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 Haldeman to Buchanan RE: a previous memo and strategies to use against McGovern. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/12/1972
Political Strategy Paper from Haldeman criticizing a memo written by Buchanan. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/12/1972
Political Strategy Paper from Haldeman criticizing a memo written by Buchanan. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/12/1972
From Haldeman to Buchanan RE: preparations for election questions posed to RN's daughters, particularly in light of McGovern's candidacy. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/12/1972
From RN to Haldeman RE: preparations for election questions posed to RN's daughters, particularly in light of McGovern's candidacy. Handwritten notes added by unknown. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/6/1972
From Hallett to Colson RE: RN campaign efforts in California. Handwritten notes added by unknown. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/8/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26145299
label
WHSF: Contested, 8-45
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26145299
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 8-45
description
This file contains:
From Haldeman to Buchanan RE: a previous memo and strategies to use against McGovern. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/12/1972
Political Strategy Paper from Haldeman criticizing a memo written by Buchanan. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/12/1972
Political Strategy Paper from Haldeman criticizing a memo written by Buchanan. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/12/1972
From Haldeman to Buchanan RE: preparations for election questions posed to RN's daughters, particularly in light of McGovern's candidacy. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/12/1972
From RN to Haldeman RE: preparations for election questions posed to RN's daughters, particularly in light of McGovern's candidacy. Handwritten notes added by unknown. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/6/1972
From Hallett to Colson RE: RN campaign efforts in California. Handwritten notes added by unknown. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/8/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26145299
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
b565d6fcd2cfb5f3
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
8
45
6/12/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Haldeman to Buchanan RE: a previous
memo and strategies to use against
McGovern. 2 pgs.
8
45
6/12/1972
Campaign
Memo
"Political Strategy Paper" from Haldeman
criticizing a memo written by Buchanan. 2
pgs.
8
45
6/12/1972
Campaign
Memo
"Political Strategy Paper" from Haldeman
criticizing a memo written by Buchanan. 2
pgs.
8
45
6/12/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Haldeman to Buchanan RE:
preparations for election questions posed to
RN's daughters, particularly in light of
McGovern's candidacy. 2 pgs.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Page 1 of 2
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
8
45
6/6/1972
Campaign
Memo
From RN to Haldeman RE: preparations for
election questions posed to RN's daughters,
particularly in light of McGovern's
candidacy. Handwritten notes added by
unknown. 2 pgs.
8
45
6/8/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Hallett to Colson RE: RN campaign
efforts in California. Handwritten notes
added by unknown. 1 pg.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Page 2 of 2
DETERMINED TO BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
E.O. 12065, Section 6-102
June 12, 1972
By Joyner NARS, Date 3-12-82
CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PAT BUCHANAN
FROM:
H. R. HALDEMAN
SUBJECT:
Buchanan Memo of June 8th
Some points that were raised with regard to your memorandum of
June 8th that you should take another look at and answer in an
addendum to your original:
1. The Buchanan memorandum fails to recognize
the necessity to keep our strength up front and
center. In other words, all of our attack lines on
the opposition should end up emphasizing our strengths.
2. We must not get trapped into McGovern's bog of
peddling himself as a new face. If people want new
ideas, this Administration has the boldest initiatives
in history.
3. The Buchanan memorandum deals almost entirely
with domestic matters and totally misses our big
issues which are in foreign policy. Who is the bold
leader? Who is the fresh leader? Who is the dramatic
leader in foreign policy?
4. We should attack McGovern in a way that surfaces
our point, not just hit his points. We should not get
trapped into putting out the enemy line.
2
5, We have to build the foreign policy issue
in terms of the question of changing horses in
mid-stream. In other words, President Nixon
has launched some very major, far-reaching,
foreign policy initiatives. We can't afford to
let an inexperienced novice come in and pick up
the reins at this point. We cannot afford to have
McGovern in the White House in terms of foreign
policy. His inexperience and naivety in the foreign
policy field would be disastrous. Do we really
want "White Flag McGovern" in the White House?
In writing your addendum, take the point of view of how we can attack
McGovern in a way that builds the President's foreign policy image.
This is our strong point.
HRH:LH:kb:LH:pm
POLITICAL STRATEGY PAPER
One weakness of the Buchanan memorandum is that it fails to recognize
the necessity to keep our strength up front and senter. In other words,
all of our attack lines on the opposition should end up also emphasizing
our strength.
We must not get trapped into McGovern's bog of peddling himself as a
new face. If people want new ideas and so forth, this Administration has
had the boldness initiatives in history.
Buchanan deals almost entirely with domestic matters and totally misses
our big issues which are in foreign policy. Who is the bold leader? Who
is the fresh leader? Who is the dramatic leader in foreign policy?
We should attack McGovern in a way that surfaces our point, not just hitting
his points. We should not get trapped into putting out the enemy line.
We have to build the foreign policy issue in terms of the question of
changing horses in mid-stream. In other words, President Nixon has
launched some very major, far-reaching, foreign policy initiatives. We
can't afford to let an inexperienced novice come in and pick up the reigns
at this point. We cannot afford to have McGovern in the White House in
terms of foreign policy. His inexperience and naivety in the foreign policy
field would be disastrous. Do we really want "White Flag McGovern" in
the White House?
BAL
2
We need an addendum written to the Buchanan memorandum that takes
up the point of how we attack McGovern in a way that builds the President's
foreign policy image.
In other words, Buchanan overlooks our strong point in foreign policy.
One reason for this is because he doesn't agree with the major foreign
policy initiatives.
Someone needs to develop a battle plan as to what the holes are in the
Buchanan piece. What are the four things that we want to have come out?
HRH:pm
6/12/72
POLITICAL STRATEGY PAPER
One weakness of the Buchanan memorandum is that it fails to recognize
the necessity to keep our strength up front and center. In other words,
all of our attack lines on the opposition should end up also emphasizing
our strength.
We must not get trapped into McGovern's bog of peddling himself as a
new face. If people want new ideas and so forth, this Administration has
had the boldest initiatives in history.
Buchanan deals almost entirely with domestic matters and totally misses
our big issues which are in foreign policy. Who is the bold leader? Who
is the fresh leader? Who is the dramatic leader in foreign policy?
We should attack McGovern in a way that surfaces our point, not just hitting
his points. We should not get trapped into putting out the enemy line.
We have to build the foreign policy issue in terms of the question of
changing horses in mid-stream. In other words, President Nixon has
launched some very major, far-reaching, foreign policy initiatives. We
can't afford to let an inexperienced novice come in and pick up the reins
at this point. We cannot afford to have McGovern in the White House in
terms of foreign policy. His inexperience and naivety in the foreign policy
field would be disastrous. Do we really want "White Flag McGovern" in
the White House?
2
We need an addendum written to the Buchanan memorandum that takes
up the point of how we attack McGovern in a way that builds the President's
foreign policy image.
In other words, Buchanan overlooks our strong point in foreign policy.
One reason for this is because he doesn't agree with the major foreign
policy initiatives.
Someone needs to develop a battle plan as to what the holes are in the
Buchanan piece. What are the four things that we want to have come out?
HRH
6/12/72
DETERMINED TO BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
E.O. 12065, Section 6-102
June 12, 1972
By B.Joyner NARS, Date 3-12-82
CONFIDENTIAL/EYESONLY
MEMORANDUM FOR :
PAT BUCHANAN
FROM :
H.R. HALDEMAN
Julie and Tricia asked the President over the weekend what
kind of answers they can give now that the Democratic nomina-
tion seems to be pretty much a foregone conclusion when asked
their opinion on the man or his stands.
Would you figure out all the tough political questions that are
likely to be put to Tricia and Julie when they appear on talk
shows over the next few months and prepare suggested answers
for them which will keep them from getting involved personally,
but which will avoid their appearing to be totally non-responsive
when such questions are raised.
Basically they should decline to get into personalities, but simply
say that they didn't know much about it except that from listening
to the debates and what Humphrey and other Democrats had said
that it would appear that McGovern might have a problem uniting
his party.
It is vitally important, of course, that they not get headlines which
indicate that the daughters of the President are attacking the
Democratic nominee. The more off-hand, subtle kind of answer is
what they should use. These should be done before Wednesday. They
are both going to be on shows next week and the week after, as I
understand it.
2
In view of the Moscow trip, both Julie and Tricia, if they
were asked what the major issue of 1972 would be, should
answer that while the domestic issues were, of course,
extremely important, where the Presidency was concerned it
would be their opinion that most young people, as well as other
voters, would be primarily interested in which of the two candi-
dates was best qualified to lead the United States in international
affairs and to build on the great peace initiatives we have begun
in China and the Soviet Union. In any event, more intensive
thinking needs to be done on how they should respond to such
questions in the light of the recent Moscow trip, having in mind
the fact that we want to keep them and all of our speakers talking
about our issue which is international affairs, and except for
domestic issues that have a real appeal like busing, amnesty and
pot to stay off bf the domestic issues.
The materials prepared for them so far have put a little too much
emphasis on the environment, welfare reform, revenue sharing,
etc. These are good, safe things to talk about but they are relatively
dull and will become rather irrelevant as the campaign heats up.
Please forward your suggested questions and answers to me by
close of business on Wednesday so I can send them to Tricia, Julie
and the President.
HRH:kb:LH:pm
CC: Ray Price
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 6, 1972
Pat Buchauan
MEMORANDUM FOR SOB HALDEMAN.
HRH.
FROM THE PRESIDENT
" Price.
0
The President
Julie and Tricia were asking me over the weekend what kind
of answers they can give now that the Democratic nomination
seems to be pretty much a foregone conclusion when asked
their opinion on the man or his stands.
My advice off the top of my head was for to decline to
Basically they should them
get into personalities, but to simply say that they didn't know
much about it except that from listening to the debates and
what Humphrey and other Democrats had said that it would
appear that McGovern might have a problem in uniting his party.
Homely
Would you
What I want you to direct Buchanan to do is to figure out all
the tough political questions that are likely to be put to Tricia
and Julie when they appear on talk shows over the next few
months and for him to prepare suggested answers for them which
will keep them from getting involved personally, but which
will avoid are their appearing to be totally non-responsive when such
a questionsis raised. It is vitally important, of course, that
they not get headlines which indicates that the daughters of the
President are attacking the Democratic nominee. shouldare The more
off-hand, subtle kind of answer is what I have in mind. This
is not generally Buchanan's approach, but I think if you explain
it to him he will find ways to tackle the proble m that could be
very effective. I want you to look over the Q & A after the he
prepares it before sending it on to Tricia and Julie. This should
be done before the end of this week. because they are both going
to be on shows next week and the week after, as I understand it.
They have done extremely well winging it on their own on these
political questions up to this point, although I realize they have
had considerable help from the staff on substantive matters on
- 2 -
where do Istand on environment, welfare etc. $ In view of the
we
Moscow trip told Julie and Tricia that if they were asked
what the major issue of 1972 would be that they should respond should answa
that while the domestic issues were, of course, extremely
important, that where the Presidency was concerned it would
be their opinion that most young people, as well as other voters,
would be primarily interested in which of the two candidates
was best qualified to lead the United States in international
affairs and to build on the great peace initiatives we have begun
in China and the Soviet needato Union. In any event, I want some more
intensive thinking done on how they should respond to such
questions in the light of our recent Moscow trip, having in
mind the fact that we want to keep them and all of our speakers
talking about our issue which is international affairs, and
except for domestic issues that have a real appeal like busing,
amnesty and pot to stay off of the domestic issues.
think the materials prepared for them so far have probably
put a little too much emphasis on the environment, welfare
reform, revenue sharing, etc. These are good, safe things
to talk about but they are relatively dull and will become rather
irrelevant as the campaign heats up.
suggested q ras.
Please forward your there to mu by close of burdness
Tricia, Julie & The President.
on Ther sday so I can send the to
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
8 June 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR CHARLES W. COLSON
FROM DOUG HALLETT PAA
RE: California
I talked with one of my oldest and dearest political allies I met
him during th e 1966 Reagan effort. The guy's with Spencer-Roberts,
the best organizer in Northern California (his brother's one of the
best in South ern Cal), has been involved in every state-wide campaign
for 15 years out there. I asked him about our effort out there. He
said th e following:
(1) If the election were held today, The President would lose California.
(2) Our effort out there is terrible.
(3) Nobody in our top command has any organizational experience. Lyn's
a press guy and the people he has brought in are all non-experdenced.
(4) The regional structure Nofziger has imposed on the state five
divisions is contaary to the historic Northern-Southern division with
strong emphasis on the counties, and it's not a good division. There
should be much more emphasis on the counties.
(5) While we should be in a go od position to pick up disaffected blue-collar
types, Mexican-Americans, etc., we're not doing one goodamnthing
to go after these people and, according to this guy, we're not set up to doso.
My buddy has an axe to grind. Spencer-Roberts was in the running to
get the campaign (if I had anything to do with it, they would have gotten it),
but this guy is terribly honest with me always and I strongly value his
judgement. Somebody ought to look into this before it is too late.
Calif for a codert.,100k ?
Haw about senday me to
at what 's happeny