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:
To: Buchanan From: Khachigian RE: "Thoughts For Romney's Speech." 4pgs [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/27/1971
To: Patrick J. Buchanan From: Kenneth L. Khachigian RE: "Thoughts Toward 1972." 6pgs [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/10/1971
To: Patrick J. Buchanan From: Kenneth L. Khachigian RE: "Thoughts Toward 1972." 5pgs [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/10/1971
To: Patrick J. Buchanan From: Kenneth L. Khachigian RE: "The Black Voter." 4pgs [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/26/1971
To: Patrick J. Buchanan From: Kenneth L. Khachigian RE: "The Black Voter." 4pgs [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/26/1971
To: Ken Khachigian From: Pat Buchanan RE: Holding on to back-up materials; President's ripping of the "scab" off Muskie. 1pg [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/17/1971
Draft from Khachigian of a report entitled "RUNNING WITH MUSKIE - OR HOW TO SNATCH DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY." 11pgs [Subject: Campaign] [Report], 9/24/4971
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26146476
label
WHSF: Contested, 48-2
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26146476
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 48-2
description
This file contains:
To: Buchanan From: Khachigian RE: "Thoughts For Romney's Speech." 4pgs [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/27/1971
To: Patrick J. Buchanan From: Kenneth L. Khachigian RE: "Thoughts Toward 1972." 6pgs [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/10/1971
To: Patrick J. Buchanan From: Kenneth L. Khachigian RE: "Thoughts Toward 1972." 5pgs [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/10/1971
To: Patrick J. Buchanan From: Kenneth L. Khachigian RE: "The Black Voter." 4pgs [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/26/1971
To: Patrick J. Buchanan From: Kenneth L. Khachigian RE: "The Black Voter." 4pgs [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/26/1971
To: Ken Khachigian From: Pat Buchanan RE: Holding on to back-up materials; President's ripping of the "scab" off Muskie. 1pg [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/17/1971
Draft from Khachigian of a report entitled "RUNNING WITH MUSKIE - OR HOW TO SNATCH DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY." 11pgs [Subject: Campaign] [Report], 9/24/4971
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26146476
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a903805e3753b1cd
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
48
2
9/27/1971
Campaign
Memo
To: Buchanan From: Khachigian RE:
"Thoughts For Romney's Speech." 4pgs
48
2
9/10/1971
Campaign
Memo
To: Patrick J. Buchanan From: Kenneth L.
Khachigian RE: "Thoughts Toward 1972."
6pgs
48
2
9/10/1971
Campaign
Memo
To: Patrick J. Buchanan From: Kenneth L.
Khachigian RE: "Thoughts Toward 1972."
5pgs
48
2
7/26/1971
Campaign
Memo
To: Patrick J. Buchanan From: Kenneth L.
Khachigian RE: "The Black Voter." 4pgs
48
2
7/26/1971
Campaign
Memo
To: Patrick J. Buchanan From: Kenneth L.
Khachigian RE: "The Black Voter." 4pgs
48
2
9/17/1971
Campaign
Memo
To: Ken Khachigian From: Pat Buchanan
RE: Holding on to back-up materials;
President's ripping of the "scab" off Muskie.
1pg
48
2
9/24/4971
Campaign
Report
Draft from Khachigian of a report entitled
"RUNNING WITH MUSKIE - OR HOW
TO SNATCH DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS
OF VICTORY." 11pgs
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Page 1 of 1
9/27/71
FOR: BUCHANAN
FROM: KHACHIGIAN
THOUGHTS FOR ROMNEY'S SPEECH
While he should go on the attack against RN's critics, I think
a spirited defense of the Administration would be useful. The
defense however, should be selective rather than across the board.
I. e., Romney should defend on our long suits.
-- Should make the case for RN in foreign policy. The whole idea
should be to picture RN as the heavyweight when matched up against
any of the potential Dem candidates. Again: good points to make
on Vietnam, SALT, etc.
But the main point is the thematic one of RN as leading America's
foreign policy with "a golden hand. " The sturdy, thoughtful, precise
maker and executor of foreign policy.
-- Domestic policy. There is a case to be made, but not so much
a programmatic one as a symbolic one. The RN who didn't overpromise,
who didn't bring bombast to his pronouncements, who simply went out
to do the job that was needed. Result: a more stable society in the
institutional sense, peace in our streets, etc.
I would put in a good word for the Nixon approach of calm in
place of charisma -- but would not overdo the style thing.
Page 2
-- Hitting the opponents should be a central rationale for the
speech, and if, as you say, names can be used, I suggest some of
the following portrayals of the opposition. Henry Jackson: An able
supporter of the President on foreign policy and renouncer of
extremism in Dem ranks. But it ends there, for Scoop is an
ADA liberal, bent on making the Federal government the ultimate
decision point in our lives. His attacks on the President's handling
of the economy have been just short of Demagogy -- not the best
characteristic for a man of decent instincts, but who has been driven
by a political party which has as its sworn purpose the destruction
of Richard Nixon no matter what the cost.
Ed Muskie: Muskie would be one of the worst choices for President.
He knows nothing about foreign policy (was swayed by Kosygin in the
famous Moscow meeting), would be totally untrustworthy in the
important discussions of foreign policy. He just can't swing it. He
is temperamental and prone to follow the troops. He is really a
non-entity fashioned by the liberal press into some kind of Democratic
Moses. Query: What one thing can you point to that Muskie stands
for or has accomplished? In short, he is a faceless man, a man
utterly without the credentials to be President of the United States.
Imagine him meeting with Chou En Lai?
Page 3
Teddy Kennedy : Immature, aloof, doesn't know what hard times
are. Quick on the trigger; irrational, incapable of being decisive
in a crises. He's like a little kid take away his rattle and he'll
run crying to momma. The least likely person we would want
to entrust affairs of state. Perhaps cite the example of Teddy's
insult to Pakistani ambassador as a trait of Teddy the Tot.
George McGovern: A petulant, crybaby who sees nothing but the
worst in his country. He wails and cries, loves the "kids" and
will never say a bad word against them. A total joke as a candidate;
he signed peoples peace Treaty with North Vietnam. Imagine his
credibility were he elected President and then asked to lead
negotiations with NVN.
Hubert Humphrey: So characteristic of the worst in the Dem party --
the hack who cries when things go bad. He's probably never made an
honest decision in his life, and probably never been held responsible
for any decision made on his behalf. The Humphrey, New Deal,
high-taxes, Vietnam candidate was beaten back in 1968 and
deservedly SO. He's in the hands of the unions, and if it weren't
for George Meany, HHH would just be another homely face.
The Others: A bunch of amateurs playing the game. They are
laughable when put up against the sturdy experience of RN. It is
characteristic of the Dems today that they can't produce a President --
only a bunch of vice-presidential hopefuls; party hacks who are
beholden to every pressure group and interest group which ever
infiltrated the Democratic party.
Page 4
The essence of the speech should be to show how, in contrast,
every Dem is a tenor in a bass choir. Not one of them is capable
of making the hard decisions RN has. Yet they run around the
country with their "Chicken Littleism" -- a faint-hearted approach
to American problems, holding the belief that America has lost
its will. A bunch of hogwash which will be exposed in November
of 1972 when the American public will realize it has a President
to select.
Also suggest a few cracks at Congress dragging its feet --
setting the stage for RN versus Congress.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 10, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
FROM: KENNETH L. KHACHIGIAN
SUBJECT: THOUGHTS TOWARD 1972
A number of things have occurred to me regarding the 1972
elections, and here they are for what they're worth.
After all the hokum, hoopla, P.R. and direct mail, the
President is still the greatest determinative of the election results
when you get down to the nut-cutting. How do you marshall the
"Presidential Presence" to do the most good for the purpose of
re-electing RN?
1. Get a good theme and stick with it. The best one -- and that
which has already been articulated by RN -- is generally "What's
right in America. " But it needs a new casting or the rhetoric on
it will get stale.
Essentially, RN is placed historically at a time of great cynicism
when the fashionable left is to RN and America what the Jacobins
were to Edmund Burke and the Continent. I envision an RN who casts
himself in Burke's role, defending the wisdom and richness of our
patrimony against those who mock and defy it. Moreover, it should be'
done with noble rhetoric -- clean and eloquent -- from the President.
The real America is not the racist, imperialist, rotten country that
some would have us believe -- but the real America includes the
hundreds of volunteers who this last summer combed the mountains
looking for a frightened little boy suffering from epilepsy and aphasia.
Or the young girl who collected thousands of food coupons to purchase
kidney machines where they were not previously available -- and the
hundreds of people who heard of her cause and sent her additional
coupons. (Anecdotal rhetoric can be highly effective)
Page 2
This is the real America. RN could light a fire under this
spirit. Because he is the President, there is a great deal to say about
a campaign filled with this kind of moral suasion. In the classical
conservative sense, RN will be the nation's bulwark against the
wreckers of social stability the defender of the very foundations
of our culture.
I have a feeling that this approach would appeal pretty much
across the spectrum -- from hard hat to suburbia -- to everyone
who feels threatened by the times and the pace of social change.
/
2. While RN defends what we have, he would be remiss to
eschew progress. To this extent, the rhetorical tool is: while
we should preserve the wealth of our heritage, we cannot be
satisfied, and we must look to enriching that heritage. One thing
for RN to convey in the campaign is the impression that great work
remains to be done that he isn't satisfied with what has gone by
the boards.
It won't work to say: "We've tripled spending on X, or increased
the size of Y or proposed new legislation for Z. " That was Lyndon
Johnson, and it would have done LBJ in if he stuck it out in 1968 --
that's a defensive trap we shouldn't fall into. Institutional departures
from the norm are O. k. when built upon a solid appreciation of the past.
Take John Lindsay -- he's always hitting out in "anger" at the
"large, powerful, often immovable forces" which guide our lives.
That's the "Secret Liberal" in Lindsay on the record he is the
"Real Liberal" depending on shopworn, orthodox solutions. What
really makes RN so unique as a President and what we have to
convey - is that he is not wedded to dogma; he can and will act
with a degree of innovation.
3. Let's explore not making law and order an issue in the 1972
Presidential campaign. Why? Basically, law and order simply
might be our albatross in 1972; moreover, it tends to open the door for
the Democrats. No matter what the Democrats' record they
are unprincipled on this issue -- they have no compunctions about
twirling a billy club if it means getting re-clected. They read Scammon
too well and it worked exceedingly well for them in 1970. They will
fool the voters, and believe me they will get away with it.
Page 3
As for us; the public knows RN is a strong law and order type.
If we force the issue, the Dems will get pro-cop, get that issue
out of the way, and go on to the issues which they can claim as
their own. It's simply going to be too hard to tar them as soft on
criminals.
Law and order, as Scammon/Wattenberg point out is an
Executive's issue -- they point to mayors, governors and Presidents.
But the mistake they make, I believe, is that it is not a President's
issue. The President can do almost nothing (with the exception of
the District of Columbia) to lower crime rates in the country.
Voters identify local police with their mayors -- Frank Rizzo can
win in Philadelphia, and RN cannot.
Simply put: Bringing down crime is not an issue which will plus
out for RN in 1972 people know that he can't do much about it,
so why should we risk getting stuck with the blame when crime rates
are still going up? Opening up the issue allows the Dems to do two
things: (a) point out that crime is still going up despite RN's 1968
statements, and (b) that what we have done is repressive and ineffec-
tual.
Listen to the warning words of our friend James J. Kilpatrick:
"Richard Nixon dealt with this situation in his 1968 campaign: 'We
have to stop this revolving door that spews embittered, sullen men
out onto our streets. 1 Plainly, the revolving door still spins. " That's
tough coming from Kilpo, but at least he shows a direction we might
take: "What to do?
it comes back to the point of beginning:
Parents, schools, churches the unseen but palpable attitudes of our
whole society. If these can be strengthened, crime can be reduced.
It's as simple, and as fearfully difficult, as that. 11
My vote is simply this: Law and order is not a suitable central
issue for the 1972 campaign. I know it is tempting to go on the attack
with this issue because people are still worried about high crime
according to the polls, but the best we can do is to emphasize (as the
AG has done in several speeches) that local law enforcement is the front
line against crime and that RN will give them the moral support
they don't get from the liberals. But beyond this, my strong recomm-
endation, from this vantage point is that law and order should be a
peripheral issue in 1972.
Page 4
At therisk of being maudlin, let me make one more argument
against the law and order issue. I'm afraid I don't have a great deal
of proof for it, but it is instinctual in character. Let's consider the
mood of the voter on election day. Remember for millions of
Americans, the Presidential election is of bland importance they
could care less. They focus on it for one day every four years; political
awareness indexes among the general electorate are usually low.
What is on their minds in early November? For one thing, women
are thinking of the holidays Thanksgiving is only 2 1/2 weeks away
and Christmas comes right after that. They probably just as soon
not be reminded that Ed Muskie's election will result in their mugging.
The kids are back in school, the days are shorter, and the holidays
are happy times. The world series and the Olympics have just ended
two of the most permanent institutions we have. There is regularity and
stability which is fostered by these events and coupled with the thought
of stuffed turkeys, law and order rhetoric just doesn't fill the bill.
The mood is one of serenity and well-being people would rather not
have rapings on their minds; I think they would rather hear talk of
peace and calm in a shaken world. That comes right down the alley
for RN's strongest suit in the campaign -- peace, good relations with
other countries, negotiation, China and SALT initiatives. As I've
said in other memos, let's not lose sight of these strong political
issues.
4. We need to start thinking about long-range planning on this
subject of the Presidential Presence. The logical time to kick the
theme off is with the State of the Union Address. I recommend that
it should not be a conventional address filled with legislative programs
because these programs will not become issues to help us in the
campaign. Instead, I suggest RN make the State of the Union an address
to the Nation on the moral and cultural "state" or health of the Union.
This is where the theme of a "strong America" is set down. Of course,
I don't say ignore all traditional SOTU remarks, but there really ought
to be an emphasis on that theme which RN will carry to the country
for the remainder of the year. This is a chance to set the stage to
draw the rules according to how we want to play the game.
The American people like nothing better than to see their President
be Presidential solid leadership for the folks put forth with lyrical
and noble (though not turgid) rhetoric. Low-keyed eloquence will just
probably help us wipe Moderate Muskic, Haranguing Hubert and
Kinetic Kennedy off the political stage.
But the long-range thinking should look at other events which are
conducive for RN to strike his theme. Memorial day (or around there)
might be an appropriate time to start the peace and stability issue
a big speech at a proper forum-would do it. July 4th might be well
to use for an address. And frankly, on Labor Day, I would send RN
to Cadillac Square in Michigan for the most unusual kick-off to a
Republican Presidential campaign.
Page 5
What good reason exists that says only Democrats can address
union members on Labor Day of election years. RN is President
of all the people, and should not be afraid of walking into any
forum. It would be highly imaginative to articulate his campaign
theme to workers across the nation who perhaps most strongly
resent the assault on America. (confronting your adversaries is
good politics -- the same reasoning I had when I suggested RN should
address a Black audience)
By and large, I feel that discussing several issues in 1972 will
have a minimal impact on the campaign (with the exception of peace
and the economy). Most voters have probably already locked in their
perception of the issues and will be looking for extra elements on which
to judge the candidates. It is this precise reason that Ed Muskie
is doing as well in the polls as he is. People don't really know
where he stands yet he projects an appealing imagery of steadiness
and calm. So we must ourselves give great attention to the notion of
Presidential. Presence.
Some other thoughts:
In line with the above analysis, it becomes imperative that
any media campaign dwell at length with the fact that RN is President.
If I had it my way, I would not pay for any TV time to show RN on
the stump the networks will pick up the stump speech and the
crowds. As for us, our decision should be to show the President
as President. In the Lincoln sitting room, the Oval Office, the
Cabinet room, the Rose Garden, the EOB office at every instance
demonstrating to the public the President at work.
The same thoughtful speeches which were given as radio
addresses in 1968 should go on TV on at least three or four occasions
taped in different areas of the White House showing RN at his conver
sational best. Ed Muskie is going to come on as the "great healer. "
Muskie's only problem is that no one can heal like the President of
the United States. I would also like to see some film with the President
and his staff (the Cabinet room drug thing on ABC got good reviews
for the peek at Presidential decisionmaking). Quiet sessions with
HRH or Kissinger of Ehrlichmen. I would even suggest some sessions
with younger staff to highlight the point that RN has a great deal of
youth working for him. The main point is to impart to the public
the quiet but firm President that senior staff see every day the
sense of direction and vision RN gives to his staff ought to be shared
with the voter. Besides, there is a great deal of intrigue about
seeing the President at work.
Page 6
The advantage we have is that we can visually prove that
RN is a heavyweight, and by implication that his opponent is a
lightweight. You don't change Captains when you've already gota
good one at the helm. In short, we ought to take the opportunity to
show the finer qualities of RN as President that the media rarely
share with the public. If they won't do it for us, we should do it
for ourselves. An electorate which sees the Republic in firm hands
will hesitate to vote the President out of office.
-- The visual impact must be one of the substance of the
Presidency. We can handle attack material with our friends on the
Hill, with Dole and the State Chairmen. The Veep can be used as
well to provide some tough analysis of the opposition - - although it might
be desirable to elevate his rhetoric as well (that is a judgement which
may have to wait until the campaign itself).
But as for the President, there seems to me to be no question
about it: He is the number one campaign asset. At the beginning
of the campaign, he should open up with a nationwide address,
explaining to the public why a President traditionally must take
to the hustings -- that he will be a "partisan of principle, 11 that it is
his responsibility and privilege to carry the word to the country.
It is not divisive; it is in the American political tradition, etc.
With the ground rules laid by the President, he can stump the
country with a hearty campaign, taking the Presidency and its
considerable prestige to the people saying: we've come this far,
now let's keep going. This is leadership at its finest and politics
at its best.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 10, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
FROM: KENNETH L. KHACHIGIAN
SUBJECT: THOUGHTS TOWARD 1972
A number of things have occurred to me regarding the 1972
elections, and here they are for what they're worth.
After all the hokum, hoopla, P.R. and direct mail, the
President is still the greatest determinative of the election results
when you get down to the nut-cutting. How do you marshall the
"Presidential Presence" to do the most good for the purpose of
re-electing RN?
1. Get a good theme and stick with it. The best one -- and that
which has already been articulated by RN is generally "What's
right in America. 11 But it needs a new casting or the rhetoric on
it will get stale.
Essentially, RN is placed historically at a time of great cynicism
when the fashionable left is to RN and America what the Jacobins
were to Edmund Burke and the Continent. I envision an RN who casts
himself in Burke's role, defending the wisdom and richness of our
patrimony against those who mock and defy it. Moreover, it should be'
done with noble rhetoric -- clean and eloquent -- from the President.
The real America is not the racist, imperialist, rotten country that
some would have us believe but the real America includes the
hundreds of volunteers who this last summer combed the mountains
looking for a frightened little boy suffering from epilepsy and aphasia.
Or the young girl who collected thousands of food coupons to purchase
kidney machines where they were not previously available -- and the
hundreds of people who heard of her cause and sent her additional
coupons. (Anecdotal rhetoric can be highly effective)
Page 2
This is the real America. RN could light a fire under this
spirit. Because he is the President, there is a great deal to say about
a campaign filled with this kind of moral suasion. In the classical
conservative sense, RN will be the nation's bulwark against the
wreckers of social stability -- the defender of the very foundations
of our culture.
I have a feeling that this approach would appeal pretty much
across the spectrum -- from hard hat to suburbia -- to everyone
who feels threatened by the times and the pace of social change.
1
2. While RN defends what we have, he would be remiss to
eschew progress. To this extent, the rhetorical tool is: while
we should preserve the wealth of our heritage, we cannot be
satisfied, and we must look to enriching that heritage. One thing
for RN to convey in the campaign is the impression that great work
remains to be done -- that he isn't satisfied with what has gone by
the boards.
It won't work to say: "We've tripled spending on X, or increased
the size of Y or proposed new legislation for Z. 11 That was Lyndon
Johnson, and it would have done LBJ in if he stuck it out in 1968
that's a defensive trap we shouldn't fall into. Institutional departures
from the norm are o.k. when built upon a solid appreciation of the past.
Take John Lindsay -- he's always hitting out in "anger" at the
"large, powerful, often immovable forces" which guide our lives.
That's the "Secret Liberal" in Lindsay on the record he is the
"Real Liberal" depending on shopworn, orthodox solutions. What
really makes RN so unique as a President and what we have to
convey - is that he is not wedded to dogma; he can and will act
with a degree of innovation.
3. Let's explore not making law and order an issue in the 1972
Presidential campaign. Why? Basically, law and order simply
might be our albatross in 1972; moreover, it tends to open the door for
the Democrats. No matter what the Democrats' record they
are unprincipled on this issue -- they have no compunctions about
twirling a billy club if it means getting elected. They read Scammon
too well and it worked exceedingly well for them in 1970. They will
fool the voters, and believe me they will get away with it.
Page 3
As for us; the public knows RN is a strong law and order type.
If we force the issue, the Dems will get pro-cop, get that issue
out of the way, and go on to the issues which they can claim as
their own. It's simply going to be too hard to tar them as soft on
criminals.
Law and order, as Scammon/Wattenberg point out is an
Executive's issue -- they point to mayors, governors and Presidents.
But the mistake they make, I believe, is that it is not a President's
issue. The President can do almost nothing (with the exception of
the District of Columbia) to lower crime rates in the country.
Voters identify local police with their mayors Frank Rizzo can
win in Philadelphia, and RN cannot.
Simply put: Bringing down crime is not an issue which will plus
out for RN in 1972 people know that he can't do much about it,
so why should we risk getting stuck with the blame when crime rates
are still going up? Opening up the issue allows the Dems to do two
things: (a) point out that crime is still going up despite RN's 1968
statements, and (b) that what we have done is repressive and ineffec-
tual.
Listen to the warning words of our friend James J. Kilpatrick:
"Richard Nixon dealt with this situation in his 1968 campaign: 'We
have to stop this revolving door that spews embittered, sullen men
out onto our streets. I Plainly, the revolving door still spins. 11 That's
tough coming from Kilpo, but at least he shows a direction we might
take: "What to do?
it comes back to the point of beginning:
Parents, schools, churches the unseen but palpable attitudes of our
whole society. If these can be strengthened, crime can be reduced.
It's as simple, and as fearfully difficult, as that. "
My vote is simply this: Law and order is not a suitable central
issue for the 1972 campaign. I know it is tempting to go on the attack
with this issue because people are still worried about high crime
according to the polls, but the best we can do is to emphasize (as the
AG has done in several speeches) that local law enforcement is the front
line against crime and that RN will give them the moral support
they don't get from the liberals. But beyond this, my strong recomm-
endation, from this vantage point is that law and order should be a
peripheral issue in 1972.
Page 4
At the risk of being maudlin, let me make one more argument
against the law and order issue. I'm afraid I don't have a great deal
of proof for it, but it is instinctual in character. Let's consider the
mood of the voter on election day. Remember for millions of
Americans, the Presidential election is of bland importance they
could care less. They focus on it for one day every four years; political
awareness indexes among the general electorate are usually low.
What is on their minds in early November? For one thing, women
are thinking of the holidays Thanksgiving is only 2 1/2 weeks away
and Christmas comes right after that. They probably just as soon
not be reminded that Ed Muskie's election will result in their mugging.
Thé kids are back in school, the days are shorter, and the holidays
are happy times. The world series and the Olympics have just ended
two of the most permanent institutions we have. There is regularity and
stability which is fostered by these events and coupled with the thought
of stuffed turkeys, law and order rhetoric just doesn't fill the bill.
The mood is one of serenity and well-being people would rather not
have rapings on their minds; I think they would rather hear talk of
peace and calm in a shaken world. That comes right down the alley
for RN's strongest suit in the campaign peace, good relations with
other countries, negotiation, China and SALT initiatives. As I've
said in other memos, let's not lose sight of these strong political
issues.
4. We need to start thinking about long-range planning on this
subject of the Presidential Presence. The logical time to kick the
theme off is with the State of the Union Address. I recommend that
it should not be a conventional address filled with legislative programs
because these programs will not become issues to help us in the
campaign. Instead, I suggest RN make the State of the Union an address
to the Nation on the moral and cultural "state" or health of the Union.
This is where the theme of a "strong America" is set down. Of course,
I don't say ignore all traditional SOTU remarks, but there really ought
to be an emphasis on that theme which RN will carry to the country
for the remainder of the year. This is a chance to set the stage to
draw the rules according to how we want to play the game.
The American people like nothing better than to see their President
be Presidential -- solid leadership for the folks put forth with lyrical
and nóble (though not turgid) rhetoric. Low-keyed eloquence will just
probably help us wipe Moderate Muskie, Haranguing Hubert and
Kinetic Kennedy off the political stage.
But the long-range thinking should look at other events which are
conducive for RN to strike his theme. Memorial day (or around there)
might be an appropriate time to start the peace and stability issue
a big speech at a proper forung-would do it. July 4th might be well
to use for an address. And frankly, on Labor Day, I would send RN
to Cadillac Square in Michigan for the most unusual kick-off to a
Republican Presidential campaign.
Page 5
What good reason exists that says only Democrats can address
union members on Labor Day of election years. RN is President
of all the people, and should not be afraid of walking into any
forum. It would be highly imaginative to articulate his campaign
theme to workers across the nation who perhaps most strongly
resent the assault on America. (confronting your adversaries is
good politics the same reasoning I had when I suggested RN should
address a Black audience)
By and large, I feel that discussing several issues in 1972 will
have a minimal impact on the campaign (with the exception of peace
and the economy). Most voters have probably already locked in their
perception of the issues and will be looking for extra elements on which
to judge the candidates. It is this precise reason that Ed Muskie
is doing as well in the polls as he is. People don't really know'
where he stands yet he projects an appealing imagery of steadiness
and calm. So we must ourselves give great attention to the notion of
Presidential Presence.
Some other thoughts:
In line with the above analysis, it becomes imperative that
any media campaign dwell at length with the fact that RN is President.
If I had it my way, I would not pay for any TV time to show RN on
the stump the networks will pick up the stump speech and the
crowds. As for us, our decision should be to show the President
as President. In the Lincoln sitting room, the Oval Office, the
Cabinet room, the Rose Garden, the EOB office -- at every instance
demonstrating to the public the President at work.
The same thoughtful speeches which were given as radio
addresse in 1968 should go on TV on at least three or four occasions
taped in different areas of the White House showing RN at his conver-
sational best. Ed Muskie is going to come on as the "great healer. 11
Muskie's only problem is that no one can heal like the President of
the United States. I would also like to see some film with the President
and his staff (the Cabinet room drug thing on ABC got good reviews
for the peek at Presidential decisionmaking). Quiet sessions with
HRH or Kissinger of Ehrlichmen. I would even suggest some sessions
with younger staff to highlight the point that RN has a great deal of
youth working for him. The main point is to impart to the public
the quiet but firm President that senior staff see every day the
sense of direction and vision RN gives to his staff ought to be shared
with the voter. Besides, there is a great deal of intrigue about
seeing the President at work.
Page 6
The advantage we have is that we can visually prove that
RN is a heavyweight, and by implication that his opponent is a
lightweight. You don't change Captains when you've already gota
good one at the helm. In short, we ought to take the opportunity to
show the finer qualities of RN as President that the media rarely
share with the public. If they won't do it for us, we should do it.
for ourselves. An electorate which sees the Republic in firm hands
will hesitate to vote the President out of office.
The visual impact must be one of the substance of the
Presidency. We can handle attack material with our friends on the
Hill, with Dole and the State Chairmen. The Veep can be used as
well to provide some tough analysis of the opposition -- although it might
be desirable to elevate his rhetoric as well (that is a judgement which
may have to wait until the campaign itself).
But as for the President, there seems to me to be no question
about it: He is the number one campaign asset. At the beginning
of the campaign, he should open up with a nationwide address,
explaining to the public why a President traditionally must take
to the hustings -- that he will be a "partisan of principle, 11 that it is
his responsibility and privilege to carry the word to the country.
It is not divisive; it is in the American political tradition, etc.
With the ground rules laid by the President, he can stump the
country with a hearty campaign, taking the Presidency and its
considerable prestige to the people saying: we've come this far,
now let's keep going. This is leadership at its finest and politics
at its best.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
DETERMINED TO BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
E.O. 12065, Section 6-102
July 26, 1971
NARS, Date
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR: PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
FROM: KENNETH L. KHACHIGIAN 20am
SUBJECT: THE BLACK VOTER
There is no reason for us to kiss off the Black vote in 1972.
I think we can get more than we did in 1968, and I think we can do it in such
a way as not to alienate white voters in the South or elsewhere. What
follows is a rationale for seeking the Black vote and a strategy which
suggests how to go about doing it.
DO WE NEED IT?
We may need more of the Black vote than we got in 1968 --
especially assuming an election which is as close. Looking at states
where a few thousand votes might be crucial, you can see the
opportunities that lay there for us. For example, Illinois, Missouri,
Texas, Ohio, New Jersey and California might all be extremely close
votes. Twenty thousand to 50, 000 more votes in each of those states
might make a difference (if you consider that it means 20, 000-50, 000
less votes for our opponent).
In 1968, RN got 12% of the Black vote. Assuming in 1968 he got
that up to 20%, it would mean enough votes to add cushions in the
states I just mentioned. In other words, we begin from such a low
base, and we go no where but up, because 12% is probably a rock
bottom support level among Blacks. (Even in the latest Harris
matchup with EMK, RN is seen getting 13% of the Black vote against
71% for EMK with 14% not sure. EMK is, with Humphrey, the most
popular among the Blacks, and if we have 13% now, we should be able
to build upon it. We could really move successfully if Muskie were
the opponent because I think he would evoke very little emotion with
Black voters)
Page 2
And in the South, we have an even better chance with Black
voters and not necessarily at the expense of the Southern vote.
In a Gallup poll which shows low approval ratings for RN among
Blacks, the one shining light for RN was the Southern Black 42%
approved of the way he was handling his job as President while 40%
disapproved. Thus, a respectable showing among Blacks in the
South, where races will be tight if Wallace runs, will give us added
cushion where we might least expect it.
In other words, I think, on balance, it is to our benefit to
move our percentage of the Black vote up. Two questions remain:
(1) How do we do it? and (2) Will it hurt us among RNs more
traditional electoral base.
HOW DO WE DO IT?
First of all, we can't do it by outpromising the Democrats.
Besides, we have the FDR-JFK kneejerk conditioning to combat.
Moreover, too many promises with too much hokey rhetoric about
equality will turn off our other supporters (and probably the Blacks
themselves who would view such an RN posture with skepticism).
The way to do it essentially is to approach them frankly i.e.,
hit them between the eyes. Republicans simply cannot succeed by
fawning over Blacks with the standard Democrat rhetoric of
"ghettos, " "oppression," "poverty, " etc. That's a lot of bull anyway.
The majority of Blacks are bona fide members of the great American
Middle Class.
Thus, for one thing, I suggest that we choose an appropriate forum
for RN to address the Blacks, and strongly recommend that we plan
now for him to attend the NAACP convention which probably will be
scheduled for next July. This, I believe, has great advantages.
Look, for example, how JFK put the Catholic issue to rest (at least
sufficiently to be elected). He went to a Protestant meeting of clergy
in the heart of Protestantism -- Texas. He pulled no punches, and he
put it right on the line, and if nothing else he created the image of
willing to fight for what he thought was right. He also got the press
slobbering all over him for his "courage. 11 In fact, this was a public
relations coup for JFK.
Page 3
For the same reasons, I recommend RN going right into the
lions' den. There might be some hostility, and even statements
by Wilkins that he is still not satisfied with RN's policies. But I
think RN would come out on top. Why?
RN could frankly ask for their vote something we Republicans
rarely come out and say to Blacks. He would label as hogwash the
notion that no movement is taking place for Blacks (see attached
excellent article from Wall Street Journal). He would suggest that
the Dems have had the Blacks in their back pockets since FDR and
still they complain -- is it perhaps the Dems take them for granted?
He would put to bed the notion of America being the most racist empire --
how about Hitler, Stalin and the Kulaks, the Ottoman Turks, etc.
Why, then, do Blacks insist on America being racist? (Note: Blacks
were dying in Vietnam in greater proportions under JFK & LBJ than
they have under RN).
Most importantly, he should tell them that he wonders why his
critics, especially the Dems, go around painting all Blacks as poor
and slum-ridden, as poverty-stricken and alienated. That is pure
condescension. That is why he, RN, will not indulge in that kind
of rhetoric. It simply keeps current the stereotype of Blacks. If
Blacks want to have the world thinking they're all poor, downtrodden
ghetto-dwellers. then they ought to vote for the Democrats who show
them no respect.
He could then reel off some statistics about Black progress
under his Administration; the record's not all that bad. Action on
drugs, welfare reform, law and order -- these are all things
which click with Blacks, but the media rarely points them out
to Blacks.
And here's the main point. RN will not have given an inch,
but in the meantime, I think, will have won the grudging respect of
Black voters -- and maintaining this posture throughout the campaign
will do him no harm.
The media would play it up as a bold stroke by RN (hopefully),
and at least not paint RN as a racist by implication.
Page 4
WHAT ARE THE RISKS AMONG OUR OTHER SUPPORTERS?
I don't think such an approach would cause us to lose votes in
the South or among blue-collar supporters. In fact, it is my belief
that these people will also come away with more respect for RN,
for standing up to standard ploy of giving the Blacks the moon. In all
candor, many whites resent tle fact that Blacks complain taking
the attitude: "why are they so ungrateful? After all, they say, it
is their tax dollar which goes to many Black poverty programs and
welfare, etc. At least RN has guts enough to say to them: wait a
minute, you are not as bad off as everyone says you are. And most
of all, whites resent the racist label, SO it is logical for RN to put
that issue into perspective.
In sum, I think the risks are minimal if this is done carefully
and correctly. And in the South, I think it is important to note that
we can gain votes from both races simply because RN has brought some
calm into a difficult situation. Sure, he followed the Supreme Court
mandate on desegregation, but he didn't bully around the South, and
he didn't stomp the Black under his foot. And besides, look at
racially segregated Northern schools. Emphasizing that Black and white
in the South have reconciled their own problems in a largely calm
manner should not do us much damage there. Obviously, there must
be some hope 11 at HEW doesn't give us too many more Austin-type
decisions in the South, but by and large, it seems clear to me that
RN has given a better shake to the South than it would have gotten
under a Democrat -- and all this without rending the Nation apart.
Let's give this thing some thought -- I'm not sure myself on all
the details. But there is every reason to approach the Black vote
in a uniquely new way -- the old way doesn't work, and we might just
pick up some unexpected support.
Attachment
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
DETERMINED TO BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
July 26, 1971
E.O. 12065, Section 6-102
By
NARS, Date
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR: PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
FROM: KENNETH L. KHACHIGIAN
Van
SUBJECT: THE BLACK VOTER
There is no reason for us to kiss off the Black vote in 1972.
I think we can get more than we did in 1968, and I think we can do it in such
a way as not to alienate white voters in the South or elsewhere. What
follows is a rationale for seeking the Black vote and a strategy which
suggests how to go about doing it.
DO WE NEED IT?
We may need more of the Black vote than we got in 1968
specially assuming an election which is as close. Looking at states
where a few thousand votes might be crucial, you can see the
opportunities that lay there for us. For example, Illinois, Missouri,
Texas, Ohio, New Jersey and California might all be extremely close
votes. Twenty thousand to 50,000 more votes in each of those states
might make a difference (if you consider that it means 20, 000-50, 000
less votes for our opponent).
In 1968, RN got 12% of the Black vote. Assuming in 1968 he got
that up to 20%, it would mean enough votes to add cushions in the
states I just mentioned. In other words, we begin from such a low
base, and we go no where but up, because 12% is probably a rock
bottom support level among Blacks. (Even in the latest Harris
matchup with EMK, RN is seen getting 13% of the Black vote against
71% for EMK with 14% not sure. EMK is, with Humphrey, the most
popular among the Blacks, and if we have 13% now, we should be able
to build upon it. We could really move successfully if Muskie were
the opponent because I think he would evoke very little emotion with
Black voters)
Page 2
And in the South, we have an even better chance with Black
voters and not necessarily at the expense of the Southern vote.
In a Gallup poll which shows low approval ratings for RN among
Blacks, the one shining light for RN was the Southern Black 42%
approved of the way he was handling his job as President while 40%
disapproved. Thus, a respectable showing among Blacks in the
South, where races will be tight if Wallace runs, will give us added
cushion where we might least expect it.
In other words, I think, on balance, it is to our benefit to
move our percentage of the Black vote up. Two questions remain:
(1) How do we do it? and (2) Will it hurt us among RNs more
traditional electoral base.
HOW DO WE DO IT?
First of all, we can't do it by outpromising the Democrats.
Besides, we have the FDR-JFK kneejerk conditioning to combat.
Moreover, too many promises with too much hokey rhetoric about
equality will turn off our other supporters (and probably the Blacks
themselves who would view such an RN posture with skepticism).
The way to do it essentially is to approach them frankly i.
hit them between the eyes. Republicans simply cannot succeed by
fawning over Blacks with the standard Democrat rhetoric of
"ghettos, 11 "oppression, " "poverty," etc. That's a lot of bull anyway.
The majority of Blacks are bona fide members of the great American
Middle Class.
Thus, for one thing, I suggest that we choose an appropriate forum
for RN to address the Blacks, and strongly recommend that we plan
now for him to attend the NAACP convention which probably will be
scheduled for next July. This, I believe, has great advantages.
Look, for example, how JFK put the Catholic issue to rest (at least
sufficiently to be elected). He went to a Protestant meeting of clergy
in the heart of Protestantism -- Texas. He pulled no punches, and he
put it right on the line, and if nothing else he created the image of
willing to fight for what he thought was right. He also got the press
slobbering all over him for his "courage. 11 In fact, this was a public
relations coup for JFK.
Page 3
For the same reasons, I recommend RN going right into the
lions' den. There might be some hostility, and even statements
by Wilkins that he is still not satisfied with RN's policies. But I
think RN would come out on top. Why?
RN could frankly ask for their vote -- something we Republicans
rarely come out and say to Blacks. He would label as hogwash the
notion that no movement is taking place for Blacks (see attached
excellent article from Wall Street Journal). He would suggest that
the Dems have had the Blacks in their back pockets since FDR and
still they complain -- is it perhaps the Dems take them for granted?
He would put to bed the notion of America being the most racist empire --
how about Hitler, Stalin and the Kulaks, the Ottoman Turks, etc.
Why, then, do Blacks insist on America being racist? (Note: Blacks
were dying in Vietnam in greater proportions under JFK & LBJ than
they have under RN).
Most importantly, he should tell them that he wonders why his
critics, especially the Dems, go around painting all Blacks as poor
and slum-ridden, as poverty-stricken and alienated. That is pure
condescension. That is why he, RN, will not indulge in that kind
of rhetoric. It simply keeps current the stereotype of Blacks. If
Blacks want to have the world thinking they're all poor, downtrodden
ghetto-dwellers, then they ought to vote for the Democrats who show
them no respect.
He could then reel off some statistics about Black progress
under his Administration; the record's not all that bad. Action on
drugs, welfare reform, law and order these are all things
which click with Blacks, but the media rarely points them out
to Blacks.
And here's the main point. RN will not have given an inch,
but in the meantime, I think, will have won the grudging respect of
Black voters and maintaining this posture throughout the campaign
will do him no harm.
The media would play it up as a bold stroke by RN (hopefully),
and at least not paint RN as a racist by implication.
Page 4
WHAT ARE THE RISKS AMONG OUR OTHER SUPPORTERS?
I don't think such an approach would cause us to lose votes in
the South or among blue-collar supporters. In fact, it is my belief
that these people will also come away with more respect for RN,
for standing up to standard ploy of giving the Blacks the moon. In all
candor, many whites resent the fact that Blacks complain -- taking
the attitude: "why are they so ungrateful?" After all, they say, it
is their tax dollar which goes to many Black poverty programs and
welfare, etc. At least RN has guts enough to say to them: wait a
minute, you are not as bad off as everyone says you are. And most
of all, whites resent the racist label, so it is logical for RN to put
that issue into perspective.
In sum, I think the risks are minimal if this is done carefully
and correctly. And in the South, I think it is important to note that
we can gain votes from both races simply because RN has brought some
calm into a difficult situation. Sure, he followed the Supreme Court
mandate on desegregation, but he didn't bully around the South, and
he didn't stomp the Black under his foot. And besides, look at
racially segregated Northern schools. Emphasizing that Black and white
in the South have reconciled their own problems in a largely calm
manner should not do us much damage there. Obviously, there must
be some hope that HEW doesn't give us too many more Austin-type
decisions in the South, but by and large, it seems clear to me that
RN has given a better shake to the South than it would have gotten
under a Democrat -- and all this without rending the Nation apart.
Let's give this thing some thought -- I'm not sure myself on all'
the details. But there is every reason to approach the Black vote
in a uniquely new way -- the old way doesn't work, and we might just
pick up some unexpected support.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
file
WASHINGTON
September 17, 1971
MEMORANDUM TO:
Ken Khachigian
FROM:
Pat Buchanan
Would hold onto the back-up materials. However, for HRH
and the Attorney General, would prefer, only a page and a
half. Which iterates the major anti-Muskie themes to which
we have contributed. And mention each of our success in
passing. We can now add the President's ripping of the "scab"
off Muskie -- on the black VEEP -- a course of action we
recommended in the briefing book. Can you draft 2 pages
Item #1, Item #2, etc.
Buchanan
draft Khachigian
9/24/71
RUNNING WITH MUSKIE --- OR HOW TO SNATCH DEFEAT FROM THE
JAWS
OF VICTORY
If Ed Muskie looks behidd him, he's going to see the
C
pack catching up, for just as sure as George McGovern
is a forlorn loser, Ed Muskie has deftly engineered 60%
away
his lead in the Democratic presidetial sweepstakes. MONDAY's
prediction of not 0 too long ago is CTD coming to pass:
Muskie looks like he
make it.
Item: When Muskie pulled into California last as
Labor
Day to kick off his campaign 1 he tound the prestigious California
Field poll waiting for him with the bad news that Ted
Kennedy led
among Democratic voters in California by
a margin of two to one.
Item: Muskie has frittered his Calluo noll leads.
He now trails Ted Kennedy as the favorite of the Democratic
voters and is being by President Nixon in the latest
Presidential trial heat.
Item: The trusty Christian Science Monitor poll of
local
Democratic leaders shows that Muskie has "dropped
back" over the last few months from his early leads in the
eyes of OVGIZ 30% of those polled. Over holf 02 the Democratic
pols questioned said there vas still a possibility of
page 2
a dark horse emerging. Bad news for the guy they said would
walk away
from the field in 1972.
Why the turnaround on Muskie?
Washington colummists, Evans and Novak, have
reported that Muskie has lost ground
"throwh
a
series of errors and misjudgments." The political miscues
have made Democratic governors disenchanted with Big Ed
and this is precisely the reason such big@ state governors
as Ohio's John Gilligan are going Dr to run as favorite
sons to pre-empt Muskie's bumbling participation in their
primaries.
Muskie's position on the central issues are causing
him trouble. His down-tho-line support of forced busing to
Busing
achieve racial } Y.S Theres balance is simply bad
policy. While he has tried to cover himself on this issue,
Muskie noverthe SS has maintained that busing is a "useful
too!" to anhieve invortion corgesting that Coscoo basing
page 3
would rapidly bring the
destruction of the
neighborhood school concept.
Being a strong
advocate of busing is not going to help Muskie with the
millions of parents who prefer their children's education
to be peaceful instead of disruptive, and if Muskie continues
to abet the - systematic destruction of American education,
the fat cats who are bankrolling Muskie better be advited
that they have invested in a bear nation market.
Muskie fares no better on other issues. His petulant
rantings over Presidents Nixon's economic initiatives have
and
le
ft
DE
him out in the C* cold during the : freeze,/out
It has been generally
of touch with union rank and file
to
acknowledged that his substitute suggestion of a consumer
tax credit fell on its face --- a fact reported by liberal
pundit, Joseph Kraft. Add these troubles to to hisx"
Victnerery
are tardy embrace of/Jove feithers, THE and you have
page 4
a presidential hopeful in deep trouble.
As if to hasten his demise, Ed Muskie made (as Republican
Hugh Scott noted) a "voyage from foot to mouth" on the
sensitive issue of whether black 150 citizens can play a
role in Democratic did political circles. Big Ed, who
maintains that he's in favor of civil rights as much
as
anyone, enraged black leaders by telling them that although
they have broken their backs for the party, they
of might as well forget about joining his ticket. The
response of black leaders: Guess coming to dinner, FAR?
Jet magazine, a prominent black publication promptly
blasted Muskie: "How the party's $ 1968 vice presidential
candidate, a member of the Polish minority, would feel free
to 'explode' the political aspirations of millions of Black
voters CO at the start of his details intensive drive for the
with nomination was baffling. NAME Job suggested that
Backie elect had The deem for the Domocrate Facty's
page 5
most faithful Black followers. "
Too bad for Muskie, but several Black leaders wouldn't
accept his if-your-black-step-back attitude. Black
Congresswoment, Shirley Chishosm, has now announced 0 she will
declare for the Presidency on New Years Day and enter at
least three primaries -- fighting Muskie in North Carolina,
Florida and California, on where he hoped he could again
take the Address black? vote for granted.
Jesse Tackson,
of Operation Breadbacket and 2. (if another prominent black
leader, called Muskie a "racist" and opined: "Muskie is
out
Muskie are has no domestic plans, or no economic
programs, nor has he outlined programs for bringing people
together.
Muskie smells musty."
To sum up the insensitive and divisve
Muskie position, political columnist John Roche said: "No
one wathin a barefoot innoncent wandering around the
White Roase.
page 6
What should really make
Mr.
Ed
nervous is that
his rivals smell
blood and won't leave the nomination
to the amateurish antics of the Downeast hero.
Teddy Kennedy has
seen what's happened and is clearly reappraising his
own coy position. Teddy is 3 disappointed with 1130
Muskie because Ed's
RECEIVED
Type
left-liberalism does not
take in the satin bot pents radicals that make up
because .Y his own constituency. Seeing NeGovern fumble around
like a fourth-string fullback $175 will soon convince Teddy
that he can't sit back and mater watch the Kennedy torch passed
on to Ed Muskie.
Kennedy's stapped up interest vas 40% confirmed recently
when Teddy and Joan visited Isreel, the de rigeur pilgrimay.
for Democratic presidential candidates on the make. The only
thing that Kennedy is waiting for is to see what John (tolevision
protide) ) Dindsay is going in do. Color, who his heart
page 7
in Manhattan, has got to 0 get into the primaries to
prove himself, and before he gets too far, Kennedy will
enter, scoop up the old Kennedy hands who were wet-nursing
George McGovern, and blitz the Democratic National Convention
carrying "the burden my brothers dropped." At least, that is
how the Kennddy forces see it, and to get there, only Muskie
S tunds slightly in the way.
hs for Muskie, the scenario of the primaries are not
hopeful for him. The first symbolic test in Now Hampshire
is not going to be the cotton candy that Muskie had hoped for.
Little
New Hempshire is Muskie country, it is in Maine's back AMERICAN
pock.
fores
yard, and nod one seriously expects Muskie to be
non
beaten there. But Muskie at a high goal
next March: he must match Richard
Mixon's 79% margin in the 1968 New Humpshire primary before
(31) 0011 iv 2 victory. AS Buskie callt nake 70% in
page 8
a state where he has everything going for him, then he is in
deep trouble. Other Democratics are virtually conceding New
Hampshire to Muskie and will show their faces only because
of the tradition of the first and primary.
If Muskie geas less than $1.12 75% of the New Hampshire
vote, he is going to be limping into Florida where his
refined Georgetown radicalism won't stand him in good stead.
All Democrats will be on the Florida primary ballot unless they
sign an affidavit saying they won't run for President, and
they will be gunning for Muskie who one way or the other.
Add to 200 the standards Democrat hopefulo the candidacies
of Geors Wallace and Shire Chisholm, and Muskie's going
to want to swallow hard and cry for his mother. Scoop Jackson,
who is aiming all his guns at Florida, will also be in Muskie's
way andivid 1 when the 00 duct settles, Muskie will no longer
be Mr. Clean.
page 9
Wisconsin follows Florida, and Muskie will take his
bleeding campaign in to face feisty George NcGovern whose
sell-out-Vietnam views find 07 favor among a great number
"
of dovish Democrats In Wisconsin. Not only will McGovern
be sure to give Muskie trouble, but Wisconsin's populare
Senator, Will
Promiire, is almost sure to make the run
to parlay his vast home state support into a bargaining
e
blic he can take to Miami to UP broker the a vice-
presidnStial nomination for himself. In short: Muskie
WINNER
looks like be will be Senied the Wisconsin victory that
he needs and must search for other
primaries to EXTR get the victory he needs.
But the other primaries include Tennessee and North
Carolina where GRANDING George NW IS Wallace will again probably
make thegamen income race in the Democratic primaires. Asking
Southern
Sales to swillow 73 Muskie over George
Wallace like asking the ribbi to deliver the Christene
page 10
sermon. Muskie's pro-busing stance won't help him in Dixie, Co
end 02 he just might find it a good idea to get out to
Oregon and California there Jackson, Lindsav and
Kennody will be waiting to ambush him. Oreoon is & in
Henry Jackson's back yard, and his popularity in the
Northwest is going to make Muskie's recovery somewhat difficult.
McGovern will have stuck to it out to Oregon, Lindsay will
be on the ballot, and Teddy will be waiting to pick up
the pieces in California.
enough
Having victories and to get to the convention,
Muskie will enter Miami Beach havin your outrageous temper
-
tested, his lightweight political positions aired, his
amateurish staff Number overwor) his deficit budget
stretched, and a left ving howling aiter his a marshmallow
positions. Ed Muskie's not out of the : to race yet; he's
got too much pride to pull out. But one is & thing is clear,
Nusble
cartlier
and
the
rice
page 11
to Miami will not be an easy one for the guy who just
weeks
ago everyone said had it made.