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 RN to Ehrlichman RE: political lessons from Wallace's victory in Michigan and how to apply these lessons to similar states. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/17/1972
Copy of a memo from RN to Ehrlichman RE: political lessons from Wallace's victory in Michigan and how to apply these lessons to similar states. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/17/1972
From RN to John Mitchell RE: McGovern's imminent nomination and its political repercussions. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/6/1972
From RN to Haldeman RE: an invitation for Billy Graham to speak before the DNC. 2 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 8/9/1972
From RN to Haldeman RE: the First Family's schedule during the campaign, as well as advertising and support for Republican candidates across the U.S. in 1972. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/18/1972
From RN to Haldeman RE: the role of the youth vote in the 1972 election. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/23/1972
From RN to Haldeman laying out rules for White House personnel when communicating with figures in the media. 3 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 7/30/1972
From RN to Haldeman RE: the use of Agnew to campaign in areas visited by McGovern. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/14/1972
From RN to Haldeman asking for Buchanan to prepare answers to political questions posed to Tricia and Julie. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/6/1972
From RN to Haldeman laying out more rules for White House employees to follow when communicating with media figures. 2 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 7/30/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26145497
label
WHSF: Contested, 10-46
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26145497
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 10-46
description
This file contains:
From RN to Ehrlichman RE: political lessons from Wallace's victory in Michigan and how to apply these lessons to similar states. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/17/1972
Copy of a memo from RN to Ehrlichman RE: political lessons from Wallace's victory in Michigan and how to apply these lessons to similar states. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 5/17/1972
From RN to John Mitchell RE: McGovern's imminent nomination and its political repercussions. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/6/1972
From RN to Haldeman RE: an invitation for Billy Graham to speak before the DNC. 2 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 8/9/1972
From RN to Haldeman RE: the First Family's schedule during the campaign, as well as advertising and support for Republican candidates across the U.S. in 1972. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/18/1972
From RN to Haldeman RE: the role of the youth vote in the 1972 election. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/23/1972
From RN to Haldeman laying out rules for White House personnel when communicating with figures in the media. 3 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 7/30/1972
From RN to Haldeman RE: the use of Agnew to campaign in areas visited by McGovern. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/14/1972
From RN to Haldeman asking for Buchanan to prepare answers to political questions posed to Tricia and Julie. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/6/1972
From RN to Haldeman laying out more rules for White House employees to follow when communicating with media figures. 2 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 7/30/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26145497
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
9618d6f58fd18a3d
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
10
46
5/17/1972
Campaign
Memo
From RN to Ehrlichman RE: political lessons
from Wallace's victory in Michigan and how
to apply these lessons to similar states. 3 pgs.
10
46
5/17/1972
Campaign
Memo
Copy of a memo from RN to Ehrlichman RE:
political lessons from Wallace's victory in
Michigan and how to apply these lessons to
similar states. 3 pgs.
10
46
6/6/1972
Campaign
Memo
From RN to John Mitchell RE: McGovern's
imminent nomination and its political
repercussions. 3 pgs.
10
46
8/9/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From RN to Haldeman RE: an invitation for
Billy Graham to speak before the DNC. 2
pgs.
Monday, December 06, 2010
Page 1 of 3
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
10
46
9/18/1972
Campaign
Memo
From RN to Haldeman RE: the First Family's
schedule during the campaign, as well as
advertising and support for Republican
candidates across the U.S. in 1972. 3 pgs.
10
46
7/23/1972
Campaign
Memo
From RN to Haldeman RE: the role of the
youth vote in the 1972 election. 2 pgs.
10
46
7/30/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From RN to Haldeman laying out rules for
White House personnel when communicating
with figures in the media. 3 pgs.
10
46
8/14/1972
Campaign
Memo
From RN to Haldeman RE: the use of Agnew
to campaign in areas visited by McGovern. 1
pg.
10
46
6/6/1972
Campaign
Memo
From RN to Haldeman asking for Buchanan
to prepare answers to political questions
posed to Tricia and Julie. 2 pgs.
Monday, December 06, 2010
Page 2 of 3
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
10
46
7/30/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From RN to Haldeman laying out more rules
for White House employees to follow when
communicating with media figures. 2 pgs.
Monday, December 06, 2010
Page 3 of 3
May 17, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN
In writing this memorandum to you, I want you and Haldeman to use
it as a basis for discussion with Mitchell or anyone else in the political
shop who has some responsibility for Michigan and similar States.
Despite the obvious inference that the size of Wallace's victory in
Michigan was in part due to the shooting on Monday, any honest observer
will have to agree that, even without the shooting, he would have won
overwhelmingly.
This is the most striking proof we could possibly have of the potency
of busing as an issue in those States where people are concerned
about it. It also shows that the only way to strike home on the issue
is to be simple, direct, and uncomplicated, as Wallace was.
This does not mean that, with the position of responsibility I have,
that I can talk like Wallace does. On the other hand, I fear John
Connally is correct when he made the statement to me three days
ago that on busing, while we probably came out with the right decision
and a responsible one, we moved on it perhaps a little too late and
then in a way that was not simple enough to be understood clearly by
rank and file voters in a State like Michigan where it is a burning issue.
I know, too, that it can be claimed that, in a final campaign, whoever
is nominated by the Democrats will take a position which in one way
or another is pro busing. On the other hand, we have to bear in mind
that, to get Democrats to vote for Wallace--a fellow Democrat on
the busing issue--is not too difficult. To get a Democrat to leave his
party and vote for a Republican is far more difficult. This means that,
if the issue is to be helpful to us, we must present it in a more
simple, uncomplicated, direct manner.
- 2 -
As of course you realize, we are taking the same heat for coming
out with a half-way measure as we would have taken if we had
come out for a Constitutional amendment. I realize that responsibility
was the key to moving in the way we did but, on the other hand, from
a political standpoint we must clearly understand that what we did was
not as effective as it should have been.
I think the best procedure at the present time is to try to zero in on
the busing issue on a State and local basis, rather than to handle it
as we have tried it to date through national statements and through
the national media. In other words, busing is an enormous issue in
Michigan and has no effect in Wisconsin or in Ohio or in Illinois.
It might even be an issue in parts of New York State. I don't think
polling is going to help you too much here because many people who
feel strongly on busing are just as reluctant to indicate their feelings
in a poll as they are to indicate anything other than very liberal
attitudes with regard to racial equality in a poll. But Michigan, a
State we normally would have no chance whatever to win, is now
certainly up for grabs. But we can win it only if we strike home
in Michigan in a clear, unequivocable way on busing. I think that
the meeting you had with the women who came down from Michigan
was a good starter. I think, however, it needs to be followed up
with statements that get into the Michigan Press in every way we
can possibly think of between now and election day. Any major
speaker who goes to Michigan must be directed to hit the busing
issue stand in a strong, unequivocable way. We should find ways
through Griffin or some other Congressmen who are involved to
get statements made which will get back to Michigan. We must also
find ways to do something, whether intervening in cases or what-have-you
to get through on the issue. If you have not already done an editorial
board and a television program in Michigan, you should arrange it on
your schedule. You should not have it right now, but I would say around
the 10th to 15th of June would be a good time--always pointing out, of
course, that the position of the President has not changed in this issue,
he has held it consistently from the year 1967 and will continue to take
that position.
- 3 -
In a subsidiary way, forced integrated housing must also be hit and
hit hard. One collateral issue is the problem of Romney. You and
John Mitchell probably should have a talk with him and tell him that,
if he cannot enthusiastically support us on the busing and housing
issues, it would be best for him to say nothing at all in Michigan
on those issues.
I want the whole country studied State by State and city by city to see
where a Michigan situation may exist. Where it does exist, follow
exactly the same pattern that I have indicated above in order to get
through to the public as to what our position is.
I realize that Harper and others on the Domestic Council Staff have
been trying to peddle the idea that busing really is not an important
issue, or at least that it is not an issue which will on balance help
us. They have a right to their political opinions. But they are so
grossly inexperienced in this field that you should pay no attention
to their opinions while, of course, giving them the impression that
you are listening. The Michigan result comes through loud and clear--
busing is a potent issue and can make the difference in some northern
States which otherwise we would have no chance whatever to win.
Incidentally, Texas with all of the liberal leanings that it has at the
present time must not be taken for granted. We must do a far better
job of getting through our stand on busing in Texas than we have done
to date. Here I want you to talk to John Connally and of course work
through Tower and anybody else who may be able to get through our
position.
THE PRESIDENT
CCI H. R. Haldeman
May 17, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. JOIN D. exirliciman
In writing this momorandum to you, X want you and Haldeman to use
it as a basis for discussion with Mitchell or anyone else in the political
shop who has some responsibility for Michigan and similar States.
Despite the obvious inference that the size of Wallace's victory in
Michlgan was in part due to the shooting on Monday, any honest observer
will have to agree that, even without the shooting, he would have won
overwhelmingly.
This is the most striking proof we could possibly have of the potency
of busing as an issue in those States where people are concerned
about it. It also shows that the only way to strike home on the issue
is to be simple, direct, and uncomplicated, as Wallace was.
This does not mean that, with the position of responsibility I have.
that : can talk like Wallace does. On the other hand, I fear John
Connaily is correct when he made the statement to me three days
ago that on busing, while we probably came out with the right decision
and a responsible one, we moved on it perhaps a little too late and
then in a way that was not simple enough to be understood clearly by
rank and file voters in a State like Michigan where it is a burning issue.
I know, too, that it can be claimed that, in a final campaign, whoever
is nominated by the Democrats will take a position which in one way
or another is pro busing. On the other hand, we have to bear in mind
that, to get Democrats to vote for Wallace--a fellow Democrat on
the busing issue--is not too difficult. To get a Democrat to leave his
party and vote for a Republican is far more difficult. This means that,
if the issue is to be helpful to us, we must present it in a more
simple, uncomplicated, direct manner.
- 2 -
As of course you realize, we are taking the como heat for coming
out with a hall-way measure as we would have then if we had
come out for a Constitutional amendment, I realize that responsibility
was the key to moving in the way we did but, on the other hand, from
a polltical standact we must clearly understand that what we did was
not as effective as it should have been.
I think the best procedure at the present time is to try to zero in on
the busing issue on a State and local basis, rather than to handle it
as we have tried it to date through national statements and through
the national molia, In other words, busing is an enormous issue in
Michigan and has no effect in Wisconsin or in Chio or in Illinois.
It might even be an issue in parts of New York State. I don't think
polling is going to help you too much here because many people who
feel strongly on busing are just as reluctant to indicate their feelings
in a poll as they are to indicate anything other than very liberal
attitudes with regard to racial equality in a poll. But Michigan, a
State we normally would have no chance whatever to win, is now
certainly up for grabs. But we can win it only if we strike home
in Michigan in a clear, unequivocable way on busing. I think that
the meeting you had with the women who came down from Michigan
was a good starter. I Chink, however, it needs to be followed up
with statements that get into the Michigan Press in every way we
can possibly think of between now and election day. Any major
speaker who goes to Michigan must be directed to hit the busing
issue stand in a strong, unequivocable way. We should find ways
through Griffin or some other Congressmon who are involved to
get statements made which will get back to Michigan. We must also
find ways to do something, whether intervening in cases or what-have-you
to get through on the issue. If you have not already done an editorial
board and a television program in Michigan, you should arrange it on
your schedule. You should not have it right now, but I would say around
the 10th to 15th of June would be a good time--always pointing out, of
course, that the position of the President has not changed in this issue,
he has held it consistently from the year 1967 and will continue to take
that position.
. 3 a
In a subsidary way, forced housing must also be Lit and
his hard. Che collation issue to the proble a of Rommey. You and
John Mitchell 11 promity should have = talk with him and tell him that,
if he cannot enthusionMenlly proport us on the busing and housing
issues, It would be best for Mm to say nothing at all in Michigan
on those issues.
I want the whole company studied State by State and city by city to see
where a Michigan of within may exist. Where it does exist, follow
exactly the same pollom that I have indicated above in order to get
through to the public as to what our position is.
1 realize that Harper and others on the Domestic Council Staff have
been trying to peddle the idea that busing really is not an important
issue, or at least that it is not an issue which will on balance help
us. They have a right to their political opinions. But they are so
grossly inexperienced in this field that you should pay no attention
to their opinions while, of course, giving them the impression that
you are listoning. The Michigan result comes through loud and clear--
busing is a potent issue and can make the difference in some northern
States which otherwise we would have no chance whatever to win.
Incidentally, Texas with all of the liberal leanings that it has at the
present time must not be taken for granted. We must do a far better
job of getting through our stand on busing in Texas than we have done
to date. Here I want you to talk to John Connally and of course work
through Tower and anybody else who may be able to get through our
position.
THE PRESIDENT
CC: H. R. Haldeman
EYES ONLY
EYES ONLY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 6, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN MITCHELL
FROM THE PRESIDENT
@
This memorandum is for your information and guidance, and
the contents and observations should only be used on your own
and not attributed to me since some rather sensitive political
matters are contained in it.
In talking to John Connally he has decided within the last two
weeks that McGovern will probably be nominated.
As you know, it has been his thought all along that Kennedy
would inevitably pick up the marbles at the crucial time just
before or during the Convention.
However, from a number of sources it is becoming apparent
that a last-ditch effort may be made by Kennedy to try to
have a deadlock so that Kennedy could still get the nomination.
This seems unlikely in view of his decision to get rid of his
Secret Service, but on the other hand that might just be a ploy
for the purpose of playing that game. There is no question but
that there has been and probably still is a deal between Kennedy
and Mills. In fact, from sources that I believe are absolutely
reliable, Mills desperately wants to go on the ticket with
anybody, including McGovern. This, incidentally, I think would
be a great mistake on the part of whoever is at the top of the
ticket because I think Mills is a shrewd operator in the House
and a lousy national candidate.
In talking to Connally he made one point very strongly with
which I totally agree. To put it in perspective it is necessary for
me to point out that one of the major mistakes we made in 1960
was to allow Republicans, particularly in the Southern states,
to control the Nixon organization and also to be out front in the
Nixon effort. Their interest, of course, was to use the
Presidential campaign for the purpose of building the Republican
Party in their states. This was particularly true in Texas and
EYES ONLY
EYES ONLY
- 2 -
some of the other critical states in the South which we lost.
It was also a national phenomenon. We avoided it in a state
like California only because Bob Finch was totally aware of
the California problems and saw to it that we ran a campaign
that did not cut out the Independents and Democrats.
Connally's admonition is that as we see the inevitability now
of a McGovern nomination we must "leave the door open" for
Democrats and Independents not only to join us but to have
positions of real leadership in the Nixon campaign. I can't
emphasize too strongly how much I agree with his position.
You will get squeals of outrage from the National Committee.
and from State Chairmen, but we must remember that if the
Republican Party, weak as it is, is to be rebuilt it cannot be
done so at the expense of risking losing the Presidential election.
The time to do it will be after the election.
Every state is to be examined with a merciless and impartial
eye as to what people in that state we need in order to carry it.
Generally speaking, you will find that what we need are
prominent Democrats and Independents who will join our cause
and if possible who will take positions of leadership in it.
In California one of the reasons we probably have less of a chance
in 1972 than we had in 1960 or in 1968 is the fact that Reagan
and the regular Republicans will insist on running the campaign.
This will make it a walking disaster and the same is true of
Texas and all the Southern States as well as some of the other
states, including states like Pennsylvania where we need
prominent Democrats. For example, Rizzo is infinitely more
important to us in Pennsylvania than Scott or Schweiker. Ways
have got to be found to allow Rizzo to be out in front if he is
willing to do so.
The pur pose of this memo is simply to make sure that an
examination is made of the state's situation with only one view
in mind what men and women can do us the most good in
getting us the votes we need -- the votes of Independents and
Democrats? Always have in mind that only 24 percent of the
people in the last Gallup Poll were willing to admit that they
were Republicans. With this kind of a base, putting Republicans
out in front, is simply asking for suicide. This does not mean
that the Republican organization should be cut out -- it does
mean that we should avoid identifying too closely with Republican
EYES ONLY
EYES ONLY
- 3 -
candidates who are weaker than we are or with Republican
organizations that are in ill repute. It does mean that whenever
we can get Independents or Democrats to take a lead role
this could make the difference between winning or losing the
state and even possibly the election.
The McGovern strategy is becoming very clear now that he
believes that he has the nomination wrapped up. His going to
the Governors' Conference for the purpose of "clarifying his
stand on amnesty, marijuana, abortion and welfare is a case
in point. I know there are those who will say that he can't get
away with it any more than Goldwater was able to get away with
it when he tried to enlist Republican Governors in Cleveland
in 1964. There are two very significant differences. McGovern
is more clear and less principled than Goldwater and will say
anything in order to win. And second, McGovern will have
about 100 percent support from the media in his effort to clean
himself up so that he can beat us in the final. This points up
the necessity at this time to get Democrats and Independents,
not Republicans, to nail McGovern on the left side of the road
which his record so clearly identifies him with. We must
remember our experience in 1970. We thought that with people
like Adlai Stevenson, Burdick, Moss, et al and their total
record of permissiveness, anti-defense, anti-law enforcement,
a good hard-hitting supporter on our side could win. What
happened was that people like Stevenson ended up riding in
police cars and wearing American flags and the media, of
course, completely refused to point up their hypocrisy in
making the change. We are going to be up against exactly the
same problem with the media in this case and every possible
effort must be made to develop a program now to counteract
this obvious tactic which is being developed.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 9, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR :
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM THE PRESIDENT
On Monday, I had the rather disturbing conversation with Alex
regarding Billy Graham. Billy had apparently called on Sunday
for me when I was out of reach, and then called back Monday
to say that he had been invited to give the invocation at the
Democratic National Committee gathering by Sargent Shriver.
He wanted to get my advice on it. As you will recall, you had
told me at an earlier time that Graham thought it was better,
since he had not given the invocation at the Democratic National
Committee, that he not do SO at the Republican National Committee,
and I agreed. In view of that conversation, I told Alex, since Alex
was unable to get hold of you in California, to call Graham back
and tell him that I thought that his doing the Democratic National
Committee only would be misinterpreted.
It is not advisable in a case like this for me to talk to Graham
directly. I do not want him to feel that I directly am telling him
that he should not do it. On the other hand, as you know, he is
extremely sensitive about hearing from anybody but me, or from you,
on political matters. It may be that it went all right with Alex making
the call. I strongly urge that you keep the closest contact with Graham,
call him at least once a week regardless of what subjects you have to
discuss, and inform everybody on the staff that if a call from him comes
through that you will take it. Unless you take it, I should take it
myself.
As you know, we have been trying to get McClellan's opponent in
Arkansas, out of the race. I had taken this matter up with John
Mitchell and he said that he would work on it. However, John is
out of pocket, as you know. Connally told me yesterday that he had
no success in talking to Winthrop Rockefeller in trying to get Winthrop
to get him out of the race. Connally said that he thought that he had
heard that the brother who had perhaps the most influence with Winthrop,
was David Rockefeller. Apparently the man running against McClellan
had a rather minor position with the FHA before Winthrop got him to
run with the thought that in the event McClellan lost, that he would have
2
a candidate against Pryor. Under the circumstances, it now
becomes vital that we make one last effort to try to get McClellan's
opponent out of the race. It isn't that McClellan is afraid he will
lose, it's simply that McClellan then will be freed to give us more
open support, not only in Arkansas, but in many other areas. I
would like for you to speak to Kissinger and see if he will call
David Rockefeller and see what David can do in working on
Winthrop. Also, if Kissinger thinks well of it, he might even
consider calling Winthrop. Connally believes that Nelson is not
the one to work on Winthrop on this matter. This is a matter of
rather high priority, and touching base with Mitchell probably is
a good idea, however, don't count on Mitchell to do it because I
feel that at this time, he simply is unable to follow through on some
of these things because of personal, and other considerations, which
are overriding.
Connally seemed to be somewhat disappointed that he had not heard
anything on the Ed Pauley matter. I would like for you to follow
through as quickly as possible and inform Connally what Pauley's
decision is.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 18, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
In view of recent poll results, I have some revised thoughts with
regard to the schedule for the family.
I think that Mrs. RN, Tricia, Julie, Eddy Nixon and Eddy Cox should
be scheduled into all of the smaller States including the southern States
between now and the Election. Of course Hawaii and Alaska should be
excluded unless it appears that a trip to Alaska might be essential for
the purpose of shoring up Stevens.
I think it is also important that the family be heavily scheduled into
Massachusetts, West Virginia, Wisconsin and any other doubtful
States.
With regard to southern States, I want to be sure that none of the
southern States feel that they are being taken for granted. For example,
I want to be sure that some member of the family is scheduled in the
Mississippi/Alabama/Arkansas/ Louisiana, as well as in the States
where we have Senate contests we expect we have a good chance to win.
Whenever a member of the family goes into South Dakota, I want a
particularly good advance job done to be sure that we get a good reception
in that area.
Also, I want the members of the family to be informed that they are to
go all out in standing behind the Republican candidates for the Senate in
those States where we think our Republican candidates have a chance to win.
These comments apply of course to Agnew and the surrogates with Agnew
having to play a somewhat more temperate role with regard to calling for
the election of a Republican Senate for fear that we will stir up the animals
too much among labor and conventional Democrats who are supporting us.
Agnew of course cannot and should not stand aside from our Republican
candidates but he should not make a great issue out of campaigning for a
Republican Senate.
- 2
As far as other surrogates are concerned, those who are not too close
to me can be more vocal in their calling for the election of Republican
candidates to the Senate. People like Finch and Klein, on the other hand,
should be somewhat more restrained because whatever they say will be
attributed directly to the White House.
In the case of the family, the problem is not too difficult. It is expected
that they will be supporting the Republican nominees and they will go it at
a low key, personal way that will not raise the hackles of the Democratic
politicians.
Confirming our conversation earlier today, I think it is important to take
the allocation of advertising for Texas and put it into Massachusetts and
West Virginia. I believe that Rhode Island will go with the swing and, as
far as Wisconsin is concerned, it probably also will be affected by the
swing, although if there is a way to get some special attention paid to
Wisconsin, it should be done.
I particularly want to make sure that we don't overlook Senate contests
in places like Montana, New Mexico and Louisiana where we might have
a chance to win. Also having in mind the poll on Alabama, it is quite
possible now I think that Blount could win. I think it is very important
that at least one or two members of the family go to Alabama and be
seen with Blount. Of course the other reason for going to Alabama is
to make sure that the Alabamians do not consider that we are taking them
for granted.
As far as the southern States are concerned, I will cover Atlanta and
I have already covered Florida. The others should all--except for Texas-
be covered by members of the family, and the same is true of mountain
States and farm States, and the New England States Vermont, Maine,
New Hampshire, Connecticut and Rhode Island--which are not on our
target list.
On another subject, I would like for you to put somebody from Buchanan's
shop on a special project entitled "What the Columnists and Commentators
Would Like to Forget". Here what I would like to do is to pick up their
predictions with regard to the election beginning right after the California
primary and carrying through the Democratic and Republican Conventions
up to election. I would pick up the major liberal columnists and of course
virtually all of the television commentators where they have made predic-
tions and statements which may well be proved wrong by the election results.
- 3 -
This will be very useful in the event I go forward with any writing
about the çampaign. I had great difficulty getting this material
together for "Six Crises" and I am not sure I will want to use it,
but in any event I want the material prepared so that if I do decide
to write on this subject I will have it in my files.
With further reference to the Senate contests, I think it is important
that you very discreetly find out what contests really need more money
and try to channel some of our major contributors into those contests
rather than into the national campaign.
On the same subject, let us be sure that in all the Senate contests we
plan the three weeks' blitz of a combined media play which will give
the major possible coattail effect where there is a chance that would
help.
A case in point is Wes Powell in New Hampshire. He probably has
very little chance to win at this point because of the split in the
Republican ranks. On the other hand, with the swing as big as it
might be, if he hangs tight enough to us he could pull it off and we
should not move away from him because, while he is somewhat of a
cross to bear, we owe nothing whatever to MacIntyre.
With regard to scheduling, both Tricia and Julie would like very much
to work in tours to southern border States and also to the mountain
States at this time. I think that we have been throwing them into the
heavy media areas long enough and while, of course, we should not
rule out such areas totally and particularly not rule them out for the
last two weeks, it might be well to give them a respite from having
to face the sharpies in the Press corps in New York, Chicago, Cleveland,
Philadelphia, Los Angeles, et. al. and schedule them into States like
Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Oklahoma
and others, as well as in the smaller towns in larger States like Texas
where they will be particularly well received. The same can be said
of Montana, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Kansas and Nebraska
as well as of other States of that type. Also, I want particularly
emphasis on their schedules to be on towns that no national celebrity
may have visited before.
THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Sunday - July 23, 1972
Camp David
MEMORANDUM FOR BOB HALDEMAN
FROM THE PRESIDENT
Pm
In studying the New York Times release of the Gallup Poll
on youth one lesson comes through loud and clear -- it is
imperative that we limit our registration efforts wherever
possible, without announcing that that is our tactic, to the
non-college youth. Of course, some registration of college
youth on a very selective basis should be undertaken, but
generally speaking we have to realize that there is about a
two to one chance that college youth will vote for McGovern.
There is about an even chance that the non-college youth
will vote for us.
If a youth registration drive begins, pushed by the McGovern
forces, every effort should be made to get them to direct
that drive to non-college as well as to college youth. I
know that our plan is to register youth selectively by
finding out in advance which side they are on and then going
forward in the registration. Here it is very important that
the question asked not be on partisan terms. Over half of
all youth list themselves as Independents rather than
Republicans or Democrats. Consequently, it should simply
be a question of asking whether they are for McGovern or
Nixon and then registering those that are for Nixon.
Of course, it could be argued that the registration drive
among youth, even non-college youth, is not one that we
should undertake at all, since at the very best they would
split 50-50. This is much poorer than the national average
and much poorer than what we would do among older voters.
However, to avoid the effect on older voters of our conceding
the youth vote to McGovern, we need to make some effort in
this area. Let us limit it to the target states, particularly
Preservation Copy
- 2 -
the big city areas and the down-state areas where we might
pick up support and except for a token effort let us concen-
trate on non-college, blue collar youth, among ethnics and,
of course, among those few that might lean to our side
because of their background in a Republican family.
I emphasize again that the whole youth effort should be one
that gets across the idea that youth will not overwhelmingly
be in McGovern's pocket, that we have in the nation very
substantial support among younger voters and that we are going
to get more as they learn what the issues are. In fact,
something can be gained by pointing out that we are concen-
trating on registering all youth and that the McGovern
people are limiting themselves to the elite youth who have
gone to college or are in colleges and universities.
NOTE: Two copies. One for the President's file and one for Bob
Haldeman - not for distribution otherwise. That is always
the case where I dictate a political memorandum unless I
indicate that the political memorandum is to go to others. (RN)
CAMP DAVID
Sunday - July 30, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR BOB HALDEMAN
FROM THE PRESIDENT
Rr
In reading Lou Cannon's piece in the Sunday Washington Post
I think we can get some guidance as to the handling of the press on
campaign matters which should be followed strictly.
I do not want people who talk about the campaign to make the
mistake of cutting off representatives of periodicals, TV and newspapers
simply because they are generally against us. Consequently, I do not
object to an article, appearing from time to time, in unfriendly publications
which is based on conversations with our campaign people. Having said
this, however, we need some completely ironclad rules with regard to
who talks to media representatives that we know are antagonistic to us.
First of all, it is vitally important that only the most intelligent
and sophisticated person on our campaign staff dare to go in the ring with
one of these people. Second, we should not waste time with one of them
at the expense of turning down interviews with media representatives who
are our friends. Third, even when our most intelligent people are meet-
ing with people like Cannon they must constantly keep in mind that they
are confronting a political enemy and that everything they say will, there-
fore, be used against us. I have to emphasize this over and over again
because we never seem to get it across to our people no matter how
many times they get burned.
The Cannon piece is the best example we can have of why these
rules should be rigidly adhered to. In the first place, while we know the
Washington Post is totally gainst us it is just as well to have a piece that
has some favorable points in it as well as completely negative ones.
Therefore, I have no objections to the fact that Cannon was given interviews
by the Campaign Committee. On the other hand, it waa a stupid mistake
which must never be repeated - to allow Cannon to have the run of the
White House staff, the campaign staff and the National Committee staff
in getting his story together.
The PR types representative of each of
Preservation Copy
- 2 -
these groups must have a rule tha when media representatives, who
are antagonistic, come in for interviews they are treated courteously
but that only the top political man with great sophistication will be
allowed to talk to him. In addition, whenever that man talks to the
interviewer the press man should sit in on the interview so as to keep
it honest.
In that connection, incidentally, I was rather surprised to
find that we did not have a recording of Clark MacGregor's remarks
at the Press Club. It will be a very modest expense - but it is
absolutely essential that a man with a small recording device go with
him everywhere he goes SO that we have a record of what he says which
he can put out in the event that we want to correct a misquotation or
get out a story that was not covered adequately. The same, I think,
should be true of Dole. As you know we have always followed this
custom with regard to my own appearances.
Now, looking at the Cannon story from both the plus and the
minus standpoints, we find a good headline - "Nixon Running Scared,"
and a good thrust insofar as there being no complacency.
From a minus standpoint, it is obvious that Cannon had the
run of the shop and in addition to talking to Haldeman in the White
House and MacGregor at the Committee to Re-Elect, Dole at the
Republican National Committee, he talked to people up and down the
line and got a number of quotes that are both inaccurate and not helpful.
I am not, of course, referring to quotes that he has from Republican
Senators and Congressmen. We have no control whatsoever over this.
What I am referring to are quotes that he obviously had to get - since
he has it in quotation marks - from people on the campaign staff.
For example, as I have often emphasized, it is a mistake
constantly to run down my previous campaigns. We should not contri-
bute to the myth that I did not work hard enough in 1960 and 1968. The
quotation to the effect that before the election in November I had gotten
SO confident that I was working on my acceptance speech, taking rests,
etc., is totally inaccurate, as you know, and very harmful.
With regard to MacGregor's own interview, I would like for
you to get together with him and Dole on one point and to have a rule
enforced throughout the balance of the campaign. He was putting out
polls from California and Texas as well as Ohio and Illinois. There was
no reason why he should not have done this since we have not indicated
in the past what our policy was in this respect. However, under
- 3 -
absolutely no circumstances are any polls whatever to be put out
showing us ahead or behind in any of the major states without my
specific approval. This is an area where well-intentioned people
will put out a poll for what they think is a good reason - in this case
to knock down complacency - but where later on they are going to
be asked for polls in these states when they might not want to put
them out. Also, I don't want the impression to get across the country
that we are conducting our campaign on the basis of polls rather than
on the basis of principles. I want you specifically to see that this is
brought up at the next meeting where Mitchell, Dole, MacGregor, et
al, are present. Mitchell, of course, would not have made this mistake.
MacGregor made it only because of lack of experience.
Along the same line, I noted where the statement was made
that abortion was a minus issue for the President because polls showed
that a majority of women favored it. This obviously comes from the
Harper group in the Domestic Council Staff. I want you to get hold of
Ehrlichman and tell him that he is to see that absolutely no one in the
Domestic Council talks to anyone in the press without his specific
approval and then a press man from Ron's office is to be present.
Ehrlichman, of course, would not make such a stupid mistake and the
only way he can control others is to put a tight reign on them.
For example, Syndlinger ran into outraged reaction the evening
that the National Committee put out findings from their Platform
Committee poll to the effect that a majority of the members of the
Platform Committee found out that bussing was not a significant issue.
I want some discipline enforced in this respect for reasons which should
be obvious even to the most stupid of our people.
Another line which we should knock down is that there is no
grass roots support for the President and that we have to get "volunteers
one at a time. " This probably comes from Sears or somebody in that
group. The question here is not whether this may be true and I doubt
if it is in terms of getting volunteers one at a time - but it plays right
into the hands of our political enemies. I could give other examples but
I close the memorandum with this admonition: Let's quit tackling our
own ball carrier. 11
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 14, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR BOB HALDEMAN
FROM THE PRESIDENT
Rm
With further reference to the discussion I have had with you
on Agnew's schedule, I think it is very intriguing to explore
the possibility of his following McGovern, not in every appear-
ance McGovern makes, but once or twice a week in major
cities that McGovern may visit. As I have pointed out, Agnew
is undoubtedly going to draw a bigger crowd and it would give
him an opportunity to hit McGovern hard on points that he may
have made that need to be corrected.
In addition, the reverse twist here is to schedule Agnew in
the day before or two days before McGovern goes in. Here
again, we can get a good crowd comparison and Agnew, using
this tactic, could ask searching questions and say that he
believes the people have a right to know what McGovern's
answers are to those questions. In fact, this latter tactic may
be preferable to the first, but both could be tried. The more we
can get Agnew engaged in a debate with McGovern the better.
It is also very important to emphasize to Agnew again that he
should ignore Shriver. I realize that when he has a Q & A there
may be instances when he will have to respond to a question on
Shriver, but he should brush it off as quickly as possible so
that we do not have a national debate between Agnew and Shriver
rather than a national debate between Agnew and McGovern.
With regard to Shriver, what should be developed is a truth
squad operation in which some of our better speakers follow
him in to the key areas that he goes into. As a matter of fact,
you might sandwich him, having someone go in before and ask
a few questions which they want him to answer and someone
following him. The sandwich operation could also be used on
McGovern with someone going in before and then Agnew going
in afterwards, or vice versa.
Preservation Copy
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 6, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR BOB HALDEMAN
FROM THE PRESIDENT
Rr
Julie and Tricia were asking me over the weekend what kind
of answers they can give now that the Democratic nomination
seems to be pretty much a foregone conclusion when asked
their opinion on the man or his stands.
My advice off the top of my head was for them to decline to
get into personalities, but to simply say that they didn't know
much about it except that from listening to the debates and
what Humphrey and other Democrats had said that it would
appear that McGovern might have a problem in uniting his party.
What I want you to direct Buchanan to do is to figure out all
the tough political questions that are likely to be put to Tricia
and Julie when they appear on talk shows over the next few
months and for him to prepare suggested answers for them which
will keep them from getting involved personally, but which
will avoid their appearing to be totally non-responsive when such
a question is raised. It is vitally important, of course, that
they not get headlines which indicates that the daughters of the
President are attacking the Democratic nominee. The more
off-hand, subtle kind of answer is what I have in mind. This
is not generally Buchanan's approach, but I think if you explain
it to him he will find ways to tackle the problem that could be
very effective. I want you to look over the Q & A after he
prepares it before sending it on to Tricia and Julie. This should
be done before the end of this week because they are both going
to be on shows next week and the week after, as I understand it.
They have done extremely well winging it on their own on these
political questions up to this point, although I realize they have
had considerable help from the staff on substantive matters on
Preservation Copy
- 2 -
where do I stand on environment, welfare, etc. In view of the
Moscow trip I told Julie and Tricia that if they were asked
what the major issue of 1972 would be that they should respond
that while the domestic issues were, of course, extremely
important, that where the Presidency was concerned it would
be their opinion that most young people, as well as other voters,
would be primarily interested in which of the two candidates
was best qualified to lead the United States in international
affairs and to build on the great peace initiatives we have begun
in China and the Soviet Union. In any event, I want some more
intensive thinking done on how they should respond to such
questions in the light of our recent Moscow trip, having in
mind the fact that we want to keep them and all of our speakers
talking about our issue which is international affairs, and
except for domestic issues that have a real appeal like busing,
amnesty and pot to stay off of the domestic issues.
I think the materials prepared for them so far have probably
put a little too much emphasis on the environment, welfare
reform, revenue sharing, etc. These are good, safe things
to talk about but they are relatively dull and will become rather
irrelevant as the campaign heats up.
CAMP DAVID
Sunday - July 30, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR BOB HALDEMAN
FROM THE PRESIDENT
Pm
This is a post script to the memorandum I wrote to you
on the Washington Post story.
In laying down the rules that only our top people can talk to
antagonistic media representatives and then only under the very
strictest surveillance by one of the people from the press office, I
realize that this is difficult to enforce because people at other levels
in the campaign need a chance to express themselves and do not like
the idea of feeling that they cannot be trusted to talk to members of
the press. There is an easy way to handle this. Deliberately develop
occasions where they can talk to friendly representatives of the media.
I realize there are not too many but on the other side of the coin our
major problem, as you know, is that we give about twice as much time
to unfriendly people as we do to friendly press people. In this campaign
I want this thing reversed as much as we can. One way we can at least
reward our friends is to give them the opportunity to talk to second
echelon people - something that we will not allow to unfriendly people.
This way we kill two birds with one stone. Our staffers will get the
satisfaction of being able to sound off about their views in the campaign
and in addition our friends in the press and television will be getting
something that their competitors will not be getting.
There perhaps could not be clearer proof of the difference
between the kind of treatment we will get in the press and the kind of
treatment McGovern will get in the press than the Nixon/McGovern
articles in the Sunday Post today - July 30. The Nixon article, as I
pointed out earlier in the memorandum, makes some points that we
want to have made but does not miss an opportunity to make all the
negative points that are part of the mythology with regard to our
campaigns.
Preservation Copy
- 2
The McGovern article by Spencer Rich, as we might expect,
is a total puff piece. This comparison only demonstrates the wisdom
of my advice that we have to be much more careful in programming
interviews with unfriendly press people than we do with friendly press
people.
Incidentally, when I said earlier in the memorandum that I
thought we should see some of the unfriendly media people I meant
only those who reached fairly substantial audiences that we could not
afford to ignore. Under no circumstances, do I want any more time
wasted, for example, on John Osborne on the left or his counterparts
on the far right. I say this not because they are against us but because
the audience they reach simply is not that important to us.