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 Buchanan to Haldeman RE: ideas in the Rose memo. 2pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/18/1972
From Haldeman to Buchanan RE: explanation of McGovern's drop of fifteen points. 1pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/8/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144216
label
WHSF: Contested, 1-12
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144216
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 1-12
description
This file contains:
From Buchanan to Haldeman RE: ideas in the Rose memo. 2pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/18/1972
From Haldeman to Buchanan RE: explanation of McGovern's drop of fifteen points. 1pg. [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
26144216
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0adbc2cc4463cdf2
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
1
12
6/18/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Buchanan to Haldeman RE: ideas in
the Rose memo. 2pgs.
1
12
6/8/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Haldeman to Buchanan RE:
explanation of McGovern's drop of fifteen
points. 1pg.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Page 1 of 1
June 18, 1972
MEMORANDUM TO:
H. R. HALDEMAN
(Per Higby)
FROM:
PAT BUCHANAN
Some of the ideas in the Rose memorandum are good ones; others, in
my judgment, are not.
First, Packard and his friends will be with us anyway. They have a
"vested interest" in arms production; their group will be viewed in
the press as the "Military-Industrial Comples -- West. " Having
millions in profits tied up in military spending, they are hardly the
ones to make the case for us.
Second, the union folks should be gotten the message; and the ideas of
the UCLA computers running out a print of jobs to be lost under the
McGovern budget is excellent but keep the Captains of Industry away
from it. We have them. We want the workers. As for the UCLA thing,
Rose should get in touch with Ken, as well already have defense cranking
out something and this could be used as the basis to be run through
the computer.
Third, am not too concerned about the Post-Convention thing here as
McGovern has already been hurt in Southern California. The arguments
have already been made we can expand on them credibly since HHH
did the spadework.
Fourth, any analysis should not be restricted to Southern California.
But should include defense plants all over the United States, name them
and the number of workers, etc. Rose should get together with Ken
Khachigian on this -- this is one of the ideas we had in our original
memorandum.
Fifth, am against the "transition colloquium" idea. All this says is
that we agree with McGovern -- but he is going too far. Our case ought
to be that "no jobs" are going to be lost under RN; we don't need any
conferences to indicate that just a few will bechanged. Our argument is
-6-
that McGovern is a madman on defense, would strip us naked, and
throw thousands out on the street in the process -- and this chatter
about us being against defense spending, too, at this point in time does
not strengthen, but weaken, our presentation and makes George look
less rather than more radical.
Buchanan
June 8, 1972
MEMORANDUM TO:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
PAT BUCHANAN
From my knowledge only these can explain the precipitate McGovern
drop of fifteen points:
a) The Field Poll was wrong; I discount this -- as I have it from a
source that the Field Poll actually played down the McGovern spread,
which was larger than twenty points.
b) Humphrey attacks begin to pay off -- his attacks primarily on
defense cuts and jobs in California, on the welfare giveaways of
McGovern, on Israel and POWs. Despite the Humphrey stridency,
and panicky approach -- he must have sufficiently frightened many
people to convince 300, 000 to come his way. This I believe explains
it coupled with:
1. The Jackson and Yorty endorsements of HHH, which tended
to reinforce the Humphrey attackso on McGovern as a radical;
and
2. The surfacing in the California press of increasing numbers
of national Democrats calling GM and extremist, a guy who
will sink the whole ticket, etc.
What needs to be remembered is that for most of the nation, George
McGovern is someone they have become aware of for two weeks at
least, two months at most. First impressions are favorable -- but they
are not firm impressions.
What seems interesting is that McGovern who was 46-26 over Humphrey
got just about that: 46%. But Humphrey was who went from 26% to 40%
in a week -- So, did McGovern really lose any votes? Or did HHH
simply pick up from all the other Democrats, and pick up all the
undecideds as well -- by scaring the hell out of them.
Buchanan