Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains:
From Colson to "The Staff Secretary" responding to an article on the Ashbrook candidacy. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/29/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: a proposed meeting with the Advertising Council. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 2/29/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: coordination of efforts between "1701" and the RNC. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 2/1/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: distributing information for the upcoming campaign and dealing with press issues. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/18/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144705
label
WHSF: Contested, 4-35
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144705
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 4-35
description
This file contains:
From Colson to "The Staff Secretary" responding to an article on the Ashbrook candidacy. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/29/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: a proposed meeting with the Advertising Council. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 2/29/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: coordination of efforts between "1701" and the RNC. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 2/1/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: distributing information for the upcoming campaign and dealing with press issues. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/18/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144705
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d56857686d6e7f47
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
4
35
2/29/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to "The Staff Secretary"
responding to an article on the Ashbrook
candidacy. 2 pgs.
4
35
2/29/1972
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: a proposed
meeting with the Advertising Council. 1 pg.
4
35
2/1/1972
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: coordination
of efforts between "1701" and the RNC. 2
pgs.
4
35
2/18/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: distributing
information for the upcoming campaign and
dealing with press issues. 2 pgs.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Page 1 of 1
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
February 29, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Action Memorandum #P-2010
Ashbrook Candidacy
Request
It was requested in Presidential Action Memorandum P-2010, taken
from the February 1 News Summary, to counter the Human Events
article that Ashbrook's candidacy has already paid off in "concrete
concessions from the White House".
Response
Ken Clawson has been making the point with the press that none of the
items in the Human Events article were reactions to Ashbrook's
candidacy, but were prior decisions. Pat Buchanan has contacted
Human Events and outlined their error. In addition, Buchanan
indicated to Ryskind that these kinds of statements were actually
counter-productive to the conservative cause and also asked that
Ryskind pass this on to Ashbrook. Ryskind indicated that Ashbrook
was not saying any of these things himself.
It is very hard to directly counter this kind of charge because no
matter what we say, the conservatives have to say this to save face.
Most of these kinds of comments have come from the conservatives
and it is imperative to them to build this kind of rationale so they can
justify getting back on track when and if Ashbrook goes out of the race.
2.
I still have high hopes that at the right point they can be brought back
into the fold; therefore, I would not try to assault them frontally on
this charge. We will try to discourage it whenever we can, but we
should recognize that it's important to them that they build this face-
saving in their own literature.
Eyes Only
February 29, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Attached Schedule Proposal --
Advertising Council
I know all of the reasons why you will want to turn the attached
down, but I earnestly hope you will not. I realize that these are
not the powers that they represent themselves to be, but we have
used the Ad Council politically very much to our advantage and I
think not to have them could be a serious negative. They are
doing a superb job for us on advertising the "New Prosperity"
and "holding the lid on prices". They have been much more poli-
tical than I expected they would be and, in view of the disappoint-
ment last year, I really hope this can be done.
I know you won't think there is anything to be gained and perhaps
there isn't, but there is something to be lost by not doing it.
What will be lost will be our ability to manipulate the group to
our advantage politically this year, as we are finding now that we
can do. It isn't the people that I am concerned with, it is the ability
to obtain free advertising, time and space for messages that are
politically significant to us.
EYES ONLY
February 1, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
RNC/1701 Organizational Effort
This is none of my business but I have very serious concerns that
the organizational effort at 1701 is not being properly coordinated
with the RNC organizational effort. I am sure that this is something
that the AG will straighten out as soon as he is on board, but at the
moment the situation is not healthy.
Teddy White observed in a conversation with a mutual friend a few
weeks ago that we were making precisely the same mistake that
Johnson made, that we were allowing the RNC to wither on the
vine and that our Presidential campaign effort is in effect trying to
take over all organizational effort for Independents, Democrats
and Republicans. White pointed out that the party organizational
effort can increase the turnout of party faithful by 4 - 5 percentage
points. With a well organized Republican effort, we might get 76
percent of the registered Republicans to the polls and without that
effort the number might be 72 percent. I don't know how valid the
statistics are, but that is the example that White used.
I've always marveled at the way Len Hall structured the 1956 campaign.
The Citizens' effort was totally separate from the organized party
effort. The Citizens' Committee went after Independents and Democrate
and the party machinery had the sole task of producing the Republican
vote. From what I have learned of the operation at 1701, it is beling
geared up to organize the entire effort -- Republican as well as Demo-
crat and Independent.
If this is true, what will inevitably happen is that tried and true party
workers will be neglected. We simply do not have the capacity -- no
one does -- to set up organization structures that duplicates the
PAN
2.
established party structure. As a result the State Committee member
or County Chairman in Pinellas County, Florida, for example, will
feel neglected if he is not brought into the Nixon effort. He may be a
complete dud we may not want him. On the other hand, it is better
to have him feel that he is performing -- perhaps for the National
Committee than to feel that he is simply being left out of the action.
In short, the two efforts have to complement one another, not be dupli-
cating or competing for the same constituencies.
This is a very basic, fundamental and simple point but I am not sure
from what I hear that it is clearly understood. The Nixon operation
should coordinate the two. The Citizens should have one clear assign-
ment and the RNC, andther clear assignment and only at the top of
either the State of National organization does someone try to oversee
that both are performing their mission.
My fears could be totally unfounded and based on ignorance. I do get
a lot of isolated reports from around the country, however, that (a)
the Republican organization is not gearing up; (b) that a lot of the
faithful feel neglected; and (c) that we are dealing in many cases
through some party leaders in some states, but ignoring others.
There's room for everybody. All of the regular party workers can
feel very much involved with the job of turning out the Republican
vote and the Nixon leaders can concentrate a Citizens' effort on the
non-Republican vote.
I have been discussing many things of late with the Attorney General.
I have deliberately not raised this point, although I have been sorely
tempted to do so, because I think I might be straining my new relation-
ship with him. I think he would quite correctly feel that I was butting
into his affairs in an area of no concern to me.
If in your mind, the point has any validity, I would hope that someone
would take a hard look at it.
February 18, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Answer Desk
In response to your memo of the 17th regarding the "Answer
Desk", Noel Koch is now riding herd on this, recommending
counter-attacks and suggesting replies. The mechanism we
have established is a hell of a lot better than anything we had
in the past in terms of getting the material out. As I think I
have indicated to you, at least 50 percent of the battle, maybe
more, is effective distribution and timing of press releases.
This part of it we have nailed down beautifully.
The other part of the problem is what our people say. You are
quite correct that we need to sharpen up the rhetoric considerably.
I have had some extensive talks with Koch, Karalekas and Hallett
to this end and I think all understand the need for hitting it sharply
atid directly and in language that people understand.
I might point out with the specific article that you cited from the
New York Times that the important objective here is to get our
answer out on the record fast and to hit back hard. If you look at
that article again, you will see that the headline is superb, "Kennedy
Criticized for Attack on Nixon" and that the first paragraph sums
it all up, "Republicans struck back today at Kennedy...". Specifically
what is said is important, but the key is how the press plays the
attack. In this specific instance, the Dole language, while obviously
Greek to the man on the street, nonetheless was sufficiently novel
to at least get into print. If Dole had salled him a political oppor-
tunist or one of our other usual phrases, 1511 wager you two to one
that it wouldn't have been printed. The fact that it was printed gave
rise to the first paragraph of the article which is what we want.
Also, with respect to your comment that the Ford reply was so
oblique that it had to be explained by his press secretrary, that's
what we hoped would happen. The reference was to Chappaquiddick,
but it was a little subtle which it had to be. It, nonetheless, suggested
Chappaquiddick and caused the press to call Ford's office to ask if
that is what he meant. Rather than criticizing that, I think it really
was a good technique for building up the Ford statement.
In any event, your point is well taken. We will do our best to sharpen
up the rhetoric and now that we do have a machinery that gets the stuff
delivered to the press in a way that they will use it, I think we will
see more and more of our stuff getting into print.
Your other point about the press getting ready for a massive attack is
absolutely accurate. I think they are lining up their forces as the
Soviets have on the Chinese border. Fifty divisions is about the
right estimate and we are going to have to really be on our toes. As
we are set up now, Noel is the go-between for the Members of Congress,
the Committee and our writers. Karalekas and Hallett crank most of
the stuff out, although Koch does do some writing himself and we hope
as time goes on to be able to draw more and more upon Buchanan and
Khachigian as their time permits. I think we are well set up for it and
we are alert to the problem.