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 Haldeman RE: the use of a prominent national labor figure for the campaign. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/2/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: an attached memo from Lou Harris on RN's public image during the campaign. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/3/1972
From Colson for "The File" RE: RN's role in the 1972 campaign. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/3/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: the role of issue questions in polls. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/10/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: public opinion on RN's international relations and his handling of the economy. Trial heat numbers against various Democratic candidates and Wallace are also included. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/11/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: a meeting with Bob Dole and the White House's relations with the Republican National Committee. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/22/1971
From Colson to Haldeman RE: a planned meeting between Meany and Chavez in California on the subject of Fitzsimmons and the Teamsters. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 8/11/1971
From Colson to Haldeman RE: a comment supposedly made by RN during the 1968 campaign reported by "Time." Handwritten notes added by Haldeman and some unknown party. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/12/1971
From Colson to Haldeman RE: Lou Harris's meeting with Larry O'Brien and the latter's thoughts on the potential Democratic candidates in the 1972 election, the economy, and key electoral states. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/5/1971
From Colson to Haldeman RE: various union developments, particularly within the AFL/CIO. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 7/23/1971
From Colson to Haldeman RE: poll figures on Muskie and an analysis of Kennedy's chance for the Democratic nomination in 1972. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/12/1971
Notes taken by unknown, possibly Colson, relating to information relayed by Harris. This information included polling figures on specific demographics, the status of various Democratic hopefuls, and issues with the "New York Times." 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144500
label
WHSF: Contested, 3-12
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144500
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 3-12
description
This file contains:
From Colson to Haldeman RE: the use of a prominent national labor figure for the campaign. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/2/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: an attached memo from Lou Harris on RN's public image during the campaign. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/3/1972
From Colson for "The File" RE: RN's role in the 1972 campaign. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/3/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: the role of issue questions in polls. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/10/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: public opinion on RN's international relations and his handling of the economy. Trial heat numbers against various Democratic candidates and Wallace are also included. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/11/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: a meeting with Bob Dole and the White House's relations with the Republican National Committee. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/22/1971
From Colson to Haldeman RE: a planned meeting between Meany and Chavez in California on the subject of Fitzsimmons and the Teamsters. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 8/11/1971
From Colson to Haldeman RE: a comment supposedly made by RN during the 1968 campaign reported by "Time." Handwritten notes added by Haldeman and some unknown party. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/12/1971
From Colson to Haldeman RE: Lou Harris's meeting with Larry O'Brien and the latter's thoughts on the potential Democratic candidates in the 1972 election, the economy, and key electoral states. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/5/1971
From Colson to Haldeman RE: various union developments, particularly within the AFL/CIO. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 7/23/1971
From Colson to Haldeman RE: poll figures on Muskie and an analysis of Kennedy's chance for the Democratic nomination in 1972. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/12/1971
Notes taken by unknown, possibly Colson, relating to information relayed by Harris. This information included polling figures on specific demographics, the status of various Democratic hopefuls, and issues with the "New York Times." 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144500
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
5a1a08ec535de86f
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
3
12
5/2/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: the use of a
prominent national labor figure for the
campaign. 2 pgs.
3
12
4/3/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: an attached
memo from Lou Harris on RN's public image
during the campaign. 1 pg.
3
12
4/3/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson for "The File" RE: RN's role in
the 1972 campaign. 4 pgs.
3
12
2/10/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: the role of
issue questions in polls. 1 pg.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Page 1 of 3
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
3
12
1/11/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: public
opinion on RN's international relations and
his handling of the economy. Trial heat
numbers against various Democratic
candidates and Wallace are also included. 4
pgs.
3
12
9/22/1971
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: a meeting
with Bob Dole and the White House's
relations with the Republican National
Committee. 2 pgs.
3
12
8/11/1971
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: a planned
meeting between Meany and Chavez in
California on the subject of Fitzsimmons and
the Teamsters. 1 pg.
3
12
10/12/1971
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: a comment
supposedly made by RN during the 1968
campaign reported by "Time." Handwritten
notes added by Haldeman and some
unknown party. 1 pg.
3
12
8/5/1971
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: Lou Harris's
meeting with Larry O'Brien and the latter's
thoughts on the potential Democratic
candidates in the 1972 election, the
economy, and key electoral states. 3 pgs.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Page 2 of 3
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
3
12
7/23/1971
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: various union
developments, particularly within the
AFL/CIO. 1 pg.
3
12
7/12/1971
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: poll figures
on Muskie and an analysis of Kennedy's
chance for the Democratic nomination in
1972. 2 pgs.
3
12
Campaign
Other Document
Notes taken by unknown, possibly Colson,
relating to information relayed by Harris.
This information included polling figures on
specific demographics, the status of various
Democratic hopefuls, and issues with the
"New York Times." 4 pgs.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Page 3 of 3
May 2, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Labor Man
Wholly apart from George Bell's condition and availability, we
have needed for some time a heavy weight in the labor field. Our
efforts over the last couple months have been to recruit a top
drawer labor leader for the 1701 operation. We could easily get
a Teamster, but in view of the Hoffa release and the Fitzsimmons
arrangement, that would be unwise. We need someone from the
AFL-CIO, but in view of Meany's current attitude all we can come
up with are old, retired hacks or people who have no future within
the AFL-CIO certainly no one sufficiently well known and heavy
to do the job.
In talking about this with Pete Brennan's deputy, Don Rodgers last
week, Rodgers urged that the job be done from within the White
House with relatively unknown organizers out of 1701; any heavy
weight who would be willing to run the risk to his future in
associating with the campaign would insist on doing so from
inside for several reasons: first, there is more clout; second,
it could be justified with Meany and third, he would be better re-
ceived within the labor movement as someone from the White House
even if he was acting in a political capacity. If he were operating
out of 1701, he simply would not be able to get in with the key labor
leaders; they can justify dealing with the White House, they can't
with a Republican President's campaign apparatus.
In addition to discussing the general plan with Rodgers, Cashen and
I explored his own personal interest. He is Brennan's full-time
paid professional and a very shrewd, well known and respected
building trades leader. He happens to be extremely bright and a
2.
diamond in just enough rough to get along very well with the average
labor leader. I talked to Mitchell and Shultz, both of whom were
very enthusiastic, based on what they knew of Rodgers and particu-
larly on the strategy and the way in which I explained Rodgers'
proposals. We are going to have trouble getting Rodgers. Among
other things, there are serious financial complications. Mitchell
is waiting for the final word from Rockefeller and then will meet
Rodgers and we will take it from there If you approve. Shults is
ironing out things with Hodgson, but to my pleasant surprise, Shultz
seemed entirely in support of the concept.
Rodgers' best contacts, by the way, are with buildings trades leaders
in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois, the very
labor constituencies that we need to make our major efforts with.
If all of this works out, we will, therefore, be proposing the addition
of one man on the assumption that Bell is back with us at some point.
Bell can assist Rodgers and also handle other things here very easily.
Obviously George is not even in the same league with Rodgers, either
in terms of mental equipment or, it goes without saying, contacts in
the labor movement. Rodgers has also had a lot of political organizing
experience in New York.
It may necessitate a call from the President to Pete Brennan to finally
put the lock on this but I will resist that hard and will recommend it
only if absolutely necessary. At the moment, Mitchell is trying to
work through Rockefeller.
April 3, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Attached Thoughts from Lou Harris
You might like to glance through the attached. I think it makes
a fair amount of sense. Harris told me that he had been giving
this a great deal of thought and he rattled through this when we
had lunch together a few weeks ago. I know there will be a
hundred and one armchair experts who will give us advice on
the President's style and posture during the campaign, so you
can throw this away if you think it has no value. I have also not
translated it as articulately as Harris gave it to me, but I think
I have caught the basic thrust of his point. By and large I tend
to agree with him.
MEMORANDUM
YES ONLY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 3, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR THE FILE
SUBJECT: Random Thoughts from Lou Harris
Harris believes that the President needs, between now
and the election, to continually create "straw men". Meany
affords us the best opportunity, but we've got to work at creating
others - deliberate enemies. The President is against those who
plunged us into Vietnam but now want to sell out America's honor.
The President is against those retailers who over-charge consumers.
The middle man example in the food price issue is a perfect illustra-
tion. If there isn't a natural villain, create one so that the President
can be the defender of the public interest against natural enemies.
Harris believes that the President should be forceful but not
strident; that whenever he is strident, the President brings out the
hostility of a latent anti-Nixon feeling which still exists with a large
body of people, but that when he is deliberate, quiet, rational, forceful,
he does not engender this latent hostility.
2.
Harris believes that we should downplay the campaign through-
out the year, make it as boring as possible. Harris believes that a
bland campaign will help us in that we will benefit greatly from a low
turnout. Also, people react better to the President if he does not
polarize on gut issues. This does not mean that we should not address
the issues; we should defuse as many as possible, but not arouse the
passions of the electorate with a very divisive issue that might bring
out our opponents (as with anti-labor legislation, for example).
Harris believes the key to our success is in avoiding having the
American electorate act emotionally or precipitously with respect to the
President's candidacy. He points out that as his pollsters question people,
they get a better response after the questioning than at the outset. More
people favor the President's re-election after they have been walked
through the issues than when they are first confronted with the question
cold, "Do you favor the President as against Candidate X?"
One of the President's strong points is that people think he is
trying hard. He is beginning to develop a characteristic of sincerity,
that he is really working at solving the problems. Harris advises that
we should articulate everything we do rationally, calmly, quietly, and
forcefully. Make people think, make people thoughtful. Do not provoke
instant emotional reactions. The President's style has come through very
3.
well as being deliberate. We should not let him go swinging or
overreacting. If our opponent becomes strident, we should take it
in stride. The more irresponsible the opposition becomes, the
more the President is helped in being looked at as a solid, steady,
strong and deliberate statesman. Be the "solid brick in the middle"
Harris suggests. Ask people to think of the issues seriously.
In this same vein, we should turn the lack of so-called charisma
into an asset, arguing that no one has the right to use the office of
Presidency for the development of a personality cult, that personal
promotion is not the measure of one's success as President. One
cannot run the country through charm, rather through ability. Nixon's
style is to be serious and dedicated, that that is more important than
personal image.
Harris believes that Nixon's image is now being sharpened
as a rational, thoughtful, deliberate leader, all of which can be
destroyed if there is a spontaneous reaction or a sharp galvanizing of
the opposition in the months ahead. Harris believes that if people
are asked calmly and quietly to think through the choice for President,
that the President cannot be beaten by any of the present Democratic
Presidential candidates. If on the other hand, the election turns into
4.
a heated, highly controversial, emotionally charged campaign,
we will simply bring out enough anti votes to defeat us; there are just
more of them than us and if we galvanize them, we (not the Democratic
candidates) can beat ourselves. The key at the moment is to maintain
the tone that we have presently achieved and to hold it throughout the
election year.
wr
Charles W. Colson
EYES ONLY
February 10, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Polling
Apropos our conversation on polls this morning, I think it
might be a very interesting experiment to have our pollsters
ask at the outset of the interview the approval question and the
trial heats. Then go into the development of issue data and all
the questions about the President that would be a part of the
poll. At the and of the session, the interviewer might say, "I
just want to check my notes once again. How did you say you
would vote between Nixon and X?"
If there is any shift, i.e. , any change tat the end of the interview
from the beginning, this could be very significant information.
More importantly, the profile of the kind of people who shift could
be invaluable. That would identify the type of voter we really need
to get to with issue material. That is, the people who can be sold
if we work on them. Conceivably that could be the swing vote.
Harris said he would do this for me. On the other hand, 1 have
some reservations about having him do this. We all know he is
for sale and, while he is presently in our hands (I think), there is
no telling what might happen in the future. The more I think about
it the more I would be inclined to have it in the hands of one of our
suppliers whom we can control rather than in the hands of Harris.
Would you let me know?
January 11, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Latest Harris Poll
The latest Harris Poll was conducted December 28 through January 4
(ironically I urged this date upon Harris. I obviously did not know
that the bombing was going to be resumed during the week after
Christmas. My preference for the week was based upon the fact
that we had a lot of good year-end stuff, good TV the week before
Christmas and that we had really put the Congress down a point
that was coming through in the media. I was also influenced by the
Time "Man of the Year" Award. In any event, it turned out to be a
very bad call time-wise).
On the trial heats it is Nixon 42, Muskie 42, Wallace 11. In a two way
race, it is Muskie 48, Nixon 45. The Wallace vote, in other words,
takes 2 away from Muskie for every one be takes away from us. Harris
will not publish this information. He gives it to us for our guidance but
agreed with me that it would be better not printed. It should be noted
that all year long it has been the conclusion from the Harris data that
Wallace was hurting Muskie more than us.
Harris will print the Muskie trial heat next week. We had discussed
whether it would be better to wait awhile, but then we should get it out
of the way, hopefully letting the President rise again in the polls the
next time around. My thought was that it would be very bad to have
this come out in February because people look at the publication date,
they don't look at the date the poll was taken.
Against other candidates, our standing is relatively unchanged. It
is Nixon 46, Humphrey 37, Wallace 12 and, in a two way race, Nixon 51,
Humphrey 40. Against Kennedy, it is Nixon 45, Kennedy 39, Wallace 10,
and, in a two way race, Nixon 50, Kennedy 41.
4.
In the case of the Muskie gain, the big shift has taken place in the $15, 000
and over category the white professional upper middle class suburban-
ites. In early November, we were 53-37 over Muskie with this vote.
Now it is 45-42. We only have a slight lead. This once again, has been
all year long the most volatile group. It swings back and forth. Muskie
is the only Democrat who can make inroads with this group and when-
ever he does he surges ahead in the polls. Neither the Kennedy-Huniphrey
or any of the others seem to be able to make any dent in this group which
is critical to us and which is growing by leaps and bounds.
There was also a shift with the young people. Undoubtedly it was attri-
butable to the bombing. We lost a little bit of ground in rural areas
which Harris believes could be the bad attitude among small farmers
at the moment.
Harris attributes all of this to the India-Pakistan situation, as to the
handling of which we have a 28 positive and 48 negative rating. This
is very low, particularly in a foreign policy area where we have come
out the strongest in all of the Harris ratings. Significantly all of the
other foreign policy ratings are down as well. Harris' theory is that
when we are affected badly in one foreign policy area it rubs off on all
others. On handling Vietnam it is 40 positive, 54 negative. Working
for peace in the world is now 51 positive, 44 negative. It was in
September 64 positive, 34 negative. In the foreign policy ratings,
there are large "not sures" indicating there has been a real slippage
here.
Harris does not believe, with the exception of the young voter, that the
bombings caused the problem; he argues that it was India-Pakistan.
Personally I disagree with him although he supports his case by pointing
out that on handling Vietnam we did not show the same deterioration we
did in all other areas. Harris believes that people got concerned over
India-Pakistan, that maybe it would upset our initiatives with China and
Russia and the general idea of achieving peace in the world. This is
where he feels we were hurt. Also, the college educated, higher income
groups would be much more sensitive to the sophisticated issues involved
in the India-Pakistan controversy.
Just for purposes of comparison, in the over $15,000 group the President
beats Kennedy #7-32 and Humphrey 56-29. It is in this area that the
entire difference with our standing, vis a vis, Muskie, can be found.
3.
Also this is a group which does turn out to vote and which, as I pointed
out, is an increasing share of the electorate. Hence, it can be critically
important and there is a good lesson from all of this. That is, that
Muskie is the one Democrat who can seriously penetrate this group.
On the positive-negative rating, we have dropped from 53-46 to 49-47.
Harris will not feature this in a column but will bury it in statistics
in a column relating to something else. It should be noted that this is
not really much of a decline. All of the published Harris poll data of
recent weeks has related to a combination of two polls. One taken the
last week in October and one taken in the second week in November.
We suffered a precipitous decline in between the two polls and rather
than show us up one week and down the next, Harris, at my suggestion,
combined the poll data. Hence, the 53-47 was really a lot better than
where we actually were in mid-November. In the November poll, if
that were broken out separately, we actually had about a 49-47 rating
or just what we had in the latest poll.
There was some bright news on the economy. In all categories he showed
significant improvement. For example, on the key question "Are the
Nixon economic policies keeping the economy healthy", in July we
were 22 positive, 73 negative. In November, 34 positive, 60 negative
and now in the latest January poll, 38 positive and 56 negative -- still
not good but the trend is coming up very well. In terms of keeping
unemployment down we now get a 26 positive, 66 negative (in July it
was 16 positive, 77 negative). For the first time in two years, a majority
do not think that prices are rising more rapidly than before. In response
to the question "Is the country in a recession?", today 49 percent say
yes, 33 no. In November, it was 56 yes, 27 no. In August it was
62 yes, 24 no; In March it was 65 yes and 21 no. Again, the figures
aren't good, but the trend is excellent. A majority feel now that there
will not be a recession next year by a 35-31 score. This is a complete
reversal of the response received to the same question last summer.
The key question politically on the economy is "Are the Nixon economic
policies doing more good than harm?" The reply to that is now 48 doing
more good than harm, 27 doing more harm than good. Once again, a
complete reversal from the position last summer.
Of passing interest, people by a 66 to 20 margin favor keeping controls
for another year. Harris honestly believes that Muskie's rise in the polls
4.
is a temporary "buf". The fact that he appears to have a lot of momentum
(and in Harris' opinion does have a lot of momentum) has been getting a
lot of publicity and doing very well in terms of his public image contramted
with an unsettling period in foreign affairs for us has brought him even
with us again, but Harris does not feel it will last because on the issues
and on handling the key issues we turn out much better.
Harris believes the following to be most significant:
Which candidates do you believe can do a better job with respect to the
following issues ?
Nixon
Muskie
Wallace
None
Not Sure
Working for peace
39
34
8
3
16
Keeping the economy healthy
38
32
8
3
19
End to Vietnam fastest
36
30
11
4
19
Trust most personally as the
man in the White House
36
33
9
4
18
Keep down taxes and spending
35
29
10
6
20
Race and civil rights
30
34
14
3
19
Solving problems of the poor
30
35
10
4
21
Crime - law and order
31
30
18
3
18
Air and water pollution
31
36
8
4
21
Health and education
34
34
9
2
21
NOTE: The foregoing was dictated by Mr. Colson over the telephone. It
is very rough and rambling but at least gives the raw data of the latest
Harris sample.
EYES ONLY
September 22, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
RNC/Senator Dole
I just had a one hour session with Bob Dole to try to crank him up
to do a better job of defending the President and hitting back at the
Democrats. Dole didn't disagree with any of my points but he is a
very different man than he was a few months ago,
1. He is having some serious internal problems with Tom Evans.
I assume you are aware of this.
2. He feels the staff at the RNC is incompetent and Nofsiger is not
doing the job he wants done but he, Dole, doesn't feel he can
shake things up.
3. He made the point that we are not giving him enough support,
speeches, material, etc., a point he said he made with the
President. To the extent that we have not done this, it will be
instantly remedied, but I pointed out to Bob that be has the whole
National Committee apparatus and that he shouldn't be leaning on
us and more importantly shouldn't be taking such minor complaints
to the President. I also pointed out that Nofsiger had specifically
asked us not to send speeches for Dole, Nofziger wanted to write
them. Dole's answer was that Nofziger hasn't been writing any
good speeches lately.
4. He is obsessed with our lack of support in the farm area and really
acts generally demoralized.
5. He fully recognizes that he has made virtually no news for the past
two months but I think he honestly doesn't know what to do. I
suggested a press conference attacking the Democratic partisan
obstructionists for openers. He may do this tomorrow, but he again
complained that he had no staff help to get ready for a press confer-
ence. I honestly believe his own self-confidence has been eroded
for some reason,
We are going to start pumping him up directly with some stuff from
here. He seems to welcome the idea. You will get loud screams from
Nofziger but we have got to try something to get Dole back out front and
also to buildiup his own self-confidence. The two, I suspect, go hand in
hand.
August 11, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
George Meany
You may have noticed in the article reporting Meany's China
blast at us that he plans to meet with Chavez while in California
this week to try to get Chavez under control. As you know,
Chavez is fighting the Teamsters and Fitzsimmons would never
consider reentering the AFL-CIO as long as Meany was supporting
Chavez and Chavez was in turn blocking the Teamsters.
Meany and Fitzsimmons have discussed the Chavez situation
before and the whole representation issue of the produce growers
in California. Fitzsimmons has been trying to get Meany to
straighten the problem out, but Meany has been heretofore
reluctant to get into it.
I think it is a reasonable surmise that if Meany is meeting with
Chavez it is to please Fitzaimmons and thereby pave the way for
the Teamsters to rejoin the AFL-CIO. This is, as I have indicated
to you before, very much against our interests politically and I
would hope that you might pass along to those involved the suggestion
that Fitssimmons be pinned down at the earliest possible time on
this point. We should want him to remain independent through next
year.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
HIGH PRIORITY
EYES ONLY
EYES ONLY
October 12, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON we
SUBJECT:
An alleged comment by the President.
Time, this week, has a very sharp dig at the President regarding
an alleged comment during the 1968 campaign that the nation isn't
ready to elect a Jew to national office.
Obviously this will hurt us with the 2% Jewish vote that we would
otherwise get, but more importantly if allowed to build, very
effectively offsets the Muskie VP remark.
Nart.
Do you know if the President made any comment of this nature ?
If he did not, I think we should demand a retraction by Time.
If he did make such a remark, I think we should flatly and quickly
deny it.
maybe How? better we should
not build it up
anymore + just
leave it die
EYES ONLY
EYES ONLY
August 5, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Lou Harris
Lou Harris rode down on the plane from New York yesterday with
Larry O'Brien. O'Brien talked to him like the old confident that
he once was. According to Harris, O'Brien made the following
points:
1. The early runners, McGovern, Bayh, etc., are all dead. Scoop
Jackson is picking up some support but is making a mistake by
putting all of his *ggs in one basket, i.e. Florida. O'Brien
believes that even though Jackson has Holland and Smathers
working for him, Muskie will get Chiles and Askew and Muskie
will win the Florida primary.
2. Muskie has a big leg up and is improving his lot with the pros;
he has picked up some very effective regional coordinators.
3. Jackson's one hope is that the defense issue will come back
hard. O'Brien believes that in fact it will but he still won't be
able to make a strong race.
4. Teddy is not out of it "by any means". His problem is that he
will have to make a decision next January on the California pri-
mary. He probably, according to O'Brien, will not go in (Harris
has it from Steve Smith that Kennedy probably will go into
California). If he doesn't go in, according to O'Brien, Muskie
will win the nomination unless he "commits a terrible goof".
5. The one candidate over whom O'Brien feels he has no control is
Gene McCarthy. O'Brien considers him a son of a bitch, a
spoiler and a sorehead who is still mad at the guys who did him
in in 1968. Whoever the candidate is (with of exception) he will
stay in and run on a fourth party ticket; he's especially irked
at Muskie and Humphrey and would love to stay in the race if
either of them are the nominee.
4.
6. The one exception is if Teddy were nominated; for some curious
reason he does not want to block Teddy. O'Brien says that Teddy's
man, Dave Burks, now works for Howard Stein and this could be
behind it. O'Brien considers a McCarthy fourth party candidacy
as the biggest danger the Democrats face next year. He also says
that McCarthy is a "money" man who will run if he thinks he can
make something out of it, but he won't unless he has financial
backing and there is some money in it for him personally.
7. Humphrey will try but can't make it. He'll never quit trying and
will go into California.
8. Lindsay will become a Democrat in mid-August, but will not run
for the Presidency.
9. O'Brien feels that the economy is the only issue that the Democrate
have. He simply cannot understand why the President has not used
selective wage and price controls. This would cut the legs out
from the Democrate and take away their only issue. He considers
that all the "dove" candidates are dead and that the President has
completely taken over the "peace# issue. No Democrat can profit
politically in the foreign affairs field, but they can win on the
economy unless the President pulls the rug out and does some
spectacular things, which O'Brien feels the President is entirely
capable of doing. As he puts it, "it's all in the President's control.
But, I don't understand why he hasn't done it".
10. O'Brien is not concerned at all about money. He has no intention of
paying off the $9 million debt, $800, 000 of which is owed to Daley
(who is very unhappy about it). The Committee collected $1. 7 million
on their dinner, they will spend it all this year but Strause is doing an
excellent job and thinks that he can raise the funds needed for a
Presidential campaign next year without any difficulty.
11. O'Brien believes that Texas was a fluke in 1960 and 1968 and that the
Democrats should clearly write it off for 1972. He sees no chance
of winning it but he does believe that they can win Ohio, Illinois and
New Jersey. He, therefore, believes that California will be the
swing state in the election. He thinks that the "Nixon South" is gone
as far as the Democrate are concerned, that they might pick up one
or two border states but that's all and they need Wallace in the race
to deny us the deep south. If Wallace were not in, they would lose
the entire south.
I
12. O'Brien's attitude is guardedly optimistic. He said as he moves
around the country he finds that the economy is really biting people
and that if the President does not do something fairly significant
and if the Democrats play to this issue alone, they can win. He is
very cautious in his outlook, however, and is extremly worried
about the McCarthy situation which he kept coming back to in the
course of the discussion.
13. O'Brien thinks that Reagan is no asset in the coming election, will
not help us in California and is the most dangerous problem the
President has within the Republican Party?
From all of the foregoing, two things of significance emerge in my mind.
We should be planning how to encourage McCarthy's candidacy. It may
all turn on one man, Howard Stein. If Stein agrees to go all the way and
bankroll McCarthy's candidacy, McCarthy will stay in the race all the way,
even as a spoiler. Stein is Jack Dreyfus' partner as you know and I
would think that through Bill Rogers or others, we could perhaps encourage
Stein's commitment to McCarthy. Itt would even be worth pumping some
money in.
A second point which seems to me to be very important is the Democratic
debt. We have an analysis of the Democrat's creditors and we should
start on the outside a pressure campaign to force them to pay their bills
before they start spending new money. Obviously we can't get involved
in this from here but some of our business friends on the outside might
be asked to organize a campaign to put the screws on.
You and I talked about this many months ago. It was my judgment then
that we should not try to embarrass the Democrate over their debt or
create public sympathy for the "poor" Democrats, but rather wait until
the campaign was about to get underway and then see that the creditors
put the heat on them. If someone from 1701 were to pick a couple of good
loyalists on the outside, they could start them to work on this now.
July 23, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES W. COLSON
SUBJECT:
Teamsters
I have in accordance with your instructions stayed out of the
Teamsters political activities. I can't help, however, but continue
to be fed with information. George Bell has to hold Frank
Fitssimmons hand at least 3 times a week.
One point has come up which could be terribly significant politically.
I think you should perhaps best raise it with the AG. I am sure you
will leave me out of the discussion.
The AFL/CIO badly wants the Teamsters to rejoin and a major
effort will be shortly undertaken to bring the Teamsters back into the
AFL/CIO. The alliance formed between the Teamsters and the UAW
has now been broken completely. There are no funds and both the Team-
sters and the UAW are ripe for rejoining the ranks. It is in the
interest of all 3.
Meany's one desire before he steps down or dies with his boots
on is to reunite the labor movement. My information is that he will
work at this intensively with a view to doing it before next year's
elections.
As far as the UAW is concerned, We couldn't care less. In fact,
from some standpoints it would be better for us politically to have
them in the AFL/CIO fold because they will create political division
within the ranks. The Teamsters is as you can well imagine quide
a different story. My opinion is that the Teamsters will remain officially
neutral but quietly work very hard for us,
1th
money
and
organi-
national support. If they are merged into the AFL/CIO before then,
however, they will probably be unable to do this. Hence it is in our
interest to see that the merger does not take place. Fits has it within
his capacity to block it provided it is made clear to him that that
is what we want. This agreement should be obtained very soon.
E.O.
By
7
July
7.ll
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Harris Polls
You have copies of the Harris polls on Kennedy for this week.
Next week will be the Muskie trial heats, based on the same field
survey of June 9-15. The figures are identical to May. In & 3-way
race, the President trails Muskie, 42-40, Wallace gets 13, 5
undecided. But in a 2-way race, it's 46-46, 8 undecided. Harris
intends to play this as "the President has closed the gap on Muskie's
earlier lead" at least that's the way he's described it to me.
Harris points out that there is an enormous contrast between
Muskie and Kennedy. The President still does well in the South,
40% to Wallace's 27 to Muskie's 26. But, in the West, Muskie
beats us 51-43, in the Mid-West 49-41 and in the East 48-35.
Harris believes that the difference turns on the vote in suburbs
and among independents. Interestingly, we do better against Muskie
on the raw data than when the unlikely voters are eliminated (the
opposite is true with Kennedy). This again illustrates that Muskie
does best with high income, better educated suburbanites. In the
$15, 000 per year and over category, the President beats Kennedy
52-36, but loses to Muskie 54-41. With the independent vote,
however, the President beats Muskie 44-37 (on the last poll in May,
Muskie won the independent vote 45-36 but he has offset this loss by
increasing his lead in the suburbs.
Harris attributes Muskie's strength to the fact that he is bland,
has a neutral image and does not really come across as a partismn
Democrat. The lack of controversy with respect to Muskie is at
this time his great strength, but will in due course tend to wear thin.
The risk to him is that he will become boring and uninspiring.
2.
Lou's close friend, Howard Stein, tells him that there is at least
a 50/50 chance that McCarthy will enter the Presidential race as
a fourth party candidate. As a result, Harris has done a 4-way
poll showing the President at 37, Muskie 35, Wallace 12 and
McCarthy 10.
By way of incidental intelligence, Lou says that the Kennedy people
believe that Humphrey is absolutely dead as a result of the Kennedy/
Johnson papers, that Muskie has been badly hurt but, that Kennedy
has not been affected. I have to assume from this that they feel
there is no ruboff from JFK to Teddy.
On the subject of the New York Times controversy, Harris believes
we should layoff the issue as far as the press issue is concerned;
as he puts it we have come out very well, that the real thrust has
been against the Democrats and Kennedy and Johnson. He is in
the field right now determining what the partisan fallout has been.
Based on what he said I can pretty well surmise what be will come
up with.
He advises that we should be careful not to appear to gloat over the
Democrats' problems, especially LBJ, nor should we on the other
hand appear overly concerned about the recent revelations. We
should stay above the battle; he believes that the Pentagon Papers
controversy will continue while the press issue fades and that our
job is to keep the focus on the Democrate. Harris does not believe
that the press issue is a gut issue, that it doesn't really affect people
or motivate them. The feeling that they have been duped and deceived,
however, is a strong emotional point that will endure.
Loce Hains
identical to May
RN 44
RN 40
46
EMK 36
Muskie 42
46
wallace 13
wallace 13
of
undered 7
5
8
midevest L 47-38
Somth
42- wallare - EMK(23)
west
51-39
Submbs
50-35
only coses under 30 45-37
collegenducted 54-43
loses Blacks 13-71
Independents RN 51-26
EMK in East 43-39
By con Tras
[win playas connebaeu frien)
Music - East 48-35,
Midwest 49-41 Muske
Sand in
RN 40 wallace 27 alusvie 26
west
muskie 51-43
Suburbs Musvie wills 47-42
Taves aruskis Young 46-38 (under 30)
Blacks 19 RN 59 Muskie
15,000 of over 52-36 RN over Eask
54-41 - muskie oner RN
44-37 RN carries in depended
over druskie
in the last Pou lumskie won 45-36
But in Submibs he has increased
his bad-
South is with us agains L anyone -
ardwest + Submbs are due very
next wonday 12 of Thursday is Varuedy
15 July
(Maskie-RN)
(34 form way naces)
19
of 22
RN)
Musice holds up because he is bloud;
ventral image - Doesn't really come up
as a Democrat -
Venuedy two le think musice is
dead based on Valuedy papers
HHH is dead -
at least 50-50, thew discartay.
goes with 4th Partay - Howard Steven
- wants to Teach Democrate a lesson
-wants to destroy present Sturcture
37 RN
35 muslice
12 wallace
10 accountry
arusvice has only strughn with Subanbs,
high income Sophishication- -
Muokie is clear front - newer. -
-
but twis is his most awkward
stance-
contras
how Havis says lay off the
issue -
we'e course our well - very well -
Stay cool
in the field right how -
real Imurst is against Dems;
of Joluson
Be careful of (1) gloating over Decis
especially LB
(2) or to be concerne dones
revelations -
we haven't been lunt by current
com Translecy- Public focus is on
Dews. -
reading on LBJ + Venicinding Years- -
Dears unique 90 for a complete
Dark Horse - States - Governors
???
Gilligan is was to watch-
Senators all went too fest
Pentagon Janus will heat - NY Twins
issue will fode no Jersonal
meaning - but feeling they've
been duped + de cerved is an
envotion point that win stick - -