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:
Copy of a letter from L. Richard Guylay to RN RE: how to confront the media's anti- White House bias. Handwritten notes on original added by unknown. 5 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 1/24/1972
From RN to Ehrlichman RE: the former's post-presidential plans. 4 pgs. [Subject: Personal] [Memo], 2/1/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26145499
label
WHSF: Contested, 10-47
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26145499
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 10-47
description
This file contains:
Copy of a letter from L. Richard Guylay to RN RE: how to confront the media's anti- White House bias. Handwritten notes on original added by unknown. 5 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 1/24/1972
From RN to Ehrlichman RE: the former's post-presidential plans. 4 pgs. [Subject: Personal] [Memo], 2/1/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26145499
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
26a783cb3610083c
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
10
47
1/24/1972
Campaign
Letter
Copy of a letter from L. Richard Guylay to
RN RE: how to confront the media's anti-
White House bias. Handwritten notes on
original added by unknown. 5 pgs.
10
47
2/1/1972
Personal
Memo
From RN to Ehrlichman RE: the former's
post-presidential plans. 4 pgs.
Monday, December 06, 2010
Page 1 of 1
TIME & LIFE BUILDING
ROCKEFELLER CENTER
L. RICHARD GUYLAY and ASSOCIATES
A DIVISION OF PUBLIC OPINION POLLS. INC.
NEW YORK, N. Y. 10020
PUBLIC RELATIONS
AREA CODE 212 765-1923
January 24, 1972
President Richard M. Nixon
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
You have had a highly successful year and are enjoying
substantial support as a result. This demonstrates that the
crowd loves a strong leader; it responds to positive words and
decision and appreciates solid accomplishments taken with
modest grace.
Major Press Problems Ahead
Although there has been an uneasy quiet on the TV and
newspaper commentator front for the past few months, it would
be a gross mistake to underestimate the continuing antagonism
of the press. The feeling toward you and your administration
among some reporters and TV people is almost pathological in
its intensity and it's only a matter of time before it erupts
again. Meanwhile, it serves the press' purpose to let this
"honeymoon" period extend for some months because it builds up
the appearance of fairness and sets the stage for the coming
(more)
(2)
attack - which will be brutal. The whole TV apparatus has not
forgotten Agnew's attacks and will try to demolish him and,
through him, you.
I'm sure you are aware of some of the reasons for this
hostility. Allen Drury sees it very well. But the problem
is a major factor in the campaign and needs much more attention.
It also points up the need to consistently sell the record
of your Administration. The good is overlooked and the bad
makes news. This has been true of every Administration but
the difference is that the Democrats get a lot of free help
from a friendly press. The Republicans don't.
I have written you before on the need for a better "Answer
Desk" operation. There has been some improvement but the at-
tached Times article giving G.O.P replies to Ted Kennedy's
speech shows much more work needs to be done.
KENNEDY CRITICIZED
FORATTACK ON NIXON
a. Ford's is SO oblique it had to be
WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 (UPI)
note
-Republicans struck back to-
explained by his press secretary.
day at Senator Edward M. Ken-
nedy for his attack yesterday
on President Nixon and his
b. Scott's talks about a "point" man
record.
The House minority leader.
Representative Genild R. Ford
What is that?
of Michigan. noted Senator
Kennedy's charge last night
that the American people no
longer trusted their President
C.
Dole calls Kennedy's talk the "usual
and said that "of all the issues
which the Senior Senator from
Massachusetts might raise
cacophony of mindless negativism".
among the American people.
the question of trust seems
least likely to serve his in-
That's hardly the language of the
terests."
Asked to explain the refer-
ence, Paul Miltich, Mr. Ford's
man in the street.
press secretary said: "It's obvi-
our. It's an obligue reference to
Chappaquilich."
The Senate minority leader.
It's all amateurish and ineffective
Senator Hu th Scou 01 Pennsyl-
(vania. area Mr. Kennedy of
Theing a "point man" interested
in the 1976 Provide nature nome-
nation. and said Le owed the
(more)
President on
Sender Refiert Date of Kan-
sas, the National
Chairman, called No. Kennedy's
denunciation of the Administra-
tion "The used caropbony of
mindless negativism about our
leountry."
(3)
How To Handle The Labor Campaign
Meany's attacks on you can be turned to your advantage. The
situation is comparable to the Taft Campaign in Ohio when Taft
separated the rank and file from their union "bosses" and carried
every labor district in the state despite a mammoth campaign by
labor leaders. The more the bosses attack you, the better it
can be, if skillfully handled.
One principal strategem is to take the offensive and organize
a labor political organization to spearhead the campaign. Call it
"Labor's League for Nixon" and let this organization carry the
attack to Meany and his "arrogant" bosses. Whatever happens there
should be no frontal attack by your administration against labor
generally but a legitimate organization of union members should
carry the fight against their bosses and for you.
There should be a poll of rank and file union members asking
if they support specific issues you stand for and specific accom-
plishments of your administration. This material would be ammunition
for "Labor's League for Nixon".
Election Strategy
In 1960 and 1968 you had selective strategy - concentrating in
your best areas and especially in five key states.
This has a defeatist undertone for 1972 because it implies you
do not have a chance in the states that are left out. While this
may be realistic, I don't believe it's smart to advertise it. It's
(more)
(4)
like going into a fight with one hand tied behind your back while
your opponent is free to swing with both.
The campaign strategy should be to try in every state and
the unpublicized goal would be to win by the biggest Republican
majority in history. You were part of the ticket in '56 that
holds the record Republican plurality of 91/2 million. If you
give up in advance on the Eastern seaboard and other industrial
states, the campaign starts with an unnecessary handicap. There
are lots of people in all 50 states who want to work for you and
they should be encouraged to put on a maximum effort in their
own area.
Muskie is doing what Goldwater did in '64 - quietly lining
up delegates - one by one - and he may sew up the nomination that
way - although I doubt it. He is just not coming over well.
Lindsay is planning a massive TV campaign for his primaries
and is choosing states that are easy to saturate with TV. While
his record as mayor is miserable, he should not be underestimated:
(1) most people outside of New York don't care what kind of record
he has -- and feel nobody could govern New York any better, (2) he
has a personality that could excite the masses under the supercharged
conditions of a presidential campaign, and (3) he has superb skills
in the use of TV - especially in commercials and non-live presentations.
The threat, however, remains Ted Kennedy. ("Kennedy's the Chap. ")
The country is hungering for excitement and glamour and novelty -
(more)
(5)
new`promises for the Good Life for everyone. Kennedy is a
counterpoint to what Senator Mondale calls the boredom gripping
the country.
You need fresh ideas, a capsule description of the successes
of your first term - there still is no simple and memorable charac-
terization for what you have achieved - and some new faces. Connally
has had some success because of the contrast between his flamboyancy
and others in your cabinet. But it would be a serious mistake to
put him on the ticket. He is a Democrat - and he reminds too many
people of Lyndon Johnson, whom he looks like, and sounds like, and
that could spell disaster. Great sections of the country dislike
or distrust Texans - however unfair that may be.
Finally, if you think I can help you in the campaign, I would
be most anxious to do SO. I look forward to hearing from you.
With all best wishes,
Sincerely yours,
hou
L. Richard Guylay
LRG:fc
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 1, 1972
EYES ONLY
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN EHRLICHMAN
FROM THE PRESIDENT
Ru
For your guidance in preparing the estate plans I would like
to emphasize some private conclusions I have reached which
are irrevocable.
1. I know there are some who assume that I will
supplement my retirement income by going
back into the practice of law, serving on boards
of directors, or taking honorariums. All of
these courses of action are totally out of the
question.
(1) The practice of law, even at the rarified
levels in which I participated in it, was
terribly difficult for me, and in some cases
where I had to run errands for clients
degrading, during the period after I served
as Vice President. It would be impossible,
after serving as President. Under no
circumstances whatever will I consider any
offer in this area, no matter how lucrative.
(2) The same goes for serving on boards of
directors for many of the samereasons.
Clearly apart from the companies and the
individuals with whom I served I detested
serving on boards of directors in the period
from 1961 to 1968. Under absolutely no
circumstances will I serve on any boards of
directors for remuneration or for charitable
purposes after I leave office.
EYES ONLY
- 2 -
(3) The idea of a former President accepting
honorariums for speeches or for going on
television is totally abhorrent to me and
cannot be considered as a possible source
of additional income.
(4) That leaves open only the possibility of
writing a book which would, of course,
provide a rather sizable item of income
if I decided to write a book. But I do
not want to be in the position to have to
write a book. My present inclination is
not to go through that agony again, having
experienced it after serving as Vice
President when I was much younger and had
infinitely more energy. Fortunately I have
been around the track with regard to the
come on you get with the book publishers
that a good writer can do all the work and
all you have to do is to see him for an hour
or so a day for several weeks. This may
work with some. It is out of the question as
far as I am concerned. Consequently, you
must assume that as of this writing we cannot
include possible income from a book in our
estate planning.
This means that I shall have to live on my retirement. I want
to get from you a final figure of what that will be, including
the Presidential retirement and the Vice Presidential retirement
to which I contributed over a number of years. My recollection
also is that there may be some kind of insurance which provided
an annuity but it may be that this was purchased for Pat after
my death and probably does not apply to me on retirement age.
Incidentally, be sure and have this insurance analyzed and
cancel as much as possible of it if it serves no useful purpose
at this point.
EYES ONLY
- 3 -
While the retirement income is a rather handsome amount
it would be totally inadequate to maintain a household staff
and to provide for the other personal expenses which I will
inevitably have if I am to maintain the position a former
President ought to maintain after retirement. It is for this
reason that I either will sell some of the personal papers
outright in order to get the funds which will provide that
necessary income or I will sell them to a foundation in
return for the foundation undertaking the following commitments:
1. The income must be adequate to maintain the
grounds of the San Clemente home.
2. A household staff including Manolo and Fina and
possibly one like Monzon or Della Cruz would have
to be provided for.
3. The allowance for office staff and particularly for
office expenses like telephone calls would have to
be substantially increased over the amount now
provided for by law. On this point, incidentally,
I would like for Haldeman to work out a tentative
budget, which I realize will be subject to change
as the law changes in the future, as to what the
supplemental amount probably would need to be.
The reason it is vitally important to have this
amount substantially increased is that otherwise
I would be in the same position Eisenhower was
in when he had to go begging to the National
Committee to get them to subsidize a research
assistant to help him with speeches, statements,
etc., and also, for other expenses that were not
covered by the niggardly allowance provided by
the Congress. I realize the allowance is more
now than it was, but it is still totally inadequate
in view of the tremendously escalated salaries
that will have to be paid for secretarial help and
what professional help I may decide to employ to
handle mail, statements, etc.
EYES ONLY
- 4 -
To sum up, I am not interested in selling my papers for
personal profit. On the other hand, in view of the change
in the tax laws, I thoroughly intend either to get the above
amounts taken care of through an arrangement with a
foundation or, as far as the personal papers are concerned,
I shall either find a way so that Tricia and Julie can get
benefit from them, or what is more likely I will destroy
them on my death. The latter, incidentally, is a very
lively option anyway as far as most of these personal papers
are concerned. I have no confidence whatever in the various
intellectuals who might want to paw through them and
misinterpret them for posterity.
Incidentally, one point I made to you this morning which
I re-emphasize is that the conditions I set forth above as
far as income, except for the office staff, would apply to
Pat after my death. To leave her $35,000 a year to live
on as Ritzel suggested in his estate plan would not only mean
that she would have to move out of the San Clemente
property, which she probably would want to do anyway, but it
would mean that she would not have enough for any household
help considering present prices. This I would not be able to
put her through at this point in her life.
I am rather surprised that Ritzel and the others who worked
on this came up with such an inadequate plan insofar as taking
care of my personal expenses was concerned. My guess is,
however, that they just assumed as a former President I
would take advantage of that position by selling my name,
by joining some big law firm again, or through honoraria, etc.
All of this is out of the question.