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 Stein defending White House economic spokesman Pierre Rinfret. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/25/1972
From Colson to Ed Harper RE: potential issues for the White House to use during the campaign. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/28/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144551
label
WHSF: Contested, 3-34
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144551
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 3-34
description
This file contains:
From Colson to Stein defending White House economic spokesman Pierre Rinfret. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/25/1972
From Colson to Ed Harper RE: potential issues for the White House to use during the campaign. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/28/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144551
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e18393c18d9d21f4
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
3
34
8/25/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Stein defending White
House economic spokesman Pierre Rinfret. 2
pgs.
3
34
6/28/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Ed Harper RE: potential
issues for the White House to use during the
campaign. 1 pg.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Page 1 of 1
EYES ONLY
August 25, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
HERB STEIN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Pierre Rinfret
Pierre Rinfret called me this morning very upset over the latest
Business Week; he reports that both you and George Shults cut
him down rather badly in an interview.
I am, of course, totally agreeable to having Pierre be simply one
of several economic spokesmen for us in the campaign. As of this
point, however, no other attractive, articulate economic spokesmen
have been produced by anyone and Rinfret is bouncing all over the
country for us, giving good, tough speeches attacking McGovern's
economic proposals.
The President did have Rinfret in to talk to him, basically in order
to give him some portfolio and credentials with which to speak. The
President was very strong in the meeting on the point of Rinfret's
getting out and making our case for us and attacking McGovern's
proposals.
If we can get other economic spokesmen of Rinfret's abilities, we
should certainly do so. But until such time as we have some others,
I don't think it is really productive for us to be clipping Rinfret's
wings, certainly not gratuitously.
I fully appreciate the point that you have made to the President and
he in turn has made to Bob Haldeman and myself, that you should not
be asked to undertake partisan appearances during the campaign. Since
you will be somewhat limited at least in strictly partisan appearances,
it does seem to me all the more important that we should be encouraging,
not discouraging, those who do wish to speak out for us.
2.
I haven't seen the Business Week article but I would have to conclude
hastily from Rinfret's call to me that his complaints were somewhat
justified. I do think also that it is kind of silly for the President to
spend a half hour building someone up only to have others tear him
down.
I am well aware of the sensitivities towards Rinfret but for God's sake,
for the next 74 days, let's milk him for everything he's worth!
CCI George Shultz
bcc: John Connally
Clark MacGregor
June 28, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ED HARPER
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
Do I correctly assume that you are doing an analysis of the
Democratic Platform both as to cost and political impact It
would seem to me If we analyse the Democratic Platform, it
will give rise to thoughts for our own where we want to draw
a contrast or alternatively where we want to duck an issue.
I noted with very special interest George Meany's comments
yesterday and he raised what is with labor a very key point, i.e.
the export of jobs. If you read Meany's remarks in full, you
will see that what he is saying is the Democratic Party should
be more concerned with American capital going abroad resulting
in exports of jobs than in such things as abortion, women's lib,
etc. In this area, I think we could do some very, very effective
demagoguing if we could write a plank that hits this issue head on.
It would not only ring bells with Meany, but would give Don Rodgers,
our labor man, something to really sell across the country. The
labor people don't understand the issue of "export of jobs" has
become something of a code word with labor, but that language
alone would be useful. Could you explore this and let me know
what the prospects are because there is an opportunity for real
political exploitation here.