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 Dr. R.R. Spitzer to Colson re: electoral appeal to farm/agricultural vote and Spitzer's potential campaign role in this area. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 5/21/1971
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144665
label
WHSF: Contested, 4-15
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144665
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 4-15
description
This file contains:
From Dr. R.R. Spitzer to Colson re: electoral appeal to farm/agricultural vote and Spitzer's potential campaign role in this area. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 5/21/1971
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144665
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
aac4343c65bb4b41
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
4
15
5/21/1971
Campaign
Letter
Letter from Dr. R.R. Spitzer to Colson re:
electoral appeal to farm/agricultural vote and
Spitzer's potential campaign role in this area.
4 pgs.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Page 1 of 1
9
MURPHY PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC.
BURLINGTON, WISCONSIN
PHONE 763-3566
DR. R. R. SPITZER
PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER
May 21, 1971
Personal and Confidential
Mr. Chuck Colson
Mr. John Whitaker
Office of the White House
Washington, D.C.
spitzer
Unless a visible and sincere effort is made
through a leader who rural America relates to
and is willing to place their confidence in,
the election is lost in 1972.
Warning signs have been around for some time and
certainly election '70, Congressman Scherle's
comments and other signs in the country point
that we are not winning the country!
Please reread my analysis of April. This analy-
sis confirmed your and John Whitaker's intelli-
gent appraisal of "political rural America",
Spring '71.
It now appears to me that the flak of the moment
has diverted us. You are looking and reacting
to a symptom rather than facing up to causes and
facts of the total picture.
It might be simplest to give in to a single per-
son or group at this point. But, it could lose
the big battle the election '72. Incidentally,
a quiet check of a few Farm Bureau State leaders
reveals that they "know nothing about Roger's
stand!"
I do appreciate Roger's concern about being "over
looked. But I would remind you that our entire
national agricultural committee, for all practi-
cal purposes, had been overlooked. Yet we under-
stand priorities, a Democrat Congress and our
loyalty 'til now has not wavered.
You are forgetting the farm vote is more than
farmers. It includes all who are involved in the
-2-
agricultural economy. Please don't be mislead by
one who's definition at this moment of agriculture
is not including the broad picture.
The middle road on some decisions might work.
But rural America "has had it."
Please, read the attached Chicago Tribune editorial
our friends!
Are you ready to make the one logical move which
would start the road back? Delaying action will
serve to further crumble and erode the confidence
of rural America in the Nixon administration.
Some of us have been trying to get across the
message for two and one-half years! Our cause is
lost unless there is:
1. A Secretary of Agriculture who rural folks
accept as "their man."
2. A highly visible White House rural leader
who comes out strong for the little guy,
for Main Street, for farmers, for the total
agricultural picture.
3. Planned and coordinated work with Citizens
for Nixon and the Republican National Com-
mittee.
Chuck and John, you folks called me "on behalf
of the President." I responded after real per-
sonal and business decisions only because the
job needs to be done.
Don't feel that you must offer me another job. I
don't need a job. While I'm grateful, in neither
government role you suggest could I really help
the President accomplish the big task.
1. There are many qualified men who can handle
the Tariff Commission job.
2. To serve as Assistant Secretary or Under
Secretary of Agriculture in the present
climate would be an exercise without ef-
fectiveness on behalf of President Nixon.
-3-
3. As rural campaign leader again for '72, I
can help. But this assignment will be next
to impossible without first reselling the
administration that "Nixon's for Farmers."
This can only be done at White House and
USDA level.
I have arranged my affairs to help you do a job,
to help re-elect Mr. Nixon. There are only two
positions that will allow this
1) Special
Advisor to President, Rural Affairs, etc. or
2) Secretary of Agriculture.
Let me sit down with President Nixon, John Mitchell,
Senator Dole, yourselves, (possibly also Hyde
Murray, Harry Dent, Bryce Harlow, Rogers Morton).
Let's really look at this vital rural political
picture from the eyes of a broad agriculture and
with the information that our national agricul-
tural committee offers.
I have never had a person-to-person visit, of this
small group type, with the man for whom I've worked
four years and more. I appreciate that your job
is to advise and protect. My motive is to help
save.
We'd end with forward strategy after we've dis-
cussed the facts as it is in the country.
Our original team is still intact. But frankly
this latest further delay threatens to destroy
what AB Hermann says was "the best agricultural
political team ever fielded by the Republican
Party." My phone and mail signals such an erosion.
Today one of our '68 leaders stated this, "Bob,
my good friend, it becomes more obvious each time
I hang up my phone after talking to one of those
who helped lead the agricultural charge in 1968
(and these kind of calls have been growing of
late) that rural America is indeed losing its
once proud confidence in Mr. Nixon -- not by
choice, but through a breakdown in the trust
they've had in Mr. Nixon. Caused not by any
specific action Mr. Nixon has taken but for lack
of any action at all. This cannot go on if Mr.
Nixon hopes to harvest any support from these
people."
-4-
For all practical purposes, as of now, you don't
have the farm vote. We do still have the rural,
agricultural, Main Street, and "little guy" vote.
But we are going to blow this, too, unless you
follow the dictates of your careful analysis of
six weeks ago.
Let's win in '72
with agriculture
for Nixon
RRS:ch
Bob
Encl.
standing by and
ready to help.