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 RN RE: Presidential acceptance speech. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/17/1972
From Buchanan to Haldeman and Colson RE: Monday morning 9:15 meeting. 3 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 8/14/1972
From Buchanan to RN RE: thoughts on recently received poll briefing. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/6/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144220
label
WHSF: Contested, 1-14
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144220
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 1-14
description
This file contains:
From Buchanan to RN RE: Presidential acceptance speech. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/17/1972
From Buchanan to Haldeman and Colson RE: Monday morning 9:15 meeting. 3 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 8/14/1972
From Buchanan to RN RE: thoughts on recently received poll briefing. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/6/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144220
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c130d77545ae2a66
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
1
14
8/17/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Buchanan to RN RE: Presidential
acceptance speech. 2 pgs.
1
14
8/14/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From Buchanan to Haldeman and Colson
RE: Monday morning 9:15 meeting. 3 pgs.
1
14
8/6/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Buchanan to RN RE: thoughts on
recently received poll briefing. 2 pgs.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Page 1 of 1
August 17, 1972
MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT
(Per L. Higby)
FROM:
PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
The President's acceptance speech should be directed to the whole
nation of course, but politically to the voters between RN's rock
bottom 40 percent, and his top of 65 percent. That 25 percent of the
electorate is our target. It is: not Republican at all; Independent
and Democratic, conservative socially, moderate politically; middle
income, working income economically; Northern Catholic and ethnic
largely but Southern Protestant also; in addition, there are several
million young people who are largely apolitical, one would guess --
they are probably not the brightest or best students; they are more
likely from Ohio State, SMU, Notre Dame, NYU, the n from Harvard
and Yale.
This is the segment of the population which is the "swing vote" this
fall, where the opportunity is great, where our appeal can and should
be made -- without alienation of the 40 percent base, which is
essentially Conservative and Republican.
STRUCTURE
The speech in my view, should be essentially of three parts:
1.
What the President has accomplished. Foreign policy, Vietnam
should dominate here, but the Supreme Court, the efforts against
crime and pollution, the new approach to the cities, etc., can all be
included.
The purpose of this section simply would be to remind the voters of
tremendous accomplishments of RN, and to set the stage, for the last
crucial part of the speech -- which deals with RN's Vision of where we
should be going. Would argue that RN detail briefly and toughly what
was the situation inthe nation when we took over the helm in 1968 --
what was it at home; what was it abroad and how all that has changed
dramatically.
2.
The middle part of the speech should strongly contrast the
President's positions and views with those of McGovern -- on Defense,
Amnesty, Permissiveness, Welfare, Foreign Policy, Isolationism,
Taxes, and Spending. We should draw McGovern's position without
naming here in stark terms on one side -- and RN's views on another
This should be interspersed with the strong political material, making
clear they are dreadfully wrong in their approach and options, and we
should be fairly tough here.
3.
The third section is the Vision, RN's view of where we are going
if you shoose to join us. My view is that this section goes into two
parts -- the evils we will continue to halt, and combat, in the society --
but more important the concepte dream of what we and our gathering here
intend to do. We are to be the instrument of a new elite or a new order
in American society, where the sons and daughters of workingmen and
middle class are going to assume the helm of the nation, at every level
from that elite which has dominated so long.
We should portray the President and his people as the instrument who
are pushing open the door -- not to affluence for these people -- they are
fairly well off, but to leadership, to bringing in to Government the
successor generation to the New Deal types who did their thing, but who
now must give way as the Hoover business types did. We should be
concrete here.
And what are the eccomplishments of this new generation of leaders to be:
The ending of the agony in Vietnam, the building of a new enduring structure
of international relations that can preserve for our children the peace
this generation of war veterans has never known. The remaking of
American society so that not just the sons of Harvard and Yale, but of
SMU, Notre Dame, of NYU and Whittier move into the decision-making
positions in American life. They chart the destiny of the nation,
henceforth. The President is the John the Baptist of a new leadership
emerging in all aspects of national life. The Old Establishment must
give way to these new blood, new men, with new ideas and old values.
At home, their jobs are to preserve and protect the environment that
has been destroyed, to provide new guarantees for the rights of the
victims in society. In any event, this will be spelled out in much more
detail in subsequent memoranda and paragraphs. These will be
coming up today and tomorrow.
Buchanan
August 14, 1972
MEMORANDUM TO:
H. R. HALDEMAN
CHARLES COLSON
FROM:
PAT BUCHANAN
SUBJECT:
Monday Morning 9:15 a. m. Meeting
Have to be at the doctor's for a 9:00 a.m. appointment at Naval
Medical, but the following are followup attack recommendations
for today:
1.
Ramsey Clark, along with the Shriver charge, this is issue
number one today. Clark will have a press conference. We can
piggy-back on this for tonight's TV. Suggest Mitchell Written Statement
by PJB -- iterating our demand that McGovern either endorse or
repudiate Clark's performance and his "perfect" choice for the FBI.
Ignore McGovern charge of "treasonous allegations," and focus on
McGovern once again evading re-endorsing a man whom he seems
ready to dump over the side. Elso, Fletcher Thompson in attacking
Clark, and others should keep before the public that he is McGovern's
"perfect choice" for the FBI job. Suggest that MacGregor go on TV --
this is "the" story of day, for tonight, demanding anew, along the lines
of Mitchell statement that McGovern stop evading and obfuscation and
answer to American people if this individual who last week was broadcasting
Hanoi's propaganda is still in line to head up the FBL Also, Mitchell
statement of page and a half should contain defense of U.S. pilots
slandered by McGovern yesterday. (PJB can have this by noon, by one
at latest.)
2.
On the Shriver story, that RN "blew it" we should get Lodge on
TV; we should turn the focus of this on Shriver and McGovern's
credibility; and re-issue that resignation letter from Shriver; as long
as the issue turns on whether Shriver was telling the truth or not td ling
the truth, they can't be making ground. Further, this boiling
controversy keeps the Watergate Caper off of page 1. Everything should
be done, in statements and the like to portray Shriver as a) not telling the
truth and b) keeping silent for three years, seeking a GOP job, and then
speaking out only when it was politically profitable. Shriver was a "Silent
Partner" in the escalation in Vietnam; endorsed RN's policy, and now for
-2-
crass political gain is stabbing in the back a President whose policies
he endorsed wholeheartedly while in the President's employ.
3.
The White Paper of McGovern's on the environment got hardly
any serious coverage. We can and should elevate this -- with an
EPA, and/or CEQ press conference today -- which attacks McGovern
for "gross ignorance of the President's record, for "sloppy staff work"
for utter lack of knowledge of the toughest environmental record ever
complled by any President. Impossible to believe Senator McGovern
could have seen or signed this idiotic paper -- then a briefing listing
of RN's environmental achievements, But the attack on McGovern's
"incredible document" should be the lead. Once again reflecting the
sloppy staff work that has plagued the McGovern campaign. Tone
indredulous that McGovern could have issued such a paper.
4.
Don't respond to the false allegation that we accused Clark
of treason -- this is what they would like to make the issue -- our
issue is that this tool of Radio Hanoi is McGovern's perfect choice for
FBI Director, and this is a travesty; and that McGovern should repudiate
Clark (even as Senator Proxmire did) and tell the American people in
no uncertain terms that he withdraws his endorsement of Clark for
FBI Chief.
5.
We might need some polling in Pa. to see the damage done on
this flood controversy.
6.
Page 30 of Saturday News Summary -- Jesse Jackson has some
negative remarks on McGovern -- we should get these out to the black
press, and have Floyd McKissick use them in attack on McGovern and
defense of his decision to go with RN.
7.
We should have Paul Keyes working up some humorous lines
of ridicule to use against McGovern; if we can get the country making
him and his campaign as ridiculous, he may never be able to regain
credibility and recover.
8.
Within the attack book there are three or four McGovern predictions
about what the NVN would do if we halted bombing, etc. All provided
wrong. We should have a foreign policy spokesman who can speak to
these points, and indiet McGovern for having been wrong about every
other opportunity, wrong about Hanoi's intentions throughout his career,
and a record of misjudging the enemy, relfected anew in his endorsement
of Shriver's charge.
135
-3-
9.
Note page 18 of N. Y. Times, where McGovern is working
on Hill to remove equal time requirement, in which event networks
will grant free time. Can we block this?
10.
Important thing -- ride the big stories of the day -- Clark,
and Shriver credibility.
Buchanan
August 6, 1972
MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT (Per HRH As Requested)
FROM: PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
Have received the poll briefing and while the findings on the issue
are unexceptional, the conclusions that are drawn are wrong, I
think -- if I do not mistake them. Our surrogates and the Vice
President should not spend a disproportionate amount of their
time defending our record on unemployment, and economic
management. By most everyone's judgment, our record is not
considered as that good; this is our "weakest" point -- and a
national debate over whether we managed the economy well is
perhaps the one debate with McGovern we can lose.
Agreed that Vietnam, inflation, etc. are the crucial issues. We
can win on these issues by not so much verbally defending our reocrd,
but by portraying McGovern as disasterous to the stock market,
disasterous to the job market with his budget cuts in defense and
space, disasterous to the security of the U.S., disasterous to the
price situation, because of his $1000 program, or his $6500 welfare
giveaway. In short, let's not so much defend our record, which is
subject to criticism, as to attack McGovern with being a clear and
present danger to the prosperity we now have.
The point is this: If the Democrats had nominated Harpo Marx, the
Teeter polls would have said Vietna, economy, inflation are the
mamor issues. Would we, in a race with Harpo, talk about those
issues -- or would the winning issues rather be the manifest lack
of qualification of their candidate -- despite our record.
The decision in November and our rhetoric must not focus upon
their issues -- i.e., "unemployment" and the unequal economic
record of the last four years -- it must focus upon our issues --
i.e., the extremism, elitism, radicalism, kookism, of McGovern's
person, campaign, and programs, again the solid, strong,
effective leadership of the President. The first campaign described
above is the only way we can lose in 1972 -- and If I am not mistaken,
>86
-2-
this is something close to what the Teeter folks recommend, when
they say we ought to talk up the economy, and spend an inordinate
amount of time defending our record on unemployment.
Nor should we forget the capacity of a candidate (i. e., Kennedy
and the "missile gap, = Goldwater and "extremism") to create
issues, on which elections turn, sometimes legitimate issues,
sometimes illegitimate. When we portray McGovern's ideas as
preposterous, foolish, and even dangerous to U.S. security and
the nation's economy, we are right now pushing against an open door --
with the media at large, as well as the country.
The campaign should turn, we should make it turn, upon the manifest
unqualification of this character and his ilk to even be in the
Presidential contest -- not whether a damn referendum in our spotty
economic performance, which talking, talking, talking about the
economy and jobs, and unemployment would make it. So, I disagree
strongly with what I view as the central thrust of recommendations
of the Teeter polls.
Buchanan