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 Higby to McKee RE: Haldeman's plan to meet with various White House officials regarding campaign finance. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/14/1972
From Higby to Price RE: the results of the New Hampshire primary. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/7/1972
From Higby to Charles Rotchford RE: money for a film lens and calendar watch. 1 pg. [Subject: Personal] [Memo], 3/28/1972
From Buchman to Haldeman RE: money due from Haldeman. 1 pg. [Subject: Personal] [Memo], 3/23/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: Odle's handling of letters. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 3/30/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: the Pennsylvania primary. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/29/1972
Action Memorandum from Haldeman RE: sending White House surrogates into Pennsylvania shortly before the primary. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/29/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: Ziegler's concerns with the campaign. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/29/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: the role of key states in the election. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/28/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: an analysis of the Southern view of RN. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/22/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: following up on Strachan's conversation with Benham. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/21/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: Harris and Gallup polls. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/21/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: a "Name Change." 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 3/21/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: Bob Teeter. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 3/17/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: a trial heat poll involving Wallace. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/17/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: questions generated by Haldeman for inclusion in a poll. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/17/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: Wisconsin. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/16/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: Haldeman's appraisal of a Republican National Committee Communications position. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 3/15/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: advance surrogates in New Hampshire. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/14/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: a one-page summary of the primaries for Haldeman. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/13/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: a recent student poll. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/13/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: requests by RN for various reports and pieces of information. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/9/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: campaigning in Florida and New Hampshire finances. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/8/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: generating a talking paper for Haldeman to use. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 3/8/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: reports from Benham's office on specific demographics. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/7/1972
From Higby to Richard S. Stevens RE: an enclosed check. 1 pg. [Subject: Personal] [Letter], 3/7/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: campaign contributors. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/6/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: Haldeman's desire to get Gallup and Harris poll results. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/6/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: a discussion about the RNC budget. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 3/6/1972
From Higby to Timmons RE: finding room for John T. Chadwell, Jr. in the campaign. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/28/1972
From unknown author to unknown recipient RE: John T. Chadwell's desire to aid RN in his bid for re-election. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], no date
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26145385
label
WHSF: Contested, 9-20
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26145385
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 9-20
description
This file contains:
From Higby to McKee RE: Haldeman's plan to meet with various White House officials regarding campaign finance. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/14/1972
From Higby to Price RE: the results of the New Hampshire primary. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/7/1972
From Higby to Charles Rotchford RE: money for a film lens and calendar watch. 1 pg. [Subject: Personal] [Memo], 3/28/1972
From Buchman to Haldeman RE: money due from Haldeman. 1 pg. [Subject: Personal] [Memo], 3/23/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: Odle's handling of letters. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 3/30/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: the Pennsylvania primary. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/29/1972
Action Memorandum from Haldeman RE: sending White House surrogates into Pennsylvania shortly before the primary. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/29/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: Ziegler's concerns with the campaign. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/29/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: the role of key states in the election. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/28/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: an analysis of the Southern view of RN. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/22/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: following up on Strachan's conversation with Benham. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/21/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: Harris and Gallup polls. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/21/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: a "Name Change." 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 3/21/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: Bob Teeter. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 3/17/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: a trial heat poll involving Wallace. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/17/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: questions generated by Haldeman for inclusion in a poll. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/17/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: Wisconsin. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/16/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: Haldeman's appraisal of a Republican National Committee Communications position. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 3/15/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: advance surrogates in New Hampshire. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/14/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: a one-page summary of the primaries for Haldeman. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/13/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: a recent student poll. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/13/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: requests by RN for various reports and pieces of information. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/9/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: campaigning in Florida and New Hampshire finances. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/8/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: generating a talking paper for Haldeman to use. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 3/8/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: reports from Benham's office on specific demographics. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/7/1972
From Higby to Richard S. Stevens RE: an enclosed check. 1 pg. [Subject: Personal] [Letter], 3/7/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: campaign contributors. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/6/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: Haldeman's desire to get Gallup and Harris poll results. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/6/1972
From Higby to Strachan RE: a discussion about the RNC budget. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 3/6/1972
From Higby to Timmons RE: finding room for John T. Chadwell, Jr. in the campaign. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/28/1972
From unknown author to unknown recipient RE: John T. Chadwell's desire to aid RN in his bid for re-election. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 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
26145385
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a4203f6aa9196f72
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
9
20
3/14/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to McKee RE: Haldeman's plan
to meet with various White House officials
regarding campaign finance. 1 pg.
9
20
3/7/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Price RE: the results of the
New Hampshire primary. 1 pg.
9
20
3/28/1972
Personal
Memo
From Higby to Charles Rotchford RE:
money for a film lens and calendar watch. 1
pg.
9
20
3/23/1972
Personal
Memo
From Buchman to Haldeman RE: money due
from Haldeman. 1 pg.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Page 1 of 6
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
9
20
3/30/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: Odle's handling
of letters. 1 pg.
9
20
3/29/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: the
Pennsylvania primary. 1 pg.
9
20
3/29/1972
Campaign
Memo
"Action Memorandum" from Haldeman RE:
sending White House surrogates into
Pennsylvania shortly before the primary. 1
pg.
9
20
3/29/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: Ziegler's
concerns with the campaign. 2 pgs.
9
20
3/28/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: the role of key
states in the election. 1 pg.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Page 2 of 6
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
9
20
3/22/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: an analysis of
the Southern view of RN. 1 pg.
9
20
3/21/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: following up on
Strachan's conversation with Benham. 1 pg.
9
20
3/21/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: Harris and
Gallup polls. 1 pg.
9
20
3/21/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: a "Name
Change." 1 pg.
9
20
3/17/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: Bob Teeter. 1
pg.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Page 3 of 6
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
9
20
3/17/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: a trial heat poll
involving Wallace. 1 pg.
9
20
3/17/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: questions
generated by Haldeman for inclusion in a
poll. 4 pgs.
9
20
3/16/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: Wisconsin. 1 pg.
9
20
3/15/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: Haldeman's
appraisal of a Republican National
Committee Communications position. 1 pg.
9
20
3/14/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: advance
surrogates in New Hampshire. 1 pg.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Page 4 of 6
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
9
20
3/13/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: a one-page
summary of the primaries for Haldeman. 1
pg.
9
20
3/13/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: a recent student
poll. 1 pg.
9
20
3/9/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: requests by RN
for various reports and pieces of information.
1 pg.
9
20
3/8/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: campaigning in
Florida and New Hampshire finances. 1 pg.
9
20
3/8/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: generating a
talking paper for Haldeman to use. 1 pg.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Page 5 of 6
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
9
20
3/7/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: reports from
Benham's office on specific demographics. 1
pg.
9
20
3/7/1972
Personal
Letter
From Higby to Richard S. Stevens RE: an
enclosed check. 1 pg.
9
20
3/6/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: campaign
contributors. 1 pg.
9
20
3/6/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: Haldeman's
desire to get Gallup and Harris poll results. 1
pg.
9
20
3/6/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From Higby to Strachan RE: a discussion
about the RNC budget. 1 pg.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Page 6 of 7
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
9
20
3/28/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Higby to Timmons RE: finding room
for John T. Chadwell, Jr. in the campaign. 1
pg.
9
20
Campaign
Memo
From unknown author to unknown recipient
RE: John T. Chadwell's desire to aid RN in
his bid for re-election. 1 pg.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Page 7 of 7
March 14, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PAT MC KEE
FROM:
L. HIGBY
Haldeman wants to have anmeeting with Stans, Mitchell, Safire and
possibly Colson on the subject of campaign financing and releasing
of contributors' names. Will you wo rk with Haldeman in getting a
date together for this. Check with him today and see If he wants to
do it this week or wait.
LH:kb
HIGH PRIORITY
March 7, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR :
RAY PRICE
FROM :
L. HIGBY
Ray, would you please work out a suitable statement in conjunction
with Ron Ziegler to be issued by Jerry Warren at the morning brief-
ing, regarding the New Hampshire results? It should be along the
lines listed below:
The President was pleased by the support shown by the
vote and wishes to express his appreciation to the voters
of New Hampshire for their vote of confidence. He also
wants to express his appreciation for those who, in his
absence, made appearances in his behalf.
LH:pm
March 28, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. CHARLES ROTCHFORD
FROM:
L. HIGBY
Attached is the $9 for the film lens and the calendar watch replacement.
The rest of the money will follow shortly.
Attachment
LH:kmt
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 23, 1972
H
Mr. Rotchford forwarded the
attached. The total amount
due from you is $11.06 -- Larry
took one of the calendars for his
wrist watch.
If you will make out a check at
your convenience, I will forward
it to Mr. Rotchford.
kb
Attachment 8.98
March 30, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
What happens to all the letters that we submit to Bob Odle? Obviously,
99 percent of them simply receive a reply saying we have placed your
name on our active file and if something comes up we will get in touch
with you. This is probably a pretty unsatisfactory way to handle this
thing. Does Odle have any system for sending these letters directly
from the National Committee to the State organizations, or better yet,
the precinct or local organizations in the area where the people write
from letting the local people know that they want to help and that some
contact should be made. This is probably a good way to pick up a
number of volunteers, yet I doubt if it is being done.
Please let me know.
LH:kmt
March 29, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
SUBJECT:
Pennsylvania Primary
Bob indicated that you need to cover, with Magruder, the point that
we need to be sure that we get our surrogates into Pennsylvania well
ahead of the Pennsylvania primary to answer the Democratic can-
didates. He feels we failed completely on doing this in Wisconsin,
and the Democrats have gotten away with making all the news where
we get no answers out on our side. In Pennsylvania, which is the
next primary that really counts, we should not let this happen.
CC: Chuck Colson - will you please have your people follow-up here
as appropriate. Thank you.
LH:kmt
ACTION MEMORANDUM
We need to be sure to get our surrogates into Pennsylvania well
ahead of the Pennsylvania primary to answer the Democratic
candidates. We failed on this completely in Wisconsin and the
Democrats have gotten away with making all the news while we
get no answers out on our side. In Pennsylvania, which is the
next one that will really count, we should not let this happen.
HRH:kb
March 29, 1972
March 29, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
Ron Ziegler raised with me two problems in your area that you
ought to give some consideration to and then let's talk about it.
One concernsis Ziegler's access to polling information. He
naturally would like to know everything, but realizes this is not
a feasible possibility. He does feel, however, and frankly I
happen to agree with him, that it would be helpful for him to have
access to some general polling information, such as how we are
doing, and particularly issue information and the stragegy surround-
ing the information, i.e., if he knew that drugs were a very important
issue in the minds of the public and that our recognition in the area
of drugs is very low, he could upon occasion, in briefings and
private conversation, emphasize the President's commitment towards
the drug program. This is only onecexample, and I'm sure there are
some much better ones.
Anyway, he probably should have some sort of general access or
poll briefing made available to him. Nothing, of course, on trial
heats, etc.
His second problem is in the area of being plugged in on what's
happening generally over at the Committee. He has Bruce Whelihan
set up to actas his liaison in this regard, but most of the emphasis
will be primarily in the area of press. He wonders if it wouldn't
be possible for you and Bruce to talk once or twice a week to get some
sort of general briefing. This might be a good idea, a better idea even,
however, might be for you and Ziegler to meet occasionally and go
through things. It would certainly increase your access and stature
and probably you can be more sure of what the type of information was
that was being relayed to Ziegler.
2
Anyway, give this some thought, jott down some notes, and let's
talk about it tomorrow.
LH:kb
March 28, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
SUBJECT:
Scheduling Proposals in Key States
Bob suggested, in the meeting with Parker and Chapin yesterday, the
idea of a key state book, that we all keep copies of, that indicates the
situation in the states, what our primary targets are in each state,
etc. It would really be more of a one page sheet such as Chapin turned
in on his scheduling proposal rather than a poll type sheet but it would
contain, of course, more political information. I am not sure,
exactly, if this is a good idea or if you have any thoughts on it, but it
might be something that would be worth discussing.
It was interesting to note in the meeting with Dwight and Dave yesterday
that the subject of strategy with regard to several key states came out
and Bob indicated that he needed to talk to Mitchell about this. If he is
going to do it, obviously, he has to have all the background facts and
know what the strategy is in each state, something we still have failed
to provide him. Teeter is providing basic strategy information to Chapin.
It would seem to me that we should be able to get some of it into Haldeman.
Is there something we can do here?
LH:kmt
March 22, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
SUBJECT:
Analysis of Southern Groups
Will you please ask the people at ORC to do a Southern break-out,
in other words, take the approve-disapprove question and alanyze
only those people who fall in the Southern region on a demographic
basis. We would like to see which sub-group in the South we lost
on. If you don't understand this, please see me. We should try
and get it done as soon as possible.
LH:kmt
March 21, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
To follow-up on your conversations with Benham, will you please
ask him to consider the following:
1. What is the reason for our 5 point drop in popularity.
Does he view this simply as a return to what our base
support is after gaining five points briefly after a China
trip or is there some other phenomenon. If he follows
the above logic, saying there is only a temporary blip
effect that the China trip, or some other
positive event, this would argue for us to do nothing for
the next several months and wait days
before the end of the Campaign and then put on a massive
blits that would result in us getting some more positive
press. Likewise, this would argue that when we do some-
thing on the negative side, that will only have a temporary
blip downward and then will bounce back up to the standard
level of support. Does he dot feel there is anyway we can
raise our base level of support?
Also, I would like him to trace the theory of hard core
Nixon hatred through the entire series of questions on
the ITT matter. Is there a. hard core that is on the
negative side, no matter what, with regard to Nixon, the
question number 13 provides a unique opportunity to do
this, but for some reason, he chose not to do it.
Are these people who are always on the negative side in
the negative also when it comes to approval, are they always
for the Democratic candidates in trial heats, etc. ? See what
an analysis of this type shows.
March 21, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
SUBJECT:
Harris/Gallop Polling
What is happening on the situation with Harris and Gallop?
When will they be in the field? What questions are they
polling, etc. ?
LH:kmt
March 21, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
SUBJECT:
Name Change
Where do we stand on the subject of the name change? Is
there something that can or should be done here.
LH:kmt
March 17, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
Bob asked that in addition to getting more information from DMI
if we can get it, also get our January figures for Los Angbles and
Orange County. What he wantstto do, obviously, is make a compari-
son to see if the shift has been in Orange County and Los Angeles
County. As you know, Teeter was worried about Orange County
figures. The shift, as I'm sure you are well aware, is almost too
much to believe, so let's check it out.
With regard to the Mitchell meeting on March 21, Bob felt there
might be some interest in John Mitchell, Bob Teeter and Haldeman
getting together for a meeting. Rather than responding to the fact
that Mitchell and Teeter are getting together, why don't you just say
would it not perhaps be worthwhile for the former Attorney General
and Bob to sit down with Teeter and review the situation together and
see what the feeling is. The point is that Bob does not want to horn
in on Mitchell's meeting, but I would guess Mitchell would welcome
Haldeman sitting in on a polling meeting now that we have gone round
the polls once. Obviously Bob studied them more than John did.
Why don't you get a reading on what can be done here and, if so, plan
on setting up the meeting on March 21. It would obviously be to our
advantage to have the meeting in Haldeman's office, but I don't know
if Mitchell can, or would prefer to arrange that, and obviously there
is no need to make waves here. See what you can work out.
LH:kb
March 17, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
We should run a head-to-head with Wallace in the Trial Heats
for this poll.
LH:kb
March 17, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
I have attached several rough questions that Bob wants to have
included in the poll. He wants to make sure it covers four areas,
trial heats; China aftermath, using some follow-up questions on
China; the ITT situation; and, the President on busing.
Attachment
LH:kb
SUGGESTED QUESTIONS:
Busing
-- We should ask who watched, the people who heard and
read about the speech, their reaction and then the question
about whether or not they agree or disagree with the President's
decision to declare a morotorium on busing. We should then ask
a question of whether or not you (people you are asking) feel
Congress should approve the President's proposal of an Equal
Opportunities Education Act that would provide two and a half
billion dollars in federal funds during the next year to improve
the education of children from poor families.
We should then ask a question that picks up the criticism.
Which one of these statements would you agree with:
-- The best way to achieve busing is through a Constitutional
Amendment.
-- It is better to have busing for our children.
-- The President's proposal is a back door, sneak attack on
the Constitution.
Bob said it would also be interesting if we started a trend perhaps
along the question of: As of now, who do you think will win the
Presidential election in November?
As of now, who would you like to see win the Presidential election
in November?
2
With regard to ITT:
We should ask how many people are aware of the Kleindienst
hearings and international telephone and telegraph.
We should ask a question about, on ITT going something
like: Based on what you know and have heard about ITT, which
following statements would you say are true and which ones would
you say are false:
-- The government gropped an anti-trust suit against
ITT.
-- ITT made a contribution of $100,000 or more to the
Republican party.
-- The reason the Justice Department dropped the case
against ITT was because of the contribution to the Republican
party; that it, there was a distinct connection between the
anti-trust case and the contribution.
-- There is no basis for the charge that wrong-doing existed
by the contribution by ITT to the San Diego Visitors' Bureau,
that this was normal business practice.
-- The whole Senate hearing was a Democratic/Political
movement to discredit the Nixon Administration and block
the Kleindienst nomination.
3
We should probe the Presidential connection with ITT with
a question something like: Do you believe that President Nixon
was directly involved in the ITT case or the arranging of the
contribution to the San Diego Visitors' Bureau.
Do you feel the media have fairly reported the Senate hearing?
Do you believe Kleindienst should be confirmed as AG?
We should also try and find out, in addition to awareness, how
important people feel the ITT case is; what is their level of concern:
From what you know of the case now, will it effect your decision
in how you vote in November, etc.
These are obviously very rough questions, but we should get them
to O'Neil so he can play around with them and see if we can work
something out that would be helpful.
Also, there is no need to worry about doing anything on Vietnam
on this poll.
LH
March 17, 1972
March 16, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
I am sure you have already thought of this, but we probably
should have some line developed for Wisconsin as we did for
Florida and New Hampshire. The question will probably come
up some time within the next couple of weeks and you might
want to be ahead of it this time.
LH:kb
siz
March 15, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
Bob agreed with your suggested action on the RNC Communications
position. He emphasized however, that if there is any problem here
whatsoever, to get it back to him immediately. He doesn't want this
to drag on.
LH:kb
March 14, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
To follow-up on our conversation this morning -- Bob has received
a report that Jack Kemp has reported that the advancing for surrogate
candidates in New Hampshire was lousy. He would like someone to
talk to Kemp and find out specifically what the problem was. Also,
this person should talk to a couple of other of the surrogates to find
out what the problems were. The person should also do some checking
in Florida and see how we are handling the advance operation for
surrogates there.
Bob would then like a memo from whoever does the checking on what
the problems were, what Kemp reported the problems were, and what
we are doing to correct the problems.
Will you please follow-up on this and have the report in to Haldeman by
close of business on Thursday.
Thank you.
If you are going to have Walker handle this project, you might want to
let him know today so his office can at least be setting up an appointment
with Kemp. This is a very delicate matter, obviously, that could easily
upset Magruder, etc., so it has to be handled on a low-key basis and you
should make this clear to Walker. Also, you should let Chapin know what
we are doing here so he doesn't have the feeling we are getting in the
middle of his operation without at least advising him.
LH:kb
March 13, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
Bob would like a handy one-page summary from you of a run-down
of the primaries, mentioning those States where we are on the ballot,
who is against us, what our expectations are, etc. He doesn't want
a long involved report, but something he can refer to very quickly;
hopefully, only one page long.
LH:kb
142
March 13, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
To follow-up on the student poll on page 18 of today's News Summary,
make sure this is in by noon today. Bob will probably be asked about
it this morning.
LH:kb
March 9, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
Per our conversation this afternoon, the following has been
requested by the President:
1. A report by Friday at 5:00 p.m. on
our celebrity situation.
2. A report on McCloskey and his
situation in California.
3. With regard to McCloskey also find out
whether or not his district has been redistricted
so that he needs to run against another Republican
incumbent or if he is in a safe district. Is there
a candidate running against him? Does he have
a chance, etc.
Bob would like this information, obviously, as soon as possible.
4. Also, find out who is on the Florida ballot
who is on our side.
Thank you.
LH:kb
Pla
March 8, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
SUBJECT:
Items to be Covered
Several items that you should cover:
1. We need to determine what our basic line is in Florida,
what our outlook is, what our competition is, etc. Will
you please get together with Magruder and whoever else
should be involved here, for example Ziegler, and work
out a proposal on this. Get it in by tomorrow at noon.
2. You should explore with Magruder the possibility of
whether or not we can score any points by reporting the
low dollars that we spend in New Hampshire and can we
be sure that the reported expenditures are set up properly.
Also, can we make the point that we use no television in
New Hampshire as contrasted to the enormous use of
television by candidates. You should discuss this Item
with Magruder and Colson and work out something,if
appropriate.
3. Did we do the Florida state-wide student pole on college
campuses or was that done by someone else? What's the
background story on that?
LH:kmt
os?
March 8, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
SUBJECT:
Talking Paper for Mr. Haldeman
Please prepare talking paper for Haldeman that he could use in
convincing the Attorney General that we need to get Flemming
out of the line of responsibility. There is a real problem here,
obviously, that needs to be changed.
LH:kmt
esd
Marbh 7, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
L. HIGBY
Wouldn't it be possible, like we have done in the past, to have
Benham's office read to us the demographics on approval to
see where the changes are, or if not, to include that when they
send the other demographics down? The delay on this one is
rather alarming.
LH:kb
852
March 7, 1972
Dear Dick:
Enclosed is my check for the use of the ppa.
Thank you again for your courtesy in letting
us use the facility.
Looking forward to getting back to California
and hope to see you when we're there.
Best wishes,
Sincerely,
Lawrence M. Higby
Administrative Assistant
to H.R. Haldeman
Mr. Richard S. Stevens
President
1221 West Coast Highway
Newport Beach, California 92660
Enclosure
LH:kb
452
March 6, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR :
GORDON STRACHAN
FROM :
L. HIGBY
Bob asked that you talk to Mitchell (Magruder) and Stans to make
sure that they know that the President cannot talk to any potential
contributors. It's obvious in looking at the Kleindienst case that
it bears out the wisdom of this approach.
Also, make sure that you let Parker, Chapin, and the rest of the
scheduling apparatus know that this will be the policy. In the case
of Magruder and Stans, do this by a telephone call. In the case of
our people here, it's O.K. to do it by memo, but don't mention the
Kleindienst analogy.
LH:pm
March 6, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR :
GORDON STRACHAN
FROM :
L. HIGBY
Bob asked as to when you would be having the Gallup results and
the Harris results from their field poll. Will you please let me
know on this?
Thanks.
LH:pm
852
March 6, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR :
GORDON STRACHAN
FROM :
L. HIGBY
I'd like to discuss briefly with you at your earliest convenience,
the RNC budget. Please bring any material that you have on
the current budget that I might read sixthe
LH:pm
March 28, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. WILLIAM E. TIMMONS
FROM:
L. HIGBY
SUBJECT:
Mr. John T. Chadwell, Jr.
Congressman Arends talked to Bob yesterday, as I indicated to you
he would.
Mr. Arends was calling on the subject of Mr. John T. Chadwell, Jr.
He is currently Assistant to the Director of the Office of Law En-
forcement in the Office of the Secretary of the Treasury.
Mr. Arends indicates that Mr. Chadwell wants to help in the campaign,
that he is good, able and smart and would be good in fund raising or
anything else for that matter.
Bob asked that you check this request out to see whether or not
Mr. Chadwell is someone we want to bring aboard and follow-through
with Mr. Chadwell and the Congressman, if appropriate.
Please let us know what you do here.
Thank you.
CC: Clark MacGregor
LH:kmt
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
John T
Chadwellp: Treas
Enfree
office of sectreas
wouth help in coupaign
good-alh- smart
fundraising or anything