Ask the Scholar

Document scope · 1 page
doc
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 Republicans, re: California Republican Assembly's reasons for endorsing Nixon. 3 pages. [Letter], n.d. From Oscar A. Bigler to Nixon, re: Bigler's discussion with Senator Taft and the Republican party. 1 page. [Letter], 5/9/1962 To Bigler, re: The concerns of the Republican party. 1 page. [Letter], 5/8/1962 From Oscar Bigler to Conservative Americans, re: Opposition against meeting with Republicans. 1 page. [Letter], 5/1/1962 Nixon and California - 1962. 2 pages. [Memo], 5/14/1962 The Sacramento Bee: Editorial page and "Depends on Audience." 1 page. [Newspaper], 9/25/1962

Scholar Source Context

Document identity
localId
26127700
label
WHSF: Returned, 54-9
core
doc
dtoType
document
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26127700
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Returned, 54-9
description
This file contains: To Republicans, re: California Republican Assembly's reasons for endorsing Nixon. 3 pages. [Letter], n.d. From Oscar A. Bigler to Nixon, re: Bigler's discussion with Senator Taft and the Republican party. 1 page. [Letter], 5/9/1962 To Bigler, re: The concerns of the Republican party. 1 page. [Letter], 5/8/1962 From Oscar Bigler to Conservative Americans, re: Opposition against meeting with Republicans. 1 page. [Letter], 5/1/1962 Nixon and California - 1962. 2 pages. [Memo], 5/14/1962 The Sacramento Bee: Editorial page and "Depends on Audience." 1 page. [Newspaper], 9/25/1962
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Returned White House Special Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26127700
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e5617401ec49e14c
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library White House Special Files Collection Folder List Box Number Folder Number Document Date Document Type Document Description 54 9 n.d. Letter To Republicans, re: California Republican Assembly's reasons for endorsing Nixon. 3 pages. 54 9 05/09/1962 Letter From Oscar A. Bigler to Nixon, re: Bigler's discussion with Senator Taft and the Republican party. 1 page. 54 9 05/08/1962 Letter To Bigler, re: The concerns of the Republican party. 1 page. 54 9 05/01/1962 Letter From Oscar Bigler to Conservative Americans, re: Opposition against meeting with Republicans. 1 page. 54 9 05/14/1962 Memo Nixon and California - 1962. 2 pages. 54 9 09/25/1962 Newspaper The Sacramento Bee: Editorial page and "Depends on Audience." 1 page. Thursday, July 26, 2007 Page 1 of 1 Dear fellow Republican: As members of the California Republican Assembly, which last March 4 endorsed Nixon for the Republican nomination for Governor, the undersigned have been occasionally asked for the reasons why we support Dick Nixen. The undersigned in no way purport to speak for the California Republican Assembly as an organisation, preferring to let that endorsement speak for itself, but de keenly feel that developments since that endorsement force us to speak candidly to our colleagues in the Republican Party. The undersigned Republicans are for Dick Nixon for the following reasons: 1. His proven leadership and integrity in the field of government, coupled with a proven vote getting ability in never having lost an election in California; 2. His clear-cut and consistent political philosophy as spelled out day in and day out in public office by votes, speeches and conduct; 3. The recognition that Nixon is the best candidate to beat Brown and thereby assist in restoring the Republican Party, as well as the two-party system, in California and the nation; 4. Because Nixon, in announcing for Governor, pledged himself to a four-year term and removed himself as a potential Presidential candidate. 5. Because it is obvious that the Communists clear goal is to remove Richard Nixon from public life. (See attached clipping). The undersigned Republicans reject Mr. Shell's bid for the following reasons: 1. Because Mr. Shell has one of the worst records for unexcused absences from the Assembly floor for any Republican member of the Legislature in modern times. This despite the fact that he was the Republican minority leadery 2. Because, as the Republican legislative leader, Shell was the only Republican in California in a position to actually do some- thing about the excesses of the Brown Administration. At all times in the last four years the Republican minority has had the votes required to prevent budget passage and achieve needed economies. As floor leader during these four years, Shell was unable to organize the legislators who had elected him to make such a stand and state expenditures during the period of his leadership are now 45% higher than they were in 1958. -2- The only time economies have been affected in state government due to Republican action, was this year when a group of freshmen Republican assemblymen took over the leadership in Mr. Shell's absence and forced Brown to capitulate on the budget. 3. It is a matter of record that Shell was unable to organize any united Republican effort in 1961 which might have prevented the Democratic #errymander. Because the Republican assemblymen broke ranks and did not make a determined stand with the threat of a blocked budget, many Assembly and Congressional seats including those of Congressmen Rousselot, Mailliard, Hiestand and McDonough have much more unfavorable ratios of registration and are now in jeopardy. 4. Because we resent the acceptance by Mr. Shell in his Guberna- torial bid, of the endorsement of Mr. Robert Welch, a non- Californian, who is the leader of the John Birch Society; 5. Because we resent Mr. Shell's commitment to, and acceptance of the endorsement of the organization called "Californians for Goldwater". We believe that all California Republicans should be allowed in the Presidential primary of 1964 to name the candidate of their choice and should not be committed to one potential Presidential candidate at this early date. 6. Because we resent Joe Shell publicky urging Democrats to register as Republicans for the sole purpose of voting against Richard Nixon in the primary election (see attached letter and editorial). 7. Because it is clear that Democratic professionals hope for Shell's nomination. As one Democrat said, "if we could just have Shell as an opponent we could wrap Keck, Morton and "big oil" right around the neck of the Republican Party". 8. Because Mr. Shell has not spelled out a constructive program as to what he would accomplish if he would be elected Governor. Mr. Nixon has spelled out in much greater detail programs concerning the future of California. 9. Because we resent Shell's intemperate attacks such as accusing Nixon of leading us to "socialism" when elected Governor. We are firm believers in a free and open primary system. We believe, however, that a primary election can be conducted in such a way as to allow Republicans "as a minority party" to rally together again after the primary and go forward to victory in November. We believe Dick Nixon is conducting this kind of campaign. Unfortunately, Joe Shell clearly is not. -3- These are the reasons why the undersigned supported Nixon last March and the California Republican Assembly endorsed Mr. Nixon, and why we are working even harder for him today. Very truly,yours, OSCAR A. BIGLER BUSINESS CONBULTANT 7076 LA JOLLA BOULEVARD LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA May 9, 1962 Hon. Richard Nixon Post Office Box 6539 Los Angeles 55, California Dear Mr. Nixon: Thank you very much for your May 8 letter. Perhaps I can help my OWD poor power of expression by quoting part of a discussion with the late Senator Taft, whom I had the privilege of knowing slightly when I resided in my native state, Ohio, We were fellow Republicans, and were talking about the merits and weaknesses of the party system. We agreed that it wasn't a perfect system, but that it was better than any other system if it was a two party system. Senator Taft said that the first requisite for preserving a two party system was for the leaders of each party to publicly criticise only the acts of members of the opposing party, 1 asked him what would he do if, in a convention or primary contest, he was opposed by a Republican candidate who criticized his record or views, He replied that he would spend will of his time pointing out to the voters the faults of the Democratic party, plus quoting what the opposing Democratic candidates had said about each other, if they had indulged in criticism. He also said that noparty can be effective unless it wins elections, and the surest way to lose elections is for members of the same party to criticize each other Yours for an effective Republican party, /s/ Oscar A. Bigler handwritten: My vote always goes to Republican candidates like your good self, who criticize only the opposition. b-am May 8, 1962 Rigler, scar A. Dear Mr. Rigler: This La fuel & sete to tell you best fully I eletro your concern DE the medessity for cupy X all Espablicans to nourestrate on beating the casl opposities -- the CDC which gives the orders to the present Dowrone Had controla the Party organdzation La our State - not orde other. California support 1 approciate your thoughtfulsess La smaling me 8 copy of your letter is which you - effectively expressed your views is this regard, with every good wish, Maneraly, Mr. Oscar A. Rigler 7676 Ls Jells beaieved is Jells, California 100:0p OSCAR A. BIGLER I LA JOLLA CALIFORNIA 7676 La Jolin Blvd. May L 1962 Conservative Americans 4433 11 Cajon Doclevard Sab Dlogo 15, California Dear Size: 1 received in today's mail some material concerning a meeting to be hold Sunday, May 6, in the interest of certain listed Republican candidates. I'am a Republican and DU such I wish to specify why I am not interested is supporting any Republican candidate for any office oho has devoted any Name to attacking the record or actions of any other Republican candidate for the came office. Unloss the leaders of the Republican Party La Califor nia have enough brains to present a united front against the motley group which constitutes the Democratic Instruction I have enough broins to ignore their réforts. Sincerely, (Sign) Occur A. bigler Copy to will Republican condidates for officia listod. b-cm 5/14/02 Background Memo NIXON AND CALIFORNIA 1962 When he announced for Governor of California last year, Dick Nixon had no illusions about the odds against him on the Democratic side: a heavily swollen Democratic margin in registration, a Democratic strangle-hold on in the State Legislature, Congressional Delegation and constitutional offices, and a pitifully weak Republican statewide organization. What he could not have anticipated was the paradoxical attack he was to receive within his own party from the extreme right. During the 1960 Presidential campaign, probably no one was more hopeful of Nixon's election to the Presidency than Joe Shell, 43 year old Republican minority leader in the State Legislature. For several years he had been planning and working for the Republican nomination for Governor in 1962. Following the 1958 election which swept most of the big name Republicans out of office, Joe busily made himself indispensable to his fellow assemblymen dispensing his largess as chairman of the Legislative Campaign Committee. Despite his generally undistinguished record of leadership of the minority Republicans in the Legislature and his frequent absences while campaigning up and down the state, Shell, with the heavy financial backing of his father-in- law, Harold Morton, managed to assemble a typical California personal organization within the party oriented to his conservative philosophies. Following Nixon's announcement and the withdrawal of former Governor Knight (because of illness) and Lt. Governor Powers as candidates for Governor, many assumed Shell would drop out as well. Not so. But as filing closed in March, few gave Shell any appreciable opportunity against Nixon. In the last eight weeks, however, Shell has climbed from 7% of the Republican vote to 20% in the polls and some observers now feel with the amount of money he is spending particularly on television, he may approach 35% of the vote. What has brought about this upturn in Shell's fortunes? Shell's main pitch turns on his unabashed arch-conservatism. He has been endorsed by the Californians for Goldwater and eagerly accepts their support. He has been endorsed by Robert Welch, leader of the John Birch Society and says he welcomes the assistance of this group. He accuses Nixon of "middle of the roadism" and worse yet, says that Nixon as Governor would lead the state to socialism. He joins forces with Pat Brown in disputing Nixon's disdainer of any interest in the 1964 Republican Presidential nomination. Nixon, under this attack from the far right, must occasionally muse on having his conservatism and his credentials as an anti-Communist questioned. Against the advice of his friends, he struck out at Robert Welch, head of the John Birch Society because of his attack on Eisenhower "as a conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy." Nixon has questioned the constitutional amend- ment initiative to be voted upon by the voters of California which would outlaw -2- the Communist party on the basis that in his opinion it might jeopardize individual civil liberties through its poor drafting. Shell has seized on these two positions to appeal to the active anti-Communist groups. Beyond that, with the demands of his law practice and the months he spent in seclusion writing his book, many of his old California friends felt that Nixon had been too inaccessible in the period before he began his active campaigning. On the active campaign trail since February Nixon is concentrating heavy fire on Brown and scrupulously avoiding any comment on national and international issues. He is pleased with the large crowds he draws and the general reaction to his "person to person" campaigning. As one observer put it, "what the California elections will decide is the direction of the Republican party for at least the next decade. Shell's vote will be a measure of the Goldwater-Birch strength in California. But beyond that, can you imagine what the effect on the party nationally would be if Nixon lost California. The GOP would become a dwindling rear guard." Shell supporters argue that General Walker's poor showing in Texas was no adequate test since he was a political novice and he was never able to mount any kind of organized campaign. They point out that in the Presidential preferential primary of 1952, arch-conservative Congressman Werdel picked up better than 30% of the vote against then incumbent Governor Earl Warren. In the meantime, jovial Pat Brown joyously watches the proceedings from the sidelines, well financed and smugly contemplating the polls which show him for the first time enjoying a slight lead over Nixon.