© This work is the property of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text.
MP3 file derived from WAV preservation master, which was derived from original analog cassettes.
The electronic edition is a part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South.
An audio file with the interview complements this electronic edition.
The text has been entered using double-keying and verified against the original.
The text has been encoded using the recommendations for Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines.
Original grammar and spelling have been preserved.
All quotation marks, em dashes and ampersand have been transcribed as entity references.
All double right and left quotation marks are encoded as "
All em dashes are encoded as —
Transcript on deposit at The Southern Historical Collection, The Louis Round Wilson Library
Citation of this interview should be as follows:
“Interview A-0038, in
the Southern Oral History Program Collection #4007,
Southern Historical
Collection, The Wilson Library,
University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill”
In this interview, Arkansas Democrat David Pryor discusses politics and the Democratic Party in Arkansas and the South. Pryor won seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate; shortly after this interview was conducted, he won the governorship of Arkansas, which he held from 1975 to 1979. Pryor sees himself as part of a new tradition in Arkansas politics, one started by former Governor Winthrop Rockefeller and continued by Dale Bumpers. He does not explicitly describe this new tradition, but he does describe his political philosophy throughout the interview: he believes in personal, face-to-face politics, wants to advocate for Arkansans against predatory business interests, and wants to take an active role in bringing about social and economic change.
David Pryor discusses the new political order in Arkansas just months before he won the state's governorship.
[START OF TAPE 1, SIDE A]
What is the state of Arkansas politics, right now?
What is it? It's neither fish nor fowl. It's almost like it was in 1968 when we voted for Rockefeller, Wallace, and Fulbright. It is ferociously independent and very proud of its independence. It's very proud of its new independence. As a state and as a voting population. It's very proud. It's kind of like shackles have been taken off of it, us in the last decade. It's almost like we're voting for the first time.
I would say it's basically moderate. It's possibly populistic. It's neither liberal nor conservative, but I would say moderate with a lot of populism. But no big transitions in the last three or four or five years.
Well, assuming you become governor, and I think that's a safe assumption, do you plan—
Remember, our voters are very independent. They may decide they want a Republican governor.
We'll assume, for the sake of questioning . . . do you plan to take an active role as head of the Democratic Party?
In the state of Arkansas?
Right.
Well, of course, to be very factual, and this is being published in 1976
Was the Democratic Party essentially a Faubus party until 1966?
Right. And the Republican Party came about because of an anti-Faubus sentiment.
Right. And our reading of the Republican Party was that it was a Rockefeller party. Been out for four years. It literally died when he died. It went because of lack of money and name and so on. The principal impact of it was the reform of the Democratic party in the sense that it started to elect moderate candidates or, maybe in a sense, that it started to elect anti-Faubus candidates. Is that a pretty fair reading of what's happened here?
In other words, the Democratic Party finally emerged as a party during the Rockefeller years.
It was reformed or
It was not quite reformed because it was nothing to reform. It, I would
say, was born during the Rockefeller years. And it's going to be very
hard . . . just as the Republican Party has died, it's going to be very
hard to keep the Democratic Party alive. Because to remain alive and
viable you've got to have a good opponent. You've got to have something
to be against. And right now we talk about the Republicans being a great
menace or something like that, and really they're not a
But the moderate wing of the Democratic Party, if you want to call it that, has been strengthened at least by two victories in 1970 and '74 over Faubus. Is that right?
That's absolutely true.
Okay. So in a sense it is stronger, in the last four years, than it was in the period before that.
Absolutely. As a party. With party machinery and with county conventions, elected delegates to the state convention and this sort of thing. Yes.
Would you like to see any change in the status of the Democratic Party? Would you like to see it become stronger as a political party?
In Arkansas?
In Arkansas.
Well, to be honest with you, I would like to see the Arkansas Democratic
Party become more active on the national level, in national politics. It
has been a separate, independent entity. Kind of divorced, basically,
from the national party or any national problems or whatever. I think we
could do a lot more about making our state party more nationally
oriented. And the people say, "Well, the Democratic Party nationally is
too liberal. And they've got the Humphreys and a few of those guys up
there running the thing." The reason they have is the state parties have
not activated themselves, you know, enough in the national
You want to get more of a presidential party, or at least more in tune with the national Democratic presidential party.
I want it to have more input in national Democratic politics as far as platform, as far as chosing a candidate for president, as far as making the real, concerted, concentrated effort to become an advocate for middle America and what you might call the New South and all like this, which would be, I think, a voice of neither conservatism or liberalism. A voice of moderation. Down the middle. That's where the votes are and that's where the people are and where the problems are. And I think the state Democratic Party, not only here but all across the South, will do this. I think we've got to if we're going to elect a Democratic president even in 1976. A lot of people say, "Oh man, we've got it made in '76," but I don't know who we have it made with. We can't sell Ted Kennedy here at this stage. Oh, I better not . . . but it will be very hard to sell a Kennedy here in this state.
Do you think with your congressional background you can do more of this as governor than some of the other people have in the past?
Well, I would say that I'm more comfortable in working in that
environment than someone else who may not have been there. But as far as
me having a great deal more input there because I was a congressman,
other than just personal relationships with people that I know across
the country or in Washington or whatever, I don't know. But I think,
frankly, I think the people are . . . I think our people are going to
look away from Washington for leadership. I think they'll look to guys
like, well, now he's going to be a part of Washington . . . I think
they'll look to guys like Bumpers for national leadership. I talked to
Dale Bumpers for about an hour before he announced and I thought that
what he should
About Bumpers?
No, about the leadership will be coming not from Washington but from the state capitals. The increasing prestige and stature of state governors as compared to the last couple of years.
Let me get back to the reform of the state Democratic Party.
Sure.
Some of the people we've talked to have argued that they don't want it any stronger. They don't want it any more organized into something that has the aspects of a machine. What more could you do? You've only got one senator and one representative in the general assembly that are Republican.
That the Republican Party is so weak in this state that for the Democratic Party to become stronger would put it in a position of sort of strangling any sort of two-party system.
Well, I think when they're talking about getting too strong they may be talking about too much executive control over it. Do you think?
Talking about another Faubus kind of machine.
Yeah. Frankly, internally, for the state of Arkansas for state politics, I can't get overexhilarated about trying to make the state party . . . I want it good. I want they should hold clean elections. We should keep moving in the area of certain reforms and so forth. But so far as making it stronger, it's pretty strong right now. And I don't know how much more strength we should have or how much more organization we should have. It's so much more operational and functional and organized now than it was seven or eight years ago, it's unbelievable. Like I say, we have nothing to relate it to because we had nothing to begin with. I said we didn't have a file cabinet.
Did you get involved in elected politics in 1960 for the legislature? Was that the first time that you ran? Say from 1960 on, what are the basic changes you've seen, political changes.
From '60?
Well, whenever you got actively involved in politics. Our book covers the period from 1948 through 1974. I don't think you're old enough to go way back to 1948 . . .
Let's see. I was running for class president probably along about that time. What changes?
Well, the University of Arkansas board of trustees is a possible example. Today the board of trustees at the University of Arkansas is made up of extremely capable and intelligent men. And college boards all around the state would be. There's a great movement, in this area. I've seen great change here because in past years we would see on many many boards and commissions nothing more than a raw political reward for employment. To something like the University of Arkansas board of trustees or to a highway commission job, or whatever. But now there is, not only in practice but also by public demand . . . they demand a higher quality individual to serve in these capacities. I've seen a remarkable and drastic change in the state legislature itself in the past fourteen years, since the time I went there. It's frankly not the same place.
Is that the result of reapportionment?
It's the result of time and it's the result of people . . . I think it's
the result of people wanting to be a part of the system. For some reason
or another it is attracting better people. Maybe because its affluence
or something. Many young people now are getting to the stage where they
can afford to accept a hundred dollars a month and go to the state
legislature. Maybe it's because the people are demanding better
representation. Reapportionment evidently certainly has something to do
with this. There's just a higher standard in the state legislature.
There's just a higher standard. I think people who, fourteen years ago,
would introduce what we'd call a revenue bill . . . and when I'm talking
about revenue bill, I'm talking about a bill that would bring some
special interest to make them kill the bill or not bring it up or to
bring it up or whatever. I think people who would do that now would be
totally
Any other changes?
Better staff for the legislative council. More strength in the joint budget committee and in the legislative council. They meet kind of constantly throughout the year where they used to meet right before the state legislature went into session. There's more money in the state and as a result, I think, they've upgraded the departments and have been able to attract better people into real positions of influence within the state government. We're going to have to address ourselves to that soon. In special session. Going to have to raise the salaries for some people. University of Arkansas today I think to their president pays $35,000. Maybe $35,700 or something. And I'm sure we're going to have to update that in order to get, to attract the right kind of president here. Football coach is paid $35,000. At one time he made more than the president. But now the president makes more than he does. Everybody makes more than the governor. That poor guy makes ten grand and that's kind of a bad situation.
How important do you view the need for a new constitution?
I worked a lot for a new constitution in the early '60s. Travelled around
the state and I think the Gazette one time referred to
me as a wandering political evangelist on this issue. I just spoke all
around the state on behalf of a new constitution. There are two
amendments on the ballot this fall. Amendment 55 and 56 which will
reform, to a degree, county government to allow better salaries and . .
. in this particular area. These would help out a great deal, but
generally speaking I would
Possibly. Possibly. I would have no hesitancy about initiating one if we had not concluded a convention so recently, which was 1970. It was defeated on the ballot in 1970. I just don't know timing-wise whether it is right or not. It may be that we can do it without a convention. It may be that by legislative act and by referendum—referral to the people, we call it—by the legislature's enactment and by referring it to the people in a special election we might be able to circumvent a convention. We might do it by governor's commission or something of this sort. There's a possibility. The legalism I'm not quite certain on, nor the timing.
Let's suppose you follow the Arkansas tradition and serve two terms. Our book is trying to look into the future, too. Now you're looking back over your two terms. What would you want to be able to say you had accomplished in those four years as governor?
I would like to be able to say that I was the catalyst between divergent
groups—black and white, labor and management, rural and city—that I
could make these people come together to realize how many things they
have in common rather than to exploit the differences that they have.
And I hope that's the type of administration that I will have. I'm
hoping that I can bring these people together before a confrontation.
Before a crisis. Before we go to war, for example, on the hot, involved
issues that divide
I would also like to say, looking back, I would like to have done a great deal for education within the state. I'm not just talking about teachers' salaries, because I don't equate teachers' salaries with good education. But generally the quality of education, improving our educational system, is something I hope I might be able to bring about somewhere down the trail. Let's see. . . that's kind of a hard question. These are general thoughts. I'm not much of a concrete and mortar man. I don't care about having any building. I'm not much on buildings and bridges and this sort of thing. They're necessary, but they're not my ideal or gauge, I guess, of progress. I don't equate concrete and bricks and mortar with progress.
How would you bring these people together? By appointing more people from the small minority groups or . . .? Do you have a plan?
Well, I think that . . . we are lagging right now in appointments of minorities to boards and commissions and I think we could increase this and I plan to do so. When I'm talking about minorities I'm not just talking about blacks. I'm talking about women, also. But basically, by forcing, if necessary, these folks to sit down and talk to each other. And I think through the governor's office I can do this. I see so many businesspeople talk about how bad labor is and they've never met anyone or really talked to anyone about labor, about their problems. I mean, labor people talk about business folks. And there's not any communication. I hope we can do it. I hope, too, that industrially I can look back and say that at least I had a part in leading our state, in being very selective as to the type of industry, the type of business that we brought into the state. Because we're at the stage now where we can be very selective.
Just a few weeks ago there was a plant in Pine Bluff which announced that
it was not going to come. It was a smelter
What type of industry are you looking for?
Well, we need primarily . . . well, I don't know what . . . you mean whether we need steel mills or this sort of thing or garment factories or what?
But you're going to get away from the position of this state will take any industry at all . . .
That's right.
Okay, so you're going to kind of go on a selective growth pattern?
Selective growth.
High pay industries.
High pay industries. Many industries that have come into the state of
Arkansas in the past ten years . . . well, let me say in the past twenty
years, have come in only if we would waive property taxes. Have come in
only if the city in which they were coming in would build them a
building. They would come in only if they felt, I thought on many
occasions, if they thought they could take something from the
community
Being selective, what specifically would you like? What kind of industry? Do you plan to take, play an active role in recruiting industry? Selling the state to industrial prospects?
I've only had about two weeks to really think about this since the election and how active a role, I don't know. I will be a very cooperative governor and I will appoint people who I think will attract the right type of industry. When I say the right type of industry, I say one that will pay good wages and, two, that will accept their responsibilities of citizenship in the state. And they will not balk on paying a few dollars taxes in the school system. Appointments to Arkansas Industrial Development Commission, for example . . . I'll be very careful to try to choose those people who, you know, are really going to have the state at heart. As to whether or not they're going to try to get General Motors to locate down here or Kelloggs or something like that, I don't have any thoughts there. Any specific thoughts.
How about industry that's heavily unionized?
Well, we're eventually . . . I think everyone in this state realizes that
we are eventually . . . that our economy in this country is going to be,
to a great degree . . . most workers are going to belong to some type of
organization or association or labor union. And I think it is a fact of
life and I think we've got to realize this and I think we've
Do you have any blacks on your staff when you were in Congress?
Yes.
What do you plan to do in that regard as governor?
I have no plans for a staff, at this time, except one person, who would be my executive . . . whatever, administrative assistant or something like that. I have no commitments for a staff; I have no plans. I don't even know how many I can have. My assumption is that I'm going to have someone black on my staff—not just because they're black but because whoever I hire I think they're going to have capabilities of performing whatever task they're given. I assume I'm going to have someone black on my staff. Maybe several.
In a major position?
I would assume in a major position.
If you were hiring someone black, even though you say you want someone capable, not just because they're black, since they are going to be black, what sort of person would you like to have?
Well, I think the same person I would want to have if I hired someone white who was capable. You know, someone . . . first, I want them loyal to me. I want them to be honest with me. I don't want someone to tell me that I'm doing everything right because I know that I won't be. Want them to level with me. I want them to have a knowledge of government and a knowledge of politics. Some degree, at least, of ability to communicate with people. I don't know, look for the same qualities in a black person or a white person.
Do you think the state needs a human relations board or commission?
We do. Well, let's see, what was the proposal sponsored in '71? Was it . . .
The human resources committee?
It was not exactly named that but it was similar to it. It was kind of an
equal opportunity commission so to speak. They got hung up, as I
understand it, on whether or not they should have subpoena power.
Finally, the bill went down the drain on that point. I would have no
hesitation about not only helping such a commission be created, but also
sponsoring such a commission if I thought, you know, it would be
meaningful. I don't want to do it and just have another commission out
there that doesn't meet or doesn't function. If it's going to be
functional, if it will do some good, I would be for it. But I don't want
just another commission for a commission's sake.
Do you have any plans for a statewide, comprehensive land and water management kind of policy?
I don't have any kind of plans in that area. Not because I'm not interested in it. It's just because I haven't made any plans of this nature. I've let it rest since the campaign. That's my problem, I'm still kind of . . . going to South Carolina for a few days, Hilton Head. Never been there before and I'm looking forward to it. [Brief discussion of North Carolina coast.] We used to go to Nags Head a lot and I always liked Nags Head.
Yeah, we're south of that about seventy miles. Can I lay one on you?
Yeah.
We hear that your nomination, or the fact that certain people supported
you, represented a power elite of the brokers of the state. They made a
decision. Had a meeting, which was reported by the newspapers.
Some have even gone so far as to say
Well, one, I think it's not true. The so-called vote meeting, unquote,
Faubus kept talking about. Was there himself trying to get their
support. He didn't get their support. As a result he lambasted them. I
think out of that meeting . . . there were probably five or six people .
. . I think I probably netted from that meeting $3,000. I sent back
$1,000 or that $3,000 because it was a corporate check. And he never
gave it back. He never found ways and means to give us the money back.
We gave his money back and said we'd like to have it as an individual,
and he never gave it to us as an individual. Anyone who was thrown off
balance or who went to that group and did not get their support
Well, we hear particularly about Bill Thompson. Who, allegedly, was forced out of the race because if he decided he was going to go his business would have been hurt.
Oh, that's
No, that it dried up his money supply.
That's ridiculous. If Bill was bluffed out by those guys, I can't believe it. I know Bill and I just don't believe that. It's a little bit comical for me to hear that Bill Thompson didn't run because of these people. I would sure hope to believe that I had a much broader base of support than the few men in that room that particular day. If that was all I was relying on, I'd be in pretty bad shape. I'd come in with about 1/2% of the vote.
Well, the argument then goes that because they had, in effect, put you
into office, along with organized labor . . . but these two forces will
be fighting for
They're not going to be fighting. They're going to be getting to know each other. And they're going to be developing an understanding for each other, I hope. I firmly believe it. We're going to see, I hope, harmonious relationships being built.
Do you have any feelings so far as state financing of public education? Have you given any thought to that?
State financing of public education.
Rather than have rich school districts and poor school districts . . .
Oh, yeah. I probably will by January but now, frankly, I don't have enough facts to assess it.
How do you see, if you do see, your style of governing any different from Bumpers'? Every place we go, you know, we hear he's Mr. Superpolitician. We won't see him until Monday, which will be our last day here. But that . . .
He is super, he is super. He's been a super governor.
But you see yourself in a moderate tradition? You say you're trying to bring groups together, working on education. If you have any other goals or what you'd like to look back on at, accomplished in these four years. Do you have a certain style of governing?
No, I've never been a governor before, so I can't have one. Voted on a
lot of bills and all that business. Twelve years in the legislative end
of it. I don't know how it will be. I imagine each day will be a little
bit different.
Well, let me give you an example. I'm sorry I was so imprecise. But, you could run an administration very openly with weekly press conferences. You can go for the kind of freedom of information or sunshine laws like they have in Florida or so on. But where the administration is much more open than say a previous administration. Do you understand what I'm saying?
I think it will be a very open, a very, very open administration as far
as the press is concerned. If for no other reason, I know the press guys
pretty well. I used to be one myself. I had a little paper
One distinct difference between you and Dale Bumpers is that you have prior governmental experience and legislative experience, both at the state and federal level. Do you have any strong feeling about the need for legislative pay increases here?
Legislative pay increases, yes I do.
And constitutional officials.
County officials and constitutional officials. I'm going to support those increases.
Do you see a trend toward more governors coming out of the Congress? You've got Edwards of Louisiana, Bryan Dorn running in South Carolina.
I knew Edwards real well. Who's running in South Carolina?
Bryan Dorn.
Yeah, William Jennings Bryan Dorn, sure. I got a telegram from
If Westmoreland wins the Republican . . .
If he wins the Republican . . . is that a question?
Apparently.
Really?
Some question. It's not locked up.
Well, I think for example Edwin had the same problem I did in the U.S. Congress. Several of us have. And that is the frustration of not being able to . . . there's 435 people there and it's just a terribly frustrating experience. It would have been the year 2003, so said the computer, when I would have been chairman of the appropriations committee. And unless you are chairman, or chairman of a subcommittee at least, you have very little voice in really shaping legislation. And I think it's just a very frustrating experience for the impatient. And I'm impatient, Edwin was impatient. The only thing that got John Tunney out of the House of Representatives was not his great desire to be U.S. senator but I think his great desire to remove and extricate himself from the House of Representatives. Because it requires a special type of person who has great, long-suffering perserverance to withstand what you go through there in the House. But Bryan Dorn, I don't know exactly his motives for running because he was, seniority-wise, much higher up the ladder than any of us. Who else is governor? Let's see. Meskill. He became governor of Connecticut didn't he? Tom Meskill. Isn't that right?
Arch Moore.
Arch Moore, West Virginia. And I think a lot of things are happening
Yeah, how come you ran—
Yeah, we all say . . . you know, we all want to serve the public and all like this. Well, we all do. We all want to serve the public. I'm not certain . . . real reason, real motivation is, though. It's the desire to compete. It's like this man right here, he has a great desire to get ahead in business. He takes great risks and he's a plunger. But every now and then he does something that's very satisfying to him. I think you've got to do what is most personally satisfying to you and politics is . . .
Can I ask you a 20/20 hindsight question? You've had two years to think about it, almost. Why did you lose in '72?
I could talk on into the night on this. One, I was not supposed to win it. Everybody asked me why I lost the race. I always asked myself how I got 49% of the vote. I think we ran a magnifi—well, we ran a much better race than everyone expected us to run. No one gave me a chance. No one gave me the remotest hope of winning. I felt I could win.
[END OF TAPE 1, SIDE A]
[START OF TAPE 1, SIDE B]
Looking at one point.
Looking at one point.
A lot of people say that the debate lost the race. This is one thing. I
can't point it to one particular instance. One thing I think caused me
to lose the race is that I don't think that they ever realizedGazette or Democrat.
They're on Memphis. They didn't know who or what I was. Never heard of
me. In the northern counties I was in the same situation. I thought we
ran a very good race, to be honest with you. But lost. You can always
say, and defeated politicians always say, "Well, they had more money
than we did, they outspent us ten times, and they did this and the
other." Although they did outspend us, that was not the real reason.
They just had organization and people and they knew how to put it
together and I didn't. Had I known how to put it together, I don't know
if I could have. I'm not an organization person to begin with. That's
one of my drawbacks.
Did you have the courthouse support this time?
In some courthouses. It would be a good study. I could take a
Why do you think they voted for you this time?
Why? One, I think they thought I could win. That's probably the real reason.
No, I'm talking about the general voters.
Oh, the general voters.
Not the courthouse. I know why they voted for you.
And then, two, I think like they feel that I'm accessible.
If you asked the average Democratic voter who voted for you why he did, what do you think he'd say?
Gosh, I don't know.
What do you think he'd say?
I would hope that he would say, "He's a good guy and I trust him."
Were there any issues involved you think?
Any issues?
Because of your identification with any issues?
Not really. Not the average voter.
Was it an anti-Faubus sort of thing? Or anti-old guard organization vote?
Some of it. There was some of everything you're talking about. But general opinion of the average John Doe, I don't know what he would say. Some poll or something someone took . . . I never saw it and I don't believe the voters who don't like him said this . . . they believed me. I don't know if that's what most of them would say or not. That seemed to be believability. Seemed to be the strongest of what few characteristics . . .
That's become the most important characteristics in polling when
measuring politicians today is comparative
Do you plan to use polling as governor?
Nope. I have no plans for it. I'm not saying I won't do it, but I don't have any plans for it. I've never used it in a campaign.
I think you ought to spell out what you mean by polling. Polling on issues. An in-depth kind of a feeling as to how people react to certain kinds of issues. I'm not talking about head-to-head polling for candidates.
I have no plans for it. I think that I'll be able to get aGazette you're not going to get
a real feeling for what the people are thinking about, I'm sure. Due
respect to the Gazette. It's been one of the . . . I
don't know where this state would be without the Gazette today. But I think I'll be able to get a pretty good idea
of what people are thinking about. I don't plan to use them.
Let me ask you one more thing about Rockefeller. What do you think his impact was on the state's politics and government?
Tremendous. He basically ushered in what you might call the new day. Dale Bumpers continued that and I hope to continue that. Rockefeller basically was the beginning of the new Arkansas, politically speaking. He was responsible for a great deal of change in this state. Not only change in what you might call legislation or programs or revamping of the state government. Change in thinking. He was not a good administrator, so to speak, but his presence was felt. He tried to hire very competent people. It was a very unselfish type of government that he sponsored.
What difference do you think it's going to make in your own administration, your having spent that time in Washington, as opposed, say, if you'd stayed in the legislature, gone to the senate, gone to become lieutenant governor and then governor. Any?
In other words, I'm one of these Washington guys down here trying to run the state of Arkansas so to speak. That sort of . . .
No. Could you do more for Arkansas because of that congressional
Does it give you a different perspective? That's what I'm really trying to say.
Yes, yes, it does give you a different perspective. It does give you a different perspective. And I think stamped on the legislative mind of 135 guys out there in the house and senate . . . they will probably be a little more aware of this than, say, the average voter or the average citizen. I think, too, I will be more aware of it and I will be more comfortable because of the experience I've had. One, I know and know full well that all the answers are not in Washington. I know that as a fact. I know that just because it comes out of Washington, it does not make it that knowledgeable or does not make it . . . I don't know . . . I have a sense of what they're doing when they're doing stuff up there. I think I know how to put it in its proper perspective or some degree of knowledge of this.
Do you think it will give you a different perspective on the state and its problems, having been outside?
Well, the experiences I've had will. Mere travel around the country and around the world and things like that always give us a little better perspective. The whole thing is part of a whole educational experience. We're all learning something about it every day. And I've just tried to take advantage of those opportunities that I've had. Hopefully I can translate it into something good.
How about implementation of federal programs on the state level? Will it make any difference, having been in Washington? Or do you think you'd have done the same thing if you'd just stayed here?
Well, I think that . . . I think just from being there, just by
END OF INTERVIEW