 It sounded as though Walter Mondale read your acceptance speech of 1980 before he made his acceptance speech of 1984 and with his emphasis on family, jobs, peace and freedom. So I guess my first question is, are you going to let him preempt you? No. As a matter of fact, I thought about that too because the only part of the convention I watched for the acceptance speeches at final night and I said to Nancy, I said, you know, we seem to have converted them there. Now I'm going to do all these things and so my answer to that is, well, if they're going to run on the basis of doing all the things that we've advocated doing, then we just tell the people, well, if you want those things, well, why don't you stay with the original? We started it. But I don't think they really mean it. They can't change their spots that much. They talk about the family, but what they mean is they still want to be mama and papa. Do you think this is going to be, or do you think it's shaping the episode of a classic liberal versus conservative campaign, we've seen some rhetoric like that so far? I think it really has to because when it comes right down to it and the things now that they're talking about all have to do with government doing more, they all have to do with the things that we, our savings were based on making people go hungry and so forth, I don't know whether you saw the TV show, I just told some people about it today. One of the news shows, I don't know which network, was showing their vice presidential candidate speaking and telling about the great hunger in America because of our budgeting practices, and then you couldn't blame her for this. This had to be some editor of that news show, switched to a still photo of a figure lying in the ground, mostly nude in a kind of a, you know, fetal position, a victim of hunger and very emaciated. Well, it was one of those pictures of an African in the family over there that's going on, but this was used to illustrate what she had just finished saying about hunger in America. But the proof of the matter or the truth of the matter is and all the things that they were saying and with regard to us, none of them were based on they could be substantiated by any facts. We're spending more on more people and hunger and all, and I'm not one to boast about it, I'm not boasting about it. We're meeting the need, but more than has ever been spent. The only thing we can say, on behalf of ourselves and our efforts to get more government economy is we didn't increase it as much, or the same rate they were increasing it. And now, of course, with the recovery that we're having, I think there's once again areas for where some of these things can be reduced further. It is true that we eliminated people from the charity roles simply because their earnings and their level of income was such that there was no moral justification for those being. As you did in California, we were the governor of that idea, that same approach there. Speaking of the recovery, Mr. President, as strong as it's been and with the deficits which we still have, can we expect the economic recovery to continue? Yes. I think that the difference between this and the other seven or eight recessions that we've had since World War II is that all of those they attempted to fix without getting at the basic problems. They did it by artificial stimulating of the money supply, government spending and so forth. And each recession was followed just two or three years later by another one. And each time the inflation rate was going, each recession was worse than the one before. And so it followed that the one that began in 1979 and 80 and then really nosedived in July after we were here. But remember that 81 budget was still their budget, not ours. Just follow that that was the worst one of all that had gone on. And the difference is that our recovery now was based on, well, one thing, the reduction of government's revenue is the taking, to the extent of taking a tax cut, leaving more percentage of the gross national product in the hands of the people. And of course, the reductions that we were able to make in the growth of government, government spending. And I think it's a real recovery and it's based on solid principles. Now the deficit, we mustn't ignore that the deficit is the result is a result, not a cause of something. And the deficit has been going on for 50 years. And for a great many of those years, when all of us were protesting and making speeches about how we should find an answer to that, they were telling us that it was necessary to maintain prosperity. Just as they said, it was necessary to have a little inflation. Now this deficit reached its present size, really because of the depth of this recession, about half the deficit was recession caused was cyclical. That is going away because of the recovery. And we find ourselves that each one of our estimates of the out year deficits, we have overestimated the amount of the deficit. Well, people are still talking about $200 billion deficit, it's already down about 160 or something like that for this year. So they haven't really caught up with. Yeah. And now there are 7 million more people at work than we're at work in 1980. That means that as those people, many of whom were probably temporarily wards of the government while they were out of work, those people are now going to be taxpayers. And I think we're we have also underestimated our tax revenues. And we're going to find that the tax cut is going to because of the recovery is going to result in a stimulant to the economy. So I think there's that's going to happen. But then we are still going to have a structural deficit. And this is where we've got to keep hammering at the Congress for the changes that will handle that. And then to explain what I said the other night at the press conference, and which has since been distorted in their coverage of it, they have made it sound as if I've said, well, when we can't get any more cuts when you know, we've gotten as many as we will, we may have to raise taxes. No, I said that if when we've gotten government down to where here are the functions that government must perform. And here is the absolute maximum of cost for furnishing those. Here's the limit on it. Then if you find that your tax structure is out of line, and too little for your government functions, then you might have to look at the tax structure and raise that. But we're a long way from getting government down to that to that point. But to to raise a tax now, before you've done that, is to simply guarantee you're going to keep having deficits because they'll stop cutting spending. Exactly. Right. I'd like to ask two questions on foreign policy. We've really had sort of a hot war of words, which the Soviet Union has been waging against us, you, the US, the view of that, what kind of relations do you expect us to forge with the Soviets in the next two to four years? Well, I continue to be optimistic. And I think all of this talk about the great strain because of what we've said and so forth. I think that it has been useful. After all the years of attempted detente to let the Soviet Union know that we're realistic about them, that we understand them. And I think it will make them not less but more willing to sit down with us than they were in all those years when their subversive practices were pretty well hidden and the American people didn't seem to understand when we were attempting unilateral disarmament and so forth. I think once they know that we're being realistic about them, they'll be willing to talk. September 1st is the first anniversary of the shooting down of the civilian airliner KL007. What are your thoughts on this occasion? Well, it was such a needless tragedy, but it certainly served to make a great many people in the world aware of the nature of the problem. First, they did try to deny it and then to pretend that it was a spy plane or military or something of the kind. And then finally, when they came right out with the admission it was because it violated their airspace and they'd do it again if someone else violated their airspace. I think people realize something. It was an example of their disdain, not only for human rights but for the sanctity of human life. And I hope that maybe they learned something from the reaction of the world to this deed. If you are reelected, what is the single most important thing you hope to accomplish in the second term? Well, I want to continue with what we've started here and the turnaround of the policies of government to where the debate for more than three years now has not been on new programs and how much mortisband has been on how much to cut. But I think over and above all that is the world situation and arriving at an understanding that can start us down the road to reducing and hopefully eliminating the strategic nuclear weapons. The world peace has to be the target. There's one more question I have to ask you and as a conservative, if Jim Baker and Mike Dever leave the White House next January, as has been widely rumored, will you replace them with tried and true conservatives? I've got to ask that from my viewers. All right, Lee, I have to tell you though, I have to tell you that I think they've both gotten a bad press. Good Lord, Mike has been with me all the way back there and I don't know of anyone that's more conservative than he is. And Jim handling as he does along with our legislative sector many of the times when we've got to do business with him up there. And let me just say maybe what has been the confusing thing is a lot of our fellow conservatives, or maybe not a lot, but some of our fellow conservatives. I have found if they want you to jump off the bridge or the cliff with the flag flying, if you can't get 100% of what you've tried to get through the legislature, they think you should go down in defiance and still demanding it, even though you're defeated. Well, that doesn't make sense to me. In our welfare reforms in California, I did not get 100%. But I got roughly 80% or better of what we wanted. And I think that you get that, then you can always come back and try for the more of the same and try to try for the other 20. And this has been a position that Jim has found himself where when it comes to that point that you're not going to get all you ask for the Congress. And then you sit here and you make the decision, okay, do we just say, all right, we'll buy the issue, we'll go down in flames, but we'll try to convince the people they were the villains. Or do you go up there and get see how much you can get in enough to make it worthwhile? Well, then he's been the negotiator in that. But and all this thing, and I know why some of them feel it that I have retreated from my positions or something. I'm too old to change now. I haven't retreated one bit. I want what I wanted when we came here. What I learned in California and I've learned here that you you have to see things as they are and not as the way you'd like them to be. Now, if our conservatives would help more, instead of internacing battles help more in getting that balance changed in the Congress. You know what our cause should be? We have not reminded the people out there enough that for more than 40 years of the last 50, our opponents, even though they elect a Republican president, there had been both houses of the Congress have been in the hands of our opponents. Now, the Constitution doesn't allow a president to spend a dime. Everything that's done in taxes and everything that must come from that Congress. Granted, you can take the lead and go up there and try to urge it on them. But and you fight and that's what I do. And that's why I try to take the case to the people to get public pressure on them. But what we need is to remind the people if there's a question of fairness, if the people nationwide vote for a Republican president because of the things that he has told them he would do and wants to do, then the American people ought to see the fairness of giving him a Congress once to try and accomplish that. But the only Republican president in this half century that has had both houses of the Congress was Dwight Eisenhower for only two years. And in those two years, there was not one penny increase in inflation. There was no recession. And he brought peace in the Korean War. Now, if the people would only think about this, now, I have been luckier than some. I've had for these three and a half years, a Republican majority in one house, the Senate. We couldn't have obtained anything that we have to date if we did not have that one house. And that one house is my protection to be able to veto things and have the veto uphill. So our fight must be, and I know we've got to go here and run over, but I just want to say one thing. I am convinced that the reason for the Democratic House of Representatives particularly is the fact that they, in all these years, every ten years, they've been in power and they're entrusted with the reapportionment of the Congressional and the State Legislative Districts. And that's why the bulk of the State Legislatures are in their hands. It doesn't make sense otherwise if the people of this country voting as a nation vote for a Republican president, voting statewide, they vote for senators. But when you break it down into voting in the districts, they still vote Democratic. And I saw it happen in the one year in California in 1970, the reapportionment. And the Democrats were in charge. And they simply went to the Republican incumbents. And to get their support, they guaranteed them their seats. Well, that meant you were guaranteeing a minority for us, a minority status. And they would continue to be in the majority. And my answer to that, if we could ever get a Republican majority, would be that the first thing we ought to do, instead of saying now it's our turn, the first thing we ought to do is have a change to the Constitution that a blue ribbon bipartisan citizens' committee does the reapportioning every ten years, that it is not done by legislators that are seeking to preserve their own position. That's good. Well, we'll work on that. Okay. All right. Well, good to see you. Great seeing you, Mr. President. I'm looking great. Feel good. The last couple of days look very good on television. Some of the reaction looks good and sort of energized and yeah. People seem to be as good as we have to be. The applause revealed that whole crowd. They were Democrats, but they were cheering for us. And then up there in New Jersey, I'm trying to get that audience with so Italian and so Democrat and Elizabeth, the mayor told me that we're only, I think he said it was only 700 and it was 7500. He said 7500 Republicans in the whole town. And that audience was all of them. Then this 20-year Democrat mayor endorsed me, and listen. Good start. It was better than reading the downpour. You'll change that. Good to see you.