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:
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144713
label
WHSF: Contested, 4-39
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144713
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 4-39
description
This file contains:
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144713
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
117e12289b2d9d3d
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
4
39
7/19/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to John Scali RE: Chancellor's
coverage of the Democratic National
Convention. 1 pg.
4
39
7/5/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Buchanan RE: a recent
"New York Times Magazine" piece which, if
used properly, could be devastating for
McGovern. 1 pg.
4
39
7/5/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Buchanan RE: McGovern's
reaction to J. Edgar Hoover's death. 1 pg.
4
39
7/24/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From Colson to RN RE: problems with
Connally and Stans. 2 pgs.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Page 1 of 2
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
4
39
7/5/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From Colson to Cohen RE: Graham's
"Goodstock" festival. 1 pg.
4
39
7/24/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Howard RE: the absence of a
statement from Fitzsimmons in "Monday." 1
pg.
4
39
7/5/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Steve Karalekas RE: the
evolution of RN's views on North Vietnam
from 1968 to 1972, as well as McGovern's
ideas on the country. 1 pg.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Page 2 of 2
July 19, 1972
HIGH PRIORITY
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN SCALI
FROM:
CHARLES W. COLSON
Chancellor's coverage during the Democratic National
Convention was in some cases absolutely horrible.
At times, he in effect, advocated McGovern's pesitions.
It is felt that you should talk to him about this and
indicate not only our feeling; but ask him if he is
going to continue advocating this, he should tell us
so we know what to expect from him.
July 5, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PAT BUCHANAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
As part of your research effort on McGovern, you should read
the Shannon piece in yesterday's New York Times Magazine.
It is utterly devastating if used with the right people. I am
sure you have already seen it and probably came to the same
conclusion I did. Shannon is a member of the liberal
establishment and regards McGovern as a phony.
Howard K. Smith was so impressed with it he called me to be
sure that I read it. He said he thought it would turn an awful lot
of people off. The responsible moderate liberals might turn
very sour on the guy if the one thing he has going for him,
supposed credibility, is tarnished and the Shannon piece really
does tarnish it.
July 5, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PAT BUCHANAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
There is an extraordinary segment of the McGovern interview in
Life dealing with J. Edgar Hoover. McGovern almost suggests that
he was happy that Hoover died. When I read it the first time I
couldn't believe that that's the way it was intended. I re-read it and
it is perfectly obvious that McGovern is saying that Hoover had lived
more than the normal useful life.
This is the typical mindset of the master, big brother, bureaucratic
planner. When people outlive their usefulness, get rid of them. It
is utterly incredible and I would think that a neat little piece could be
written really tracing out all of the implications of what McGovern is
saying. Not only would it infuriate the pro-Hooverites, reflect very
poorly on McGovern's obvious bad taste, but it could also frighten a
hell of a lot of people. It is the kind of thing that I would think Human
Events would love to run or National Review. We could then get re-
prints and distribute them out to law enforcement officers as to whom
Hoover was something of a folk hero, other friends of Hoover and
conservatives generally. This kind of an article could bring out the
little old ladies in their tennis shoes that we need this year.
If you think well of this, is it something that perhaps could be handled
in your shop? I don't think anyone else can write it with the same bite
you could. Maybe this is one that we could farm out to Jeffrey Hart
and possibly even publish under his byline.
EYES ONLY
July 24, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Connally/Stans
I am sorry to report to you on an unfortunate incident involving
Connally as to which you should be advised and perhaps call
Connally if you feel it is warranted.
Last week MacGregor asked to meet with Connally and myself to
be sure we were thoroughly coordinated a necessary thing to
do obviously. We decided to include Stans because under the
new statute, Connally cannot spend funds without Stans' permis-
sion. Obviously fund raising and expenditures have to be closely
coordinated because of the inevitable competition for the same
sources, the need for initial funding by Stans as well as the strict
statutory ceilings.
In the meeting we had this afternoon (after your visit with Connally),
Stans became very difficult; he seemed very unhappy over the whole
Democrats for Nixon effort. He said that he was already getting
money from Democrats and obviously any funds Connally raised
would be "in competition" with his efforts. He further said that he
had an obligation to raise $40 million and that anything Connally
needed would be in excess of that and he didn't think he could raise
it. MacGregor said that he would gladly reduce his budget to make
room for Connally's needs. I made the point that Connally would
have to be assured of a budget of at least $3 million (since Connally
had told me over the weekend he didn't want to launch an effort unless
he was assured of funding of at least that amount).
Connally became visibly angry during the lunch especially when Stans
said that if Connally raised more money than his "budgeted" figure,
he would have to turn it over to Stans. During the lunch Connally said
EYES ONLY
2.
he wasn't sure he wanted to embark on the Democrats for Nixon
effort at all and Stans allowed as to how he wished the President
could find another fund raiser. Despite frequent attempts by
MaeGregor and me to keep it under control, the atmosphere was
distinctly hostile.
After the lunch, I assured Connally that the candidate's views on
this would prevail and that I knew exactly how you felt about it and
that he shouldn't worry about Stans. I urged him to leave it in my
hands. He said that he didn't ask for this job and that while he had
no trouble at all dealing with MacGregor or myself, that it was best
to find out right from the beginning where he stood. He said
attitudes were very important to him, that he thought Stans had a
very negative attitude and really acted as if Connally was an
"intruder and competitor". I said again that I knew where the
President stood and Connally said that isn't good enough. He
said, "The President has to let his people know where he stands.
Obviously Stans doesn't have the word."
I assured Connally that I would see that Stans did understand the
President's views and Connally said, "Well, I will have to see for
myself". He said he was unable now to agree to announce Democrats
for Nixon on August 1. (Yesterday he had decided that would be the
date.)
I think Connally was putting on a little show for everyone involved.
He is a very sensitive fellow and Stans can indeed be rather dour
when it comes to discussing campaign funds. Also, Maury is very
tired and under a lot of pressure.
Connally, unfortunately, will have to work with Stans; under the new
statute, complete autonomy is impossible. I assured Connally that
he would be spared anything like this in the future and that Jacobson,
Connally's counsel, could handle it. He said he didn't want Jacobson
"subjected" to this either.
Under the circumstances, MacGregor and I think it may be important
for you to tell Connally that we have reported to you on the lunch and
that he can be assured that there will be no problem, that the budget
matters have been determined by you, that autonomy is to be maintained
and that if he can't deal with Stans, he can work through MacGregor and
me exclusively. Clark and I will simply have to handle Maury.
July 5, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
HOWARD COHEN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
Please get together with Ken Rietz and tell me what we
are doing to exploit the Graham "Godstock" festival. We
have simply got to get more closely identified with Graham's
effort. He wants to help. Haldeman is the only one who
can talk to him, but our people should be planning how to
make maximum use of Graham's organization.
Be certain to give me a report on this. Don't let this one
slide.
July 24, 1972
MEDIORANDUM FOR:
DICK HOWARD
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
Why? Please tell me why -- (by the way, at this point I am
frothing at the mouth), the full Fitzsimmons statement was
not printed in Monday? If you will recall, I discussed this
with you and you told me Lofton was going to use the state-
ment intact and the picture on the dover. The picture on
the cover is delightful, except that it happens to be one that
was taken when the President had the Canadian flag on his
lapel as well as the American flag, which will incense the
Teamster executives, since it was put on the President
Monday by their Vice President from Canada who is a jackass.
And, there is no Fitzeimmons statement anywhere in the copy.
The Fitzsimmons statement is a perfect thing for our Party
people to use . I am absolutely running out of patience on
this. We keep being told things are going to be in Monday and
then they are not. What inGod's name does it take to get this
straighted out? Would you please ask for an explanation and I
think from now on we had simply better see the page mock-ups
of Monday before it goes to print.
July 5, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
STEVE KARALEKAS
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
Would you please put together a couple speeches and a fact sheet
on the things that Candidate Nixon said in '68 about the negotiations
then underway between the Johnson Administration and North
Vietnam. Then-Candidate Nixon was very restrained. Bear in
mind the interesting point that McGovern will be making his
acceptance speech on the day that the Paris peace negotiations
resume. This may pose a lovely trap for him if we can get the
right foundation built. People should start speaking about the
responsibility of Presidential candidates; the danger of candidates
speaking out in such a way that may sabotage negotiations; this
historical comparison with Candidate Nixon, etc. Then, if
McGovern does what is predictable in his acceptance speech, our
people should be ready to hit very, very hard. His acceptance
speech may be the most significant speech of the campaign. He
will undoubtedly talk about his better deal with Hanoi, but he will
be careful not to put it in those terms; it is up to us, however, to
put it in those terms.
If you will get the information together, Noel Koch can start some
of the fellows on the Hill on this drumbeat. Clawson can perhaps
promote a column or two or maybe work this into pieces written
about McGovern and you might talk to the Vice President's staff
to see if he llas an opportunity in the next 10 days to give this kind
of speech. No one has to mention McGovern by name.