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 Colson to RN RE: Hallett's commentary on the Broder-Johnson series run in the "Washington Post." 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 1/6/1972
From Hallett to Colson RE: an analysis of the recent "The Politicians and the People" series of articles written by Broder and Johnson, which focused on the 1972 election. 8 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/3/1972
From Colson to RN RE: PN and Julie's successful visit to Africa and the role of the First Family in the campaign. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/19/1972
From Colson to RN RE: Connally's antagonism toward Stans in a recent meeting. 2 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 7/24/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144480
label
WHSF: Contested, 3-2
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144480
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 3-2
description
This file contains:
From Colson to RN RE: Hallett's commentary on the Broder-Johnson series run in the "Washington Post." 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 1/6/1972
From Hallett to Colson RE: an analysis of the recent "The Politicians and the People" series of articles written by Broder and Johnson, which focused on the 1972 election. 8 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/3/1972
From Colson to RN RE: PN and Julie's successful visit to Africa and the role of the First Family in the campaign. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/19/1972
From Colson to RN RE: Connally's antagonism toward Stans in a recent meeting. 2 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 7/24/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144480
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d53d4b2ad2e69cbf
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
3
2
1/6/1972
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Colson to RN RE: Hallett's
commentary on the Broder-Johnson series
run in the "Washington Post." 2 pgs.
3
2
1/3/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Hallett to Colson RE: an analysis of the
recent "The Politicians and the People"
series of articles written by Broder and
Johnson, which focused on the 1972 election.
8 pgs.
3
2
1/19/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to RN RE: PN and Julie's
successful visit to Africa and the role of the
First Family in the campaign. 2 pgs.
3
2
7/24/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From Colson to RN RE: Connally's
antagonism toward Stans in a recent meeting.
2 pgs.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Page 1 of 1
January 6, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Broder-Johnson Series
You asked that I have Doug Hallett analyze the Broder-Johnson series
that was run last month in the Washington Post. His analysis is
attached. While I have succeeded I think in making Doug much less
abrasive in the last few months as you will see from the attached,
however, I have not in any way restrained his candor; probably
that is all to the good.
In transmitting this to you I hasten to point out that I strongly disagree
with a number of Hallett's observations and with some of his conclu-
sions. As you know, I argued strongly for the day care bill veto.
I also believe that you have established in the last six months a very
strong, clear image with the American people as a forceful, activist,
tough President who will do whatever has to be done for the public
interest.
Moreover, in my opinion, we have done extremely well this year. Hallett
argues that after all of our bombshells we are only two or three points
above where we were a year ago; he overlooks the fact that presidents
normally hit low points during their third year (whereas we have greatly
strengthened our position) and that we had many problems to contend with,
some quite unusual like the Pentagon Papers, Calley, the UN vote, a
sluggish economy and Laos. Yet in the face of all this you greatly
strengthened your hold on the country. What also cannot be measured
in the polls is the intensity of support. I believe this has increased very
significantly this year; that the support has strengthened and deepened
even if the overall numbers have not risen more than a few points.
2.
You perhaps also know from reading previous Hallett memos that he is
not particularly given to understatement.
Having said all that, I do think, however, that he makes some good
points, particularly the need for a more consistent theme in our domestic
approach (not that our issues aren't good; we simply need to tie them
together better), the fact that we often reach for superlatives which is
beginning to be criticized widely, that we tend to underestimate Muskie
and finally, perhaps the most important point of all in Hallett's memo,
we try to appeal to the right with rhetoric and the left with substance
while in fact the left is more impressed with words and the right with
substance.
In an effort to conserve your time I have taken the liberty of underlining
Hallett's memo since it is excessively long.
I should also point out that I think his conclusions are overly simplistic.
Some may have validity, but they by no means represent the magic for
a winning campaign. One of the keys next year in my mind is the culti-
vation of important voting blocs (along with, of course, all of the other
major national initiatives that you are planning): in short, exploiting
the advantages of incumbency. While his memo makes some interesting
points and perhaps some which have validity, it doesn't address the
key strategy issues of 1972.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 3, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR: CHARLES W. COLSON
FROM: DOUG HALLETT
Broder's and Johnson's basic points in their series "The Politicians
and the People" are the following:
(1) People are less angry, less passionate, less pessimistic about the
future than they were a year ago. What was analyzed last year as fear about
the future has now turned to apprehension. While two-thirds of the people
surveyed still feel the country is no better off than it was in 1968, there is
less immediate concern about short-run disintegration and collapse.
(2) The President's strength has increased considerably as a by -product of
the China trip, the new economic policy, etc. On the other hand, the Pres-
ident's initiatives have also made him seem more unpredictable more mys-
terious, more inconsistent than he did before to many Americans, He is the
first choice of a minority of the electorate. At a time when people are look-
ing for direction and purpose in their leaders, the President remains a remote
and uncertain figure.
(3) There is considerable confusion and indecision about 1972. Never have
political loyalties and allegiances been weaker, Party structures are almost
meaningless in most areas of the country. People want to vote for the man,
not the party. With the possible exception of the economy, no clear-cut issues
are likely to stand out this election year.
(4) The real issue is the psychological issue of trust and confidence. People
are alienated from their government; they feel powerless; they question
whether their leaders can respond to their fundamental concerns. 60 percent
do not believe their leaders tell them the truth.
(5) The youth vote is likely to be smaller than the vote of the electorate-at-
large and young people are not likely to participate in large numbers in the
political process. While young people are hostile to the President, they will
not have a significant effect on the election.
page 2
(6) Muskie is the only Democratic contender both known to a majority-of-
the electorate and known positively. Kennedy and Humphrey are better
known, but less liked. While he has potential, however, Muskie has not
yet developed the broad base of support and respect he would need to defeat
the President.
(7) Wallace and Agnew are too controversial to be accepted as leaders.
While many people agree with their statements, they sense they are not
tolerant enough to be President. Wallace and Agnew are too sure of them-
selves.
It is important to note that Broder's and Johnson's conclusions are
based on a distorted sampling of the electorate. They interviewed only 300
people. All pollsters agree that in-depth interviews with only a small samp-
ling permits the interviewers to reinforce their own preconceived notions.
Broder's and Johnson's sample does break down parallel to the 1968 election
results, but it is far from representative. Only one Southern state was in-
cluded in the survey. 26 percent of the sample were new voters -- and half
of these were college students. These and other distortions have led to con-
clusions at variance with more scientific polls. Whereas polls indicate that
blacks have gained confidence in the system in recent years, for example,
Broder and Johnson assert they are more alienated.
On the other hand, I think the basic theme of the articles the aliena-
tion issue is accurately portrayed. Nothing else could account for the wide
variation between popular support for the President's basic stands and sup-
port for his leadership. Nothing else could account for the President's dom-
inance of the issues and his relatively weak showing, both in the trial heats
and in the confidence polls.
The following is my point-by-point analysis:
(1) People are less pessimistic about the future -- This is true. The cam-
puses have calmed. The doomsday rhetoric has quieted. People are begin-
ning to believe, for the first time, that the war is ending and that the economy
will not fall apart. Such events as the Moscow and Peking trips even show
promise of leading the way to a better future.
Unfortunately, however, the President's success in the areas listed above
is not necessarily translateable into votes at the polls. The President's sup-
port is based on professionalism, not on any personal or psychic or intel-
lectual loyalty. People expect the President to be an effective tactician. In-
versely, if he is not if his professionalism shows any weakness his base
of support is likely to decline. While it will be hard for the Democrats to
page 3
counter if everything is going alright next fall, it one or more of the above
issues have gone bad the President may not receive credit for anything he
has done. One weakness in the chain will cast into doubt the long-run via-
bility of every link, leading the way to such questions as: "Why couldn't
we have gotten out of Vietnam faster? Why didn't the President impose wage-
price controls earlier
Indeed, the President's successes may even work against him in a curious
sense. In 1968, the President was acceptable to many people to whom he
would not normally be acceptable. People such as Walter Lippman were
for him because they thought we needed a tough, flexible operator to deal with
the kind of problems we had then. Now that the immediate technical prob-
lems have been solved, now that the wounds have been healed to some degree,
we can afford we may need other kinds of leadership. The same peo-
ple who wanted an operational President in 1968 may be looking for a philisophical
one in 1972. They are no longer scared about the present; they are concerned
about the future -- and they want someone who can help define it for them.
As it stands, the President does not fill the bill.
(2) The President's strength has increased as a result of dramatic new in-
itiatives, but these same initiatives have made him a more remote figure
to many Americans. I don't think there is any question but that the President
has gained as a result of his initiatives and is much better positioned for the
campaign than he was six months ago. What is remarkable is that he has.
gained so little, standing now only 2 or 3 points above where he was six
months ago.
In my view, this is our fault. Given the President's public personality
when he entered office, given the over-inflated rhetoric of the sixties, it
is not surprising that people were suspicious of promise and waiting for
performance when the President took office. We recognized this in the first
six months to a year of the administration. In the last two years, however,
we have done virtually everything imaginable to undermine our own credi-
bility and consistency.
In 1969, we were going "forward together. 11 In 1970, we had a "New Fed-
eralism. " By 1971, we had hypoed it up to a "New American Revolution. 11
Who knows what it will be this year The Second Coming, perhaps?
We show no consistency of effort and commitment. The welfare program
is pronounced the greatest domestic program since the New Deal, but we
expend far more effort trying to place G. Harrold Carswell on the Supreme
Court. We start off with a very exciting and challenging commitment to
page 4
the first five years of life, but denounce day-care (no, middle-class day-
care) as commiting the government to communal living.
Even our major efforts have a tinsely glow to them. The China trip and
the economic policy may be admirable in themselves they are certainly
incredible as they were ballyhooed by us. And all the time we are doing
this, we tell the American people it was the previous administration which
is responsible for overheated rhetoric and expectations and that we are
the ones who are calming things down.
In the short run, of course, there have been benefits from our dodges and
turns and from our Junior Chamber of Commerce boosterism. Maybe Agnew
has even scored once or twice. But in the long run, I think, we have under-
mined the seriousness of the President and his Presidency. It is no wonder
that today we find the public doubting anything we do, seeing in us instability.
when their greatest want greater than any special-interest need is for
just the opposite.
(3) 1972 is uncertain. With the possible exception of the economy, no issue
concern, no political allegiance, no party-loyalty seems likely to dom-
inate. There is opportunity in the disintegration of the nation's institutions
church, family, town, university, union. There is opportunity to reach
and win over large numbers of newly-independent voters. It is not oppor-
tunity of which we have taken the fullest advantage. We have not allowed
ourselves to restructure public dialogue, provide new direction and new
loyalties. While we have solved short-term problems and may benefit from
having done so, we have not added new certainty or direction to the public
mood.
Just the reverse, in fact. We have remained committed to all the folderol
of the past superficial "Presidentialism, " Billy Graham home-town re-
ligion, We're no. 1, partisam excess at the same time we do everything
possible to undermine the past's core. Substantively, we have been by-and
large on track (although we are not dealing seriously with the economy, a
problem which is structural not cosmetic). P. R. wise, we have behaved
as village burghers, testing the wind, dragged into every reform, declining
to identify ourselves with our own concerns, failing to recognize the coher-
ency and broader meaning of our own programs.
Take our non-fiscal justification for vetoing day-care, for instance. In the
days of farms and small villages, having mothers bring children up at home
made sense. Women were intimately involved in the production process of
the farm. Children were able to roam and learn in a broadly educational
environment. But now? Homes are isolated from places of work; staying
page 5
home means staying uninvolved. As for children, staying home means
remaining in a sterile, homogenous suburban heighborhood or an even
more confining urban apartment. Of course we need day-care massive
day-care. Far from committing government to communal living, day-
care means, instead, committing government to preserving some sem-
blance of the community bringing-up process which we have enjoyed for
most of our national history and giving women the same opportunity to feel
productive and useful that their grandmothers had.
On many other issues, we exhibit the same kind of narrow provincialism --
even when we are on the right side of the issue. I don't believe people buy
it anymore. Even when it is the best they can articulate, I think they ex-
pect more from their leaders. We have failed to give it to them -- and are,
I think, paying the price.
(4) The real issue is the psychological issue of trust and confidence. I
don't think it is quite as dominant as Broder and Johnson do, but I think it
is much more important that we generally acknowledge. People don't "feel"
the President's leadership -- except for a few brief moments such as the
China announcements. The strongest, most memorable statements the
President has made while in office have been statements of anger or know-
nothingism or blatant politics; i.e. Carswell defeat, Calley conviction,
Cambodia, vetoing day-care, pornography, abortion. They have not been
devoted to explaining what the President is and what he is trying to do.
This is more than charisma -- at least charisma in the John Lindsay sense.
It involves finding words and mediums which express the core of the Pres-
ident's character: Lyndon Johnson is not a superficially charismatic man,
yet in his early years, before the war wore him down, his speech and his
actions reflected a personal force that we never get from the President.
Eisenhower could garble every other sentence, but, when you watched him
on television, you knew he was a leader. Even Truman, haberdasher that
he is, was able to express to his constituency a raw cussedness which was
central to his leadership.
Richard Nixon? Man on the make; ashamed of and constantly running away
from his past; manipulator; unsure of his convictions; tactician instead of
strategist; Grand Vizier of all Rotarians, substituting pomposity for elo-
quence. That is the public impression. And that is why he is weak today.
By 50 percent to 40 percent, the American people do not think he has any
broad conceptual framework, any sense of direction or purpose.
In a sense, the nature of leadership is not nearly so important as its fact.
That has been our mistake. We have adopted a pacification strategy, this
page 6
for that group, that for this, with deliberable avoidance of controversial
intellectual and social stands, trying to reassure the left, which cares
everything about words, with substance, trying to reassure the right, which
cares everything about substance, with words. We have ended up alienating
everyone and we will not be able to correct that until we start realizing
that tommorrow's headline is not nearly so important as next fall's "impres-
sion"; that next week's tactical advantage may come at the expense of next
November's strategic victory.
(5) The youth vote is likely to be relatively unimportant in 1972. Broder
and Johnson confirm two of our own opinions: young people are going to vote
less frequently than the rest of the population and they are not going to work
in significant numbers for political candidates. Broder and Johnson are
victims of their own distorted sample on their third point. Their analysis
that young people are far more hostile to the President than the population-
at-large is not born out by the polls. Kennedy has a substantial lead over
the President in the trial heats, but he is the only Democrat who has any
lead among the youth vote.
On the other hand, once the Democrats nominate one man and he has achiev-
ed a visible, stylish identity, he could take the same kind of lead among
youth Kennedy now has. The President's support in this group is thin be-
cause of Vietnam, unemployment, etc.
(6) Muskie is the only Democrat both known to a majority of the electorate
and known positively to it, but does not yet have the strategic advantage over
the President. One of the most disturbing factors in our approach as wę
enter the campaign year is our gross underestimation of Muskie. He has
been brilliant, as good as the President was in 1968, and he shows promise
of being far more effective than the President has ever been in the public
phase of his campaign. If he has not yet emerged as the President's equal, he
also does not yet approximate the President's stature as he will as a nom-
inated candidate for President.
People around here counting on a significant fourth party are, I think, crazy,
Muskie is going to do so well in the primaries that no one will join McCarthy
even if he does do it. Without irreparably damaging his right flank, Muskie
has moved far enough left to have the tacit support of somebody like Al Low-
enstein. Establishment reformers like Gilligan are already in his corner
publicly. The Democrats want to win this year -- I don't think they're
going to allow themselves to destroy their chances with suicidal splintering.
page 7
Most important of all, Muskie's public image is everything the Pres-
ident's is not: strong, reflective, prudent, even wise. The President
could not maintain early leads against Pat Brown and Hubert Humphrey.
How in the hell we think he's going to do better against an Ed Muskie
with his usual plastic statesman, say-nothing strategy is beyond me.
(7) Wallace and Agnew are too controversial to be accepted as leaders.
More evidence for the alienation theory. It is not just that Wallace and
Agnew are too strident -- it is also that they are somehow too facile, too
quick, too simplistic. People know that what they have traditionally be-
lieved and what Agnew and Wallace preach -- is not right anymore;
that it needs replacement; that the society has changed and that their
public leaders must deal with those changes even if they can't.
The lesson of Wallace and Agnew is that people want to be led -- they don't
want to see their leaders mouth the same idiocies they do over a Saturday
night beer. Yet that is exactly what we try to do elevating the idiocies
into wordy, billowy speeches, to be sure -- practically every time the Pres-
ident makes a prepared, public statement.
I would caution, however, that Agnew's unsuitability for the Presidency
does not mean he should be replaced as President. This should be
decided on the basis of comprehensive polling this spring. There are too
many people who say they would vote for the President, but "not that Agnew."
On the other hand, I would regret very much having Governor Connally on
the ticket, not just because I would hate to seem him close to the White
House, but, more importantly, because he would overshadow and thus
undermine the President. The President was right in his original intent
with Agnew he runs better with nobody.
Conclusion: The same as usual: Not all the foreign trips to all the foreign
capitals in the world are going to help the President unless they are coupled
with a far more serious effort to deal with his very weak relationship with
the American people.
The following steps should be taken:
(1) Get new speechwriters this is the most important. This President
has the least experienced, least able group of speechwriters in recent
history. We need guys with clout, who are involved and know a lot about
substance, and who can put stuff together which is coherent, purposeful,
and comprehensive which will have the same effect as the President's
masterful desegregation statement.
page 8
Ideally, we would have guys like Daniel Boorstin, Irving Kristol, Edward
Banfield, and Nathan Glazer. We probably can't get them, but the Pres-
ident ought to speak to Moynihan about it. We need and want people from
that Public Interest - Commentary School and Moynihan would know where
to locate good people whom we could get.
(2) Calm the P.R., stop getting overexcited about each new issue, and in-
still some consistency and follow-through in our P. R. -- political opera-
tion. We should not be aiming at taking advantage of each new issue by it-
self, but at taking advantage of each new issue as it relates to the President's
over-all approach. Above all, avoid the cheap-shot, the head-line hunt, the
simple slogan.
(3) Realize that what is important about the President is that he is the first
President to realize that the hyper-individualistic -- "We're No. 1"
frontier American philosophy is bankrupt and outdated. The President is
the first President to comprehend that internallyand externally this country
and its people are part of a community structure -- as such, the President
is the first real conservative President the country has ever had. He has
readjusted both foreign and domestic policy away from twentieth century
liberalism, realizing that an unbriddled committment to individualism in
the modern world is enslaving and destructive; that both Vietnam and the war
on poverty are symbols of its bankruptcy; that real freedom and real indivi-
dualism cannot be conferred from above, but must be worked out organically
within a community structure by community norms -- hence an incomes-de-
centralization strategy instead of a services strategy in domestic policy,
hence the Nixon Doctrine instead of Wilsonian zealotry in foreign affairs.
This should be the basic theme in every utterance made by this Administra-
tion.
(4), Stop displaying the President as if he had a stick up his ass. Put him in
gutsy, colorful, photographic situations with people. Take him out of air-
planes, hotels, and military reservations and put him in hospitals, police
cars, outdoors, in urban areas, at local union meetings, on tough university
campuses, at Indian reservations, etc. Use the White House more imaginatively.
(5) A more imaginative use of media -- we shouldn't be afraid to put the
President in conflict situations the Rather thing was good insofar as it
went (by far the best of conversations), but we can go farther. Show that
the President can handle both his enemies and the people by putting him in
situations with them. We should also be hitting much more the prestige mags
with prestige pieces. Personally, I thought the President's 1967 Foreign Af-
fairs article was more a travelog than an analysis, but even it has had im-
pact far beyond its immediate readership.
January 19, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Mrs. Nixon's Africa Trip
The image of the First Family as it has recently emerged -- warm
and appealing -- may well be one of the most important political
developments of your Presidency. Both Mrs. Nixon and Julie have
"caught on" big: I don't think we have yet realized the full political
implications.
It began with Mrs. Nixon's trip for the Legacy of Parks, gained
momentum with some of Julie's appearances in November and with
the outstanding family TV at Christmas; the high point was Mrs.
Nixon's tremendously successful African trip.
To confirm my own impressions about the trip, I asked Mort Allin to
prepare an analysis of Mrs. Nixon's coverage: a copy is attached.
As you will see, Mort's report fully bears out my feeling about the
enormously positive impact.
As you know we have tried hard for 3 years to project "color" about
you, to portray the human side of the President, the personal warmth,
the compassionate, considerate qualities you have. Because of the
hostility of the media it has been an exceedingly difficult, frustrating
and not especially successful undertaking. Mrs. Nixon has now broken
through where we had failed. She has come across as a warm, charming,
graceful, concerned, articulate and most importantly, a very human
person. People, men and women -- identify with her -- and turn with
you. In many cases, these are the people we have found it the hardest
to reach. It would be hard to overestimate the political impact of this.
2,
Not only have women begun to be very interested in the family side of
the Nixon Administration (something we had also not achieved with the
same success as some of our predecessors), but most significantly
we are getting through to the men as well. Men often judge other men
by the character of their wives. Mrs. Nixon's character has come
through magnificently.
As you know, my office hears from assorted people -- political and
otherwise from all over the country. It is very clear based on
comments of recent weeks that Mrs. Nixon has had a very significant
and very positive impact on the country. Even some of our strongest
supporters have observed that they feel now that they know the Nixons
better than they ever did before.
One of our harshest critics is right here on our own staff Doug
Hallett. To quote from his rare positive memo: "The African trip
exceeded all my expectations. Her quotes were genuine. The photo
of her in the African garb was great, She seemed to, as they say,
'get into' what she was doing. She relaxed; she enjoyed herself;
she accepted (or at least seemed to accept) the people she was with
as human beingerather than mannequins with a hand that needs shaking.
Most important of all, she did it on her own -- for once she wasn't
the object that appears on the other side of the Presidential photo
from the American flag. She was credible as a liberated woman.
He concludes his memo by impertinently suggesting that Mrs. Nixon
be on the ticket this year.
The purpose of this memo is to urge that you encourage Mrs. Nixon
to participate frequently in these kinds of highly visible public activities
as the political year warms up. She is an enormous asset. She can
do things you can't do; her moves will not be instantly labelled political,
as yours would; she has the ability to project warmth and to create
empathy. In an election year she can do the kind of human interest things
that are so vital to us.
Without question, her trip was one of the most successful single activities
anyone in the Administration has engaged in since we came into office.
It has had a far reaching impact in changing the public impression of you
and the Administration. The warmth of the First Family and the public
affection for Mrs. Nixon, Julie and Tricia can be, if properly developed
through the rest of the year, that "something extra" that makes the critical
difference.
EYES ONLY
July 24, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Connally/Stans
I am sorry to report to you on an unfortunate incident involving
Connally as to which you should be advised and perhaps call
Connally if you feel it is warranted.
Last week MacGregor asked to meet with Connally and myself to
be sure we were thoroughly coordinated -- a necessary thing to
do obviously. We decided to include Stane because under the
new statute, Connally cannot spend funds without Stans' permis-
sion. Obviously fund raising and expenditures have to be closely
coordinated because of the inevitable competition for the same
sources, the need for initial funding by Stans as well as the strict
statutory ceilings.
In the meeting we had this afternoon (after your visit with Connally),
Stans became very difficult; he seemed very unhappy over the whole
Democrate for Nixon effort. He said that he was already getting
money from Democrate and obviously any funds Connally raised
would be "in competition" with his efforts. He further said that he
had an obligation to raise $40 million and that anything Connally
needed would be in excess of that and he didn't think he could raise
it. MacGregor said that he would gladly reduce his budget to make
room for Connally's needs. I made the point that Connally would
have to be assured of a budget of at least $3 million (since Connally
had told me over the weekend he didn't want to launch an effort unless
he was assured of funding of at least that amount).
Connally became visibly angry during the lunch especially when Stans
said that if Connally raised more money than his "budgeted" figure,
he would have to turn it over to Stans. During the lunch Connally said
EYES ONLY
2.
he wasn't sure he wanted to embark on the Democrate for Nixon
effort at all and Stane allowed as to how he wished the President
could find another fund raiser. Despite frequent attempts by
MacGregor and me to keep it under control, the atmosphere was
distinctly hostile.
After the lunch, I assured Connally that the candidate's views on
this would prevail and that I knew exactly how you felt about it and
that he shouldn't worry about Stans. I urged him to leave it in my
hands. He said that he didn't ask for this job and that while he had
no trouble at all dealing with MacGregor or myself, that it was best
to find out right from the beginning where he stood. He said
attitudes were very important to him, that be thought Stane had a
very negative attitude and really acted as If Connally was an
"intruder and competitor". I said again that I knew where the
President stood and Connally said that isn't good enough. He
said, "The President has to let his people know where he stands.
Obviously Stans doesn't have the word.
1 assured Connally that I would see that Stans did understand the
President's views and Connally said, "Well, I will have to see for
myself". He said he was unable now to agree to announce Democrate
for Nixon on August 1. (Yesterday he had decided that would be the
date.)
I think Connally was putting on a little show for everyone involved.
He is a very sensitive fellow and Stans can indeed be rather dour
when it comes to discussing campaign funds. Also, Maury is very
tired and under a lot of pressure.
Connally, unfortunately, will have to work with Stans; under the new
statute, complete autonomy is impossible. I assured Connally that
he would be spared anything like this in the future and that Jacobson,
Connally's counsel, could handle it. He said he didn't want Jacobson
"subjected" to this either.
Under the circumstances, MacGregor and I think it may be important
for you to tell Connally that we have reported to you on the lunch and
that he can be assured that there will be no problem, that the budget
matters have been determined by you, that autonomy is to be maintained
and that if he can't deal with Stans, he can work through MacGregor and
me exclusively. Clark and I will simply have to handle Maury.