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:
Record of a conversation between Colson and Harris RE: using international politics in election questionnaires, as well as regional polling figures for October 1972. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 10/13/1972
From Douglas L. Hallett to Colson RE: advice on various campaign issues. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 10/13/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144571
label
WHSF: Contested, 3-44
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144571
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 3-44
description
This file contains:
Record of a conversation between Colson and Harris RE: using international politics in election questionnaires, as well as regional polling figures for October 1972. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 10/13/1972
From Douglas L. Hallett to Colson RE: advice on various campaign issues. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 10/13/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144571
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f9fddc0686d9ca9d
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
3
44
10/13/1972
Campaign
Other Document
Record of a conversation between Colson
and Harris RE: using international politics in
election questionnaires, as well as regional
polling figures for October 1972. 6 pgs.
3
44
10/13/1972
Campaign
Letter
From Douglas L. Hallett to Colson RE:
advice on various campaign issues. 4 pgs.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Page 1 of 1
Fib
Conversation with Lou Harris, October 13, 1972
H:
such a build up of Henry's trip and the day after day and the extra day
and then the extra day after that
you know, that if there isn't something, I
worry now about a real letdown on that issue. I'm not worried about what
McGovern or anybody else is saying, the things the American people are
saying. For the first time we had our hopes up
C: Do you think they have their hopes up?
H: Yep. We polled them, we were getting like 88% expected no settlement,
I don't know, but I would guess that it might be no more than 50% expect no
settlement before the election.
C: I wonder if that's a question worth asking, Lous?
H: Yea, it is and I intend to put it in. I can't get it in this one unfortunately.
C: You can't?
H: No, we had to release today. I probably should have put it in.
C: Oh, you mean, released your questionnaire.
H: To get it out in the field. We mail it out because it's the only way to do
it.
C: Now you're really worrying me.
H: It does worry me. I'm not worried about if the Kissinger trip had been off
the record
C: It was, but
H: Oh, but, shit, you know
I'm not saying there were any leaks out, but it
leads the news every night and the President comes back from Atlanta and
it almost overshadows Atlanta. They came to
back to be with Dr. Kissinger
had breakfast this morning that sort of thing. It's almost like people are
breathlessly hanging on to every word about this and what worries me is, they
really have an appetite for something and I got that
sitting on that result about
the bombing.
C: I understand your point and I was calling you really to tell you that
this
thing is incredibly complicated and it isn't black and white
2.
H: Well, if it can be done with any degree of honor, I'd say do it. Just talking
C old blooded
C: Well, you show sometimes uncanncy perception because we put a certain
deadline and they said, well, we'll let you know and I bet you that we're going
to go right down to the wire as you indicated we might and they know they're
putting us in a bind too. Because
H: Some day, after this election, I'll tell you about something
I've been
involved with the Russians before on some things and they're really strange
people.
They are
nti-Communists are strange people. They are heavy
handed
even though
I don't know them very well at all, but they'd say
these guys have a certain kind of heavy-handed, butcher-like quality, so that
in negotiations, they put it like pounds of meat on the table, rather than any
delicacy at all. I don't know if that's what they're doing, but that's
C: It's a curious combination of things that are going on, but my own view is
that we are rolling inextriably forward towards something that is going to
happen and that the timing of it is going to be more governed perhaps
more
by almost the ponderous nature in which you have to do things.
H:
they 'll be a week late You wait and see.
C: That's entirely conceivable
H: They have a much more encumbered decision.
C: That's what I'm trying to say.
H: They are not free men to negotiate.
C: Well, they're freer now than they have been, but.
H: In other words, the days of Stalin they could make a deal stick ar e over in
their world.
C: Particularly with this outfit.
H: That's right because they've got a collective leadership
C: And, God, the Russians are more
are pushing harder
I don't know if you
saw what Pravda said today, but
H: No, but I had a guy come in this morning that said. I don't trust him because
3.
he's this guy Bonda's successor, the counsellor of theembassy there. He came
in and I gave him our line including the Japanese
when you say it's better to
have a Japanese controlled in the open negotiating with the Chinese than going
behind our back and your back. His eyes lit up and he took big notes at that.
a
At any rate, but then I gave him/pretty strong sell on the Vietnam thing and
said, don't you understand that a great deal of whether you get this cooperation
you so desperately seek after the election depends entirely on what you do on
Vietnam and at first he tried to weasel out, by saying, no, no, we don't really
control it and I said, as long as you have some input into it, if that isn't full
input for a settlement now on it, it can be costly to you.
just like that and I
thought that impressed him.
C: That's very good.
H: Well, that's the way
that's their language.
they're always thinking
in terms of
and end result and they don't give a shit how they get there but
they want to know what is the connection. This guy also gave me a somewhat
hard time on the Jackson amendment.
so I said, well, don't be so categorical
about condemning our country for that or even Israel. You'll find Israel is
not for the Jackson amamdment and he looked started at that. I had a good time.
giving him a hard time.
C: That's very helpful. Well, my question to you, is there are 3 options.
This gets very complex. One, a continuation
pressing hard to try to get
it
H: Yea, which means even intensifying the bombings
C: No, no. But it means continuing the kind of stuff that we've seen this week.
H: Except we'll miss the French Embassy next time.
C: Wasn't that awful. No, I mean when I say continuing activities, I mean
continuing Kissinger activity. Which was something that my or may not break
before the first of November. But if it doean't break before the first of November,
well quite assuredly break in November
after the election, because we cannot
by your thesis cannot do anything in the first 7 days in November. People think
you know that you just sit down and say, well, here's the deal and everybody
shakes hands, but this is the first time that there has really been.
H: The outlines that have come out, I must say, it's not that clean a deal.
C: No, you can see it shaping up.
H: There's some contingencies
stuff down the rode which doesn't surprise me.
4.
H: Which
it's been a muddied up war anyway and that's the way it should
appropriately end.
C: Then, the second option would be the cut everything off cold, right now
but that might really imperil the opportunity to get something. The third
option is that the timing plays out such that something happens before the
end of the month.
H: Well, I'd opt for the third very strongly, if you can see the daylight.
C: Oh, yea, but we're not in total control. The third could become the first
is what I guess I'm saying.
H: Yea, I would worry about that last week of the election, if Henry were
intensive negotiations up to then and then it broke off and everybody knew
there was nothing coming up before the election
C: Well, but they might also have a feeling it might be coming up right after
it.
H: Well, I don't think that will wash.
C: Then we've got a hell of a dilemma.
H: I think it's a risk. Just piddling with numbers and guessing, but I'd guess
you could get down to an 18 point lead which if the 12 difference of the big states
could put them down to 6, which gets close. That's my worry. I wanted to say
it the other day about Teetor, but remember the President so shrewdly said
"the overall results aren't going to be reflected of how close it can get in the
big states because of my lead in the South". Remember that? And he's dead
right. He's a real keen political analysist, I must say, because that's true.
We're getting a 12 point spread
I know, because this guy that did the New York
poll was in my office before and he said to me'gee, you know I would have guessed
a 6 point spread between the big states so that when we got 16 here in New York,
it was going to be 22 nationwide and he said, I'm amazed. This guy's a statistician
and we looked at our data and analyzed it and I said no, and here's why. The
reason is that you've got not only the South, but you've got smaller states looking
like the South as well and it's much tigheter in the bigger states. And my worry
is that's exactly where you'll get Vitnam sensitive vote. These big states on the
coast, I'm less worried about Ohio and Illinois, but I'm more worried about New
York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California.
C: Not Pennsylvania.
H: Well, I don't know.
C: Not Illinois and not Ohio.
5.
H: Well, you half convinced me on Pennsylvania.
C: I don't think we have to worry in Pennsylvania. and I don't think we do in
New Jersey or Connecticut. Now, those are states
well, we took Jersey
before. We'll take Texas
so WE even if the thing closes, and we lost
California, that's more than offset by Pennsylvania and Texas.
H: Oh, yea. No, I'm not saying the election is going to be lost, but I think it
could get down to anywhere from 58 to 60 instead of 61 to 64.
C: Yea, which is of course where we'd rather see it end.
H: And as I read Richard Nixon he'd like to get as much as he can get.
C: Well, yea, and I think
I was interested talking to one of my good Democratic
friends the other day who said I'm not only voting for him but I'm pulling like hell
for a big vote because we've got to clean the McGovernites out of the Democratic
Party.
H: Right. You tell the President this story. It's occurred to me in the last
couple days, thinking hard about this, that the mark of a real champion
as
a matter of fact it makes a difference in boxing particularly, but in any sport,
is when.
boxing is the most dramatic in a way because the guy has to be able
to take his opponent out clean and hard and he's got to knock him out all the
way. He doesn't like a TKO. If you' re going to win a football game, and I'm
not saying you roll up the score deliberately, but it should be 60-12, you make
it 60-12. And I sense
tell the President I share that view. There's no way
to play except for keeps all the way. I don't know if you agree with that, but I think
you do. And thats why I see this now, the only issue. I swear I don't think
this recent Washington Post this is going to wash.
it's too late
C: And God
well, you and I will plot about taking over the Post
It is the
mos t incredible story I have ever read in my life.
H. The economy keeps getting better, the
I just don't see the
young people are
not moving, I've kgot reports back from the colleges all the time now and what's
happened is they haven't gone toNixon they've gotten apolitical.
anti-political.
C: Yea, my son says that at Princeton they're not even getting absenttee X ballots.
H: No, I checked it out
Columbia it's the same thing. They're not interested
in politics at all. They're just turned off and so, I'm not worried about the
youth vote, except I am worried about the goddamn Vietnam, it worries the
hell out of me. It's soft. It's got a soft
I've been studying the last 8 years
6.
of my life studying the guy.
C: Oh, I know it. You've been more perceptive to the changes than anybody
else.
H: And it's
this worries me. it doesn't worry me that it will lose the
election, it worries me that
reporting on the Saturday before the election
that it's gone from 27-17 or something. And.
C: I think it's holding now, Lou, from every feeling I get. Well, I don't know.
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
13 October 1972
Dear Mr. Colson
I ant in receipt of your letter of 10 October. Much
as I hate to admit it, I appreciate your responding -- and
was hoping you would. While I hesitate to take your time
at this point in the campaign, I have too much respect for
both of us to not respond immediately.
First, I do owe you an apology, primarily in the sense
one might have advised Chairman Khruschev that he owed an
apology to President Eisenhower for walking out of the 1960
Paris summit talks. My letter was both rude and boorish,
and I regret that I allowed myself to get so out-of-control.
Your psychoanalysis is well-taken; you point out a real
problem, and one which you are not the first to notice.
In retrospect, my final melodramatics appear particularly
unfortunate:-- I do not think any personal disappointment
I might suffer justifies withdrawing whatever assistance
I can be to the campaign. Most importantly, I also owe you
an apology for the direct challenge to your integrity; I
did not, and do not, have sufficient evidence to make such
an allegation.
Nevertheless, I do take exception to other parts of
your letter. On the matter of most immediate dispute, I
refer you to Sec. 140(g) (I) of the Higher Education Amend-
ments of 1972 "The Commission shall be composed of...
(c) not to exceed thirteen members appointed by the President
not later than ninety days after the enactment of this
act. Such members shall be appointed from among -
(vi) students." There is no mention of the word "under-
graduate," and no justification I can find for interpreting
the legislative intent as limiting the student-class of
membership to undergraduates.
As I have indicated, I do not have cause for alleging
that you "fabricated" a false statutory requirement; nor
do I really think you either consciously or deliberately
did SO, What I do think is that you did not take the few
momemts of your time and use the few calories of your energy
Page Two
Hon. Charles W. Colson
it would require to pursue my interests when Mr. Kingsley's
office informed you, probably indirectly, whatever they did.
In all frankness, if Mr. Kingsley's office did tell you there
was a statutory requirement for an undergraduate, I find it
difficult to believe that a lawyer and former congressional
staff member of your skill and experience would not be suspi-
cious --- statutes just aren't written that way. But, leaving
that aside, I have watched you in action too often and have
too much regard for your inquisitiveness and thoroughness to
believe that you would not have pursued the matter, even to
obtaining the text of the statute, had you thought it important
to do SO. That just isn't the way you do business when you
want something.
Nor do I think the other matters I raised -- and which
contributed to my outburst --- are so insignificant that they
indicate, at most, inadvertence on your part. Certainly a
White House pass, EOB mess and gym privileges, a title of
equal stature to my colleagues', access to the news-summary
before asking at least a half-dozen times for it, an office
less than 200 yards from the nearest secretarial assistance,
invitations to the numerous briefings and other meetings my
closest parallel, Mr. Karalekas, had assa matter of course,
perhaps a trip to the convention - or anywhere -- certainly
these things are not more important than some of the other
opportunities I had -- and I question your implication that
I, even in my rashest moments, think they are.
On the other hand, I must say that I have too much regard
for your ability as a bureaucratic in-fighter and upward-moving
political force to accept the idea that you cannot recognize
their importance, indeed their necessity, to anybody, espe-
cially a young person, who is trying to operate effectively
in an environm ent like the White House. Rightly or wrongly,
people judge you by the outward symbols of your clout --- and
I did not have many. Obviously it would be silly to contend
that a White House pass makes much difference in comparison
with "making even a small contribution to the course of our
nation's affairs" (Attacking me that way is like the President
attacking liberals for valuing forced, cross-city bussing over
the American flag, Mom, Pop, and apple pie); it is not silly
to suggest that I might have been able to make a bigger contri-
Pution --- and certainly would have had a more profitable pro-
fessional experience --- had I enjoyed the privileges other
staff members enjoy automatically. Nor is it out of the question
to suggest that you are quite capable of recognizing that.
The fact that you pay Mike Balzano (given his ability) and
Mel Stephens (given his experience) over $20,000/annum is,
I think, sufficient evidence for my contention that I was under-
Page Three
Hon. harles W. Colson
paid.
I apologize for the tone of the letter (that's what you
get for having me write all those "nut-cutting" speeches
last year) and the specific, unsubstantiable assault on your
integrity. I, too, would like to think that I wrote the
letter in a rash moment and on reflection realize it was
both unjustified and unfair. I retain, obviously with some
considerable feeling, the reservations I have expressed
above as well as the thoughts I expressed --- and have never
retracted -- in my September 1 letter.
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Douglas L. Hallett
The Honorable Charles W. Colson
Special Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
P.S. Some gratuitous campaign advice from a common citizen:
(1) You're doing fine on Watergate --- it's a D. C. exclusive.
On the other hand, it would not hurt to have the President
fire somebody on some other issue, sick an anti-trust
suit on somebody, or blast a polluter - --- provided it wasn't
too patently politically done.
(2) The Veep and the surrogates need some chargeing up as
we discussed a couple weeks ago -- you can't let these
Democrats stop thinking about amnesty, pot, abortion,
crime (especially) or else they will start thinking about
another four years of President Nixon's economic management.
Remember '70 and don't god too heavy, but don't let the
social issue runflout of gas -- just reword it and elevate it
a bit.
(3) The tax issue has been great in the last two weeks. Add
to it some clean, clear gigures on the cost-of-living ---
especially that figure about the President increasing the
average real income by 5 percent --- that should be in
everybody's every goddamn speech.
(4) I'd still like to see a domestic, thematic speech on reprivati-
zation, decentralization, individualism, etc. as the core
of the President's domestic program. I'd still like to see
Page Four
Hon. Charles W. Colson
it in a good visual location, but, you're right, the radio
stuff does get good play, without having the President run
around like a political candidate.
(5) Shriver needs counter-attacking. He is getting less
buffoonish, and he gets good press locally wherever he goes.
You should ask Hugh Scott, whose acid tongue is perfect for
tagging Shriver as an elitist dreamer, to follow him around.
(6) I'd still like to see the President go to a factory-
local union meeting and give a ramble on the Rosow Report-type
issues and what he's done/is doing in response.
(7) The Committee for the Ressurection's precinct activity
remains, as far as I can tell, vastly overestimated. On the
other hand, McGovern cannot even get people to work for him
here. It's dead, dead, dead.
(8) If Don Dwight can bring out a crowd -- and only if -- the
President should come to Boston. The McGovern people here
tell me that the moving-over they expected to begin in the
last week hasn't occurred, at least yet, for the first time,
I really think the President can actually carry this state.
The unity bit in Atlanta, as well as everything else, was
good --- if he comes to Boston, retain that tone.