One thing I'm interested in, you've been traveling around the country quite a bit.
How would you assess the strength of the Republican Party today as compared to let's say last November? Well, it's stronger.
It's been getting stronger for the last two and a half years.
In fact, the ILOC on the last election is one of the best Republican victories since 28.
We lost the presidency, but we gained tremendous victories all over the country.
Senator, if Richard Nixon decides to run for the governorship of California, as Mr.
Klein indicates he might, will you openly and actively support him in his bid? Oh, I can do whatever I can do in California.
We Arizonans aren't too welcome in California and vice versa because of the water fights.
Well, then you will support him.
Oh, sir.
Can we take that to mean then that you'll also support him if he tries for the presidency in 1964? Well, I don't think he could.
If he runs for the governorship in California, he would have to run with one hand on the Bible swearing that he wouldn't run in 64 for the presidency.
It's a four -year job.
And they're very touchy about that out there.
So if he goes into it, his presidential aspirations would have to be 68 instead of 64.
Senator, do you have any comment on the latest Cuban development? Castro has upped his demand for more tractors or more money or release fewer prisoners.
Well, I have no other comments than those I've made.
I'm against the whole deal where there's one tractor or 5 ,000 tractors.
It's unconstitutional and it's immoral.
I don't know what other grounds you need to be against a thing like that.
Senator, have you had a chance to comment yet on Senator Mansfield's proposal for a free demilitarized Berlin in order to avert possibly World War III? No, I haven't commented on it, but I don't...
On first blush, I don't like the suggestion because it smacks to me of giving in again to the Russians.
I think if we're sincere in our efforts to unite Berlin, that we should be heading the other direction instead of giving in to a whim of Khrushchev just to avoid possible trouble.
Tell us a little more about what this other direction would be or should be.
Well, the direction...we've had success in Berlin by standing firm and I think firmness is the only thing that will pay off.
It might be in the direction of encouraging the Berlins to get together and we will take the risk of what would happen.
Do you think Mr.
Khrushchev is going to give in when confronted with firmness? He always has.
No reason to think that he won't in the future and if he doesn't, that's the risk that we have to take.
Is there a risk of a third nuclear war? I don't know if it would be a risk of a nuclear war or risk of a war.
I'm not worried about that.
We've risked war before.
Countries always risk war when they take positions.
If we're going to...if we think we can get peace in this world without risking something, we'll get peace, but it'll be a communist dominated peace and I don't think any American wants to live in it.
Well, Scuttlebutt has it that both Kennedy and Khrushchev spoke in quiet tones which many feel is an ominous ring and that both have commitments, way to the west and Khrushchev to the east and that both are going to go to war over Berlin.
It could be.
It could be.
Do you have any information as to what the talks...
No, we haven't heard any more than you've heard about those talks.
Senator, I wonder if you've assessed whether there's any connection between conservatism and the John Byrd Society and whether some of your supporters might be members or whether you approve of it or anything like that.
I can't understand how you can call that society conservative any more than you'd call the American Legion conservative.
The American Legion is against communism.
The John Byrd Society, as I understand it, is against communism.
As far as I know, they've never taken any political stands for candidates or philosophies and in the absence of that, you can't call them liberal or middle of the road or conservative.
If they're against communism, well, I'm against communism, so is Hubert Humphrey, so is Wayne Morris.
There's no conservative or liberal position on being against communism.
You said that if Mr.
Nixon runs for the governorship in 1962, it would be very difficult for him to run for president in 1964.
How will this affect your own political aspirations or plans? Not a bit.
I want to get re -elected to the United States Senate.
Won't bother me a bit.
You're not a candidate for president at this time or any...
I never have been and I have no plans of being.
Senator, would you say that President Kennedy's popularity has waned since November? Uh, I don't know if I could say his personal popularity has waned, but the popularity of his program has certainly hit the skids.
It's going downhill about as fast as any program I've ever seen.
That would mean that the Democratic Party's popularity has gone down, you feel? Yes.
That would be part of the answer.
Now, it will probably reflect on him in the course of the next three or four months, but his personal popularity I find is still rather high.
A member of the House of Representatives has asked the Attorney General for a ruling on the legality of tractors for prisoners deal with Infidel Castro.
Now, will you press for an immediate ruling or just let it slide until the deal is consummated? No, we're pressing for a ruling.
In fact, there's a good chance of a suit being brought asking for the government to restrain in this area.
This is unconstitutional in my belief.
It violates the second article of the Constitution.
And on those grounds, I think that the deal can be denied.
We want to see it denied.
I can't believe that the Congress is going to stand idly by and allow this to happen.
Senator, I wonder if you could assess the, you say the Republican Party's been growing in the last two and a half years.
It's been growing more conservative than liberal.
Well, when I say growing, it's been growing in strength.
I think it is the conservative party.
It's, put it another way, it's the party to the right.
Conservatism, like liberalism, has its degrees.
But the Republican Party has no position to take but the conservative position.
And I think it's growing in that direction.
Senator, reflecting on the aborted Cuban invasion, against whom do you think the blame should be put? What is the failure of that? I don't think we can put the final blame till we know who caused the order to be given to call off the air and cease support.
When we know that, we'll know the answer.
You have no such information despite the secrecy of the committee hearings you have? Uh, no.
There's been, to my mind, nothing discussed in that nature.
The order would have to come, of course, from the President.
Nothing discussed openly? Not that I know of.
You know nothing? No.
The committee hearings have been...
That's not going to have the season.
Pardon? Senator Scott claimed that...
I was on the floor yesterday when he did blame Adlai Stevenson, but I have no information to know that that's true.
Somebody caused that air and sea support to be called off.
Well, do you think this should be disclosed to the public by the administration? I don't see how they're going to avoid it.
Sooner or later, the cat's got to come out of the bag.
You think, Senator, they should have used the force? Most certainly.
We should never have started it had we not the intention of going all the way.
And we wouldn't have needed any more than...
Very? What do we do now, Senator, with Cuba's diplomatic relations? What would you do as our next step? Well, I don't think you can look at Cuba alone.
I think it's part of the whole world picture.
We have to develop a foreign policy that's tough.
It's going to take care of Cuba as well as Laos, Vietnam, Iran, Berlin, and every other troubled spot we get around the world.
What do you mean by tough? It's what I mean, the tough attitude that we back up with action if we have to.
You mean, sir, we have to use our troops when a situation develops? If we have to.
In other words, keep putting it up to the Russians, fight or not? Well, put it up to the Russians.
If you want to fight and the fight results, it's going to be your fault, not ours.
You go into a country and bother them, we're going in with you.
And then do it.
You think this increases the risk of war? What if it does? Certainly it increases the risk of war.
But we can lose this Cold War.
In fact, we're pretty close to losing it now.
And when we lose the Cold War, you've lost your freedom without pulling a trigger or dropping a bomb.
How close are we to losing the Cold War, Senator? Well, I think another wrong decision or another right decision not implemented, and we've lost it.
And what do you think? For instance, if we backed off of Vietnam, if Vietnam is attacked, I think you have to forget Laos.
We got in it too late.
If we fail to take strong action in anything that develops in Berlin, we've lost it.
What do you think the next trouble spot will be? Colombo Ceylon seems to be swinging over and all that.
Oh, it's kind of hard to say.
I would rather suspect just my own hunch would be something country like Venezuela, that's just a hunch.
Senator, one point of clarification.
You say if this tractor deal goes through, that you're predicting some congressional action or some kind of suit, is that right? There are many resolutions in the Congress expressing dissatisfaction of the Congress in this deal.
There's efforts being made to stop the export license, stop the tax -free status.
And it's my understanding that there's a group of citizens in Washington who will ask the federal court for a restraining order.
Now that will require the attorney general to get in the act and interpret the meaning of the Article 2 of the Constitution on treaty -making powers.
Thank you.
Thank you.
