It's a pleasure to introduce today's speaker Ted Sorensen served as counsel as you well know the President John F Kennedy. He is currently National co-chairman of Senator Gary Hart's presidential campaign and that tie that he has on what's little hearts is not a valentine time active in politics and government service since his association with the Kennedy administration. He was a member of the presidential advisory committee for trade negotiations from 1978 to 1980 and he chaired the governor's panel on New York State export credit agency in 1982 since 1966. He has been a senior partner in the New York law firm of Paul Wiese rifkind Wharton & Garrison where he specializes in international business transactions andRegulatory and policy question Ted Sorensen is the author of Five Books including his bestseller Kennedy his latest book A different kind of presidency outlines his proposal for breaking what he calls the political deadlock facing the United States today. He will address us on that subject. I would also be remiss so if I did not tell you that dead Sorenson is a beak red graduate. He graduated from the University of Nebraska and as pbk and also he was the Top member of his law graduating class Ted we welcome you.Thank you very much. Hello, and thanks to you all for a kind of reception that I probably deserve in the Walter mondale's home state. I've enjoyed my brief visit here to the Twin Cities area. I came this morning from Minneapolis to st. Paul really as a means of preparing me for my business trip next week to two cities Moscow in Dublin. I won't tell you which Compares with with which in any event. I appeared last night at the Humphrey Institute where Harlan Cleveland introduced me as the Ed Meese of the Kennedy administration not exactly my role. But at least we had the same title. I've found that many of these audiences once told about my role with the President Kennedy. I have come to expect that I would give a talk as stirring and eloquent as those that JFK a gave 20 25 years ago. That's not the case. He had a much better speech writer than I do the title of my talk today is the title of my new book A different kind of presidency subtitled a proposal to break the political deadlock in Washington. For those of you who have read neither the reviews nor the handout. Let me put all right up front and tell you that it's a rather far-out idea that I'm suggesting it calls for the United States to adopt for the first time in its history a coalition government a grand Coalition between the two major political parties in a government of national Unity for a single four-year period Specifically this would mean a president selecting a vice president from the other party as the most significant symbol of to party cooperation at the top. It would mean a cabinet selected from the moderate leadership of both major political parties sharing all of the important positions and alternating with a sub-cabinet equally divided between the two parties as well. It would mean a White House staff that was small experienced and drawn from the ranks of Professionals in both of the two major political parties. It would mean a new kind of relationship with the Congress and with the legislative leadership in both houses and in both political parties in terms of executive legislative collaboration and Foreign Affairs as well as in domestic affairs. And then it would be in return to Politics as Usual to the confrontation between the two parties which in a democracy is both healthy and essential at the end of this four-year period with both the president and the vice president taking a vow not to run for office again and not to engage in the usual kind of political activities during this rather unique four year period those who know me are entitled to a certain amount of skepticism when they hear me making such a proposal. I've been active in the Democratic party all of my life and here I am suggesting that If the Democrats should win in November, they should share power with the Republican Party. I am as a little indicated actively involved in the candidacy of a particular presidential Contender this year Gary Hart and yet I have written a book which suggests that the next president whoever he is is going to have difficulty breaking this cycle of ineffectiveness and declining Authority in the white house that has troubled our country for the last decade and a half or two. I am someone who's Most Vivid experience was working in the white house as the at the right hand of a president identified with a strong presidency and I've written books dedicated to the notion that in this rather difficult and dangerous world. We need a strong president who has the freedom to make decisions the discretion to move this country and the flexibility to take such actions as may be necessary in the National interest and yet I am proposing in this book that the next president be bound as no previous president has been bound to sharing power and decision making and Consulting closely with his vice president with his cabinet and with the Congress itself. I suppose that some would be equally skeptical that my philosophical views are inconsistent with my concern in the book about the size of the budget deficits which I will come back to in a moment. Some may be skeptical that I as an attorney occasionally representing business interests in Washington would write a book in which I complain about the power of the special interests and lobbyists in Washington. I would hope that there are perhaps deeper reasons for the skepticism for this kind of skepticism as an amateur political scientist. I'm concerned about the decline of the role of political parties in this country. And yet I am proposing a four year moratorium on political confrontation between the parties at the top. I have testified against the Constitutional proposed constitutional amendment to limit the presidency to a single six-year term because I think that unnecessarily limits the pool of talent upon which we can draw for that office unnecessarily extends the period of service of a week or evil president and makes any president less subject to the accountability of the public then he should be and yet I have proposed in my book that the president and vice president under these conditions agreed to serve one term only. I have often been heard to express grave doubts about organization or reorganization as a Panacea having never believed in government or in business that substantive problems are solved by moving boxes around on the organization chart and yet my book proposes essentially not to substantive solutions to the problems which faces but a temporary restructuring of the forces and pressures in government. I am enough of an idealist to agree with the phrase attributed to John F Kennedy. The one man can make a difference and I believe that John F Kennedy in the White House at the right time such as the Cuban Missile Crisis made a difference and yet in my book I'm saying that it's not enough to rely on one man or on one woman that instead. We are going to face continued deadlock and ineffectiveness at the highest levels in Washington, unless we bring these contending forces together. And finally, I look upon myself after. More than 30 some years and experience in and out of government and politics as a pragmatist as one who is rather realistic as to what the cannon cannot be done in this hard and difficult political Jungle of American society and yet here I have authored a book that even its most fervent proponents would say is idealistic in the extreme. I far out unprecedented kind of proposal for the American society. Why how how is it that I have the departed from all of these previous routes to make this proposal? The reason is that I feel very deeply that this country. Is in trouble I feel very deeply that we are confronted with a series of crises those crises may not be as visible. As they would be in times when you would normally expect such a radical change as John F. Kennedy used to say it was easier in the days when the people could see the enemy from the walls. It's not so easy to see the crises I'm talking about. Now. Most of them have not yet reached their Peak, but I am convinced that if we permit them to reach their Peak and those Peaks may be coming during this next four-year presidential term. It may then be too late to turn back. I'm talking first of all about the crisis in the nuclear arms race relations between the two superpowers have never been as poor or as dangerous as they are today even in my view in the darkest days of the Cold War. There is no communication. There is no dialogue. There is no willingness to break through the acrimony and vituperative Shannon and Military confrontation that the two sides opposed for each other and meanwhile, the arms race goes on and on and on not only weakening the economies of both societies, but Planting this world full of explosives that can only bring Peril to ourselves and certainly to our children and their children. I fear that if in this next four year period we do not succeed in negotiating a cap on the arms race with the Soviet Union. That both superpowers will by the end of that four year period have developed and deployed new weapons of mass destruction that they have never developed and deployed before that will make any verifiable Arms Control agreement in possible in the future. And thus a nuclear confrontation almost unavoidable at some point down the road. I'm talking also about the crisis in our national deficit. They 200 billion dollar national deficit year after year cannot be supported by our economy. The interest payments alone would wipe out more than all the savings possible from cutbacks on domestic programs. The money borrowed by the federal treasury to support that deficit necessarily competes with money needed by Private Industry to modernize to rebuild to enable us to compete abroad and interest rates are there by forced up. adversely affecting the recovery adversely affecting the value of the dollar and our ability to export And adversely affecting the ability of the government of the United States even to function effectively. I'm concerned about the crisis of this country's ability to compete industrially in the world market and we now whether we like it or not are competing in a world market. And the kind of routine wrote work on an assembly line that this country. On which this country was was the world leader can now be done easily and more cheaply and all kinds of countries of the world and the United States must learn to put its priorities in those areas where we can be a world leader. But without the right kind of industrial policy educational policy tax and trade policies that is not going to happen and the 100 billion dollar trade deficit that we are suffering this year will only continue to grow and we have a crisis in international trade because the forces of protectionism both in industry and agriculture are rising on both sides of the Atlantic and both sides of the Pacific. And memories are short and few. Remember the smoot-hawley. . When the Depression was deepened and prolonged because of yielding to those pressures of protectionism. Protectionism won't come in this country in the name of protectionism. It'll be called reciprocity or a response to targeting or a new kind of industrial policy or some other euphemism, but the result will still be a long-range cutback in production and jobs for the Free World. There are other crises the whole third world debt crisis has not been solved by the series of stopgaps and Band-Aids that have been very cleverly used to date and still threatens to undermine the entire free world banking system and a good many economies along with it. We have potential crises brewing with our neighbor to the South Mexico. Which unless the US and Mexican government's during this next several period of several years can work out joint Solutions on problems of Economic Development agriculture trade immigration and a host of other problems are going to confront this country with its first serious security problem on our own borders that we have endured for we have no we have not endured such a crisis for over a century. And yet as these crises Loom larger. The scene and Washington is characterized essentially by what I would call gridlock gridlock is that traffic term that says if the cars getting out into the intersection on both sides ultimately reach a point where everybody is backed up and nobody can move at all that's this happened on one issue after another and the last 15 or 20 years in Washington. It's not only a division between the Republicans and the Democrats. It's a division between the executive branch and the legislative branch between the house and the Senate between liberals and conservatives within the each party between idealogues and pragmatists and into that power dispersal and vacuum. I have moved several hundred more special interest groups lobbyists packs and pressure organizations. That kind then we had even 10 years ago. Let me give you as the example of what I'm talking about. The one crisis that necessarily overrides all of the others. They crisis in nuclear in the nuclear arms race. Each president of the last five presidents as proposed one or more programs for arms control to the Soviet Union each has failed to receive sustained backing from his own country. The United States does not exclusively bear the blame for the deadlock in Arms Control negotiations, but so long as we are unable. To put forward a coherent and consistent proposal that is backed by solidly by all elements of the government. It is very difficult to expect the Soviet Union which has not changed its face or its position notably during any of this period of time to respond affirmatively the new weapon systems being developed as I mentioned are frightening indeed more massive and power than ever before with more multiple Warheads than ever before more mobile or concealed or smaller than ever before now moving into weapons with a hair-trigger status massive, but vulnerable requiring them to be fired instantly before they are knocked out. or to be knocked out instantly before they are fired weapons, which Even accident it could could cause unbelievable unimaginable disaster to our society and yet the deadlock continues Richard Nixon to moderate the Soviet Behavior toward his virgin of the taunt proposed most favored nation trading status for the Soviet Union and the Congress rejected it a Gerald Ford signed a threshold nuclear testing treaty with the Soviets and the Senate buried it all presidents beginning with Eisenhower worked on a comprehensive nuclear test ban to follow up the limited nuclear test ban agreement that John F. Kennedy signed in 1963 The Carter Asian felt that they were close to agreement on the inspection and other issues that have divided the two superpowers. But then as election Drew near those negotiations were abandoned and the Reagan Administration announced that they would never take them up again. The Carter Administration did succeed in completing negotiations on salt to the first comprehensive step toward capping the nuclear arms race, but the Senate delayed debated anguished and finally the salt to treaty was taken off the table in recent times there have been proposals from the Congress itself. I freeze resolution voted by the house voted down by the Senate a bill down resolution initiated by certain Senators rejected by the house and yet as the debate and Deadlock continue the arms race continues at the same time. I'm not predicting World War 3 this year or next year. There is no expert who would predict that. But believe me if World War 3 comes it will not come because some experts predicted it it will not come as World War II did because of a deliberate decision by an aggressor Nation to launch an attack upon its opponent world war three is more likely to start as World War 1 did buy some unplanned incident. A ship being blown up in a Central American Harbor or an embassy being blown up in a Middle Eastern country or a tanker being attacked in the Persian Gulf and someone responds to that incident and the other superpower feels that it must make a response to that incident. And then commitments come into play treaty obligations and other nations feel that they must join in and then faith comes into play because no one wants to back down and soon it has spread from an incident to an area and from an area to a region and from the region to the superpowers and soon that small incident has escalated into a conventional War and the conventional War has escalated into a nuclear war and this world will never be the same. You can forget all the talk about Distributing shovels and saving yourself under a few inches of dirt. You can forget the talk about a Star Wars defense or evacuations of cities. A nuclear war has our adversary said long ago is one in which the survivors would envy the Dead. We Face an unprecedented time in the life of this country and that's why I have made an unprecedented proposal. We have to break the deadlock in Washington my purpose in writing. This book was to get the debate focused on these crises of which the nuclear crisis is, but one but the most serious one. My effort was to suggest one solution however far out it may be. This country has demonstrated in modest ways in the past that it is capable of bipartisan action Roosevelt and Truman demonstrated that with their appointments of Vandenberg and love it and McCloy and others during and after World War II the Kennedy administration in appointing Douglas Dylan and Bob McNamara and Mac Bundy and others demonstrated a bipartisan concern in the National Security area other presidents have done the same. Perhaps the one precedent that people forget most easily is the most dramatic. In 1864. This country was torn apart by a bitter Civil War. Abraham Lincoln sought re-election lacking confidence that he would be able to be re-elected and hold the union together. The Republican Party had never before elected a president the dissident Republicans had already gone off in 1864 and held a Convention of their own nominating. Once again, John Fremont for president. Opposition parties were springing up because of complaints about the draft inflation and most of all the terrible toll of the war itself. And so Lincoln in 1864 managed directly or indirectly the history books are not clear a dramatic move the selection of a member of the opposition party Andrew Johnson as his running mate for vice president. It worked decades later Carl Sandburg would call Lincoln's decision in 1864 a touch of the unreal. My thesis here today is that we Face unprecedented crises and perhaps we too need a touch of the unreal. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Sorenson has agreed to answer questions who has the first question. Mr. Sorenson in your judgment. What are the odds of your opinions being taken seriously and implemented? I think Frankly Speaking that it's highly unlikely that any candidate this year is going to adopt the proposal in full at I have put forward. I sent a copy of my book to all the presidential candidates Ronald Reagan replied by naming George Bush as his running mate. Again, the Democratic candidates other than form letters that did not reply at all. Of course. This would be a premature time for them to announce such a plan as I make clear in the book. It could be announced after nomination or even after election and our constitution would not need to be changed to permit that kind of implementation but because it is a an unprecedented kind of plan it's going to take I believe the public and press demand before the politicians are willing to respond. I did not put in the book and perhaps it's too speculative to even discuss here one morbid possibility when this plan might be implemented that have been has been suggested to me. If mr. Reagan and mr. Bush re-elected, which I hope will not be the case and if this country moves into a more visible acute International crisis, which I hope will not be the case and if something should then happen to President Reagan given his age, which I again sincerely. Hope would not be the case. Mr. Bush would become president. And under the Constitution would be required to go to the Democratic House of Representatives for his vice president and I believe in that kind of crisis. It might very well be that someone on on either side would say this is the time for a bipartisan coalition government. When I listen to your proposals for coalition government to somewhat interrelated thoughts come to mind, which I wish you'd comment on. The first is might your proposal merely institutionalized gridlock. And the second is might it not be better to go a little bit further and Advocate parliamentary government. The answer the first question is it's always possible that the selection of the wrong people will lead to the wrong result and that conflict will be built into the system because of the differing political philosophies, but I think it's possible that the right people can be selected. We have seen during the last two years a highly publicized appeal. Some of you may indeed have signed it sponsored by six former secretaries of the treasury on a programme of action first put forward by Pete Peterson on how the deficit should be attacked five former six former secretaries of the treasury one former Secretary of Commerce coming from both political parties. We have seen during that same period of time several former secretaries of state from both parties joined together. Several former secretaries of Labor several former secretaries of health and education and Human Services surely if they can unite on policy recommendations after leaving office it ought to be possible to find Statesman and of equal caliber who can be appointed to a coalition cabinet and positions on which they can agree in the National interest. It's not going to work if there are if we're an attempt is made to bring in the extremes and either party. I'm not talking about a coalition ticket headed by Jesse Jackson and Jesse Helms, but last year for example in the United States Senate more than half the Republicans and more than half the Democrats voted together on more than half the issues. I believe that both political parties have traditionally been strongest in the near the center and that moderate leaders of both parties could work together for this four-year period Mr. Sorenson, do you see any hope or any Merit and this proposal? I think Lloyd Cutler initiated for a team ticket that would if so that we would all have to vote for candidates for House and Senate and president of one party that actually that reminds me that I forgot to answer the question about the parliamentary system. I'm very leery about choose about changing our basic constitutional system. I've read Lloyd Cutler's plan with interest. He looks back with the favor upon the days when the Congressional caucus this of each party essentially chose the presidential nominees, but that system fell into disuse because it fell into disrepute because it not only left out the state and local candidacies. I should say segments of the party but because in addition it led to close a collaboration sometimes producing corruption between the legislative and executive branches that the framers of the Constitution had intended to separate the same is true of the parliamentary system from a distance and another country. It looks good. It works. Well, at least thank God their elections are much shorter than campaigns are much shorter than ours are But there again the parliamentary system calls for a merged executive and legislative branch not power as the Rival of power to use Alexander Hamilton's words. The parliamentary system works best where they have strong National parties as we do not where they have a tradition of a high level senior civil service that on a permanent career basis runs most of the agencies of government where we put our political and policy people every four years quite well down into the bureaucracy and although Canada may be an indication to the contrary. It works best in a smaller more coherent electorate whereas the United States is large diverse and all of our state and Regional and ethnic and other groups want they participation that works better under the division of power put forward under our under our system I think the Constitution was a work of Genius. I'm reluctant to see it changed when I simply look at the reforms adopted by the Democratic Party in the last 20 years and see how almost every one of them has backfired and produced the result opposite from the the result of is intended to achieve even more reluctant to start fiddling with the Constitution. Yes, sir. Mr. Sorenson. I wish to commend you on your idealism. I think all of us need to hear a bit of that from time to time. However, however, it appears to me that a coalition government as you envisioned would take more than just a window dressing for your change as you seem to propose. It would seem to me that it would take a much more in-depth change in terms of the interrelationship between a president and a vice president for example, and the cabinet members under our system if Gary Hart were to be elected president and he were to choose a republican vice president. It would be very easily and probably assume that he could ignore and would ignore the vice president the cabinet. The last time I checked was appointed by the president's by the president. Although he may appoint Republicans to the cabinet again, they are advisory and they could be disregarded. Are we trying to are you trying to suggest that the public will see this as a grand scheme of bipartisan effort or are you talking about fundamentals substantive changes that will result in changes in the budget deficit or in the nuclear arms position. Of course, the answer to that question is up to the president who adopts my plan or says he is adopting my plan if he views it only as a public relations gimmick and still reserves all the decisions for himself, then it's not truly a bipartisan coalition. When I talk about appointing members of the opposite party to the cabinet, I'm not talking about a republican Administration pointing. Jeane Kirkpatrick and saying well she's registered as a Democrat. And so that's bipartisan. I'm not talking about Franklin Roosevelt. The naming Harold ickes to his cabinet and saying well that's he's a registered Republican. So that's bipartisan. No, I'm talking about appointing members from the opposite party who are in the mainstream and who would not stand for the kind of cosmetic gimmickry that a president who is not sincere about it might attempt. I'm talking about a President Who recognizes that these crises are very real and the change in the composition and operations of the government must be very real as well. And therefore someone who takes a vice president upon whom he is going to depend and A cabinet from the leadership at least the moderate leadership of both parties upon whom he is going to lean very heavily. That's the only way the Congress would have any confidence in a coalition government indeed. That's the only way the country would have confidence in a coalition government and I doubt that a serious president would make the sacrifice of the one term vow and the sharing of power unless he were serious about going through with the whole plan. Mr. Sorenson, you spoke of the declining authority of the president. If I recorded also, you spoke to the need for having the president-elect fine moderates to form his cabinet or her cabinet. I ask you how would the authority of the president the be strengthened by this amalgam of disparate forces under the structure which you advise I would think it might be suggestive of a Midland down as de tocqueville once observed rather than a strengthening up on a line of action, which was essential for the significance of the crises which the president now and in the future will face. I think we ought to distinguish between action and ideology I think in terms of action A president who is able to draw both parties behind him who is the strengthened by the input of the best Minds in both parties would be a stronger president would be much more likely to receive backing on his budget proposals and on his arms control proposals presidents without that kind of backing are very reluctant to increase taxes cut defense limit the entitlement programs, but if assured that both parties were joining him in those proposals, he would be much more successful presidents are even reluctant to make far-reaching proposals for coexistence with the Soviet Union because of the lingering fear of being called Soft on communism or whatever but if that rear flank is protected because the other party leaders of the other party have joined him and making those proposals the president. Itself while it would be a more Collective entity than a single man presidency itself would during that four-year period be strengthened but in ideology, yes, it would be a middling down. It would be a meeting at the center. There would be less opportunity for some of the boulder or if you prefer more extreme ideas that people in both parties might like to propose but in the long run, it's compromise that holds this country together. It's compromise that makes progress possible slower more difficult more painful, but it's compromised and makes progress possible and in politics. I'm not ashamed of compromise. Sorenson you have pointed out the nuclear threat which we all recognize in this world. We developed a nuclear bomb with the Manhattan Project which was putting the best scientists to work on this and it did work maybe much to our dismay as we see it now. However, do you see anything wrong with having a similar project to diffuse this method of warfare, which the same scientific Talent might put together and might render the nuclear bomb unusable. I'm not sure the problem of disarmament is lends itself to scientific solution in the same fashion as Armament did in the first place. It is primarily a solution that lies in the minds of men and their attitudes toward each other and their willingness to enter into agreements which are verifiable and forcible. And which each side has a stake in maintaining. The problem is more political than scientific and the obstacles to reaching that agreement have been more political than scientific. Although science plays a large role in telling us how these agreements can be verified and enforced it's always possible that science could come up with a some kind of solution. That would make the other side. The bombs inoperable that word that such a solution was underway might be the most destabilizing Factor imaginable unless through some miracle of world government agreement was reached to make that solution immediately available to all countries of the world any superpower that heard that the other superpower was about to have a the perfect defense system so that it in turn could attack without fear of retaliation. Might feel that it had to act an act fast before such a scientific solution came about I don't think we ought to put our hopes and in scientific invention. I think we've got to realize that the duty is the duty of human beings to change their own minds and improve their own courage on this problem. Mr. Sorenson, unfortunately, it seems that coalition government has to arise only at the time of Crisis and I mean very grave crisis. What if we were to use as a given that your proposal was successful and we had four years of success? It seems to me that we would be in a position of finding it most difficult to turn our back on those four years and revert to a system. That worked less well. Are we not in this proposal leading ourselves toward a one-party system? And how would you propose that we avoid given for years of success that it not be perpetuated. That's a very thoughtful question and clearly we should always be alert to the dangers that you point out. But I frankly think that it's not a grave danger. We are talking about a radical departure from American tradition. I'm certainly not willing to propose it for a period of longer than four years. I think the American people and political system would become Restless where it to continue for a period of more than four years. If four years from now, it's working. Well, the crises have not yet been resolved. Another four-year period is necessary. That's that's something that the leaders and book writers at that time can suggest but we're not talking about bringing all of the members of each party and all the American people under one tent that isn't possible. Well, we're going to have the the moderate Centrist from each party in this tent there will still be opposition from the left. There will still be opposition from the right the political parties and those whose personal Ambitions will be eager to get back to politics is normal. The British during World War II had a very successful wartime Coalition under Winston Churchill, but then the war had barely ended when and they they stopped the Coalition and through Churchill out. Mr. Sorenson and let's assume that Gary Hart wins the nomination at the Democratic Convention the summer. I like that. There's always a about a 24-hour period when the nation is waiting with bated breath as to who he will pick as his vice president in a position you have in the heart campaign. Would you consider urging him to choose a republican a well-known Republican to run with them on that ticket and campaign on a bipartisan type approach as you Advocate? Yes, I would because I'm serious when I say that I think any president including Gary Hart is going to face these same difficulties with Congress. So with the special interest groups with the entrenched obstacles in Washington, unless this kind of bipartisan approach is adopted. I've never said it's the only solution it's my solution and Gary a heart if he is becomes the Presidential nominee is going to have to consider a whole range of motivations. I might add that my book makes clear that the decision could be postponed by the Presidential nominee until after he is elected the chances of getting a leading Republican to serve as running mate with Gary Hart in July of this year will be very slim indeed. But if he is elected in November and appeal to that Republicans better instincts and National interest to join the president-elect of the United States would be much more likely to obtain a favorable reception president's presidential nominees. I should say select their running mates on the basis of Variety of criteria theoretically a president should select someone who is equally able to serve the country as President should something happen to the president but has never been made on that basis. The president takes a look at the possible contenders. I say this having been involved in the process of a couple of times the president takes a look at the possible contenders and he sees that no one of them is quite as able and appealing and qualified as he is and not surprisingly because of there were such a person he would be the Presidential nominee. So he then begins to look for someone who will detract the least from his National appeal and add the most by way of some special appeal whether that's to region gender ethnic economic group or Or whatever we have seen some strange bedfellows as President and Vice President as a result and my prediction is will see some strange ones this year like to push you a little further on that and say if that situation did arise who would be some of the Republicans you would likely recommend to mr. In as much as that advice if Gary Hart is in a position to receive it and request. It should be a highly confidential between him and me. I don't think I'll announce it in the state of Minnesota of all places. I will simply say that I believe that there are a number of moderate Republican leaders including the majority leader in the Senate and the chairman of the Senate finance committee who I think would fulfill the kind of role. I'm talking about now or in the future. Thank you very very much for coming.