just assumed that Senator\nRichardson had his own campaign and didn't ask in that I have not been\nasked to be, specifically appear for him at a fundraiser as I have\nfor Constitutional officers and a number of Legislative officers, or\nlegislative candidates.\nQ. Are you supporting him as enthusiastically as you are other members\nof the ticket?\nGOVERNOR: Yes. Even more so since the questions here this morning.\nQ. You said that Reaganism is an issue in the campaign this year,\nparticularly I guess at the gubernatorial level. If Flournoy and other\nRepublicans are defeated as the polls would indicate at this point would\nyou consider it a personal defeat of your philosophy?\nGOVERNOR: No. I think today with the economic problems confronting\nthe people I think there is a great deal of confusion and also a great\ndeal of apathy and there is a lingering apathy and in some areas\nresentment on the basis of Watergate, people turned off on politics.\nI think the thing reading some of the stories and the roundups on surveys\nand polls, and so forth, that disturbs me the most is again the lack of\nunderstanding on the part of so many people of where to assess the blame\nfor the things that they resent right now, the problems inflation and\nso forth and by the same token unable to assess the blame properly the\nmanner in which they will turn and support someone as a potential solver\nof the problems who indeed has been part of the problem. There is just\ntoo much of this. This is why again I say I think there is a great need\nfor clarification not only in this campaign but for some time to come about\nthis system and how it works.\nI give a point if that seems indefinite- I was reading in one newspaper\nthe story this morning quoting someone who was complaining about the\nproblems and then used the term \"time for a change\" but they used\n\"time for a change\" meaning that they were then going to support\nDemocratic candidates. While I submit that if anyone wants a change that\nis going in the wrong direction. Here in this state for virtually all\nof the eight years I have been here, the Democrats have determined, to\na large extent, policy by way of legislation and my greatest power has\nbeen veto power. The few things, the major accomplishments such as\nwelfare reform that were major and we have been able to get, the property\ntax reform, we only got by going to the people and forcing public opinion\non the legislature. They have no intention of changing. An example was\nthis recent Pension bill. When finally public opinion made them aware\nthey could not withstand the scandal then they put their names on the\nlegislation to try and cover up and confuse the people that they were in\nfavor of rectifying the problem. At the National level, in Congressional\nraces, for forty aut of the last 44 years the Democrats have been running\nthe Congress of the United States and just occupying the White House for\na few years does not put the Republicans in charge. The deficit spending,\nthe inflation, the present tax situation are all Democrat doings.\nQ. Lt. Gov. Harmer in announcing the meeting of the\nEconomic\nDevelopment Commission talked about the possibility of helping the housing\nindustry and the amount of money available to be loaned. Why then did, if\nhe feels that important, did you veto the housing legislature that was\nsent to you?\nGOVERNOR: I vetoed the legislation that was sent to me because in most\nof the states that have gone into the businees of meeting some of their\nproblems by setting up semi-autonomous commissions with the power to bond,\nthose state have lost their credit ratings for their bonds. California\nhas the highest rating there is and the legislation that was sent to me\nwould have created a commission which would have the authority to handle\na half-billion dollars as they saw fit to make this available for housing\nand would have put the entire credit of the State of California behind\ntheir doings and I just didn't think this was the way to resolve the proble\nIt certainly was not going to contribute to fighting inflation. To\nindicate that the only reason there is a housing problem is because of\nhigh interest rates is to ignore the inflated cost of construction today\nwhich is probably worse than any industry you can name. People can't\nafford houses today and it's not alone interest. They can't afford the\n- 4 -\ncost of construction, period.\nQ\nGovernor, what is the way these things can solve the problem of\nhousing in California?\nGovernor: I think the housing problem is like all the others; they are\nall appendages to the main problem of inflation. And we must lick the\nproblem of inflation, and we'll find these other things will fall in\nplace. In the meantime, to pick out one sector of the economy and to\nthink by subsidy, you can go ahead and ease the situation there, while\nyou fight inflation with just one hand and ignore these things\nyou're\ngoing to keep right on having inflation.\n0\nHow would you lick inflation, Governor, in 30 seconds?\nGovernor: Cut the federal spending, and then do the thing the President\nhas asked for, and that is, review all of the legislation and all of the\nregulations which are hindering business todayand restricting its ability\nto expand to provide the jobs our people need, and to increase productivity.\nWe have: the lowest per man-hour productivity in America today of most of\nour foreign competitors. And this is an unusual thing, because the one\nthing America always had going for it and that accounted for our high\nstandard of living was that we could out-produce, man for man, more than\nany other nation. And that's no longer true.\nQ\nGovernor, if the President's anti-inflation proposals are approved\nto halt\nand they fail/the rising inflation, would you feel a stronger duty to\nseek the Republican nomination in 1976?\nGovernor: No, I thought that your question was finally going to get\naround to that. If a program is rigorously put into being with regard\nto fighting inflation\nincluding many of the things\nI'm not in total\nagreement with all the things that have come out as recommendations; I\ndo not support the idea of raising taxes; I've always said that that is\na counter-productive measure where inflation is concerned. But, if the\nprogram is put into effect and Congress cooperates, and so far Congress\nhas shown no indication to cooperate. And, again, I point to the majority\nparty--the majority leadership in the Congress--the denial of the simple\nrequest of delaying the pay increase for three months when the level of\npay in federal employment today, as an industry, as a group, averages\nhigher than any other industry in America today. This was an indication\nof Congress' approach. And I think they're probably going to drag their\nfeet on a lot of other measures. The thing, then, if there is any\nconscience among any of us, the thing is to make sure that those who\n-5-\nare responsible for breaking down the fight to inflation are properly\nexposed. And that we know who is responsible, and not simply say, a\nPresident's program didn't work, when no one tried to make the President's\nprogram work, when they subverted it instead. Now, if that does not take\nplace, then God bless us, partisan politics and the two-party system is\nfunctioning properly in America and will cure inflation.\nQ\nGovernor, speaking of the two-party system, in your travels recently\nin talking to Republicans and making appearances, has anyone ever mentioned\nthe possibility of a third party candidacy for you to you directly.\nGovernor: No, I have just heard some general discussions around when\npeople are talking about wondering if both of the parties have sort of\nlost their way, and this isn't a day for the new majority, and that sort\nof thing. I've never had anyone seriously sit down and talk to me about\nsuch a thing.\nΩ\nHow would you feel about this?\nGovernor: There could be one of those moments in time. I don't know.\nI read the polls like you do. I see the statements of disaffection of\npeople in both parties--the loss of confidence. And you wonder which\nis the easiest. Do you restore the confidence or do you change the name,\nor something. I don't know. I really don't. I still think that the\ntwo-party system has served this country very well, and I wish the two\nparties could revive an interest to the place where the biggest group\nof people wouldn't be undecided. It is the undecided, those that decline\nto state, they're letting someone else choose their candidates for them.\no\nAre you ruling out the possibility of yourself being involved in\nsomething like that?\nGovernor: No, now, again, you're framing my answer for me. I simply said\na\nthat I don't know the answer or whether it has reached /point where there\nis no chance to revive the interest in the two political parties. I\nreally don't know. Right at the moment, I'm doing my best to revive the\nvehicle\ninterest in my party as being the best/to what has to be done. Because\nI think that everything for the last 40 years in social reforms and\nexperiments that have been attempted by the Democrats have an almost\nunbroken record of failure. They have not solved the problems. In\nfact, they have become the problems.\nQ\nGovernor, I'd like you to clarify your stand on the third party for\nus, please. You're not ruling that possibility out?\nGovernor: Well, not in the sense in which I'm talking about the natural\nmovements of people and things that go on. I'm not standing here advocating\n-6-\none or the other, I am saying there have been moments in time when new\nparties were created or there was a reshift or a rebalancing between\nparties. Whether we are coming to one of those moments in history I\ndon't know. I don't know how deep is the disaffection and the apathy,\nbut I do know that when the Democrats only turn out 26 percent of the\nvote in New York State in a Primary for the United States Senate there\nis obviously, at the moment, something in our two-party system that is\nnot working. Now this could be a temporary thing brought on by the last\nyear and a half. I, myself, have expressed the theory that possibly\npart of the disaffection of our obsession with Watergate in the last two\nyears has been caused as much by weariness as anything else, that people\njust are fed up with politics and they don't even want to talk it and\ntherefore they can't get themselves roused up to participate in a campaig\nand that could very well be part of it. If so, time will heal that.\nQ. You, like it or not,\nrepresent\nthe leadership role for\na number of people, a great number of people in this country, who have a\ncertain conviction and philosophy of government. Are you content to let\nother people do the searching for you, whether the party system at presen\nis viable? Don't you feel that you have an obligation actively to enquir\nwhether a third party is necessary and whether this is the proper time?\nGOVERNOR: THe obligation that I feel right now is the one that I have\nembarked on and that is to remind the people of this country of what they\nvoted for in 1972. What they voted for, the philosophy and what they\nrepudiated and I have used the term that that is a \"mandate\" and it is up\nto government to carry out that mandate of the people because I don't\nthink the people have changed their minds, they still feel that, in fact,\nand probably feel even stronger about that mandate than they did them.\nNow what it takes to enforce that I myself am appealing to the Republicar\nParty to accept that as an obligation and try and carry on that mandate.\nQ. If the disaffection and apathy is as great as you say it might be\ntherefore it would require a third party candidate to carry out the\nmandate, would you be that third party candidate?\nGOVERNOR: This time would tell. If neither political party is going to\nabide by the will of the people I think the people are going to find some\nway to express that will.\nQ. Then you would put principle above party? I am asking that question\nfor context.\nGOVERNOR: Yes. Oh yes. I did when I left the Democratic Party and\nwho\nbecame a Republican. I have often quoted Winston Churchill gave the\nanswer to your question, he said \"Some men change principle for party\nand some men change party for principle.' I agree with him and believe\nin the latter.\nQ. How successful do you think your efforts have been in reviving the\nRepublican Party so far this year?\nGOVERNOR: I don't know, we'll know more in November, we'll see.\nl.\nWould you consider the election to be a barometer of your success\nin that area or is that just transitory?\nGOVERNOR: No. I am not a candidate and obviously candidates are going\ntheir own way and campaigning with their own issues.\nQ.\nYou said you are opposed to a tax increase as a solution to inflation\nI take that to mean you are opposed to the President's suggestion for a\nsurtax.\nGOVERNOR: Yes I am opposed. I have taken that position from when I first\nheard the report. I have said that in general I found many things in\nthere I do support, his wanting to look at the regulatory agencies, wanting\nto reduce the cost of federal government. I don't believe that the\nsurtax is necessary, in fact I do think it is counter-productive. When\nyou have government that has grown beyond its bounds and should be\nreduced in power and size and cost to increase taxes is to tempt a\nlegislature beyond its strength to resist because what you do is to\nattempt to solve the problem by increasing the government's revenues\nand government does increase its costs to meet revenues, not the other\nay around, and if you really want to cut government's costs cut off the\nmoney supply.\nQ. How can you criticize the Democrats for not letting the President's\nprogram run its course to curb inflation when you are critical of the\nsame programs components?\nGOVERNOR. No, this program is not so dovetailed, it is not a plan, he\ndidn't even pretend it was a plan dovetailed together in which if you\nook one little piece out it all came unglued and I say that overall the\nthings that he asked for first of all to balance the budget and then to\nreduce the spending in the next budget to where it is even a surplus\nbudget, to reduce in this year right now the cost of government by, with\nonly six months to go, by $5½ billion, these measures, to review all\nthe regulatory things to offer the incentives that he proposed, to increas\nproduction, because that is the other side of it. If you've got a money\n/if\nsupply up here and a supply of things to buy down here you can raise this\nup to the level of the money supply prices come down,\nWhen you've got too much money chasing too few products you continue\nto have inflation.\nQ.\nDon't we have the assumption that he can regulate spending by veto\npowers, so therefore he can control that and that the surtax\nGOVERNOR: He can veto some wrong suggestionsthat are made but veto is a\nnegative power, a veto cannot affirm well, for example, curbing the\nregulatory agencies, and lifting the restrictions that are adding to the\ncost of production but not expanding the ability to produce. You can't\ndo that with a veto, that depends on the Congress, and those are the\nmain things that have to be done.\nQ.\nYou mentioned your opposition to the surtax to the President in a\ntelegram I think the day before he announced the program based on\nassumptions. Have you communicated with him any further since then?\nGOVERNOR: No.\nQ. Are you opposed to the housing legislation which will likely get to\nthe President in the next few days to provide additional federal funds\nfor the purchase of homes?\nGOVERNOR: I don't have an answer on that. I haven't checked on that, I\ndon't know what the program is or calls for.\nQ. You talked about the mandate of '72 and your role of reminding people\nof that. There is a sizable body of opinion that says that a lot of that\nis a vote against George McGovern. If that is true, or if you think that\nis true and second of all if it is true wouldn't that make a third party\ncandidacy along that line counter-productive?\nGOVERNOR: Well, as I have said before my hope is, my plea is, that the\nRepublican party which was the vehicle which carried that mandate which\noffered the program that the people, Democrat, Independent and Republican,\nvoted for in such great numbers that the Republican Party will continue\nto be that vehicle.\nQ. Any more questions?\nA. Yes, one more. Do you think your views on crime and punishment are\nconsistent with public opinion in view of the fact that the recent\ninitiative failed by a large margin, the one that would have outlawed\nprobation for certain offenses?\nGOVERNOR: You mean the initiative on the ballot?\nQ.\nThe one that failed to get on the ballot by almost 200,000.\nGOVERNOR: Being married to someone who got thousands of signatures\nherself I know something about that. That didn't get on the ballot, we\nnever once, we never met a person, nor has anyone she ever talked to who\nwas also circulating petitions, never met a person who was opposed to it.\nBut it proved again, in a state of 21 million people, you didn't have\nany organization. Very frankly the peace officers organizations were\nsupposed to be taking the lead in circulating those petitions but we\nfound time after time that there were police stations and sheriff stations\nthat didn't even know that there were such petitions being circulated\nand I suppose it comes down to that there was no effort made to raise\nany money, there was no spending in the campaign, it was just left to\nindividuals who heard about it and there was just a lack of knowledge.\nIf there had been any way, any organization at all to let the people know\nthat there were such circulations, rather such petitions were being\ncirculated, I am sure there would have been no question about it.\nIt is a tragedy that they even had to make the effort because legislation\nto do that has been introduced and has been buried in the graveyard of\nlaw\nand\norder\nthe Assembly Criminal Justice Committee where it will\nbe continued to be buried until there is a change in leadership up there\nthat gives you a committee of the kind that we had the one time when\nthere was a different party occupying the Speaker's chair, just the one\nfew-months time here in my years and we passed 41 pieces of anti-crime\nlegislation that have contributed a great deal to our ability to enforce\nthe law. But the failure of this was just a thing\nQ. Not well organized even though your name, the name of your Attorney\nGeneral Younger's name was associated with it? Also the California\nPeace Officers' Association.\nGOVERNOR: They asked Nancy to take the title of honorary chairman of this\nand she took it seriously enough to work very hard and as I say she\ngot literally thouands of signatures, but as I have also said she never\nmet anyone that refused to sign. Everyone, and almost invariably, she\neame home with stories that everyone who signed said this was the first\nthey had ever heard of it. I saw no news of it, I saw no news stories\nconcerning it, certainly there was nothing ever appeared in the media\nabout itand it just died from lack of nourishment. I am amazed they\ngot as many hundred thousand signatures as they did.\nQ. Could you yourself then have done more to publicize it?\nGOVERNOR: Oh, I tried to in places where I spoke I referred to it,\nI called attention to it at Convention audiences I addressed, called\nattention to it, and those people in the room heard me but the news was\nnever exactly headlined that I had inserted that into my speech.\n10\nQ. Do you blame the press then?\nGOVERNOR: No, I am just saying it wasn't organized. There was no\nreal organized effort to do this. There was no money raised, there was\nno means to advertise it.\nThank you, Governor.\n######\n- 11 -\nNEWS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD OCTOBER 31, 1974\nReported by\nBeverly D. Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's News Conference is\nufrnished to the members of the Capitol Press Corps for their\nconvenience only. Because of the need to get it to the News Corps.\nas quickly as possible, ndcorrections are made and there is no guaranty\nof absolute accuracy.)\no00\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nI have an opening statement here.\n(Whereupon Governor Reagan read Release No. 629.)\nQ\nGovernor, could you refresh our memories on how much those\nfunds are?\nA\nYes, I believe the incoming administration gets $125,000. The\noutgoing administration gets twenty-five.\nQ\nYoudidn't send one to the Socialist Workers party, Governor.\n(Laughter)\nA\nDo they have a candidate? I thought there were only four on\nthe ballot. We goofed if we didn't.\nQ\nGovernor, how strongly are you supporting Bill Richardson\nfor U. S. Senate?\nA\nWell, I'm supporting the entire ticket. I have appeared at a\ncouple of fundraisers for him and have one more to do. And have done\nan ad for him.\n0\nBut Senator Cranston the other night hinted that he might even\nhave a tacit endorsement or tacit support of you or that he didn't think\nyou would mind if he won, and has evidenced the fact that some of your\nstrongest supporters have contributed to his campaign.\nA\nWell, Senator Cranston is absolutely wrong, whether he has my\ntacit support or whether I'm sitting back, I think Senator Cranston is\none of the biggest spending senators inthe U. S. Senate. He was a\nparty as this session of Congress opened, he was one of 11 Democrat\nSenators who between them set a new record in the history of the United\nStates in that the 11 of them proposed spending measures which totalled\na trillion dollars of additional spending by the federal government.\nQ\nThe Flournoy people released a poll showing him catching up with\n-1-\nBrown.\nDo you believe in polls, and has this one occurred to you?\nA\nWell, I don't believe you can ignore polls. We found that\nthere's - that they indicate trends. I don't think that they are\naccurate to the percentage point, but I believe they also show trends\nof this kind and evidently there is an upsurge and I hope it continues\nand to insure his victory.\nQ\nGovernor, both Mr. Brown and Mr. Flournoy have generally agreed\nthat there need to be changes in the areas of collective bargaining for\nubdic employees and the area of housing, and more public members on\nConsumer Affairs. These are the things that haven't happened in your\nadministration. Do you take this as any reflection on what you accom-\nplished and what you haven't done?\nA\nNo, and I think there are differences between the two of them\non these points in collective bargaining. Houston Flournoy has\nindicated that he seeks to find some better way to - for redress of\ngrievances, and to work out problems between employees and government,\nand we have been doing the same thing. Now, perhaps in the transitional\nperiod, if he's the candidate and he finds out all of the changes we've\nmade and all of theprograms we've undertaken to bring this about, he\nwill beencouraged by the progress we've made. His opponent, on the\nother hand, supports collective bargaining that would permit public\nemployees to strike. Hugh Flournoy is opposed to this, and I think this\nis an issue of this campaign. Because any man who would run for public\noffice and endorse the idea of public employees striking, I think is\nadvocating something that is contrary to the public interests and to\nthe --- and is against the good of the people of this state.\nQ\nWhat in the area of housing, Governor -- you vetoed that bill\nand there also both agree that there should be more public members on\nthe Board and Consumer Affairs department.\nMy basic question is, how\ndoes this reflect on your administration?\nA\nWell, again, I don't think that they -- in the area of the\nConsumer Affairs department, I don't think they are aware of the lead\nthat we have taken and the steps that we've taken in these last few\nyears to do exactly that. And to have more public representation.\nWe\nwere well aware that the tendency in any government regulation is for\nthe regulators to need regulating. That the regulators pretty soon\nbegin to represent not the consumer as much as the regulated industry.\nAnd we have taken steps and we have made great strides in that way, and\nI think that either one of them -- I know that Hugh, in his own job,\nhas not been privy to all the things that are going on in the administra-\ntion, and -- down at the department level. But he will find out that\nthe Consumer Protection Agency in California is truly outstanding in\nthe country. There is no other state that has anything like it, and\nwe literally have laid down rules with regard to product quality,\nconsumer safety that have affected manufacturing for the whole country.\nWe have served the purpose in protecting the whole nation in such things\nas fireproofing of upholstery fabrics and things of that kind. We\nhave a very strong and a very effective Consumer Protection Agency in\nCalifornia. Now, in the housing thing, with regard tothe bond issue\nhere, perhaps we have some disagreement. It is very easy to look only\nat the one thing andthe slump in housing and the fact that there is ----\nthere is a slump and housing is not going forward in California. But\nthre has been no determination yet as to whether part of that slump\nmight not be due to over production. I know we were warned two years\nago that we were going to be confronting this because there was a\ntendency to - to overbuild. But the bond issue that had come to our\ndesk and that we vetoed was one that would have, I think, endangered\nthe credit rating of the State of California, but it also would have\ncreated an autonomous agency that would have had bonding power and the\nfull control ---- not elected representatives, they were not elected,\nthis autonomous agency would have had the power to spend a half a billion\ndollars and to float more bonds and to do what it chose to do with that\nmoney. Now, some other states have fallen into that trap to their\nsorrow. They have lost their credit rating for doing it and they have\nfound that they have built monstrous costly programs. And we are as\nconcerned as anyone else about housing. We have felt for a long time in\nthis administration, however, that the federal government had pre-empted\nthat field --in the field of both subsidizing, with the exeeption of\nour veteran's program, which is a very successful program.\nQ\nDoes it bother you that even the Republican candidate is talking\nabout changes far beyond what you have accomplished in your administration?\nA\nNo, because I expect any candidate -- no one is going to be a\nrubber stamp. Every candidate has his own views on things and his own\npriorities and they are going to vary. I would say that basically\nHugh and I have no philosophical quarrels. I might disagree with some\ntrend that he would make, I'm sure that he in the past has disagreed\n-3-\nwith some of mine. On the other hand, I feel in some of these actual\nparticulars that there's been no opportunity for him to find out, as for\nexample, the Consumer Protection Agency, that we are already --he may\nfind that all he needs to do is continue and carry on what we have\nalready started in that regard. I'm not going to say that it is easy.\nYou get resistance from the people that are already there when you start\ntd: make changes in government, particularly when you are dealing with a\nbureaucracy.\nI\nAnd, Governor, Mr. Flournoy hasn't been -- cited your record\nor yourself unless he's asked about it. He hasn't really praised your\nadministration except when the question has been raised. He seems\nto\nregard it as somewhat a burden on the campaign trail.\nDo you get this\nimpression or not?\nA\nNo, I haven't gotten that impression at all. In fact, I read\nsome of you writing about one of his appearances on the University campus\nwhere he took the mound about what our support and aid to education\nhad been in spite of the fact that this was displeasing to some students\nwho hadebeen well indoctrinated, I'm sure, that we were tearing down\nthe universities and the educational institutions, which ---- and he pointed\nout that was not true. No, I haven't felt that. But I believe that any\ncandidate - he knows in a situation of this kind that he, being a member\nof this administration, is going to have his opponents attack him on the\nbasis perhaps of being a carbon copy or rubber stamp, and he has to in\nthe campaign establish his own identity and that he is his own man and\nI favor his doing that.\nQ\nYou don't agree with Jerry Brown then that Flournoy is recycled\nReaganism?\nA\nNo, as a matter of fact I don't agree with Jerry Brown on almost\nanything, and certainly not in the lies, distortions and misstatements\nof fact that have characterized his advertisements. I know he's been\nrunning against me, and I find that his ads are pretty disgraceful in\nthe things that -- their inaccuracies, and as I say, they are outright\nfalsehoods.\nQ\nWhat falsehood, Governor?\nA\nWhat? Well, here is the ad about how much the Governor of\nCalifornia is paid and he makes it sound as if he -- lives at a Rockefeller\nlevel, and then he says -- and he grew up, of course, living on that\nsame pay scale, or his family, and all the emoluments that go with the\n-4-\noffice, but then he says == comes out with the fact that Hugh Flournoy\nwants a 20 per cent raise for the Governor. Now, Hugh Flournoy\nspecifically, when the proposal was made in the legislature, it did\nnot come from the executive branch, that there should be an increase\nin pay for constitutional officers, Hugh Flournoy specifically agreed\nwith that program except that the Governor's office should be exempt\nand not get an increase inpay. And that's one. If you want some\nothers --\nQ\nWhat about the Governor's Mansion, Governor? Jerry Brown says\nhe won't live in the mansion.\nDo youthink it is prudent to go ahead\nwith that?\nA\nYes, because I think it is being built for governors for a\nhundred years to come. And it has been a need for forty years. Now,\nhere again, I think are some of his inaccuracies. He charges that the\nmnsion is a Taj Mahal that is going to contain sauna baths and wine\ncellars and so forth. There is nothing of that kind in it. Now, he\ngrew up in a house in which there was a wine cellar and a house that\nwas 4,000 square feet bigger than the one that is being built, and that\nwas provided by the people of California. This is another one of his\ninaccuracies. And I think the residence should go ahead and if he\nchooses not to live in it, well, fine, it will be just nice, brand new\nand spanking then if he should be the Governor, for the next Governor\nthat comes along, but I'm hopeful that he doesn't have to make that\ndecision.\n(election)\nQ\nGovernor, what do you think would be a good outcome for Republi-\ncans next Tuesday and what do you think would be a bad out -- in other\nwords, what would be the best Republicans could hope for and what would\nbe maybe the worse they should feel, both in the state --\nA\nI'd like to see the Governor win the constitutional offices.\nI would like to see them improve their position in both the Assembly\nand the Senate. I know that we can't achieve a majority in those houses.\nI think we can come so close in the Senate that we do have a checking\npower and certainly an upholding of veto power that we've had in these\nlast several years, and that veto power has saved the people of\nCalifornia over $16 billion dollars. I would like to see that. I\nknow that at the national level, in the off-year elections, the party\noccupying the White House traditionally loses about two score seats.\nSo I would like to see the Republicans do better than that. And lessen\nthe majority and certainly keep Mr. Meany from getting his veto-proof\nCongress.\n2\nGovernor, what do you think that President Ford's visit to the\ntate tonight will be in light that Grand Rapids, Michigan, his own home\ntown, had a great deal of mixed emotions about what he could or couldn't\ndo for the party?\nA\nWell, he's coming to California for a fundraiser, and there is\nno question that the Republicans have not been able to match the\nexcessive contributions that our Democratic opponents have had. And\nwe donthhave any candidates who are getting a half a million dollars from\ntwo contributors. So he's speaking at a fundraising dinner and the\ntickets have been sold on that basis, and there is some pretty practical,\ngood that's been done already. means that our candidates will be\nable to continue down to the wire. We have never been able tomatch our\nopponents in the flood of advertising they have. For example, Bill\nBagley's opponent has just signed up for an additional $150,000 in radio\nand T. V. ads. Which means that when the campaign is over and the\naccounting must then be made, after the election, we are evidently going\nto find that someone has chunked a big sum of money into his opponent,\nthat Bill can't match.\nQ\nGovernor, why does the President have to come in? You are the\nGovernor, you've been popular. Isn't it enough for you to just stand\nup for these candidates in California?\nA\nWell, I've been standing up for them. But also there is a\nlittle thing in show business that you know, how much of the people --\nhow often are the people going to pay money to see reruns.\nQ\nAre you speaking of yourself in that instance?\nA\nWell --\n(Laughter)\nA\nWell, I have done two statewide, very successful fundraisers\nin this campaign. I have done a number of smaller fundraisers for\nindividual candidates for the Assembly and the Senate, for the Assembly\nand Senate caucuses. One each for at least all of our candidates in\nthe constitutional offices in the Senate and there comes a point in\nwhich you are going to have another fundraiser, you bring in outside\ntalent. Just as I myself have been outside talent in other states to\nthe extent that I could lave the state.\nQ\nIs that any reflection about how difficult the election is going\nto be for Republicans, you need the President to come in?\nA\nOh, no, I think he's been campaigning extensively. I think\nthis is in a pattern, and again I'm not going to deny the fact that in\nthe follow -- over the last two years there is a great apathy and\naffecting both parties, but for us it is worse because we are a minority\nparty.\nWe can't afford to have our people stay home. And all of us\nare doing our utmost to convince the Republicans to get out and go to the\npolls.\n&\nDo you care to comment about a statement you reportedly said\nyesterday that the lynch mob should be satisfied with Richard Nixon's\nturn for the worse?\nA\nI made a remark that was overheard by the press privately to\nsomeone else, and what I actually said, and said for public dissemination\nand\nI repeat, I was sasked my comment regarding the health condition of\nthe former President, and I said I intended to pray for him.\nThat I'd\nbeen doing, and intend to continue.\nI\nGovernor, in that same context, do you think the President's\ncritical illness will generate or elicit a sympathy response by\nRepublicans\nRepbulcains in California, say, Tuesday?\nA\nI have no way of knowing. I haven't even thought of this in\nconnection with anything to do with the election. I just hope and pray\nfor his family that he is shortly recovered from this.\nQ\nGovernor, talking about fundraising, do you have any\nbalance left in any of your funds or your accounts from fundraising over\nthe years and if so, what are you going to do with them?\nA\nI don't think SO. We've -- you are talking about the fund\nthrough the State Central Committee that has paid the expenses for my\ncampaigning, so that the taxpayers don't have to pay for it?\nIf there is anything left, it will just simply revert to the State\nCentral Committee, because it is -- through their hands.\nI\nGovernor, could you clarify once and for all where you stand on\npossibly a third party? Could you say is it a possibility or is it not\na possibility for you in '76? Give us a yes or no on it.\nA\nLadies and Gentlemen, you had me in that hypothetical discussion\nhere a cauple of weeks ago, and I thought I was impervious to surprise\nany more, but I must confess to being quite surprised at the positiveness\nof your stories about what I thought was nothing more than hypothetical\nspeculation on the general subject. And I have thus learned my lesson\nand I'm not going to join in any more such hypothetical discussions.\nI am going to do my utmost for the Republican party and to convince as\nmany people as I can that this party and what it stands for is more in\nline with thenopes and dreams and aspirations of the people of the United\nStates than the leadership of the Democratic party, and that has been\nproven by an actual study.\nQ\nWell, the talk of the third party, Governor, seems to be coming\nfrom Republicans in other parts of the country. They have been telling\npolitical columnists and newsletter people about this. Do you think\nit is wrong for them to speak out on the third party then?\nA\nNo, that's -\nC\nThat's where it comes from.\nA\nIf you want to ask them about that, you're going to ask them about\nthat.\nQ\nGovernor, you as - going around the country you mention you find\na great deal of apathy on both parties and perhaps this is part of the\nproblem of the Republican party. Wouldn't you term it more shame and\ndisgrace for the Republicans, particularly across the country?\nA\nNo, even though there is a story in the Wall Street Journal this\nmorning about a man who has said that the outcome of the election, if\nthere is one, certainly will not be a mandate for any form of government,\nthat it will be punitive, that there will be people who think that they\nare somehow being punitive about the whole recent affair by simply\nstaying home and not voting. I think those people are -- haven't given\na serious thought and they don't'realize that you don't -- you don't\ncure a problem by sitting on the sidelines.\nYouget in and participate,\nif government by the people is going to work at all. I think the concern\nof everyone on both parties is an extremely low turnout and a lot of\npeople just ignoring it. I, myself, believe that there is probably\nless of a shame element or anything of that kind in it than there is just\nan emotional exhaustion. An election year -- as I described before,\nis sort of like coming up to the big game and people have to get emotionall\naroused. It is not an intellectual exercise, purely. People get\nwhipped up to support of candidates and they want to go out and work for\nthem and their cause, and support of a team spirit thing, and I think the\nlast two years -- and if I put this in show business parlance, why, I\nshould just have to do it. I think that we have emotionally exhausted\nthem.\nWe have hammered and hammered and hammered on a political\ntheme that has dominated the news for virtually two years, and the epople\njust -- great numbers of them just cannot bring themselves up to getting\n-8-\nexcited about more political activity. And this, I think , is the\ngreatest danger and the greatest thing that's come out of the whole\nWatergate session.\nQ\nWhose fault is that, the media's or is it the Republican party's\nA\nI don't think it is the Republican party, I think it is a\nnational problem.\nQ\nWho brought it out? You said hammering, hammering, hammering.\nAre you talking about the media?\nA\nWell, certainly, I think there has been an obsession with that\nthat might be out of proportion to its actual news value in a world that\nis on the bring of war half the time, and that has even had wars during\nthis particular period, and had this country participate in settling\nand stopping wars, then maybe there's been an overbalance.\nQ\nTo return to President Ford's visit, Flournoy has said that the\nvisit, he thinks, will do more good in terms of fundraising than it\nwill do in terms of persuading anybody. In other words, the implica-\ntion being that the President's power of persuasion or credibility with\nthe voters is not that high. He thinks in California -- he doesn't think\nanything the President said would convince them. Do you care\nto\ncomment\non this?\nA\nThere is a Gallup poll that shows the President's rating -- job\nrating has gone up in people's minds. No, if I could guess, and it is\npresumptuous of me to try and interpret through a third party what is\nsupposed to be his view, and he's the one you should ask, but I think\nthat probably he was saying what I said before, you realize that when\nsomeone comes and speaks at a --- at a fundraiser where the purpose of\nthe meeting is to gather people to fund the campaign, so you, the\ncandidates, can get to the voters, that's a little different than coming\nin to mass rallies in which the visitor, the speaker, is there aimed at\nwinning votes. And in this particular instance the choice has been made.\nThe President is coming to help secure campaign funds.\nI\nWhat do you think is Ford's credibility as a political spokesman\nor as a - as a persuader, in those terms, in California?\nA\nWell, I don't know. As I say, the polls indicate a majority\nof the people support or give him a favorable rating on the job he's doing.\nAnd the -- how much an office holder of any kind, be he President or\nGovernor, or whatever, can do in transferring people's allegiances to\nvote for someone else, I think it's beenproven too many times that - that\n-9-\nyou can't do that. That you can't transfer your support, for example,\nto someone else. You can do two things. You can help them get the\nmeans of attracting a crowd for them to convince the people of their\ncandidacy. You can help them raise money and you can discuss the\nissues and in a campaign such as this, one where the -- one candidate\nhas been so thoroughly dishonest, you can hopefully reveal to people his\ndishonesties and the claims that he has made. I happen to have here the\nscripts for the various ads that have been on because I've been so\nconcerned about it. I'm concerned about candidate Brown's ad, for\nexample, where he talks about how he has proven with the efficiencies\nin his office, as Secretary of State, and his economies that he is\nequipped to run the state. Well, here is a state government in which\nwe have held a number of state employees virtually even for eight years.\nBut he in the last four years has added 58 per cent, that's a 14 per\ncent a year increase in the number of employees, and a 121 per cent\nincrease in his budget over a four year period. And you can go down\nthrough all of his ads, including the one where the man is claiming\nthat he has the endorsement of the police forces in this state because\nhe's a law and order candidate. And he is not a law and order candidate.\nAnd right now in Los Angeles policemen are signing petitions by the\nhundreds demanding the recall of their official - their organization's\nofficial, who is on the air with that ad because the membership was never\npolled. That a rank and file law enforcement do not feel that he is a\nlaw and order candidate, they do not support views that are contrary\nto capital punishment, that would legalize marijuana; that would do\nsome of the other things that he intends to do. So this - anyone can be\nhelpful in campaigning, is to reveal those falsehoods.\nQ\nGovernor, what do you think of the propriety of the generous\ngifts Mr. Rockefeller gave employees and friends?\nA\nWell, now, that's going to be determined by the Congress and I'm\nsure that they will find out whatever purposes were served as to whether\nthis is nothing more than generosity involved, or where that might\nreflect on someone holding public office and I feel it is like in a\ntrial, I'm not going to comment while it is before those committees.\nQ\nWhat about the propriety rather than the legality of it? Do you\nthink it is proper to do something like that?\nA\nWell, you can give a gift, if you've got.it, to anyone as long\nas you pay the gift tax on it. And apparently he paid the gift tax on\nit.\n-10-\nQ\nSo then you condone it?\nA\nNow, you ask questions and then when my answers displease you,\nyou attempt to pronounce an answer which you will then pick up your pen\nand write down in your notebook there. I didn't say that. I said that\ndecision will be made by the Congressional committees. And we will be\nbound by their decisions and while it is before those committees I'm\nnot going to comment.\nQ\nGovernor, you recently - the Supreme Court of the United States\nhas agreed to hear another case concerning banning capital punishment\nonce and for all. They have had the '72 landmark decision which has\nput some pretty tight restrictions on it. How do you feel about the\npossibility?\nA\nWell, I hope that they don't - I happen to be one who believes\nand I might say sadly, I'm sorry, I remember writing a term paper opposing\ncapital punishment myself at one stage of my education, and I have sadly\ncome to believe that capital punishment is necessary. It is a deterrent\nand I hope that the Supreme Court does not make a decision - they\nmade one that I believe this state has complied with, that you must have\nspecific\ncrimes\nfor\nthat\npunishment\nand must be equal with regard to those who commit those crimes. Equal\njustice, and we met that with legislation. And I hope that's upheld.\n0\nGovernor, Alan Post recently has come out with a final fiscal\nreport in the current fiscal year showing that your final last budget\nis up to 10.4 billion dollars, which is 900 million above a year ago.\nAnd that's pretty much the biggest increase in any year that hasn't had\na tax increase. How does that jibe with your cut, squeeze and trim, and\nyour original budget which is about like 9.8 billion dollars?\nA\nI tell you, one of the reasons it jibes is here again, such as\nback in 1970-71, when we had the economic dislocation that was called a\nrecession, we've had some problems. There are some built-in factors\nof cost-of-living increases in some of our wèlfare programs that in spite\nofthe great success of adding a couple of hundred million dollars of\nunexpected costs and we are not -- were not anticipated, but that is due\npurely to the runaway inflation that we have, we still are on cut,\nsqueeze and trim and we still are going to leave the incoming governor\na balanced budget, but there is a period in inflation in which for a\ntime government enjoys a benefit, government begins to get the benefits\nfrom the increased prices and the increased salaries to meet inflation\n-11-\nthrough the sales and income tax. But then government's costs go up and\nsuddenly you begin to get caught with the increased outgo. And in this\nyear we have also had the economic dislocation that has accompanied this\ninflation. The increase in unemployment insurance, because of the\nincrease in employment. The increase in -- I've said, in these welfare\nprograms. But no, we're still well within the bounds. It is not\ngoing to be easy, it is going to be the continued struggle to try to main-\ntain a balanced budget. It means there is no slack in there, in the\ncoming year. But I think we've been - we've been successful with our\nprogram.\nQ\nDo you happen to know if that 10.4 billion would have fit within\nthe ceiling in your Prop. 1 that failed?\nA\nI think it would.\nVERNE ORR:\nGovernor, the last time we figured it, when the\nbudget came down in June, it would. I have not completed figures since\nthen.\nA\nAnd if it didn't, this would come under the very provision that\nwas in Proposition 1, that a natural disaster or an economic strain was\nprovided for on a temporary basis. Butl think - I think it\nstill would come within because we were well within the earlier - before\nthese last figures hit us, about these additional costs.\n2\nGovernor, did you say there was some sort of study which\nRepublicans are superior to the Democrats?\nA\nNow, I'm glad you asked that. I hope that I'll see you all\nreach for your pencils and start writing, making notes.\nI come by the - the exercise that you do physically with your writing\narms, I've come to know what I can expect to see as the outcome of these\npress conferences here, so why don't you just doodle anyway, while I'm\ntalking, it makes me feel better. I'll think you are busy. Yes, there\nwas a scholastic study made in the east of a 1972 election, and the\nphilosophical differences. They took several of the key issues that are\ntheissues still confronting us in the country, and they have done a survey\nof the rank and file membership of the Democratic party, and what their\nviews were on how to solve or resolve those problems. They then did a\nsimilar study of the delegates tothe two national conventions and found\nthat the delegates to the Republican national convention in almost\nidentical percentage points were in agreement with the rank and file\nmembership of the Democratic party as to how to solve the problems.\n-12-\nQ\nThe Democrats?\nA\nBy contrast, the delegates to the Democratic national convention\nwere at the opposite ends of the poll from the rank andfile membership\nof their party. Which probably explains why millions of democrats\ncross the party line in the greatest landslide we have ever known, and\nI think those issues still remain and those views still remain the same.\nQ\nWho made the study?\nA\nThis is an eastern university. I've got the notes, I'd have to\nlook up which one. One of the eastern universities and this was a scholarly\ntudys it was not a pollster or anything doing it. And this study has\nbeen made a public - in academia, circulated among political science\nauthorities and professors, about this oddity. I could addone\nadditional thing they learned, that within the Democratic convention\nthere was a - an even greater difference between the McGovern delegates\nand the other delegates. But all together they were totally out of step\nwith the rank and file of the party. The McGovern delegates were more\nout of step with the rank and file of the party.\n&\nDid that study say anything about the selection process that\nperhaps caused that?\nA\nI don't know. I've only seen this summary of the study.\nI\nhaven't\nQ\nGovernor, on that selection process, I want to ask you, do 700\npersonally favor for 1976having the Republican delegation from California\nelected on a winner-take-all or proportional to the votes of the various\ncandidates in that - in that primary?\nA\nWell, I happen to be one who's always believed in primaries and the\nwinner take all idea.\nQ\nBecause Iunderstand that you helped change a bill that was moving\nthrough that would have -- in this past session which would have made it\nstrictly porportional representation, although the bill didn't --\nVERNE ORR: That was a bill which affected, I think, only one\nparty and only one election.\nA\nI think so. I think this was a bill - I think the Democrats -\nI\nThey got through - one was stalled and the reason it was stalled\nwas because you objected to pure proportional representation. But anyway,\nyou do go for winner take all?\nA\nYes, I've always believed that.\n-13-\nI\nHow do you defend that against the charges that that doesn't t\nreflect the total vote and people who might get like a 45-55 split, that\nsort of thing?\nA\nOh, I don't know, I just think that it's worked pretty\nsatisfactorily in our system.\nVOICE:\nThank you, Governor.\n000\n-13a-\n11/7\nNEWS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD NOVEMBER 7, 1974\nReported by:\nBeverly D. Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript of the Governor's News Conference is\nfor the convenience of the News Corps only. Because of the need to\nget it to the News Corps. as rapidly as possible, no corrections are\nmade and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\n000\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nGood morning.\nQ\nOutside of that --\nA\nWhat?\nC\nOutside of that, how did the week go?\nA\nWell, it's been most pleasant.\nI'm getting over the Dodger\ndefeat and series.\nQ\nGovernor, Mr. Flournoy yesterday said that if President Nix -\nPresident Ford had not pardoned Mr. Nixon that he might have won the\ngovernorship. I wonder what your thoughts are about that theory.\nA\nOh, I don't know, anyone can analyze it any way they want to.\n(general\nI think the election obviously was - that the whole atmosphere of\nWatergate was -- was involved and there wasn't any way to overcome it.\n2\nWell, would you -- count that as a specific factor in the\ndefeat, Governor?\nA\nI haven't tried to analyze it, that way. I imagine that there\nwill be second guessing on a lot of sides - on all sides as to what\ncould have happened and where things could have been different.\n&\nSo you are not willing to say definitely that that was a major\nfactor?\nA\nWell, no, because I -- I didn't make any effort tofigure it out\nthat way. I just -- the vote was in, it was an extremely close\nr ace. You can look back and wonder if you had done this differently,\nif you'd done that differently, or what might have affected things.\nQ\nWhat might you have done differently, Governor?\nA\nWhat?\nx\nWhat would you have done differently?\nA\nWell, the only thing I tried to do differently, I couldn't do,\nwe couldn't get the time. And that was -- I would like to have\nparticipated to the extent of expressing some views on television.\n-1-\n25\nYou couldn't get the time, Governor, is that what you said?\nA\nThat's right.\nWhy not?\nA\nWe couldn't get the - well because stations wouldn't sell it\nto us.\nX\nYou said that you were disappointed but not disheartened by\nthe election results but you still felt the Republican party is still\nthe party of the future. Would you amplify that, why do you feel\nthat's true?\nA\nWell, because I think in every poll that's taken reveals that\nthe party -- the Republican party is closer to the thinking of the\npeople than is the Democratic party. The Republican party suffers\nfrom a long time flase imagery, false image that's been created about\nit, and yet when the polls come down without labels as to where do people\nstand on the major issues, you find that the solutions presented by\nRepublicans or offered by Republicans are almost identical with the\nsolutions the people themselves want, to the problems. And what our\njob has been, and I for many years --- I will be critical of the\nRepublican party and tell you this, that for many years I've said the\nRepublican party's failure has been one of communication. We have\nnot overcome that image, let the people know this, and I think to\nsome of you, whether we discussed it the last time we were in here or\nnot, I mentioned -- yes, we did discuss -- I remember now, we did\ndiscuss the image of the study that has been made by political\nscientists at the Georgetown University of 1972, where they found\nthat the leadership of the Republican party was almost identical in\nits views on the problems with the rank and file membership of the\nDemocratic party, but we have not been able to communicate that to\nthe Democratic party.\nopinion\nQ\nIsn't the election the ultimate/poll?\nA\nThe election is an ultimate opinion poll, yes. But in this\nparticular election, and I say the whole thing was clouded by the\naffair Watergate, and I think the proof of that is that throughout\nthe country, and you yourselves were writing to the effect that there\nseemed to be no great issues of concern to the people in this but\nthe other proof of that was that some of the most liberal candidates\nwho were victors in the Democratic side campaigned as the most die-\nhard\nsounding\nconservatives.\nAnd I hope that that represents a\nchange. I hope that represents that they have become converted.\nThere is a little cynical side of me that says that we will now wait\nto see whether the performance matches the promise.\nX\nDO you think Watergate --\n&\n- the party is one of false images, Governor, how do you account\nfor all of the Democratic victories in California Tuesday? Why\ndid so many people vote SO many Democrats into office?\nA\nWell, it was pretty near an even split in the ticket. There\nwere some races that were higher than others. I think you have to\nlook a tevery race as to the identification of the individual name\nvalue, whether one was better known. In politics, as we all know,\none of the first hurdles that any candidate must overcome is the\nhurdle of getting name and face identification. Now, some of the\ncandidates in the races had that. This is what an encumbent always\nnas going for him. And there were -- it was a great return of\ni ncumbents to office contrary to what people had said, that there\nwould De such disillusionment that that would not be the year of the\nincumbents. You look down the line and it was pretty much was the\nyear of the incumbents. But there is an image, and I suppose it\ngoes all the way back to the depression days, that the Republican\nparty was tagged with that, in spite of the fact that the Republican\nPresident had been urging the very steps that werelater taken by the\nNew Deal before there was a stock crash. But that image has\nremained. And the truth of the matter is that the Republican party\nhas been the out party, in spite of occupying the White House - two\nPresidents occupying the White House, now three the Republican\nparty has been the out party for almost four decades, that they have\nnot had control of the Congress, just as we have not had control\nof the legislature here in the State of California.\nx\nGovernor, are you saying that you think Watergate is the only\nreason the Republicans did SO poorly?\nA\nI think thisis the big principal reason, yes.\nQ\nnow about the economy?\nA\nWhat?\nx\nHOW about the state of the economy?\nA\nWell, yes, you had an inflation thing.\nWith the resentment\nover the Watergate scandal this just added to it and people were\ndisgruntled and they had reason to be. We are -- to me, where the\n-3-\nfailure in the imagery falls is that this inflation is the result\nof Democratic policies of a Democratic Congress and Senate that's\nbeen in power uninterrupted for the last twenty years. And the\nthings that they did that have brought about inflation were opposed\nby the loyal opposition, the Republicans, who were in a minority\nin all these twenty years. Now, it is not just a political accusa-\ntion. It is an absolutefact that the Democratic party subscribed\nto the new economics, a theory that said you can have an annual\nX\ninflation rate and maintain prosperity, controlled inflation. And\nit is equally true that for years and years the opposition to this,\nand I was one of the speakers myself, long before I was in politics,\nclaiming you could not - that you could not control inflation and\nthe entire history of economics in the world shows that every country\nthat has tried to do it has happen to it what is happening today\nwrld-wide, runaway inflation. Now, again, lack of communications.\nThe people resent inflation and I don't blame them. I resent it\nalso. They have had hundreds of billions of dollars of their savings\nand their insurance policies literally stolen. Government by its\npolicies might as well have gone into the vault and taken the money\naway from them, from their savings. The purchasing power that has\nbeen eroded from those savings. But all of that had been policies\npeople like myself have opposed, but we weren't able to get that\nmessage across to the people and haven't been yet and we'd better darn\nwell start trying to educate thepeople if we are going to cure\ninflation.\nX\nGovernor, I wanted to clear one point, you said you couldn't\nget television time. That wasn't discrimination, was it?\nA\nOn, no. No, no, we started late in the campaign with the idea\nand were just told there was no time available.\nQ\nGovernor, in the last few weeks of the campaign Governor-elect\nBrown was campaigning against recycled Reaganism. Do you think it\nis part a repudiation of your policies that elected him?\nA\nNo, I don't. Because at the same time the things he was\npromising to do are the things we've been doing for the last eight\nyears.\n&\nLike what?\nA\nWhat?\n2\nLike what?\n-4-\nA\nWell, he was talking about new spirit, creative approach to\ngovernment, which I thought just embodied in a creative society he was\ntalking about economy in government, doing away with waste. It seems\nto me that for eight years I have been the target for everybody\nupstairs who objected to cut, squeeze and trim. And I hope that\nthis is the policy he intends to follow.\nQ\nGovernor, if Watergate was a major factor in the Republican\ndefeat, in hindsight do you think you could have cut your losses if\nyou and other Republican leaders had not stood by President Nixon\nfor so long or stayed on the fence so long?\nA\nNo, and I don't think there was any staying on the fence.\nI\nthink there was a plain case of asking for the justice of proof of\nguilt and presumption of innocence. No, I think - I think everyone\ndid what they had to do and what they felt personally they had to do.\nI\nIn the last time ---\nA\nFor example, I could give you an answer to that. We saw a\nman who was one of the first, a Republican in the east, a candidate for\nGovernor, who jumped on the bandwagon for impeachment and everything\nelse long before there was any evidence indicating that it was needed.\nAnd he was defeated in the primary and did not become a candidate for\nGovernor.\nQ\nGovernor, could you asses for us, please, the impact on the\n(election)\nBrown administration of his having thesmallest margin of victory\nin what appears to be a Democratic landslide? That is, his relations\nwith the legislature, heavily Democratic legislature. Do you think\nhe might be inhibited or have less freedom to move than any Governor\nwould like to have?\nA\nWell, I think that this -- just based on my own experience I\nthink that where they are going -- where it comes to a matter of\npoint of difference between himself and the Democratic legislature,\nwhere they are unreconciled as to some approach to a problem, why,\nI'm sure that this will be -- will give strength to the legislators\nin their opposition. An overwhelming mandate is inclined to have\nthem think twice and say, well, maybe we'd better go along with him\nbased\non\nthevote.\nI had that experience with the then Speaker of\nthe Assembly the first time such a meeting took place in our office,\nand he very bluntly said to me, \"I can count.\"\nI\nGovernor, you are going to meet with the Governor-elect in about\n-5-\nan hour. What advice would you like to give him?\nA\nWell, what we are going to meet about, and I'll answer his\nqestions about that -- unsought advice, I don't think, is very -\naccomplishes very much. No, what this meeting is about, is to set\nup a program for the transfer. That as his schedule of appointments\ntakes place, and he has appointees, that we can bring ther in.\nThis has never seen done before. And never been done before in the\nhistory of California, and that's why, again, based on my own\nexperience eight years ago, I -- we put in the budget the fund for\nsuch a transfer and the legislature, I must say, in this instance\nbipartisanly implemented that and even added to it. And that was\nour - our suggestion to them also. It was implementing legislation.\nAnd so now we will sitdown and in this interim period open up all\nthe drawers and let them take office with complete knowledge of the\nstate and what's going on. And then anything else that we can offer,\nany questions that they have, we certainly will answer.\nQ\nHave you discovered any kind of truism that you found effective\nin serving as Governor of California you'd like to pass along to him?\nA\nWell, yes. But it isn't original with me. It is something\nthat a very great industrialist in this country once answered when\nsomeone asked him the secret of his success. And he said, \"I don't\nhave any secrets for success. \" He said, \"I have one formula for\nfailure.\nTry to please everybody.'\nI\nYou said as he has appointees you might bring them in. What\ndoes this mean, we might have two people sitting over there as welfare\ndirector for a few weeks?\nA\nOh, no, no, but in other words, they will have an opportunity\nto come in and see -- remember that the great bulk of the machinery\nof government is ongoing and permanent. For example, we've got a\ndepartment of 7,000 employees in one instance where there are only\nfour exempt appointments that can be made. But now they will have an\nopportunity to find out how that machinery works, what's going on.\nAnd this, as I say -- this has never been done before. I think it\nwill make for a better transmission. transition\nIt will be better for the\npeople of California.\nQ\nGovernor, will there be any plan to slow down on the mansion\nproject in light of Mr. Brown's election?\nA\nNo, the legislature passed a bill to create such a residence.\n-6-\nAnd the money was -- the land was donated for that purpose and\nconstruction's already under way, and the contracts have been let.\nAnd it is a residence not for any one particular Governor, it is a\nresidence for governors for on down through the years. For, I hope,\na hundred years or more, depending on how well it is constructed.\nAnd any individual governor chooses not to use it, why, that's up to\nlim.\n2\nIf he should decide to try to terminate the contract in\nJanuary it will be a lot more expensive to the state than if it were\ndone now?\nA\nNot particularly. Contracts have all been let. This would\nrequire an act of the legislature to do it. I recognize there are\nsometimes forces and people in Sacramento that believe that the\nresidence should not be a residence so much as a tourist attraction\ndowntown. And I think that's unfair to anybody that occupies this\njob.\nQ\nGovernor, if some term appointments should be available between\nnow and January, do you plan to fill them? Appointive offices that are\nterm rather than at the leasure of governor.\nA\nI don't know what the situation is on that. Most of those would\nrequire Senate confirmation and they would therefore become pleasure\nappointments because I'm quite sure that the Senate would not --\nwould not confirm them at this time.\nQ\nGovernor\nA\nobviously we are not going to leave jobs open where\nnecessary work has to be done.\nI\nGovernor, the last time we were in here we talked a little bit\nabout the possibility of a move to create a third party. Do you\nthink in view of what happened Tuesday it added impetus to such move?\nA\nNo, and let me make it plain, that conversation when we were\nin here before, I think was somewhat -- it lost something in the\ntranslation. I am not starting a third party. I do not believe\nthe\nRepublican party is dead. I believe the Republican party represents\nbasically the thinking of the people of this country. If we can get\nthat message across to the people, I'm going to try to do that.\nQ\nGovernor, in line with that, this week's Newsweek says that you\nhave libertarian leans which is a whimsical group of verse thinking\npeople who don't like governmental services unless you pay for them\nand are against all kinds of critics against victimless crimes.\n-7-\nDo you feel that way?\nA\nNow, that is your interpretation.\nQ\nThat's Newsweek's.\nA\nLibertarianism, the only comments I have made on that is I\nhave thought the very basis of conservatism is libertarianism.\nNow, that is libertarianism not specified down to whether you want\nto carry your own letters or not instead of having a postal service.\nLibertarianism is what I think was in the mids of the writers of the\nConstitution of the United States, that the basic principal of this\ncountry differing from all others that I know has been the ultimate.\nThe individual's liberty consistent with an orderly society and this\nis the goal that I think, -- very frankly this is the philosophical\ndifference between the leadership of the Democratic party and our\nown party today. That that leadership no longer belives in that\ngoal or believes in the ability of the people to have that much control\nof their own destinies. They believe only government can solve the\nmany complicated problems facing us today. Now, that does not mean\nthat I subscribe to the doctrine of any group that may call themselves--\nyou know, you can - libertarianism taken too far is anarchy. Just\nas the welfare state taken too far the other way is total authoritarian-\nism.\nTotalitarianism.\nQ\nGovernor, how do you personally feel about the prospect in two\nmonths of walking out of here and seeing someone walk in who is\ngoing to change quite a bit of whatvou've left here as far as personnel,\nhe's going to be signing a lot of bills you vetoed, a lot of what\nyou've done is going to be really wiped out. How does that look to you?\nHow do you feel about that?\nA\nWell, this is something that faces anyone who holds this office.\nThere is no one that can come in and in a few years pin down government\nto his philosophy. People are going to come along and government\nis changed by statute just as we changedmany things that we found here.\nI think for the better. I do know this, and I think the Governor-\nelect has expressed this yesterday, nowthat the campaign is over he\nhas already expressed his own recognition that the problems are not\neasy. They are extremely difficult, and that it requires a great deal\nof hard work. And I hope he approaches it in that manner. Now, I\ndon't know, that maybe -- I'm quite sure there is still room for\nimprovement. We didn't do all the things we wanted to do. Didn't\nget them done. Maybe he has a better chance with having a legislature\nof his own persuasion. My only concern there is that that same\nlegislature is the one that blocked a great many of -- or attempted\nto, of the reforms we wanted and advocated spending measures that would\nhave taken this state into a great fiscal irresponsibility.\nI\nGovernor, do you think the Republican defeats Tuesday will\nresult in an erosion of GOP support for President Ford, making it\nmore difficult for him to pin the Presidential nomination in '76?\nA\nI don't see anything in the election that could have brought\nthat about. I think the President has done what he had to do with\nregard to the campaign, if that's what you are referring to. For one\nthing, I think it has to be recognized -- I've already seen the\nobservations that -- well, the President went out campaigning and we\ntisll lost. Has this hurt his prestige? I think an observation that\nought to be made is that the President deliberately went into those\nareas and campaigned for candidates who were in trouble. He didn't\nj ust go out and grandstand by showing up with the guy who was\ngoing to be a sure winner. He tried to help somebody that he knew was\nlosing when he went in there and I think that's -- that's to be\nrespected.\nI\nGovernor, there is a constitutional limit on the terms a\nPresident can serve and you have adopted that same limit on your own\nincumbency. There's a fellow going around the country saying that\nlegislators should be limited to two terms, too. What do you think\nabout that?\nA\nOh, I've seen other proposals. I've seen a proposal by a\nRepublican that there ought to be an age 65 limit on legislators and\nCongressmen. It isn't all that simple. Because we look back at the\nrecord of some very great statesmen who made a career out of government\nand who stayed in the Congress of the Senate and made great contribution\ndown through the years. I think of one who happens to be a Republican\nI could think of some Democrats also. But I think of Senator John\nWilliams of Deleware who even the Democrats called the Conscience: of th\nSenate, who is a great authority on fiscal problems confronting in\nthe Senate. Finally retired. But you wonder what we would have lost\nhad he been forced out of office at the end of two terms. I think the\nExecutive Branch is far different. A legislator is one of a large\ngroup and there is give and take and compromise that has to take place\nin a legislative body. The Executive Branch is the one, and I think\nthis was suspected, or was taken into consideration in the decision\nabout the Presidency, where a person can build up, if he sets out to\ndo so, a machine. And I have not regretted -- I'm going to miss very\nmuch, I have enjoyed this very much -- I'm going to miss very much\nthis job. But I have not changed my mind about the belief that I was\nabsolutely right, two terms is enough and I still wish that we had\nbeen able to persuade the legislature as we tried to my first term,\nthat this should be made official in the State of California. As\na\nmatter of fact, the people in their wisdom have indicated they must\nfel this way because there have only been two governors, I believe, in\nCalifornia's history who served more than two terms. I might be\nwrong on that by one.\n1\n2\nOne.\nA\nI thought there was one before him.\nQ\nNo, not that I know of.\nA\nWell, I'll take your word for it. I thought there had been a\nreference to a second one.\nSo I say the people themselves seem to\nrecognize this.\n2\nWhat are you going to miss, sir?\nA\nWhat?\nΩ\nWhat are you going to miss?\nQ\nThis.\nQ\nBesides us.\nA\nAs I say, won't you drop by the house. Well, -\n(Laughter)\nA\nNo, I think the challenge of this, and I think the very fact\nof being where the action is and where the problems are, of being able\nto confront them and try to do something about them, instead of just\nstanding on the street corner saying, \"Somebody ought to do somthing,\"\nyes, that's - I think anyone who's ever held this job is going to --\nmust miss that very much.\nQ\nGovernor, Evelle Younger will be the only remaining Republican\nccupying statewide elective office. Does that in your mind thrust\nupon him the special responsibility for leadership in the California\nRepublican party?\nA\nWell, I think that anyone who holds anoffice in the party is a\npart of the leadership of that party. And obviously special attention\n-10-\nto him. Maybe we ought to declare Thursdays visiting day and have a\nrelay of Republican visitors to see him all the time so he won't get\ntoo lonely. No, but I think he's a part of the leadership and has\nbeen of the party but I think that also holds true of -- I think that\nholds true of your candidates, even though defeated.\n2\nGovernor, are you going to ask to be a delegate to the '76\nRepublican convention and would youlead the delegation?\nA\nHaven't thought that far ahead. As I understand, we have a\nnew situation now in which with the open primary here the candidates\nthemselves- must choose or name the delegate.\nQ\nWould you be one, though, if someone asked you?\nA\nWhat?\nX\nWould you be one if someone asked you to be a delegate on his\nslate?\nA\nIf it was the right person.\n2\nWho would that --\nA\nWell, I mean somebody I supported.\nX\nGovernor, do you see a leadership role for yourself in the\nRepublican party in California after you leave office?\nA\nleader or anything like that?\nA\nOh, I think - I think that -- and this is true in any political\nparty, unless you want to walk away from it and say, well, that's all,\nI'm through with that side of my life - no, I think that anyone who's\nthis\nheld/office is a part of that same leadership. But I think there is\none thing - let's make plain when we are talking about leadership\nwe are talking about people who participate, people who are willing to\nserve, to sit at the council table and help evolve policy. But in\nCalifornia more than any other state I know, you do not have a\nleader who sits in a room and makes decisions affecting the party.\nNow a lot of easterners haven't been able to understand this and that's\nwhy they like to make fun of California politics. The truth of the\nmatter is California politics are closer to the ideal of this nation\nthan are those other states where someone in a room decides who the\ncandidates will be.\n&\nThank you, Governor.\nA\nWe'll keep it that way.\nQ\nThank you, Governor.\no00\n-11-\n11/12\nNEWS CONFERENCE OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN\nHELD NOVEMBER 12, 1974\nReported by:\nBeverly D. Toms, CSR\n(This rough transcript ofthe Governor's News Conference is\nfurnished to the members of the Capitol Press Corps. only. Because\nof the need to get it to the News Corps. as quickly as possble, no\ncorrections are made and there is no guaranty of absolute accuracy.)\no00\n(Governor Reagan Read News Release No. 657.)\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Mr. Payne.\nMR. PAYNE: On behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency --\n(Whereupon Robert Payne, General Johnson and Win Adams read prepared\nstatements.) (Answers given by Governor Reagan unless otherwise noted.)\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: All right, if you have any questions of these\ngentlemen.\nI'm not quite clear on the origin of this. Did it originate\nwith the EPA or the --\nMR. PAYNE: The EPA is sponsoring the over-all survey, yes.\nIt is part of a national program that involves all state environmental\nagencies and the National Guard as well.\nQ\nIn other words, you are talking in terms of a national EPA\nprogram and we are getting from these people the details of the\nCalifornia --\nMR. PAYNE: That's correct.\nQ\n- segment of the program?\nMR. ADAMS: You know, this fits into our statewide monitor\nP rogram.\nQ\nYes.\nMR. ADAMS: That we have.\n&\nWhy isn't the Delta being monitored as one ofthe sites? Am\nI mistaken on that?\nMR. ADAMS: The Delta, no, this is a lakes program. That is\nnot a part of this. The Delta is not a classified lake.\nQ\nWell --\nMR. ADAMS: There is a monitoring program in the Delta conducted\nby two federal agencies and two state agencies.\nQ\nIt is a large body of water.\n-1-\nMR. ADAMS:\nYes.\nof\nDoesn't it fit in - maybe in the same classification?\nMR. ADAMS: Delta -- remember in Decision 1379 over two years\nago, we set up a monitoring program in the Delta and it is operated\nby the U. S. Bureau and by the Department of Water Resources, Fish\nand Game and ourselves.\nQ\nClear Lake is one of the lakes that's had a lot of problems in\nt he past, but it is not on your list.\nWhy\nwasn't\nit\nincluded\nfor\nstudy?\nMR. PAYNE: I think one of the major reasons that Clear Lake\nis not included in a study is that a great deal of information does\nexist on Clear Lake already. And as a research effort, one of the\nthings that we'd like to avoid, except for control purposes on a limited\nnumber of lakes, is duplication of effort. This is why Tahoe is\nincluded and Clear Lake is not included. We're using Tahoe as a\ncontrol.\nQ\nMr. Payne, is this study in any way related to the EPA's study\nof cancer-producing elements in drinking water?\nMR. PAYNE: In no way at all.\nQ\nO. K.\nI\nCould I ask about the budget. National government - it is\ngoing to cost somebody some money. How much is it going to cost and\nover what period of time?\nMR. PAYNE: This is part of a national program that's being\nconducted on, say, 300 lakes nationwide, over a five year period.\nCenvironmental monitoring)\nEPA's involvement in the program will equate to roughly $10,000 for\neach lake that's included, or $8 million dollars over a five-year\nperiod.\nQ\nWhat about the National Guard?\nMR. PAYNE:\nThe National Guard is a volunteer involvement. General\nJohnson may want to reflect on that voluntary participation.\nGENERAL JOHNSON: Most of the National Guardsmen will be in\na drill status, which is a pay status, which is federal funding.\n2\nWill there be any extra --\nGENERAL JOHNSON: No, there will be no extra National Guard\ncosts.\nQ\nWell, the helicopters, somebody's got to pay for that.\n-2-\nMR. PAYNE:\nThe helicopters are loaned by the Department of\nDefense to LPA and areoperated out of one of our research laboratories.\nThey are part of the figure I gave you.\nC\nIs it possible that in the future this information could be\nused to ever suggest a slowdown or halt of development around these\nlakes?\nMR. PAYNE: One can reflect on a great deal of possibilities\ncertainly. I would not want to suggest that this type of information\nwould directly lead to that type of policy decision. At the conclu-\nsion of the survey the results will be formulated into comprehensive\nreports of findings, research findings on each lake. These will be\nprovided to the state for use in ongoing management, water quality\nLangement programs.\nVill this information be helpful in agencies and governments who\nare concerned about developing --\nMR. PAYNE:\nA\nIt certainly would be, in the long run. If there is any\ncontributing factors due to development or due to any factors, hope-\nfully we 11 be able to uncover a bit more information to better deal\nwith any problems associated with that development.\nX\nDoes EPA have any plans to do anything with the data developed\nother than turn it over to the state? Does EPA plan to set up a\nprogram of its own?\nMR. PAYNE:\nA\nWell, this is part of our ongoing water quality investigatory\nprocess, certainly. We plan to utilize the information indealing\nwith the lake problem nationally\nIt goes beyond that because\nwe're including in the investigation information on waste treatment\nplants, just through the sampling program, as well as non-point\nsource inputs to lakes. This information can be used in developing\na better understanding, better policies to control any runaway\nsituations that may exist.\nQ\nBut you don't have any program at this point that - that this\ndata is feeding toward?\nMR. PAYNE:\nA\nIt feeds into several programs. One of the programs that's in\nthe planning stages right now is a clean lakes effort in future years.\nIn other words, moving on to a lake restoration program in conjunction\nwith the states' environmental agencies.\nQ\nIs this a one-time effort on the part of the Guard or is this\n-3-\ngoing to have follow-ups?\nGENERAL JOHNSON:\nThe program is set up to run for one year.\n0\nSeveral studies? Several surveys during that year?\nMR. PAYNE:\nThey'll be sampling monthly for the duration of the\nstudy in California.\nIn addition they'll be taking special samples\nduring the spring thaw period so we can better assess land runoff\nduring that period.\nIs it a five-year program nationally but only one year in\nCalifornia?\nMR. PAYNE: Well, one year of actual sampling andthen beyond\nthat the evaluation process and the development of final reports\nwill come to a conclusion about the end of 1976.\nQ\nWhen will the first report on California lakes be out, in a\nyear?\nFour years?\nMR. PAYNE: In about two years from he time it starts, which is\nnow.\nGeneral Johnson, how many guardsmen are to be involved in this,\nphysically sampling?\nGENERAL JOHNSON:\n28 --- there are fourteen teams of two men\neach, it is 28 men.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:\nAny other questions?\n10\nHow specifically - I haven't had an opportunity to look at this\nthing in detail, but are any of these remote lakes - apparently most\nof them are - just quickly glancing over, they are easily accessible\nand reasonably close to population centers or industrial centers or\nwhat have you.\nMR. PAYNE: Not all of them, there are several lakes inthe\nSierra area. I believe you'll find five or six in Mono County, for\nexample, that are in some of the high country. In order to deal\neffectively with any lake problem, you need representative lakes that\nare really clean as well as those that may be - indeed be threatened.\nQ\nShaver is very high, of course.\n2\nNew subject?\n&\nWell, what -- how will the Guardsmen -- I assume Shaver Lake,\nfor example, will go from Fresno. And what's the significance of the\nhelicopter? These are not particularly remote lakes. I mean why\ncouldn't the guys from Fresno go out in a rowboat and haul up some\npailsfull of water or something?\nMR. PAYNE: Well if it were that simple it would be an easy\nprogram, very definitely. We're using helicopters for one reason.\nwe are, as I mentioned, examining some 800 lakes nationwide. Next\nyear our helicopter teams will be working in' ten states. Or, excuse\nme, eleven states, simultaneously. From Arizona, New Mexico and\nCalifornia north to Washington, Idaho, Montana. So it is pretty\nDig block of real estate, and we need the mobility to sample all of\nthose lakes in a uniform manner. This is why we utilize helicopters.\nQ\nWell, will these teams that the General referred to in some\ninstances be transported in the helicopter or --\nGENERAL\nJOHNSON:\nNo, they are only sampling the tributary\nstreams, not the lakes.\nQ\nOh, I see, and thehelicopters will be sampling\nGENERAL JOHNSON: Lake samples.\nsampling the lakes themselves.\nC\nNew subject.\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Wait a minute.\nVOICE: Any more questions on this?\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Are you all through with this? Well, then\nlet me remind you again, outside at the pond, out there through my\nwindow - I was seeing the military out there earlier. I didn't know-\nI told them I didn't know whether they were trying to get trout for\nlunch or what. I didn't realize they were part of this particular\npress conference that we're going to have, but there will be a\ndemonstration and I urge you all to go out there and cover it now\nfor a few minutes, however. While getting there if you have some\nO ther questions -\nQ\nGovernor, you had a meeting with President Ford Halloween night\nin LOS Angeles. I wonder if you can describe for us what may have\ntranspired during that meeting andwhether you can tell us whether your\nties with the Presidenthave been strengthened as a result of that\nmeeting, and whether you expect to have increased -- there to be\nincreased consultations between you and the President.\nA\nWell, actually, I don't think there seems to be any need for\nstrengthening, although there have been some people that have suggested\notherwise, and most of that was kind of dreamed up, as I repeatedly\nsaid, in answer to previous questions. I only met -- he was out here\nfor the purposes of speaking at that fundraising dinner, and we had a\nDrief meeting and simply touched base on some matters affecting state\nand and the federal government. And that was that was the\nextent of it. It was a cordial meeting and I'm sure we are going to\nhave the cooperation, but then I've always been sure we are going to\nhave cooperation.\nQ\nGovernor, on your October 15 press conference here you said you\ndidn't know whether this might be one of those periods in time when,\naccording to you, the confidence of people could be restored perhaps\nby changing name or something -- you said you don't know, you really\ndidn't know. Now, you seem to be saying you do know that a third\nparty is not the answer, that all the answers are -- will you tell us\nwhich way you know today?\nA\nI'm going to say the same things that I said in that October\nmeeting. And I think - I think it is all right for me to say them\nbecause I think that they were not in all instances properly balanced\nin their presentation. I think you'll find a number of times that\nI said.I believed that the main task should be, and that I was\ninterested in revitalizing and thought we should revitalize the two\nparties that have served us well. So I've changed my thinking on\nthat. The other was kind of a hypothetical discussion, we got into\nthat morning, as to whether there was a change because you, yourself,\nhad brought up the idea and the evidence in your questionings of\npeople's lach 01 interest or enthusiasm for both parties. Now, there\nis no question, the last election reveals that there was a low turnout\nand that a great many people didn't bother to vote on either side.\nI think this is regrettable. I still say what I said then, I am not\nout to start a third party. I told you then, I didn't know any more\nthan you knew as to whether there was such a - whether this was one\nof those moments when the people would make some changes. I'm going\nto ao my utmost to convince as many people as possible that the\nublican party on any objective analysis anyone wants to make is\nmore in tune with the thinking of the majority of the American people\nthan is the other major party or either of the splinter parties that\nstarted up.\n0\nGovernor, do you think that that hypothetical discussion which\noccurred in October peaked maybe the President's interest in talking\nto you?\nA\nNo, we were -- he was scheduled to be out here and we were\nscheduled to meet long before that. No, I don't -- I don't think SO.\nI\nDid he ask you about it?\n-6-\nA\nNo. He knew better and he knew that I wasn't starting another\nparty.\nQ\nDid you talk about the condition of the Republican party in any\nway?\nA\nOh, we compared notes on our travels around and what the problems\nwere.\nWe were both agreed, the main problem was to get a turnout.\nThat there was going to be a low turnout at the polls.\n&\nGovernor, was there any discussion of your possibly taking a\njob in the Ford administration?\nA\nNope, never came up.\nQ\nAnd your position on that, you would not be interested in that?\nA\nNo.\nor\nYou would not be interested?\nA\nNo. Yes, I would not be interested.\n(Laughter)\nQ\nGovernor, you say -\nQ\nCan we stay on that subject for a moment? Didn't you -\nA\nAre you on this subject, too?\nQ\nI'm not, but go ahead.\nQ\nDidn't you indicate before that you'd be willing to serve as\nkind of a troubleshooter for President Nixon internationally if he felt\n1 ike using you that way?\nA\nThat came about first from a request from him. I would still\nbe available for anything in which I could do to help. I just - I'm\nnot interested in a Washington job.\n2\nRoving Ambassador kind of thing.\nA\nAny time that I can be of help, as I was on four separate\noccasions in the - for the previous President, that would be - I'd\nbe delighted.\nQ\nGovernor, you mentioned that you thought the Republican party was\nstill the most party in tune with the people. Don't the election\nresults last Tuesday indicate otherwise?\nA\nNo, the election results last Tuesday reflect the fact that the\nRepublican party's greatest failure over the years, and I say this as\na former Democrat who's seen them from outside as well as inside, is a\nlack of communication. There is a false imagery that still exists\neveniin some Republican's minds about the party. And I believe the\ntime has come for our party in non-election years, because I think this\nis the time when most people will pay attention without accepting\nthings as campai jn dialogue -- I think this is the time for an\neducation program as to what we really represent and what we stand\nfor.\nI\nHow has the party been misrepresented?\nA\nWhat?\nI\nHow has the party been misrepresented?\nA\nOh, I think the image that is usually portrayed, the party of\nthe rich. And that I have repeatedly in campaigning given some\nstatistics that indicate that that is far from the truth. For\nexample, for the last twenty-five years the Republican party has out-\nnumbered the Democratic party five to one in small contributions.\n75 per cent of Republican campaign funding for more than twenty-five\nyears has come from small contributors. Any Republican gathering\nis usually portrayed or hinted at, and most people have an image in\ntheir mind that everyone is there in white tie and tails and drinking\nchampagne and eating caviar and the truth of the matter is the rank and\nfile of the Republican party is a pretty good cross-section of\nAmerica.\nQ\nGovernor, what kind of an education system do you have in mind,\nGovernor, to spread the word?\nA\nWell, as I told you many times, I intend to do not only some\nwriting, but using the media and to use - to be speaking out\nnationally on more philosophical lines. Perhaps not actually using\nthe party label, but on the -- the danger today to free enterprise.\nThe things that need to be done if we're going to maintain this system\nof ours. But frankly, I'm going to talk to our own Republicans here\nabout the need for what I think is a modern. merchandising campaign as\nto what the product is we're really selling.\nQ\nCould that merchandising campaign in education be any attempt\nto rebuild the party after what it suffered because of Watergate?\nA\nWell, I think it is just the same as it was a case of rebuilding\nafter the terrific defeat in 1964. Certainly it is to revive the\ninterest of those who areRepublicans into participating in their party,\nbut it is also to reveal to a great rank andfile body of Democrats\nwho couldn't support their party's leadership two years ago, that the\nthings that made them cross the line then still exist today.\nQ\nGovernor, how do you expect the American people to have confidence\nin the Republican party whose President and Vice-President had to\nresign in disgrace?\nA\nWell, because they have resigned. I don't think that anything\nthat took place in Watergate was a reflection on the Republican party.\nI don't think the Republican party had anything to do with it.\nNow, if you want to go down the line and start looking back through\nhistory for malefactors on the other side, in the other party, I'll\nguarantee - and I haven't made a count as yet, that they outnumber\nus.\nBut remember, for most of my life I was a Democrat and I finally\ngot tired of swallowing hard over Haig machines and Kelly-Naggs\nmchines in Chicago, Pendergast machines out in Kansas, the outright\nstealing of hundreds of thousands of votes in every election, enough to\ncarry elections. It is not a pretty picture and one of the only\nthings that makes me hesitate to talk about it is I think the American\npeople are discouraged enough with the political process without\nreminding them of some of the horrors of the past. But a lot of\nmen have gotten rich in politics who were members of the Democratic\nparty.\nor\nAre you just as upset of what went on during the last years of\nthe Nixon administration?\nA\nI have repeatedly said to you, I consider it an illegal and\nX\nan immoral and an incredibly stupid act, the thing called Watergate.\nQ\nGovernor, a great admirer of yours, William Buckley said he\nwould support a Reagan-Wallace third party ticket. Aren't you\ninfluenced by that kind of thinking and public discussion?\nA\nNo, I'm very fond of Bill Buckley, but I'm not: influenced by\nthat kind of thing.\nQ\nIs that totally inconceivable to you?\nA\nYes, he's a Democrat and I'm a Republican. And I think we have\nphilosophical differences.\n(speaking)\nQ\nGovernor, you mentioned on yourtrips around the country in the\nfuture that you would not actually use the party label.\nHow would\nyou present your case?\nA\nOh, no, what I meant to say there, let me make that plain, that\nthis speaking is - that I'm planning on is more directed at the\nphilosophical issues and particularly in the area of free enterprise\nand what I see as some erosions of free enterprise today that has made\nus non-competitive in the world scene, and that's going to be the\nbulk of it. I, of course, on my own on the side am going to continue\nas I can to do my party chores, also. I think, however, that talking\nthat philosophy does have-a bearing because, again, the one party is\nmuch closer to that philosophy.\nQ\nGovernor, there is talk about establishing some kind of a founda-\ntion to employ you SO you can continue to have an income in the next\ncouple of years. Has that been finalized yet?\nA\nNo, you mean like some separate foundation to - no. This is --\nI'm looking in different directions than that.\n0\nDo you mind telling us about what your plans for income are?\nA\nWell, the situation is too fluid yet. But there won't be any\nsecret about it.\nQ\nWhat are some of your philosophical differences with George\nWallace?\nA\nOh, I don't think that -- I don't think that he has the - well,\nI think he's more of a populist, and I think he has a greater willing-\nness to employ government where I am looking for more solutions to the\nproblems at the private level and private sector. You are all - you\nknow, you are all missing the big thing out at the pond if you don't\nget out there.\n2\nYou mentioned you are going to continue your party chores. Will\nyou take an active role in the selection of a new Chairman and Vice-\nChairman for the new State Central Committee for the next year?\nA\nYou know, I've been neutral all these years in that particular\nthing. I don't know what the situation will be, whether there is\nanything to bring me to change.\nQ\nAre you at this point supporting Lieutenant Governor Harmer for\nthe Vice-Chairman position?\nA\nI don't know just what the situation is, yet. Who all is going\nto be involved in that.\nQ\nYou haven't committed to him?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nGovernor, Congressman Anderson of Illinois, the Caucus Chairman\nof the House has suggested that the party needs to move more towards\nthe center if it is going to attract Democrats. You seem to take an\nopposite position on that.\nA\nI think that the party needs to state to the people once and\nfor all clearly what it represents, what it stands for. And then\n-10-\nhaving raised that banner, to rally around it and attract those others\nthat like the colors of that banner. I do not believe that for vote-\ngetting purposes you go out and vitiate, water down your true\nphilosophical believe belief in order to persuade someone to vote for you.\nThe Democrats have been doing things like that for years and that's why\nthey have got a wierd coalition that can't enjoy itself in one room\ntogether.\n2\nGovernor, do you think that Mr. Flournoy could have done better\nif he had been more specific on the things he believed in?\nA\nOh, I don't want to criticize someone else's campaign. I'm sure\nhe campaigned in what he believed andhe came very close in the election.\nIt would have only taken a few thousand votes toturn it around. So -\nQ\nWould you have done it differently?\nA\nWhat?\n2\nWould you have done it differently?\nA\nI think everyone -- every candidate would do his campaigning\nin his own way. So, yes, I would do it differently.\nQ\nDo you concur with Mr. Flournoy that the Nixon pardon was what\nled to his downfall in the election?\nA\nI don't - I've no analysis to bear that out. I know there was\na feeling that suddenly in this wave, this rising up again of the whole\nthing, Watergate, which seemed to have been quenched, did kind of inter-\nfere with what might have been a momentum on the part of the Republican\nparty.\nQ\nGovernor, have you decided what to do with your official papers,\nwho's going to get them and SO forth after you leave office?\nA\nWe are still working on that, andputting them together.\nQ\nYou havent decided who they will go to, is that it?\nA\nNo.\nQ\nWhen you say \"wierd coalition\" are you talking about the Democrats\nin constitutional office now, after this one election Tuesday?\nA\nOh, no, I was talking about nationally, the whole Democratic\ncoalition back through the years. Normally they they could find\nenough pleasing to each various segments in their coalition that they\nsould get something out of it, butwhere at election time they could\nswallow the resentment, perhaps, of other groups and come together. And\nlately one faction more than the other seems to have been dominant\nsince 1972, and the result is that the coalition is - is spread further\napart and they are having their problems of getting them together. And\nit is a wierd coalition. There are people whose aims and goals, as I\nsaid in here last week, are so in line with the Republican thinking that\nit makes you wonder how they can continue to wear the label \"Democrat\".\nVOICE: Thank you, Governor.\n000"
}