Yes?

This is Hubert.

Hubert?

Yes.

You’ve got a hell of a good interview on this UPI ticker about the civil rights bill and about answering the Republican national chairman, [William] Miller.[note 1] William E. Miller, a Republican representative from New York and chairman of the Republican National Committee, had charged that the Baker investigation would be a “very big issue” in the fall campaign. New York Times, 29 January 1964.

Yes.

[reading] “The issues are pretty well set out already: They include war on poverty, economic growth, world peace, security, Medicare, human dignity, human rights, education, opportunity for the young. The issues of smear and fear are not worthy of this republic and of these days, and the Republicans want to spend a great deal of time on that. So while they’re digging there, we’ll just be building a better America.” [Chuckles.] Goddamn, that couldn’t be better. That’s as fine a statement as I ever saw in that few words.

Why, thank you.

And then the next one on civil rights is damned good, and that tax bill.

Now, you see, you want to bear in mind, my friend, that we get the real impact six months from the time this goes in. That’s when it hits us.

Yes, sir.

And this is March [sic]. March, April, May, June, July, August. So we’ll be needing it about September.

We’ve had a meeting here today, and we’re going right down our list so we’ll have a full count for Joe Fowler tomorrow afternoon of this [tax] bill without amendment.[note 2] Henry “Joe” Fowler, from Roanoke, Virginia, was under secretary of the Treasury and was helping shepherd the tax bill through the Finance Committee.

Well, that’s just wonderful.

We’re going to find out how many people we’ve got locked up here without amendment, and if we can whack up 40 Democrats or 45, well, we’re in business.

That’s wonderful. Now, what you ought to do is make him get you some speeches, so you get those boys to make them tomorrow—

We have.

—the next day. Just kick them off—we ought to dominate this press.

We’re going to be leading off Thursday at 11:00, Friday at 10:00 in the morning, and—

Why don’t you make that campaign committee get you a damn good publicity man, assign him to you just to manage this stuff?

Well, I wish I could. I [unclear]—

[Belches.] You ought to go out there and get you another Max Kampelman.[note 3] A Minnesota attorney and Humphrey adviser, Kampelman was later prominent as a high-profile neoconservative during the 1970s. Just put him to doing nothing but handling these 30, 40 senators that you’re supposed to be whip over. [The] 20 southerners you can’t do anything about, but the other 40 you can.

[with Humphrey assenting] You could make fellows like Joe Fowler get your statements up there. You could get them out, and you could get things like this.[note 4] The Presidential Recordings Program revised the following section of text in 2021 for inclusion in The LBJ Telephone Tapes, a project produced by the Miller Center in partnership with the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library to commemorate the library's 50th anniversary. Now, this ought to be the party line: [Humphrey acknowledges throughout] We ought to turn the other cheek. We ought to just say, “Well, the reason the Republicans haven’t won any elections except [Dwight D.] Eisenhower—and Eisenhower didn’t mess around with this trash; he was a national hero—but the reason they haven’t won one since [Herbert C.] Hoover [Sr.] is because they spend all their time on [Franklin D.] Roosevelt’s boy [James] Jimmy [Roosevelt II], and on his dog [Fala].[note 5] Republicans had attacked Roosevelt’s son, Jimmy, for allegedly corrupt insurance practices. They had also criticized Franklin Roosevelt in the 1944 campaign for allegedly having ordered a naval destroyer to retrieve his beloved Scottish terrier, Fala, following a trip to Juneau, Alaska. “These Republican leaders have not been content with attacks on me, or my wife, or on my sons,” he told an audience in September 1944. “No, not content with that, they now include my little dog, Fala.” Roosevelt said Fala had “not been the same dog since.” The President claimed that he had become “accustomed to hearing malicious falsehoods about myself. . . . But I think I have a right to resent, to object to libelous statements about my dog.” “Address at Dinner of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,” 23 September 1944, Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt: 1944–45 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1950), p. 290. And they spend all their time on [Harry S.] Truman and [M.] Margaret [Truman] and the music critics. And they spend all their time on [John F. “Jack”] Kennedy and his religion and other things. And they just haven’t won one. And if they don’t stand for something—”[note 6] In 1950, in a letter that became public, Truman had threatened to beat up the Washington Post music critic Paul Hume after Hume criticized a performance by Truman’s daughter Margaret. Truman had been on Johnson’s mind lately; the day before Johnson had made similar comments about Truman and the press. See the conversation between President Johnson, Walter Jenkins, George Reedy, Bill Moyers, Abe Fortas, and Jack Valenti, 27 January 1964, in this volume.

Hell, if they just come out here and talk about the revival of the corn tassel or come out for Tom Watson watermelons, it’d be something.[note 7] The Tom Watson was an old variety of watermelon that had been developed around the turn of the century. But they’re just, [Humphrey chuckles] by God, against things, [Humphrey acknowledges] against everything and trying to smear and fear. And that—you have no alternative.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch man asked me today, said, “What Republican frightens you the most?”[note 8] The St. Louis Post-Dispatch had almost ten Washington reporters, one of whom was Marquis Childs. The specific reporter to whom Johnson referred was not identified. I said, “Well, not any of them now. When one of them comes out and said, ‘This is what I stand for,’ and gives me a foreign policy and said, ‘Here’s what I’m for,’ and then he gives me a domestic policy and said, ‘Here’s what I’m for. Here’s what I’m for in the field of education, in the field of manpower, in the field of training, in the field of civil rights,’ then I’ll get scared. Because even if it’s different from mine, they’ll have a choice. But now they haven’t any choice, because we’re the only ones that stand for anything. They’re just against things.”

Yes. Well, I think we can rack these boys. I’ve had a talk with some of our senators back here about our plans on this tax bill, and we’ll dominate this—we’ll dominate the weekend. And that’s the important thing where I felt that we’d get a good start with Thursday, Friday, Saturday. We’ll have enough stuff here to really have control of the news items.

You tell people like Gale [W.] McGee and Frank [E. "Ted"] Moss and others that we’re really going to help.[note 9] McGee and Moss were first-term Democratic senators from Wyoming and Utah, respectively. Both faced potentially difficult reelection contests in the fall.

Yes, sir.

Just say, “Now, damn it, boys, you get here and get your speech and ask some questions here and get your name in the paper here.” [Humphrey acknowledges throughout.] And every damn one of them ought to take your line that what we are . . . “We’re for war on poverty, we’re for economic growth, we’re for world peace, we’re for security, we’re for Medicare, we’re for human dignity, we’re for human rights. Now, this is what we stand for: a government of strength, a government that’s solvent, and a government that’s compassionate.”

Yes, sir.

And it just makes these guys look silly.

Yes, sir.

OK. I just wanted to congratulate you. [Humphrey attempts to interject.] I was reading it; it was the best thing I’d seen all day. Goddamn it, I had Indonesia, and I had Panama, and I had Cyprus. And they’re coming in tonight, 7:30. The British are trying to shove us in there [Cyprus] overnight, and I guess we got to go. But I’m trying my damnedest to get the Turks to agree not to invade, so we can hold off for another day or two.

[softly] I hope so. I hope so. [speaking louder] Well, I just got back here after we’d had that little visit over there. These press boys were all waiting up here to see me, so I just let them have it.

Well, you just ought to hit it tomorrow. Just every day you ought to say, “The Democratic Party is the one party left for America, ’cause the other fellows don’t stand for anything.”

That’s right.

I just—God, pity them, for they know not what they do. I just feel sorry for them, because what do they stand for?[note 10] End of 2021 revisions. You can’t look at a single one of their candidates—Rocky’s for divorce, Goldwater’s after him, and . . .[note 11] President Johnson was referring to New York governor Nelson Rockefeller, who, following his successful reelection as governor in 1962, had divorced his wife of 31 years and married a much younger woman. At the time of this call, the couple was expecting a child of their own. Two days before, Rockefeller had decided to confront the marital issue by giving his current wife, known as Happy, a much larger public presence in his campaign. New York Times, 27 January 1964.

By the way, I had a talk with Joe [Clark].[note 12] Joseph Clark (D-Pennsylvania) was a liberal on the Rules Committee who had insinuated that the Republican demand to interrogate Jenkins before the committee may have been reasonable.

Yeah?

And I confided in him vis-à-vis our little paper, and it’s very good.[note 13] Humphrey may have been referring to an Air Force report on Don Reynolds that he was quietly circulating.

Yes . . . wonderful.

We’re in fine shape there.

All right. Good.

The other man I didn’t get ahold of today, but there’ll be no problem.[note 14] Claiborne Pell (D-Rhode Island) was the other Rules Committee Democrat who had expressed skepticism about following the administration line.

By the way, I took the liberty, I hope you won’t feel badly about it, of sharing that with George [Smathers].

No, that’s all right. [with Humphrey assenting] I think you ought to share it with anybody that you can, to let them know that these guys have got themselves tied in with a bad egg, and they’re relying on him, and they’re supporting him, and they’re backing him. And they’re out trying to prove now through [John] Williams, by implication, a lot of stuff that, if they proved it, wouldn’t be anything wrong with it.[note 15] John Williams (R-Delaware) had been leading the Republican fight on the Baker investigation.

But they’re tied in with a guy that flunked out, that busted out, that’s retired—

Yeah. And a liar.

—old man [Pat] McCarran, that’s anti-Jew. That’s who they’ve lined up with, and that ought to kill any Republican that lines up with him. OK, my friend.

OK.

Bye.

Bye-bye.