Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
7336739
label
Remarks of the President in Interview with Harry Reasoner at Camp David Part II (2nd Version) [Interview Transcript]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
7336739
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Remarks of the President in Interview with Harry Reasoner at Camp David Part II (2nd Version) [Interview Transcript]
citationUrl
collections
White House Press Releases (Ford Administration)
Press Releases
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
7336739
levelOfDescription
item
productionDates
day
26
logicalDate
1974-10-26
month
10
year
1974
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d33f7b585d1dc27d
ocrText
Digitized from Box 4 of the White House Press Releases at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
INTERVIEW WITH HARRY REASONER
CAMP DAVID, MARYLAND
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1974
MR. REASONER: Mr. President, you are not wearing
your WIN button. Is tha something you leave in Washington?
THE PRESIDENT: I keep having people take it off
of me, Harry. They are a little scarce, and every time I
go someplace and somebody does not have one, they grab it.
I hope they wear it and use it.
MR. REASONER: I think you have had some problem.
A high official in the Chamber of Commerce is boycotting
the WIN thing. He says it is not substantive. It is
just trying to cure inflation with a gesture. Does he
have a point?
THE PRESIDENT: Whenever you get a voluntary
group, where you have no control, inevitably you are
going to have some differences of opinion, and Arch Booth
objected to one aspect of it, but overall Arch and the
Chamber of Commerce agreed. But the problem there was
in order to get the best results they thought one approach
was better than the other, and I think the Chamber and
the others in the overall will do a first-class job in
getting our people to waste less and to save more.
Now there have been some misinterpretations of
what we really meant. I don't want to identify some
people, but they thought we were telling people not to
spend more. What we were really trying to do with this
program was to suggest to people that they buy better, that
they shop better, and bargains are available, whether it
is in one industry or one marketplace or another. So it
is a problem of dealing with voluntary individuals who
all have the same objective and are seeking to do the
right thing, working together without somebody telling
them precisely what to do.
MORE
Page 2
MR. REASONER: I don't mind identifying people.
Mr. Townsend, for instance, and other representatives of
the automobile industry are extremely concerned. General
Motors' profits for the third quarter was down something
like 94 percent from last year and a serious problem with
all the auto makers. Are we talking about a semantic
difference? If you spend better, and you conserve, and
you avoid waste, aren't you also going to unavoidably
contribute to a recession?
THE PRESIDENT: If people just stop buying,
of course you will have serious repercussions, and I might
add parenthetically before answering the rest of your
question that in the 31-point program that I recommended
to the Congress and to the American people we finely
tuned it so that it would not adversely affect purchasing
power, and at the same time we would seek to tighten
some screws in the area of inflation.
Now in the follow-up speech that I gave at
Kansas City we were talking to the American people and
urging them to waste less and to buy better, to shop
for bargains. Now I think the American society is
predicated on people who build automobiles or produce
something else to make a product available at a good
price, and under our system every product and every
piece of equipment that is made by somebody is a little
different, and the public ought to shop for what is the
best bargain from their point of view.
I want them to spend their money. It is
important in our society. But I want them to be sharper
bargainers, the old yankee trader trait which I think
was good then and is still good today.
MR. REASONER: You outlined this program
against inflation, and except for an insufficient number
of WIN buttons there is not anything that could be done
about it immediately. Congress went away. Do you have
any serious expectation that you will get most of what
needs Congressional action before the end of the post-
election session?
MORE
Page 3
THE PRESIDENT: I certainly hope so, and some
elements of it are more important than others. What we
try to do is get the Congress to act, to provide more
revenue, to put a greater burden on those best able to
pay and at the same time relieve some. of the problems
of inflation off the shoulders and the backs of people
who are inequitably affected by the problems of higher
cost.
Now if the Congress passes my tax program,
which is in my judgment an equitable approach, because
it does not affect anybody until after they have an
income of $15,000 or more a year, and even when you go
up to $20,000 a year of taxable income, I think it is
only $42 a year, as I recollect, 12 cents a day. I
really don't think that is a terrible burden for people
in that income bracket, but the income we get from that
extra tax, plus the tax of a five percent on corporate
profits, provides the compassion that we can give to
people at the lower spectrum of our economic society.
Now if Congress passes that I think we will
have done a great service in battling inflation on the
one hand and meeting the problems of those who are
adversely affected on the other.
Now we have got some other things. I think
we ought to tighten up our anti-trust actions, a
higher penalty for those that violate the anti-trust
laws, people who in the past have been convicted or
corporations that have been guilty of violations
have not paid a big enough penalty. In this case
I think prospective punitive action will help in
getting competition in the areas where the anti-trust
laws are affected.
I believe that our effort to come up with a
program to help temporary unemployment, so that people
who have an extension of their unemployment benefits
but still are not taken care of would get some benefits.
This helps the less fortunate. So in those three or
four areas I hope Congress will act. I think it is
mandatory that they act, and I am optimist enough to
believe that the Congress will respond.
MORE
Page 4
MR. REASONER: But you also, sir, had twenty-five
years in Congress, and on a realistic basis, reaction to
the five percent surcharge was somewhat underwhelming.
Even many men of your own party are carefully not endorsing
it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well I think you have to understand,
Harry, that I offered this or proposed it at a most inaus-
picious time completely. It was within a month of the
campaign or the election, and I understand Democrats as
well as Republicans backing away from a tax increase, but
once the election is over I think a good many members of
both political parties will realize that something has to be
done to dampen the inflationary pressures on the one hand
and help the people less fortunate on the other.
It was interesting to me as I read what various
Members of Congress said, of both political parties, that
they differed with where I had the cutoff. They did not
necessarily differ with the approach. And I understand
Congress well enough. They always have to be a little
different from a President, whether it is me or anybody
else -- and I will in the long run rely on the Congress
doing what is right.
MR. REASONER: Would you accept a modification or
a change in the five percent?
THE PRESIDENT: I would as long as they do not
abandon the concept.
MR. REASONER: The concept is the revenue.
THE PRESIDENT: The revenue -- where they put
the cutoff is a matter of judgment. I thought one figure
was right. If the Congress decides differently I certainly
will accept it, but the concept of putting a burden on
those better able to pay is important in order to relieve
the inequities for those less able to pay.
MR. REASONER: Sir, every statement you make
and every poll indicates that inflation, the economy,
is the major issue in politics right now. One study which
was based on the traditional comparison between what has
happened to people's spendable income and the popularity
of the President, one study indicates the Republicans
might lose 70 seats in this election, which is more I think,
MORE
Page 5
a higher figure than anyone has guessed. Can you live
with that if it happens?
THE PRESIDENT: Let me say at the outset, I
can live with anything, but what I have to look at is what
is best for the country, and I have learned over a period
of time in the Congress that the closer the balance is
between Democrats and Republicans the better the legislation
is. If one party totally controls the Congress with
overwhelming majorities, you get a lack of competition,
and the net result is the legislation does not reflect
the broad basis of American thoughts or the consensus
of America.
So a loss of 70, a net loss of 70 in the House
for example, I think would disturb that balance, destroy
the competition, and the net result would be bad
legislation. Now I can live with that, but I would just
like something a little better balanced.
MR. REASONER: You made some fairly strong
statements. You said it might disturb the question of
world peace. Have you backed off a little on that, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Not really, Harry, and I don't
like the idea of correcting what maybe the press or
what some of the Democrats have said, but I would like
to put it in perspective if I might.
I honestly believe -- because I came to the
Congress at a time there was maximum bipartisanship,
Democrats, Republicans, a Democratic President, Harry
Truman, Republican Congress, the 80th Congress -- that
two-year span did more in my judgment to make America
strong in leadership in achieving peace, building for
peace, than any period that I know of, and I praise
President Truman, and I think the 80th Congress was
great.
Now we sailed along on a relative level with
Republican and Democratic Presidents, Republican and
Democratic Congresses where this has continued, this
bipartisanship, in the area of foreign policy. The
last several weeks before the recess I found that
MORE
Page 6
despite Senator Mansfield, despite the good efforts of
the Speaker of the House, a Democrat, both of whom
agreed with me, that the Congress was moving in a
different direction seeking to limit, to hamstring a
President's capability to make decisions and to seek
solutions in complicated foreign policy areas.
This is what really worries me. And in the
speeches that I made that were criticized by some,
I think the speeches were good. I think the interpre-
tations unfortunately were inaccurate.
I want to work with a Democratic Congress,
Democratic leaders, but I need the help of Democrats
as well as Republicans in the House and Senate if we
are going to make peace a reality in the months ahead.
MR. REASONER: Suppose, sir, you have to live
with a House of Representatives with 350 Democrats, and
they all remember that you were out making strong speeches,
are you maybe throwing away your, or eroding your
relationship with the Congress by being so partisan in
the campaign?
THE PRESIDENT: The truth is, as I see it, I
am not as partisan as some have interpreted it, but assume
that what I have said is interpreted to be partisan. As
long as I, as President, present programs, whether
domestic or whether they are involving international
matters, can be honestly justified on the basis of what
is good for America, I would hope that even an overwhelming
Democratic Congress would be responsive.
I think it would be more difficult, and I don't
mean difficult in a mean, vicious sense, but more difficult
because I would have more connection with or relationship
with Republicans. But most Members of Congress, regardless
of political label, in my 25 years I have found if you talk
with them, you lay out what you want, or what is told to you
by a Democratic or Republican President, most Members of
Congress at least will give you a fair shake.
MORE
Page 7
MR. REASONER: Mr. President, what about Nelson
Rockefeller? I suppose you and I should both establish
we have received no gifts from him.
THE PRESIDENT: Not to my knowledge. Nelson
never contributed to my political campaign.
MR. REASONER: Do you still anticipate his
confirmation?
THE PRESIDENT: I am glad you asked that because
I want it clearly understood I am firmly for Nelson
Rockefeller. I think I made the right decision. I did
it very consciously. I thought he was the best man. I
still do, and I am for him. I believe he will be
confirmed.
MR. REASONER: From very early on, I think in
your first news conference, you said the ethical standards
of this Administration would be your ethical standards.
You don't see any problem in what has come out about
Mr. Rockefeller? You don't see anything unethical in
what he has done?
THE PRESIDENT: I do not, from what I know,
and I think I know all of it, because Nelson has told
me all of this information has come out subsequent to
his first hearing. He made available to the committee
and the Senate -- and on the basis of what I know I
am completely convinced what he did was totally ethical.
MR. REASONER: Is it possible there is something
wrong with the 25th Amendment that maybe you cannot
confirm anyone if you go deeply enough into his history?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly the experience I had,
and obviously the one Nelson is having, shows that
anybody who is going to get confirmed by the process of
the 25th Amendment has to lay his or her life out from
birth to the present. I don't object to that. I think
it is all right, but I do think that people who are
asking questions in some of these areas ought to expect
that their own life would be equally exposed.
MORE
Page 8
You know, I think we ought to have a single
standard, and how you achieve it I have not thought that
out, but certainly people who are questioning Nelson
Rockefeller, who questioned me, ought to in their own
conscience -- and maybe publicly -- have their own
lives laid out in the same way. What is wrong with
that? We ought to have a single standard.
MR. REASONER: You were twenty-five years in
Congress. If you can face up to seeing how you look I can,
I guess, sir.
You spoke outside about possibly minor revisions
to the 25th Amendment. Do you have anything specific in
mind?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Harry, I am sort of
predating a speech I am thinking about. I will just
give you one thought. The 25th Amendment I do not
believe in its inception contemplated what has happened
in the last year, but it happened and we have to learn
from experience. We hope the circumstances of the last
year are not repeated, but we cannot be sure in this
country.
It seems to me there is one area where there
should be a revision. There is nothing in the
25th Amendment that says once a President submits the
name of a Vice-President that the Congress has any
date certain that they must act.
Now in my case they acted within about two
months. In the case of Nelson Rockefeller it looks
like it will be a longer delay. How long it is hard to
tell. But I think that delay, without any pressure
by the Constitution or law is a handicap to the proper
functioning of our Government.
I am President. My good friend the Speaker
of the House is in effect Vice-President by the
Constitution. We have a hiatus. We have no Vice-President.
It seems to me that there ought to be a time limitation
that Congress has to act within a reasonable period of
time instead of letting a delay like we are having at
the present time.
MORE
Page 9
MR. REASONER: A deadline.
THE PRESIDENT: A deadline.
MR. REASONER: Which might take the heat off the
Congress too.
THE PRESIDENT: Right. In other words, they would
have to act more expeditiously and then they would not be
accused of being partisan by the delay. They were acting
on the .basis of what the Constitution required them to do.
Sixty days, 90 days, some reasonable limitation that the
Congress should act in order to prevent this sort of limbo
situation.
MR. REASONER: There is a deadline in the other
part of the amendment, in acting on Presidential disability.
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct.
MR. REASONER: Sir, I was interested in what
happened to a man who does not plan all his life to be
President, and something you said, you questioned the
interpretation of some speeches you have made. Is that
part of it? Is it hard to suddenly have people read
your speeches a lot more carefully? Do you wish you were
back when nobody listened?
THE PRESIDENT: I have said several times, Harry,
that I am not saying things too much differently today
than I said before, but people appear to be listening
more or reporting it more.
I cannot change fundamentally, although I do
look at the problems of the country a bit broader, I
cannot change my views of being open and frank, and very
forthright in what I say. I suspect I probably have to
describe a thought a little more restrained than I did
in the past, but you cannot change a person's personality.
At least I find it very difficult to do, and I don't
think I ever will.
MORE
Page 10
MR. REASONER: You were quoted as having said to
a friend who criticized your voting record in the House,
"Don't worry, that is Grand Rapids". Were you, are you
conscious without basic change of a different attitude
for issues now that you represent the Nation instead of
Grand Rapids?
THE PRESIDENT: Let me first say in defense of
Grand Rapids, it is a very cosmopolitan Middle West
community. It is a far more sophisticated community than
some news media have indicated. I just do not want to be
in the position of criticising the people that helped
bring me out and mold me, et cetera.
On the other hand, the problems, whether they
are economic, whether they are cultural, whether they
are in any other way, they are quite the same as in
New York or San Francisco, or in Miami.
I had an obligation for twenty-five years to
represent fundamentally that community, or that area of
Michigan. But now that I am President I think I have
to have a bit broader viewpoint. I have the same basic
philosophy, but it can be interpreted, I think, a little
differently as you meet the problems of New York and
Chicago, and Kansas City, and perhaps Los Angeles.
MR. REASONER: I would like to, unless we are
just about running out, I would like to just kick off
some of the chief criticisms of you, President Ford,
including some from people who respond to you.
I suppose the basic one is that your Administration
so far seems rudderless, without direction, a response to
the problems of inflation, as an appeal to elect Republican
candidates, but the feeling that you do not have the grip
on it. Is there something in that?
THE PRESIDENT: Harry, I of course disagree
with that.
MORE
Page 11
I do not know of a President in recent times
who was faced with high inflation on the one hand and
so many adverse economic conditions developing on the
other, who went to the people, as we did, with our
economic summit programs that include twelve mini-summits
around the country, who came up with a comprehensive
economic plan to meet the problems of inflation on the
one hand, and economic disturbances or adversity on
the other hand.
I think that was a major accomplishment in
a very significant area affecting all of our people.
So when individuals say that we were rudderless, I
think this was an indication of grabbing the wheel and
moving the ship of state right down the middle, aimed
at meeting the challenges on one side or another.
Now there have been some criticisms by fine
people that we did not do this, or we did not do that.
But fundamentally they recognize that we came up with a
comprehensive plan, and I think it is a good one. We
will pass judgment when the Congress responds.
You know some people have said, Harry, that
our plan was a marshmallow. Others said it was too
tough. I don't know who it was who said that the
Democratic proposal was far less comprehensive, far
less broad in its understanding of these problems.
I think we incorporated Democratic as well as
Republican ideas, we brought in labor and management,
consumers, housewives, I think we did a good job in
probably the most pressing problem we have. And to
say we are rudderless, I think, is an unfair criticism.
MORE
Page 12
MR. REASONER: The second major criticism is
somewhat allied to that which is that you are a nice guy
from Michigan, that people respond to your warmth and your
friendliness, but that you have not got the magnitude of
the grasp on the Presidency -- I am talking about going
from rudders to magnitude -- but that you would have a
narrow view formed by twenty-five years representing a
homogeneous district. Can you grow into this job, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: I honestly believe, Harry,
that I grew into it in the twenty-five years I served
in the Congress. When I came from Michigan in 1949 I
concede I was provincial, except I had probably more
educational breadth having gone to the University of
Michigan and Yale Law School, which was a great experience
for me.
But when I came to Congress, after serving
four years in the Navy where I traveled pretty extensively,
I did have the focus on the problems of Western Michigan
and the State of Michigan. But the Committee assign-
ments that I had during that quarter of a century were the
most broadening ones that any member of the Congress
ever had.
I served on the Committee on Appropriations.
In the first place that Committee handled all of the
problems of the government, domestic as well as foreign,
and then I had the blessing of an experience of serving
on the Foreign Aid Subcommittee, the CIA Subcommittee
and the Department of Defense Subcommittee. We dealt
with problems involving the globe, the poor people in
other countries, the enemy in other countries; we had
the problems of dealing with every aspect of foreign
as well as domestic problems.
So in that twenty-five year span I was blessed
by circumstances with a great opportunity, and I think
I grew with it. So when I came to the Vice-Presidency,
here I was with twenty-five years of the best experience
in Congress, placed in a position where I might have some
opportunity to make decisions, so I think education in the
Congress was a blessing, and I think it has been very very
helpful.
MORE
Page 13
MR. REASONER: That would lead to the other question.
A Harris poll indicated something like sixty-two percent
of the people are concerned about your competence in foreign
affairs as opposed to domestic. But you are aware there
is a world out there?
THE PRESIDENT: I sure am. And let me say,
this country is very very fortunate to have Henry Kissinger
as Secretary of State and as director of the National
Security Council. I meet with Henry Kissinger at least
an hour every day where we discuss current problems and
those that are prospective or down the road. I call
on this experience that I indicated a few minutes ago
after being in the Congress where I dealt with Secretaries
of Defense, Secretaries of State, plus I knew Jack Kennedy,
I worked with Lyndon Johnson, I worked with Dick Nixon
as President; those experiences as leader in the
Republican Party in the House exposed me to many many
problems that a president has, whether it is a Democratic
or Republican president.
MR. REASONER: Mr. President, you said, I think
about fifteen hours before you were sworn in, that you would
keep Henry Kissinger. Are there any other members of the
cabinet who you would absolutely guarantee their jobs
are safe?
THE PRESIDENT: I have no present plans to make
any changes, but I thought it was extremely important, Harry,
at that time, to reassure the American people, as well as
our friends and adversaries abroad, that Henry Kissinger
would be our Secretary of State. I did this for the
reasons I just said. But also I had, over a period of
time, developed a very good relationship with Henry. I
strongly supported his policies. I knew they were the
best for the country and I just did not want any rupturing
in that relationship.
But as far as the rest of the cabinet is concerned,
I think they have done a good job. Circumstances may
change, but at the moment I see no immediate change in
the cabinet situation.
MR. REASONER: Do you see your administration
as restoring the authority and prestige to the cabinet as
MORE
Page 14
opposed to the White House?
THE PRESIDENT: We hope to. I firmly believe
that cabinet members and departments ought to have more
of the authority, more direction and that the White House
should not control everything. That takes a little time
to change the direction of a huge bureauocracy, but we are
issuing directives and we are encouraging cabinet members
to assume more responsibility. We are going to turn back
some of the questions at press conferences and say, Ask the
cabinet officer, don't ask the White House, because that
is a cabinet decision or a cabinet responsibility."
I think that is the way to run an organization.
Pick good people, give them a responsibility, hold them
account able, and if they do not perform then you make a
change. If you do it all from the White House, Harry, you
do not have that combination of responsibility and account-
ibility. So we hope to make that change which is quite
important, but you cannot do it overnight..
MR. REASONER: Might that mean over a period
of time, sir, not a declining, but a reduction in the White
House staff in what has become a very large department of
government?
THE PRESIDENT: I hope SO. I think the White
House staff has tended to get too big. It was predicated
on a different pholosophy; that the White House was the
sole dispenser of power and decision. If my thought about
greater responsibility at the cabinet level is carried
out, I think we can, and I think we should, reduce the
White House bureauocracy. Don Rumsfeld has some good ideas
in that area. We intend to carry them out.
MR. REASONER: Do you feel you, at this point,
have succeeded in making it the Ford White House instead
of the Nixon White House, even if you have some holdover:-
staff members?
THE PRESIDENT: We have not done as well as we
intended to. But I think the American people have to
understand that I, almost literally, became President
MORE
Page 15
over night and the move from the Executive Office Building
as Vice President into the White House, under those circum-
stances, was unique, and I am not the kind of person who
likes to cut somebody off, cut their throat so to speak,
over night. I think you have got to give some reasonable
period of transition. We have just about achieved that in
the White House staff and from now on I think you and the
news media can hold me and my people accountable, because
we are primarily today a Ford administration with no
mixture between the previous and the present.
MR. REASONER: If you had to characterize the
difference between the Ford administration and the Nixon
administration, how would you put it, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: I would say the openess, not
only of myself, but I believe the people that are working
for me. You take Ron Nessen. I think there is a
difference. You take Don Rumsfeld. I think there is a
difference. And I am not being critical of the other people.
There is just a difference in style. Or you take the
others who are in our top staff organizational setup. They
are more open. I think they are more candid. That is, I
think, the hallmark of my administration.
I addition I think it is going to be more evident,
as I said a moment ago, that we are going to move from total
control and domination in the White House to responsibility
and accountability in the various departments.
MR. REASONER: Openess inevitably means people
are going to blow it from to time. Will you forgive that?
THE PRESIDENT: Including me.
MR. REASONER: Will you forgive it in yourself
and others?
THE PRESIDENT: Nobody that I have ever known
in public office is one hundred percent what they say, or
even decisions, and I am the first to concede that even in
this important office I have said some things that I had
to modify or qualify and I will probably do it in the
future, but isn't it better to be open and to make a mistake
MORE
Page 16
in a word or a phrase or something than to be so restrictive
that you don't say anything? So I would rather do it the
way I am doing it and I hope that my people or the people
working with me would emphasize openess and if we make
mistakes, there is no harm in admitting them.
MR. REASONER: How close is your communication
now with Mr. Nixon, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, for a period of time, from
August 9th until just recently, we had a regular courier
setup giving the former president, almost exclusively,
foreign policy classified information. During that period
of time I talked to him by phone, I think, four times.
I have not talked to him for three or four weeks. I cannot
recall exactly.
But we have decided that it is
not necessary to communicate that foreign policy information,
classified as it is, by courier. We have communications
equipment that makes it possible for me to give to Mr.
Nixon the important information that relates to the
decisions he made and the information he had, and he, despite
the criticism, in many areas I thought did a superb job
in foreign policy, and I want him kept up to date. His
judgment on this issue or that, if he is kept up to date,
can be an important input into decisions that I might
make, not that it will be controlling, but he has to be
kept up. to date if he is going to have an impact. So we
are doing it, I think, differently; instead of by courier,
by our classified communications system.
MR. REASONER: There is no litigation and
possible legislation about the tapes and other records
on which you made an agreement. Have you changed your
mind any on the wisdom of that agreement?
THE PRESIDENT: : I think we have recognized
that it probably had to be modified and on the objection
of Mr. Jaworski and his staff, and now Mr. Ruth, we have
agreed that we won't implement it until there is a
reasonable satisfaction from the Special Prosecutor's
point of view.
MORE
Page 17
In the meantime, of course, former President
Nixon has instituted a law suit which of course will make
some fundamental determations as to the control of the
tapes and other documents. In the meantime it is getting
even more complicated by the action of the United States
Senate in passing a bill which I presume in one form or
another may pass the House of Representatives. So you
have the basic agreement, the modifications that we are
willing to make to cooperate with Mr. Jaworski's staff,
and Mr. Ruth's staff now, the law suit of Mr. Nixon, and
the prospective acts in the Congress.
What I am fundamentally interested in is that
that material be made available for any criminal prosecu-
tions, for any legitimate utilization, historically.
On the other hand a lot of people -- and this is I think
quite important -- were taped without their knowledge,
including myself. I have no objection to whatever I said
in the Oval Office or elsewhere, but there are some people,
including high ranking government officials from other
governments, who were in the Oval Office whose conversations
were taped, which is vitally important in their own home
or own country or in world diplomacy. I am not sure that
all of that material ought to be made public. It could
be very harmful.
There is a gegree of privacy that is involved
and personal privacy as well as diplomatic privacy has
to be taken into consideration. I am concerned about that
aspect
MR. REASONER: It has been suggested that one of
the reasons you made the agreement was to keep your
conversations with the President from being known.
THE PRESIDENT: Not at all, Harry.
MR. REASONER: There is nothing in there you
were worried about?
THE PRESIDENT: Not at all. As a matter of fact,
if my memory is accurate, any conversation I had that was
taped, a conversation with Mr. Nixon, would be beneficial
to me and would not be harmful to the President. So I have
MORE
Page 18
no objection whatwoever to any of those tapes, if. they exist,
being made public.
MR. REASONER: You made no pejorative remarks
about the Prime Minister of Canada?
THE PRESIDENT: No. If my memory was correct
I never was hyper critical or partisan in any comments
I made about any others. I have thought about it, because
you can say something in a private conversation, but as
I reflect on it nothing I said would I have any objection
whatsoever to being made public.
MR. REASONER: Sir, in a final personal area,
have you or Mrs. Ford regretted your instinctive decision
to be completely open about her health and her surjery?
THE PRESIDENT: None whatsoever, Harry. It was
a big shock first to know of the problem. The first twelve
hours we did not tell the American people because we thought
that that was better for her and for our schedule and over
all, but once the operation was done, and what has
happened since, we think was good for America, good in
that I am told that literally thousands and thousands of
women have now gone and had the same examination. I know
it gives Betty the feeling that she may have saved some
lives and we think it is good and I think we would do it
precisely the way we did in the past.
MR. REASONER: Assuming her excellent apparent
recovery continues, how does she feel about 1976? We know
how you feel.
THE PRESIDENT: Whe has not told me anything
different following the operation. I think she relies
on whatever decision I make which I hope in my case will
be predicated on what I think is good for the country, so
the net result is certainly there is no change in what I
said shortly after I was sworn in.
MR. REASONER: Almost immediately, as I
remember.
THE PRESIDENT: That I would probably be a
candidate in 1976, and I have not changed one bit.
MORE
Page 19
MR. REASONER: Can you win?
THE PRESIDENT: I always enter a contest --
whether it is in athletics or politics -- on the
assumption that I am probably not going to win, because
I work a little harder and try a little better. So I
think it is a horse race. Democrats will undoubtedly have
a good candidate. I don't know who it will be, and I
am not sure they do. But I always assume I am going
to lose and then I am happier -- there is an old saying,
Harry, "Prepare for the worst and the best will take
care of itself," and that is the way I feel about day to
day as well as '76.
MR. REASONER: You need a name for your
administration. It is not the New Deal; it is not the
New Frontier; it is not the Great Society. What élse is
there? It is not the New Majority? Have you got an idea?
THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me
a little advance notice on that. Maybe we ought to think
about it. I think there is something unique about this
administration. I think, as the American people see it,
they will find that it is a new approach, a down to earth
pragmatic practical answer to the problems we face, both
at home and abroad. I think our problem is we have not
thought about a title. But maybe the results will give
us the title. I hope the results are good.
MR. REASONER: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
END