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: the role of national defense in the campaign. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/18/1972
From Buchanan to Haldeman RE: the role of national defense in the campaign. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/18/1972
From Buchanan to Haldeman RE: a sharp drop in McGovern's poll numbers and the McGovern/Humphrey split. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/8/1972
From Buchanan to Haldeman and Colson RE: Buchanan's input on the campaign for a meeting he needed to miss due to an appointment. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/14/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144255
label
WHSF: Contested, 1-31
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144255
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 1-31
description
This file contains:
From Buchanan to Haldeman RE: the role of national defense in the campaign. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/18/1972
From Buchanan to Haldeman RE: the role of national defense in the campaign. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/18/1972
From Buchanan to Haldeman RE: a sharp drop in McGovern's poll numbers and the McGovern/Humphrey split. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/8/1972
From Buchanan to Haldeman and Colson RE: Buchanan's input on the campaign for a meeting he needed to miss due to an appointment. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/14/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144255
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d0244d694aec0615
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
1
31
6/18/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Buchanan to Haldeman RE: the role of
national defense in the campaign. 2 pgs.
1
31
6/18/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Buchanan to Haldeman RE: the role of
national defense in the campaign. 2 pgs.
1
31
6/8/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Buchanan to Haldeman RE: a sharp
drop in McGovern's poll numbers and the
McGovern/Humphrey split. 1 pg.
1
31
8/14/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Buchanan to Haldeman and Colson
RE: Buchanan's input on the campaign for a
meeting he needed to miss due to an
appointment. 3 pgs.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Page 1 of 1
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
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. 11 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 we 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
-2-
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
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
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 Complex -- West. 11 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 we 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
-2-
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 end 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
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 14, 1972
MEMORANDUM TO:
H. R. HALDEMAN
CHARLES COLSON
FROM:
PAT BUCHANAN
SUBJECT:
Monday Morning 9:15 a. m. Mc ing
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 cither endorse or
repudiate Clark's performance and his "perfect" choice for the FBI.
Ignore McGovern charge of "treasonous allegations, 11 and focus on
McGovern once again evading re-endorsing a man whom he seems
ready to dump over the side. Also, 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 FBI. 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 McGo ern's
credibility; and re-issue that resignation letter from Shriver; as long
as the issue turns on whether SL iver was telling the truth or not td ling
the truth, they can't be making "ound. Further, this boiling
controversy keeps the Waterga Caper off of page 1. Everything should
be done, in statements and the
to portray Shriver as a) not telling the
truth and b) keeping silent for
ce years, seeking a GOP job, and then
speaking out only when it was
Stically profitable. Shriver was a "Silent
Partner" in the escalation in
etnam; 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
compiled 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
incredulous 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 indict McGovern for having been wrong about every
other opportunity, wrong about Ilanoi's intentions throughout his career,
and a record of misjudging the enemy, relfected anew in his endorsement
of Shriver's charge.
-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 g : free time. Can we block this?
10.
Important thing -- ride the big stories of the day - - Clark,
and Shriver credibility.
Buchanan
I