'I Don't Expect to Lose'

The scene of last week's TIME interview with the President was the Blue Room of the White House. Seated before a crackling fire, Ford discussed for l 1/4 hours his presidency and the politics of 1976. Excerpts:

Since becoming President, you have cast over 40 vetoes, which people perceive as a kind of negative leadership. How can you overcome this feeling?

Unfortunately, many people do consider a veto to be a negative action. I don't think it is. In the first place, the veto was put into the Constitution to give a President an opportunity to tell a Congress that a mere majority vote in both the House and Senate doesn't necessarily mean it is in the best interests of the country as a whole. A veto tells the Congress, "You had better think about it, and if you want to override it, you have to do better than 51%, and you have to have two-thirds." We used vetoes several times this year to produce constructive legislation in place of legislation that I think would have been unwise. Take housing. Congress sent down a bill that was loaded for all the special-interest groups in the housing industry, and everybody else, virtually. I vetoed it. They came back with a housing bill that was 90% or 95% good.

Are you in favor of covert intelligence operations abroad?

I strongly believe in covert operations. I have no hesitancy to say so. I don't know how a President could conduct foreign policy without a degree of covert operations. [As for the safeguards], fairly sizable numbers in the Congress are today given information about covert operations--six committees. That is a lot more than used to get it when I was there. Second, as far as I know, no covert operations that have been undertaken by this Administration have involved any commitment beyond the precise operations authorized by me with my signature. Now with any Administration that is deceptive, of course, I think the Congress and public ought to be wary. But as far as we are concerned, there is not going to be any commitment that the Congress or a fairly sizable number [of Congressmen or Senators&] do not know about.

What do you see as the principal differences between yourself and Ronald Reagan?

I have a record of 25 years in the Congress, nine months as Vice President and 17 months as President. Now, it seems to me that it is up to him and his people to point out where there are differences. One difference that does exist, of course, is the approach to the Federal budget. Since he laid the $90 billion budget reduction on the table, I have talked to approximately 20 Governors--Democrats as well as Republicans--and they all throw their hands up.

Is Reagan upholding a different position from yours on detente?

Well, I read that up in New Hampshire he said, "Stop," but then he didn't illustrate how that hard line would be implemented as far as the Soviet Union is concerned. It would be catastrophic to throw away the current U.S.S.R.-U.S. relationship, not that it turns up something affirmative every day. But if we are going back to the cold war of the '50s and '60s, I think it would be a serious mistake. If he wants to make [detente] an issue, I am delighted to. I think in the long run, as well as the short haul, it is in the best interest of the country.

Are you worried about losing the nomination to Reagan?

I don't expect to lose, and I am going to be there until the last ballot is counted. I like a good fight, and it will be a good one. I don't have any fear or apprehension. I sleep very well.

Do you think you may eliminate Reagan quickly--in the first two or three primaries?

I think we have got a chance. But even if we don't, we look at the rest of the states, either primaries or conventions, and I think we are in pretty good shape.

What do you consider your chief political liability as a candidate?

The biggest liability is that a President has to make tough decisions, and you inevitably antagonize one interest group or another. Rhetoric is cheap. Decision making is pretty hard. We have had some very difficult decisions in this last year--the budget, energy, New York City. For a candidate out on the hustings, it is a heck of a lot easier.

To be personal, I am the first to admit that I am no great orator or no person that got where I have gotten by any William Jennings Bryan technique. But I am not sure that the American people want that. I think they are more interested in honesty, trustworthiness and a feeling of security. So maybe out in the hustings it will pay off to make those kinds of flamboyant speeches, but the American people for a long time have been made grandiose promises, and there have been an awful lot of disappointments. We aren't going to do that.

How do you think you can win over the Democrats and Independents that you will need to win the election?

I think the policies that we have had for the correction of our economic problems will appeal to the Independent group, as well as what we have done in foreign policy. One of the interesting things about the polls is that I rather substantially do better than any Republican and/or Democrat with those between 18 and 25. It is surprising. I don't know whether it is the family or me or my wife or what, but at least it is reflected that way. I think it is a potential gold mine for the Republican Party and my own personal philosophy.

Some of your aides apparently are concerned that the public perceives you as a physically awkward man, and jokes have been springing up about it. Could you tell us how much this worries you?

On the basis that most Americans are awkward and there is a certain simpatico? [Laughter]

Do you think this reflects a deeper or more disturbing perception of you as President?

Well, let me say this. For a person who is 62, I think I get around reasonably well. So I guess when I see some of these cartoons, it kind of hurts your pride a little bit, but I have been in this political arena long enough that that kind of harpooning is just part of the American humor. As long as I can ski and swim and play tennis and play golf and whatever else I do and feel comfortable, it really doesn't bother me any. I do think it is unfortunate to take something that is inaccurate in a physical sense and relate it to policy decisions.

Whom do you believe the Democrats will nominate?

Better than a year ago, I said I thought the Democrats would nominate Hubert Humphrey, and it is becoming more and more obvious.

If Senator Humphrey were the Democratic nominee, what do you think the race would be like?

Hubert and I have joked about it, and I think it would be a good contest. There would be a clean cleavage between the two of us ideologically. Hubert is a gentleman, and neither he nor I is going to get into any sordid political accusations. I know he wouldn't, and I certainly wouldn't intend to. So I think that kind of contest might be very wholesome to the country.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.